Can We Actually Supervise This? A Practical SB 848 Gut-Check
SB 848 requires that staff–student communication in digital nonclassroom environments be easily supervised in practice—not just documented after the fact.
This checklist focuses on staff–student electronic communication in digital nonclassroom environments — with particular emphasis on individualized or one-to-one interactions — because those are the hardest to supervise in practice. Larger group communication is often visible by design, but the same supervision principles apply wherever staff and students communicate electronically.
The questions below are a practical gut-check. If your district can answer them clearly and confidently, you likely have supervision in hand. If several answers depend on IT involvement, special requests, or ideal staff behavior, that’s usually where supervision breaks down.
1. Routine visibility
Can administrators easily see staff–student electronic communication on a regular basis — including one-to-one interactions and smaller group messages — without involving IT, exporting data, or requesting logs?
2. Two-person group chats
Do administrators have visibility into group messages that function like one-to-one communication—such as groups with only one staff member and one student—or do those conversations depend on policy and perfect behavior rather than active supervision?
3. Regular review
Does the district or school routinely review staff–student communication (especially individualized interactions and small group conversations), or only after a concern is raised?
4. Named responsibility
Is there a clearly defined role (not a department) responsible for supervising staff–student electronic communication — particularly individualized exchanges — and do they actually have access to do so?
5. Supervision without escalation
Can supervision occur without first suspecting a problem, or does someone need a reason before communication becomes visible?
6. Continuity through turnover
When a coach or advisor leaves mid-season, does administrative visibility into prior communication continue automatically, or does it require manual recovery?
7. No IT dependency
Can school or activities administrators answer supervision questions on their own, or does oversight depend on IT staff pulling records or stitching together exports?
8. Coherent supervision
Can administrators easily understand and oversee staff–student extracurricular communication across all approved tools—or does supervision become fragmented across systems?
9. Audit readiness
If asked today, could the school confidently demonstrate how supervision actually happens in practice—who looks, how often, and at what level?
10. Behavior-independent design
Does supervision still function when onboarding is imperfect, reminders are missed, or staff default to convenience — or does it rely on ideal behavior to remain effective?
This checklist isn’t about catching mistakes or assigning blame.
It’s about whether supervision is built into the communication environment itself—or whether it depends on reconstruction, exceptions, and perfect execution.
Schools that can answer these questions clearly are usually in a strong position. Those that can’t often discover the gaps only after something goes wrong.
.svg)
