The meeting’s most significant topic was the discussion on adopting a district-wide mobile device policy, spurred by contributions from various school principals. One principal detailed their experience with a policy requiring students to turn in their devices at the start of the school day, noting the absence of parental complaints and the provision of exceptions for students with specific needs. Another principal described a tiered system of consequences for phone usage during school hours and stressed the importance of consistency across policies while allowing for minor variations to suit individual school environments.

Members acknowledged the overlap in approaches among different schools and expressed a desire to coordinate and establish a unified policy. There was a consensus that a cohesive mobile device policy should cater to the needs of students and the educational environment, considering the input from school leaders. The debate included whether the policy should explicitly outline consequences for violations, with some advocating for a general framework adaptable by individual schools to avoid disparities that could lead to “school shopping” by families.

The conversation also addressed liability issues related to lost or damaged phones, emphasizing that the district should not be held responsible unless the devices are in its custody. The practicality of implementing a consistent approach across schools was discussed, with suggestions to allow schools to determine their own storage methods as long as overarching guidelines were in place.

In addition to the mobile device policy, the committee examined the broader review process for the policy manual. There was strong support for hiring Alicia Malin, a consultant recommended by the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC), to assist with the review over three years at an estimated annual cost of $3,000. The committee highlighted the benefits of outsourcing this work to focus on more substantive issues rather than the mechanics of updating the policy manual. A proposal was made to establish workgroups for specific policies, with designated lead members responsible for generating initial drafts before meetings to facilitate more discussions.

The subcommittee also considered publishing a Master docket for the year, intended to remain dynamic and flexible, with real-time updates through a Google Doc. However, concerns were raised about the feasibility of committing to a year’s worth of potential agenda items, with some members expressing discomfort with the idea due to the possibility of changes.

Another topic was increasing community participation in school committee matters. The idea of publishing a schedule for the next two months of meetings to encourage engagement was suggested, but some members were skeptical about allowing non-committee members to have an active role in subcommittee discussions. It was noted that all proposed policies undergo a public comment period at full school committee meetings, which are widely announced.

The committee also tackled the review and revision of Section J of the policy manual. Members discussed the necessity of specificity within the mobile device policy and the distinction between policies for K-8 and high school students. There was consensus that high schools should manage mobile devices by allowing them to be kept away during class but returned during passing times and lunch, with further input from Brookline High School (BHS) considered critical for the policy.

The review process for Section J included discussions on outdated policies, such as the admissions policy last updated in 1996 and placement policies from 1986. There was recognition that several policies, including those on student records, confidentiality, and parental rights, last updated in 2006, needed review. The committee emphasized the importance of aligning school codes of conduct with the district’s policies and sought to proceed methodically with clarity and engagement from relevant stakeholders.