Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
We received a lot of feedback about the new cell phone policy for Greenwich Public Schools, especially at the high school level.
While many parents are happy about keeping phones out of classrooms, all of the parents who reached out to us expressed a deep sense of frustration over Superintendent Jones’ subversive conduct regarding the policy change, and lamented the fact that community feedback was not sought or considered before Jones dictated the new policy.
She did not have the authority to make a unilateral change like that, and everyone knows it, including BOE members who were undoubtedly surprised by Jones’ decision to blatantly ignore the official BOE procedures for implementing a new policy.
Does that mean the cell phone policy is not in proper legal order?
Does that mean the BOE should discipline their only employee for insubordination?
One of the key responsibilities for the Board of Education is to “employ a Superintendent capable of ensuring that the district maintains a position to an outstanding school system and that school personnel carry out the policies of the Board with energy and dedication.”
Greenwich Superintendent Toni Jones absolutely did not “carry out the policies of the Board” and instead she carried out her own personal agenda by implementing this new policy outside of proper BOE procedures.
Speaking of personal agendas, BOE member Michael Joseph Mercanti-Anthony made the policy seem like it was motivated by politics when he told a parent that the cell phone ban was not coming from Toni Jones but instead was coming "from the right."
“Ask the BET, we are all for it,” said Mercanti-Anthony, whose employer, the New York City Department of Education, is coincidentally also considering a cell phone ban for students.
The parent even said, “Why did you make it political? Why is a school board member bringing up politics? That is very concerning.” Mercanti-Anthony did not respond.
Mercanti-Anthony’s claim contradicts what Superintendent Jones indicated during a special Board meeting on August 1, 2024, when she said the cell phone ban was coming as the result of a petition launched by a registered democrat from Okay to Delay, which is led in Greenwich by a registered democrat and an unaffiliated voter. The democrat activist's petition garnered 767 signatures since it launched on June 30, 2024.
A student activist-led petition against the illegal policy change was launched on August 15, 2024, and in five days, has collected 901 signatures and counting. Based on the precedent set by Superintendent Jones, activist-led petitions dictate unilateral policy changes, so clearly the illegal policy should be rescinded on this basis alone.
By the way, it is our opinion that people in leadership positions in Greenwich Public Schools should act as role models for students, demonstrating the same kind of behavior that they expect from students, which includes following rules, policies and procedures adopted by the district.
What kind of example is Toni Jones setting for students by illegally implementing a new policy? Is she teaching students that it's okay to break the rules when doing so fits your own personal agenda? Is she teaching students that seeking social justice is more important than following rules?
And what about the Board of Education? What kind of example is it setting by allowing its only employee to break the rules, and then not say or do anything to correct the situation? Should students now expect they can break the rules without facing repercussions, too? Or is that kind of behavior reserved for those in the ‘protected class’ like Jones?
