Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Student recounts Washington D.C. Page program, urged nonvoting student representatives; pediatrician urges stricter phone limits in Oldham County schools
Summary
A North Oldham student thanked the board for supporting a Senate Page program opportunity and said he will submit a draft policy to add nonvoting student representatives; a pediatrician urged the board to restrict cell phones in middle and high schools, citing academic, mental‑health and cheating concerns.
Patrick Grubovi, a student who returned to Oldham County after participating in the U.S. Senate Page program in Washington, D.C., told the board Jan. 27 that the experience was life changing and thanked staff who helped with his records and placement.
“Thank you all for letting that happen,” Grubovi said, and told trustees he plans to follow up by emailing a draft policy to the board proposing a nonvoting student representative from each high school.
Pediatrician Steve Johnson, who identified himself as a pediatrician and child psychologist in Prospect, urged trustees to consider stronger restrictions — up to a school‑day ban — on student cell phone use in middle and high schools. Johnson cited research and clinical experience, saying schools that ban phones have shown average test‑score improvements and that unrestricted access harms concentration, mental health and can facilitate cheating.
Johnson told the board that, based on conversations with students, phone access is used in class for distractions and that cell phones make cheating easier. He also noted examples from other jurisdictions and nations that have limited or banned phones during school hours.
Board reaction: a board member asked Principal Natalie Brown whether Oldham County High School had strengthened phone restrictions; the principal responded that the measures had been noticed positively by others.
Why it matters: the comments raised two issues the board could consider in future policy discussion — formalizing a student representative role and reviewing district cell‑phone policy. Both would require board deliberation and, for policy change, staff input and potential legal review.
Ending: The public‑comment items were informational; the board did not take immediate action but received an offer from Grubovi to submit a policy draft for consideration.
