To the USD 352 Board of Education and District Administration,

We are grateful for the work you do each day to serve students and families. As parents and involved community members, we know your decisions carry weight far beyond the classroom, shaping not only academic outcomes but also habits and futures of our children. Our children are the future of our small town and its success to continue on in the great NWKS area.

We are writing today with a simple hope that Goodland’s education can remain both modern and grounded with old habits that promoted problem solving, brain growth, excellence in standards, and set out children up to succeed after they graduate. We believe fully that technology can be used wisely without replacing the foundational practices that have shaped strong learners for generations. We also believe that families and taxpayers can have a real voice in choosing what best supports their children.

We are respectfully requesting a formal review of the district’s one-to-one iPad program and consideration of a parent choice model that allows families to choose between a traditional learning pathway and a technology integrated pathway.

We are not asking for technology to be removed. We are simply asking for a balanced option. We want the ability to choose the amount of screen time allowed while our children attend school and the method their education is provided to them.

In the traditional learning pathway, instruction would remain centered on physical books, printed materials, handwritten notes, and paper based assignments. It would emphasize reading comprehension, writing by hand, discussion, and face to face learning with limited daily screen exposure.

In the technology integrated pathway, students would continue to use iPads or approved devices for instruction, digital learning tools, and structured development of technology skills. Technology would still be taught intentionally, much like art or music, rather than becoming the constant environment for every subject.

We believe both paths have value, however we also believe families should be allowed to choose which environment best supports their child.

Across recent research, there is consistent evidence that students often retain and understand information more deeply when they write by hand and learn from printed materials.

Handwriting slows learning in a good way. It helps children process, think, and remember. It engages parts of the brain connected to memory and comprehension in ways typing often does not.

We also cannot ignore the growing national conversation about screen exposure in childhood. Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation brings forward concerns that increased screen based childhood experiences are linked with rising anxiety, shorter attention spans, and fewer opportunities for real world social development.

While school issued devices are different from phones and social media, they still contribute to daily screen time during some of the most important developmental hours of a child’s life.

We also want to raise concerns about safety and responsibility. When students are given constant access to internet connected devices, even with filters and safeguards in place, there is always some level of risk. These concerns include exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying, overuse of screens, and the challenge of separating learning from distraction, both at school and at home.

As parents, we feel the weight of that reality.

We also recognize the growing challenge of artificial intelligence in education. When students complete work on devices, it becomes harder to know what is truly their own thinking. A return to more handwritten work and in person assessment may help protect academic integrity and give teachers a clearer picture of student understanding.

We are also asking for financial transparency. We respectfully request a clear comparison between the cost of the one to one device program and a traditional paper and pencil model. This should include device replacement, insurance, repairs, software, infrastructure, and staffing. Families deserve to understand the full picture of how resources are being used. This all includes any federal support, grants, programs, etc

Our request is not rooted in pursuing opposition to technology, but in a desire for wisdom and balance.

We respectfully ask the district to consider:

Offering families a true choice between a traditional learning pathway and a technology-integrated pathway

Preserving handwriting, reading, and printed materials as the foundation of learning for families who choose that option

Keeping technology as an intentional subject area, taught with a purpose rather than as the default environment.

Providing full financial transparency regarding the cost and sustainability of the current device program

In the end, this is not only about screens or books.

It is about our children. It is about attention, development, safety, and the kind of learners we hope they become. If we don’t fight for them to learn old fashion problem solving– inventors, self starters, and the confidence that is built from working those neuropathways once they are on their own as adults…we will be letting them fail. We will be removing motivation for growth, for the American Dream, and for them to have hope of a better future. The desire to do better, the desire to be better– the desire to dream.

What we teach at school is equally important to how we teach them.

We believe families and taxpayers should have a voice in each child’s public school education journey in Goodland. We believe schools and parents can walk forward together in a way that honors both progress and wisdom.

Respectfully submitted,
Concerned Parents and Community Members

Supporting Sources

• Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard. Princeton University / UCLA
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24760141/
• Neuroscience research on handwriting and brain activation
  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11943480/
• Study comparing handwriting vs typing and learning outcomes
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34177498/
• State of Kansas cell phone restriction policy announcement
  https://www.governor.ks.gov/Home/Components/News/News/952/55/
• Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation (2024)

Questions for School Board Consideration

One to One Device Policy vs. Traditional Learning Options

These are questions submitted to the USD 352 board to start a discussion regarding the district’s one to one iPad program and pursue consideration of a traditional, paper and pencil instructional pathway as an option for families.

The intent of these questions is to encourage transparency, academic accountability, financial clarity, and consideration of alternative instructional models. We appreciate all that current administrators and teachers are doing for the children in Sherman County, but we also believe we can always do better. Are we doing what is best for the children?

---

Questions for USD 352

What is the district’s educational justification for requiring a one to one iPad model in every classroom rather than limiting devices to a dedicated technology course?

What specific learning outcomes cannot be achieved through a traditional paper andpencil instructional model?

Has the district formally evaluated a hybrid model where technology is optional rather than required?

At what point does device usage shift from an instructional tool to the default instructional environment, and who determines that standard?

What measurable evidence shows that full day iPad use improves long term academic outcomes compared to traditional instruction?

How do students who primarily learn on devices compare in reading comprehension, retention, and writing quality to students using print materials?

Has the district tracked changes in attention span, assignment completion, or standardized test performance since implementation of one-to-one devices?

What peer reviewed research is the district relying on to justify full integration of devices in daily instruction?

How does the district reconcile full day instructional screen use with statewide concerns reflected in Kansas restrictions on student cell phone use?

Has the district studied the potential impact of daily screen exposure on student anxiety, focus, and classroom behavior?

What safeguards exist to ensure devices are not contributing to distraction or reduced sustained attention?

Why are personal cell phones restricted for distraction concerns while instructional devices are used throughout the entire school day?

Why are families not offered a non device learning pathway if research supports different learning styles?

How does the current model accommodate students who demonstrate stronger learning outcomes through handwriting and print based instruction?

What options exist for families who prefer reduced screen exposure for their children during school hours?

How is the district ensuring that student work completed on devices reflects independent thinking rather than AI assisted completion?

Has the district evaluated whether handwritten assignments provide a more accurate measure of student understanding?

What policies are in place to distinguish between student-generated work and AI generated content?

What is the total annual per student cost of the one-to-one device program, including devices, replacement cycles, insurance, software, infrastructure, and staffing?

How often are devices replaced, and what is the projected long-term cost over 5–10 years?

What percentage of the district budget is allocated to sustaining the device program?

Has a full cost comparison been completed between a device based model and a traditional paper based model?

Why is technology integrated across all subject areas rather than taught primarily as a dedicated technology course?

Has the district considered a lab based or class based model for technology instruction rather than universal daily use?

What evidence supports universal device integration over selective, single elective technology use?

When was the last formal review of the one-to-one device policy conducted, and were parents included in that review?

What metrics determine whether the program is successful or should be revised?

If academic outcomes do not improve, what process exists for policy change or reversal?

If Kansas has restricted personal device use in schools due to concerns about distraction and mental health, why is it appropriate to require equivalent or greater screen exposure through instructional devices in every classroom rather than limiting technology to structured instruction only?

Rachel Redlin was a columnist, author, journalist, and award-winning radio host. She lives in Northwest Kansas with her husband and six children, where she writes about faith, food, and the simple everyday life. Want to read more or contact us? You can subscribe to the FREE newsletter at www.simplybloominggrace.com

Want some help with where to start? We’ve chosen a few items to encourage and equip you with your own favorites…and one of our favorite devotionals to go with it! Click the links below to find out more!

Note: This post contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I may earn a small commission from qualifying purchases—at no extra cost to you. Thank you for supporting Simply Blooming Grace. You can read our privacy and security policy HERE.