Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Virginia Beach school board limits Chromebooks for youngest learners after heated debate
Summary
After hours of public comment and board debate, members approved a substitute motion to restrict Chromebook use in pre-K–K and set a classroom cap for first grade, while preserving exceptions for students with IEPs/504 plans and English-language learners. The substitute passed 7–4; the transcript does not record a final roll-call adoption of the full policy text.
The Virginia Beach School Board moved on June 8 to restrict routine Chromebook use for its youngest students, passing a substitute motion that prohibits Chromebooks in prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms, limits device availability in first grade to a classroom set and preserves one-to-one devices for second graders (with limited take-home exceptions for emergencies and assessment). The substitute motion passed 7–4.
The substitute, introduced by board member Matt Cummings, replaced prior language from the Policy Review Committee and added a sentence limiting first-grade device utilization to "a maximum of 10 issued devices per classroom," intended as a classroom set rather than full 1:1 access. "I presented this substitute because my viewpoint has changed and I wanted a compromise," Cummings said during debate, arguing the change balanced parental concerns and instructional uses such as Lexia and Imagine Math.
Supporters of the substitute stressed moderation: board member Callan said it represented a reasonable middle ground to limit screen exposure while preserving targeted software that staff say supports differentiation. "This is a good compromise between a lot of the different thoughts on the board," Cummings said as he urged colleagues to back the measure.
Opponents — including several educators on the dais — warned the change risked removing classroom tools teachers rely on for assessment, differentiation and family engagement. "These programs are magic for a teacher and they allow a teacher to differentiate," said a board member who had pleaded for more clarity on how tools such as Lexia would be preserved for diagnostic and instructional uses. Educators and parents who spoke during public comment earlier in the meeting framed the issue as a trade-off between developmental concerns about screen time and equity/access to instructional technology.
Superintendent Dr. Robertson and instructional leaders repeatedly cautioned the board that some software and testing systems depend on device access. District staff and several board members discussed technical and practical measures to maintain required state standards — including computer science standards — even as the policy limits classroom device use for early grades. The transcript records multiple exchanges about how English-language learners, students with 504 plans or individualized education plans (IEPs), and limited educational assessments would be covered; the substitute motion explicitly preserves exceptions for those categories.
Board discussion also flagged implementation questions the transcript does not fully resolve: how the division will replace or adapt programs that rely on classroom devices, the timeline and costs for any replacement materials or training, and whether the board will direct further studies or pilot programs. Several members urged collection of division-specific data on outcomes before broader rollouts or additional limits.
The substitute motion passed by voice vote with a 7–4 tally recorded by the clerk. The transcript shows that, after the substitute passed, the board moved on to the next agenda item; an explicit final roll-call vote adopting the full revised Policy 6-18 as amended is not recorded in the available transcript.
What happens next: Board members said implementation details, cost estimates and communications to families and staff will follow. The board also indicated the policy will be part of ongoing discussion at coming retreats and in committee work. The record shows stakeholders remain sharply divided over the balance between reducing screen time and preserving certain digital instructional tools.
