2 proposals for North Thurston cell phone rule spark student privacy concerns
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- The board weighed proposed device confiscation and search changes in a first reading.
- Parents and board members raised privacy and constitutional concerns about device.
- The district cut two positions and reduced raises to help cover a $10 million shortfall.
For the past two years, North Thurston Public Schools and its largest union have had an agreement in place that limits the use of cell phones and other similar devices in school.
Students can bring those devices to school, but they must be off and away all day, including at lunch and between classes, also known as “passing times.”
The policy has largely been successful. There is broad support for it in grades kindergarten through 8th grade and general agreement that it has been beneficial to high school students, according to district information.
But rule enforcement has also been a challenge at the high school level, according to North Thurston Education Association President Ray Nelson. He addressed the school board last month, saying teachers want more “teeth” to the policy.
And that resulted in Tuesday’s school board meeting where the five members weighed proposed changes to the cell phone rule during a first reading of them, but did not vote on them. That is expected in July.
A parent and some school board members reacted strongly to two proposed changes, identified as sections “D” and “E” in the board agenda materials.
They read:
- When a school official has reasonable suspicion, based on objective and articulable facts, that a student is using a telecommunications device in a manner that violates the law or school rules, the official may confiscate the device, which will only be returned to the student’s parent or legal guardian.
- By bringing a cell phone or other electronic devices to school or school-sponsored events, the student and their parent/guardian consent to the search of the device when school officials have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective and articulable facts, that such a search will reveal a violation of the law or school rules. The scope of the search will be limited to the violation of which the student is accused.
During public comment, parent Stephanie Scott said those two areas go too far.
“The most troubling section of this policy is the provision stating that students and parents automatically consent to device searches simply by bringing a phone on campus,” she said. “Constitutional rights should not be waived through a blanket condition of attendance.”
“The ACLU recommended that best practices emphasize individualized reasonable suspicion, narrowly tailored searches, and strong protections against unnecessary access to student data,” Scott said. “Schools can maintain discipline without requiring students to surrender basic privacy rights.”
Some board members agreed.
“There’s plenty of evidence that shows that student engagement and learning improves (without cell phones), and our primary focus is the education of our students, but I think there are certainly concerns around privacy that need to be addressed,” said Sarah Tracy.
Jeff Line agreed, too.
“I think, as a follow up, sections D and E are concerning to me, and I think that’s been touched on, the reasonable suspicion piece,” he said. “That’s a pretty broad category, and so I would imagine, I would hope that there is some refinement there, and that we train and we get an understanding of what that would be.”
Some other board member comments:
- Michelle Gipson: “I do agree that off and away all day for our youngest students is appropriate, and that doesn’t seem to be an issue,” she said. “I also understand that technology is just a part of our lives, and so I think what’s most important is teaching the discipline around having those devices.”
- Gretchen Maliska: “I see both sides of the coin,” she said. “I think that we have to teach students how they will enter into the workforce, and that cell phones don’t go away in the workforce, and how do we teach our students to be responsible without being policing inside the classroom. However, there’s a lot of ill intent that happens around a cell phone when you are a minor and you’re learning how to create new patterns and positive behavior on your way out the door.”
Another parent, Kathleen McMillan, said the cell phone policy doesn’t go far enough. She’d like the district to be less reliant on technology overall in the classroom. She told the board she has a kindergarten-age student.
“My child recently learned to read and was able to tell me what exactly to search on YouTube to show me all the various content that she has been shown at school by teachers,” she said. “Frankly, it’s shocking. I have been diligent as a mother to raise a child who can play independent of screens, yet her school experience this year has, in part, eroded what I have worked hard to foster in her. She learned, ‘Don’t forget to like and subscribe’ at school.”
“Please don’t follow and be late to act as other districts around the state and country create change,” she added. “Lead with a comprehensive policy that protects children by following science. Kids need human to human interaction. Traditional learning methods are more effective. The heavy tech you needed during the pandemic is now causing more harm than health.”
More budget moves
In the continuing effort to address a $10 million shortfall in the school’s budget for next year, the board on Tuesday approved another resolution tied to reductions in force.
That decision affects two positions: assistant director of transportation and a custodial supervisor. It also raises the total number of district layoffs to 12, including eight mental health specialists and two physical therapists.
Although the board was set to approve a 2.6% salary increase for Superintendent Troy Oliver he asked them to forgo that step. His salary will remain unchanged at $278,000.
Others at the district saw their raises reduced, according to district information.
“All non-represented exempt and hourly employees will receive a cost-neutral 1.1 percent cost-of-living adjustment next year, rather than the 2.6 percent increase previously planned,” the information reads.
North Thurston’s Executive Director of Finance Heather Larson told the board on Tuesday that those reduced raises saved the district $120,000.
