Last school year, Maria’s six-year-old came home with a new favorite song, “State Farm, buh-bah-buh-bah, boop-bop-bah!”
Maria wondered where her kindergartener had picked it up ‒ screen time is very limited at home. But Maria’s child could tell her. It was from a commercial she watched on a YouTube video in aftercare.
“It could be worse, I know,” Maria told me. “But it seems insidious. Why is my kindergartener singing the praises of big insurance?”
Before the pandemic, a computer for every student represented progress. Parents and digital-equity advocates pressed schools to close a divide that left some children doing assignments on a parent’s phone while classmates used laptops. The pandemic made devices necessary for remote classes, and laptops stayed central when buildings reopened. DC Public Schools works to maintain a one-to-one student-to-device ratio in grades 3-12 and one device for every three children from pre-K through second grade.
Six years after schools closed, the pendulum has swung the other way. Parents who once demanded laptops now ask how often children should open them. Teachers and officials question whether personalization software improves learning. Pediatricians and researchers warn that screen lessons can displace conversation, handwriting, creative play and work with teachers and classmates. And the most affluent schools are turning to paper over software.
“I think we need to be more thoughtful about how we integrate technology so that it remains a tool to enhance, not supplant core instruction,” said DC Councilmember Christina Henderson (I-At Large) during a recent debate over the DCPS contract for the i-Ready learning platform.
From Digital Divide to Digital Dependence
DCPS began its Empowered Learners Initiative before the pandemic, promising devices, digital resources and teacher training to close the digital divide. It started with a one-to-one ratio in selected grades, expanded to all students in grades 3-12 and is now soliciting another device contract.
But just because a laptop is in the classroom does not mean it’s being used. Some teachers rely on online assignments, videos and adaptive-learning programs, while others emphasize books, paper, discussion and hands-on work.
The lack of consistent limits helped produce the backlash. In letters to councilmembers, parents reported computers being used for lessons, testing, independent work, indoor recess and aftercare. They also complained about students watching YouTube, sometimes including age-inappropriate advertising, without clear instructional purpose.
Those concerns led Henderson to introduce a resolution that could have blocked a one-year DCPS contract with Curriculum Associates, which provides i-Ready. DCPS has used i-Ready for math diagnostics since 2014 and expanded it in 2021 to reading, math diagnostics and personalized instruction. The platform assesses students and assigns lessons.
DCPS recommends 30 to 45 minutes of i-Ready instruction per subject each week. Henderson said school-system data showed 17 schools exceeded that guidance, with some assigning more than an hour per week in both reading and math. She said DCPS had no clear intervention for overuse and could not show that extra time improved outcomes.
DCPS defended the platform, reporting an average of 32 minutes per student, per subject, each week. Former chancellor Lewis Ferebee told councilmembers an internal analysis found students who met recommended i-Ready usage were more likely to reach proficiency on DC CAPE, even after accounting for prior achievement and demographics. He said the association was especially strong for economically disadvantaged students and multilingual learners.
That finding does not settle the question. Critics note that it is an association, not independent proof that i-Ready caused gains. They also question company-backed research and cite pending litigation involving student data collection and privacy.
Henderson withdrew the resolution after councilmembers said rejecting the contract shortly before school began would leave DCPS without enough time to choose an alternative and train teachers. The withdrawal allowed i-Ready to remain for 2026-27 and compelled DCPS to make concessions to parental and council concern.
Ferebee committed DCPS to grade-specific instructional and non-instructional technology guidance, including i-Ready limits and before- and aftercare guidance.
A July 10 letter from DCPS chief of teaching and learning Corinne Colgan and chief of data and technology Cyrus Verrani to Schools Beyond Screens DC promised thresholds and follow-up when i-Ready or other platform use exceeded recommendations, limits for movies, videos and YouTube, aligned and ad-free online content and a route for families to escalate concerns.
“Greater clarity and consistency are needed in how technology is implemented in practice,” Colgan and Verrani wrote. They said DCPS would retain a blended-learning model in which technology supports teacher-led instruction rather than replacing classroom discussion, peer interaction and hands-on work.
If grade-by-grade limits, monitoring thresholds, approved alternatives, aftercare rules and enforcement mechanisms existed prior to this discussion, they were unpublished when the letters were sent.
Parents Organize
Schools Beyond Screens DC formed this spring as a local chapter of a national parent-led organization. More than 1,000 District parents signed its petition for intentional classroom technology, according to volunteer working-group member Maya Mechenbier.
The group is not demanding that DCPS eliminate computers or technology. What they want, Mechenbier said, is to understand what technology is in the classroom and why. They also want to be sure that the device or application has educational outcomes grounded in evidence and aligned with learning goals.
“We are not anti-technology at all,” Mechenbier said. “We really are asking, where there is a screen in the classroom, that it is for a good reason.”
In this, they are closely aligned with professionals. The American Academy of Pediatrics says educational-technology guidance remains limited, and evidence gaps persist around which products improve learning. A study also found that many teachers feel little influence over district-level technology decisions.
International evidence is mixed. An analysis by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that students using digital devices for learning between one and five hours per day scored higher in mathematics than those reporting no use. Yet nearly one-third of 15-year-olds said devices distracted students during most or every math class. The organization recommends judging technology by outcomes.
Mechenbier credited Henderson’s proposed resolution with forcing a more substantial discussion among the DC Council, DCPS, parents and teachers. The July 10 response left the group encouraged, she said, because the commitments could resolve many concerns if implemented. “I think we feel really positive about that and are looking forward to seeing how that goes in the coming weeks,” Mechenbier said.
One City, Different Approaches
Unlike DCPS, the District’s charter sector does not operate under one instructional technology policy. Each charter organization is its own education agency, so practices differ significantly.
At Washington Latin Public Charter School, every student must use a school-issued Chromebook to access class materials. Students assigned take-home computers must bring them charged each day. The school describes technology as a supplement that widens experiences and perspectives; its policy focuses on responsible use and care.
At Northeast Stars Montessori, a private Capitol Hill preschool serving children from 24 months through kindergarten age, screens stay in a supporting role so early learning is rooted in touch, movement and direct experience. Its Montessori approach emphasizes physical materials and face-to-face interaction, protecting concentration and self-reliance.
That approach is visible in science and math. Children observe plant growth, make rain gauges to study evaporation and use materials that nest or connect to reveal patterns. In Montessori terms, abstract ideas begin with the hands. Northeast Stars describes its curriculum as STEM-based, but its STEM leans on experiments, outdoor exploration and manipulatives.
The same philosophy shapes practical life and sensorial work. Pouring, scooping, food preparation and sorting build motor control and attention; the pink tower, knobbed cylinders and sandpaper numerals introduce size, shape and number through touch. Northeast Stars reminds families that problem-solving, spatial awareness, persistence and cooperation often start away from a monitor.
Other charter schools use less technology, particularly in younger grades, but there is no comprehensive public accounting that lets families compare screen use across the sector. Schools Beyond Screens DC includes charter parents and has begun talking with charter stakeholders, although its initial advocacy focused on DCPS, where central policy can affect more than 50,000 students.
Private schools present an even wider range. Some market sophisticated technology programs, coding, digital design and one-to-one devices as college and work preparation. Others make limited screen use part of school identity.
Washington Waldorf School follows the latter model. Young children have little or no classroom screen time. Digital media enters in middle school through internet research and digital responsibility; high school students learn coding and take computers apart. Phones and smartwatches stay locked away during the school day.
Eben Kaplan, a cybersecurity consultant whose children attend the school, said his fifth grader’s first classroom film was a documentary about civil rights protests at Glen Echo. Children instead draw, work with their hands and play imaginatively.
“With every technology, some things get easier and things get harder, and I don’t think we always think about those trade-offs,” Kaplan said. Waldorf, he added, is “very, very conscious and deliberate about when we’re introducing what and why.”
That option, however, is tied to private-school access. A system in which affluent families can purchase low-screen instruction while public-school students spend more time on inexpensive digital programs would create a new digital divide. It is why some advocates resist individual opt-outs and favor stronger standards for everyone.
For most of the District’s students, opting out is not an option. DCPS’s acceptable-use policy allows parents of children under 13 to opt out of personal-information collection by particular online services. It also requires any application bought by the central office, a school or a parent-teacher organization to undergo security review. The policy governs privacy, safety, AI and acceptable conduct, but not instructional screen-time limits.
The next stage of DC’s debate will be less about whether children should have computers than who decides when they open them. Parents want transparency, teachers want control and schools still must teach digital literacy and equitable access.
The pendulum may be swinging, but it has not returned to looseleaf and textbooks. But there is increasingly a demand that schools think about what technology they use, when they use it and why.
