Avon Grove presents three-year technology plan; board debates electronic-device policy changes and off-campus language

Avon Grove School District administrators presented a draft three-year technology plan Tuesday and opened discussion on revisions to Policy 237, governing personal and district electronic devices.

Doctor Koch, who led the Impact of Technology team, described three goal areas in the draft plan: (1) electronic devices (district and personal), (2) partnerships and awareness, and (3) digital and online safety. The plan recommends embedding a K–12 digital-skills scope-and-sequence in the district’s curriculum review process and offering professional learning to move classroom use of technology beyond substitution toward modification and redefinition.

The district reported classroom-visit data from 52 learning walks that used the SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition) framework. Administrators said technology was used to “explore content outside of the classroom” in roughly 38% of observed lessons and offered student choice about 19% of the time. Discipline data presented showed that cell phones were referenced in about 11% of middle-school discipline referrals (about 83 referrals) and about 5% of high-school referrals (about 95 incidents).

Doctor Koch and staff recommended several actions: train curriculum writers on the K–12 digital scope and sequence; promote higher-level technology integration through flex professional learning; develop administrative rules that align with Policy 237 and the district’s multi-tiered systems of support; overhaul the district website to create a mobile-friendly hub for family resources; host community engagement events (for example, screenings of the Screenagers series and parent speaker events); and expand digital- and media-literacy lessons, including artificial-intelligence literacies, across ELA and social-studies curricula.

The technology plan was paired with a revision to Policy 237 (electronic devices). Doctor Dushong and other administrators said the policy was last revised in 2015 and needs updates to reflect changes in personal-device use, student privacy and district processes. Administrators said the draft has been reviewed by the district solicitor and that the administration would prepare an administrative rule (AR) to specify building-level procedures for device use and enforcement.

Board members debated language that would allow the district to investigate off‑campus electronic conduct that materially affects school safety or learning. Some trustees urged narrower language or added procedural protections: board member Rick Dumont suggested the district notify the board when an off‑campus investigation is opened, and another board member recommended changing the draft’s imperative wording (“shall”) to the permissive “may” so enforcement would follow a review process rather than be automatic.

Several trustees pushed for greater student voice in plan implementation. Board member Ward asked explicitly, “Where are the student voices?” and suggested formal student roles in ongoing focus groups and survey development. Staff said student chief-science officers and student leaders participated in focus groups and would help design baseline student surveys.

Administrators said the solicitor will review the policy language and interdependencies with other policies (student discipline, bullying, acceptable use). The board asked staff to reconcile definitions and enforcement provisions across those documents before a second reading. The administration asked the board to move Policy 237 to a second legislative reading; trustees agreed to advance the policy for further review while solicitor and staff adjustments are made.

Direct quotes in this article come from participants’ published remarks at the Committee of the Whole meeting.