Durham school officials propose $4.6M‑a‑year device refresh; board tables action for more study
Loading...
Summary
IT staff proposed a differentiated student‑device model and a five‑year refresh commitment of about $4.6 million per year to stabilize repairs, warranties and instructional displays; the board voted to table the item and refer it to a future work session for more detailed scenarios and budget tradeoffs.
Paul Majimbi, Durham Public Schools executive director of information technology, told the board the district must move from reactive device purchases to a predictable refresh model to protect instructional time and equity. Administration recommended a differentiated approach: limited in‑school 1:1 use for pre‑K–2, 1:1 school‑day models for grades 3–8 with limited take‑home exceptions, and full take‑home 1:1 for grades 9–12 paired with insurance, repair options and digital‑citizenship expectations.
Majimbi said families paid 12,274 tech fees this year, 697 families requested waivers and about 250 students opted out; the district collected roughly $293,000 in fees while repair costs since July 2025 have grown to about $352,000, underscoring the gap between fee revenue and operating need. He told the board the district has spent roughly $15.1 million on student devices over the past six years and administration recommended stabilizing ownership costs through warranties and an approximately $4.6 million annual commitment (about $23 million over five years) to cover student devices, instructional displays and teacher devices.
Assistant Superintendent Chanel Sidbury emphasized that device decisions must be driven by instructional goals, not the other way around. Sidbury told the board that the presentation reflected stakeholder feedback from roughly 260 families, 1,200 students and more than 1,800 staff and highlighted concerns about screen time, device condition, and operational burden on school leaders.
Board members welcomed the long‑range plan but raised fiscal and pedagogical concerns. Several members pressed for clearer policy guardrails on screen time and classroom use, more detail on the proposed funding source(s) and whether the plan should be phased (for example, 6–12 first) to reduce initial cost. Finance staff said the $4.6 million figure had been shared as an estimated ceiling and that the item would come through the district's budget prioritization process and the county funding request if the board chooses to pursue it.
Vice Chair Rogers moved—seconded by Miss Chavez—to table the technology update and refer it to a future work session with an action item to follow at a subsequent board meeting so administration can present alternative, lower‑cost scenarios and more implementation detail. The motion passed unanimously. Administration said it will return with tiered options, clarifications on what the $4.6 million covers, and suggested timing tied to the budget calendar.
What happens next: the board referred the technology update to a future work session to give administration time to present budget tiers, implementation runways, and clearer policy guidance on instructional use and equity before any formal budget or procurement action.
