Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Instructional Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses post‑pandemic device strategy; staff to return in December with plan
Summary
Board members and staff discussed a vision for instructional device use, priorities (developmental match, multimodal access, feedback loops and adult capacity), and asked staff to bring a long‑term device strategy in December with options affecting 2026–27.
Wake County Schools staff presented a district instructional-technology vision and held breakout discussions with board members on Oct. 21 as part of a post‑pandemic review of student devices and long‑term provisioning.
Staff framed the conversation around instructional priorities: matching device form and capability to student developmental levels; using devices to enable complex, multimodal learning and authentic feedback loops; ensuring accessibility and predictable digital learning environments; and reducing the proliferation of platforms so teachers can implement coherent instruction. Staff said the strategic aim is to ensure devices support high‑quality core instruction while enabling collaboration and digital literacy aligned to the district strategic plan.
Staff reported that the district currently uses a large number of digital resources — they cited roughly 3,600 distinct online tools in daily use — and said inconsistent tool sets and rapidly evolving adoption during the pandemic have produced variability in classroom practice. Staff recommended a predictable suite of district‑supported platforms and a coherent rollout so teachers and students see consistent tools across grade spans.
Timing and scope: staff said that choices affecting the 2026–27 school year would need to be made by the end of calendar 2025 and that a phased approach is reasonable rather than an abrupt change. They asked for board feedback on provisioning (which students receive take‑home devices and what type of device), device form factor for different grade bands, and the tradeoffs between standardization and teacher choice.
Breakouts and feedback: board members split into small groups to discuss priorities and questions. Topics raised included screen‑time concerns, special‑education accessibility tools, transportation and take‑home device policy, the cost of peripheral classroom technologies, equitable home access, and adult professional learning to build teacher capacity. Staff said they will synthesize the board’s feedback and return in December with a draft device strategy and options for implementation and budgeting.
Next steps: staff will prepare a December briefing that incorporates board guidance, cost estimates and an implementation timeline for device procurement and a recommended device‑provisioning model for 2026–27.
