Moe Bryant: We all want what’s best for our children and I believe we can have both less screen time and better learning experiences. 

I support moving away from a one-size-fits-all 1:1 device policy in preK-5 but doing it in a way that still supports access and learning. This means listening to teachers, working with families, and creating a plan that gives students the benefits of technology while balancing their use to limit the potential harm from overuse. 

A balanced approach would allowed for a for shared classroom set of devices that can be used in small group lessons or on a rotating basis as needed that can supplement an individualized learning environment, allowing teachers to provide needed support to maximize learning, additional practice, or supplemental evaluation that can lead to more individualized and specialized on-going support for each child. 

Limiting the use of devices, while allowing technology when teachers need additional support can be a budget saver, a time saver to understanding when additional learning is needed, and, at appropriate ages, offer opportunities for students to take agency in their education and build their confidence through self-correcting tools.

June: I am in favor of the phase out.  APS provided 1:1 devices during pandemic time to promote equitable learning for students who may not have otherwise had access to devices needed to participate in virtual learning.   This was a costly endeavor but seemed necessary at the time.  Now that virtual learning is in the past, 1:1 devices seem unnecessary.   

I attended the School Board meeting when the speaker you referenced spoke.  When you published the speech on your site, it was validating as an educator to have credible data sources cited that reinforced what many educators had already suspected (increases in myopia and other negative impacts). 

When I started at Ashlawn Elementary in 2014, 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students had dedicated laptop carts that they could use when needed, and all classrooms had a set of approximately 8 iPads.  Laptops were used in the upper grades for students to write papers, and the iPads were primarily used for Lexia, Dream Box and IXL (no longer used math program).  iPads were used judiciously by staff in different rotations in language arts and math—the total exposure time being approximately 10 minutes each (20 minutes total per student/per day).  What I saw post-pandemic is a heavier reliance on iPads by both staff and students.  When students finished their assignments, they were told they could play on their iPads or read a book.  Nearly 100% of the time, they would reach for the iPads.  

Other issues with iPads (even though we discuss acceptable use with both parents and students) were broken iPads that were never replaced by a parent, inappropriate content downloaded, and inappropriate photos to name a few.  Problems arose when students didn’t bring iPads to school, brought them uncharged, or when they needed assistance typing their user name/ID—all of these took away valuable instruction time.

We can still teach responsible digital literacy without the costly use of 1:1 devices.

Moe: We can’t cut our way to excellence, but we can prioritize wisely. That means putting students and those who serve them directly at the center of every decision. 

Prioritize Staff As APS faces a structural deficit, I believe we must be especially intentional about how we invest every dollar. That starts with prioritizing our teachers, counselors, paraprofessionals, and support staff who directly impact the day-to-day experiences and outcomes of our students. Prioritizing and retaining high quality staff that we train and invest in maximizes the benefits to our students. Maintaining a strong staff is non-negotiable. 

Return to a More Engagement-Centric Process The budget process should start with returning to a multi-step budget calendar that allows the community more transparency into the budget process where the superintendent offers an independent proposed budget that the community can digest and weigh in on, followed by a school board proposed budget that evaluates the superintendent’s proposed budget, giving the community another opportunity to weigh in before the board votes on a final budget. This process is more transparent and provides more opportunities for equitable advocacy. 

Identify Potential Cost Savings In addition to evaluating how we fund our schools, APS must also proactively identify opportunities for cost savings. One such opportunity is expanding the home address verification process. Currently, APS requires families to provide proof of Arlington residency only in 5th and 8th grades. Since the program began, it has identified 150–200 students annually who reside outside the district and are subsequently unenrolled from APS. Expanding this verification process to include all grades, PK–12, could enhance both accountability and savings, especially considering the WABE report lists APS's per-pupil cost at $25,175.

June: I have read the WABE report with great interest, and have always advocated for cutting wasteful spending vs. cutting student facing positions.  I am in a position currently where I can’t advocate for any positions to be cut, as we have members across many categories/scales.  Having said that, APS also has the highest ratio of administrative positions to student vs. other counties.  It would be a priority for APS to undergo an audit of non-student-facing positions and look for redundancy, but also to take a closer look at wasteful spending---changing new curriculum, over ordering of supplies, etc.

I saw this last week in one of our middle schools (who approves this?):

Moe: I’m aligned with the intention behind the new state personal device law, but I also want to ensure we’re not just enforcing rules—we’re building buy-in, centering wellbeing, and making sure our approach supports both students and the educators who serve them. 

The Yondr pouch pilot is not yet complete, however early feedback seems to be positive. I believe we should use data from the program to determine how to build on the results and strengthen APS cellphone-free instruction. 

At the same time, I believe the needs of each student and family are unique, and any policy around personal devices should reflect that complexity. I think it's important that families are included in this conversation, especially when it comes to concerns around safety, emergencies, or even quick check-ins during lunch or breaks. APS must work with families of students with disabilities to add personal device accommodations to IEPs and 504s, if needed. We should be creative and collaborative in how we implement any new policy—making sure it supports learning and maintains trust with families.

June: Absolutely!  As you may know APE partnered with AEA to write a joint letter in support of “Away for the Day” policy.  AEA was also asked to comment on the working policy before it was released for public comment.  We not only worked on the wording of the policy, but also considered all possible objections parents (and staff) may have to the policy.  We agreed that there were few exceptions that warranted a parent needing to contact a student during the day.   We didn’t form our opinions/conclusions about the policy based on our own opinions but instead based them on what we were hearing from staff—the phones were a distraction—taking away from both teaching time and learning time.  

I heard from staff at WHS that for the first few days of using pouches, students were trying to get the phones out by trying to smash the magnets (which seems indicative of the level of dependence on the devices).  I have also heard that since the program started, students are engaging more.  In monthly meetings with the APS cabinet, they have committed to surveying students and staff using measurable outcomes on student mental health and level of engagement.  

At the beginning of April, the WHS Principal texted me to let me know that WHS students and staff would be featured on CNN—the interview definitely made me feel like we did the right thing:  How a cellphone ban is changing life at a Virginia high school | CNN.

Moe: As a parent of a current fifth grader, I understand the intent behind standards-based grading and had hoped it would provide a clearer picture of where my child is growing and where support is needed. But I’ve also “experienced” firsthand how confusing or limited the levels can be for families. 

I support the continued use of standards-based grading in elementary school if it’s improved. That means clearer summaries under each category and better communication tools for families. We shouldn’t return to letter grades, but we do need to make this system easier to understand and more equitable in practice.

June: I agree with APE position that if APS is going to use Standards-Based Grading, it should align with the SOL categories.  When SBG was implemented, there was a lot of confusion for students and parents, and I still have staff asking questions about the grading for clarity. I think there is some ambiguity in the ratings, as the “Fail/Basic” and “Pass/Proficient” can be interpreted in different ways.  I do think SBG is appropriate for Elementary level students, provided there is more alignment with SOLs, and more communication/explanation about the meaning behind the standards. 

I do like that SBG tries to assess student progress and a move toward understanding/mastery of material.  Additionally, this grading system has led to APS allowing students to retake or revise assignments, and to accept late work.   I was hesitant about this approach at first, but Dr. Duran explained it by using an example of riding a bike: If a person tries to ride a bike and isn’t successful the first time, we don’t label them a failure.  We give opportunities to learn from mistakes and master the skill.  I think this is especially important for our students.  The timelines for learning are often so quick—what one student might understand immediately might take a bit more time for another.

Moe:  I believe homework, when assigned thoughtfully, can be a valuable tool to deepen learning. 

I support a more nuanced approach to the homework policy, one that encourages assignments rooted in critical thinking and skill-building, while also recognizing the time constraints secondary students face with clubs, sports, employment, and family responsibilities. However, reducing homework too broadly, risks limiting opportunities for students to close existing gaps. 

Not all students are accessing tools like online tutoring, and not all families have the time or capacity to provide homework support. So, we can’t assume every student is equally positioned to benefit from homework outside of class. 

Educators are already carrying a lot, and any shifts in homework policy should be in collaboration with staff. We should be listening closely to teachers to help us navigate this balance, supporting academic readiness, social-emotional wellbeing, and equity at the same time. 

Ultimately, we need a policy and PIP that reflects the lives of our students, respects the expertise of our educators, and prioritizes both rigor and care.

June: I agree with the language outlined in the policy, but don’t fully agree with all the time limitations suggested in the PIP.   I think homework should not be excessive and should be a meaningful way for students to practice the skills and work towards mastery.