Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Committee of the Whole of the Council of the District of Columbia, chaired by Chairman Phil Mendelssohn and joined by Councilmember Matt Fruman, held a nearly eight-hour public hearing on Friday, October 9, 2026, to examine the use of technology, screen time, and artificial intelligence across District schools. Drawing testimony from over 100 witnesses—including charter leaders, national researchers, state board members, teachers, parents, and government officials—the hearing weighed the benefits of personalized learning and digital literacy against rising concerns over screen time, mental health, data privacy, and the efficacy of tools like iReady. A central tension emerged between calls for stricter limits and pleas for equitable access to functional devices, particularly from communities East of the River.
I'm going to call to order this hearing. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole of the Council of the District of Columbia. I'm Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee as a whole. Today is Friday, October 9th, 2026. The time is 1032 in the morning. We are in room 412. The subject of today's hearing is technology in schools. Over the past few years, there's been a growing concern regarding the increasing use of technology and screen time in schools across the District of Columbia. Parents, educators, and policymakers alike, are raising questions about how digital tools are being integrated into classrooms and what impact this may have on students' learning and well-being. The committee of the whole is particularly interested in understanding how schools are utilizing technology to educate students in the district, as well as how screen time is being monitored, managed, and balanced with other instructional practices. While the foregoing concerns both sectors, this hearing is also an opportunity for testimony commenting on the annual District of Columbia Public Schools technology plan, as well as the use of online student assessment tools such as iReady. I expect we're going to hear a lot of testimony today from public witnesses regarding screen time and also with regard to artificial intelligence and how that will be helping or needs to be controlled in our schools. So I'm not going to give more of an opening statement than that. I'll turn to my colleague, Councilmember Matt Fruman, if you have a statement. Thank you very much, Chairman Mendelssohn. Thank you very much for convening this important hearing, and thank you to our witnesses who've come to join us today in large numbers and with lots of expertise and feeling. As the council examines the role of technology and artificial intelligence in our public schools, two principles must guide us. The latest research on best practices and equitable access to tools that work. Over the last decade, DC made major investment in devices and digital tools, driven by pandemic response and by advocacy of groups like digital equity in DC, whose testimony I look forward to hearing today. Recently, however, concerns have grown both locally and nationally about excessive screen time, low quality educational technology, the risks general purpose AI posed to student learning, privacy, and academic integrity. Families want and deserve to understand how their children use technology in school and how we are preparing them for an AI-driven world. DCPS updated technology policy is a step forward, particularly regarding transparency around approved tools and privacy. But transparency alone is not enough. We still lack clarity on the quality of approved tools and the rigor of the approval process, how screen time limits are enforced, how students are taught AI literacy, how teachers are trained to use AI effectively. I hope our charter schools, and I look forward to hearing from representatives of the charter sector, are engaging as aggressively as DCPS has on these issues. Research continues to show that not all digital tools support real learning. Some do, some don't, some may, used in certain ways and not in when used in other ways. But we need to understand what actually works in improving learning as opposed to just completing tasks and not retaining the learning that is the whole goal. Meanwhile, outside of school, two tools used by students can reduce independent thinking just as easily as they enhance it. I'm eager to hear from researchers today about early data on AI's impact on learning outcomes. Every digital tool used in our schools must be safe, evidence-based, aligned with curriculum, and designed to strengthen student learning while supporting our teachers. I look forward to hearing from experts, educators, and students today as we work toward a thoughtful, research-informed and equitable approach to technology in DC schools. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Fruman. So we have a lot of witnesses, and the way we've uh arranged the witness list, we're going to hear from uh several representatives of Chugger Schools and then an expert panel, and then we will turn to all the other witnesses. According to the witness list, we have uh 104, 109, 113. Actually, it's 112. My math's not right. Uh so we're going to move along here. Um David Lowry, who is director of pedagogy and instruction at Friendship Public Tugger Schools, Helene McCabe, who's principal of DC bilingual public chugger school, Adam Browning, who's director of academic innovation and AI implementation at Washington Leadership Academy, Public Tugger School. Is Adam Browning here? Oh, yeah. Is Elainey McCabe here? Sorry. Okay. And then I'm going to ask Dr. Francisco Duran, who is superintendent of the Arlington Public Schools.