On March 23, community members were invited to the Harriton High School Auditorium for a panel discussion with LM administrators, student representatives, teachers, and school board members on the controversial topic of technology in district schools. The meeting had four areas of discussion, beginning with personal device use.
After a brief introduction to the current “Off and Away” system by Superintendent Frank Ranelli and student panelists, the microphone was open to public comments. A LM student, Joaquin Imazumi ’27, took the microphone to present his perspective on technology and cell phone addiction. Performing with a slam poetry rhythm and tone, Imazumi expressed his frustration with “tech guys robbing us of our lives” and being “subjugated to ones and zeroes.” He ended his speech with a call to change the off-and-away policy to a beginning to end of school one and received resounding applause. In response, Dr. Ranelli thanked Imazumi for his statement. However, he highlighted the idea that as students graduate from school, they need to understand how to moderate their own use of technology. Yair Lev, a Merion Elementary School parent, highlighted that there are “twenty-plus families who are planning on opting out of chromebooks.” To this, Dr. Ranelli stopped the comment, enforcing that the topic of Chromebooks would be more apt for another section. In a post-meeting interview, Lev stated that he has been leading the push for “open conversations between parents, community, board members…for a while.” He explained that his goal was to “continue having ongoing conversations” relating to technology because it “defines in many ways education in the last few years.” Recently, he has noticed that “opting out and Chromebooks and all the potential risks and privacy and gamification” has become a prevalent concern. He emphasized that he doesn’t “see it as opting out,” instead viewing it as “opting into traditional education of speaking with teachers, looking in their eyes, writing, and having the manual dexterity of writing and math.”
The most debated topic seemed to be this next section, concerning technology in the classroom. Specifically, how the increasing use of digital tools has impacted student behavior. To preface, school board member Anna Shurak commented that administrators and community members are “working together to solve the same problem” and that it was not a situation where “we are for tech, everyone else is against.” She also highlighted compliance with state law, which the parent had mentioned, saying that “If Governor [Josh] Shapiro passes legislation to ban bell to bell, then we will absolutely go in that direction” and that “We aren’t against [new legislation or policies], we are for doing it well and doing it correctly.” Sarah Sullivan, a Penn Valley parent, opposed the idea that LMSD should wait for state-wide legislation. In her view, LMSD should “not wait for the state to make the decision and… make the decision itself.”
John Bellis, a Wynnewood parent, was a strong voice for the “wait until eighth” pledge. This pledge invites parents and children to wait until eighth grade to receive a personal cell phone. He suggested principals say this at orientation: “Some people like this pledge; you might want to take a look,’” and then “we could have this social media problem squashed.” However, Dr. Ranelli explained that the district was “not going to tell parents how to parent or even suggest it.” Other parents remarked on LMSD’s wealth and how that should translate to better policies regarding technology use.
However, community concerns were not limited to a mere overuse of screens. Parents lined up to voice their frustrations regarding everything from lack of social interaction to pornographic content to access to disturbing video games: “There was a game called Five Nights at Epstein’s,” one parent noted, that her son had claimed “everyone [in fifth grade] was playing.” Many parents mentioned that their children do not know how to have everyday social interactions, including looking people in the eye, saying “hi,” “thank you,” and “please,” and being able to hold a conversation without getting ‘jittery.”
Alongside the concern of technology in the classroom, there was immense distress surrounding technology on buses. Numerous parents voiced their opinions on limiting cellphones and other electronic devices on school transportation. “What do I do if my ten-year-old is shown something they’re not supposed to see on the bus?” one parent pleaded.
Another parent scrutinized the budget of digital learning: “Where is the data that warrants this amount of money?” Dissension grew as he continued to ask, arguing that school board president Kerry Sautner’s response to him was “respectfully, not data.” At such moments, the audience—filled with parents and community members—offered their input, cheering, jeering, and clapping along to the voices at the microphone. Many parents were like-minded in their opinions that technology is “hindering children from making meaningful connections within and out of the classroom” and that “students have grown to hate math because it is purely on the computer,” and, according to parent and video game designer Rich Siegel, “Ed[ucational] Tech[nology] is garbage.” He cites DreamBox, the video game used to teach the elementary math curriculum, as a “horrible dopamine, slot machine, gambling-type website” that doesn’t effectively teach math or display the actual benefits of video games.
Tensions were high throughout the panel discussion, especially when parents decided to rebut an opinion voiced by one of the principal-appointed student representatives, Suravi Banka ’28. Banka explained her opinion on technology and its everyday uses, including an example of “scanning the QR menu at restaurants.” Parents attending let out a laugh, but after Siegel spoke, one parent brought this issue back up, quoting Banka’s statement about QR codes, remarking that her “five-year-old could do that.” Shurak stepped in, stating that she was “personally offended” at the parent’s decision to critique a student’s contributions and that it was not acceptable to “make light of student comments.” After the meeting, Banka recounted her polarizing experience. “It takes a lot for people to come here and voice their concerns about their students and their children,” she said. “I do think there’s a little bit of back and forth—one side versus the other side—that could be improved. We should be more of a community than we are, and people are thinking of it really black and white, when in reality it shouldn’t actually be that way.” She further stressed that the need for a collaborative and problem-solving attitude is crucial when having conversations concerning technology.
Multiple LMSD students offered an opinion on their own concern—artificial intelligence. According to Brigid San Chirico ’26, assignments across subjects that “once felt like genuine work” are corrupted through AI’s “easy way out.” A recent controversy at Radnor High School, where AI was used to create nude deepfake images, showcased how “there are dangers within AI.” Continuing, San Chirico explained that “[she’s] seen the corrosion” and is hoping that the district “put[s] up guardrails.” Further, San Chirico remarked that although LM blocks many websites, including Wordle, popular AI websites remain easily accessible. A Bryn Mawr college student also took the mic to echo some of San Chirico’s points, explaining that AI creates an “easy way out of social interactions,” and educational technology online also “drives continuous use of technology.” Another student at Bala Cynwyd Middle School stated how she felt like she was “in the minority because she actually does her homework” instead of just letting AI chatbots do it for her. After a few more parent and community comments discussing similar concerns, the meeting concluded at around 8:30 p.m. with a closing from Dr. Ranelli.
Sautner explained in a post meeting interview with The Merionite the thought behind the meeting. “The process is really about us understanding all the perspectives in the room,” she said. Sautner revealed that more panel-style meetings would take place, addressing important topics and concerns within the district. She reiterated that the meetings for the Board were supposed to be “about a little bit of sharing, but a lot of listening.” She further explained that the format of the meeting, with parents and the panel set up on opposing sides of the room, may have contributed to an oppositional atmosphere and considered plans to revamp the layout.
Overall, the meeting provided parents and community members an opportunity to express concerns, criticism, and other comments about technology in schools. While some moments became heated, plans for similar meetings in the future are still in the works. As LMSD continues to navigate changing norms regarding online education practices, meetings like these serve to provide community input into a controversial topic.
