Hey, School Leaders: How Many Students Should Be Able to Access Chatbots, Predators, and Porn Before You Will Make a Change?
The answer should be "zero." In reality, it's way more. Here's what I asked my district about this.
Note from Emily: I testified before my school board on Wednesday, April 22, 2026 and posed this question to district staff and the board. Public testimony participants are allowed 120 seconds to testify. It goes by very fast, so I spend a long time honing my statement and practicing it timed. I always bring paper copies to pass out to the Board directors and media, but I also email copies too. This time, I also wrote a letter to the Superintendent and Board Directors that included a list of incidents that students in our district have experienced on their school-issued devices. At this point, no one from the District has responded. If that changes, I will update this post.
My Statement for Public Testimony
My name is Emily Cherkin. I am an educator, advocate, and SPS parent. In January, I testified before the U.S. Senate on Commerce, Science, and Transportation about technology’s impact on childhood.
Today, this district provides 1:1 internet-connected devices to nearly every student, spending roughly $9,000 per child on tech alone.
It is past time we ask: Is this worth it?
Because the answer to these questions:
How many children should be able to use their school laptop to:
Watch YouTube and play games?
Search up harmful content?
Talk to strangers?
Watch porn?
Use AI to write their essays?
…should be “Zero.”
But it is not. Seattle students have done all of these things on their school devices.
Children do not need EdTech products to be successful in the future. The best preparation for a digital future is an analog childhood and an education built on people, paper, and pencils.
This is not a kid problem. This is not a teacher problem. This is a leadership problem.
So I would like to know: This fall, when Seattle Public Schools again hands out laptops and iPads, will the district inform parents:
Their children can watch YouTube, engage with chatbots, and play online games?
That parents are responsible for laptop misuse?
That the district consents on behalf of EVERY parent to EVERY SINGLE privacy policy of EVERY SINGLE app or website their child will encounter?
That the “safety” features installed on student devices for school don’t apply at home?
That GoGuardian turns teachers into classroom IT police and kids find ways to evade it anyway?
That the CEO of the district’s recently adopted “SaferWatch App” was arrested for bribing the NYPD?
I don’t know what topic today is more universal than every child in our district being given an internet-connected device, but I do know that very few parents think six-year-olds should be able to watch porn or chat with strangers on a computer at school.
Where are the adults who will change this?
Thank you.
The Letter I Wrote
April 22, 2026
Dear Superintendent, Board Directors, and District Staff,
Seattle students are using the district-issued devices in ways that are far from educationally beneficial, safe, or effective. At the bare minimum, school leaders should be aware of these issues, because current mitigation efforts are not working (and teachers shouldn’t be IT police anyway).
I want to be extremely clear: I do believe there is a time and place for technology use in education– more so today than ever. However, it is a fallacy to think that EdTech products are the same thing as Technology Education. Put simply, EdTech is not Tech Ed.
It is time for Seattle Public Schools to answer why the number of students who can access porn, chatbots, and predators on school devices is anything other than “zero” and do something about it. The EdTech companies you contract with are no different from the business model of companies like Snapchat and Meta, and such a business model is fundamentally at odds with child development.
To ignore this fact is to imperil children.
I have refused the district-issued device for my daughter for the past two years and we will continue to refuse it next year when she enters high school. However, she has to access Schoology at home on occasion because participating in public education in Seattle means being forced to consent to the use of these products because there is no viable alternative. In spite of these hurdles and lack of support at the district level, my daughter is thriving. I am increasingly aware of other families who are or will refuse the 1:1 device going forward and I will continue to encourage other parents to pursue this path as well, especially until the district makes changes.
Seattle has the potential to be a national model of excellence in public education. But “potential” is only what something is not. Let’s change that.
Thank you,
Emily
What’s Happening on 1:1 Devices in Our District
Here are a few examples of what Seattle children are doing on their district-issued devices in school:
“My middle schooler is spending hours a day on YouTube during school hours.”
“When I ask how much screens are used per day, I’m told it is ‘minimal but depends on the day.’ But I know not every student is getting the same amount of screen time. If my kid finishes their morning work, they get extra time on the device.”
“In my experience, how much devices are used and what they are used for can vary dramatically depending on the school (and year to year within a school.)”
“We use GoGuardian to block all games and social media, but it’s whac-a-mole, frequently updating the ‘blocked’ list as new game sites are found.”
“The rather minimal restriction on YouTube for elementary school kids is such a problem. In the case of both my kids, I’d say early elementary teachers can be naive about how savvy these kids can be about using school-issued devices beyond the intended uses.”
“I asked our school’s tech person to turn off access to YouTube and Pinterest after my then-5th grader found nearly pornographic material on Pinterest on her school device and made herself a YouTube channel. I was shocked at what she had access to on a school device and what she was able to search without getting noticed.”
“iReady is very expensive so there’s clearly a disconnect between the administrators who buy it and teachers who don’t believe in it.”
“I think there’s also a difference in [use of EdTech products by] grade. My child is in kindergarten. They don’t use iPads much, but it does seem that the older grades use it more.”
“Is there a way to ban websites for use during the school day? YouTube…shopping sites… Pinterest? iReady is already just too much and whatever other educational websites… but what about access to non-educational sites?”
“I took YouTube off my second grader’s Chromebook and the teacher got annoyed and told her she wasn’t allowed to do that.”
“I wish we could just return the damn thing [laptop] and have loaner computers that come out only when strictly needed during specific classes.”
“Blocks on devices are only marginally effective. Students figure ways around them or get peers to share devices or look things up for them.”
“Frankly, I was appalled by the unfettered internet access one child was accessing at the school with no redirect by teachers because they don’t have time and the kids have figured out hacks to bypass GoGuardian.”
“I’m really concerned with the continuous loop of the district paying for technology, teachers are instructed to use tech because it has been paid for, [and] no one tracks overall screen time or child development issues. We have no great answers for if kids can listen to music on YouTube at school– how do we stop them from going down a YouTube rabbit hole?”
“It has been a rude awakening for me seeing just how saturated Seattle schools are with technology right now.”
Well done!