Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
Greenwich Public Schools just issued a new policy on electronic resources (see Regulation 6141.326R), and it’s already causing quite a stir.
"In an effort to teach responsible digital citizenship coupled with self-regulation, the district aims to progressively introduce technology through developmental ages to better mitigate disruptions in the teaching and learning environments K-12,” reads the new policy which also considers "how device usage is impacting the mental health for young people.”
The new policy effectively bans cell phones from “bell to bell” and further restricts K8 students from using “smart wearables” such as Apple watches and FitBits.
For high schoolers, this means phones should be “Away All Day,” unless requested or approved by a supervisory adult. There should also be no cell phones out during open blocks, lunch, in restrooms, or during instructional time unless approved by the teacher or supervising adult.
Disciplinary consequences for breaking the policy will begin in January in the high school.
The new policy lines up nicely with the wishes of democrat Governor Ned Lamont who has been pushing for confiscating cell phones in schools, especially for students in grades K-8.
Most educators and parents agree that removing the distraction from the classroom is critical for improving learning outcomes.
But not so fast, say other parents who point to the rise in school violence, from fights to school shootings, as well as incidences of bullying that might otherwise go unproven without video evidence to back up the claims.
How many fights have taken place in the GHS student center that parents would know nothing about had it not been for videos circulating online?
Other parents pointed out that they would have never known that their children were being indoctrinated in school and forced to watch inappropriate videos in class, for instance, if the evidence hadn’t been recorded.
Like the time 7th graders at Eastern Middle School were forced to watch a radical leftist “Feminist Fridays” video steeped in critical race theory for an English class. The video was part of a series that explores "the social, the political, and the media from a feminist and intersectional perspective… and uses a lot of F words.” The teacher even told one student that his opinion about the video was wrong, and instead presented her personal political views as fact. While the teacher downplayed the incident, the parent, armed with video evidence, was able to prove the incident took place. That teacher is no longer working for Greenwich Public Schools.
Some parents say they have no problem banning cell phones in schools, so long as the district is willing to put cameras in classrooms to ensure student safety and to prevent indoctrination or unapproved content from showing up in the classroom.
It’s no surprise that students are upset about the new policy.
While students recognize the distraction phones present during instructional time, they point out that most high school classrooms are already equipped with cell phone storage solutions that seem to be working, and wonder why teachers can’t just enforce the system that is already in place.
Furthermore, the extension of cell phone restrictions to non-classroom times, including open periods, lunch, and passing times, seems overly restrictive and confusing to students who have been told to download digital ID and other apps to manage school functions and activities.
Some students, especially those with executive function issues, have been taught by counselors to use their phones to give them the cues they need during the day to be successful. Without these important cues, some student will undoubtedly struggle.
Ironically, the new policy is intended to teach students “self regulation” but the reality is that banning cell phones during open periods and lunch, for instance, removes the opportunity for students to learn this skill during non-instructional time.
Maybe we missed it, but we don’t recall the Board of Education taking a vote on the new policy.
Greenwich BOE Policies and Regulations code 9311 details the specific procedure for developing Board policies.
It starts with a referral of a new policy to the policy committee for suggestions from BOE members, recommendations from the Superintendent, satutory requirements and citizen input. The policy committee is supposed to present the recommended policy to the BOE at a regular meeting. The policy is then brought back for a vote at the next regular meeting and approved by a majority vote among BOE members. Formal adoption of policies shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board meeting. Only those written statements so adopted and recorded shall be regarded as official policies.
From what we can see, the electronics policy was discussed during a special Board meeting on August 1, 2024, by Superintendent Toni Jones.
In the last three and a half minutes of the special meeting, not a regular meeting, Jones mentioned a petition that had been circulating requesting a cell phone ban.
“We really had a ‘no cell, bell to bell’ in K-8. Probably what we haven’t done as well is communicate that we even do that,” said Jones. She said that “9-12 was a totally different animal” and admitted that most students already have phones away during instruction time, so “consistency of implementation” is where their effort will be.
“The policy committee is going to take it up, I know it’s on their list, and I’ll be able to share with them what we currently do, and then I’m sure it will come back in front of the Board for a discussion,” said Jones who acknowledged they will “do a better job communicating” what they already do.
So if the policy hasn’t been discussed or voted on yet, how can the Superintendent just permit her communications director to email parents with the new policy? Did we miss something here?
The original policy was adopted by the BOE on 4/19/2018 (see below).
However the new policy, which was never voted on from what we can tell and is radically different from the old policy, simply indicates it was “updated” in August 2024.
That’s a hell of an “update” and instead looks more like the Superintendent went rogue and unilaterally crafted an entirely new policy on her own!
This is far from the first time this Superintendent has skirted proper BOE procedures to push forward her personal agenda.
In the real world, people get fired for nonsense like this.
But in Greenwich, certain BOE members just keep kicking the can down the road, having just extended her contract for another year.
Are all of the Board members really okay with this kind of subversive behavior from their only employee?
