During the Jan. 12 board of trustees meeting, NEISD’s attorney Ricardo Lopez explained to the board of trustees the steps the state will take if the district maintains its current cellphone ban, which limits cellphone usage during class time but not the rest of the school day.
What happened
Lopez said that if the district does not comply with the TEA, then it could face negative TEA reports, loss of local control via sanctions, potential state-appointed governance and expensive, long-term litigation.
“They're looking to the board to make the change to the policy to define the school day means bell to bell, and that the school district—despite the writing of the law and the applicable bill, as well as some of the comments that legislators made during the legislative process—does not have the option to engage in local control,” Lopez said. “If the board does not comply with what is directed by TEA, [then] ... the agency would look to force [the policy change] one way or another.”
Lopez said that if the board decided to not change its policy by Jan. 31, then the TEA commissioner would issue a formal report detailing that the district refused to comply and, after a review process, the TEA would issue a final report which details specific consequences. If NEISD still refuses to comply, then both the district and state would proceed with litigation.
Potential TEA actions for noncompliance include:
- Appointment of a conservator to oversee direct parts of the district’s operations
- Appointment of board of managers, effectively stripping the board of its powers
- Litigation within 30 days of noncompliance
- The commissioner issuing directives requiring the district to change its policy to match TEA’s interpretation
The outlook
Lopez said that he believes the TEA is enforcing the bell-to-bell definition of a school day due to pressure from the legislators who worked on House Bill 1481.
“I think the agency has been left in a position where it's caught between legislators, and, of course, the idea of local control,” Lopez said. “And the idea is [that] the board should not have local control, and school day means bell to bell, and that's what we believe that it means as legislators, and that's how we want the agency to handle the interpretation of that.”
District 3 trustee Diane Villarreal said that TEA’s position limits parents' abilities to decide what works best for their children.
“I think taking that ability for parents to communicate with their children—especially by legislators who are saying to us that we need to give parents more rights—[is] illogical,” Villarreal said.
District 5 trustee Melinda Cox pointed out that HB 1481’s original language allowed school districts to decide what type of policy to administer when it came to limiting personal electronic devices on school grounds.
“When the bill was actually enrolled in May, the language was changed, and it was changed to not letting a kid use a personal communication device while on school property during the day or at a school event. So then, [on] July 31 TEA released [a] guidance document for 1481, and it also says that this guidance is subject to change,” Cox said. “They left it in the notes [that] it is important for each school system to define the term school property and school day.”
Vice President Terri Chidgey said that the board has overwhelmingly received positive feedback about its cellphone policy, and that even if they were to change the policy it would be difficult to enact so quickly.
“My concern now is it's always difficult to change a policy mid-year, and it's not on us, it's on the teachers and the administration and the parents that already have a system in place,” Chidgey said.
President David Beyer said TEA has placed the district in a no-win situation that could have negative consequences regardless of the choice the board makes.
“We don't have a good option in either of these situations,” Beyer said. “Because if we maintain our policy we run the risk of spending time and resources, or worse, we have somebody sitting here in the boardroom making the decisions for us. [If] we do change the policy, [then] we've now acquiesced to an entity that hasn't given us any kind of indication as to why we are not in compliance, and we upset an entire community of people that have put their trust in us.”
The background
HB 1481 was passed during 89th Texas legislative session and took effect June 20. To assist with implementation, the TEA provided a guidance document, which NEISD used to craft its policy.
Policy requirements for school systems:
- The policy must prohibit student use of personal communication devices as defined in Texas Education Code, which includes cellphones, tablets, smartwatches and other devices capable of telecommunication or digital communication on school property during the school day. This does not include any electronic devices provided by the district or charter school.
- School systems may comply with the requirement by either prohibiting students from bringing devices to campus or designate a method to securely store the devices during the school day.
- The district’s policy must include disciplinary measures for violations.
- The policy must make exceptions for student use of personal communication devices when they are required to implement an individualized education program, a Section 504 plan, or similar plan; if the device is authorized by a directive from a qualified physician due to documented medical need; or if the device is necessary to comply with a legal, health or safety requirement, or to implement the school system’s safety protocols.
- The policy must be adopted as soon as practicable but no later than Sept. 18, 2025.
Stay tuned
The board directed Lopez to request more time to enact any required change and to seek a clearer written explanation of why NEISD is out of compliance.
