Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hundreds of residents, students press Ridgefield board over proposed full‑day phone ban
Summary
Dozens of students, parents and community members packed the Oct. 13 Ridgefield Board of Education meeting to urge caution or oppose a proposed bell‑to‑bell cell‑phone ban at Ridgefield High School, citing safety, equity, instructional and operational concerns; advocates for restriction cited research linking phones to distraction and mental‑health harms.
Dozens of students, parents and teachers addressed the Ridgefield Board of Education on Oct. 13 to debate a proposed expansion of policy 5131.8 that would restrict student phone use beyond instructional time at Ridgefield High School.
The public‑comment period stretched into the evening as speakers on both sides made short, pointed presentations. Several high‑school students described the existing “phone hotel” system as practical and essential for safety and daily logistics. “Phones are incredibly useful for education,” a junior said, noting quick access to PowerSchool, email and scheduling apps. Jake Levi, an RHS junior and president of Educators Rising, asked the board to “take time to truly listen to what students and teachers have to say rather than listening to a small subset of parents.”
Parents and other opponents warned a full‑day ban would impose steep administrative costs for message handling and early dismissals, risk removing assistive technology for students with IEPs or 504 plans, and could heighten anxiety by restricting access to crisis hotlines. Several speakers asked the board to delay any change until the current policy has had more time to produce data; Sarah Armstrong, co‑president of the RHS PTSA, noted the policy had been in place only weeks when initial decisions were made and urged a broader stakeholder process.
Other speakers — including child‑psychologist Dr. Britt Freedman and community members citing neighboring districts — said evidence and early reports point to benefits from reducing smartphone access during the school day. “Removing smartphones is about making it more conducive for high‑schoolers to learn,” Freedman said, adding that some districts report reductions in discipline referrals and increased social interaction after stricter limits.
Board members did not take a final vote on a new policy at the meeting. Several asked administration and the policy committee to gather additional data, ensure teachers and students are involved in planning, and clarify operational impacts — including how accommodations for students who rely on phones for health or learning support would be handled. The board’s policy committee plans a November meeting to review options and administration has been asked to present more detailed implementation scenarios and impact estimates.
The next procedural step will be committee review and then a draft policy presented for public comment and a full‑board vote, according to the superintendent’s timeline.
