Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Preston County board weighs one‑to‑one device policy amid testing, cost and screen‑time concerns
Summary
Board members, teachers, parents and students debated whether to continue broad 1:1 device deployment. Options include keeping devices for grades 5–12, limiting devices at younger grades, using classroom/lab sets or mobile labs, and surveying teachers, parents and students before buying decisions.
Preston County school leaders and board members spent a large portion of their Jan. 28 meeting debating the district’s one‑to‑one device initiative and how it should evolve as budgets and instructional priorities change.
Superintendent Mr. Martin and technology staff said the district intends to survey teachers, parents and students to collect preferences quickly because procurement decisions are time‑sensitive. “We want to try to move pretty quickly on this because … Mr. SC wants to get things ordered in a timely manner,” Mr. Martin said.
Board members, teachers and parents raised several recurring concerns. Teachers noted testing logistics: some state‑required diagnostics and dyslexia screeners are administered on devices, and having fewer than one device per student complicates scheduling and lengthens test windows. One teacher warned that removing 1:1 devices for younger grades could double testing time for required screeners and diagnostics.
Parents and students pushed back on routine device use in younger grades. A parent told the board, “the fight is real with devices with my children,” saying a cellphone or home device frequently distracts from outdoor play and family time. A high‑school student, Bailey, said older students use devices for homework and research but would not want younger grades to rely heavily on screens.
Options discussed included continuing 1:1 for grades 5–12, limiting devices to classroom sets for rotations, maintaining a small‑group set per classroom, re‑establishing computer labs or creating a mobile lab/trailer, and choosing iPads (lower cost/wear) versus laptops (better for typing and high‑school work). Board members also floated allowing teachers to select multiple options for their classrooms and recommended adding school name and grade to survey responses to permit follow‑up while preserving teacher anonymity if desired.
District technology staff said iPads may be more cost‑efficient for lower grades but would require protective cases and keyboards for testing; laptops remain preferable at the high‑school level for essays and career readiness. The board asked staff to adjust the survey to let teachers pick multiple preferred configurations and to distribute parallel surveys to parents and students.
No purchase decision was made. The board said it wants quick teacher, parent and student feedback to inform any purchasing plan and emphasized the need to balance testing requirements, instructional practice and concerns about excessive screen time.
