Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Phone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Students urge phone access for safety and learning as board cites discipline gains from bell‑to‑bell phone policy
Summary
Two students told the Norfolk Public Schools board that strict phone bans could hamper anonymous safety reporting and real‑world teaching, while parents echoed safety concerns; administrators presented data showing sharp drops in cell‑phone referrals after consistent enforcement. The board approved no immediate policy reversal but agreed to clarify open‑campus rules.
Two students spoke during public comment, urging the Norfolk Public Schools Board to reconsider a strict bell‑to‑bell cellphone ban and to allow defined access that supports anonymous reporting and safety.
Gavin Russell, a rising junior at Norfolk Senior High, said national statistics (citing the National Center for Education Statistics and the National Threat Assessment Center in his remarks) show many pre‑attack warnings are not reported and argued that phones enable anonymous, immediate reporting that can prevent violence. "An anonymous reporting system gives students the opportunity to report without fear of being seen," he said, urging the district to permit phones for school‑approved anonymous reporting apps or to allow pouches and supervised access between classes.
Kylin Elliot, another student, said research has not shown that blanket bans improve mental health and warned that removing phones eliminates opportunities to teach responsible technology use. She also raised practical safety concerns for students leaving campus for open lunch and noted that phones can store medical information and emergency contacts.
Parents and other commenters supported the student perspectives. Tom Elliot, father of one of the students, said he was concerned for juniors and seniors who leave campus for open lunch and need phones for GPS, payment, and emergencies. Peggy Hoffman, speaking for other parents, countered that inconsistent past enforcement justified a stricter policy, raised privacy issues with classroom video, and argued phones are a classroom distraction.
Administrators reported concrete discipline outcomes from enforcement. Eric (administration) said junior high implementation of the policy produced 170 fewer office referrals for phone incidents, and May referrals dropped from 39 in May 2025 to 2 in May 2026; year‑to‑year referrals fell from 243 to 74. The administration also clarified that students who have open campus privileges may retrieve phones from lockers to use while off campus; the district will clarify that allowance in the student handbook.
Board members thanked speakers and asked staff to clarify handbook language; no immediate reversal of the policy was made during the meeting, but board members indicated they would continue to monitor results and handbook language.
