EDITORIAL: In cellphone dispute with Texas, NEISD defending parental rights

The prolonged fight between North East Independent School District and the Texas Education Agency over how to best manage or ban student cellphone usage in schools is not a fair one.

The state, with its regulatory and lawmaking authority, holds most of the leverage. Even if NEISD succeeds in maintaining its rather unique interpretation of what the state demands is supposed to be a ban of student cellphone usage during the school day, state lawmakers more than likely will amend their legislation next session to close any loopholes and clarify any wording in question.

Given this reality, it would be understandable for NEISD to concede. That would mean revoking its policy that defines the school day as instructional time and permits students to use cellphones outside those windows - during passing periods, lunch and restroom breaks. It would mean adopting and enforcing a student cellphone ban across its campuses, from first bell to last bell, as state officials have said the Legislature intended.

Such deference would be understandable because the state has already applied enormous pressure on NEISD, recommending a conservator earlier this month to ensure the district complies with the state's interpretation of the law (not to oversee other district operations). It would be understandable because NEISD's in-house counsel, Ricardo Lopez, has estimated a prolonged legal fight could cost $50,000 to $100,000.

That's a lot of money for a fight that feels as if a losing outcome is inevitable. And yet, NEISD should keep fighting. The district should keep fighting because its legal interpretation of the text of House Bill 1481, the legislation that created this ban in 2025, may very well be correct. The district should keep fighting because the policy was adopted with the input of parents, who want to stay in touch with their children. The district should keep fighting to brush back the heavy hand of state government that needs to be checked. The district should keep fighting because its policy aligns much more with the reality of phone usage on campuses than whatever state lawmakers may have intended. It also may be more popular with parents and students.

Parental rights

Why go to war with the state over cellphones?

In a state where lawmakers and Education Commissioner Mike Morath crack down on teachers for free speech, overburden students with standardized testing, undercut public education by starving the system of funding and apply constant pressure to remove books from school libraries, why pick cellphone usage as the issue for NEISD to make a stand?

Only the district's leadership can truly answer this question, one we have heard multiple times. But in some ways the question incorrectly frames this issue. As outside and interested observers, we don't see NEISD trying to make a stand against state government overreach with this policy. Rather, we see this as honoring parental rights, and in turn, demonstrating intellectual consistency from district leadership. Of all the school districts in San Antonio, NEISD, which serves some 53,000 students, has been most acutely aware of and responsive to so-called parental rights.

As then-Superintendent Sean Maika, who left the district in January, told state investigators in October about the policy: "Ultimately, what we did, by listening to parents and by listening to students, we affirmed that there were other factors going on during the day that students and parents needed access, for their child to have some type of device to communicate with them."

That led "to a point of convergence," Maika said, to craft a policy that ensured cellphones were off during instructional time but available during noninstructional time.

Last we checked, listening was something to be valued in policymaking and leadership.

Parental rights is a loaded phrase, and its meaning can get blurry when one parent's rights conflicts with another's. There have been many instances when we have argued NEISD has been far too accommodating to the conservative side of parental rights, particularly its removal of books from libraries or its haste during the COVID-19 pandemic to ditch mask mandates for students before vaccines were available.

But whether the issue is cellphones in schools, masks during the pandemic, or books in question, the district has consistently sided with parental rights. Through its consistency in this regard, NEISD's leaders have, perhaps unintentionally, exposed state leaders and lawmakers as hypocrites who only embrace parental rights when politically aligned or convenient.

NEISD may be right

Beyond state hypocrisy about parental rights, there is this important point to restate: NEISD's interpretation of HB1481 may very well be technically correct.

As TEA says in its 20-page investigative report about the district's cellphone policy, HB1481 does not define the school day. That report notes the TEA "did issue model policy language for districts to mold to their needs. This guidance document did recommend that districts explicitly define 'school day' and 'school property.' The document laid out the commonly understood definition of 'school day' as an example, specifically the period of a day in which a student attends school or 'beginning with the first bell of the day and ending with the last bell of the day' but acknowledged that the district could revise the language 'as necessary.'"

So, the TEA has acknowledged there is no set definition of the school day, and districts can revise language as needed or interpreted - but the TEA and Morath just don't like NEISD's interpretation.

Lawmakers have said their intent is that the ban apply from bell to bell, and they have argued that such cellphone bans improve learning by reducing distraction. Maybe so. We are not necessarily opposed to such a ban, but intent is irrelevant. If NEISD's interpretation of the law is technically correct, then the state needs to back off, and lawmakers need to revise their legislation next session. That alone is worth fighting for.

Also worth fighting for is the question of whether this compromise better fits the reality of student-parent life. Just look at the tragedy at Camp Mystic, where cellphones were out of reach from the young campers during the terrifying July 4 flooding in the Hill Country. NEISD's policy also may be more reflective of the reality at campuses across Texas. A statewide ban may be in effect, but cellphones are being used on campuses.

It might just be NEISD's policy is superior to what state lawmakers think they have crafted because it is more attuned to parents and kids. If NEISD succeeds, other districts may follow.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.