Parent Group Raises Alarm Over Screen Time In Westfield Schools

WESTFIELD, NJ — A group of parents brought a coordinated message to the Westfield Board of Education on June 16, calling for changes to how technology is used in classrooms and raising concerns about screen time, online safety, and the use of artificial intelligence in instruction.

The group, known as Parents for Mindful Tech, submitted a letter signed by more than 300 parents, educators, and community members. Their message centered on what they described as the need for clearer boundaries around district-issued devices, particularly Chromebooks, and more consistent limits on recreational screen use during the school day.

During public comment, several parents said district laptops have shifted over time from being instructional tools to something used more loosely throughout the day, including during downtime, early finishers, or indoor recess.

Danielle McCaily said she has noticed screens being used as a default option when structured instruction isn’t happening.

“Every time I hear another anecdote about free time on the Chromebook, I can’t help but pause and think that nothing is really free,” McCaily said. “That time comes at a cost. It replaces reading, conversation, and the chance for kids to just sit and think.”

Another parent, Rosamond McMahon, focused on how devices are used as part of behavior systems in younger grades.

“In some classrooms, screen time is actually part of the reward system,” McMahon said. “We shouldn’t be rewarding behavior with more screen time.”

A major concern raised by multiple speakers was student access to YouTube on school devices. Laura Cohen, a parent of first-grade twins, said her child has encountered inappropriate content while using a district-issued Chromebook and questioned how content controls are being enforced in real time.

“YouTube Kids isn’t the same as curated educational content,” Cohen said. “It’s built to keep people watching. That’s the problem when it’s in the hands of young children at school.”

Katherine Powell, who works in media and has a child in first grade, said the issue is difficult for teachers to manage in a classroom setting.

“There’s one teacher and 20 kids,” Powell said. “There’s no way to monitor every screen all the time. At a certain point, it just becomes too much. We need tighter limits.”

Artificial intelligence tools in schools were also part of the discussion. Laura Drexel, a parent and educator who uses AI professionally, said she is concerned about introducing generative AI tools too early in a child’s learning process. The district currently allows access to Google Gemini beginning in middle school grades.

“When AI removes the struggle from learning, it changes what students are actually developing,” Drexel said. “It can look like understanding, but the thinking work isn’t always there.”

Sarah Andrews, who works in higher education, said she is already seeing gaps in student skills when it comes to independent thinking and research.

“There’s an increasing reliance on tools to do the thinking,” Andrews said. “Students sometimes struggle to verify information or work through problems without digital assistance.”

The group also called for a district-wide review of technology practices, including stricter limits on unsupervised Chromebook use, more consistent guidelines around AI tools, and clearer rules for when devices should be used during the school day.

Kyle George, a parent who works in the tech industry, suggested limiting access outside structured instruction.

“Kids don’t need constant access to these devices,” George said. “There should be clear guardrails, and maybe even a return to more traditional classroom setups where not everything is screen-based.”

Melissa Murano, a longtime educator, said technology should support instruction rather than replace it.

“Technology should enhance learning, not take over the classroom experience,” Murano said. “Some of the best learning still happens through discussion, collaboration, and hands-on work.”

As part of standard procedure, board members listened to the comments but did not respond during the public comment period.