The ubiquitous accessory of choice for students everywhere could soon run afoul of school rules if the Santa Barbara school board approves a ban on the use of cell phones at all district campuses. The trustees are considering that and a number of other proposals aimed at tightening discipline and dress-code policies.

While it has long been against school policy to flip open a cell phone and make a call during class, the new policy would prohibit students from using the devices between periods, or during the lunch break.

The proposed policy made by administrators to the school board Tuesday night would ban the use of not only cell phones, but all electronic devices such as iPods and other MP3 players.

However, it still would permit students to keep cell phones in their pockets or backpacks.

“Cell phones do become a disruption,” said Roxanna Stern, assistant principal at San Marcos High, who sat on a committee that helped craft the proposed policy. “They are lingering on their cell phones when they are supposed to be moving on.

“We’re not saying that they can’t bring these items to school,” she added. “But from 8 to 3, your focus needs to be on school.”

Banning the use of cell phones and other electronic devices was just one of a raft of proposed amendments to the current discipline and dress-code policies presented to the board Tuesday night. No action was taken on any of the proposals Tuesday.

One proposal was to relax current rules on drug and alcohol use on campus, so that expulsion would be recommended after the third strike, not the second, as is currently the case.

Recommended changes to the dress code focused mainly on banning certain styles that have come to be associated with gangs, such as knee-high socks, belt buckles with initials, white T-shirts, bandanas and sagging pants.

On the matter of cell phones and other electronic gadgets, board members appeared divided.

Board member Laura Malakoff wondered whether it is realistic while Annette Cordero went further, saying it seemed perhaps a little too strict.

“If a student at lunchtime wants to listen to an iPod while lying under a tree, I can’t imagine why that would be a problem,” Cordero said. “Or if a student wanted to make a call at lunch time. I don’t like to instill in students a feeling that school rules are capricious or arbitrary.”

But board member Kate Parker said doing away with electronic devices might prompt students to focus more on their school work and each other.

“This is also about school culture,” she said.

Board members Nancy Harter and Bob Noel said whatever rules are adopted, they want enforcement to be consistent from campus to campus.

Stern said San Marcos has already banned the use of iPods between classes.

“You don’t see those little white headphones anymore,” she said. “It’s nice to see students communicating with each other in the halls again.”

Opinions Divided On Drugs and Alcohol Rules

Also divisive was the drug and alcohol issue — even among administrators.

In general, top-level administrators like Superintendent Brian Sarvis and compliance director Michael Gonzalez favor relaxing the rules so as to emphasize treatment, while high school and middle school principals prefer keeping them as they are, to send a strong disciplinary message.

Under the proposal, a second offense would warrant a five-day suspension and mandatory treatment, as opposed to the current policy of recommended expulsion.

Gonzalez said, on average, 70 of the roughly 110 students expelled every year from the Santa Barbara school system are kicked out for substance abuse.

“I am amazed at how often they have completed a rehabilitation plan but have not really taken care of their substance-abuse problem,” he said.

Board members, too, were split on the issue Tuesday.

Cordero seemed to lean toward supporting the proposal to loosen the rules, saying, in essence, that the current policy runs the risk of sweeping the problem off the campuses and under the rug.

“I want to change the behavior, not just move the location,” she said. “One of the things I find appealing about the alternative that is proposed is that it offers an additional stop in terms of intervention.”

But Noel seemed to prefer the current two-strike policy.

“The proposed change is a weakening of deterrence,” he said. “I offer the hypothesis that the threat (of punishment) is what deters.”