"When the RCHS had a bomb scare a few years back, the 9-11 co-ordinator incarcerated all the students in the Baptist Church and the school was surrounded by police officers."
Mis-statement of fact. The 9-11 coordinator (actually, Director) has no authority to incarcerate anyone anywhere, did not incarcerate anyone anywhere, and his/her job is to manage the E911 center, its functions, and employees. The person currently holding that position is Mike Hooks. If any decision was made to move children and hold them in a single location (called shelter in place), it would have been made by the local police authorities in conjunction with school authorities.

With a bomb threat, the primary job - absolute first priority - is NOT running down parents and letting them know what is going on. The absolute first priority is physical safety of the children, and if that means moving them away from the location of the threat so quickly that the parents don't know, for a while, exactly where they are, then that's the way it is. Better to thank them for being alive at a remote location and have parents wonder where they are for a bit than having them blown to bits because "we dare not move them before we communicate with parents as to where we might take them." Note I'm NOT saying that is what WC meant at all - I don't want to put words into his keyboard. What I'm saying is that THAT is the priority over and above communicating with the parents.

I'm obviously not sure of the situation with WC's own child, but I do know that children WERE released to their parents, as my child was one of them.

I absolutely agree with WC than a total ban on cell phones is not only unfeasible, it is very unwise. Numerous very unpleasant incidents at schools all over the country have shown us that, whether educators like it or not, it can be beneficial to the point of being life saving for kids to have the ability to use cell phones in an emergency.

This is a situation where the educators, parents, and students must come to an understanding and a policy that accommodates the needs of all 3 groups.

RB

Whites Creek comment "A proposed School Board policy to ban cell phones in Roane County Schools and send repeat offenders to alternative schools was defeated." is not correct.

There was nothing in the proposed policy change that mentioned a ban of cell phones. Suspension from school for repeat offenses is in the current policy as well as the proposed policy.

The proposed changes in the old policy and the revised policy were mainly the penalty for cell phone use in school. My reason for voting against the changes were minor. I wanted more parental involvement/responsibility when a student's phone was forfeited.

The journey of a policy change is this: Policy committee, made up a various school personnel, debates and makes suggested changes. Once changes are made the policy is sent to the Board for approval. It generally takes two months to approve a policy. The first month is 1st reading and the next month is the 2nd reading. The 1st and 2nd reading prevent a policy change being done on a knee jerk reaction by the Board.

In the cell phone policy, this was the first reading. It is not uncommon at all for a first reading of a policy to be sent back for tweaking by the policy committee.

I think (my opinion) is that we're only down to word-smithing on the policy. I think there is general agreement on the Board (again my opinion) that the current policy needs some more teeth in it. There is plenty of time to adopt a revised policy before the next school year.

Current policy can be found here

Earl, how about clearing up what the new proposal actually does. I was not at the meeting and am going by what I'm told. Why not post the proposal so that we can read it? (maybe it already is posted somewhere...If not, I would gladly host it here)

Alyssa, Tyler Overstreet and Earl Nall spend a ton of time in the schools no matter what year it is.

RB, I'm right and you're wrong on the "incarceration" thing. (Hooks was not in the job at that point in time, as I recall)

Several of us were asking for our children and were refused, much to our astonishment. We were forced to wait until they were released from "custody" even though they were waving at us. I was personally and specifically told that the 9-11 coord had not "authorized their release." Let's not let this side issue confuse the main point of this thread, but I believe Dr. McGriff told the 9-11 coordinator that parents could take custody of their children any time they want to, and I don't expect a repeat of that occurrence so it's a non-issue at this point.

Could the person who quoted that have got the 911 director confused with the Emergency Management Director? I don't know, just wondering if the person saying it could have been confused with the titles.

As a former Roane Countian, I try to stay current with what is going on in my hometown area since my entire family still lives there.

I find the fact that Roane County is debating a cell phone policy very interesting, and one that I cannot seem to stay out of at this point.

As a middle school teacher in a different school system, I understand the need for a cell phone policy in the school system. While I am NOT against a student having a cell phone at the school (provided it is turned OFF and in their locker during the school day), I believe that a school SYSTEM needs to have a system-wide policy on cell phone use at the schools. And, yes, I understand that I am probably in the minority of my fellow educators in my opinions. However, times are changing at an alarming rate, and we must keep up with society!

Speaking for our school, cell phone usage is at a minimum. I can say in the four and a half years I have been at our school, I have only had to confiscate one cell phone. That's it! I believe the reason for that being our policy on cell phones is laid out in our rules and regulations. These policies are printed in our students assignment books. Teachers cover all policies during the first days of school. Students/Parents also sign a form saying they have received and reviewed the Code of Conduct (for the school and the system).

For reference only, our policy is as follows:
(1) Students may carry a cell phone, provided it is in their locker and turned off during the school day (7:30 AM - 2:51 PM).
(2) Any student phone discovered (if visible or heard) by a teacher shall be forfeited to the teacher with the following consequences:
a. First offense - the phone shall be turned over to a school administrator (principal) and will only be returned to a parent/guardian. (Note: It can be returned to the parent on the same day it is confiscated!)
b. Second offense - the phone shall be turned over to an administrator, to be picked up by a prent. The student shall also serve three days of In School Suspension. (Note, ISS for our school is handled in-house. We have an ISS teacher and assistant that oversees the operation of our ISS. Teachers will send work to the students at the beginning of the day. If a student gets ISS, that is usually the last time they do anything to visit ISS. It is an effetive deterrant...for most!)
c. Third Offense - the phone shall be turned over to an administrator and held until the last day of the school year. The student will also serve three days of ISS. (Another note...I have never seen a student get to this level. It is rare!)

I would like to say that, yes, this is a middle school example. However, I must report that we are a middle school of 1100-1200 6th and 7th grade students. We are a very large middle school, so the fact that cell phone usage is at a minimum is amazing. And, just in case it is mentioned, YES many of our students have cell phones. Believe me, on a recent field trip to Dollywood, approximately 1 in 3 students had a cell phone.

In the past semester, our school board has piloted a cell phone usage program in our high school. The policy stated that students may use their cell phones outside the classroom during transition times (moving between classes and lunch). However, the policy also stated that students must have the phones shut off during classtime. The consequences already in place were not changed. But, our board was trying to be a little more flexible given the massive availability of cell phones.

The high school pilot was very successful. The majority of teachers did NOT report any increase of cell phone usage in the classroom. There was also no major change in taries as a result of the cell phone usage between classes. The students and parents were very receptive and complemetary of the program. But, like most educators, there was a 50/50 split on teachers' opinions of the trial.

The trial was set for February 5 - March 7 of this year. It was going so well, that the board extended the policy trial until the end of the year. The board is now looking to continue the policy of cell phone usage during transition times for the high school only. Actually, I believe that our policy is now on second reading in June.

If you would like to see the trial poliy set by the board, it is included in the May 5 board packet. (If you will look at page 51, you will see the policy. It may be best to save the file before you open it.)

(link...)

(Update: The page has been posted in the next comment if you don't want to download the whole pdf file. Worth downloading for SB members, though. Very Interesting!)

I know that this is lengthy, and I apologize, but I wanted to offer some help/advice. However, let me just end by saying that I believe it is great that the Roane County BOE is taking the proactive approach to create a system-wide policy. It is my belief, through my observation, that if you have a policy that is CLEARLY laid out from the beginning of the year, you will have fewer issues with cell phone usage in the classroom. The other key is consistency in regulating the policy in every school.

I hope this help you all out. It doesn't hurt to try and help my hometown!

Take Care!

This is great stuff RCHSAlum! Thanks for alerting us to this. It's essentially what has been proposed on this forum. Glad to know that it worked so well that the trial has been extended.

TEMPORARY POLICY REGARDING STUDEnt Page 1 of 1
TEMPORARY POLICY REGARDING STUDENT USE OF CELL PHONES
SCIENCE HILL HIGH SCHOOL

As a test, the Johnson City Board of Education has authorized a temporary change in the published policy regarding student use of cellular phones at Science Hill High School. It is a goal of Science Hill High School and the Johnson City Schools that students develop the good judgment upon which telephone etiquette is based. With the freedom to use cell phones at school comes the responsibility to make wise choices as to their use.
The change as described below will take effect on February 5, 2008 and may continue until March 7, 2008. The school administration has the Board's approval to end the test period before March 7 if the situation
warrants.

1. Students may now use cell phones at school during non-instructional times. Use of cell phones,including text messaging, is prohibited during classes and other t imes that may be announced, e.g.assemblies or other programs.

2. Students who have phones in class are responsible for having their phones turned off or otherwise silenced so that incoming calls will not interfere with instruction.

3. Students are expected to be in class on time. Finishing a phone call in the hall is not a justification for tardiness to class.

4. The taking of photos or the recording of videos, whether by cellphoneorany other device , in places where privacy is a reasonable expectation is strictly prohibited.

5. Using cell phone cameras to record altercations on school grounds or at school events is prohihited. In such cases, phones may be confiscated as evidence.

6. The use of cellphones for the purpose of cheating is strictly prohibited . As ameans of protecting instructional time and/or providing test security, teachers may elect to collect students' cell phones
during any class and return them at the end of the period.

Please refer to the Student Handbook for current consequences for infractions. When the Board of Education reviews the results of this test, school administration may make recommendations for possible
revisions of these consequences.
http:

I think fleshing out the details is very helpful. Thanks to each of you.

I strongly agree that students must be responsible in their cell phone usage and classroom instructional time is the upmost priority. Period.

I also think the school system needs to support students in developing responsibility since they will soon be entering the workforce and fulfilling their role in our community as citizens, likely productive citizens for having the experience we orchestrate for them during the years they spend in school. I would hope they remember how they were treated with dignity and respect and given the opportunity to develop themselves in a safe and secure environment. I know they remember when "the adults" treated them in any manner that isn't respectful... as if they aren't capable of making decisions and need an adult to do that for them. They need coaching but they need to be given the opportunity to both succeed and fail in the hands of caring professionals. It all seems to be a part of the educational establishment.

(In some schools, we still lock bathroom doors to prevent them from smoking in the restrooms. That's an opportunity where we deny ourselves from putting a support net under students. If we can't catch them then how do we know who is in need of more intensive assistance? Most parents cover this critical base in their children's lives. Some parents don't and that child who could develop into a most productive individual falls into a crack. Synergy in delivering education and saving children from irresponsible behaviors is doable. But I digress, again.)

Remember, most children and teens are using their cell phones appropriately. It's those that aren't that need to be addressed. There is no reason to lump all students into the latter category. School is the venue for academics but the system has a great opportunity to support the development of responsibility, even civic responsibility. Humm, novel concept?

I have mixed feelings on point #5 from the JC policy change. I do understand there is a mini epidemic of school fights being recorded and then broadcast to You Tube for negative purposes. Definitely wrong and inappropriate and should be dealt with as any other gross misconduct. It could result in legal charges depending on the issue. But to declare documentation of any campus altercation seems counter productive. How helpful to the police or school administration would it be to have that kind of video proof? I think it could be a deterrent.

I've heard from several people expressing concern that teachers can be embarrassed by their behavior in the classroom. I gasp at that. Point One, cell phones should not be in use in the classroom and teachers should effectively correct any students in violation. Point Two, teachers acting inappropriately in a classroom are no exception to misconduct and if they are recorded doing something inappropriate, let appropriate consequences apply. Students are very cognizant of double standards. It's hard to get the respect of teens that witness, "do as I say and not as I do."

Lastly, I'm supportive of in-school suspension on that particular school's campus for any infraction but I oppose sending otherwise good students to the alternative school in Midtown for three days over a cell phone violation. Isn't that a knee jerk reaction where those in charge can't think up a creative and constructive intervention? What kind of experience is that and what do we accomplish? Too punitive and not doing anything to alter the behavior in a constructive manner. If your only choice is a blanket directive to the alternative school, then we have more serious issues to be concerned about with respect to caring for our students, IMO.

Let's keep thinking and talking. I like the majority of the aforementioned policy from Johnson City. Maybe Earl and other BOE members will check this out. You've made it easy -- Thanks. I'm going to post another school system's policy for feedback. I like it because it's simple. Wonder if we could incorporate the best of both?

From another system.

Upon arrival on school grounds, students may possess a personal communication device (PCD) with written permission from their parents. This permission will be kept on file in the school office. The PCD must be in the off mode and must be stored out of sight until the end of the school day. The Principal or designee may grant a student permission to use the PCD at their discretion. Violation of this policy will result in the confiscation of the device for 7 calendar days for the first offense and 30 days for each offense thereafter. Should the device be confiscated 6 days before the end of the school year, it will be returned on the last school day. The device will be subject to search.

Should a student possess a PCD without parental permission, that device will be confiscated for 30 calendar days on each infraction and the device will be subject to search. The device will be returned at the end of the school year if confiscated 29 days before the end of the school year.

Any and all personal communication or electronic devices are not required, nor does the school assume any responsibility should these items be lost, damaged, stolen or confiscated.

The system then requires parents to sign said policy statement agreeing to the terms and acknowledging their child has permission to have a cell phone in their possession.

Note how the school simplifies the parents’ involvement by dealing directly with the student regarding infractions? Thereby holding them responsible and accountable. Maybe it teaching them responsibility and accountability. Note the 7 or 30 days of confiscation? That both reasonable and a strong deterrent. They do not send children to in-school suspension of the alternative school. Their DOS told me the policy works very well.

I don't see any advantage to the second policy and some danger that laws and personal rights may be compromised. The Science Hill experimental policy seems to work and not run afoul of either.

I'm thinking the school system will be in jeapardy of lawsuit with any confiscation of personal property that would not be turned over to a legal guardian upon request. As for what can be recorded and not recorded...and the possible confiscation and search for evidence, that part is just plain weird, but it's minor in the scheme of things.

I will re-format the Science Hill policy so that it's more easily read.