Testimonies

Submitted by: Gillian Chapman, Superintendent, Blue Valley School District
Date: August 21, 2026 

Dear Members of the Kansas State Board of Education: 

Thank you for your consideration of the important question of how technology should be used to support teaching and learning in Kansas schools. I appreciate the Board’s interest in ensuring that students have meaningful opportunities to learn, engage with others, and develop the skills they need to navigate an increasingly digital world. 

As a superintendent, I believe strongly that technology use in schools should be intentional, age-appropriate, and connected to sound instructional practice. I also believe decisions about how technology is used are best made by those closest to students; educators, families, and locally elected school boards. 

In Blue Valley, our approach to technology in the elementary grades reflects that philosophy. Elementary students do not take district-issued devices home. During the school day, devices are used primarily as instructional tools to enhance learning, not as a substitute for teaching, relationships, collaboration, or hands-on experiences. As students matriculate through the grades, use of technology is gradual. The use in the primary grades is minimal and we have deliberately worked to focus on analog activities in primary grades, and purchased more physical texts and materials in an effort to support teachers' use of analog instructional practices. In upper grades, devices are used to create, and explicit instruction takes place to use problem solving skills and critical thinking skills. Most often, students are given choices in how and when to use devices as it is not a one size fits all learners. 

For example, technology is often used for formative assessment and engaging practice opportunities, particularly for students who are not yet performing at grade level. These tools allow students to practice skills at an appropriate level while providing teachers with immediate information about what a student understands and, importantly, what that student needs next. The data goes directly to the teacher and becomes one piece of evidence used to inform instruction. In this example, students use their device for fewer than 30 minutes each day and it is not all at one time. 

This is very different from simply placing a device in front of a child for extended periods of time. 

Our educators and local board have the responsibility to determine the appropriate balance among technology, direct instruction, reading, writing, discussion, collaboration, physical activity, creative expression, and hands-on learning. Those decisions should be informed by research and best practice, but they must also reflect the needs of individual students and the context of each local community. 

For that reason, I would respectfully encourage the Kansas State Board of Education not to pursue a statewide mandate establishing specific screen-time limits for schools. Blue Valley Schools underwent a study wherein educators, students, administrators, parents and a pediatrician engaged in reviewing screen time and developed guidance, including use of AI. Our collective commitment to focusing on high quality instruction is supported by providing teachers with the tools they need to determine precisely what a student needs next and providing expedient processes that take the guess work out of the art and science of teaching. Essentially, effective use of devices ensures that we can personalize instruction so that every child has the whole group instruction and the small group or one on one time needed for growth. 

A Blue Valley produced podcast in April 2026 focuses on this work.

Furthermore, Blue Valley makes available the resources used, along with the screen time per day. 

A statewide numerical limit, while well-intentioned, risks treating all technology use as equivalent. Ten minutes of a teacher using an interactive digital tool to provide immediate feedback is not the same instructional experience as ten minutes of passive video consumption. A student using adaptive practice to address a specific learning need is not the same as a student spending unstructured time on a device. Effective policy should recognize those distinctions. Our students are not engaging in unstructured time on devices. 

More importantly, establishing specific instructional requirements for locally elected school districts moves beyond the appropriate role of the State Board. Kansas has entrusted locally elected boards of education with the responsibility for governing their school districts and establishing policies that reflect the needs of their students and communities. State-level leadership should establish appropriate expectations for outcomes, safety, and accountability while allowing local leaders the flexibility to determine how best to achieve those expectations. 

Blue Valley takes seriously our responsibility to ensure that technology serves learning rather than becoming the focus of learning. We will continue to evaluate our practices, listen to educators and families, examine research, and make adjustments when evidence tells us we can do better. 

We do not need another mandate to do this work well. 

What we need is the professional trust and local authority to make thoughtful decisions for the students we serve. 

I respectfully ask the Kansas State Board of Education to maintain that local authority and allow locally elected boards, in partnership with their educators and communities, to determine appropriate technology and screen-use practices for their students. 

Respectfully submitted,

Gillian Chapman, Superintendent
Blue Valley School District 
gkchapman@bluevalleyk12.org