This school year, Pleasant Valley School District decided to reinforce the use of Google products for teachers across the district. Reactions to the change have been mixed, with many teachers expressing strong opposition.
Before the switch, many educators relied heavily on Microsoft products such as PowerPoint for daily instruction. “All my daily lessons were on PowerPoint, all my tests, quizzes, projects—everything,” said Spanish teacher Stephanie Risius.
That concern is shared by many veteran teachers who built years of curriculum using Microsoft software. “I used Powerpoint often, also had several Excel and Word Docs that I created at other schools that I’ve taught at. I wouldn’t suggest that windows products were more ‘helpful,’ but they were the only option the first 10-15 years that I taught,” said science teacher Karl Stubben.
Supporters of the switch cite the benefits of Google products such as unlimited storage for educators and more streamlined usability with ease of recovering lost files. And many school districts seem to be making that switch based on cost and economic viability.
However, a major concern teachers now face is the significant amount of time required to convert years of existing materials into Google formats. For some departments, functionality is also lost, leading to additional expenses. A STEM teacher, who asked to remain anonymous, described the process as frustrating. “It’s a long process to redo all of the tests and worksheets we’ve already created and then reformat everything to look correct,” they said. “Nothing in math copies over nicely or easily.”
The teacher added that Google Docs lacks a built-in equation editor capable of handling advanced mathematical notation. As a result, the district is paying for a third-party extension that ends up matching the cost of simply using Microsoft Office. The school also has to pay for the time needed to convert documents
Language departments also face similar issues. “Google is not as easy to use when it comes to special characters. It’s more cumbersome,” Risius stressed. Google Docs makes it harder to access special characters like accents needed for foreign languages.
Overall, the time needed to switch everything to Google Docs makes the switch unreasonable for many teachers. More importantly, no teachers were consulted on the switch before the directive, “It was just a mandate from above that it was happening,” said Risius. “Here’s the date. No support to make the switch, nor any consideration for the extra work this may cause teachers, and really no specific reason was given as to why this even had to change.”
The anonymous STEM teacher echoed that frustration, pointing to a disconnect between administrators and teachers. From a distance, the teacher said, the decision may appear logical. “From a 10,000-foot view, it looks like Google can do what we need,” they explained. “But when you zoom in and see what professional teachers actually do in the classroom, taking away a tool like MS Office only hinders our abilities.”
The teacher also noted that the math department had already found cost-effective solutions: “The math department found a way to fund our MS Office subscription for $130/yr for the entire department.” In contrast, administrators had to spend nearly 13 times that on substitute teachers for a single day of Google training. “That one day alone cost the equivalent of thirteen years of MS Office.”
Despite the training, teachers and substitutes are far from proficient with Google tools. “It will take countless hours of extra teacher pay ($30/hr) to convert the thousands of documents we have to Google. That only considers Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2,” said the anonymous teacher.
This is not the only change made unconsulted in the District, “Just like taking away our desktops (with no justification as to why), the same happened with Microsoft. And while separately these may seem small & insignificant, it makes a big impact on a teacher’s day,” said Risius.
As Pleasant Valley continues to make district-wide changes, the divide between administrators and teachers continues to widen. Without meaningful teacher input and department-specific considerations, the decision risks undermining instructional quality and deepening the disconnect between district leadership and the classrooms it serves.
