A recent poll shows the district receiving largely positive marks from local parents despite their widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the state and city.
But the same poll shows the district might not know how to leave well enough alone by pushing forward with broad restrictions on classroom technology.
The poll, conducted in July by President Biden’s primary pollster, Impact Research, found that while half of LAUSD parents believe both California and Los Angeles are moving in the wrong direction, 56% of parents give LAUSD a positive job rating.
It’s not entirely surprising LAUSD was viewed favorably by a majority of parents. After all, the district has good news to point to: test scores rose this summer for the fifth straight year, with gains in math, reading and science. During that time, the district implemented more effective instructional methods and curriculum, such as the phonics-heavy science of reading.
At the same time, the gains were modest. Fewer than half of students are proficient in English and about 40% in math, and English learners and students with disabilities fell behind. Parents know it: 54% rate the district’s academic support negatively.
In other words, the district has bona fide good news to share, but it also doesn’t have much room for error – which makes its high-profile war on classroom technology so strange.
Kids shouldn’t be scrolling TikTok during algebra, and the district approved a cell phone ban in 2024. This was a good idea. But the board’s recent sweeping screen-time restrictions focused on the district-issued laptops and tablets students use for classwork.
The district’s reasoning traces back to COVID. During one of the nation’s longest shutdowns, which the teacher union was insistent upon, one of the longest classroom shutdowns in the country, teachers and students had no choice but to rely heavily on technology. And now, years later, the usage persisted and some were worried about too much screentime, even though the test score improvements happened during this time.
The district went back and forth trying to settle on a policy. It ultimately landed on a ban for the youngest kids, up to 20 minutes daily for second and third graders, up to 30 minutes a day for fourth and fifth graders, up to 60 minutes per subject each week for sixth through eighth graders and up to 90 minutes per subject per week for ninth through twelfth graders.
The district’s own board presentation lists “manage cumulative screen exposure” as a guiding principle, even though most would agree that Instagram scrolling and educational games are not of equal value in a classroom.
The district relied in part on a recent U.S. Surgeon General warning, which warns about “harmful screen use,” defined as patterns of use that “are excessive, difficult to control, or involve exposure to content or interactions that may harm a child’s well-being.” The advisory does urge schools to lean on books and paper when possible. But the academic harms it cites come from recreational screen time, it tells kids to track their screen use “beyond what is required for schoolwork,” and it calls for more research on classroom technology rather than claiming the question is settled. Nowhere does it recommend zero minutes for kindergartners and first-graders.
Granted, 50% of parents say the new policy strikes the right balance. But the survey described it as a policy that still allows “the use of technology to support student learning,” which isn’t true for the district’s youngest students, who lose school-issued devices entirely. Asked about the principle directly, two-thirds of parents said schools shouldn’t limit computers and tablets used for learning.
A teenager ignoring the lesson to text friends is a problem. But a first-grader using an interactive, teacher-directed program that flags exactly where they are falling behind in reading could be a lifeline. A blanket ban for the youngest students just throws the lifeline out with the distraction.
Some teachers may lean on screens too heavily, and some classroom software isn’t worth the time. And there are legitimate concerns about the misuse of AI. The answer is to vet the software and support teachers, not to put a stopwatch on every device.
A district with this much momentum, and this little room for error, should have a better reason for changing course than a stopwatch.
Matt Fleming is the Pacific Research Institute’s communications director.