DMPS plans to put district-wide cell phone policy in place next school year
DES MOINES, Iowa — Des Moines Public Schools' leaders are planning to implement a district-wide cell phone policy next school year.
At the Des Moines School Board's Tuesday meeting, Superintendent Dr. Ian Roberts said that after researching the effects of cellphones in the classroom and evaluating Hoover High School's cell phone free policy, the district plans to implement that policy across the district.Dr. Roberts says that students should remember this is not punitive, but instead it is about building a healthy balance of how students are engaging and utilizing screen time.
Expanded childcare bill causing childcare providers concern
The policy will address students' need for use of cellphones to minimize distractions, support mental health, and enhance education outcomes.
Part of the proposal includes differing levels of access for students based on their grade. The rules will be set to address three tiers: high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools.
More details will be presented for the board's approval at their next meeting in April.
There's also an effort at the Statehouse to limit cell phone usage in schools, spearheaded by Gov. Kim Reynolds. A subcommittee approved the bill earlier in the session, and on Wednesday it was approved to be on the calendar as HF 782.
Iowa Hawkeyes cruise to big win over Wisconsin in Big Ten women's tourney
How much snow and wind central Iowa saw and how much more is on the way
Expanded childcare bill causing childcare providers concern
Iowa blizzard leads to crashes, delays for travelers
Iowa bill would prohibit vaccines unless manufacturer waives liability protections
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dodgers return to 'unsettling' situation in Los Angeles as protests continue
LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles Dodgers manager Dave Roberts addressed the unrest in Los Angeles with protests sparked by immigration raids carried out by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 'I know that when you're having to bring people in and, you know, deport people and just kind of all the unrest, it's certainly unsettling for everyone," Roberts said June 13 during his pregame press conference at Dodger Stadium. Roberts spoke before the Dodgers' first home game since the protests started June 6, facing the San Francisco Giants after a six-game road trip that began the same day the protests started. Roberts, who helped lead the Dodgers to World Series titles in 2020 and 2024, said he didn't know enough about the situation to "speak intelligently on it." "I don't know enough, to be quite honest with you," Roberts said, adding that he "hasn't done enough and can't speak intelligently on it." Multiple Dodgers players declined to discuss the unrest in Los Angeles when asked by USA TODAY Sports before the game. The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fast. Download for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Dodgers come home to protests in LA, NL West showdown vs. Giants
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Dodgers return to 'unsettling' situation in Los Angeles as protests continue
Dodgers return to 'unsettling' situation in Los Angeles as protests continue Show Caption Hide Caption Sen. Alex Padilla physically removed from DHS news conference Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla was forced out and handcuffed at a Homeland Security news conference in Los Angeles. LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles Dodgers manager Dave Roberts addressed the unrest in Los Angeles with protests sparked by immigration raids carried out by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 'I know that when you're having to bring people in and, you know, deport people and just kind of all the unrest, it's certainly unsettling for everyone," Roberts said June 13 during his pregame press conference at Dodger Stadium. Roberts spoke before the Dodgers' first home game since the protests started June 6, facing the San Francisco Giants after a six-game road trip that began the same day the protests started. Roberts, who helped lead the Dodgers to World Series titles in 2020 and 2024, said he didn't know enough about the situation to "speak intelligently on it." "I don't know enough, to be quite honest with you," Roberts said, adding that he "hasn't done enough and can't speak intelligently on it." During pregame clubhouse media availability, multiple Dodgers players declined to discuss the unrest in Los Angeles when asked by USA TODAY Sports.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
The ‘reverse discrimination' US Supreme Court ruling could've been much worse
I was struck by the fact that the opinion was written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's only Black woman and someone who was nominated after former President Joe Biden vowed to install a Black woman on the court. Chief Justice John Roberts, when he is in the majority of a decision of the court, is the one who decides which justice will write the opinion. Lots of considerations go into who an opinion's author is, including how many other cases that justice has written compared to others. Advertisement And, as 'It also was a strategic assignment by Roberts,' Coyle observed. 'Justice Jackson, a member of a minority group, led the court in a discrimination case involving a member of a majority group. It gave the final decision an extra dollop of credibility.' Advertisement So was it some kind of subtle troll by Roberts to assign an opinion that will likely open the door to more so-called reverse discrimination cases? Only Roberts knows his thought process. But what is clear is this: When it comes to protecting the ability of people to bring employment discrimination claims, this ruling could have been much, much worse. And for that, I'm grateful for Jackson's leadership. After all, some of her colleagues, like Justice Brett Kavanaugh, have gone on record questioning whether the framework for proving employment discrimination claims that the court established more than half century ago should be tossed out. That framework, established 52 years ago in Then, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show a 'legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason' for the adverse employment action. Then the burden shifts back to the employee to prove that the employer's nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext for actual discrimination. But when Kavanaugh was a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, he questioned whether that framework should come into play at all when an employer seeks to dismiss a case in the early stages of litigation before the case has a chance to go to trial. Advertisement But dropping the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting standard in such early challenges to litigation would risk slamming the door on many meritorious claims. That's because it is very hard, before the parties have had a chance to obtain and produce crucial evidence of their case, for an employee to make a full evidentiary showing that their case is likely to succeed if it goes to a jury. Burden-shifting schemes are meant to avoid this, and striking down McDonnell Douglas would have the immediate effect of making all discrimination claims more difficult to bring and prove. Enter Jackson, with a reasonable alternative that the court could unanimously back: applying the McDonnell Douglas framework to all cases, whether the person claiming discrimination is a member of a minority group or not. After all, as Jackson reasoned, that is what the plain reading of Title VII — the civil rights-era law that federal employment discrimination claims are brought under — calls for. That is originalism in action — declaring that a statute says what it says, based on its plain text. And if that is the narrow holding that Jackson knew she could get everyone on board for, then good for her. There are bigger battles ahead to fight. This is an excerpt from , a newsletter about the Supreme Court from columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Advertisement Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
