Grounded in evidence.
Built around child development.
Matched to age and stage.
Safe by design.
Albany Families for Intentional Technology is a parent and caregiver group focused on ensuring technology and screen use in Albany schools supports — not erodes — our children's ability to grow into critical thinkers, creative problem-solvers, and capable digital citizens.
We've long assumed that newer technology means faster, better learning — but that assumption deserves a closer look.
Want to stay in the loop? Sign up for our newsletter for updates and ways to get involved.
2026 Albany Board of Education Candidates
Many Albany families have asked for advice as they consider how to cast their votes in the upcoming November election for Albany Board of Education. AFIT is not endorsing candidates in this election. Instead, we asked each candidate to respond to the same three questions related to intentional technology in Albany schools. Each candidate’s unedited responses are below.
You can find additional information about the candidates on the Albany City website and their respective websites.
The 2026 Board of Education Candidates (in ballot order): Margaret Allen, Melissa Boyd, Becky Hopwood, Josh Mahoney, and David McKinney. Boyd, Hopwood and Mahoney are running for re-election.
Given that YouTube is enabled for individual student devices in AUSD for grades 6 through 12, please read and react to this open letter, written by experts and educators, chronicling the risks and harms of this policy.
What, if anything, should change in AUSD in the next year with respect to use of educational technologies like YouTube in the classroom, and why?
Margaret Allen: As a parent, technology use at home and school is a top personal concern, and as a board candidate, that duty of care extends to all 3,756 AUSD students. We must balance the practical benefits of technology with the well-documented risks of letting software drive learning. Tech platforms are deliberately engineered to maximize engagement and screen time. It says a lot that many tech CEOs and Silicon Valley executives strictly limit their own children’s access to the very products and platforms their companies create.
I do not support unlimited student access to YouTube or social media on district-issued devices. Unrestricted algorithms make it far too easy for students to stumble into inappropriate, distracting, or even harmful content. Instead, we should prioritize teacher-curated access. Teachers can select specific, age-appropriate video links relevant to their curriculum without granting students open-ended access to the broader platform.
Simply put: I trust our educators over an algorithm. While I appreciate the district's recent steps to limit certain digital tools, there is more to do. Over the next year, AUSD should evaluate edtech tools by prioritizing direct feedback from teachers, staff, and students. By establishing firm guardrails, we ensure technology serves as a focused learning aid rather than an endless distraction.
Melissa Boyd: Regarding the use of YouTube in classrooms, I think it was beneficial for AUSD to ensure that use wasn't happening at the elementary level, so I'm pleased they put that restriction in place. For the middle and high school levels, I understand that teachers have communicated the need to be able to show videos on YouTube in order to teach their lessons and I would not want to presume to tell teachers how to structure their lessons in this regard. I think it's important to respect their judgment, wisdom and expertise rather than second guessing them in this respect.
I would say that teachers should try to ensure the videos they're having students view do not contain advertisements or the like. I also think AUSD leadership should remain in conversation with teachers on this topic, ensuring they're aware of concerns like those communicated in the suits that have been brought, so that they're weighing these concerns against the benefits of continuing to use YouTube as they put their lessons together and think about any potential updates to their lesson plans to reduce their use of that material.
Becky Hopwood: The open letter emphasizes that districts can no longer treat student access to educational technology as just a technology or instructional decision, but they have to consider student safety and district accountability, and I agree. The concerns raised illustrate the need for a comprehensive review of YouTube access in the classroom and on school-issued devices, and I also have concerns about Google’s general push into classrooms.
I don’t think either unrestricted access or a total ban are the answer, but AUSD should evaluate its safeguards and instructional needs, and I would ask the superintendent to include teachers, families and students in the process. I’ve read accounts of students being distracted by YouTube Shorts, for example, so would like to explore whether/how it’s possible to refine what students can access, given that many students have figured out ways of circumventing monitoring software. Studies indicate that in grades 6-12, while students are building critical thinking skills, analog learning is better than digital, but I appreciate that digital tools provide features that can serve our students with special educational needs, and we need all students to be prepared for life after high school, which inevitably involves technology.
Josh Mahoney: I appreciate the concerns raised by these advocacy groups. YouTube is currently not enabled in our elementary schools. At our middle school, teachers have requested that students have continued access— seemingly consistent with footnote 42 of the document.
I do think that video content has a place in the classroom. For instance, at the middle school, videos are an excellent way to see and understand how liquefaction occurs, and having students see this, with the guidance of our teachers, feels like a good way to communicate material. I’m comfortable with teachers assigning videos for homework, so that students can have time to digest and process, and so that class time can be used for the deeper discussion of material. Ideally, educators should be using materials without advertisements or social media aspects, and rather focus on the content.
Dave McKinney: I think we should take a measured approach to technology, including YouTube, in the classroom. I agree that unfettered access to YouTube is likely not what is best for the education of our students. I also understand that teachers have been using YouTube for pedagogical reasons in their instruction. I would want to restrict access to YouTube and learn how and why teachers are using it. I would also like to know what restrictions the district can place on the use of YouTube and other technologies on school-provided devices. With that information I think we can chart a course forward that supports teachers’ pedagogical needs and student learning while avoiding the more dangerous aspects of these technologies.
How should AUSD judge an educational technology tool’s efficacy? Name at least one metric you'd ask the superintendent to report annually to the board.
Margaret Allen: Any educational technology tool must enhance student learning, never detract from it. Tools like AI assistants or auto-correct should be used sparingly. Students need room to make mistakes, think creatively, spell words incorrectly, and struggle through problem-solving; that struggle is where real learning happens.
I support technology that streamlines administrative work and lesson planning, freeing up our teachers for direct instruction. I also support diagnostic apps that help educators identify specific learning gaps for individual students. However, algorithms must never replace human judgment; our trained teachers belong in the driver’s seat. To evaluate efficacy, AUSD should look at both qualitative and quantitative data. I would ask the superintendent to report two key annual metrics:
An annual survey measuring how effectively a tool targets specific student learning gaps and whether it saves teachers time or adds administrative burden.
Active screen-time metrics per tool, broken down by grade level and sub groups, paired with academic growth data to verify that digital tools are improving outcomes incrementally over non-digital baselines.
If a tool fails to save teachers time or measurably boost student learning, it shouldn't remain in our classrooms.
Melissa Boyd: Regarding judging the efficacy of various educational technology tools, as with all things in the classroom regarding instruction, I think the most weight should be given to teachers' assessments of whether the tools are helpful to them and are successful in achieving student success and improvement in the desired areas. If the tool in question is being implemented for the first time, it may be possible to compare evaluation scores obtained before and after implementation - this could be helpful for something like supporting students in improving their math fact fluency for instance, where using technology tools could aid students in that regard.
I would say that in evaluating whether the implementation of tools is beneficial, it's important to look not only at quantitative measures, like a student's improved assessment scores for instance, but also qualitative measures, like a teacher's reflection on how use of that tool might be freeing them up for more substantive instruction and/or support with their class.
Becky Hopwood: Educational technology should be judged by whether it demonstrably improves student learning and outcomes and supports effective teaching, which is how we evaluate other tools and programs. Cost-effectiveness is also a consideration. The superintendent could report this annually to the Board along with existing quantitative assessment data, with a focus on student subgroups to ensure accessibility and equity, as well as reporting on privacy and safety.
Josh Mahoney: I think we should judge technology as we should judge any program in our schools-- how well it performs to help students achieve standards while working within the guardrails of the district. In other words, we should be investing our time and resources in programs, processes and people that help our kids achieve standards, while reflecting the broader values of the community.
I think we as a board have an opportunity to be more student-focused in our time, setting high multi-year standards for student achievement, and then ask our educational experts to use the most effective tools, that reflect the values of the community to get there— whether those tools are differentiated instruction, technology programs, extended learning opportunities or other techniques. As such, I’d like a more regular evaluation of each of these types of tools to understand where we’re having the most impact, and where we’re being less effective.
David McKinney: Ideally the district should look to independent evaluations of the impact of educational technology tools on student learning. These sorts of evaluations do not often exist for products so we should have a back up framework for deciding if a tool is worth adopting and, after adoption, worth continued use. For adopting a tool we should look for tools that keep teachers as the pedagogical decision makers, do not undermine student thinking, and do not undermine students forming relationships with their peers and teachers. My goal would be to support teachers’ professional judgement, providing students with tools that support their deep thinking and learning, and supporting student belonging in school.
AFIT’s Spring 2026 survey of parents and caregivers indicated that most lack information about how, when, and why our students are using tech tools at school and on school-issued devices for homework.
What can the board do to foster transparency in the district’s use of tech tools to support curricular and pedagogical choices?
Margaret Allen: One of the genuine benefits of technology is how much easier it makes sharing information. Gathering edtech usage data shouldn't take extra time away from our teachers. The district can simply use the built-in reporting features these platforms already have and share de-identified summaries on things like screen time, frequency, and usage, on a regular basis.
Parents shouldn’t have to rely on their children to learn which tools are being used in school. We can easily use existing forums, such as superintendent updates, ParentSquare, and site newsletters, to keep families clearly informed. Information should include which apps or subscriptions are being used, why they were chosen, average screen time, and how they’re delivered (like individual Chromebooks vs. whole-class instruction).
As elected officials, the board has a duty to listen to community concerns and keep the public updated on what’s happening in our classrooms. Sharing this data routinely builds trust, empowers parents, and ensures our community stays a partner in shaping our kids' learning environment.
Melissa Boyd: I think the first step in increasing transparency on the issue of use of technology in classrooms was bringing together the group of families who were able to highlight this issue and encourage additional attention and focus from AUSD leadership, so I'm grateful for the involvement and commitment to furthering this review and discussion that your group has brought forth. As with all issues raised in our community, it is always best to go to the person or people closest to the issue in the first instance.
So, as relates to this question, families should be encouraged to reach out to their students' teachers (and to their students) when they want to know more about the technology being utilized in classrooms. And I also think there is value in having periodic updates at the board level regarding any policy changes related to technology use, for instance, providing an update on how the use of Go Guardian is going and whether that use will continue, and other policies and practices being implemented and followed throughout AUSD.
Becky Hopwood: The Board can ask the superintendent to provide families with information about which digital tools are generally used in classrooms and for homework, why they’re used, and how student privacy and safety are protected. Parents and caregivers should also ask their children’s teachers directly to provide clarity on this, as the use of tech tools varies from classroom to classroom.
I’m reluctant to suggest that we should seek input from the community before adopting new tools or making significant changes, because I want us to trust that our teachers and district leaders are making the best decisions for our students. However, ongoing transparency and soliciting feedback, along with regular evaluation of the various tools, would ensure that these technology decisions reflect the needs of our students, as well as the priorities of the community.
Josh Mahoney: First and foremost, I would encourage parents with questions about what is happening in their child’s classroom to start with conversations with their student and their teachers. The board can bring focus to student achievement, and reflect the values of the community, but we also want to empower teachers to use what they think are the right solutions given that they know our students and have the experience of what works and what does not at an individual level.
As mentioned above, I think the board has an opportunity to be more student-focused and less adult-focused. In using our limited time together, I’d like to see us have a more regular conversation about the efficacy of programs, including technology, so that the community can have a good understanding of which programs are being implemented, how we are evaluating if they are working, and what we aim to do more or less of. By having these conversations regularly, and giving the district an opportunity to share their data, I think greater transparency can be achieved for all programs, including those involving technology.
David McKinney: I think the board should request the district track, if they do not already, and publish time spent using school-provided devices in school and at home by grade level. I would like to know the average time spent, standard deviation, 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of time spent by students in each grade level. I would also like to know the relative time spent on different websites and applications. I would also want to explore providing a digest to parents of their child’s device use through conversion with our community to understand what information would be helpful for parents to have.
We thank the 2026 Board Candidates for their time in responding to our questions.
Over the past decade, screens have moved into classrooms faster than schools could evaluate their impact. Devices and apps were adopted by districts on the promise of engagement and personalization, often without rigorous evaluation of whether they actually improved learning. Little attention has been paid to what children may lose when much of the school day involves screen time.
Now we know more. A growing body of research — from cognitive science, developmental psychology, and education — points in a consistent direction:
Attention is the foundation of learning.
Much educational software is built on the same engagement mechanics as consumer apps: points, streaks, autoplay, and rewards that fragment attention rather than build it.
Productive struggle matters.
When a program instantly scaffolds, hints, or gamifies away every difficulty, it can short-circuit the very cognition the assignment was meant to build.
Handwriting, deep reading on paper, and effortful recall strengthen the mind.
These practices measurably build memory, comprehension, and the neural development that advanced learning depends on.
Young children are not small adults.
What is developmentally appropriate for a junior in high school differs enormously from what's appropriate for a first grader — yet screen-based curriculum is often deployed uniformly across grades.
Creativity depends on knowledge.
To create something new, students need a foundation of independent knowledge to draw on and genuine ownership over their own work.
Commercial incentives shape design.
Ed tech is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and engagement metrics, data collection, and subscription renewals often drive product decisions — not children's development.
Technology has a place in our schools but it's place should be earned, not assumed, and always be intentional — chosen deliberately by educators and families, for specific learning goals, with evidence behind it.
What we mean by “intentional”
Critical thinkers, not passive consumers.
We aim to raise citizens who critically evaluate sources, question what they read, and create their own work — not children conditioned to passively consume gamified content designed to capture their attention.
Evidence before adoption.
The burden of proof belongs on the technology, not on the child’s preferences or engagement. Digital curriculum and devices should be rigorously evaluated for learning effectiveness and age-appropriateness before they enter the classroom — not after.
Friction is a feature of learning.
Struggle, boredom, and effortful practice are not obstacles to learning; they are often an essential part of the learning process. When a tool removes all friction, it often removes cognition too.
A voice of their own.
Kids need to learn to think and write in their own voice — drafting, revising, and wrestling with ideas — before they outsource composition to autocomplete, templates, or AI.
"Extraneous" activities build the brain.
Practices that can look old-fashioned or even pointless — cursive handwriting, mental math, reading on paper, memorization develop fine motor skills, working memory, and neural pathways that underpin advanced learning. They deserve protection, not elimination.
Skills to navigate technology, not just use it.
True digital citizenship means developing the cognitive and ethical skills to navigate a digital world — attention management, source evaluation, privacy awareness, healthy skepticism of persuasive design — built age-appropriately at every grade. Many of the skills our children need to develop in order to navigate digital landscapes thoughtfully can be better developed independently of screens.
Tech companies and ed tech developers are not neutral partners.
Many forces shaping educational technology are commercial ones that do not have children's developmental interests at heart. Our district — not vendors — should define what our children need.
“Technology should never be treated as neutral or inevitable — each new tool carries with it a program, an agenda, and a philosophy that may or may not be life-enhancing and therefore requires scrutiny, criticism, and control.”
Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology
Want to get involved?
Check out the research
About Us
Albany Families for Intentional Technology (AFIT) is a parent-led group working alongside teachers, administrators, the school board, students, and families to make sure every screen, program, and digital assignment in Albany’s K–12 classrooms is intentional, backed by research, and matched with what we know about how children learn and develop.