Editor’s note: This essay is an entry in Fordham’s 2026 Wonkathon, which asked contributors to answer this question: “What rules should govern the uses of digital technology in schools—and who should set them?” Learn more.
Across the country, technology in the classroom is increasingly framed as a problem, with parents and educators raising concerns around it being a distraction—or even a threat—to learning. Specifically, the debate raises important questions about how much time students spend on screens and devices during the school day. These debates can feel binary and polarized: either technology is a powerful learning tool or a harmful distraction that demands a “return to the fundamentals.” Lost in this debate is the question of for whom—and too often students with disabilities are an afterthought or are left out of the conversation entirely. Technology use in schools requires sufficient buy-in and consent from families and students themselves, especially when losing access to a device disrupts learning and access to grade-level content.
“Ed tech,” or school-based digital technology, is sometimes used as a catch-all term for tools with vastly different purposes. Many current technology debates focus on screen time, implying that restrictions or bans on ed tech would limit or prohibit the use of all screen-based devices, including cellphones and school-issued devices such as tablets, Chromebooks, laptops, and assistive technology (AT) devices. Blanket technology bans employ a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores an important reality: accessibility in education is not a one-size-fits-all issue.
For some students, text-to-speech or speech-to-text enables them to read grade-level content and express ideas in writing. Others rely on the visual or organizational supports provided by technology. Some depend entirely on devices to communicate with their teachers and peers. These are purpose-built technologies and should be vetted and approved by districts and schools and integrated into teaching and learning seamlessly.
Policy proposals aimed at reducing screen time or restricting classroom technology fail to account for the nearly 8 million students with disabilities served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), many of whom depend on AT tools and devices for learning. In practice, these policies oversimplify a complex and nuanced issue, risking disproportionate harm to students with disabilities and others who rely on technology for learning. In fact, the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team must consider what AT devices or services are needed. Students with disabilities have a legal right to access the general education curriculum, which may require some of the aforementioned uses of technology. When policies restrict or remove digital device access, they may inadvertently violate these rights.
Take the story of Soraya Martin, a ninth grader with an IEP who found that her speech-to-text accommodation made all the difference with the academic challenges she was experiencing as someone with a learning disability. She not only saw a noticeable improvement in her grades, but also in her self-awareness and confidence in her own abilities. Her mother expressed concerns that “a completely screen-free environment feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
But we also need to consider students who are not yet identified as having disabilities, for example younger students. While technology use in early grades certainly demands greater scrutiny, many students with learning disabilities may not receive an IEP until later in elementary school. Newcomers to the U.S. who have a disability are in a similar situation where there is not an IEP or 504 plan in place stating the need for a certain technology. Removing devices limits students’ ability to use digital tools that support learning and accessibility, impacting all students but especially students with potential learning disabilities.
It’s critical that schools continue to use technology for data collection and assessment. Early screening tools, such as those that may identify a student as at risk for a learning disability, are increasingly delivered using technology. Annual state testing that provides an objective measure of the student’s academic progress also leverages technology that is administered on the computer in the vast majority of states, technology which provides greater built-in accommodation possibilities. A text-to-speech tool is an example of a built-in accommodation that levels the playing field (and frees up time for teachers or paraprofessionals who may have previously been needed to provide this accommodation in a one-on-one setting).
In response to these debates, NCLD recently published a policy statement on K–12 education technology. The policy landscape is shifting quickly at both the federal and state levels and while policies have significant variability, a common theme is that the needs of students with disabilities are either not being appropriately considered or they are exempt from the policy. Some examples of state-level policy proposals from states in legislative sessions last year are:
- In Missouri, HB 2230 would require that 70 percent of assignments be completed in pencil on paper and cap “digital instruction” at 45 minutes per day.
- In South Carolina, H 5442 would prohibit educators from using a digital device to provide instruction or administer assessments and prohibit students in grades K–5 from accessing digital devices at school.
- In Vermont, HB 830 would give families the right to opt out of using devices and require schools to provide alternatives for coursework and testing.
- In Oklahoma, HB 4358 limits screen time for PK-– to one hour per school day, with exemptions for students with IEPs or assistive technology needs.
Exemptions can deepen exclusion and reinforce feelings of being different. According to a recent analysis on student cellphone use in K–12 public schools, 32 jurisdictions ban cellphone use in the classroom during instructional time. Of these, 28 have exemptions for IEP and 504 accommodations and 22 have exemptions for health and medical necessities. Although these exemptions offer important safeguards, IEPs and 504 plans should not be considered the golden ticket to digital tools that help students access and engage in learning. Students with and without disabilities may benefit from digital tools. In many cases, technology is embedded into teaching and learning in a way that supports access for all students—such as through a Universal Design for Learning approach—meaning that there hasn’t been the need to explicitly list accommodations or tools in student IEPs or 504 plans. Without careful consideration of all possibilities, scenarios, and students, a “back to basics” approach risks undoing progress, disrupting learning environments, and ultimately creating more barriers.
It is clear that schools and districts need trusted resources to help educators identify and implement technology grounded in science and must support their digital literacy in order to do so. Teachers need clear guidance, training, and mentorship on how to use technology to optimize learning and accessibility. State and local education agencies can play a role in ensuring teachers receive these supports and understand the expectations for how and how not to use technology, including AI, in their pedagogy. They also must ensure families and other disability stakeholders are in the loop. Carving out the role and usage of technology in schools is no easy feat. But some leaders are asking the wrong questions. Rather than asking “How much screen time is appropriate?” leaders should understand which technologies are being used and how, and look to the evidence and lived experiences of students and teachers to preserve tools that provide accessibility for all learners.
There is an opportunity and responsibility for both policymakers and practitioners to listen to a broad range of perspectives and to consider the evidence base behind both policy proposals and the tools themselves. The goal is not to minimize or maximize technology usage, but to use it deliberately, as a tool that improves accessibility and learning outcomes.
