SFUSD unveils multi‑year Digital District plan and family technology survey showing most households have Internet access

Superintendent Richard Carranza introduced a three‑year Digital District plan to the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education, asking the board to endorse a phased strategy to put devices, curriculum and infrastructure in classrooms and to seek a mix of general‑fund, state and private funds to support implementation.

The plan, presented by Chief Technology Officer Matt Kinsey and curriculum staff (Jim Ryan), lays out a phased approach: ‘‘lay the foundation’’ with short‑term device and curricular integration steps, ‘‘deepen and expand’’ district‑wide tools (learning management, professional development systems) and build resilient network infrastructure. Kinsey said many classroom systems are aged: about 60% of devices are more than four years old and only roughly 7% of students currently use technology daily in instruction. He described the goal of moving from a roughly 1:4.9 student‑to‑device ratio toward a 1:1 model over time and a district device strategy that shifts by grade band (tablets for early grades; laptops and BYOD with district supplements for middle and high schools).

The staff estimate for broad implementation at scale ranges from roughly $130 million to $160 million over several years, with resilience upgrades alone potentially in the tens of millions. Kinsey said the district is pursuing layered funding: QTEA (quality‑related funds) and state common‑core allocations for short‑term purchases, private philanthropy (Salesforce, Zynga), a recent Microsoft settlement voucher of about $1.8 million and an anticipated bond in a later phase. He described a plan to centralize some purchasing, implement asset management and move refresh cycles to a predictable multi‑year schedule.

The presentation emphasized curriculum and professional development alongside hardware. Ryan said technology is an ‘‘enabler, not the driver’’ and must align with signature pedagogical practices. Staff proposed site‑based technology coaching, differentiated professional development and a district learning management system that would host living curriculum materials rather than static textbooks.

Gentle Blythe and Joyce Tsai presented results of a first‑of‑its‑kind family technology survey (16,682 respondents, with responses from 94% of schools). The main findings: an estimated district average of about 94% household Internet access with subgroup variation (lower averages for American Indian/Alaska Native, Pacific Islander/Samoan, African American and Latino families); about 20–23% of parents report tablets as their primary device; roughly 60% of children report access to a mobile device with Internet. Tsai said some groups are more likely to use mobile phones as the primary Internet access point, a finding staff said must shape communication strategies and equity planning.

Board members pressed staff on representativeness and equity. Commissioner Norton asked how confident staff are that survey respondents represent the full district; staff said the survey was administered in three languages, follow‑up work was done at low‑response schools and comparisons to other research showed similar patterns. Commissioners emphasized priorities for implementation — pilot zones or high‑need schools first, integrating coding and inclusive design (e.g., supports for students who are deaf or have limited English) — and asked for regular progress updates on device counts, connectivity and access measures.

Next steps: staff said they will finalize the Digital District plan, return to the board for endorsement of instructional objectives and identify short‑ and long‑term budget priorities, including continued private fundraising and a possible facilities bond in a later phase. District leaders said they will move a phased educator‑device rollout next year (funded partially by QTEA and short‑term grants) while continuing work on larger infrastructure, curriculum and enterprise systems.