Our children deserve an education shaped by evidence, not defaults. We are parents, educators, and community members asking the Bainbridge Island School District for transparency about how technology is used in our classrooms, what outcomes it is producing, and whether it is truly enhancing student learning.
Stand with your neighbors. Add your name and we will keep you updated on next steps.
We are asking the Bainbridge Island School District for two things.
Answer our questions publicly. Tell families which tools are in use, what data is being collected, how levy funds are being spent, and what outcomes are being measured. If the answers are good, share them. If they are not, that is exactly why this conversation needs to happen.
Commit to evidence-based technology decisions across the district, with family and community input before those decisions are made, not after. Technology in our schools should be there because the evidence supports it, not because it is the default.
BISD is actively drafting measurable objectives for its new Strategic Plan, including Goal 7, which addresses technology in schools. Once those objectives are written and adopted, the plan hardens. This is the window for community input.
The district's draft Strategic Plan calls for students who "practice intentional tech balance and possess the media literacy skills to navigate the digital world ethically." The administration is currently writing measurable, time-bound objectives for this goal. Community voices need to be part of that process, not informed after the fact.
The district has a Digital Citizenship and Media Literacy policy (Policy 2023), but the district's own website states that teacher-librarians oversaw digital citizenship instruction at most schools. In 2025, the district eliminated all certificated librarian positions. The policy remains. The primary staff responsible for delivering it do not. Where are the specific skills students are expected to demonstrate at each grade level? Where are the measurable outcomes? Where is the progress data?
In February 2024, Bainbridge voters approved a four-year, $16 million technology levy. The ballot proposition described its purpose plainly: to "enhance student learning." That is $4 million per year from property taxes across the island. Every taxpayer has a right to know whether that investment is delivering on its stated promise.
We are parents, educators, and community members who believe families deserve full transparency about the EdTech tools shaping our children's education. We also believe that a $16 million public investment approved to enhance student learning comes with a responsibility to show the community what it is producing.
Share current research on education technology's impact on learning, attention, and child development in clear language that families and community members can understand and act on.
Connect families and community members across the district. These questions affect every school, every student, and every taxpayer. Our voices carry further together.
Present the district with direct, reasonable questions and expect clear, public answers. Transparency is not optional when public funds and children's education are involved.
BISD's own Strategic Plan makes the case. Goal 7 is clear. But stating a goal is not the same as pursuing it.
"Cultivate adept problem solvers who practice intentional tech balance and possess the media literacy skills to navigate the digital world ethically."
BISD Strategic Plan, Goal 7The superintendent has confirmed that building and district administrative teams are drafting measurable, time-bound objectives for each strategic goal, including Goal 7. These objectives are being written now.
The district does have a Digital Citizenship and Media Literacy policy (Policy 2023), revised in January 2026. According to the district's own website, teacher-librarians oversaw digital citizenship instruction at most schools. In 2025, the district eliminated all certificated librarian positions through a reduction in force.
But the policy's own language is revealing. It states that "the District aspires to implement" its digital citizenship practices and "endeavors to support" teacher professional development. Aspiration is not implementation. Where are the specific skills students are expected to demonstrate at each grade level? What does the scope and sequence look like? How is student progress assessed? What do the results tell us?
If the district has clear answers to these questions, sharing them would be straightforward. If it does not, that gap between policy language and classroom reality is exactly what the community needs to understand.
"...a replacement technology levy to enhance student learning."
Proposition No. 2 ballot language, approved February 2024The technology levy collects $4 million per year from Bainbridge property owners. Some of that funding goes toward infrastructure, cybersecurity, and administrative systems. Those are legitimate needs. But voters approved this levy to enhance student learning, and the community has a right to understand how much of that investment is reaching classrooms and what outcomes it is producing for children.
Parents are not the only stakeholders. Every property owner on the island is contributing to this investment, and the ballot language set the standard they should expect it to be measured against.
These are straightforward questions that any well-run district should be able to answer publicly. We believe BISD can and should.
What specific digital literacy skills are students expected to learn at each grade level, and how is student progress measured against those outcomes?
At what grade level are students first given access to devices, and at what grade level does structured digital citizenship instruction begin? Are these intentionally aligned?
What measurable objectives is the district drafting for Strategic Plan Goal 7, and how will families have input before those objectives are finalized?
The technology levy was approved to "enhance student learning." How is the $4 million annual investment being allocated, and what portion directly supports classroom learning versus infrastructure and administration?
How many unique EdTech products, platforms, and apps does the district currently use? Where can families see a complete list, including which tools their child encounters in their specific grade?
What is the vetting process for new EdTech products, including not just formal curriculum adoption but any digital tool used by teachers or students?
Which EdTech products currently in use embed generative AI features? Were families informed and given the opportunity to consent before those tools were introduced?
What data are EdTech platforms collecting on students, and where can families review the terms of use and privacy policies for each product? What are the practical options for families who do not consent?
How does the district support teachers who want to use low-tech or screen-free approaches in their classrooms?
How does district leadership review emerging research on EdTech's impact on student learning? What is the process for reassessing tools in light of new evidence?
Do printed materials and physical books come from the same budget as digital products? If not, how does the budget structure shape decisions about how students learn?
These are not hostile questions. They are the questions any family would ask before handing their child a device, and any taxpayer would ask about a $16 million public investment approved to enhance student learning. They deserve clear, public answers.
A growing body of peer-reviewed research is raising serious questions about EdTech's impact on how children learn, focus, and develop. This conversation is happening nationally and globally. It should be happening here too.
A meta-analysis of 33 studies found that reading on screens leads to significantly lower comprehension than reading on paper, especially for informational texts and time-limited tasks.
Delgado et al., Educational Research Review (2018) →A 2024 OECD analysis found that 30% of students across OECD countries reported digital device distractions in every or most math lessons, with 59% distracted in at least some lessons.
OECD PISA 2022 Results, Volume II →GoGuardian, used by BISD to monitor student activity, was flagged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for collecting browsing data, search history, and YouTube activity, even outside school hours. The software designed to keep children safe raises its own privacy concerns.
EFF: How GoGuardian Invades Student Privacy →EEG research shows that handwriting activates broader neural networks involved in memory and learning compared to typing, with stronger effects observed in younger children.
Van der Meer & Van der Weel, Frontiers in Psychology (2020) →Generative AI is being integrated into BISD's operations and classrooms. The district is moving quickly. The governance, transparency, and family engagement have not kept pace.
BISD is not standing still on AI. In January 2026, the district adopted a Student AI Code of Conduct, and Kiyo Toma, the Director of Technology, has presented to the school board on the district's approach. Those are real steps and they deserve acknowledgment.
But the gaps are significant. There is no equivalent AI Code of Conduct for staff or administrators. There is no public inventory of AI tools in use across the district. There is no formal process for families to provide input on AI integration decisions.
Meanwhile, the district is accelerating. In February 2026, BISD was selected as one of 20 Washington districts for Microsoft's "Elevate Washington" AI integration program, part of a $4 billion initiative. The program is focused on embedding AI into district operations, including finances, curriculum, and information systems. District leadership described the possibilities as making them "giddy."
We are not opposed to the district exploring AI. But enthusiasm without governance is how communities get surprised. When a district partners with one of the world's largest AI vendors to reshape how it operates, families and taxpayers deserve to know what safeguards are in place, what data is involved, and how decisions about their children's education are being made.
Bainbridge Review: Student AI policy to include ample access to digital tools →
Bainbridge Review: BI schools selected for Microsoft AI-integration grant →
Compare BISD's approach with what New York City Public Schools published in March 2026. NYC's guidance is not perfect, and it has drawn criticism of its own. But it represents what a transparent, governance-first process looks like at scale. Key elements include:
BISD is a district of roughly 4,000 students. NYC serves 800,000. If the nation's largest district can build a public framework with community input before expanding AI use, a district our size can do the same. The question is whether BISD will choose to.
This is not a fringe conversation. From Kansas to Sweden, school systems are reassessing 1:1 device policies and asking whether the evidence supports what they have been doing. Here is some of the recent coverage.
Schools in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Michigan, and Kansas are rethinking 1:1 laptop policies as studies show device access has coincided with stagnant or declining test scores.
McPherson Middle School in Kansas collected all 480 student Chromebooks, returning to paper-based learning. The principal, named Kansas' 2025 middle school Principal of the Year, said the devices were too great a distraction.
California's third-largest district is pulling take-home laptops from 40,000 elementary students, shifting to classroom-only use to increase instructional time and reduce unsupervised screen exposure.
After years of declining literacy scores, Sweden is investing over 100 million euros to restore printed textbooks, restrict preschool screen use, and implement a national phone collection policy in schools.
A 2025 government study found that three-quarters of Dutch high schools reported better student concentration after banning phones, tablets, and smartwatches from classrooms.
As of March 2026, 114 education systems worldwide have implemented national bans on mobile phones in schools, up from 24% of countries in mid-2023. At least 16 U.S. states have introduced legislation in 2026.
Whether you are a parent, educator, or community member, your voice matters. Add your name to stand with neighbors who believe our district should be transparent about how public funds are spent and how technology is used with our children. We will keep you updated on next steps.
Your information will never be shared with third parties.