Intentional Tech Bainbridge
BISD's community survey identified reducing screen time as the top priority and excessive screen time as the top challenge to student learning. We agree. We are asking the board to direct the district to remove tablets and laptops from routine K-2 classroom instruction before the next school year, and to answer our twelve questions about how technology is currently used. From there, we are asking the district to measure current screen time, vet every classroom tool against evidence, and set research-informed limits across every grade band.
Governments and school districts around the world are reconsidering how technology is used in classrooms. Peer-reviewed research has raised questions about how children read, learn, and focus in device-heavy environments. Sweden has restored paper textbooks and has paused mandatory digitization in its early grades. Los Angeles Unified School District passed a comprehensive screen-limiting resolution. Major outlets are covering the shift.
In BISD, device use begins in Kindergarten and expands through the grades.
Tablets in Kindergarten → Chromebooks in first grade → Take-home devices in 5th grade. The district does not publish comprehensive data about what that looks like at each grade.
When the district surveyed 327 community members to inform its Strategic Plan, the answers pointed the same direction the research does: screen time needs to be reduced, and excessive screen time is the top challenge to student learning. This site asks whether classroom technology use is justified by the evidence and reflects what the community wants. We are pressing for that change through whatever path delivers it, including a dedicated Intentional Technology resolution.
We recognize that BISD is navigating serious financial pressure. A $6.6 million budget gap, driven largely by state underfunding and declining enrollment, has forced difficult staff reductions across every part of the district. The current administration inherited this challenge and has been transparent about what it requires. Our asks are shaped by that reality. We are not asking for new programs or purchases. We are asking the district to prioritize transparency, measurement, and structure with the resources it has.
Evidence-based purchasing could also be part of the solution. A 2026 Digital Promise study found that 65% of purchased EdTech licenses go unused entirely, and 95% are not used at the dosage needed to improve student outcomes. A district that spends its technology budget on tools with demonstrated outcomes, and does not spend on tools without them, is using taxpayer dollars more efficiently, not less so. The tech levy is substantial. A framework that ties spending to outcomes would respect it.
Every tool in our children's classrooms should earn its place through third-party evidence, assessed continuously and reported publicly. We are parents and community members who recognize that technology in schools is not inherently good or bad. Support for specific, evidence-backed tools is not the same as blanket acceptance of every product a district purchases. We are Bainbridge parents and community members asking the questions any family would ask about the technology shaping their children's education. Learn more about who we are.
Families should be able to see which tools their children use, what data those tools collect, and what outcomes the district is measuring against. Not on request. As a matter of course.
Every tool in a classroom should have a clear instructional purpose and evidence that it outperforms the non-digital alternative. Technology in our schools should be there because the evidence supports it, not because it is the default.
Evidence-backed tools for students with learning differences: assistive tools, adaptive platforms, accessibility features. These should be expanded, not restricted. Our concerns are about everyday device use across general classrooms, not the tools that help individual students learn.
The district's Strategic Plan commits to "intentional tech balance" and to media literacy skills that allow students to "ethically navigate and thrive in a digital world." Those are the right goals. The question is whether the district has the structural basis to deliver them. When the community was asked what skills graduates need most, the top answers were not technical. They were resilience, perseverance, critical thinking, and problem solving: foundational skills that endure regardless of what technology looks like.
Without that foundation, time in front of a device produces digital exposure, not digital literacy.
I often ask my daughter what she learned on the tablet she uses in her first-grade classroom. She can't tell me what the lesson was about, but she describes the graphics instead.
[My daughter] only now wants to 'read' Epic at home so she can get more stars. I worry that she is missing out on learning the joy of reading for its own sake.
I work in edtech for a digital curriculum provider. Our researchers try to find ways to challenge educators to use screens judiciously. I urge the district to provide other methods of relief besides screen time — if used inappropriately, it is harmful to executive function and social-emotional development.
Learning with tech inhibits deeper creativity, stunts curiosity and original thought, and changes brain development. We need to limit the impact of tech at home and in school for this and future generations.
BISD surveyed 327 community members. The answers pointed the same direction on three separate questions. This is the survey the district used in drafting its Strategic Plan.
The Strategic Plan is one opportunity to act on what they said. What follows it is another.
The peer-reviewed research and the community survey arrived at the same conclusions independently. Children read better on paper. Handwriting builds brain connections typing does not. Schools around the world are reassessing course.
Read the evidence and recent coverage →
BISD joined a $4 billion Microsoft AI integration program in February 2026. Families have no way to know which EdTech products their children use embed generative AI features. There is no public inventory of AI tools in use and no formal process for family input.
These questions cover who is responsible for digital citizenship instruction, how screen time is being measured and reduced, how EdTech tools are vetted, how AI is being governed, and whether district practice reflects what the district's own community survey said.
Superintendent Thompson has sent BISD's initial responses to these 12 questions. Read the full response on our correspondence page →
The reasons to act on classroom technology do not depend on any single vote. They are stronger every month.
The research on reading, attention, sleep, myopia, and AI and cognition now points the same direction across independent fields. This is no longer an emerging concern. It is a settled enough picture to act on, and it strengthens every month.
The national conversation about EdTech, screen time, and AI has reached an inflection point. Schools are reversing course, from Sweden to Los Angeles Unified. Governance frameworks are struggling to keep pace. The question is whether Bainbridge leads that conversation or lags it.
The February 2024 technology levy commits four million dollars per year for four years. The ballot language was "enhance student learning." The community has now identified excessive screen time as the top challenge to student learning. How that money is spent should be tied to evidence of what improves outcomes.
We are asking the board to act on classroom technology, including a dedicated Intentional Technology resolution. Read what we are asking the board →
Research from around the world is pointing in the same direction. Join the community asking BISD to follow it.
We send updates only when there is something meaningful to share. We will never share your information with the school district or publish your name without your explicit consent. Privacy statement →