Normandy board debates tightening student cell‑phone rules; asks superintendent to convene review

At a Normandy Schools Collaborative work session, board members spent the bulk of the meeting reviewing how a recently announced cell‑phone mandate aligns with the district's student discipline policy, JGR1.

The board discussed whether the district's policy language should be revised to add "possession" of personal electronic devices and to clarify that the prohibition covers devices on campus during the regular school day. Director Teresa Pearson led the item and repeatedly urged the board to find a workable starting point: "We have to start somewhere," Pearson said as trustees traded questions about safety, special education accommodations and extracurricular events.

The discussion matters because the district's current written policy focuses on "using, displaying, or turning on" devices during class time, class change and meal periods and does not explicitly say students may not possess devices on campus. Superintendent Dr. Triplett told the board his intent for the mandate was to "protect the instructional day": "So my intent was only to protect the instructional day," he said, and described enforcement steps already used when phones are found: confiscation with return at the end of the day on a first offense, parent pickup for repeat incidents and possible in‑school or out‑of‑school suspension for subsequent violations.

Board members pressed for clearer definitions and implementation details. Trustees asked whether "regular school day" should include before‑ and after‑school extracurricular activities such as athletic events and homecoming, how the mandate would interact with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations, and how the district will communicate the policy to families who may not receive online notices. Director Erica Edwards and others noted pockets of prior implementation experience, including the use of phone pouches and metal detectors, and said the district needs a consistent administrative process at the building level for exceptions.

Members cited guidance from the Missouri School Boards' Association (MSBA), which recommends adding language about possession and campus coverage, and referenced state law (House Bill 306) that specifies minimum elements a district policy should include, such as describing disciplinary procedures and accommodations for federal disability law.

Rather than adopt immediate new language at the work session, the board agreed to ask the superintendent to convene a stakeholder review to draft recommended policy language and administrative procedures. Trustees suggested the committee include parents, students (beyond student council), teachers and administrators; multiple trustees also recommended the committee explicitly address ADA/IEP accommodations and provide uniform procedures for principals to use when granting exceptions. President Lindsay Hodge summarized the board's principal duty: "I want to emphasize to us that we are responsible, our first responsibilities for the students inside of our buildings."

No formal policy change was approved at the meeting. Trustees said they expect the superintendent and MSBA to propose language that clarifies possession, campus coverage and building‑level procedures and to return that draft to the board for review.

The board's conversation also flagged implementation concerns (phone storage, student concealment, communication to families) and equity questions (which families receive notices and how exceptions will be handled consistently across elementary, middle and high schools). Directors recommended the superintendent collect feedback from students and families and prepare a timeline and procedures to present at a future meeting.