Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board begins overhaul of student technology policy; district to survey teachers and parents
Summary
Trustees conducted a lengthy first reading of the student‑technology acceptable use policy, questioned language about providing the 'latest digital tools,' and asked staff to collect teacher and parent data on actual device use; technology staff said Apple device limitations make direct device analytics difficult and proposed a teacher survey and possible participation in a national EdTech efficacy cohort.
The Fullerton School District Board held an extensive discussion of its student technology acceptable‑use policy (CSBA‑recommended language) and the broader question of screen‑time and technology efficacy in classrooms.
Trustees objected to the phrase in the draft policy that students "must have access to the latest digital tools," calling it vague and potentially fiscally prescriptive. Trustee members suggested edits including "age‑appropriate" and "district‑approved" language to focus procurement and student safety. One trustee proposed replacing "latest" with a phrase tied to instructional efficacy.
Technology staff (Jeremy) told the board the district already collects staff self‑report data and plans a teacher survey; he said the district had about 270 teacher responses in a prior survey and expects broader participation. Jeremy explained practical limits with Apple devices: filter/network logs and background apps do not yield clean 'active screen time' analytics in the same way some Chromebook fleets can, and filter data can overcount background network calls. He said the district is negotiating with its filter vendor (Lightspeed) and has been invited to join a national cohort (Project Tomorrow / Project Speak Up) to study EdTech efficacy.
Trustees directed staff to gather clearer teacher and parent data, with staff proposing a parent survey and a future board presentation. The board agreed to a fuller follow‑up in September if parent data are included; staff said they can present teacher self‑report findings in August and add parent results in September.
