Rebalancing Technology in the Classroom

I am pro-technology. I use computers every day, and I expect our children to grow into a world where digital tools matter. But that is exactly why I think schools need to be disciplined about when technology helps learning and when it gets in the way. The question is not whether computers belong in schools. The question is whether screens are being used in ways that improve learning, support teachers, and fit the developmental needs of students.

ACPS has taken an important step by adopting an “Off, Away, All Day” policy for personal devices. Students are expected to keep phones, smart watches, earbuds, and other connected personal devices off or silenced, not visible, and stored away from the first instructional bell through dismissal. I support that clear, division-wide expectation. With a stronger personal-device policy now in place, our next major technology challenge is how school-issued devices are used in the classroom.

Instructional Technology

Instructional technology has shifted from a useful tool to a default learning environment. Laptops, tablets, digital assignments, online assessments, and learning platforms can all support instruction. But when they replace books, handwriting, teacher-led instruction, discussion, hands-on work, and visible problem-solving, the balance is off.

Our third-graders do not need Chromebooks to be the center of the school day. Our middle-schoolers do not need email to become a routine part of learning. Our teachers do not need the added burden of teaching content while also supervising a room full of internet-connected devices.

Attention and Self-Regulation

School-issued devices are not neutral notebooks. They are connected environments full of distractions: games, videos, searches, messaging, and unrelated browsing. Even with filters, teachers still lose time redirecting students, monitoring screens, and troubleshooting devices. That changes the classroom dynamic. The teacher is no longer only teaching; the teacher is also policing technology.

This matters even more for younger students. We should not expect elementary school children to regulate digital temptation the way adults might. A cautious approach to screen exposure is more aligned with how children actually develop.

Comprehension, Writing, and Classroom Culture

Screens can make it easy to complete tasks without building durable understanding. Students can click through assignments, skim passages, or search for quick answers without doing the deeper work of retention, synthesis, and explanation. Completion is not the same as learning.

I am also concerned about handwriting. Writing by hand is not just an outdated habit. It is tied to memory, fine motor development, language, and the process of organizing thought. In note-taking especially, handwriting forces students to select, prioritize, and connect ideas instead of simply transcribing them.

There is also a cultural cost when classrooms revolve around screens. Students look down rather than at the teacher or one another. Teachers have fewer opportunities to see student thinking unfold in real time. Parents have less visibility into what their children actually did, where they struggled, and how they can improve.

Personal Devices: A Stronger Baseline

The new ACPS policy establishes the right goal: personal devices should not be visible or used anywhere during the school day unless a student has an approved exception. It covers more than phones, including smart watches, personal tablets and laptops, wireless earbuds, gaming devices, connected glasses, and other emerging technology. That clarity should make expectations more consistent across classrooms and reduce the burden on individual teachers.

Implementation will matter. Where “stored away” means keeping a device in a backpack, students still have immediate access and teachers may still carry much of the enforcement burden. I support monitoring compliance, listening to teachers, and considering lockable pouches where backpack storage does not reliably keep devices out of students’ hands. A pouch system would not change the policy’s goal; it would provide a more consistent way to achieve it.

This is real progress. The focus should now expand from keeping personal devices out of the school day to ensuring that school-issued technology earns its place in every lesson.

A Better Model for Alexandria

Alexandria should take a practical rather than ideological approach. We should not abandon technology. Students need to learn typing, research, productivity tools, digital systems, and responsible technology use. Some students need assistive technologies. Older students may need more digital access than younger students.

But these uses should be intentional, age-appropriate, and instructionally justified. The division should audit how much time students spend on school-issued screens, how that varies by grade, where digital work is being assigned by default, and where paper-based or hands-on alternatives would be stronger. Teachers and parents should be asked where technology helps and where it distracts.

The goal should be a balanced classroom model. In early grades, that means prioritizing books, handwriting, manipulatives, art, discussion, play, and movement, while reserving devices for specific supervised tasks. In upper elementary and middle school, it means structured computer time, explicit digital literacy instruction, and clear limits on passive or unnecessary screen use. In high school, it means preserving technology for research, writing, coding, advanced coursework, and accessibility, while still protecting deep reading, handwritten notes, discussion, and paper-based problem-solving where appropriate.

My position is not anti-technology. It is pro-learning, pro-teacher, and pro-child development. Technology should earn its place in the classroom by improving instruction. When it does not, our schools should be willing to return time to books, paper, handwriting, direct teaching, movement, and hands-on learning. The right question is simple: for this age, this subject, and this lesson, is the screen helping students learn better than the alternative? If the answer is no, the school system should choose the better tool.