District 41 reviews survey results, considers keeping K–2 Chromebooks at school

Glen Ellyn SD 41 staff presented survey results and community table feedback at a Committee of the Whole meeting on Nov. 3, 2025, and proposed narrowing the district’s Chromebook take-home practice so that kindergarten through second-grade devices remain at school while sixth through eighth graders continue to take devices home.

Superintendent Jeff McHugh framed the discussion as part of a yearlong engagement that began with a board request and a series of focus groups. He said staff used those groups to draft surveys for students, parents and educators and that the district would use the results to inform recommendations. “This will be the work of the staff,” McHugh said, adding that parents and students would remain involved in the process.

Staff reported participation of roughly 1,600 students in grades 4–8, 226 parents and 77 staff members. Those responses produced three recurring themes: whether Chromebooks should be sent home, how technology is used for teaching and learning, and how consistently technology is applied across grade levels and schools. McHugh highlighted a gap in parent familiarity with classroom technology and said parent education is an “opportunity area.”

The draft approach presented to tables would keep Chromebooks at school for K–2, permit 6–8 to take devices home, and place grades 3–5 under teacher discretion with expectations of improved consistency. McHugh asked participants to identify practical concerns such as charging logistics and e-learning implications. “We want it to be used meaningfully,” he said, urging groups to consider the educational purpose and the return on investment for any proposed use of devices.

Table reports generally supported limiting take-home devices for the youngest students. One table spokesperson summarized the group’s view: they liked the idea of keeping devices at school but raised the charging question and cautioned that inconsistent routines for grades 3–5 could lead students to forget devices when they are not part of a daily routine. Several tables also raised privacy and security questions about digital footprints and use of free AI tools, asking whether services are locked down and whether student data are protected.

Students’ open comments emphasized access and creative uses; staff said students frequently mentioned platforms such as Gimkit and expressed interest in collaboration and creation. Staff and parents both called for balance: educators do not want instructional technology used all day every day, and parents expressed concerns about screen time, particularly in early grades.

District staff and some attendees noted a governance gap: the district lacks a clear technology framework that sets priorities, decision criteria and feedback loops across tools and instructional goals. A staff speaker urged creating criteria that prioritize student experience, teacher efficiency and community needs.

McHugh described the effort as multi-year but said addressing Chromebook take-home practices would be among the first, more manageable items. He asked staff to collect and analyze the table charts and said the administration would return recommendations to the board. The meeting closed with an announced motion to move to closed session to discuss litigation; no policy actions were taken during open session.