With school phone bans now underway in 41 states and counting, debates on classroom screen time have shifted focus to the devices ostensibly being used for educational purposes: Chromebooks, iPads, and the like. In response to all the tech backlash, state policymakers are taking swift action, some of which is warranted, but much of which bears signs of legislative haste.
While a recent West Virginia bill banning all K–3 “electronic devices” except for calculators didn’t make it out of committee, still moving forward are bans on K–5 “digital devices” in Kansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Their exceptions are limited to accommodations under IDEA (all three states), virtual schools (South Carolina and Tennessee), and state assessments (Tennessee only). Also for K–5, Missouri may soon mandate a maximum of 45 daily device minutes and Oklahoma one hour, both with exceptions only for IDEA. Kansas proposes time limits throughout the upper grades, too, with a 60-minute cap in middle school and a 90-minute cap in high school.
I’m no fan of unfettered screen time, but we should take these bills as a signal that the ed tech pendulum may be swinging back too far, too fast.
First, it’s unclear whether policymakers in these states have considered a swath of classroom realities. Many schools lack hard-copy versions of curricula and other materials. For example, evidence-based K–5 Amplify curricula—used in over 8,000 U.S. school districts for English language arts, math, and/or science—either encourage or require digital components. Where both print and digital versions of any curriculum are available, it’s typically cheaper to purchase digital versions. So will districts and schools be able to afford hard-copy versions? Will they be able to obtain materials soon enough to comply with the rapidly approaching effective dates (e.g., July 1, 2026, in Oklahoma and Tennessee)? Will they be able to adequately support teachers modifying their instructional methods so dramatically? Will states and districts have capacity to pivot to pen-and-paper screeners and assessments, and if they can’t, how will they equip students when they do encounter such digital tasks? (Or, as some reformers fear, will device bans become a means for undermining state testing?)
What’s more, arbitrarily limiting the quantity of screen time does absolutely nothing for the quality of the screen time. A nine-year-old playing Roblox at school is a problem, whether for 55 minutes or 65. On the other hand, a nine-year-old learning coding, online safety, and early research skills shouldn’t necessarily be subject to inflexible time limits.
It’s unclear how exactly states would plan to monitor or enforce these restrictions, anyway. Missouri’s bill includes school-level reporting requirements around student device-use minutes and digital and print products used. That’s pretty minimal, yet it’s the only such bill I’ve seen that offers anything akin to an accountability mechanism.
At first glance, new opt-out proposals from Iowa, Rhode Island, and Vermont might seem more measured, as they would merely permit caregivers to opt their children out of school device usage. As some Vermonters have noted, however, such a policy would almost assuredly lead to classrooms divided between device and non-device users. Would teachers really be able to support both groups simultaneously and effectively? Would districts and schools be able to obtain appropriate materials to support both groups? What are the implications for materials and instruction if parents opt in or out mid-year?
The situation isn’t hopeless; there are also some promising plans out there. Though I’m wary of Iowa’s and Rhode Island’s opt-out permissions, their legislation—along with Utah’s newly-passed law—reflect valuable steps toward improving the quality of school screen time, not simply restricting the quantity. Among the highlights from these three states are provisions on:
- Computer science: Iowa and Utah both specify that computer science doesn’t count toward their device minute limits. Even better, Utah’s state board must adopt computer science standards, including AI standards. Such stipulations aim to ensure that limits on device time don’t come at the expense of essential digital literacy instruction from an early age.
- Safety of devices: All three states have suggested more stringent requirements for the devices students are using, including guidelines around student privacy. Capping student device use at a certain number of minutes doesn’t keep students safe; ensuring personal data security, disabling cameras, and blocking social media will help.
- Value of ed tech tools: Rhode Island and Utah both establish criteria for ed tech tools, such as alignment with curricula and evidence of effectiveness. And, in perhaps the first state policy of its kind, Rhode Island would require all ed tech tool providers to register with the state’s attorney general, much like other consumer service providers in many states. This move would help pave the way toward greater transparency and accountability.
Too much low-quality school screen time is a real problem for students’ academic growth, social development, and digital safety. But coarse limits and outright bans on devices risk too many unintended consequences. They may be at odds with required curricula. Mandates that emphasize quantity over quality don’t make screen time any more purposeful or safer. And all students deserve digital skills instruction from the early grades; not providing any will translate into students with fewer resources outside of school facing yet another disadvantage compared to peers.
Education advocates are right to call out excessive screen time at school, but state leaders should take a beat before forging ahead with one-size-fits-all policies. States could, for example, wait to see results from the districts implementing screen time restrictions, like those that LAUSD’s board passed just this week. The steps states take will shape millions of children’s early exposure to technology. Legislation should be informed, practical, and optimally designed to support all students—not rushed.
