Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Device Breakage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews device breakage data and promissory notes; members question equity and costs
Summary
District technology staff reported roughly 9,030 device damage incidents and a working dataset showing 207 promissory notes; committee members flagged a preliminary breakage ratio near 42% (damage incidents vs. enrollment) and raised equity concerns about repair costs for families.
The operations committee reviewed a district technology report that cataloged device damage incidents, promissory notes and help-desk workload for the 2023–24 school year.
Technology director Mister Shohan presented promissory-note counts by school (207 notes districtwide as of an enrollment snapshot), a damage breakdown by component and a ticket volume metric. "The first column is the notes that parents have signed at each school," Shohan explained, and he said the district uses promissory notes where families owe for repeat damage, whereas one-time cash repairs are not captured in that tally.
Shohan told the committee the damage report shows 3,265 LCD/screen incidents and about 9,030 total damage incidents across categories (keyboard, sound, motherboard, other). Committee members compared that to a district enrollment figure cited in the presentation (20,309) and calculated a preliminary ratio near 40–43 percent when dividing incidents by enrollment. The chair noted a GovTech/Microsoft interview that cited a 10–15 percent annual breakage rate in some 1:1 programs and said the district's higher figure raises concerns about return on the district's investment in higher-cost, two-in-one devices.
Costs and process: Shohan said a screen replacement part costs about $389 and that a new device runs roughly $500 plus tracking software (~$80) and first-damage coverage (~$100 yearly). He said technicians photograph and document damage alongside tickets and that school administrators (principals or APs) handle parental outreach when a student has repeated damages. The committee asked the technology department to further refine the data (for example, count unique students with damages rather than incidents, breakouts by school level and trend comparisons to prior years) and to return with more detailed process information on ticket routing and departmental responsibilities.
Next steps: Board members asked for follow-up reporting with percentages by school type (elementary, middle, high), trend comparisons to previous years and an analysis of repair costs and policies for repeated offenses; they also discussed whether the district should reassess device selection given hinge/screen vulnerabilities on two-in-one devices. No policy change or vote occurred at the meeting.
