During the May 5 board meeting, the Tamalpais Union High School District (TUHSD) Board of Trustees voted 5-0 and 3-2 to approve staff layoffs as well as the purchase of NuKase lockable phone cases for the 2026-2027 school year, amongst other items. Trustees Uhlhorn and Green voted against the purchase of NuKase lockable phone cases. Green originally abstained from the vote. Both trustees also voted against the initiation of the plan during the April 14 board meeting.
Uhlhorn recently said that “I am for a policy that is off-and-away starting in August. What I am not for is committing right now to spending $100,000.”
According to items 13c and 13d on the board meeting agenda, 17 district employees will be laid off starting the next school year. The Marin Independent Journal says the district is currently operating at a spending deficit of $937,000, which is expected to increase. The TUHSD is currently making budget cuts to lower the deficit. The majority of district employees being laid off are classified staff. Only two certificated staff are being laid off compared to 15 classified staff. Certificated staff are educational employees that are required to hold teaching credentials/licenses by law, while classified staff support non-teaching roles that do not require any sort of certification.
According to item 14b, the first-time purchase of the NuKase cases will be $112,905.85. In prior board meetings, the cases were estimated to cost an additional $0-$10,000 annually. The district’s general fund is being used to purchase them.
“It is hands down that restricting use of phones for the day will improve student learning,” Roenisch said. “When we heard there was inconsistent enforcement, then that’s when we moved to the phone hotels. And then when we heard there was inconsistent enforcement on the phone hotels, that’s when we brought back the discussion about Yondr bags and things like that. I think we have been talking about this in detail for at least three years. As far as delaying something we know as a harm, [it’s] unconscionable.”
