My name is Dr. Trudy Jermanovich.

I have been a proponent of using the RIGHT KIND of technology with students since the early 1980’s. The key is knowing what is the right kind of technology. Clearly, it is not the “drill and kill the love of learning” which explains the situation at this time. The overuse of programs for data collection purposes has gotten out of hand.

Here’s an excerpt from one article on the misuse of iReady.

“When my son was in first grade, he came home from school in tears saying that he hated math. My wife and I are both engineers, so this was the sort of all-hands-on-deck shock that demanded our immediate attention. Before this my son had loved math. He would demand that we challenge him with math problems to do in his head in the car and over dinner. He loved doing flashcards. He played math games on his tablet unsupervised for hours. Even now, years later in 4th grade, he has decided he wants to learn calculus, so he insisted I start explaining it to him as best I could in the car, and started working through pre-algebra in Khan Academy on his own. How is it possible that a kid like this had decided he hated math?

His misery was all due to i-Ready, the software product our district had purchased for math work and testing. During that period my kids’ happiness at the end of the school day was entirely determined by how much time their school had made them spend on i-Ready. If they hadn’t touched i-Ready, they were happy. If they were forced to do it, they were sad. If they had to spend an unusual amount of time on it, they were in tears.”

We need to go back to using technology to make students interested in school. I applaud Sarah Leonardi with Item B-1 and Rebecca Thompson with her Town Hall for moving this discussion forward.

The use of any software should be at the sole discretion of the teacher. They are the professional who should make the decision about what is appropriate for her or his classroom. The only requirement in state statute which is forced on teachers is the administration of state tests three times a year. Leave the rest up to the teacher, not district administrators.

I oppose the renewal of i-Ready, with one important caveat: I hope the School Board truly listens to teachers about how the program is actually being used and whether it is genuinely beneficial as an instructional resource.

At this time, I do not believe there is enough evidence demonstrating that students who use i-Ready consistently outperform those who do not. Without clear proof of meaningful academic gains, it is difficult to justify spending more than $3 million on a program that, in many classrooms, is often used as a placeholder or to keep students occupied rather than as a targeted instructional tool.

That said, I do see potential value if i-Ready is used intentionally. For example, it could be an effective resource during teacher-led small group rotations, where students are assigned specific lessons that reinforce the day's instruction and provide additional practice based on their individual needs. However, I would encourage the district to carefully evaluate whether any observed benefits are truly improving academic achievement or simply making classroom management easier.

If the district does choose to continue using i-Ready, there should be clear expectations that:
• It is used as a supplemental instructional resource, not a replacement for quality teaching.
• It is not assigned as homework or expected to be completed at home.
• Schools and classrooms do not turn student usage or lesson completion into competitions or performance metrics.

Parents, teachers, and students have consistently expressed a desire for less screen time in the classroom. This is an opportunity for the School Board to demonstrate that it is listening to those voices. If the district cannot clearly demonstrate that i-Ready provides measurable academic value that justifies its cost, then the more than $3 million allocated for its renewal could be better invested in supporting our teachers through increased compensation and other classroom resources that have a direct impact on student learning.

I oppose the Supplemental Software agreement. iReady is not helping kids think deeply or stay engaged. It leans too much on screen time, feels repetitive, and students are frustrated. It actually negatively impacts students' confidence and motivation. I’d love to see the district explore other options with less screen time that motivates kids and gives teachers more room to adapt lessons to their students’ needs.

I oppose the renewal of screen based use of iready. The use of its online data driven program doesn’t provide strong evidence of improved outcomes. I ask the board to demand district staff to provide true evidence based research that shows the implementation and use of this software infact improves educational growth and outcomes before renewing such I high ticket cost. Our tax dollars should be spent on proven, successful methods. Parents and students are well aware of the legal allegations and desire a different use of time. I can say with knowledge and confidence that this supplemental resource isn’t being used in a uniform way across the district and contributes to performance anxiety for all grade levels.

Adding this item with such short notice doesn’t allow for meaningful engagement and feedback. Renewing contracts during crunch time is just bad practice. Many children have already been robbed of precious time spending hours weekly on a screen that parents didn’t knowingly consent to. Now is an opportunity to be part of a critical shift of less screen time in education for the greater good of those who you serve.

When evaluating software costing taxpayers millions annually, we must ask three basic questions: Does it work? Is it safe? Is it the best use of instructional time? The data proves the answer to all three is a clear no.

1. It Does Not Work
Independent analysis by cognitive neuroscientist Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath reveals that after 15 years, there is zero high-quality, independent evidence showing i-Ready improves reading or math achievement. We are paying top dollar for digital babysitting that yields no real learning gains.

2. It Is Not Safe
Curriculum Associates faces a major lawsuit alleging the company illegally tracks, collects, and shares 80 types of children's personal data without consent, violating federal wiretap and state privacy laws. Continuing this contract exposes our district to massive liability. Worse, BCPS leadership is refusing to let parents opt out of supplementary software and AI, forcing consent as a requirement to attend public school.

3. It Wastes Valuable Instructional Time
The Academics Team relies on PR tactics like "screen value vs. screen time," "intentional," and "purposeful," but changing language does not eliminate screen-based harm. Curriculum Associates has spent years fostering a toxic testing culture at BCPS. For example, Children as young as 5 are forced into stressful data chats, driving test anxiety and school refusal, and replacing family time with mandated screen minutes and leaderboards. Curriculum Associates is a venture-backed corporation that actively silences critics, even when those critics are the children harmed by their product.

Our children need well-supported human teachers and evidence-based, safe instruction. Not unproven algorithms that cause harm to our youngest learners.

I urge the Board to decline the i-Ready contract renewal and redirect those $3+ million directly into our classrooms to meet state class size mandates and support our school-based staff.

Technology should support educators—not dictate instruction or replace meaningful interaction with teachers, classmates, books, writing, discussion, and hands-on learning. Diagnostic assessments should be limited, purposeful, and used to inform instruction. Required online lesson minutes should never become a substitute for responsive, teacher-led learning. Currently, this isn't happening.

I am especially concerned when costly contracts are placed before the Board without sufficient time for families and the public to review the supporting materials and provide informed input. Transparency must occur before approval—not after a commitment has already been made.

I respectfully ask the Board to postpone or reject this renewal unless the district provides transparent, independent, peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating that the program is educationally effective, fiscally responsible, protective of student privacy, and consistent with a balanced, developmentally appropriate learning environment.

If the contract is approved, it should include enforceable limits on screen time, strong student-data protections, regular public reporting, meaningful teacher and parent oversight, and a mechanism to reconsider or terminate the agreement if promised outcomes are not achieved.

Clear and accessible opt-in and opt-out procedures must also be established. I am deeply concerned by reports that district leadership may be attempting to eliminate families’ ability to opt out. Before voting, the Board should publicly clarify whether families will retain that option and ensure that students who do not participate have access to meaningful, nonpunitive instructional alternatives.

Our students deserve educational decisions driven by their developmental and academic needs—not by software-usage targets or the convenience of renewing an existing contract. The growing body of research regarding excessive screen exposure and screen-dependent instruction demands serious consideration. The Board’s decision will demonstrate whether it is willing to act on that evidence and place the well-being of Broward County’s children first, or knowingly hurt them.