The time is 5 24 in the afternoon.

We are in room 500 of the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building.

I am Phil Mendelson, Chair of the Council.

We always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence for reflection if we could have silence in the chamber and on the dais.

Madam Secretary, would you please determine whether we have a quorum?

Councilmember Allen.

Still here.

Wonderful.

To see you.

Councilmember Bonds.

Councilmember Bonds.

Councilmember Crawford.

Here.

Councilmember Felder.

Present.

Councilmember Freeman.

Present.

Councilmember Henderson, still here.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Here.

Chairman Mendelson.

Present.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Here.

Councilmember Parker.

Here.

Councilmember Pinto.

Present.

Councilmember Robert White.

Present.

Councilmember Trayon White.

Present.

Mr.

Chairman, you have a quorum.

Uh thank you, Madam Secretary.

We have a consent agenda.

And the consent agenda has three ceremonial resolutions on it, which have to be adopted anyway by unanimous consent.

Are there any changes to the consent agenda?

Mr.

Chairman.

What's that?

Councilmember Parker.

It's just a point of clarification.

So it is my understanding, Councilmember Trayon White, uh sought to cointro but missed the deadline.

So he is co-sponsoring the LGBTQI plus resolution.

So for the public, um, I just wanted I we had a discussion.

I said we would make sure it was uh public, but I wanted to make sure as it's not represented on the agenda that way.

So no change, it's just a point of information for the public.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, uh yes, I would just like to um reflect my concern of this fee on all of our deliveries that's for the BSA.

I'm not moving off consent.

I'm just I didn't mention it in the last time, and I just wanted to add it to the record.

There are three measures on the consent agenda.

There are ceremonial resolutions, the only discussion with regard to the consent agenda is whether something is removed from the consent agenda.

Hearing that nothing is being removed from the consent agenda.

The vote will be on the consent agenda.

All those in favor of the consent agenda say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Madam Secretary, you will note Councilmember Bonds is present.

We have the non-consent agenda.

The first measure is Bill 26-659, the fiscal year 2027, Local Budget Act of 2026.

Councilmember Pinto, did you want to say something?

I want to express my unease about adding uh an additional fee to people ordering groceries and food at a time when costs are skyrocketing across the district.

I'm not gonna vote against the VSA or the LBA today, um, but I do have outstanding concerns about that.

Okay.

Further discussion on bill 26-659.

Councilmember Felder.

Uh I'll be brief and echo my sentiments of my war to colleague on this delivery free.

Uh just thinking about how it's going to impact uh drivers as well as the restaurant industry.

Um I don't I won't speak against uh I know it's already in the BSA, but I wanted to go on record to share my concerns as well.

Further on the uh local budget act, we have Bill 26-659 before us.

All those in favor say aye.

Uh, there any opposed?

Hearing none, the bill is approved first reading unanimously.

Uh bill 26 661 fiscal year 2027 budget support act of 2026.

So moved.

Is there a discussion?

The vote will be on the bill.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing none, the ayes have it unanimously.

We have excuse me on page two of the agenda, proposed contract number GAGA 2026, C0049 with curriculum associates LLC disapproval resolution of 2026.

Councilmember Henderson, you wanted to move this.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um this disapproval resolution as far as contract uh with curriculum associates.

Um, but for those who might have children in the K 12 space, you is commonly known as iReady.

Uh my office has received countless calls and emails from families, educators, state board of education members, frustrated by the use of AI by the use of iReady in classrooms, and concerned about the growing reliance of gamified learning in our curriculum.

As a parent of two daughters in elementary school, I understand the frustration.

DCPS first entered the contract for iReady in 2014 as a tool to support math diagnostics and some personalized learning, but expanded its use to include literacy, math diagnostics, and personal learning in 2021, meaning that there are some elementary school students, my daughters included, who have known iReady for their entire elementary school experience.

I acknowledge that iReady is also used in the middle grades, but it is not used to the extent that it is used in elementary schools.

So I think as legislators, it's important that we listen to families and educators when they express concerns.

I had a conversation with the Chief of Technology, excuse me, the teach the chief of teaching and learning on Friday to discuss DCPS's response to concerns raised by school communities to better understand the data surrounding the platform's use and effectiveness.

One thing is clear kids are spending a lot of time on devices during the school week, and parents are asking whether or not we are striking the right balance, especially given external research and data on screen time.

DCPS recommends that students spend 30 to 45 minutes per week on the platform.

However, there are schools throughout the district that are using the platform almost double the recommended time.

Year-to-date data shows that 17 schools exceed DCPS's recommended iReady usage levels.

49 schools are using the platform more than the base recommendation of 30 minutes per week in math.

40 are using the platform beyond the 30 minutes per week in literacy.

Some school campuses like LaSalle Bacchus, Thomas Elementary, John J.O.

Wilson, Drew Elementary, MLK Elementary, and Beers Elementary are using the platform for over an hour per week as part of their literacy and math instruction.

Yet when I spoke to DCPS, there were no clear guardrails on for how to address schools that were overusing the platform or clear data to support that usage beyond the recommendation of whether it was more effective for student outcomes.

There's also a lack of credible uh peer-reviewed research supporting iReady's effectiveness.

This coupled with litigation regarding data privacy and collection warrants intentional deliberation of the contract.

Mr.

Chairman, if I have one more minute.

I requested a meeting with DCPS.

Now, interestingly enough, no one at DCPS was available to have a conversation with me until June 15th, which would have been after well, two days before the contract would have been deemed approved.

So I put this on the agenda, and lo and behold, I got a meeting.

And also, lo and behold, we got a letter from the chancellor finally addressing some of the issues that families have been raising.

Now, I don't think it's necessarily specifically around iReady.

I think it's around there's a mounting frustration around the use of technology altogether in our schools, which is interesting.

Because of a couple of years ago, everybody wanted every kid to have a laptop and a device and all those other things.

And yet it feels like the pendulum has swung in a direction, particularly in our K to two space, that is making some families feel very uncomfortable around the usage.

Not just iReady, but also YouTube, and not just YouTube during the school day, but definitely in the wild, wild west of aftercare.

Um I, Mr.

Chairman, I'm gonna stop here.

I know that there are some colleagues who have some thoughts about this as well.

We have had some conversations too.

Um, I do want to acknowledge that I I do believe the votes are here, but I understand that the central office also is concerned about where things land in terms of next school year.

Um the chancellor made a number of um uh or I wouldn't even call them promises because he won't necessarily be here to fulfill them, but I guess uh plans of what DCPS plans to implement um prior to school year 26-27, around providing some specific guidance to schools that frankly they should have been doing for the last five years.

Um but nonetheless, here we are.

Um so I'll stop there, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Councilmember Lewis George, you want to be, and then Councilmember Allen and Councilmember.

Robert White and then Fruman and then me.

Councilmember Lewis George.

Thank you.

Um I understand that this disapproval resolution will be withdrawn, but I appreciate the important conversation that it has raised.

Our youngest learners deserve a classroom centered on human connection and strong instruction, reading, uh, creativity and engagement with teachers and not excessive screen time.

Uh my experience and belief is that to achieve the best student outcomes, our public schools should set clear limits on screen time in the early years and reduce over reliance on ed tech for test preparation and develop guidance with teachers for appropriate technology use by grade with transparency for parents on what tools are being used and why.

I also remain concerned about renewing the iReady contract with curriculum associates while the platform faces the ongoing federal class action litigation related to student data privacy and security.

Uh DC families deserve confidence that student information is being protected and handled responsibly.

Even without moving forward on this resolution today, I hope this moment creates an opportunity for DCPS to reassess whether continued reliance on this platform or any other aligns with healthy child development, student well-being, data protection, and the best interest of children and families.

And I look forward to hearing more discussion at the hearing that you will be hosting, Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Council Member Allen.

Thank you.

With an eighth grader, about to have for promotion celebration next Monday night and headed to high school.

I'm not in my pre-K years anymore, but I certainly remember with my fourth grader, IREDI is something that we heard lots of complaints about.

But as a parent, not just a council member, when we dig in, we'd see and hear about not just five minutes or eight minutes a day.

We would hear about long periods of time on a lot of these platforms.

And so as a parent, I also share these concerns.

So I really appreciate the resolution that's in front of us and the conversation and hopefully the action more importantly that it prompts.

I also want to be clear, I've actually heard from a lot of educators with concerns around iReady and an over reliance on it.

Both what it can do and what it doesn't do as an educator.

I've heard from teachers who have talked about how the tool actually hides the questions and the answers that a student would get wrong from the teacher and educator.

So the frustration that I hear from the educator is if the goal is to help me figure out what skill is this kid missing, this test does not help me with that.

It will provide some kind of vague kind of uh responses back on common core standards, but it doesn't allow a teacher-educator to be specific to that student, to that student's needs or the skills they're trying to be working on.

And so that tells me that this tool from the educator side is also not hitting what it is that it needs.

As often with our school year and contracts that feel almost always timed for late spring, early summer, be it a food contract or anything else, it puts us in a very difficult position where if we were to disapprove a contract, what would DCPS have ready for the fall?

And so I've heard from teachers who are both sharing frustrations with iReady, but also saying, how would DCPS be able to actually find a new tool, spin the summer getting folks trained up and ready and educated, and then be able to implement this for the first day back in the year.

At some point, we've got to get so many of our school contracts off of the schedule that it all is coming in June and July.

I remember just a couple of years ago with food services contract that was in July.

And the options were just extend the contract that had problems or kids don't eat, which is not a position we're gonna put ourselves in.

So I think that's that's an overall frustration.

I will add to the technology, and Counselor Henderson talked about this as well.

What I see and hear, in addition to this, and it should prompt the larger conversation, is kids who in aftercare YouTube is just turned on, and not the ad-free version, but the students are just watching lots and lots of YouTube with lots and lots of ads for everybody who's put a political ad out there, pretty much your DCPS students have seen those things.

But I don't know why we can't have DCPS move to just ad-free YouTube subscriptions to help work with aftercare.

Um, I think there's more guidance needed.

I think that I want to be careful that we do not swing a pendulum too far back the other way as well, because I do think technology is incredibly important for our students, and the equity of that technology and equipping students with those tools is really important.

Um I want us to be thoughtful and careful, but I'm really grateful for the resolution that prompted conversation and action that needed to happen.

Um, and I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Councilmember Robert White.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

I I have uh I'm also a DCPS parent uh whose kids use iReady, and the concerns are are not just the technology, but whether iReady is actually helping them grow.

I got stopped at a school event this morning by a parent who who said, you know, it is repetitive, and then asked me to look at the data showing that there really is not evidence that this is helping.

There are other ways to do testing, um, so I'd be concerned about over reliance on that as a reason to continue this.

Uh, but I I do recognize that at this point, it seems DCPS can't get an alternative uh contract or program in place for next year, but my understanding is that DCPS has committed to re-that this contract is only for next school year, and that DCPS is committed to reevaluating it.

Is that does anybody else have that same?

Yes, okay.

Um, so so that is something I see as good news, and we will have to hold their feet to the fire uh through the committee of the whole.

Thank you, Chairman.

The education, or a standalone education committee.

Are you picking a fight right now?

Councilmember Fruman.

Uh thank you very much, Chairman Mendelson.

Thank you, Councilmember Henderson, for bringing forward this resolution and uh and pushing forward this conversation.

We have been hearing from a lot of people also about a number of different issues in questions about the role of AI in schools, questions about how much time kids spend on screens in schools, questions about iReady and its role in the classroom, but also questions about how do we stay true to getting to digital equity, so that everybody to the extent that technology is a benefit to learning that everyone gets to enjoy the benefit to learning that it can provide.

This has been a chapter in a conversation.

My hope, and maybe somebody suggested that maybe the chairman had already agreed, but I think we need to have a hearing in the fall on the subject of technology in schools and hear from lots of people about what the issues are, what's the science, what are the what are the best practices in other jurisdictions, because the pendulum does seem to be swinging, and there is a fair amount of concern that we may be putting too much weight on these tools, and it's worth it for us as a body to step back and hear from a cross-section of people on this topic and think about policy recommendations going forward.

So while I sh I understand that the abrupt termination of the termination of this contract would leave us without tools for the coming year, and that the contract will be rebid as I understand it next year in any case.

I think letting it go forward, but moving towards a better approach in this area is the right solution.

So I thank you for bringing it forward, and I thank you for withdrawing it.

Hasn't been withdrawn quite yet.

Councilmember Nadeau.

Thanks.

Echoing the concerns of some of the other parents here about technology and screen time, but also acknowledging that, you know, technology can be a good tool in the classroom if it's used properly, and there are proper guidelines.

We spoke to teachers and advocates and they echoed these sentiments, but when the discussion shifted to whether iReady should be canceled immediately, the response from teachers was largely no.

Many educators indicated that if iReady is going to be phased out, a replacement plan should be developed first.

So my concern with moving forward is that we'd be removing a tool that schools are currently using without clear guidance on what comes next.

That said, it's crucial that we use the remainder of the current contract period to evaluate iReady and review broader technology to use in classrooms and develop alternative strategies with meaningful teacher input.

Tech in schools should be used as a way to increase equity and bridge gap in gaps in resources, but not without adequate safeguards and regulations.

So I I support the chairman holding a hearing this fall so a DCPS can present a plan and stakeholders, including educators, parents, and school communities can weigh in.

We definitely need more voices to be part of this discussion.

Thanks to my um co-movers of the disapproval resolution for getting this conversation going, and I support council member Henderson's um plans to withdraw today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Nadel.

So as has been intimated, the disapproval resolution was introduced by myself and council members Henderson and the Doe.

And it was introduced because we have heard for months, if not uh years, a complaint about too much testing in schools, and more recently, more specifically, complaints about the IREDI testing.

Um I would say this year we heard um demands at our oversight hearing and budget hearing that the iReady contract be canceled.

It is interesting, um, and Power Ed, who represents a lot of teachers or speaks for a lot of teachers, had um had, I believe, initially advocated that the contract be canceled, but they sent uh an email more recently saying that uh the opinion is uh mixed, and that in fact I'm reading from NISTA Preference is to cancel the iReady Math, delay the cancellation of iReady reading for one year, which is not an option we have.

It's a yes or no on the contract.

I do think that um, and this is echoing what uh actually, others have said that by having the disapproval, and then Councilmember Henderson, you putting it on the agenda, has actually forced the uh executive to take the um criticism or complaints more seriously.

And I want to read into the record a piece of the chancellor's letter that we received last week.

DCPS is taking several steps to respond to families' feedback on students' screen time.

First, before the start of the 2026-2027 school year, central services will provide schools with clear grade level specific guidance about technology usage during instructional and non-instructional times, including time limits for IREDI instruction.

Second, starting with the new school year, students will use new shorter diagnostic assessments provided by curriculum associates.

Third, central services will closely monitor schools IREDI usage and respond when usage is approaching the recommended levels.

Fourth, before the start of the new school year, central services will provide teachers with recommended and approved alternatives to IREDI personalized instruction.

Fifth, during the uh 2026-27 school year, Central Services will issue guidance on the expectation of IREDI usage outside of school time.

Sixth at the beginning of the new school year, the Office of External Affairs will hold a parent university for interested parents to provide information and solicit feedback about DCPS's approach to education technology.

There are actually four more.

I won't read all of them, but they're in this letter dated June 6th from the Chancellor to Council members, all council members.

So the committee as a whole will have a hearing this fall on it won't be specifically or solely on iReady contract, but on technology and the iReady contract will be part of that um hearing uh with uh pressing DCPS on the need to um evaluate and um consider an alternative to iReady with um a year from now.

I thought I was the last one on line.

Councilmember Parker.

I'm sorry, Councilmember Lewis George was distracting me.

Um, I plan to support this uh measure, and I know it's being withdrawn.

I appreciate the sensitivity to the matter.

Um I just would also acknowledge a while ago we cut the ANET contract.

Uh I actually thought ANET was a superior product to IREDI, but I digress.

Uh and so all that to say, as we're having hearings, I hope we can just um think globally about the impact of various contract decisions uh on the agency.

And it's worth noting, DCPS has been making progress and they continue to grow.

Um, and I just think that shouldn't be loss.

Uh yes, changes are necessary.

I think uh we're prudent to lean in here in technology use.

Uh, when I read the chancellor's letter about 30 minutes a day, I kind of chuckled uh because I know for a fact, and we probably all have evidence of students on computers and iReady in particular, much longer than that.

So I I know that's a little bit all over the place, but I just wanted to register as you're having that hearing, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

I think it's worth thinking globally about the agency's assessment strategy and the consequences of decisions like this.

Um, so thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Henderson.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I I just want to um say for the record, yeah, there are some people who have suggested that opposition to IRETI means that we're somehow um not in favor of accountability or checking in.

Actually, I am.

We used to have these things called textbooks, and once you got to the end of the unit, there was a quiz.

And then you can check your answers.

But we don't do textbooks anymore in the same way.

Um, which, you know, we can have a conversation about what we need to bring that back.

But nonetheless, I do think overall um we need to be more thoughtful about how we integrate technology so that it remains a tool to enhance, um, not supplant.

Um, uh core instruction.

Um, I appreciate Mr.

Chairman your commitment to convening a hearing on this topic in the fall.

Um, if I think through though, I'll everyone who has said I'm gonna work on this in the fall.

The fall is gonna be busy.

Hope everybody coming to work.

Come September.

But um, I hope that when we return to this issue, um, we'll be discussing concrete changes.

Um, you know, there is proposed legislation, it hasn't been introduced, but that's an avenue as well.

So I don't want the DCPS to think that my withdrawing this today ends the conversation, nor that we will forget.

Um, I hope that the interim leadership of DCPS takes it very seriously over the summer and hopefully sets up students and teachers and our contractors that we're working with in our schools up for success for the beginning of school year um twenty six twenty-seven.

Um, and so with that, Mr.

Chairman, um, I withdraw.

Um, the measure's been withdrawn.

Um, that's going to conclude the business before people jump up.

So I was um very very poorly behaved at the end of the committee's whole meeting.

I was thanking folks, and uh I forgot to turn the page, and so I didn't thank anybody in my office.

So I'll take this occasion to thank the committee, the whole staff Blaine Stum, Evan Cash, Bijan Verlin, Aliah McNeely, Hannah Kozick, and Christian Washington, all of whom I'm not quite sure if they were working for me or working for the budget office the last couple of weeks, but a lot of uh they put in a lot of time, a lot of hours, and so I regret that I overlooked them at the committee as a whole, but maybe the legislative meeting is a more important venue to thank them.

There being no further business, uh the council will meet in an additional meeting on June 23rd and a regular meeting on June 30th.

The time is 5 53 PM.

This meeting's adjourned.