Metro

As state legislators debate implementing a cellphone ban for school districts across the commonwealth, Hollidaysburg Area School Board members held a discussion to envision what potential regulations would look like in the district.

Board President Carmen Bilek introduced the topic at the end of Wednesday’s meeting as House Bill 1814 and Senate Bill 1014, identical legislations, have been circulating between the chambers in Harrisburg.

The proposal would implement a mandatory “bell-to-bell” ban on the use of mobile devices by students during the school day beginning in the 2027-28 school year. There is bipartisan support for the legislation, but disagreements on implementation and limitations during emergencies such as potential school shootings, led to multiple amendments and back-and-forth negotiations between the Senate and the House.

Bilek said that while the bill, if it is eventually approved, would not take effect until the 2027-28 school year, she felt it was important for the board to “get ahead of the curve” and start discussions now to have an idea of how the district can comply when the time comes.

The board was split, with some in full support, while others were hesitant and insistent on exceptions being present in any policy Hollidaysburg would potentially adopt.

Board member Kenneth Snyder said that while the idea of a ban had potential, there would have to be limitations on a student-by-student basis.

“Seems to me that there would have to be exclusions to the policy,” Snyder said, specifically pointing to students with medical issues or those who need to coordinate rides to and from school every day.

Board member Jesse Blank agreed, saying some students with diabetes track their blood sugar levels on their phones and it would be impossible to restrict their usage throughout the day.

He also was concerned with Hollidaysburg being held liable if the schools had to physically take possession of all devices at the start of the school day and hold them until dismissal.

Superintendent Curtis Whitesel said the ideal implementation would be to have students either leave their phones in the vehicle they arrive in if they don’t take the bus or place it in their lockers for the entire day.

“It would avoid having everyone rush back to first period” where the devices were hypothetically confiscated at the start of the day, he said.

Board member Michele Luther was not in favor of confiscating phones, as she did not want to risk any student being left in harm’s way without a means of contacting outside help or even help within the school building.

There are a number of emergencies in which a phone could serve as a safety device, not just in a school shooting, she clarified.

“I’m not willing to take that chance and have their cellphone locked away,” Luther said. “I want them to still have that lifeline on their person.”

Whitesel said that while he understood the hesitation, if the state passes the legislation, school districts will no longer have a say.

“(In) 2027-28, there will be no board vote,” he said. “The districts will need to figure it out. We won’t have a choice.”

Board member Cara Eardley said her daughter, who currently attends a private school, has to hand over her mobile device at the start of every school day and the school office holds it until the end of the day.

Now, she said her daughter barely even misses her phone, sometimes accidentally leaving it at school for a couple days without realizing. It’s a matter of students getting used to not having their phone with them at all times.

“Once the kids get used to it, it probably won’t be as big of a deal as we think it might be,” Eardley said.

Bilek said she has noticed more and more graduates have become reliant on their phones and not as skilled in peer-to-peer communication, so a ban may help alleviate that issue.

“Kids cannot stay focused and it translates to the workplace,” she said. “Adults now are easily distracted by their cellphones.”

Bilek requested that the principals, in their next district meeting, come up with positives and negatives to policies and some suggestions for implementation at their buildings. The board would then be able to hear input in time for the next board meeting on June 17.

Dress code debate

The board also discussed implementing a more explicit dress code across the district.

Bilek again initiated the conversation, saying she was not considering a formal school uniform, but just “something different.”

Whitesel said the district already has a general dress policy in the student handbook, so it is up to school administrators to enforce the regulations the board has already put in place.

“You’re feeding right into the private schools’ hands” if the board asks students to wear khakis, a button-up shirt, etc., Whitesel said. He said the most important thing is the district staying consistent with the guidelines already in place.

Luther said it would also place an extra financial burden on families that would now need to buy another outfit for their student. As opposed to a private school, students in a public school have “that freedom of expression in what they’re wearing.”

“Some of our families’ budgets are already stretched,” she said.

Bilek appreciated the feedback and again asked the principals to meet with some teacher representatives and discuss the pros and cons of a dress code in time for the board’s next meeting.