1.  Basic literacy skills in students have declined as tech use has skyrocketed. What specific steps would you take to strengthen reading, handwriting, and sustained attention for LVUSD students?

I believe strongly that we must focus on our core mission of preparing students in the basics of reading, writing and math before all other academic and extracurricular efforts. I was so concerned about what I was seeing as both a parent and board member that I pressed the District to create a data committee that ultimately uncovered a generational flatline in core academic test scores. That led to a bottom-up reassessment of how we teach the basics, how we measure success and where we invest.

We adopted new curriculum aligned with state standards, invested in teacher training and made difficult staffing decisions when the data showed students were not reaching their potential. The results are finally beginning to show. Districtwide scores in English language arts, mathematics and science reached their highest levels since the current state testing began in 2017. Mathematics performance was the highest ever recorded by the district, and at the high school level students improved 36 points in ELA and 31 points in mathematics.

We cannot take a victory lap. There is much more work to do. But this speaks to what I believe the role of a board member should be: stay plugged into what is happening in our classrooms, ask tough questions, understand the data and hold the District accountable for results.

2.  If elected, what measurable outcomes would you use to determine whether district technology policies are benefiting students?

There has been no stronger champion for limiting the harmful impact of technology on our students than I have been. I saw firsthand as a parent what phones were doing during the school day. I toured schools that had banned them, met with the CEO of Yondr, asked the District to survey teachers and partnered with two other board members to pass one of the strongest phone bans in the region. I spent more than a year moving this policy through committees and the board. Today, bullying is down, test scores are up and attendance is up.

Now we need to bring that same scrutiny to technology in the classroom. Thirteen years ago, our technology strategy was largely about hardware. Today technology has crept into nearly every aspect of education, often without clear evidence that it improves learning.

I don't believe a child in TK through second grade needs a screen during the school day except for mandated testing. I believe screen time should also be limited in grades three through five, and I want clear limits for middle and high school. Initial data showing students may spend 30% or more of classroom time on screens is simply not acceptable to me.

Before we introduce more technology, we should ask the same question we would ask about a new curriculum: Does credible research show that it improves academic performance and student development? If not, why are we using it?

3.  How can LVUSD better empower teachers to determine when technology genuinely enhances instruction and when analog methods are more effective?

This is going to be a learning process. Teachers today have significant autonomy in how they use instructional materials. We need to educate teachers about the impact of excessive screen time while also establishing smart policies that ensure technology is being used because it improves learning, not simply because it is available.

AI is a good example. I support a temporary ban on student use of generative AI. It doesn't have to be permanent. But until we can identify proven uses that improve academic achievement and student development, I don't believe it belongs in our classrooms.

This will not be easy. Teachers, staff and students have all become accustomed to the convenience of technology, sometimes at the expense of practices we know have worked for generations.

4.  Do you think LVUSD should put a cap on screen time for students at any level?

Yes. I have stated publicly that I believe we need limits on screen time and helped lead the effort to determine how much time our students are actually spending on screens today.

I support essentially no screen time in TK through second grade except where required for testing or a specific student need. I also believe we need meaningful limits in grades three through five and clear daily limits for middle and high school.

I am open to what those specific limits should be, based on the science and recommendations from our educators. But the status quo of allowing screen time to expand without meaningful limits is not acceptable.

5.  LAUSD now prohibits student use of devices during lunch, recess, and passing periods. Do you support a similar policy?

When it comes to cell phones, LVUSD actually acted before Los Angeles. Our policy already keeps phones away during the school day.

Laptops are more complicated. I have heard from students and parents who want access during lunch or free periods to complete homework. I believe a districtwide whitelist that limits student devices to core academic sites could address much of that issue while preventing gaming, social media, YouTube and other nonacademic use.

I am open to proposals that create more genuinely screen-free time during the many hours our students spend on campus.

6.  Do you support a one-to-one device policy for elementary school students?

I support having devices available in grades three through five for proven academic purposes. I am much less convinced that every elementary student needs an individually assigned laptop that travels between school and home.

I am very open to moving back toward shared laptop carts in elementary schools. I have heard from parents who intentionally limit screens at home and feel that choice is taken away when their third or fourth grader comes home with a school-issued laptop.

I want to hear the recommendations from staff and, importantly, from parents before deciding where we ultimately land.

7.  What role, if any, should generative AI play in K–12 education?

I'm not anti-AI. I work in an industry heavily influenced by AI and understand that it will be an important part of our children's lives.

That does not mean we need to rush AI into classrooms. I have serious concerns about what emerging research is telling us about its impact on cognitive reasoning and independent thinking. And let's not fool ourselves: right now, one of the primary ways students are using generative AI is to cheat.

I am open to AI in education when we have peer-reviewed research showing specific uses that improve student growth and academic development. Until then, I support banning student use of generative AI in our schools.

8.  What access, if any, should students have to YouTube on school-issued devices?

I have advocated for blocking YouTube on student devices while keeping it available to teachers. Every classroom has a SmartBoard. If a teacher believes a YouTube video adds value to a lesson, the teacher can show it to the class and incorporate it into instruction, discussion and engagement.

We have too many instances of students being sent to videos, links, games and other online tools during class in place of direct engagement with a teacher and curriculum. I don't believe students need unrestricted accessto YouTube on school-issued devices.

9.  What guardrails should prevent private tech companies from influencing public school policy or using student data for commercial purposes?

Every parent should be aware of how little privacy exists in today's digital world. Our phones, televisions, apps, loyalty programs and connected devices all collect enormous amounts of information about us. That makes protecting student data especially important.

California law provides strong protections for student information, and from what I have seen, the programs used by LVUSD comply with requirements prohibiting the sharing of personally identifiable student information for commercial purposes.

If I learned that a provider was improperly using or sharing our students' personal data, I would expect that practice to stop immediately and would hold that provider accountable.

10.  Should parents be able to opt their children out of specific instructional technology platforms while allowing them to fully participate in classroom learning?

I'm very sensitive to this question and understand where it comes from, but my answer may not be the most popular one with this group.

We are a public unified school district. We don't have the staffing, resources or flexibility to create separate curriculum and instructional processes for every individual student. I am a big believer in giving parents choices. My oldest child attended Mariposa because we wanted a screen-free environment for her, and LVUSD continues to offer that option to K-8 families.

Rather than creating an unworkable patchwork of individual opt-outs, I would rather address the underlying problem for everyone: no unnecessary screen time in TK-2, severely limited and academically appropriate screen time in grades 3-5, and clear classroom limits in middle and high school.

The starting point should be simple: technology should have an academic purpose and provide a benefit that cannot reasonably be achieved without it.

11.  What would you say to parents and teachers concerned that school budgets are being spent on costly, ineffective technology while essentials fall by the wayside?

More than 90% of our budget goes to people, so I don't find the argument that technology spending is crowding out basic services particularly persuasive.

The larger challenge is that LVUSD receives significantly less funding per student than neighboring districts such as Los Angeles, which means we have to make every dollar count twice basically.

That doesn't mean I accept waste. When I learned we were cutting back library services at one of our middle schools, I got involved because I thought that sent exactly the wrong message. I am always open to hearing where parents and teachers see waste or opportunities to spend our limited resources better.

12.  Are there any SBS reform proposals that you would champion?

Yes. I have been a vocal champion of many of these ideas both locally and in Sacramento.

I strongly support prohibiting unnecessary student device use in the earliest grades; blocking YouTube, gaming, social media and other recreational content on student devices; establishing meaningful screen-time limits; disabling student access to generative AI tools for now; prohibiting screen time as a reward or behavioral incentive; providing teachers and students with low-tech alternatives; increasing parent input and transparency; and educating families about the risks associated with excessive screen use, to name just a few.

Many of these are issues I have already been pushing in LVUSD, and I intend to continue doing so. And I am grateful to have the support of SBS helping to educate our community about them.

13.  What else should SBS voters know about you?

I first ran for the school board when my daughter was preparing to enter kindergarten. At the time, there were no parents with kids in our schools on the board - or even running for that matter. That seemed foreign to me. I had spent the early part of my career working on education policy at the federal level, and I knew how critical parent feedback and buy-in were to the process. So I decided to run.

Since then, I have made it my mission to give parents a voice, even when doing so was unpopular with colleagues or staff.

At the end of the day, I believe our job as board members is twofold: to be good stewards of our local tax dollars and to make sure every student has every opportunity to succeed and pursue whatever path is right for them. I take that responsibility very seriously.

I have three kids in our schools, and each has taken advantage of different pathways our district offers including dual language, GATE, Waldorf and others. I want to make sure we preserve those choices for parents and students, keep our district financially strong, and never rest on our laurels. No matter how well we are doing, I firmly believe we can always find ways to improve.