Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge Elmhurst SD 205 to curb 1:1 devices, cite petition and research
Summary
Several parents urged the Elmhurst Community Unit School District 205 board to limit or end 1:1 student device use for the youngest learners, presented a petition of nearly 1,000 signatures, and requested vendor lists and opt‑out options for families.
At the June 23 meeting of the Elmhurst Community Unit School District 205 board, four parents urged the district to scale back 1:1 student device programs and to give families the option to opt out.
Dana Magnus, representing a newly formed local chapter of Schools Beyond Screens, said the group’s petition had collected “almost 1,000 signatures in a few weeks” and asked the board to “stop one‑to‑one device usage outside of mandatory testing for our youngest students, set enforceable screen time limits for other grade levels, and finally allow parents the right to opt out of one‑to‑one device use altogether.”
Other public commenters described how they said technology use had affected learning and behavior. James Graham displayed comparative images he said showed a downward trend in test results linked to daily screen use. Jill Nicole described instances she said demonstrated device harms in District 205 classrooms, including an elementary student finding age‑inappropriate content on a district device and concerns about addictive gamified apps. “We have a problem in our district,” she said, urging the board to provide analog alternatives when families request them.
Laurel Shanti, who said she has worked in educational technology, asked the district to publish the list of educational technology vendors it contracts with and to answer specific questions about each platform: the instructional purpose, evidence of efficacy, data privacy and security policies, whether student data are used to train AI models, and the ESSA evidence tier for the product.
Board members did not reply during the public comment period, which the board’s rules require; the board secretary said the district’s common practice is to follow up with public commenters after the meeting. The comments were made during the 30‑minute public comment portion of the agenda.
The district did not make any immediate policy changes at the meeting. Several parents said they plan to follow up with the board and the schools; Laurel Shanti said she had provided her email at sign‑in and expected to return to future meetings.
