Key Takeaways
- Five candidates for the Croton‑Harmon Board of Education participated in a standing‑room‑only forum hosted by the Croton Community Collective (CCC) at St. Augustine’s Episcopal Church on May 2.
- The CCC, founded in June 2025 by teacher Jill Anderson and now about 320 members strong, focuses on technology in schools and the potential harms of cell phones and screen devices for children of all ages.
- Although the group’s stance has sparked controversy and occasional defensiveness from district officials, all candidates attended and engaged in a lively, intellectually rigorous discussion.
- Rather than summarizing the answers, the article presents the six community‑derived questions posed to the candidates, encouraging readers to view the full video online for detailed responses.
- A second candidate forum is scheduled for May 12 at Croton‑Harmon High School, sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Northwest Westchester County.
- The CCC is simultaneously distributing book boxes throughout the community to promote reading among children and adults.
Candidate Forum Overview
On the evening of May 2, the Parish Hall of St. Augustine’s Episcopal Church in Croton was filled to capacity as five hopefuls for the Croton‑Harmon Board of Education gathered for a candidate forum. The event, organized by the Croton Community Collective (CCC), drew a standing‑room‑only crowd, reflecting strong community interest in the upcoming May 19 election where three trustee seats are contested. The forum’s atmosphere was described as intense and lively, yet maintained a high level of pedagogical and intellectual discourse. All five candidates accepted the invitation promptly, signaling their willingness to engage directly with voters on pressing educational issues.
About the Croton Community Collective
The Croton Community Collective, a grassroots organization founded in June 2025 by local teacher Jill Anderson, now boasts roughly 320 members comprising parents, teachers, and concerned residents. Its primary focus centers on the role of technology in schools, especially examining the possible adverse effects of cell phones and other screen devices on children across all grade levels. While this focus has positioned the CCC as an influential voice in local education debates, it has also generated controversy and occasional pushback from district administrators and teachers who may view the group’s stance as overly restrictive or critical of existing practices.
Forum Structure and Question Selection
Instead of offering a detailed recap of each candidate’s answers, the article chooses to highlight the questions themselves, noting that they were distilled from approximately 120 submissions received from community members. The CCC condensed and collated these inquiries into six core questions that guided the forum’s discussion. By presenting the questions in full, the piece invites interested readers to watch the embedded video of the event, where they can hear the candidates’ nuanced responses and follow‑up exchanges in their original context.
Question 1: EdTech Proliferation
The first question asked candidates to articulate their perceptions about the spread of educational technology (EdTech) in the district’s schools, including both perceived benefits and drawbacks. This prompt encouraged contenders to weigh advantages such as personalized learning and access to resources against concerns like screen fatigue, data privacy, and the potential widening of equity gaps. Responses to this question set the tone for the broader conversation about how technology should be integrated—or limited—within classroom instruction.
Question 2: Analog vs. Digital Reading and Writing
The second inquiry probed candidates’ views on the appropriate balance between analog and digital reading and writing activities across the K‑12 spectrum. It also requested that they assess whether the district’s current practices align with their vision and, if not, outline concrete steps they would take to realign instructional methods. This question highlighted ongoing debates about preserving foundational literacy skills while embracing digital tools that can enhance engagement and accessibility.
Question 3: Age‑Based Screen Limits
Candidates were then asked about their support for implementing age‑based screen time limits, citing examples from districts such as Los Angeles and Baltimore that have removed one‑to‑one devices in early elementary grades and enforced stricter limits for older students. The question also referenced state‑level initiatives in Alabama, Utah, and elsewhere, prompting respondents to consider the appropriate role of the Board of Education in establishing local screen‑use guidelines that complement or exceed state mandates.
Question 4: Bell‑to‑Bell Phone Ban Accountability
The fourth question addressed the widely supported bipartisan legislation banning student use of phones from bell to bell, noting endorsement from the New York State Union of Teachers and the governor. It questioned how candidates would ensure the superintendent, the Board, and administrators are held accountable for fully implementing and enforcing this policy at Croton‑Harmon High School (CHHS). Responses likely focused on monitoring mechanisms, reporting requirements, and potential consequences for non‑compliance.
Question 5: Role of AI in Schools
The fifth prompt invited candidates to share their perspectives on artificial intelligence (AI) in educational settings, particularly concerning its impact on student learning and academic integrity. This question required contenders to discuss both the promise of AI‑driven personalized tutoring and administrative efficiencies, as well as risks related to cheating, bias, and over‑reliance on automated systems. Candidates’ answers revealed their readiness to navigate emerging technologies while safeguarding educational values.
Question 6: Vision for Technology in Schools
Finally, candidates were given an open‑ended opportunity to highlight any issue not previously covered or to emphasize a priority they deemed most important regarding technology’s role in schools. They were asked to articulate the most important aspect of their vision and to propose concrete steps for implementation, including collaboration with school administrators and fellow board members. This closing question allowed each candidate to synthesize their stance and present a forward‑looking agenda for technology policy in Croton‑Harmon.
Upcoming Forum and Community Initiatives
The article notes that a second and final candidate forum will occur on May 12 at Croton‑Harmon High School, sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Northwest Westchester County. This event will give voters another chance to hear directly from the contenders before the May 19 election. In parallel, the Croton Community Collective is distributing book boxes throughout the community as part of a campaign to encourage reading among both children and adults, underscoring the group’s broader commitment to literacy alongside its technology‑focused advocacy.
Conclusion
Overall, the forum served as a vibrant platform for discussing critical technology‑related issues facing the Croton‑Harmon school district. By presenting the community‑sourced questions rather than a detailed answer summary, the piece empowers readers to seek out the full video for a complete understanding of each candidate’s positions. The upcoming forum, combined with ongoing CCC initiatives like the book box distribution, reflects an engaged electorate eager to shape the future of education technology in their local schools.