Haverford Township SD unveils three-year instructional technology plan focused on tools, screen time and digital citizenship

Haverford Township School District presented a three-year Instructional Technology Plan at the board meeting, driven by findings from a recent CCIU audit and intended to align technology use with district learning goals.

The plan centers on three priorities: evaluating and structuring the adoption of instructional tools and software; creating purposeful screen-time guidance for teachers and families; and implementing a K–12 digital citizenship and digital literacy curriculum, with sustained professional development and equity of access highlighted throughout.

The CCIU audit informed the plan’s focus areas. Presenters reported that 87% of faculty said they use technology consistently for instruction and collaboration but also flagged gaps in targeted training and the need for a structured evaluation process for new tools. Presenters said 95% of parents support digital citizenship education, while about 46% of families expressed concerns about Chromebook screen time, especially at the elementary level. "This plan is meant to serve as a strategic framework for integrating technology in a way that enhances teaching and learning, supports equitable access, and prepares students for success in a technology driven world," said the committee co‑chair.

Implementation steps include establishing a district Technology Advisory Council that would meet every other month, a routine cycle of feedback (pre‑ and post‑assessments for students, periodic teacher needs surveys, and a winter family benchmark survey), and a phased roll‑out across three years: set up and communication in year one, implementation and feedback loops in year two, and reevaluation and adjustment in year three. District staff said the council would include teachers, administrators, counselors and other staff to recommend professional development, app usage guidelines and vendor evaluations.

On tools and professional development, presenters described a multi‑step vendor evaluation process intended to identify redundant apps, narrow choices to a small number of recommended vendors, and assess apps for reporting capability so teachers can monitor student engagement. Matt Wells, a high school math teacher on the committee, said the committee wants to narrow options to make adoption more approachable and to replicate the district’s prior approach to technology procurement: "Compile everything that we have, based off of that need, what exists, what are the vendors, how we gonna assess our choices." The committee also described the district’s interest in expanding training on emerging tools such as assistive technology and AI.

On purposeful screen time, primary school teacher Jen Corcoran said the plan will recommend app‑usage charts by grade and offer a teacher checklist so educators can decide whether a digital activity elevates higher‑order thinking, differentiates instruction, encourages collaboration, or enhances digital‑literacy skills. Corcoran said the checklist will reference models such as SAMR to help teachers determine whether technology is substituting, augmenting, modifying or redefining instruction.

The district’s AI working group reported on a February in‑service led by AJ Giuliani. Presenters said teacher responses were mixed: roughly half reported rarely or never using AI while the remainder used it monthly or more. Administrators who attended described the session as valuable, and the working group plans targeted follow‑up PD on specific classroom tools and short lessons for students about ethical and practical AI use.

Board members and the public asked about how recommended app‑usage times are determined, teacher access to engagement reports, and whether recommended app charts can be shared with parents. District staff said vendors and curriculum providers often give guidance on frequency and duration tied to efficacy, and that many curriculum platforms provide teacher‑level usage reports. Staff indicated the district intends to share parent‑facing summaries (for example, at back‑to‑school nights and on the district website) so families know what to expect from classroom apps.

No formal votes were taken on the plan at the meeting. Presenters asked for continued feedback and said they expect to return with more detailed rubrics and council membership recommendations as the plan is implemented.

Looking ahead, the district plans to: establish the Technology Advisory Council this school year; launch initial communications and begin targeted PD over the summer; start classroom implementation and the feedback cycles next year; and perform a thorough reevaluation in year three and adjust tools, training and procurement as needed.