Updated September 30, 2026. This petition requests a narrow, district-authorized clarification allowing qualifying restricted smartwatches to remain worn, but not used. SVVSD’s current device rules remain in effect.

To Superintendent Dr. Jackie Kapushion and the St. Vrain Valley Schools Board of Education:

We support St. Vrain Valley Schools’ (SVVSD) goal of focused, distraction-free learning. Cell phones should remain silenced, stored, and out of sight from bell to bell. Games, social media, browsing, recording, routine calls, and messaging do not belong in PK-8 classrooms.

Our growing parent group asks SVVSD to allow qualifying parent-managed smartwatches to remain on students’ wrists in School Mode, with ordinary use limited to checking the time. Parents would handle configuration and cooperate in addressing misuse; students who misuse a watch would lose the privilege, period. Emergency, health-related, and staff-authorized use would follow district procedures.

An earlier community petition asked SVVSD to prohibit cell phones during school hours. We agree with its central goal. The Board’s August 12, 2026 policy revision addresses that concern, but it also applies the same physical-storage requirement to all PK-8 personal devices, including smartwatches, requiring them to be powered off or silent and stored out of sight from the first bell through final dismissal. The implementing regulation states that devices should not be carried in pockets or worn.

That physical no-wearing rule wrongfully treats a watch operating in a genuine restricted mode the same as an unrestricted cell phone. The devices may share hardware capabilities, but they do not present the same school-day functionality when effective parental restrictions are active.

Parent input and the public-records review

SVVSD’s August 12 announcement attributed the device-policy changes to community feedback and school administrative input. Our September 3 Colorado Open Records Act request sought the records underlying that decision, including parent input, smartwatch-specific evidence, and consideration of restricted-mode alternatives.

The production documents administrator input, internal communications, and staff descriptions of parent support for existing cellphone practices. However, the records reviewed so far do not substantiate a district-led process asking parents about the proposed smartwatch-removal requirement before adoption, or substantive parent/community feedback on that specific proposal. We have repeatedly asked the district to identify records correcting that finding. Review of the additional September 30 production remains underway.

The records reviewed so far also have not identified incident data demonstrating classroom disruption specifically from watches operating in Schooltime or an equivalent restricted mode, or a documented evaluation explaining why restricted wear was rejected.

The district supplied additional requested documents September 30, following earlier statements that its response was complete. That production substantially addresses the attachment issues, subject to review. Counsel now says the policy work was not conducted through district-operated messaging systems; questions remain about whether responsive text messages on district-issued devices and district-business texts on personal devices or accounts within its custody or control were searched.

Review the production and correspondence here. Request access through the link.

Families deserve a clear account of the input and evidence behind this requirement, and a meaningful opportunity to help evaluate the restricted-watch alternative.

Why continuous wear matters

Continuous wear does not mean continuous use. We recognize and rely on SVVSD’s adult supervision, school communication systems, access procedures, and established safety and emergency protocols during the school day. We are not asking students to call or text parents during instruction, substitute a watch for those systems, or bypass district procedures.

The value of a wearable is its continuity across a child’s entire day. A child may walk or bike to school and cross busy intersections, arrive before school begins, ride a bus, participate in recess or a field trip, remain for an after-school activity, encounter a changed plan or missed or delayed pickup, or travel home or to another approved destination. During school, the watch remains restricted. Before and after school, it can provide timekeeping, location awareness, and an age-appropriate way to handle a changed plan or seek help.

When a watch must be removed and stored in a backpack, locker, cubby, or office, that continuity is broken. The watch may be forgotten, misplaced, or unavailable when plans change at dismissal. Keeping it securely on the wrist allows a scheduled School Mode to begin at the opening bell and end after dismissal without requiring the child to remove, store, retrieve, or reactivate the device.

The point is continuous wear, not continuous communication.

Apple Schooltime can be scheduled from a parent’s iPhone for a child’s managed Apple Watch. While active, it restricts app access and notifications and displays a distinctive watch face. Children can temporarily exit Schooltime. Apple documents notifications to the managing parent and reports showing when and for how long Schooltime was exited.

These features provide information about use; they do not make the watch impossible to bypass or guarantee compliance. Other manufacturers’ school modes have different capabilities.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidance recommends restricting smartwatch functions

Materials SVVSD provided in response to our Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request include the American Academy of Pediatrics’ guidance on reducing smartwatch distractions in elementary schools. Updated August 29, 2024, this educator resource recommends that families use do-not-disturb settings, silence nonessential notifications, and restrict access to games and media during school hours. It specifically identifies Apple Schooltime as an example, provides setup instructions, and explains how parents can review temporary exits. This guidance clearly supports evaluating the restricted, accountable approach we are requesting.

To date, we have not identified any data in the district records reviewed so far demonstrating material classroom disruption specifically from smartwatches operating in School Mode. We ask SVVSD to explain how it evaluated this alternative and provide any evidence supporting the requirement to remove these restricted watches.

This model has already worked within SVVSD on a limited basis. My twin sons, now fourth-graders within SVVSD, wore parent-managed watches for four school years without a single reported watch-related distraction or disciplinary issue. After I described their configuration in writing in March 2026, the school confirmed that they could continue wearing the watches simply as watches, with no calling, texting, or application use during school hours. We also accepted the sensible requirement that the watches be stored during CMAS testing.

Two students at one school are not districtwide proof. They are evidence that this narrow model deserves evaluation rather than automatic rejection. 

Published policies and earlier SVVSD school guidance

District policies differ in their grade coverage, permitted functions, and enforcement requirements:

• Weld RE-4 in Colorado permits smartwatches at all grade levels as silent timepieces. Communication, games, notifications, browsing, and other non-watch functions are prohibited during restricted times. Its rule does not require a particular manufacturer’s school mode.
• Pocatello-Chubbuck School District 25 in Idaho allows elementary-school smartwatches when powered off or in school mode. Its middle-school rules prohibit smartwatches, so the elementary exception should not be described as a districtwide PK–8 policy.
• School District 197 in Minnesota expressly excepts smartwatches from its elementary device-storage requirement. Restrictions on calling, messaging, and other prohibited conduct still apply. The district recommends do-not-disturb settings and links to Apple Schooltime.

Earlier SVVSD school communications also addressed watches. Black Rock Elementary’s September 2025 newsletter asked families to use school mode. Centennial Elementary’s February 2026 newsletter expressly permitted wearing watches while prohibiting texting, calling, and games during school hours.

The September 30 CORA production also includes a Frederick High School guidance document whose student FAQ answers “Can I wear my smartwatch?” with: “Yes, smartwatches are allowed. Teachers will address individually if they are a distraction to learning.”

This document does not establish the current districtwide rule or demonstrate that the same approach will work at every grade level. However, it does show that distinguishing permitted wearing from individual distraction has appeared in SVVSD’s own school guidance. Together with the elementary-school examples above, it supports evaluating that distinction for qualifying restricted watches in PK-8.

Colorado’s HB25-1135 addresses student communication-device policies and includes capable smartwatches within its definition. The law does not itself impose a statewide requirement to remove every smartwatch from a student’s wrist. It also contains an exemption for entities that adopted and implemented a qualifying policy by August 31, 2025. The statute alone therefore does not establish which requirements applied to SVVSD.

We ask SVVSD to recognize a "restricted wearable" category with the following safeguards:

• A parent-controlled restricted mode, such as "School Mode," must be scheduled from the opening bell through dismissal.
• The watch must remain silent, with ordinary notifications and application access disabled. Any emergency functionality available in restricted mode would remain subject to district procedures.
• Ordinary school-day use must be limited to checking the time. Calling, messaging, gaming, browsing, photography, recording, social media, and other interaction would remain prohibited.
• A parent must certify the configuration annually and cooperate if a reported incident requires reviewing available exit or usage history. Teachers should not be required to configure devices, inspect them each morning, or access family accounts.
• Staff may direct a student to remove or store the watch during assessments or whenever an identified educational or safety circumstance requires it.
• Staff need only respond to observable student conduct, not inspect device settings. Observed misuse would receive ordinary school consequences. Repeated misuse or bypass would result in temporary or extended loss of the individual student’s worn-watch privilege.
• Existing IEP, Section 504, medical, emergency, and other legally required accommodations would remain unchanged.

All cell phones would remain fully subject to the bell-to-bell rule in PK-8.

If the district is not prepared to adopt this clarification immediately, we ask it to authorize a controlled pilot lasting 60-90 school days at one or more elementary schools. The pilot should measure watch-related incidents, reported restricted-mode exits where that information is available, instructional interruptions, staff time, teacher feedback, and the number of students who lose the privilege. That would allow SVVSD to answer the question using local evidence.

This proposal does not create a semantic loophole. It creates an explicit, enforceable distinction between an unrestricted personal device and a parent-managed wearable whose distracting functions have been restricted.

Amy Bounds’ September 27 reporting describes the district’s position and families’ concerns. Read the Boulder Daily Camera article.

The Simple Solution: Please amend or clarify district regulation JS*-R so qualifying parent-managed smartwatches may remain worn during the PK-8 school day, with ordinary use limited to checking the time, or authorize a controlled pilot and publicly report the results.

Please sign and share this petition if you support both distraction-free SVVSD schools and this narrow, accountable solution: allowing qualifying parent-managed smartwatches to remain worn in genuine School Mode while limiting ordinary school-day use to checking the time. Families deserve this choice.

Take one more step and contact the decision-makers directly. Petition signatures demonstrate shared support, while brief, respectful messages help the Board and Superintendent understand the individual families and experiences behind those signatures. If this issue matters to you, please email the SVVSD Board of Education at boardofeducation@svvsd.org and Superintendent Dr. Jackie Kapushion at kapushion_jackie@svvsd.org. Please share your own perspective and ask the district to adopt this narrow clarification or authorize the controlled pilot described above. Individual Board member contact information is available here.

Speak directly to the Board. Community members may request up to three minutes of public comment at regular Board meetings, subject to the district’s public-comment rules. Check the current meeting schedule and sign-up requirements before attending. Brief, respectful remarks explaining your family’s experience can help the Board evaluate this narrow clarification. View public-comment information and advance sign-up or see the complete 2026 Board meeting schedule.

Superintendent Town Hall meetings

SVVSD’s September 18 reminder lists the following community forums with Superintendent Dr. Jackie Kapushion and district leaders:

• Tuesday, October 6, 2026 -- Erie High School
• Monday, October 12, 2026 -- Longmont High School

Each meeting is scheduled for 5:30–7:00 p.m. Spanish interpretation will be available.

The district describes these annual forums as opportunities for community questions and suggestions, district updates, and discussion of its future direction. The announcement does not identify them as dedicated smartwatch-policy hearings or decision meetings.

ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Our request is straightforward: allow qualifying, parent-managed smartwatches to remain continuously on the wrist in Schooltime or an equivalent restricted mode, with ordinary school use limited to telling time.

WEARING ≠ USING.

Simply put, the watch may remain worn, but calls, messages, games, and other non-timekeeping activities remain prohibited during the school day. Continuous wear preserves a practical family routine: the watch goes on before leaving home and comes off for charging at bedtime. Mandatory removal introduces opportunities for it to be lost, forgotten, left behind, or overlooked when charging.

Misuse or disruption would result in removal or loss of the privilege, period. The response to an individual student’s misconduct should be an individual consequence. Students who follow the rules should retain the wearing privilege.

1. Would this create more work for teachers? Who checks the settings and handles misuse?

Parents would manage the technology. Staff would enforce the conduct rule.

Teachers would not be expected to configure watches, inspect settings, review Schooltime reports, or conduct daily device checks. Maintaining the required restrictions would be the family’s responsibility, confirmed through a parent agreement.

If a student misuses a watch or disrupts learning, staff could require its removal under the same approach used for misuse of a district iPad or another classroom item. Staff would not need to determine whether the problem arose from incorrect settings or a student bypassing them before addressing the behavior.

Required settings and clear consequences work together. Routine technical monitoring would not become a teacher’s daily responsibility.

2. What does the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend, and what evidence has the district provided?

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the same core measures our proposal uses to reduce distractions: do-not-disturb settings during school hours, muted nonessential notifications, and restricted access to games and media. Its August 2024 guidance specifically explains how families can use Apple Schooltime. Read the AAP guidance.

That resource appeared in the CORA production. The records inquiry also concerns what evidence and technical assessment informed SVVSD’s smartwatch restriction. Reports about unrestricted device use and findings about watches operating in restricted mode concern different conditions and should be identified separately.

The current status of the parent-input portion of the records inquiry appears in question 23.

We ask the district to identify any such evidence and explain its evaluation of the AAP-recommended measures as an alternative to mandatory removal. Reports about unrestricted devices or prohibited use do not, by themselves, establish that every compliant student’s restricted watch must come off the wrist.

3. Why not buy an ordinary watch or use a classroom clock?

Those options tell time. They do not provide the before-and-after-school communication that families chose an equipped smartwatch to provide.

The purpose is to keep the same device reliably with the child throughout the day. A simple routine -- watch on before leaving home, watch on the charger at bedtime -- avoids daily removal, storage, retrieval, and reattachment at school.

Buying another watch does not meet that need. It can add another device to carry or exchange. The central request is continuous wear so the communication device remains with the child when school ends.

4. Would children be allowed to text, call, play games, record others, or use apps during the day?

Hard no. Those activities would remain prohibited under the ordinary wearing privilege, including during lunch, recess, and passing periods.

Qualifying watches would require appropriate restrictions on apps and notifications. A child repeatedly interacting with a watch, showing content to classmates, or otherwise disrupting instruction would face removal or loss of the privilege. Having Schooltime enabled would not excuse misconduct.

We support distraction-free classrooms. Permission to wear a watch would not become permission to use its other features.

5. Can children exit Schooltime? What if parents do not maintain the restrictions?

Some devices allow temporary exits. Apple documents that capability, provides information parents can review about exits, and uses a distinctive yellow circle on the watch face to indicate that Schooltime is active. Using an exit to engage in prohibited activities would violate the proposed rule. See Apple’s Schooltime documentation.

Parents would be solely responsible for configuring and maintaining restrictions and reviewing available reports. Students would remain responsible for their conduct.

Families unable or unwilling to meet those conditions would lose the ordinary wearing privilege, period. The proposal depends on settings and accountability, without routine technical intervention or monitoring by teachers.

6. Children managed without smartwatches before. Why do they need them now? Should they simply learn responsibility?

What was available years ago does not determine what works for a family today. Families should be able to choose a limited communication option for walking or biking to school, a missed bus, a delayed pickup, an after-school activity, or a visit to a friend.

Children should learn routes, backup plans, and responsibility. Families can teach those skills while also providing a way to communicate when plans change.

Learning responsible technology use also means learning boundaries and consequences. A restricted watch gives families a limited way to introduce those expectations. A student who cannot follow them would lose the wearing privilege. However, families who follow the rules should retain the CHOICE.

7. Should schools remove iPads and laptops and return to books and pencils?

That question concerns instructional technology -- devices provided or required by the district -- and deserves a separate discussion.

This petition requests a specific clarification about continuously wearing a personal wristwatch. It does not determine whether teachers should use computers, tablets, books, or paper.

Families would be responsible for smartwatch settings, and staff would retain authority over student conduct. People with different views about classroom computers can all support allowing a restricted watch to remain worn.

8. Why not put the watch in a backpack, pocket, fanny pack, locker, or necklace pendant?

Storage breaks the continuous wrist-wearing routine. It creates another opportunity for a watch to be left in a cubby, forgotten in a bag, or missing from the evening charging routine.

A watch reporting a backpack’s location does not establish that the child still has that backpack. Removal also creates a retrieval task just as children are leaving school, boarding buses, or moving to activities.

Pendant or clip arrangements that require removing and reinstalling watch straps add further handling. Families should be able to choose continuous wrist wear for a device intended to remain with their child.

Families would still be responsible for charging and maintaining the watch. The request is to eliminate unnecessary school-day removal and retrieval steps while maintaining a consistent family routine.

9. Is this asking for special treatment or weakening the phone restrictions?

No. We are asking for one published standard available to every family whose optional watch meets the requirements.

That standard would prohibit texting, calling, gaming, and other non-timekeeping activities while allowing the watch to remain worn. Phones would remain subject to the existing storage and non-use requirements.

A common standard would also give families a clear alternative to seeking individual exceptions. Other districts already distinguish between permitted wearing and prohibited use; examples appear in question 21.

10. Why not use an AirTag or another tracker?

An AirTag is an item-finding device. It does not let a child call or message a parent about a missed bus, changed pickup, or another problem before or after school.

A tracker may meet a family’s location needs. It does not provide the same two-way communication capability as an appropriately equipped smartwatch. Families should be able to choose the device that meets both needs.

11. Why not call the school office?

Families should continue to use the school office for communication during the school day. The AAP guidance discourages nonurgent messages to children’s devices and says urgent messages should usually go through the front desk.

Our proposal would require parents to respect that boundary. Parents or students who circumvent the restrictions for prohibited communication would face loss of the ordinary wearing privilege.

The need behind this petition primarily concerns travel and transitions before and after school. Calling the office does not put a communication device with a child who has already left campus or is waiting at a bus stop. Continuous wear addresses that practical need.

12. If parents disagree, should they simply trust the school or choose another school?

Families can support the district, trust teachers, follow current rules, and ask for a reasonable policy clarification. Raising a specific concern is a constructive part of participating in a public school community.

This request preserves educators’ authority to address disruption and directs consequences toward students who misuse a device. It asks the district to allow compliant students to keep a restricted watch on the wrist while supporting family arrangements primarily outside school hours.

Families should be able to raise that question within their existing school community.

13. Does location sharing undermine children’s privacy or independence?

Location sharing would remain a family decision. Families providing and managing a device should set age-appropriate boundaries around location information and communication.

For some families, a limited contact option makes independent walking, biking, or attending activities more manageable. It can accompany increasing independence and the teaching of practical problem-solving skills.

This proposal would not require tracking or give schools routine access to family passwords, messages, health information, or location history. Permission to wear a watch would not require families to share those records with the school.

14. What about cost, fairness, and differences between watches?

Wearing a smartwatch would remain optional. No student would need one to participate in instruction or school activities.

Eligibility would depend on the device’s actual restrictions and the student’s compliance. Families would not have to purchase a particular brand, and some models might not qualify.

Families who choose an appropriately restricted smartwatch instead of a phone are choosing limited functions that meet their needs, including basic communication and location information. The proposal would allow that family choice without making a smartwatch a classroom requirement.

15. Is this proposal based on school shootings, lockdowns, or preventing abduction?

No. We are not presenting smartwatches as protection against those events. Students must follow the adult responsible for them and the school’s emergency procedures, which we fully support.

The central concern is everyday travel and transitions, including walking or biking to school, missing a bus, a delayed pickup, navigating a route with busy streets, an after-school activity, visiting a friend, or getting home.

A watch does not replace supervision, emergency planning, or school safety measures. Continuous wear helps keep a family’s chosen communication device with the child during those everyday transitions.

16. What about radiofrequency exposure from smartwatches?

The CDC explains that wearable devices generally use low-powered radiofrequency transmitters. Radiofrequency signals are non-ionizing radiation, and devices sold in the United States must meet FCC exposure limits. The CDC describes exposure from wearable devices as low relative to those limits. Read the CDC’s wearable-technology information.

Questions about exposure should be evaluated using relevant scientific evidence. They are separate from whether a student is using a watch or disrupting instruction.

17. What is the current SVVSD rule, and what about medical accommodations?

SVVSD’s August 12, 2026 regulation requires PK–8 personal devices, including smartwatches, to be silenced or powered off and stored out of sight throughout the school day. It expressly says devices should not be worn. It recognizes documented needs through an IEP, Section 504 plan, or health plan, along with emergency use approved by staff. Read the current regulation.

We are asking the district to authorize a narrow clarification allowing qualifying restricted watches to remain continuously worn, but not used (other than for telling time). Existing medical and educational accommodations would remain intact.

A published standard would give families a clear path for ordinary restricted wear without relying on individual medical exceptions. High-school rules are outside this petition’s scope.

18. Does Colorado law require every restricted smartwatch to be removed?

No. Colorado’s HB25-1135 establishes requirements for school communication-device policies. Its definition includes both phones and watches with calling, messaging, or internet capabilities, but it does not impose a statewide requirement that every restricted smartwatch be removed from a student’s wrist. Read the enacted law.

Including watches and phones within the law’s coverage does not require identical rules for restricted wrist wear and unrestricted phone use. Mandatory removal is a district policy choice that can be reevaluated. We are asking SVVSD to make that distinction.

19. What would make a smartwatch qualify?

Simply silencing a device would not be enough. A qualifying watch would need parent-managed restrictions covering the school day, generally through Schooltime or an equivalent restricted mode, with ordinary use limited to telling time.

Parents would agree to maintain those settings and accept consequences for prohibited use or disruption, including loss of the ordinary wearing privilege.

The district should publish clear functional requirements so families understand the conditions. A product’s “school mode” label alone would not establish eligibility. Actual restrictions and student conduct would determine whether a watch qualifies.

20. Would watches still have to be removed for testing?

Yes, when applicable testing rules require removal. The proposed wearing privilege would not override test-security requirements.

For example, CMAS directions require other electronic devices, including wearable technology, to be powered off and collected or stored according to the applicable procedures. Storage arrangements can include designated areas such as lockers or backpacks, depending on those procedures. See the CMAS Test Administrator Manual.

Qualifying watches could be worn again when the testing restrictions end.

21. Have other districts, or SVVSD schools, already allowed this approach?

Yes. Nearby Weld RE-4 School District expressly allows smartwatches at all grade levels as silent timepieces while prohibiting communication, gaming, notifications, browsing, and other non-watch functions during restricted times. Pocatello-Chubbuck School District 25 in Idaho permits elementary-school smartwatches when powered off or in school mode. School District 197 in Minnesota makes an explicit elementary-school smartwatch exception and directs families to use do-not-disturb settings, specifically linking to Apple Schooltime.

There is also precedent within SVVSD before the August 12, 2026 change. In its September 2025 newsletter, Black Rock Elementary specifically asked families to place smartwatches in school mode. In its February 2026 newsletter, Centennial Elementary expressly allowed students to wear watches while prohibiting texting, calling, and games during school hours.

The September 30 CORA production also includes Frederick High School guidance stating that smartwatches are allowed and teachers will address individual distractions. That document does not establish the current districtwide rule, but it provides another example within SVVSD of distinguishing wearing a watch from misusing it.

Our request builds on approaches already communicated by SVVSD schools and reflected in other districts’ published policies: allow the watch to remain worn and enforce restrictions on its use.

22. Would you support a controlled pilot?

Yes, if the district wants additional evidence. We believe the district can adopt this narrow clarification now; a pilot should not be a prerequisite.

If the district prefers a pilot, we would support a formally authorized program with clear eligibility, parent responsibilities, consequences for misuse, and a defined review date. It should collect specific information about disruptions, compliance, staff workload, and practical family experiences.

That would produce relevant evidence about restricted continuous wear and help evaluate whether the approach meets its intended goals.

23. Were parents consulted before the policy changed?

SVVSD’s August 12 announcement says community feedback and school administrative input informed the changes.

The records produced include administrator input, staff descriptions of parent support for existing cellphone practices, and communications informing families about device expectations. However, the records reviewed so far do not substantiate a district-led process asking parents about the proposed smartwatch-removal requirement before adoption, or substantive parent/community feedback on that specific proposal.

We have repeatedly asked the district to identify records that would correct that finding. Review of the additional September 30 production remains underway.

The distinction matters: support for putting cellphones away does not establish support for requiring children to remove restricted watches. We are asking for a documented explanation of the input behind that requirement and a meaningful opportunity for families to help evaluate the alternative.