Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Device Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, students and experts clash over proposed bell-to-bell phone ban at Ridgefield High School
Summary
Dozens of public commenters packed the Ridgefield Board of Education meeting to oppose or support a proposed bell-to-bell cell phone ban; parents and students warned the ban could cut off emergency access and supports while advocates cited research on attention and mental health.
Dozens of Ridgefield residents, students and experts used the board's public-comment period on Oct. 27 to debate a proposed bell-to-bell ban on students' personal cellphones at Ridgefield High School.
Multiple parents and students said the district's current approachphones off and stored during class but accessible during free periods and lunchstrikes the right balance between classroom focus and safety. "A total ban would remove important tools that our students rely on for communication, safety and self-management," said Lori Thomas, identifying herself as a Ridgefield parent, and said she would submit a petition signed by about 200 parents opposing a full ban.
Students spoke directly about how phones support them during the day. "As someone with ADHD, I want to be able to set alarms for myself," said Eve Arin, a current RHS student, adding that the ability to use music and phone-based tools helps her regulate and concentrate. Several commenters warned that removing phones could impede access to emergency resources such as the 988 crisis line or the SaySomething anonymous reporting platform.
Other parents and speakers urged the board not to rush. "Why don't we give it some more time?" asked Nate Jones, who asked the board to gather richer feedback from high-school administrators, classroom teachers, parents and students before changing the policy. He pressed the board to consider carve-outs for students with 504 plans and other medical or disability needs.
Speakers who supported stricter limits referenced research and practice elsewhere. Shannon Capochi read a letter from a former teacher and author, who wrote that restricting phones during the school day improves attention and relationships and offered to bring evidence-based resources to the district. Clinical child and school psychologist Brett Freriedman urged approaches that strengthen students' in-person connections and support the development of coping skills.
Several commenters urged a middle path: stronger, carefully tailored restrictions that preserve access for emergencies, medical needs and mental-health resources. Residents also called on the board to publish clear information explaining the committee process and the evidence base being used to consider changes.
The board did not take a formal vote on the phone policy at the Oct. 27 meeting. Several board members later moved to postpone a separate policy discussion on class-size and to reschedule review of priorities so the full board can participate in those decisions.
The board encouraged continued public comment and said more community engagement and detailed policy language would be presented at upcoming committee meetings. No formal implementation date, carve-outs or final policy language was adopted at the meeting.
