Richmond Community Schools board debates simplifying cell-phone policy, keeping testing and confiscation rules

The Richmond Community Schools board reviewed a draft Personal Communication Device policy that would regulate student cell-phone use and clarify enforcement. Board members discussed removing a so-called "snitch" clause that currently reads, "A person who discovers a student using a PCD in violation of this policy is required to report the violation to the building principal," and debated how much of the enforcement detail should live in district policy versus building-level code of conduct.

Board member John (board member) said the snitch clause "adds no value" and suggested removing it because it is vague — "who reports? who violates? what are the levels of discipline?" He and other members said much of the detailed enforcement belongs in building-level rules or the student code of conduct.

Stacy (staff member) described common school practice: teachers issue a warning; repeated offenses lead to confiscation and office referrals. As she summarized, for some schools the progressive approach is: a warning; teacher keeps the phone until the end of class; referral to the office on the second/third offense with parental pickup for repeated violations.

Erica (HR professional) cautioned that unequal one-off payments or selective enforcement can cause staff resentment, but on the policy topic she later said the testing-related language should remain because state testing procedures are strict and that language provides protection in those contexts.

Board members discussed theft and liability language that states the district "assumes no responsibility for theft, loss, or damage" of personal devices. Several members said that language provides protection, while others said it may be unnecessary and belongs in the student handbook rather than the board policy.

The board debated whether to retain a paragraph saying students "shall have no expectation of confidentiality" for content on devices and whether the district or police can legally view a student's phone. Dr. Wright (Superintendent) and other speakers noted that searches for law-enforcement investigations typically require warrants, and that when a device belongs to an adult (billing/owner), a student cannot lawfully give consent to search the device.

Members ultimately favored a streamlined district-level policy that: preserves explicit prohibitions on using PCDs to capture test content (language tied to Department of Education testing rules), frames possession as a privilege, and delegates practical enforcement details to the building code of conduct and building-level administrators. Several board members asked staff to reference building-level code of conduct language and to remove overlapping or redundant paragraphs from the district policy.

The board also discussed communication platforms and parental contact: ClassDojo is free and used by some schools; ParentSquare is district-supported and paid. Members said the policy should remind parents to call the office for time-sensitive changes rather than texting students.

No formal vote on the policy text was recorded in the transcript. Staff were asked to revise the draft to simplify language, remove or reword the reporting/confidentiality paragraphs, reference the building code of conduct for enforcement, and retain testing-related prohibitions.