Lessons from COVID

Let me start with a bit of history.  Cajon Valley's mission / vision was rolled out in 2017 and stakeholder feedback in 2021 created our "8 Promises."  As a sort of strategic plan to carry out our mission / vision, the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) goals were last updated in 2023-24 by the LCAP committee in response to community input.  But we are here again.  This year marks the last year in the three-year LCAP cycle, meaning the committee will again review and finalize the goals that will steer the district for the following three years towards our mission / vision.  Before we embark on that journey, our foundational Board Policy 0000, simply titled "Vision", states that the board shall review the district's vision statements annually, then the board may revise or reaffirm the direction it has established for the district.  By California School Board Association (CSBA) recommendations, our MVP has outlived its lifetime of eight years, but even more importantly, there are valuable lessons from COVID that we need to apply moving forward.  To quote CSBA's "Role of the Board" document, our vision should "reflect the consensus of the community, the board, and the district staff as to what students need in order to achieve their highest potential."  As codified in its name, the LOCAL Control and Accountability Plan mandates we facilitate widespread community engagement as we proceed to reevaluate our direction.

It is true, as a board, we must find the balance between faithfulness to a long-term vision and responsiveness to current educational research and community priorities.  Our adopted 1:1 technology ratio (1 device for every student) served us well during COVID, but that era also revealed its faults.  At this critical junction, it's important we reassess the role of technology in the classroom.  As documented in the "CVUSD Technology and AI survey" (previous post), some students have concerns about the physical effects of screen use and device transport, and parental feedback was "predominantly cautious or critical in tone."  While there are many paths forward, we must acknowledge this place of reckoning for what it is.  On one hand, technology is here to stay, and I am not advocating for a 1950's era classroom.  On the other hand, we must defer to parental authority, respond to community feedback, and consider the mounting body of educational research.  My proposition is to offer an opt-in cohort for teachers and students that limits access to a class-sized set of computers and restricted teacher-utilized digital content and assignments.  Not only would the district save the taxpayers tons of money on the devices themselves, but the repair costs in parts and staff time for devices taken home on a daily basis are significant.  With our recent rejection of a bond at a 55% voter threshold, it's imperative we adjust our budget to fund our deferred maintenance projects.  One benefit (of many) of reducing our commitment to 1:1 technology is that we can shift those funds to pay for repairs and upgrades to our aging facilities.  As we consider the gravity of the board's commitment to review the district's mission and vision, let's reflect on the lesson we learned from COVID: essential infrastructure is not 1:1 computers, it's classrooms.