The Cape Henlopen school board met at H.O. Brittingham Elementary School July 23, when it took action on several amended board policies and reviewed proposed amendments to the student code of conduct.

Delaware Senate Bill 106, which was signed into law March 12, requires every school district and charter school to adopt a policy governing the use of cellphones.

Luis Cosme, supervisor of student services and equity initiatives, introduced to the Cape board a draft policy with expectations around student use of cellphones and personal electronic devices. It would require elementary and middle school students to keep phones off and stored away all day, while allowing high school students to use them only during breakfast and lunch in designated areas, not in hallways or in class.

It also covers devices like smartwatches and AI glasses, barring their use for recording or for other uses that violate either this policy or any other district policy.

Violating the policy would result in disciplinary consequences, such as the device being confiscated and the student's family or guardian being notified. 

There are some exceptions for students who require access to or use of a cellphone or other personal electronic device for various reasons, including a documented medical need, an approved educational accommodation, language-access support for multilingual learners, during a verified emergency or when authorized by the building administrator for instructional, safety or other educational purposes.

Board President Alison Myers said the policy is straightforward and aligns with the procedures the district already follows.

Cosme is proposing for the policy to be added as its own entry in the code of conduct, rather than just having it in the appendix, where it is now.

The board will likely take action on this policy and the other proposed code of conduct changes at its Thursday, Aug. 20 meeting.

Class size; promotion, retention

The board approved two policies: one relating to class size and another relating to student promotion and retention. 

The class size policy contains updated language to align with current state regulations. It reaffirms the district will follow the state's class size requirements for kindergarten through third grade while aiming to keep classes as small as possible – about 25 students for grades four and five, and an average of 28 or fewer in middle school when "educationally appropriate and financially feasible."

It also establishes that staffing recommendations and related adjustments are to be presented to the school board for approval in accordance with state law, board policy and district procedures.

The changes to the promotion and retention policy were more substantive.

“We’re not changing the fundamental philosophy, since we still believe students should be supported before retention,” said Michael Young, district supervisor of secondary education, at the board’s previous meeting July 9. “But there’s no single factor that determines a student’s placement for retention or promotion, so we wanted to capture what that would look like in the policy.”

In other words, the basic tenet remains the same: Retention is not an immediate response when a student is struggling, and no single factor, whether it’s the student’s grades, attendance, test scores or something else, can determine retention.

The amended policy says decisions about whether a student moves to the next grade or is held back are made by a school-based team led by the building principal, using defined criteria outlined in the district's administrative procedures. The team will also include the student's teachers, building specialists and other staff – counselors, school psychologists, special education coordinators and so forth – as applicable with parent or guardian input. 

Other key additions include new limits on how often a student can be held back, a defined appeals process for families and a conditional promotion option that lets students move to the next grade if they complete mandatory summer learning. This option is only available in cases where the principal deems the student likely to benefit from summer remediation rather than retention, and completing the summer learning does not automatically guarantee promotion. 

The policy also says that while state test scores can help inform the promotion or retention decision, they can no longer substitute for a passing course grade.

Code of conduct revision

Cosme presented proposed changes to the student code of conduct.

Several students were involved in the review and revision process.

Proposed changes include updating terminology to align with current district, state and federal regulations; adding clearer expectations for families and their role in fostering a positive learning environment; establishing a new standalone cellphone and personal device policy; and stressing more uniform enforcement across schools in response to student feedback about inconsistent enforcement.

Board member Bill Collick commended Cosme and the others for their efforts to ensure the code is fair and consistent.

Charles Gifford, a sophomore at Cape, gave public comment at the meeting, asking the board to amend the code's policy regarding student gatherings and protests. He urged the board to rethink rules that require prior approval from the principal for student gatherings and protests, arguing that under the U.S. Supreme Court's Tinker v. Des Moines decision, schools can only limit student expression if they can prove it would cause a material and substantial disruption to school operations or infringe on others' rights.

As the policy is now, students have the right to assemble peacefully on school property at a time and place approved by the principal, who has the right to deny it if it will endanger the health or safety of others, damage property or disrupt the activities of others.

Gifford said there are no clear standards, timelines or an appeal process, making it easy for administrators to say no by default. He proposed to replace the permission requirement with a notification system that lets events proceed unless administrators can prove concrete disruption concerns. 

He plans to meet with Cosme and work with district administrators to make a change.

Board meeting calendar

The school board also voted to approve an amended 2026-27 meeting calendar and retire a policy relating to the federal Section 504 policy due to redundancy with existing federal laws and district policies and procedures.

The only change to the calendar, which was approved at the last board meeting on July 9, is that there will no longer be a workshop meeting in March 2027.