Editor’s note: In the coming weeks, The Coronado News is planning to ask each of this year’s school board candidates questions about the most pressing topics concerning public schools in Coronado. The candidates’ responses will be presented in a different order each week to ensure fairness. The candidates are limited to 200 words for each response. There are three positions up for grabs on the CUSD board of trustees in the November elections. Alexia Palacios-Peters, Malachy Sandie, Kaye McCormick Schneider, and Margaret Mary Duncan are vying for the open seats. This week’s topic is technology and artificial intelligence.
- Question 1: The current governing board approved piloting cell phone pouches at Coronado Middle School throughout the school day. However, students can still use computers, which parents report they use to access YouTube and games while on campus. What plan would you propose to address concerns about students’ technology use for non-educational purposes while at school?
- Question 2: What is your stance on artificial intelligence in education? Do you favor a ban on usage by students in tests and/or homework? Would you restrict and detect misuse of AI? How? What penalties would you impose for policy violations?
Alexia Palacios-Peters
- Answer: I have students at CHS and CMS, so I’m all too familiar with this issue. Technology is here and it is the future, so I think we need to embrace an approach that uses technology to enhance traditional classroom/book learning, not replace it. Since COVID, I believe the pendulum has swung too far towards the technology direction and our district can bring it back in balance by using technology to supplement traditional learning modalities. The board has already begun to address this issue and has requested an analysis and report of how technology and screens are currently being used in the classroom, the amount of time students spend on screens in the classroom, and whether or not that is the best platform to teach that content. And let me be clear – there is no place in our classrooms for students to be on YouTube or playing games that are not part of the curriculum.
- Answer: This is a huge challenge. It is our duty to ensure our students learn core concepts and material, but we also need to prepare them for life in the AI-enabled world. Ignoring AI completely will put our kids at a competitive disadvantage when they leave CUSD. I favor an approach that uses AI-proof evaluations, such as written tests, to assess subject and concept mastery, but also allows and encourages AI-usage at the higher grade levels for complimentary assignments and projects. AI is only as good as the content and information it is given; it cannot replace the knowledge and skills that are required to be successful in the world. I would support restricting the use of AI in some areas of learning, such as tests and classwork. The district has a committee which is piloting AI programs and creating guidelines in the use of AI in classrooms before broader implementation. Additionally, the use of AI is part of the district’s Portrait of a Graduate, which seeks to graduate students who are technologically competent.
Malachy Sandie
- Answer: As a current board member, I pushed for the ban of all personal electronics on all of our campuses. I believe that we can best achieve the stated district goals of “preparing our students for higher education, careers, and society” by requiring a reprieve from access to social media, gaming, texting, etc. during the school day. Coronado Middle School had already banned personal computers in favor of school-issued Chromebooks (shout out to Principal Falar!), and the school board recently added the requirement for Yonder pouches at CMS to prohibit smart phone use during the day. Regarding access to YouTube and games on the school issued Chromebooks, the superintendent has directed a CUSD Technology Audit that will help us identify and correct any access to non-educational sites on our district WiFi network.
- Answer: Regarding artificial intelligence (AI), the CUSD Technology Audit currently underway will help us tackle this issue. I will only support the use of AI if it can be demonstrated, through evidenced-based research, that AI will help our students better prepare for higher education, careers, and society, while not diminishing critical academic skills. More specifically, AI must support our Portrait of a Graduate goals of: 1) creating tech-savvy students who are technologically competent and adaptive; 2) creating educational innovation; and 3) facilitating innovative learning. Regarding enforcement of policy violations, we currently have policies in place at all our school sites that will be adjusted and updated as required.
Kaye McCormick Schneider
- Answer: I would bring parents, teachers, and administrators together to establish clear, schoolwide expectations for student computer use, with consistent enforcement and consequences. If computers are provided for learning, students should not be using them for non-educational purposes during the school day. Teachers cannot carry this responsibility alone. Parents and administrators must partner with faculty to establish clear limits, reinforce expectations, and create accountability at home and at school.
I also believe we need balance. Books, writing, discussion, collaboration, and paper-and-pencil work remain essential for developing focus, communication, and problem-solving skills. As new technologies such as AI become part of education, I would support thoughtful, age-appropriate use rather than assuming more technology is always better.
I would propose parent-teacher strategy meetings to address technology and classroom expectations, giving families and educators a forum to identify concerns, share solutions, and build consistency. My goal would be a schoolwide approach that protects instructional time while teaching students responsible technology habits, accountability, and respect for classroom expectations. - Answer: AI is here, and our schools need to address it thoughtfully and responsibly. The appropriate approach will vary by grade level and learning objective.
I do not believe a school board can realistically “ban AI for homework.” We are not in students’ homes. Instead, our focus should be ensuring students demonstrate what they have learned.
I would support restricting AI use during classroom instruction and assessments, except when AI itself is being taught, such as in a technical course. Assessments should allow teachers to determine whether work reflects the student’s own understanding. Depending on grade level, this could include oral presentations, in-class handwritten essays, problem-solving, and other direct demonstrations of learning.
Before imposing penalties, the district must clearly define “misuse of AI” with teachers and administrators involved in establishing consistent, age-appropriate consequences.
More broadly, I favor less screen time in classrooms, particularly for younger students. Research shows learning is strengthened when using books, handwriting, discussions, and hands-on learning which reduce distractions and opportunities for misuse.
Our goal should not simply be to police AI, but to ensure technology serves education — not replaces it. Remove the temptation. Return to basics. Lessen the stress off students and staff.
Margaret “Peggy” Duncan
- Answer: Technology in schools presents both opportunities and serious challenges. I strongly support the cell phone restrictions at Coronado Middle School. I served on CUSD’s committee evaluating options last year and brought firsthand experience from another school where, as a trustee, I had already seen the benefits of a bell-to-bell cell phone ban.
But restricting phones is only part of the solution. Growing research raises concerns about excessive screen time and its impact on learning, attention and well-being. If students put away their phones only to spend unnecessary hours on computers, we have not fully addressed the problem.
CUSD already has technology in place to filter and block non-educational content, and the district has demonstrated a willingness to strengthen those protections when weaknesses are identified. I support continuing that approach, responding quickly when students find ways to access games, messaging, YouTube, or other distractions. Parents should report weaknesses in the system, and I am confident the technology team will address them.
More broadly, I support reducing unnecessary educational screen time and returning to books, paper, discussion, and hands-on learning where appropriate. Technology should serve a clear educational purpose. We should embrace it when it improves learning — not simply because it is available. - Answer: I am deeply invested in this issue and am completing a certificate in AI and Education through the University of San Diego. I also have hands-on experience with a school system already developing policies around this rapidly evolving technology.
I do not support a blanket ban. AI is here, and we must teach students and educators to use it safely, ethically, and effectively. But clear boundaries are essential. Teachers should determine when AI is permitted, and assessments designed to measure independent mastery should be completed without AI assistance.
Students should learn appropriate AI uses, such as brainstorming and organization, while checking for accuracy and bias. Teachers need training in student privacy, appropriate tools, and methods for assessing genuine learning.
Because AI use is increasingly difficult to detect reliably, I favor assessments that demonstrate mastery without technology, through in-class work, oral presentations, Socratic discussion, and similar methods. Clear violations should be treated as academic-integrity violations, with graduated consequences: redo the assignment without AI for a first offense, followed by loss of credit and appropriate discipline for repeated violations.
Our goal should be AI literacy without sacrificing the intellectual struggle that produces real learning.
