The full questions and answers

Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, and/or Keith Petzinger, Director of Technology

Opening Statement: I think it is important to contextualize this discussion. One of the BOE members mentioned at the last meeting that the number of parents who are opting their students off screens is increasing in the district. I’d like to offer the results of the Lenape Technology Survey as a counterpoint. Ninety percent of our Lenape students responded to the survey. - 29.6% have their own cell phone - 90.3% have a computer or tablet at home that they can use - 23.8% spend more than 2 hours of "free time" at home on a phone, computer or tablet each week day - 62.4% spend more than 1 hour of "free time" at home on a phone, computer or tablet each week day - 92.7% spend some amount of "free time" at home on a phone, computer or tablet each week day One parent comment at the last BOE meeting during public comment suggested we do more to collect information from those other than the 15-20 families who have been showing up to BOE meetings or write many emails. I’d urge the BOE to consider the above data when making decisions about the entire community. We do understand that the parents/caregivers reflected in the above may be more likely to support home device usage because of the control they have over those devices, but we have no data reflecting how parents are feeling – parents that make up a significant portion of the 3-5 student population.

Additionally, concerns regarding chromebook use and screen time are not unique to the New Paltz Central School District. The Irvington Union Free School District recently shared a communication with stakeholders that reflects many of the same considerations and concerns being discussed within New Paltz. This letter underscores the importance of the intentional and purposeful integration of technology as a tool to enhance teaching and learning. It also highlights the need to ensure that technology is aligned with educational goals, best practices, and the New York State Standards which provide a framework for developing students’ digital literacy, responsible technology use, and future-ready skills. Irvington’s letter can be found here.

The question about whether or not harm is being done is definitely open to debate. Opinions differ greatly. To cite the Policy Statement released by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released in February 2026, Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents, “Because randomized controlled trials are not ethically or practically feasible when it comes to exposing children to potentially harmful levels of digital media, the science in this field is primarily observational. As a result, associations identified in existing studies are correlational, which we acknowledge limits the ability to draw causal conclusions.” That said, the District absolutely takes seriously the concerns parents bring to us and continuously improves our programming to help students navigate digital spaces. We also take those correlational, observational conclusions seriously. It

is why in more than six hours in classrooms in the middle school + the after school hours, the average amount of time students spend on their chromebooks is between an hour and two hours over the course of a 24-hour day. Teachers are intentional and deliberate about their use. Additionally, our teachers understand the importance of helping our students navigate the digital ecosystem to become literate, ethical digital citizens. It is also important to highlight that not all Chromebook use is created equally. This references Matt’s question at the end of this document in some ways. We all know the more established research (referenced by the AAP) about the impacts of social media (both +/-, because we know that for students who are marginalized in their communities, the social connections made online can be literally lifesaving), and there is growing correlational evidence around short form video consumption and the damage that can inflict when algorithm-directed. But we also know that some educational applications are effective in instruction. Instructional applications can fall into multiple categories. Programs are one such category. The program is housed digitally and students will work directly in a digital environment to interact with the program. (Many programs also have a component that is not digital – few are fully digital.) One such program we use is Lexia. Lexia is a digital program designed to support early learners who may struggle acquiring foundational reading skills. We use this program in a very limited way – with some students who may benefit from its use. Like any intervention, we progress monitor student skill growth to determine if the intervention is effective. We also utilize many other digital resources, such as NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio videos. These are amazing resources that align to the phenomenon-based teaching we are required to do with the Next Generation Science Standards. We also utilize the Google Suite of Tools – from Slides to Docs and Sheets – for all sorts of instructional applications. One area that the District has been remiss in is providing more support for parents who struggle with the responsibility that they have in taking ownership of health behaviors that may be shaped by systemic factors beyond their control. Research (Padilla-Walker, et al) has shown that parental media monitoring can be effective at reducing negative effects of media. Parental monitoring can involve either parent-child media-based conversations around media content (“active monitoring”) or restrictions surrounding the amount of screen time (“restrictive monitoring”). Restrictive monitoring has been associated with less screen time and more reading time, but higher levels of internalizing behavior in preadolescence. Active monitoring is more effective in promoting developmentally appropriate autonomy and potentially more mature cognitive processes. Using active monitoring, the parent ideally engages their child in conversations around healthy media use, while providing some restrictions in use. Self-determination theory suggests that some of our basic psychological needs are autonomy and competence. When we control all the decisions for early adolescents and adolescents about media use, it can likely cause the adolescent to feel less competent. What is recommended is an autonomy-supportive approach to parenting which can lead to more critical thinking about healthy media use as well as greater mental health in general. In fact, “parental monitoring had direct effects on adolescents’ internalizing problems, with controlling parenting associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression and autonomy-supportive parenting associated with lower levels of internalizing problems” (Padilla-Walker, et al). We know that media multi-tasking is related to poorer social relationships and interactions, online and in real life and impedes cognitive performance. However, we also know

that young adults multitask to fulfill an emotional need. Padilla et al (2020) would suggest that “relations between media multitasking and adolescent internalizing behaviors may be explained by adolescents’ motivations and reasons for media multitasking in the first place.” Understanding this actually allows us to address the underlying, root cause, as opposed to a symptom. This also connects to my answer to #4.

Padilla-Walker, Laura, Laura Stockdale and Ryan McLean (2020) “Associations Between Parental Media Monitoring, Media Use, and Internalizing Symptoms During Adolescence.” American Psychological Society, Vol 9, No. 4.

Teachers should not provide instruction in a way that is dangerous to students. It is the job of teachers to choose the best way to provide instruction and it is the job of the administrators to make sure instruction is provided appropriately and responsibly.

One area in which we can absolutely improve is supervision during study halls. Additionally, Jason’s question at the last BOE meeting was very important. I will certainly bring this question to the School Counseling Advisory Council to discuss adopting an approach and a process to include support for students struggling with healthy media use either at school or home. Although social workers and psychologists do not provide clinical care to students, they do work on strategies to help students access the academic program and achieve success and media use that acts as a barrier to academic success and student well being could certainly be addressed with our faculty and staff. The only way this works, however, is with communication between parents and faculty and staff in the District. We address behaviors that we see in school, but if a child is struggling with self-regulation on computers at home, but not school, the only way we can address the concern is to know about the concern. In conversation with all of the 6-8 teachers at the middle school over the past few weeks, it is clear that parents are not communicating their concerns with teachers. Of all the teachers surveyed, one teacher reported discussing the concern at a parent/teacher conference and a few teachers reported that they had all heard from a single family about concerns around digital media use and the use of educational technology. We have published a “Who to contact” section in our annual school calendar to assist parents in understanding the chain of communication for questions in particular areas. In Instruction, Assessment, Curriculum, which encompasses educational tools like Chromebooks, parents/caregivers should first contact the teacher, then the principal, then the Deputy Superintendent, then the Superintendent. The Board of Education is not listed on that chain of communication and yet that is the only place that the parents have brought their concerns to.

Parents could ask their child about their Chromebook use – as all screen time is not created equally and sneaking a game in study hall is not the same as using the Library of Congress’ website to examine a primary document. At this time, we do not provide this information to families. Improving our collaboration with parents and the wider community remains an ever-present goal. Part of that collaboration requires us to be clear on what the developmental requirements of middle school students are. Early adolescents (12-14) require a measured approach to giving them greater autonomy – over their decisions, their learning, their socialization. When teachers and parents support autonomous development, students perform better academically. Reporting out Chromebook use without student involvement/mediation is more surveillance-oriented than autonomy-granting. Additionally, we want to be promoting parent/caregiver and teacher communication. Karen Mapp from Harvard has developed a Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships, found here. One of the process conditions essential for building the framework is mutual trust. The surveillance in question here would not just be on students, but teachers would perceive it to be directed toward them. One of the parents at a public comment on technology mentioned that they didn’t have time to contact teachers with concerns and questions; that actually asking that of them was unreasonable. If we actually want an effective partnership that supports student and school improvement, it does not begin with a top-down policy approach. It begins with communication and collaboration between the people who know their children best and the folks who work with the students every day in school.

Have reading, writing, and math proficiency improved, held flat, or declined? Relative to comparable districts, where are we trending?

This is a big question. I’ll try to break it down. First, let’s be certain that COVID is at the center of our discussion. In this district, unlike others, transition to 1x1 began a little earlier than the disruption caused by COVD but not much earlier. However, New Paltz was also late to the game. In Maine in 2002, every 7-8th grader

was given a laptop. COVD + 1x1 for many children in this district makes it challenging to separate out causal and correlational impacts. Second, in 2024, we moved to CBT for the Grades 3-8 State Assessments. Some school districts moved fully in 2016-17, the first year it was available to do so. This is important to the data story, as it is a well-researched phenomenon that student scores experience a dip in the first few years of CBT, as students are not used to engaging in these types of assessments on a computer. For a district like ours, who ignored the state requirement for universal screening for so long, and only began STAR in Fall 2023, our students have even less experience than most in the CBT ecosystem. In fact, this deficit will make it challenging to find truly comparable districts. Third, our history of test refusals in Grades 3-8 make it incredibly difficult to offer comparisons. While there is some mirroring of our various demographic groups in the refusal groups of those demographics, there can be as much as 17-10% difference in a particular refusal rate for a subgroup. Those different percentages can also vary greatly from year to year. Overall, our refusal rates are improving, with third grade having the highest participation rate this year, in the high 80s. Fourth, the assessments have changed over time since Common Core was first introduced. First, they were reduced from three days to two. Then they were untimed. Then COVID interrupted administration. Then we changed to Next Generation Standards. From a psychometric perspective, the validity of looking at this assessment over time does not exist. Fifth, a universal screener is not designed to measure overall “proficiency” but to give a snapshot of one of multiple measures in assessing student achievement as well as a predictor for how they may do on cumulative standards-aligned assessments. Six, in the absence of utilizing 3-8 assessment data or Star, one would typically look for GPAs, or common assessment results. When we arrived in the district 3.5 years ago, there was little common curriculum and few common, standards-aligned assessments. Since then, this has been a focus for development. With only two conference days, limited summer curriculum writing money and teacher participation, the process is slow. We have also discovered that some of our teachers need support in standards-based assessment design, and most of our teachers need support in assessment analysis. This is only an indication of the fact that they have not been asked to do this before. Some teachers have been engaging in individual and departmental level assessment analysis for years, but it has not been common district practice and there has not been district-level support of the practice before. So let’s look at the Regents scores. 2024 ELA Regents Comparison

2024 Geometry Regents Comparison

2024 Living Environment

It is important to understand that teachers in this District are very deliberate in how and why they use technology and digital tools. They are highly educated and that plays into their decision making. There are some integrative applications that have a research base that goes back to the late 80s. In 1988, Tierney found that students demonstrated a repertoire of planning and revision behavior in writing. For those of us who have spent a career teaching writing to adolescents, growing their capacity in planning and revision is one of the keys to improving their thinking and thus their writing. Varier et al (2017) has found support for the benefits of individual computing devices including learner-centered instruction, immediate formative feedback and increased student self-direction. “While causality between individual computing devices (ICDs) and student achievement are rare in the literature, recent students like those conducted by the one-to-one initiative (2020) and Verier et al. (2017) indicate a greater amount of evidence demonstrating ICD’s positive impact on student learning” (Warsen & Vandermolen, 2020).

Tierney, R. J. (1988). The engagement of thinking processes: A two-year study of selected Apple classroom of tomorrow students. The Ohio State University:1–75. Varier, D, Dumke, E.K., Abrams, L.M., Conklin, S.B., Barnes, J.S., & Hoover, N.R. (2017). Potential of one-to-one technologies in the classroom: teachers and students weigh in. DOI 10.1007/s11423-017-9509-2. Warsen, Gregory and Richard Vandermolen (2020) “When Technology Works: A Case Study Using Instructional Rounds and the SAMR Model.” ICPEL Education Leadership Review, Vol 21, No 1.

We track student performance on things such as state test scores, class averages, through progress monitoring, and on AP exams. To assign any credit for increases or decreases on these tests because of 1 to 1 devices would not be realistic. There are far too many other variables to give credit to chromebooks for any increase or decrease.

Requests for applications goes through a formal vetting process which includes completion of a request form to ensure it aligns with NYS Standards and the SAMR model. These are reviewed by school leaders to determine if they align with curriculum standards, support research-based instructional practices and provide measurable educational value. Additionally, all applications must meet requirements for accessibility, student data privacy and cybersecurity. It is also important that we have instructional coherence in all of our student-facing resources. We do not want our students to struggle to connect the dots between resources - all

resources should be coherent and connected. For example, all early reading instructional approaches introduce sounds and letters in a different order/different timing. UFLI has a particular sequence. It is important that we are not using a resource that asks students to work with a letter or sound that they have not been introduced to in Tier 1 instruction yet. IXL use in the middle school, in both math and reading, allows students to work at their level/need in order to build foundational skills necessary for the more advanced coursework in high school.

How often is it refreshed? Is it provided by the vendor or by an independent educational source?

The research around professional development – which is based on understanding the differences between pedagogy and andragogy – is based on models of development and not necessarily professional learning on various pedagogies or resources. Adult learning is distinctly different from student learning and andragogy understands that adults are self-directed learners and thus the model of PD is much more important than the content. As adult learning requires internal motivation and a relevance to the learner, the content must come from the learners (teachers) themselves because of an identified need. Research-based professional learning incorporates active learning, supports collaboration, uses models of effective practice, provides coaching and expert support, offers feedback and reflection and is of a sustained duration. NYSED offers many resources (research-backed) on all of the above as part of the support they offer districts to construct their Professional Learning Plans. While we mostly design and offer in-district professional learning, or send/provide teachers opportunities out of district, using adult learning theory, we sometimes are also aspirational. This is known as heutagogy. The district has a distinct need to ensure that all learners have the same basic foundational understanding of something and we aspire to move that consistent understanding to the next phase of learning. We have done this with the Universal Design for Learning in middle school and high school, the Science of Reading in Duzine, etc. In terms of technology integration training, it depends on the application or need. When the 1x1 device program was rolled out, the district employed a full-time Technology Integration Specialist. This individual was able to incorporate all the androgic principles into his professional learning with teachers. When a teacher has a need to learn more deeply about an application or program now, we have many options to provide those. High School math teachers wanted to learn more about Desmos. Over the past few years, we have offered a number of opportunities for them to do so. First, we had Dr. Jason Huang from SUNY New Paltz provide a series of workshops, coaching and feedback sessions. More recently, we had a recently retired teacher from NPHS who used Desmos extensively in his Calculus, Pre-Calculus and Statistics courses when he was teaching come in May and offer a workshop and then integration support. We can bring the vendor in to provide ongoing support in a variety of ways (multi-day workshops, workshops timed throughout the year, or coaching). This has happened with IXL, Wonders, Lexia. We also will sponsor the attendance of our teachers at BOCES workshops or through the Mid-Hudson Teacher’s Center. They have done so for Canva, Excel, etc. We can also bring in

someone to train folks on individual tools and show them multiple uses, like a geography professor from SUNY New Paltz, who came to teach our teachers how to use Google Maps through a Cultural Geography lens.

If so, please explain.

It depends. Just like any other tool in our pedagogical toolbox, we need to examine the quality of effectiveness of the tool – as related to the intentional purpose of the tool. Gamification has been studied extensively over the past decade or so. It integrates game elements such as points, badges, leaderboards, and progress bars with traditional learning to enhance engagement and improve learning. Gamification can be used on a digital platform or without a digital ecosystem. Some positive impacts of gamification are “improved cognitive engagement, reduced anxiety, enhanced confidence, and increased collaboration. Digitally, it also has the potential to reduce educational disparities (Celasun & Kaya, 2025). “Research demonstrates that gamification not only enhances cognitive engagement but also improves memory retention and critical thinking skills, establishing it as a versatile tool for addressing diverse educational needs (Loewen et al, 2020; Subhas & Cudney, 2020).

Ziya Görkem Celasun &Senem Üstün Kaya (2025) Gamification in Education: Unlocking Engagement and Enhancing Learning Outcomes. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, volume 24, issue 1, pages 59-63 (5p)

Subhash, S., & Cudney, E. A. (2020). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 192–206.

Loewen, S., Isbell, D. R., & Spino, L. (2020). The effectiveness of app-based language learning tools: A metaanalysis of research on Duolingo. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(7), 740–763.

There are many research studies that explore the benefits (a select few studies are cited- an initial search on ERIC on “Gamification in Education” led to hundreds of studies) - while also noting that proper development and purpose are key to ensuring that teachers are using the correct tool for the purpose, designed for the appropriate developmental level of the students. Meta Analyses show that gamification approaches are most successful in middle school, followed up high school and then elementary. Some of the gamified digital programs we use most often in the district are Kahoot and Quizizz.

Moore, Sally et al (2026). Formative Evaluation of a Nutrition Label Education Intervention Using Computer Gamification to Promote Learning among School Students. Health Education Journal volume 85, issue 1, pages 29-39 (11p)

Denden, Mouna et al (2025). Which Combination of Game Elements Can Lead to a Useful Gamification in Education? Open Praxis, Vol 12, Issue 2, pages 394-408.

Gur, Duygu & Yalin Kilic Turel (2025). Beyond Play: Systematic Insights into Gamifying Education across Pedagogical, Personal, and Gamification Dimensions. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp 181-208.

Patras, Yuyun Elizabeth, Muhammad Japar and Yuli Rahmaqati (2025). Integration of Culturally Responsive Teaching Approach, Local Wisdom, and Gamification in Pancasila Education to Develop Students’ Multicultural Competence. Educational Process: International Journal. Vol 14.

Educational games can have some value. They should be used only when they enhance instruction. Using non-educational game playing as a reward is discouraged.

What data was used in making that determination?

I have reached out to the former director of technology to see if there was an articulated plan. I did refer a bit to the developmental needs of Early Adolescents (typically considered 5-7th graders) in the response to question 1, but will expand here. The below chart is from Nagaoka et al.’s (2015) developmental perspective. They considered four key developmental changes and goals associated with different stages of development. This perspective is aligned to stage-environment theory – which is one theory we use when designing programming for students. Stage environment theory essentially articulates that students do better when their environments are aligned with and respond to their developmental needs.

Essentially, middle school programming needs to be designed to respond to students’ increasing ability to engage in abstract thinking, perspective taking and have a growing need for independence. As early adolescents are autonomy-seeking but not yet ready for independent autonomy, the environment is designed with a program that gives students more ownership of their learning, provides models of appropriate relationships with peers, adults, ideas, the wider world (in real life and in digital spaces). We seek to honor that need for increasing autonomy with clear boundaries and adult mentors. We use the same approach in this as we do in scaffolding academic understanding. Scaffolding is temporary, and teachers have to think carefully about how and when they begin to remove scaffolding. Will middle school students push those boundaries? Make some bad decisions? Absolutely. Those actions are very necessary developmentally as mistakes and a mentored aftermath help humans develop the confidence and competence to make better decisions in the future – while also providing the necessary skills to be successful in the future.

Nagaoka, J., Farrington, C. A., Ehrlich, S. B., & Heath, R. D. (2015). Foundations for young adult success: A developmental framework. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research

What criteria are used in determining if a particular product is appropriate, safe and more effective than traditional learning modalities? Where can the public see the data these decisions are based on?

Our district vets technology products by thinking about instructional needs, cost, safety, security, and systems compatibility. Our criteria for all products is informed by multiple guiding frameworks and standards, including the New York State Standards, New Paltz’ policies such as DEIB, the Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework, NIST Framework, and the SAMR model. The specific criteria varies depending on the nature of the technology, whether it is hardware or software, the intended audience (individual students, grade level, or district) and the desired instructional or operational outcomes. The technology must align with identified educational needs and support equitable and meaningful learning experiences. The criteria used to determine any instructional resource does not fit neatly in a single rubric that can be shared. For example, some instructional technology is selected through a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) lens to ensure that ALL students have equitable access to the educational program. If one knows anything about early adolescents, it is clear that singling students out for a specific need is not helpful as most will opt out of that support. UDL Design Principles require us to design entry access points for all students and make them available to all students. Some of that information that we use to make decisions is protected by FERPA. Some are readily available in thinking about the UDL concepts that drive our instructional choices. Additionally, there are often industry standards for the type of technology used in the field that we want students to gain experience in during their secondary years in NPCSD, such as some media production programs and applications.

Is it solely the child’s responsibility to stay on task at school or does the supervising adult share responsibility for allowing non-educational use?

Teachers are expected to have good classroom management skills. As such, they should have clear rules for their students to follow and they should do their best to ensure that students follow those rules. If students misbehave, in most cases you would not punish the teachers. You would also generally not punish parents if their children misbehave. In some cases, if the offense is egregious and willful, punishments might be given. In a case where the parent knowingly provided a hand gun to his child and the child shot people at school, the parent was held accountable. If a teacher was negligent with safety and a student was harmed, there might be a scenario where a teacher was punished (maybe a tech teacher who willingly allows a student to use a power tool without proper training and an injury occurs). These are extreme cases of course. The best answer is that teachers are expected to make and enforce rules and the students are expected to follow them.

This question is complicated and can be misleading since there are so many variables. A core switch, for example, costs the district $9,748 and they last for approximately 3-5 years. This year we had to replace two switches for $19,496. There are also unpredictable factors such as a student who happens to have an IEP who may need assistive technology. The last student that received assistive tech was $696 for the school year for one student. This highlights just two of many variables, but it will obviously matter when devices are at the end of life. We handle many hardware repairs internally within the Technology Department and will repurpose older Chromebooks to meet device needs across the district. In cases involving cracked screens, the appropriate response depends on the extent of the damage. Minor fractures may not affect device functionality and can often remain in service without immediate replacement. In other situations we may disable the touchscreen functionality to allow the device and display to remain operational, provided the damage does not interfere with screen performance or usability. The total spent for hardware for the 25-26 school year was $152,416. Not included in that figure is the amount that the district spent on copiers, printers, and maintenance which was $96,492.

“Academically sound and peer reviewed” - seems like this is a textbook question. I think it is interesting that we are discussing textbooks as something we want to move back to after all the years in NYS discussing the implicit gender, race, and economic bias inherent in textbooks. We also have new(ish) standards in NYS that are specifically designed to make a textbook irrelevant. In Social Studies, textbooks are at best secondary but mainly tertiary sources. If we are teaching multiple perspectives and giving tools to students to develop both historiography and historical thinking, relying on someone else’s interpretation of someone else’s interpretation of a primary source will not be successful. In Science, teaching is phenomena based. I’d suggest exploring the 5E model of instruction to get a little more background on the approach. This is a good, quick explanation. I mentioned the Library of Congress and NASA as resources used in some classes in the district. I appreciate that it can be challenging to support your child without the ease of a textbook, but I’d like to also point out that buying textbooks to support homework when it doesn’t support the learning needs or address the standards is counterintuitive. Additionally, using relevant, reliable digital resources also models for students how to find and use rigorous sources. The national textbook market is big business (forecast to reach over half billion dollars in the US by 2030). Having worked with teachers over my career to find resources and materials (including our recent adoption of reading programs), I know that no textbooks align with NYS standards and that we have to invest labor to meet our needs. This is certainly true with Wonders right now. When Common Core was adopted by so many states, it was easier to find aligned programs, texts, etc. Now that we are back to all states for themselves it is not economically feasible for a company to create a text for just one state.

We can debate textbooks all day, but I do think that having a clear, consistent organizational system in Google Classroom can be helpful and if we can figure out how we make some things searchable, it is even better. But, we are still working on common scope and sequences within our curriculum.

It is good for parents to have resources to look at when they are trying to help their children with their homework. I have asked teachers to give some thought on the best way to make sure their parents have resources. If parents need resources they should reach out to their teachers.

What data (both district and national) will be analyzed each year to potentially pivot our technology?

The answer to this question really goes to the purpose of the technology used. There has been a good deal of talk about technology and chromebooks as monoliths. One thing that we do as a district – teachers and administrators working together – is to determine if the technology integration or the program/app used positively impacts student learning. For example, using Google Docs as a way to teach writing in a mediated environment has a good deal of research demonstrating the effectiveness of the “in process” feedback that can occur during writing. Our teachers of writing also highlight the effectiveness with their students. Additionally, tools like Google Docs allow for new approaches to writing, such as synchronous collaborative writing. (Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2025). Bringing new literacies into the secondary classroom: A case study of synchronous collaborative writing with Google Docs.) I think some of the challenges to the query around the question is in the nuance of how we measure effectiveness. I hope that we can all agree children don’t always learn on the timelines set by schools and teachers. Sometimes, the learning can take longer and can have much more impactful effects long after a student leaves that class. This is an ongoing question in the world of educational research. When we design studies to measure efficacy of any program, approach, strategy, etc., often we try for a quasi-experimental design to at least see a group that is not receiving that particular intervention but sometimes that is either not feasible or not ethical, which can leave conclusions in the correlational space rather than causational. Another nuance to answering the question is based on context. The teacher matters greatly, for two reasons. John Hattie wrote a book called Visible Learning first published in 2009 (it’s been updated many times since then). Hattie researched for over 15 years and synthesized over 800 meta-analyses to determine what works in schools to improve learning. Two of the elements that have the greatest impact on student learning are teacher self-efficacy and student self-efficacy. These two elements are connected obviously, and both are complicated by many factors outside of the school environment. If teachers believe that they can be successful in teaching students, that has a significant impact on how well students learn. If students believe they can learn, that also has a significant impact. I mention this because it is important to understand that introducing a device and asking whether or not it is effective is not the nuance we need to be applying to the question of overall efficacy. Working with our teachers to ensure that they feel self-efficacious to utilize the approaches and tools at their disposal is more important in many ways. Additionally, I want to mention parental involvement in the success of students’ learning, as that can be quite variable. There are higher effects when parents have aspirations and expectations of their children and when they take a more active approach in learning. However, there are negative effects when parents’ involvement involves a surveillance approach. (As an aside, much was made of this finding when SMS like PowerSchool introduced their Parent Portals, as those can teeter quite quickly into surveillance, which has a negative effect – even going so far as to affect students’ aspirations).

We will absolutely continue to survey students and teachers about technology use in the future.

Are exceptions to breaking the rules made for students with (cognitive) disabilities?

You can see in the Computer Science and Digital Fluency Standards that this instruction begins on the appropriate developmental level in grades 2-3. Students mostly receive this instruction during their Library time. Students still receive instruction on these standards in Grades 4-5, but classroom teachers are slowly integrating the Chromebooks into more work and providing reinforcement of digital citizenship. In the Middle School, the building administration went around to all classes to review the AUP and classroom teachers reinforce that continuously. The classroom teachers + the Library Media Specialist work on the grade level standards. MSE is specifically designed to support digital citizenship (among other things)– and we utilize Common Sense Media Education and Cyber Civics curriculum in that course specifically, but with other grades as well. We have a Code of Conduct based on restorative practice principles. Additionally, it is a progressive CoC, which means that depending on the severity of the offense, we progress through the levels of consequences. For lower level offenses, in a Level 1 response, we always include some type of mediation, counseling, restoration, etc. In responding to the second question here, the law requires us to make determinations of manifestations of disability in consequences to offenses. There is a section on this in the Code itself, as required by law and regulation.

No one asked about this so I thought I’d clarify as there is a rather large misconception that has been repeated in public comment about how a 1x1 program improves the equity in a school district. The purpose of a 1x1 program is NOT to produce equity. It is to level the playing field. We have a wide range of socio-economic levels in New Paltz, with a poverty rate over 25% coupled with million dollar homes. Some families have the newest MacBooks and smartphones for everyone. Some families share a single phone. Some families only have the school-issued devices. I don’t mean to be rude, but do you think if we made chromebooks optional that the families with the means to provide a higher end device with more capacity and capability would choose not to? Would they choose to replicate the cheaper chromebooks that some students would use provided by the school to ensure equitable working conditions and equitable access? You heard from the students reps at the beginning of the year how they wanted to access the wifi in their high school with their home devices. That’s because of the computing power necessary to produce media, found in MacBooks but not Chromebooks. If we put limits on school-issued devices, some students get a leg up and some students may actually be priced right out of some courses of study.

Beginning in Grades K-1, students are taught Digital Citizenship, which begins with “Students are able to identify the basic concept of being a good digital citizen, and know what actions are

and are not safe, responsible and ethical when using technologies. By the time students are in 6th grade, “The focus is on identifying and describing potentially unsafe behaviors, and action to take if they are witnessed or experienced, including cyberbullying.”