School board election
We sent a survey to every candidate in the upcoming Minneapolis school board election about the use of technology in schools. Here are the answers from everyone who responded.
Responses
Answers are published as submitted. We will add responses from other candidates as we receive them.
Candidate · At Large
The School Board's role should be focused on consultation, crafting policy, setting expectations for Administration, and reviewing policy efficacy in the area of educational technology in the classroom. It is important to listen to the experiences of those affected by screens in the classroom including teachers, students, parents and administration. The role also includes analyzing District data on screen efficacy and funding the gathering and analysis of said data if there is insufficient available. The role of the School Board should not be to drive policy based on a preconceived view or personal preference but to listen to the experiences, needs, and outcomes of those affected by screens in classrooms. This differs from the role of teachers and administration which is to do the data gathering necessary to make recommendations to the School Board around the cost-benefit analysis of screens in the classroom.
While I would not make a decision on educationally necessary technology without the consultation of all stakeholders, I would not assume that any particular technology is educationally necessary simply because it is currently being used. I would propose that MPS review its current technology implementation by requesting an exhaustive review of technology utilization within MPS from the administration. This report would include an overview of the types of technology used within various classrooms, which classrooms, its one-time and recurring costs, its frequency of use, and its educational effect as shown through data. If data was not available, I would establish a District study to gather the needed data. Based on the administration report, I would request clarification as needed, and then work with the School Board to establish a Technology Roadmap for the implementation over the next 5 years.
I do not want to prejudge educational technology without reviewing the evidence so I cannot make any definitive statements on changes I would make at this point.
In regards to personal devices in the classroom, I would ban personal cell phone devices in all classrooms within the District based on the existing data I've seen, based on my own understanding of the distraction caused by these devices, and based on teacher feedback that I've received. I would review all input from parents, teachers, students and policy experts before moving forward with any changes to the District policy. I would ensure teachers could effectively enforce these policies by ensuring teachers have a standard for how to discipline students for infractions of this policy. Minnesota requires Districts to have a Cell Phone policy, so it's important to ensure that this document enables teachers to discipline in a consistent way.
Students shouldn't be allowed to represent AI-generated work as their own, even if detecting violations is difficult. Further, the District should enable teachers with the technology needed to check for AI usage in student work. Lastly, MPS should provide teachers with best practices from national groups and research on how to best teach and assign work that is still meaningful in this AI era. Each teacher should feel supported and have tools to understand how to navigate this new educational environment. There may also be circumstances in which AI is intentionally incorporated into an assignment or course. In those cases, its use should be permitted at the teacher's discretion within clear district guidelines.
Candidate · District 1
The school board’s responsibility here is to establish systemic, bell-to-bell procedures for phone and one-to-one tech use. Teachers have enough responsibilities to tend to, and it is the school board’s job to ensure that teachers are put in the best position to succeed. There should be a bell-to-bell, phone-free policy districtwide. Phones need to be out of sight from bell-to-bell. Also, the board should reallocate the budget lines, previously earmarked for EdTech software licenses and one-to-one student laptops/tablets, and move those funds to laptop carts, physical textbooks, and physical writing supplies.
The administrators’ role should be to consistently enforce cell phone policies, so that the burden of policing personal devices does not exclusively fall on teachers. During the transition away from laptops/tablets towards physical, analog instructional methods, the admin teams should be there to support teachers. Teachers should be given time to adjust their curriculum when laptops are phased out or an EdTech subscription is cancelled or not renewed. Professional development (PD) days should be used for this transition. Lastly, there should not be pressure from administrators for teachers to digitize lesson plans.
Policies from a district and building level should protect a teacher’s ability to incorporate pen-and-paper instruction and physical textbooks. Teachers should be encouraged not to digitize every lesson. In specialized courses, there are circumstances where obviously screens should be used, like coding in a computer science class, building a resume in a business ed class, or doing a demo in a physics class. However, pencil-and-paper instruction should increasingly become the standard. Teachers should use allotted time during professional development (PD) days to convert their curriculum into an analog instructional method.
As a high school business ed teacher, I know that digital tools have some place in schools. We all want to prepare students for the future workforce. Whether it is basic keyboarding skills for elementary-aged students or learning how to navigate a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel in middle school, there is a place for technology in the school day. However, scientific data from prominent researchers like neuroscientist Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath and NYU social psychology professor Jonathan Haidt have shown that using screens as the default learning medium harms focus, retention, and student mental health. The EdTech industry thrives on the fear-mongering message that, unless your student is constantly using digital technology in school to learn, they will be left behind in the future “digital workforce”. The reality is, from hardware like laptops and tablets to software like Google Suite and ChatGPT, these tools are not especially difficult to use. Parents should not be worried about their 4th grader not using laptops and generative AI tools daily. They will be fine.
I think the key here is to view technology in the classroom as something that should be placed on a spectrum. It should not be the default medium used all the time, but it also should not be avoided entirely.
Technology should only be viewed as genuinely necessary when the software itself is the learning target. For example, students learning how to use tools like Microsoft Excel, Python, or Canva should be on a computer screen to learn how to do those things. A biology teacher should have the chance to show students how to dissect a frog using an interactive online demonstration before doing one in the actual classroom lab. An English teacher should be able to teach MLA formatting to students using Chromebooks.
However, screen use is counterproductive and harmful when it is used as a general vessel for instruction. Laptops and tablets should not be used for general note-taking, e-book reading, or posting online worksheets. Using technology in that manner is what we should be encouraging all teachers, at all grade levels, to shift away from.
From a formal board policy standpoint, ending a lot of the EdTech software subscriptions would be a big financial priority, given our district’s current budget shortfall. Also, phasing out individually-assigned student laptops and tablets in favor of alternatives that have some “intentional friction” (e.g., shared laptop carts or computer lab time), would be my primary policy initiative from a pedagogical standpoint.
In MPS, there should not be screen time in the classroom of any kind from Pre-K through second grade, where currently MPS provides iPad tablets. At the middle and high school levels, there should be a transition from the current one-to-one laptop model to a shared laptop cart or computer lab model. (Note: students on IEP or ELL plans are obvious exceptions and should be allowed laptops/tablets accordingly.)
Currently, MPS middle and high school students are typically assumed to have a school-issued Chromebook to complete coursework. While not mandatory from a district policy standpoint, in reality it becomes “de facto mandatory” if a teacher’s curriculum is tailored to the digital space (e.g., posting assignments to complete on Google Classroom or another LMS).
It should not be up to the student or parent to navigate the headaches of opting out of this environment alone. Eventually, one-to-one laptop and tablet use should be phased out and replaced with shared laptop carts and computer lab time. As a district, our admin teams should also be supporting teachers during this transition away from digitally-focused curriculum (e.g., having plenty of printer paper on hand and a reliable printer maintenance team on call).
As an educator myself, I do not want to burden teachers with mandates to complete, like a computer screen time audit during the class periods. Teachers have enough going on. Getting straight to addressing the core issue, by using PD (professional development) days to help teachers shift their curriculum away from using digital tech for student reading, note-taking, and worksheet completion, is a great start and should be done as soon as possible. Students should be taking notes and writing drafts using pencil & paper, and they should be completing math problems on physical worksheets. The scientific data is there to support this. We just need to follow it.
There are some elements of my platform where the fine details are flexible, since I am certain that I have my own blind spots and could learn from others’ viewpoints. But one area that I feel very strongly about is MPS strengthening its cell phone policy.
MPS should adopt the bell-to-bell, phone-free environment as seen in neighboring districts. Currently, MPS does not have this rule in place. In MPS, students are allowed to use phones during lunch and passing time. That is simply not good enough. Research has strongly shown student mental health and behaviors will improve if students are not allowed to be on their phones from bell-to-bell. MPS also allows students to use phones “during class time when the classroom teacher permits the use for educational purposes only”. This is also too flexible. No phones, bell-to-bell. Period. (Note: with obvious exceptions for medical reasons.)
This bell-to-bell, phone-free environment also creates a cleaner setup from an enforcement standpoint as well. Stillwater Area Public Schools, to me, has the best model currently for handling cell phones in schools: if a phone is seen, it is confiscated and is stored in the main office until a parent or guardian picks it up. It will not be returned to the student. SAPS also clearly lays out parent-admin-student conferences for repeated violations. To me, this cell phone setup is the clear model that other districts should be following.
This is where building administrators play a crucial role. A policy only goes as far as its enforcement. We cannot expect individual teachers to bear the burden of policing phones on their own. School administrators need to own and enforce the policy consistently.
In a K-8 setting, I do not see any use for AI tools. At those ages, students need to build mental capacity and demonstrate mastery in basic reading skills, writing drafts, and solving math problems. They need to train their brains to be able to do these exercises on paper. Building cognitive skills and slowly turning them to long-term memory is naturally a gradual process that requires some obstacles or friction. Using generative AI to write an essay provides a student with the illusion of output without having actually learned how to write. If a student uses AI tools to draft, or to summarize, or to solve a math problem without first having mastered that skill on paper, then they will not have developed the cognitive capacity to understand whether the generative AI is right or wrong.
Beyond the academic skills themselves, younger students also need to learn how to stay focused over an extended period of time. They need to build stamina and learn how to emotionally work through the obstacles and hurdles they will inevitably encounter over the course of writing an essay or solving a problem set for science class. There is a clear SEL (social-emotional learning) component at play here as well. One that students will benefit from emotionally when generative AI is not present.
At the high school level, I could potentially be convinced that occasional student access to AI may have some benefits. If an ELA teacher wants to incorporate AI into a lesson about proofreading an essay, or if a social studies teacher wants students to use it to critique an argument they wrote about a policy position, then maybe it could be beneficial. However, this would only be the case after mastery has been demonstrated in a pen-to-paper medium first.
Candidate · District 5
I want to be transparent that School Board Directors are not meant to directly influence individual administrators, principals, or teachers. The Minneapolis School Board’s only employee is the Superintendent. As part of that role, the Board establishes and evaluates the Superintendent’s goals, plus provides strategic direction for the District.
That said, School Board Directors have additional levers of influence within their role. If elected, I would pursue a more responsible set of tech policies for Minneapolis Public Schools via one-on-one advocacy, board meetings, and budget.
I. One-on-one advocacy / Work Session Meeting(s)
I would advocate among Board Directors and Board Leadership to take up intentional tech use in a Work Session Meeting. Work Sessions are essentially learning sessions. Held as often as monthly, they take a deeper dive on a single topic in a public forum. No votes are taken; rather, the Board makes it their business to learn from experts and families.
II. Board Meetings / Consent Agenda
Currently, millions of dollars are invested in tech and devices via consent agenda, which can be approved without discussion. I would motion to pull classroom-based technology purchases out of the consent agenda to be discussed publicly.
III. Budget
A. I would persistently raise classroom technology and software use as part of the larger annual budget discussion and approval process.
B. Bigger picture, tech companies are actively pitching AI and other edtech as a means of addressing overcrowded classrooms. We must be loud and clear in the value we place on our educators, and push against tech companies undermining our schools for profit. MPS’s budget must emphasize smaller classrooms, excellent working conditions for educators, and excellent learning conditions for students. Particularly related to personal device use (see Question 4), we must also protect the budget for counseling support, especially for middle and high school students. Counseling access is a health and safety issue.
One final note: Beyond what can be accomplished within the MPS Board, I would use my knowledge and role to advocate at the Minnesota Legislature for tech reform in schools.
As a guiding principle: We must take a proof-first approach, rather than adoption of tech for tech’s sake.
We can acknowledge that some software and technology provide real value to students, especially as they advance to middle and high school. However, we have ample evidence that tech can be detrimental or even dangerous. We are past due to re-evaluate tech use in every grade.
While we can take a page from other districts confronting tech in classrooms, we cannot establish policies in a vacuum. They must be shaped by educators, principals, and parents. For example, I’ve heard teachers’ concerns that the sudden introduction of iPads can have a jarring, negative effect on student experience with iPad-based evaluations. So, some nuance and transition time may be necessary.
For historical context, one:one learning devices were introduced widely at MPS in the mid-2010s with a district-wide mandate not starting until Covid in 2020. Computer use in schools began in the 1990s to early 2000s, about 75 years after elementary school was first mandated in Minnesota in 1919. All to say, MPS has a long history of operating without computers and an even longer history of educating without one:one devices. A prove-it-first approach to software and devices is well warranted.
Before I list my priorities, I want to be transparent about what is possible. As a board director, I would work to implement change as described in the first question, including advocacy at the state level. As a private citizen, I will continue to support the intentional tech work being done in MN by various parent-led organizations.
I understand this questionnaire as a means of gauging my current knowledge and interest in this issue. However, I want to underline that I do not have all the answers on my own. I’m deeply interested in hearing directly from parents and educators about their ideas and concerns.
My priorities follow:
Most immediately, MPS must discontinue use of iPads in kindergarten, and very quickly take up evaluation of one-on-one device use in subsequent grades. As New York and Los Angeles have done, I believe we should discontinue iPad use in kindergarten through 2nd grade.
I suggest starting with kindergarten because it’s the least controversial move with the greatest positive impact. Early elementary is an especially tender age for tech exposure. In addition, I believe MPS underestimates how detrimental iPads are to families deciding in which school to enroll their Kindergartener.
Meanwhile, MPS must audit, evaluate, and clearly communicate the content controls on any device distributed to students. This must include what is accessible inside and outside the school as well as what is accessible online and via installed software. The audit should also show what AI features are accessible to students.
Additional practices I would advocate:
Introducing a tech-light pathway(s) through MPS to offer a low-tech alternative to the many families concerned about tech use.
In all grades as appropriate, counter AI exposure (inside and outside of school) with an increased emphasis on critical thinking, creative expression, and communication skills. In Question 5 I outline the need for a critical-thinking approach to teaching AI proactively.
Re-introduce computer labs and/or computer carts in schools as part of intentional computer literacy. This could include skill development in typing and talk-to-text, database research, and critical thinking. It may also include learning advanced skills in specific software, such as spreadsheets and chart creation, word processing, creative music and visual design, and effective presentation/communication.
The personal device aspect of technology in schools has some existing policies and practices, though potentially not enacted in every classroom. Practically speaking, many classrooms have consolidated phone storage that students are required to use during class. This can be as simple as modifying a hanging shoe storage unit to hold phones during class.
To date, MPS has largely updated their existing policies in keeping with mandates at the state level. I’d like MPS to take a proactive, holistic approach based on local family and educator feedback.
Many of the educators I’ve spoken to noted that distractions from phone use are less common and troubling than distraction via one:one devices, like Chromebooks.
My greatest concern about personal devices is the ever-evolving downsides and dangers of personal phone use. This includes the addictive and predatory nature of most social media and all betting apps, the ease of bullying and extortion, and the increased rate of mental health decline, depression and suicide, even among middle schoolers. I believe MPS has an essential role to play in informing students and families alike. We must use information and critical thinking to inoculate students against as many of these dangers as we can.
Wherever possible, MPS should default all devices to turning off default AI features, including in widely used services like search and Google Drive.
I predict that MPS will soon need to spend budget on training and access to paid databases. The increase of AI slop online has already diminished the quality of free search. Credible news sources have begun to block AI from scraping their data. As a result, more clone sites and AI slop sites have emerged and have taken over the first pages of free search results. The quality of information will continue to deteriorate as AI eats its tail.
Intentional use of AI can reinforce critical thinking and real world skills. Georgia Tech recently published a series of essays on how professors have effectively used AI as a curriculum-planning and teaching tool at the university level. Not all are applicable to high school, but some provide an encouraging model.
For example, a creative writing professor assigned students three lines of a poem for which AI is not ideally suited to understand. The students first interpreted the poem, then both wrote and drew the meaning the poem evoked for them. Students then performed experiments and analysis contrasting their own work to that generated via AI prompt.
A guided introduction to AI can help inoculate students against misuse and manipulation. At a minimum, all students must learn to identify and cite AI generated images and information. Ideally, we will arm students with techniques to avoid the addictive and cognitive-numbing downsides of AI.
To that end, I believe we must proactively teach responsible AI use at age-appropriate times. For example, teach strategic prompt creation to eliminate flattery and cognitive offloading. Encourage experimentation with new ways of interaction, such as the speed of talk-to-text versus typing. Have students research the environmental and economic impacts of AI and data centers for themselves.
Candidate · District 5
The school board directors have a responsibility to communicate directly with site-level administrators, families, students, and the educators union to hear feedback and concerns regarding tech use in schools whenever setting policy. Many schools in District 5 have already made adjustments to their site-level policies around screen use, and their experiences with implementation and outcomes should guide any district-level policy.
Educators utilize many forms of technology within the classroom, from smart boards to slide decks to “brain break” movement-based videos. I trust educators to balance their own technology utilization in their classrooms. We saw during the COVID pandemic how technology use became a means for survival — students were able to learn virtually during lockdown, and 1:1 devices allowed students to return to school and safely social distance. Because of the nature of that crisis, tech use of this magnitude was rolled out before it had been adequately studied or fully thought through. Unfortunately, many of those crisis uses of tech in classrooms became permanent fixtures, and in many cases this was seen as a cost-savings means to reduce teaching staff and overfill classrooms. Our recent wins in smaller class caps in MPS are an important step in reducing educators’ reliance on technology.
In addition to specific policies around tech, it is imperative that we consider other policies that have a direct impact on tech reliance in the classroom. In addition to ending 1:1 tech use for kindergarten through 2nd grade, I would pursue additional paraprofessionals, smaller class sizes to allow for more differentiated instruction, and emphasizing hands-on, project-based learning in the classroom. My first priority would be to take 1:1 screens out of lower elementary classes, as this is the simplest policy solution to implement. The personnel and pedagogical priorities will guide my budget and policy decisions as a board member.
No phone use bell-to-bell — students responsible for keeping phones secured in lockers & unused all day. This requires full buy-in from staff and consistent implementation in order to be successful. School administrators must be ready to provide support to staff especially in the beginning of implementation.
I do not support teachers locking phones away or using faraday bags. I believe students need to learn how to manage having phones, and face the natural consequences of failing to adhere to the policy. I also know that bullying unfortunately still happens, and we have seen a rise in bullying aimed at LGBTQ+ students due to the current political climate. I believe students should have emergency access to their phones in lockers to be able to contact a trusted adult for safety reasons.
As a board director I will be speaking with educators, administrators, parents, and students to gain a clear picture of what role AI is currently playing in the educational environment. Families need to have full knowledge of any AI use happening by their students’ teachers; AI use poses safety and privacy concerns for our students, and we must be very clear on how they may already be at risk and how we ensure we protect them. Upon speaking with special education parents, I do not support the use of AI to write IEPs or student evaluations. We must provide AI literacy education to our students so that they can understand when they are consuming AI content, how to evaluate the accuracy or logic of arguments, and how to discuss the ethical issues surrounding AI. Because we hold our students to a high standard regarding the use of AI in their work, I also wish to see staff across the district avoid the use of AI materials (worksheets, flyers, e-mails) in order to set the best example possible for their students. AI poses an existential threat to public education, and it is past time for MPS to address this issue head on and take bold policy stances.