When PCS senior Avery Schromm sent out an anonymous petition on January 9th, the day of PCS’s new Chromebook policy launch, she expected 20-30 responses. Within 48 hours, more than 200 students had voiced their concerns about the new school requirement that students accept and use school devices, which were equipped with monitoring software. Avery is coming forward in this ROAR article as the anonymous surveyor behind the data from [email protected]–the account which, over the following week, sent the entire PCS community a trove of statistical data and student comments that showed a super majority of the students surveyed had serious concerns with the new policy.
“The night before…I started doing stuff,” Avery recalled. “[B]oth my sisters were also talking about how their friends and their classes were upset, and no one was going to sign [the Chromebook checkout form].” Avery hoped to create a space where students could ask questions and express their concerns, observing that there was “not a lot of student input” before PCS implemented the policy. Avery said she decided to create a platform for collective student input through statistics because “data speaks more to administration and staff…if you have solid numbers and data, they can’t deny it or twist your words.”
Avery started emailing the survey results to the entire PCS community beginning January 11th with the intention of simply “[bringing] more awareness” to the issue. As Avery’s data set shows, the petition form was flooded with responses; 217 out of the 551 students at PCS participated in the survey. “I didn’t think I would get that many responses, I thought I would get maybe 20-30, but the first night I think I got over 70 and by the next day I was over 100 and over 200 the day after that.”
These responses were not boilerplate, and they were not rushed. Students wrote thorough, detailed accounts of their grievances with the policy on the form. Avery was surprised by how many people wrote a response to the optional sections. She noted: “When the majority of people are actually writing long paragraphs and taking the time to write thoughtful responses, that’s telling…especially for 7th and 8th graders, there are some responses…that…[gave] a lot of information.” As a whole, Avery’s data set of responses from 1-11-2026 showed that 80.9 percent of respondents indicated they were worried about being monitored outside of school time; 83.3 percent of respondents wanted an opt-out option; in the end, 98.8 percent of respondents supported the request that PCS administrators revise the police to better address “student privacy, financial equity, and reasonable choice.”
Chromebook Policy Addresses Ongoing Technology Issues
The new school Chromebook policy was launched in early January 2026 to address the ongoing issue with a lack of adequate access to Chromebooks. Historically, PCS relied on a shared cart system where teachers had periodic access to Chromebook carts in their classrooms, and students took individual Chromebooks and returned them when they’re done.
However, there were not enough Chromebook carts for each classroom, so teachers would have to reserve Chromebook carts in advance, and rotate the carts around depending on which teacher had reserved them. Teachers would sometimes have to plan their classroom curriculum based on the availability of Chromebook carts, which was inconvenient for many.
Science teacher Mr. Walters explained: “Sometimes teachers were not able…to sign up for a Chromebook cart. And sometimes you couldn’t find your Chromebook cart and sometimes they weren’t all charged and you have to be on top of it and plan ahead.”
This lack of Chromebooks also raised equity concerns, as some students do not have access to a learning device at home. Amid increasing challenges with the rotation system and heightened equity concerns, PCS administrators wanted to develop a new policy that ensured equal access while reducing the burden on teachers.
With the intention of improving this system, the PCS administration implemented a new policy after winter break–a 1:1 model where each student was allotted their own Chromebook, funded by a state grant. In the original policy, each student would be required to check out a Chromebook and would not be permitted to use personal laptops during school hours. In accordance with the PCS technology policy, all Chromebooks had a number of administrative regulations placed on them: students could only use their @pcscharter.org emails; many websites deemed inappropriate for school were blocked; and all Chromebooks came pre-installed with GoGuardian, a digital learning management platform designed to monitor, filter, and secure student activity on school-issued devices. According to PCS Head of School Mr. Chris Guyer, this policy was created by the administration with feedback from various stakeholders, such as the student government Presidents, seniors Cadence Johnson Swalve and Tom Saz Donohue; parents; teachers; and technology experts. However, Mr. Guyer added: “I can’t remember off the top of my head if I talked to student government more broadly before we pushed out the first version of the policy. Maybe it was a passive participation on the board presidents as opposed to the broader student government.” Mr. Guyer explained: “The policy aside, the point of getting the Chromebooks was meant to address a couple of different issues, and one of them is about equity, ensuring that every student has access to an appropriate device when needed.”
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many California and local schools adopted the 1:1 Chromebook policy in order to ensure that all students had access to a device during online learning. Mr. Guyer stated that “there were good reasons to continue those practices and make sure students had devices,” bringing PCS in line with what many other schools offer students.
Policy Details and Rollout Prompt Frustration and Activism
The new policy swiftly led to student pushback, which centered on privacy concerns with the use of GoGuardian software, the lack of an opt-out policy for students who did not wish to check out a device, and a general feeling of reduced autonomy.
Students like Avery channeled their frustration into advocating for change in the PCS community through town halls, set up by the PCS administration throughout January 2026, but also through conversations in hallways and classrooms and, for high schoolers especially, a firm refusal to comply with the school request that they check out a new Chromebook and stop bringing personal laptops to school.
Some students interviewed for this article felt uncomfortable that their use of personal laptops that store important work, such as college applications, would be limited. Senior Katie Kanko explained: “My AP and…college applications and financial aid, that’s all personal emails and personal data…I don’t like the idea that I would need to sign into those accounts…on a school program. I feel like that’s an invasion of privacy.”
Others were concerned about the added financial and physical burden of having to carry and look after a school-issued computer. Seventh-grader Scarlet Zuanich explained: “My backpack is already heavy now, and I kind of didn’t want to add more weight to it.”
Senior Cadence Johnson Swalve noted: “I was concerned about liability because I don’t really want to be liable for a computer that’s not…one…I already own.”
This discontent was not limited to students. With the expectation that students transport their Chromebooks back and from school, along with concerns including but not limited to the usage of GoGuardian, some PCS parents also expressed their dissatisfaction with this new technology change at Board Meetings, at town halls, and in emails and conversations with school administrators.
Avery, the student surveyor, noted that days after sending out the student petition, parents were also requesting a space for them to provide their input as well: “A student actually emailed me back saying their parents wanted somewhere to put their opinions…A parent actually reached out to me and said ‘thank you so much for doing this.’” Avery then created and sent out a petition for parents to fill out, which received many detailed responses.
Student Feedback and Activism Reshapes Policy
After Avery’s petition circulated and the data was forwarded from [email protected] to the entire school community, PCS held a series of three town hall meetings where students were invited to voice concerns directly to Mr. Guyer and Faculty Dean Ms. Lauren Friend. At the first of three town hall meetings, on January 9th, many students attended with questions about privacy, autonomy, and the lack of opt-out options in the original policy. While administrators aimed to clarify the purpose of the 1:1 Chromebook rollout, some students left feeling that their concerns were not fully addressed. Junior Ryan Willis described the early town halls as frustrating, stating that “it seemed like they only had a few answers they were giving to every question because they didn’t know what they were doing…”
That tension, however, marked the beginning of more direct, constructive dialogue between students and administrators. According to Mr. Guyer, “the greatest influence on our decision making…came from the students that were willing to reach out, whether that was emails, a number of one-on-one [meetings], and the town halls where we could hear from them directly, ask questions back to unpack them and understand… Everything has some influence, but…the greatest came from those areas.”
A second town hall was held on January 13th, this time focusing on clarifying the policy and exploring potential adjustments. Administrators acknowledged the extent of student opposition and began outlining possible compromises, including limits on GoGuardian monitoring, alternatives for Chromebook storage, and the beginnings of an opt-out policy. Students reported feeling more heard during this meeting, as the discussion shifted from justification of the policy toward problem-solving.
By the time a third town hall on January 22nd was scheduled, student attendance had significantly declined, with few students showing up to participate. The low turnout reflected perhaps both fatigue surrounding the issue and a sense that major decisions had already been made, signaling a natural close to the conflict. Senior Milan Garley who was one of a handful of students attending the third town hall surmised: “We already had…a lot of discussions about it beforehand…it was so drilled for a lot of the classmates…and staff as well, just having this discussion over and over again [that] by the end of it…I think people just really stopped caring.”
The following day, January 23rd, the local newspaper Lookout Santa Cruz reported and published an article, documenting the fallout of the Chromebook policy at PCS. While the article broadly attributed the change in policy to “student privacy concerns,” PCS Faculty Dean Ms. Lauren Friend said: “The Lookout article … was inaccurate because it said that privacy was the reason for changing the policy … we didn’t need to do anything with regards to privacy in terms of changing the policy…we had certain settings on GoGuardian that we needed to explain, and then we had other ones that we implemented in order to make people feel more secure about the program.” Avery was the student activist that the Lookout article featured as the only student voice, though she was quoted anonymously, which is an unusual newspaper practice, at her request
GoGuardian Concerns, Real and Imagined
One of the biggest concerns that students and parents had was the GoGuardian software, an extension installed on all PCS Chromebooks in 2024, which allows teachers to manage and oversee student Chromebook activity during class and assessments. Over the course of the 2025-26 school year, more and more PCS teachers began to use GoGuardian during in-class assessments. The software can help prevent cheating during assessments by locking students’ browsers and allowing teachers to monitor their screens from their own computer.
History teacher Mr. Julian Dobie said: “I have found that the prevalence of academic dishonesty over the past four years has increased…I think it’s an effective tool for passive…observation.”
Similarly, AP History teacher Dr. Tim Ruckle noted that “having a resource that puts everybody on a level playing field where everyone has a locked browser…it makes it fairer for everybody…it’s the only way to assure a closed-note assessment.”
Still, some students voiced discomfort around the ability for teachers to monitor their computers through this extension. Eighth-grader Sita Krishnamachari explained that GoGuardian is “showing up on personal devices,” further stating that this aspect is “mostly just an invasion of privacy…like there’s just a lot of lawsuits against it and it’s just…kinda odd and it’s tracking on to other computers.” Some students noted times where, if they logged into Chrome on their personal laptops, using their pcscharter account the GoGuardian extension was present. Eighth-grader Emma Orlas said: “I had a lot of concerns about the GoGuardian policy, mostly because…its ability to…track everything…I don’t feel like that’s the best option.”
Much of this discomfort came from obscurity regarding the scope of GoGuardian. In the original version of the policy, there was no time limit set on GoGuardian, but according to the newest version of the Chromebook policy, as of January 22nd, the settings on GoGuardian have been changed to limit monitoring during the school week from 8-5pm on Mondays-Fridays. Additionally, it is only able to track the web activity when students log into classroom sessions, according to the school’s information. The PCS Digital Services document explains “GoGuardian will only process student web activity when a student is logged into a classroom session…GoGuardian does not sell Personal Student Information or share it with third parties…Student data will be cleared in June each year on an ongoing basis.” However, the PCS Technology Use Agreement Form explains that the “use of PCS-owned information technology resources is not private. Authorized employees monitor the use of information technology resources to help ensure that uses are secure and in conformity with PCS policies. Administrators reserve the right to examine, use, and disclose any data found on the schools networks…”
Mr. Guyer noted that most of the technology policy, including the installation of GoGuardian, has actually been in place for a long time. “We’ve had one for…years and it’s been in the summer packet that everybody agrees to every single year. So we modified it partially to include the Chromebook rights.”
Dr. Ruckle, who teaches AP Government, noted that a lot of assumptions private individuals have about our individual freedoms are misplaced, as work or school contexts do require individuals to give access to documents in their workplace or school. Dr. Ruckle, who uses GoGuardian, said: “None of these rights are absolute…and when it comes to your right to privacy, you have a right to privacy in certain spheres but not in other spheres…You don’t have a right to be private during a lesson or during an examination…”
Yet, some students have felt that the expanded use of GoGuardian during assessments has altered the dynamics between students and teachers. Avery shared that “with GoGuardian … you’re not trusting your students to have integrity… there should be trust, and you’re taking away that trust when you’re instating GoGuardian…you’re ruining the relationship between teacher and student.”
Some students, however, did not share in the dissent over Chromebooks and the technology policy. Multiple students voiced that they were not worried about the use of GoGuardian in classes. Senior Eduardo Elzy-Loving stated: “I don’t think it’s inherently bad to be monitored during the test. It’s kind of always been the case… when you’re using school resources on, like, a school profile, you are kinda using their stuff with their terms…You just have to realize that you’re signed up for that.”
Other students were not as worried about the policy because they experienced similar policies at other schools, as PCS’s new Chromebook and long-standing technology policy is modeled after those in other Santa Cruz Schools. Ninth-grader Amelie Wimboeck explained: “My middle school had the same thing, so I wasn’t really worried about it,” adding that she wasn’t worried about the use of GoGuardian because “teachers have to end their sessions…and…I don’t really do anything suspicious [online].”
Junior Leif McArthur said: “I don’t really have a problem with it…I guess I don’t really want to carry around a Chromebook, but it’s not that big of a deal.”
Student Activism Invokes Larger Issues With School Communication With Students
PCS Student Government co-president Tom Saz Donohue expressed his frustration over the administration’s lack of consultation with the student body: “This policy was not brought to student government as a whole, which is different to a lot of other policies like the DoorDash policy all the way back from last year.” Many PCS students expressed similar concerns about transparency and student representation in the policy development.
Cadence Johnson Swalve, the student body co-president, stated: “I didn’t have much say in it, I just kinda heard what was happening…I was actually not aware of the timeline at all…They did not ask for input in regards to the computer policy…it was more of a Board decision…they didn’t ask for our opinions.” This widespread discontent around the creation and layout of the policy led to many students to abstain from checking out Chromebooks.
In fact, Ms. Friend sent an email to PCS staff on January 14th, sharing updates on the effectiveness of the policy. In the email Ms. Friend wrote: “Community input has been strong, and students have been exercising a small amount of civil disobedience in order to express their concerns with this policy.” At the time of the email, 7th graders accounted for the highest percentage of chromebook checkouts, with 85% having checked out a device, with the lowest percentage of check-outs being 12th graders, with a checkout rate of 11%.
Ms. Friend said that the PCS “administration did not anticipate the amount of pushback given. We thought [that] we’re giving them free things… and that students were also feeling the same tension about there not being enough devices…that was a miscalculation on our part, clearly.” Yet, in spite of this, Mr. Guyer explained that he is “proud of the way most students approached it. It was active, engaged, thoughtful…in a lot of ways I feel proud as the head of school that this was reflective of the very culture we’re trying to produce, which is why we listened…”
Throughout the time Avery was sending the petitions to the students and staff, neither Mr. Guyer or Ms. Friend responded to the emails Avery sent to the entire PCS community from [email protected]. Avery’s activism on the issue was not only covered by Lookout Santa Cruz, she has also been interviewed for a forthcoming piece on student activism by a New York Times reporter.
Ms. Friend said: “In general, whenever there’s…issues of potential contention or those types of things…Mr. Guyer is the head of school, so he’s the one who ultimately makes final decisions.” Mr. Guyer stated: “I read the email, I read the survey results, and they were considered. There’s not much to say with anonymous emails–there’s no one there to have conversations with or ask questions of…”
Avery stated that she chose anonymity because she was worried that her activism might bias PCS staff as they were submitting grades and recommendations for her college applications: “I know some teachers are very for the policy, and I didn’t want it to affect how they thought about me, as a person, which might inadvertently affect grades, even if they don’t mean to…” She decided to come forward in this ROAR article because she will be “coming forward in the New York Times piece,” which is set to be published next month; that article will focus on student activism over technology in schools.
Avery wasn’t expecting a response from administration, as the goal was to “just…bring it to their attention…It would’ve been nice, but the way I did it anonymously, I understand why they didn’t respond…Maybe Mr. Guyer or Ms. Friend or some administration could’ve responded, which would’ve shown more ‘we hear you’, but I wasn’t expecting that either.”
The technology policy was introduced to students on January 8th. Avery emailed the results of the survey to the administration on January 11th and on January 22, a new version of the policy was introduced that limited the time GoGuardian was open to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays-Fridays, and allowed a limited number of students the ability to leave their Chromebooks at school rather than taking them home. Administrators, at this point, have also decided the use of personal computers in class will be up to the choice of the teacher. Currently, the administration is in the process of developing an opt-out option for students who would prefer the choice to leave their Chromebook at school.
In response to the administration’s efforts to revise the policy, Tom Saz Donohue commented: “The compromise the administration has proposed is the ability to leave the Chromebooks at school, which in my opinion mitigates most of the student concerns, and has personally satisfied my expectations.”
As of now, students have the option to check a Chromebook out for the day from study hall if they are in need of a device or are required to take a test on a Chromebook. While this system provides short-term convenience for students, it has complicated daily tasks for PCS study hall staff. PCS staff member Vesper Carney-Demmon, who shares study hall management with Ms. Aubri Blackwell, noted that “a lot of students still don’t have their 1:1 Chromebook,” adding that “at least once a day usually I get flooded by students needing Chromebooks for class, and it causes a huge disruption to the peace of study hall…I am eager for the new policy to take effect so we can get the rest of the students their Chromebooks and move out of this chaotic in-between stage.”
PCS History teacher Ms. Devon Lincoln noted that older students still remain hesitant to get their school-issued computer, making it difficult to plan ahead for tests. “When I’m planning a test for my older students, I need to make sure and add every assignment to canvas, for instance, to bring in a Chromebook,” she observed. “It’s become more difficult to plan now, partly because of the choices that families have made around this issue…we’ve traded one headache for another headache. We’ll adjust and adapt, but it has been frustrating…I don’t use Chromebooks very often in class but when I do, it’s one more thing I have to plan for.”
Avery described the student-staff tension throughout the revision process as resulting from a “lack of communication with students.” Despite it all, she is “happy they decided to listen to all of us.”
Does Activism on Chromebooks Reflect Broader Student Frustrations at PCS?
ROAR reporting on this story indicated that the heated response and activism of PCS students on this topic, in some ways, points to student frustrations that are not wholly derived from the policy itself. For some students we spoke to, the furor over Chromebooks at PCS became a place for them to project accumulated resentment towards what they described as the PCS administration’s increasingly heavy-handedness with students.
Over the last couple years, PCS has instituted many new policies around the school. Students are no longer allowed to eat inside the building; school microwaves were abruptly taken away, which restricted access to hot lunches from home; teachers are not allowed to give out food during class; students can no longer be in the halls after school or during tutorial, which are patrolled by administrators; and brain breaks are much more rigidly structured and limited.
Some students noted that the rollout of restrictive policy after policy, as well as the daily experience of being disciplined verbally by staff and administrators for policy infractions that students see as minor, has led to a feeling of less autonomy and a divide between the students and school administration. Senior Kaliya Johnson Swalve said: “I just feel like there’s not a lot of freedom and I feel like other people are feeling that too, and that’s why they are so outraged…It brings some of the kids together…but it also kinda breaks apart the faculty from the students…It shouldn’t be a them vs us…the Chromebook policy really…divided the faculty and the students.”
When asked about why he disliked the Chromebook policy, junior Leif McArthur explained: “Honestly, it was less me, like, actually caring about it and more me just, like, hopping on the bandwagon…it was fun to be, like, stick it to the man…I wasn’t…super into it, but it was just fun to…go along for the ride with everyone else.”
Junior Bodhi Partland explained: “Every new policy rolled out by the school is restrictive in nature. No new freedoms are provided. And on top of this, the language used can feel belittling; this means that even when corrections are made, there is built-up scar tissue and resentment caused by previous altercations and policies, and overall admins’ attitudes towards students. This creates a ton of pushback to anything [the] admin does and makes it hard to get things done…Mr. Guyer is doing a great job, but respect, kindness, and communication are the keys to a successful student-administration relationship.”
