Peer-reviewed research

• JAMA Network Open, Oct 2025 (SickKids Toronto cohort): in 3,322 grade 3 and 2,084 grade 6 children, higher screen time was associated with lower reading and math achievement on standardized tests. This is your strongest single citation: large, recent, elementary-aged, and it measures exactly the thing Orinda prides itself on. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12514615/ nih

• Paper vs. screen reading meta-analyses: multiple meta-analyses indicate a small negative effect on comprehension of expository texts when read on screens compared to paper. The 2025 network meta-analysis is the most current synthesis. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13843-8 springer

• Salmerón et al. on tablets specifically: readers comprehend slightly better in print than on a handheld device, and the effect was similar across grade levels including grades 1-6. Directly relevant since tablets are what elementary kids get. https://www.uv.es/lasalgon/papers/Salmeron%202023%20manuscript_tablets.pdf uv

• Shanahan on Literacy (reading researcher's blog summarizing the field): seven additional meta-analyses, all but one concluding we comprehend screens less well than paper, plus a study suggesting the more students read digital text at school, the lower their resulting reading comprehension. https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/is-comprehension-better-with-digital-text-1 shanahanonliteracyshanahanonliteracy

Institutional reports

• UNESCO 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report: too much attention on technology in education usually comes at a high cost, and some of the world's richest countries ensured universal schooling and minimum learning competencies before digital technology; children can learn without it. https://gem-report-2023.unesco.org/technology-in-education/ unescounesco

• OECD PISA in Focus, 2024: nearly one in three students across OECD countries reported classmates distracted by digital devices in most or every math lesson. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/05/managing-screen-time_023f2390/7c225af4-en.pdf oecd

Districts and countries pulling back (the "we're not alone" argument)

• LAUSD screen-time policy (K-12 Dive, June 2026): The LAUSD board unanimously approved a policy on June 23, 2026 that will prohibit students in early education, kindergarten and 1st grade from using screens in school, with grades 2-5 limited to 60 minutes per day or 300 minutes per week on school-issued devices, including homework. https://www.k12dive.com/news/lausd-imposes-screen-time-limits-starting-in-2026-27/818224/ k12divek12dive

• EdSource on the LAUSD vote (April 2026): notes the resolution was championed by Schools Beyond Screens, a group of parents that spent months pressuring the district to evaluate how devices affect learning, especially in the earlier grades. Useful precedent for parent-driven change. https://edsource.org/2026/classroom-screen-time-limits-policy/756523 edsource

• LA Times via AOL (April 2026): includes the Melvoin quote that a child in front of a screen for hours isn't getting a better education because the content is online, and notes Utah's governor signed a bill requiring a model policy on balanced classroom technology use that considers developmental appropriateness. https://www.aol.com/articles/lausd-vote-restricting-student-screen-100000000.html aol

• Oregon districts (Jefferson Public Radio, May 2026): Medford School District announced a move to reduce technology devices in kindergarten through second grade starting 2026-27, and Bend-La Pine passed a similar board resolution. Small-district examples closer to OUSD's scale. https://www.ijpr.org/education/2026-05-06/in-class-screen-time-is-the-next-frontier-in-the-school-technology-debate ijpr

• Sweden's reversal (Undark, April 2026): the most balanced write-up. Sweden had positioned itself as a frontrunner in digital education, but concerns emerged about screen time, distraction, reduced deep reading, and erosion of foundational skills like sustained attention and handwriting. https://undark.org/2026/04/01/sweden-schools-books/ undark

• Sweden, AP coverage (2023): the source of the Karolinska Institute statement that digital tools impair rather than enhance learning; the government planned to begin by completely ending digital learning for students aged 6 and under. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202309/12/WS64ffb3d6a310d2dce4bb53a1.html chinadaily

I would ask for a carve out for ALL learners who needs screens to access FAPE. If your kid needs a screen or technology to learn, the screens issue does not apply to them.

I will send out monthly newsletters asking for your thoughts and opinions, polling requests, pointers on issues were are considering and more.

When a family writes to the board, they should hear back from a real person within days, know exactly who is handling their concern, and receive an actual answer, even when the answer is no. The board can't resolve every individual issue itself, but it can make sure nothing goes unanswered, and it can require the district to report, publicly, how family concerns are being handled and what patterns they reveal. Silence is a policy choice. I'd choose differently.

The Brown Act sets the floor: open meetings, posted agendas, public comment, and closed doors only for a short list of reasons like personnel and legal matters. Every district meets that standard. Transparency, to me, means going further. It means explaining decisions in plain language so families know what was decided, why, and how it affects their child. It means hearing about changes before they're final, not after. It means agendas, reports, and budgets a busy parent can actually read. And it means listening on the record, so community input shapes decisions instead of following them. The law says what must be public. I'd choose to make more public than the law requires.