CROTON-ON-HUDSON — In a testament to the growing momentum behind the "phone-free childhood" movement, over 300 residents packed St. Augustine’s Episcopal Church on April 23 for a Board of Education candidate forum unlike any in recent memory. Hosted by the Croton Community Collective (CCC)—a grassroots group founded by public school teacher Jill Anderson that has ballooned to 300 members in just nine months—the event stripped away the usual broad policy platitudes to focus laser-like on a single, contentious issue: technology in schools. With three open seats and five candidates on the ballot for the upcoming May 19 election, the forum served as a de facto referendum on the district’s digital direction. The atmosphere was electric, standing room only, as the two challengers, Betsy Laird and Jake Day, pressed for a radical rethinking of screen use in the classroom. They squared off against three incumbents—Neal Haber, Sarah Carrier, and Anamika Bhatnagar—who largely defended the district’s current trajectory while acknowledging the need for recalibration. The evening was structured around six themes distilled from 120 submitted community questions, ranging from the proliferation of educational software (EdTech) to the existential threat of Artificial Intelligence. Through two-and-a-half-minute answers, the candidates revealed distinct philosophies on how Croton schools should navigate the digital age. ### "The Avatar That Was More Exciting Than the Lesson" The first question asked for the candidates' perceptions on the proliferation of EdTech, identifying benefits and drawbacks. This topic drew perhaps the most candid admission of the night from incumbent Anamika Bhatnagar. Bhatnagar, a children’s publishing executive with nearly 30 years of experience, including 20 years at Scholastic where she developed *Captain Underpants* and *Dog Man*, is also the current Board Vice President. She revealed that her drive to scrutinize technology is deeply personal, recalling her surprise when her eldest child entered second grade in 2014. "I was really surprised... to discover how much of his reading instruction was taking place over a computer program," Bhatnagar told the crowd. {{quote:5830}} She described her dismay at seeing her son more engaged in customizing a digital avatar than in the actual literacy lesson. "As someone who... thought I was doing a wonderful job creating... tactile, beautifully illustrated, engaging materials... it was a little bit of a bummer." Bhatnagar argued that the country "dove into" EdTech without assessing the impacts, leading to a situation where technology often isn't "additive." She noted the irony that while elementary students might learn on screens, college professors are increasingly reverting to handwritten "blue books" to prevent AI use. Challenger Betsy Laird, a trained psychologist and data leader, echoed Bhatnagar’s skepticism with a vivid metaphor. Laird argued that "real learning requires focus, effort, and time, not shortcuts." She warned that much of classroom technology acts as a "forklift" brought into the gym. "If I'm bringing a forklift to the gym, I am missing the entire point of being at the gym. I am not growing my muscles," Laird said. {{quote:5316}} She argued that EdTech often removes the "productive struggle" necessary for deep learning. Incumbent Sarah Carrier, serving her ninth year on the board, struck a more measured tone. She acknowledged that tech integration was often done with "genuine belief" that it would help, but emphasized that the definition of "intentional use" changes by grade level. "We wanna make sure that we are working collaboratively... to understand the ways in which we can help roll some of that back," Carrier said. ### The "Forklift" in the Classroom: Analog vs. Digital Literacy When the conversation turned to the specific balance of analog versus digital reading and writing, the fault lines between the "fresh perspective" of the challengers and the institutional experience of the incumbents widened. Moderator Dani Zelliger, an English teacher, pressed the candidates on whether the district’s current practice matched their vision for literacy. Jake Day, a challenger and community development finance professional with a son entering CET (Croton Elementary School) in the fall, argued that the district must swing the pendulum back toward analog. He criticized the over-reliance on digital reading programs, suggesting the district had fallen into the "grip of EdTech" following the COVID-19 pandemic. "I think the research is pretty clear that these tech companies have a stranglehold on some of our schools," Day said. {{quote:5102}} Day advocated for a rigorous evaluation framework, citing the "Evidence for ESSA" (Every Student Succeeds Act) standards. He pointed out that popular programs like Lexia Core5 are only rated "moderately effective," while 48 other methods rank as "strongly effective"—only 17 of which are digital. "We should assess every EdTech tool the school is employing," Day argued, emphasizing that the default should not be a screen. Betsy Laird reinforced the need for an "analog first" approach, particularly in writing. She highlighted the importance of handwriting and pen-and-paper note-taking for retention. "The default should not be a screen," she asserted. She noted that her husband, a public school teacher, effectively uses technology to translate lessons for Spanish-speaking students, but that such "bridges" should not replace the foundational work. Incumbent Neal Haber, the longest-serving member with 27 years on the board, offered a historical perspective. Haber noted that his two sons, who graduated in 2004 and 2008, thrived in an "analog" environment, but resisted the idea of a binary choice. "Pen and paper is a tool. Tech is a tool," Haber said. {{quote:5892}} While agreeing that teachers often use screens as a "crutch" post-COVID, Haber argued that the solution lies in collaboration between administrators, teachers, and parents to ensure technology is additive rather than replacing foundational skills. ### One-to-One Devices and Board Governance A significant tension emerged regarding the governance of technology: specifically, the role of the Board of Education in setting screen guidelines versus the autonomy of the administration. The incumbents, particularly Carrier and Haber, were careful to delineate the Board's role as policy-makers rather than classroom managers. Carrier emphasized that the Board sets the "vision," but relies on the Superintendent and administration to handle the "how." She expressed confidence in Dr. Bauer O’Shaughnessy’s leadership, noting that she asks the administration to review how screen time fits into the "whole child" philosophy. Betsy Laird, however, pushed back on this distinction. While respecting the separation of duties, she argued that the Board must be "accountable for the success of its school district." She argued for "clearer guidelines" if the status quo isn't working, suggesting that the Board has a duty to intervene if student outcomes are suffering. "I think we need to be careful about kind of pushing all of the decisions down... without taking responsibility for what's happening," Laird said. {{quote:4402}} Jake Day, highlighting his background in managing federal grant programs, brought a data-centric approach. He advocated for "sunsetting" contracts with EdTech companies. "I'd like to see us figure out how to sunset the contracts... and invest those dollars into things that don't require a subscription," he proposed. Anamika Bhatnagar, referencing her deep literacy background, pivoted the conversation to the specific issue of writing instruction. She noted that the district is currently reviewing new literacy curricula. "We have some programs right now... where kids are tapping to answer," Bhatnagar noted, contrasting this with the cognitive benefits of handwriting. She suggested that the next literacy adoption could significantly impact the district's tech footprint, noting that "if we choose something that has a digital component... we could be stuck with it for eight years." ### The Phone Ban: Implementation and Enforcement Perhaps the most universally supported topic of the evening was the restriction of smartphones at Croton-Harmon High School (CHHS). All candidates expressed support for the district's recent move to ban phone use during the school day, though they differed on the nuances of enforcement. Sarah Carrier, whose son is currently in tenth grade, praised the "transformative" effect of the new policy, noting that her son now converses with her on the ride home rather than looking at a screen. She credited Dr. O'Shaughnessy for listening to the community and making a quick shift in policy. Jake Day fully endorsed the ban but raised a question about "equity of enforcement." He worried that enforcement might fall harder on students with behavioral issues or those who dislike school, while "angel kids" might find ways around the rules. "We need to look at the data and make sure it's being applied equitably," Day said. {{quote:3021}} Neal Haber, who has served through multiple iterations of phone policies, emphasized that the current policy—requiring phones to be off and away—is actually a return to the district's historical standards. He argued that enforcement must be consistent but flexible enough to handle the realities of modern communication. "The policy... basically says you can't use it," Haber stated, noting that enforcement is evolving. He made a reference to a past "science symposium" to illustrate that absolute rigid bans can sometimes be problematic when technology is legitimately needed for specific educational tasks, though he emphasized that general usage must be curtailed. Betsy Laird took the strongest stance on enforcement, suggesting that students who repeatedly violate the ban should face the loss of phone privileges entirely during the school day. "If you violate the policy, we should hold the phone," she proposed, alongside mandatory "tech hygiene" education. ### Artificial Intelligence: The New Frontier The forum concluded with a look at the emerging challenge of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the classroom. The candidates were asked to consider the role of AI and the urgency of creating a policy. Anamika Bhatnagar delivered a nuanced critique, reading a paragraph generated by ChatGPT to demonstrate its "hallucinations" (inaccuracies). She argued that AI is a "plagiarism machine" that disrupts the basic "social contract of school." However, she did not advocate for a total ban, suggesting that in high school, students should be taught to critique AI outputs much like they analyze a text. She firmly stated that elementary students should have zero interaction with AI. "We need to protect... the brain development of our youngest kids who do not have the critical faculty to distinguish between fact and fiction," Bhatnagar said. {{quote:2221}} Neal Haber acknowledged the immense difficulty of policing AI, noting that "if a kid wants to use it, they're going to find a way." He emphasized that the district's academic integrity policy is currently under review to explicitly address AI, but he leaned on the idea that classroom culture—relationships between teachers and students—is the ultimate safeguard. "The culture of the classroom... is that they want to learn," Haber said. {{quote:4289}} Betsy Laird brought the discussion back to the concept of "productive struggle." She argued that if students use AI to bypass hard work, they miss the "cognitive lift" required for neurodevelopment. She proposed a transparency requirement: any assignment that allows AI use must be explicitly labeled as such. "If an assignment says 'use AI,' that's fine," Laird said. "But if we haven't said you can use it... it's cheating." ### Final Visions: A "Digital Diet" vs. Tech Integration In their closing statements, the candidates outlined their concrete steps for the future of technology in Croton schools. Sarah Carrier focused on social-emotional learning (SEL). She argued that technology is "supplanting the real-world human connection" that students need and pledged to ensure the district invests time and resources into reclaiming that connection. Jake Day offered a "Digital Diet" proposal. He suggested that the Board should mandate a review of all tech contracts to measure efficacy. "If it's not working, we end it," he said. He also proposed the creation of a tech committee to guide the Superintendent on curriculum adoptions. Betsy Laird called for a "tech reset." She advocated for an immediate investigation into the surplus of iPads at the elementary level and urged the district to stop buying new devices. "We have enough devices to have a 1-to-1 ratio... if we ever need it for a specific purpose," she said. {{quote:4262}} She stressed that the district must stop buying "shortcuts" and start buying time. Anamika Bhatnagar emphasized the importance of curriculum choices. She warned against adopting "shiny" new literacy programs that come heavily bundled with software. "We need to choose materials... that are going to allow our teachers to teach," she insisted. Neal Haber concluded with a call for unity. He cautioned against viewing technology as a "black and white" issue. He urged the community to trust the administration's review process while the Board provides the necessary guardrails. "Don't blame the teachers... don't blame the Board," Haber said. "It's about doing what's best for the kids." ### Looking Ahead With the election on May 19, voters in Croton face a clear choice between three candidates offering continuity and collaborative evolution, and two challengers demanding immediate, data-driven restrictions on the EdTech industry's presence in the classroom. The CCC’s forum marked a significant moment in the district's history, shifting the debate from "how do we use tech?" to "why are we using it at all?" As the community moves toward the next League of Women Voters forum on May 12, the pressure is on all candidates to define exactly what "intentional technology" looks like for the next generation of Croton students.