FARMINGTON—The use of cellphones in schools has created some debate among legislators and LEAs (Local Education Agency) both for and against. During the 2026 legislative session, SB69 was passed which called for a bell-to-bell ban on devices at schools but also left room for districts to make their own policies. Davis School District set in place a policy last year but revisited it at the June 2, 2026 meeting to comply with the new bill.

“You recall we were here last year at the same time adopting this policy and the legislation put some more spin on it,” said Ben Onofrio, Davis School District General Counsel. “The legislation from this year generally described a general ban on cellphones and devices in schools but it also leaves out an opportunity for LEAs to make some exceptions.”

Onofrio said what the policy committee tried to do was to balance the administrative need to be able to implement this policy with the intent of the legislature. “Essentially the existing exceptions of IEP, 504 and a school wide emergency policy that allows for one-off use with permission from the administration when a parent requests to have their kid use the cellphone in the office.”

Otherwise, the policy retains the plan of having a full bell-to-bell ban in elementary schools, whereas in secondary it allows cellphones at passing periods and at lunch, he said. “Given the broad interest in this policy, the policy committee thought it wise to allow some time for the legislature to work through the changes before adopting a full ban, bell-to-bell in all schools.”

“After careful consideration, I really am in favor of having a policy that more closely resembles what the legislature set forth in SB69,” said school board member Kristen Hogan. “I would like to see the bell-to-bell in all the schools. I know that’s not a super popular opinion in this room and in other places but my personal opinion is that it would be really helpful for the kids.”

“When we (committee) realized that we could keep the policy similar to what we had chosen and discussed last year we felt like maybe we would like to keep that because we did receive feedback last year and we had a lot of discussion about it,” said school board member Emily Price. “We felt like maybe it would be important to have more time to see if the current policy is effective in our secondary schools.”

Another factor was secondary students use their phones to check work schedules, communicate with teams, coaches and for other extracurricular activities, she said. “I had a parent reach out to me stating that it helps their student with their anxieties to be able to have some access whether it’s at a passing period or lunch.”

Price said the committee also received feedback from teachers. “Since cellphones are not allowed in instructional time, our teachers can make sure if they have concerns about that student they can still have the phone on their person. I just want to express that a teacher can establish their own cellphone policy. So if they don’t want their students to have a cellphone on them or in their pocket they can establish whatever that rule is in their classroom.”

If they decide that they would like to make it a more strict policy, they have that ability with the way that the policy currently stands, said Price. 

The logistics of enforcing a strict bell-to-bell policy would be pretty difficult for the administrators and teachers, she said. “We fear that the interaction that they will start having with students is about phones and that’s a negative interaction. We want our administrators and teachers to have positive interactions with students.” 

“My personal preference has always been to have more of a lockdown on cellphone use in schools,” said school board member Alisa Mercer. “I was leaning that way when we made our last policy and then we agreed to have a survey of our administrators. The overwhelming response from the administrators was to allow cellphone use in passing in junior high and high school. I responded to that feedback and adjusted the direction of my vote because of that feedback.”

“I think it is encouraging to see the way the public is becoming more aware of the negative effects of cellphones in schools,” said school board member Joani Stevens. “I think we have more parents buying in to not wanting their kids on their phones. That allows principals to make that decision and work with their community council to say ‘we’re going to go bell-to-bell in secondary schools.’ I really appreciate that autonomy through this policy since we did receive so much feedback saying that would be very difficult to implement. But it still allows them to do that with the help of the community.”

The board passed 5S-105 Student Electronic Device Policy on a first and final reading with the exception of Hogan who voted "no."