South Carolina Education Board Gives Tentative Approval to Model for Banning Phones in Schools

In Columbia, the State Board of Education gave initial approval on Tuesday to a model policy that mandates South Carolina’s K-12 students to store their cellphones throughout the school day. The board decided to seek further input before finalizing the minimum guidelines for school districts.

The unanimous decision follows a state budget provision from six weeks ago that obligated school districts to implement a cellphone ban during school hours or face potential loss of state funding. However, the adoption of a model policy by the State Board of Education is a prerequisite for districts to adhere to.

The objective is for all districts to have their cellphone policies in effect by January, as outlined in a memo sent to school administrators by the state agency during the summer.

The proposed two-page draft policy under consideration by the board necessitates that phones, smart watches, and other electronic devices be turned off and stored for the duration of the school day, extending beyond class hours. Exceptions would be permitted for students with specific medical or educational requirements, for designated educational purposes, and for high school students who serve as local emergency responders.

The drafted policy allows school districts to impose stricter regulations but not more lenient ones.

Additionally, school districts would have the liberty to establish regulations concerning device usage outside school hours, including whether devices are allowed on school buses. They could also determine where students must store their phones between the opening and closing bells, whether in lockers, backpacks, or elsewhere.

Board Chairman David O’Shields expressed the importance of taking additional time to gather feedback, particularly from parents, on such a significant policy.

O’Shields, who also serves as the superintendent of Laurens County School District 56 (Clinton), emphasized the need to curtail cellphone use among adolescents due to its potentially harmful effects.

While board members advocated for more time to deliberate, they endorsed the fundamental concept.

“It’s not only about maintaining discipline in schools,” remarked Christian Hanley Jr. of Berkeley County. “Discipline is crucial, but the impact on our children is concerning.”

Hanley cited the board’s prior work on another regulation passed earlier in the year, which prohibits the presence of books in schools that depict “sexual conduct.”

“You can access a lot more explicit content on these phones than what’s found in library books,” he remarked.

Matthew Ferguson, the Department of Education’s deputy superintendent, mentioned that the agency had received extensive input in formulating the model policies.

Over 9,000 teachers participated in a survey regarding cellphone bans. Teachers expressed concerns that phones were disrupting teaching hours and sought support from school administrators to address the issue rather than being solely responsible for enforcement.

“When we initially distributed the survey, our platform was overwhelmed by the rapid influx of responses,” Ferguson informed the board.

State Superintendent Ellen Weaver affirmed that the agency could aid school officials in educating parents on the policies.

“Districts are eager for our department to provide communication tools and resources,” Weaver stated.