Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Smartphone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, educators urge Ridgefield school board to consider bell‑to‑bell smartphone ban; district schedules Sept. 29 presentation
Summary
Dozens of residents urged a districtwide bell‑to‑bell phone policy, citing student attention, anxiety and safety; some parents and advocates warned about harms to students with disabilities and urged careful accommodations. Superintendent Dr. Susie Dilva scheduled a staff presentation for Sept. 29.
Public commenters pressed the Ridgefield Board of Education on Monday to tighten smartphone rules in schools, with multiple parents and mental‑health professionals urging a bell‑to‑bell ban and others warning that a blanket prohibition could harm students who rely on phones for assistive technology.
Speakers during a nearly two‑hour public‑comment block described research linking heavy phone use to anxiety and distracted classrooms and offered examples from other districts that moved to stronger restrictions. ‘‘We urge you to take bold action now,’’ said Kelsey Rollinsson, a Ridgefield resident, summarizing research she said showed phones disrupt attention and mental health. Eileen Cara Bernett read testimony from the National Association of School Resource Officers arguing that phones can hamper emergency procedures and recommending secured, inaccessible storage during the school day.
Several commenters framed the issue as both academic and social. ‘‘People actually talk to each other at lunch now,’’ a cited high‑school student noted in one example of a district that adopted a bell‑to‑bell policy, according to speakers who urged similar steps in Ridgefield. Emily Fernandez, who said she collected more than 500 petition signatures supporting phone‑free schools, asked the board to reallocate some technology spending to student safety and mental‑health resources.
At the same time, disability‑rights advocates cautioned against policies that would place an added burden on students with individualized education programs. ‘‘When a cell phone ban is put in place across a school environment, the 20 to 30% of the school population that has accommodations may have to continually defend their use,’’ said Michelle Chris, who urged clear procedures to protect students who rely on phones for assistive technology.
Board and district response: Superintendent Dr. Susie Dilva acknowledged the strength of public feeling and said the district will present a staff report on electronic‑device policies at the board’s Sept. 29 meeting. Dr. Dilva told the audience the presentation will include ‘‘an overview of current practices in the schools, the feedback we’ve received from teachers, other important insights and of course the fiscal considerations’’ that factor into any policy change.
What comes next: The board did not vote on any phone policy Monday. Instead, members scheduled the Sept. 29 meeting for a staff presentation that administration said will allow the board and the public to discuss possible next steps with more complete information on classroom practice, accommodations and budget impacts.
