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.
When South Carolina's restrictions on student cell phone use took effect in January 2025, educators across Horry County Schools noticed something unexpected. Students started talking to one another again.
At lunch, conversations replaced scrolling. Some schools introduced board games and activities to encourage social interaction. Teachers reported fewer distractions and greater engagement. Most surprisingly, many students supported the change.
For a district serving nearly 47,000 students, these observations raised a larger question: If limiting one source of digital distraction could positively influence student engagement, what should we be asking about the technology students use throughout the instructional day? More importantly, who should decide when, how, and why that technology is used?
For nearly two decades, Horry County Schools—like other districts—worked to close the digital divide. We invested in devices, expanded connectivity, adopted digital platforms, and worked to ensure every student had access to technology. Those investments were important. Access expanded educational opportunities and helped address inequities. But somewhere along the way, we failed to ask an equally important question: When is enough, enough?
HCS became proficient at providing technology but less deliberate about establishing boundaries around its use. We measured progress through devices distributed, platforms adopted, and connectivity expanded, without consistently asking whether more screen time produced more learning. We solved for access without defining the boundaries.
This past year, we recognized that answering this question required more than a superintendent's directive. Decisions about technology affect instruction, student development, family expectations, and community values. Consequently, the people affected by those decisions must help shape them.
Our work began with a deliberate effort to engage district leaders, Board of Education members, principals, and parent leaders in discussions centered on Jonathan Haidt's The Anxious Generation (2024). The book challenged us to consider how technology influences childhood, attention, and social interaction. More importantly, it prompted us to examine our own instructional practices.
Had technology become the default rather than a deliberate instructional choice? Were students using devices because they improved learning or simply because they were available? Were we giving students enough opportunities to read, write, discuss, and think without screens? These conversations reinforced an important principle: Rules governing educational technology are necessary, but they should emerge from informed community engagement rather than isolated administrative decisions.
School boards provide governance and represent community expectations. Educational leaders translate those expectations into coherent instructional priorities. Teachers contribute professional expertise about what works in classrooms. Parents offer perspectives on child development and family experiences. Students provide firsthand insight into how technology affects their learning. Each perspective matters. None should be excluded.
Those discussions led us to establish a task force of teachers, instructional coaches, administrators, and district leaders to develop practical recommendations. Their charge was not to eliminate technology but to establish a framework that balanced its instructional benefits with students' developmental needs.
The result was Focused Learning, our districtwide instructional approach organized around three considerations: Time, Tools, and Tasks (MyHorryNews, 2026). Rather than treating technology restrictions as the objective, we made stronger instruction the objective. The framework establishes common expectations while preserving professional judgment. It also recognizes that technology decisions should be evaluated through student outcomes, not simply device usage.
“Time” establishes developmentally appropriate boundaries. Young children and adolescents have different instructional needs. At HCS, prekindergarten and kindergarten students do not routinely use individual devices. Grades one and two share classroom devices, while grades three through five use classroom sets. One-to-one access remains available in grades six through twelve, with instructional screen-time limits and appropriate exceptions. These boundaries are ceilings, not targets. Access to a device does not create an obligation to use it.
“Tools” requires educators to consider which resources best support the learning objective. Sometimes, technology enables experiences that would otherwise be difficult, such as digital simulations, adaptive interventions, or collaborative projects. Other times, a printed book, classroom discussion, or hands-on investigation is more effective.
“Tasks” focuses on what students actually do. Creating, researching, analyzing, and collaborating can justify digital learning. Passive consumption and repetitive digital activities deserve greater scrutiny. Our framework also supports our district's #RiseWithReading initiative by emphasizing extended reading, handwriting, knowledge development, and meaningful discussion. In middle school, we are piloting a weekly technology-free instructional day to encourage greater balance and intentional lesson design.
One of the most important elements of informed governance is listening to students. Through my Superintendent's Student Cabinets, we have established opportunities to hear directly from middle and high school students about their experiences with technology and instruction. Their perspectives help us examine whether devices support learning, create distractions, or displace more meaningful instructional experiences.
Student voice should not be ceremonial. It should inform implementation, help identify unintended consequences, and shape future refinements. Students can recognize the value of technology while also appreciating opportunities for face-to-face interaction, sustained reading, and learning without devices. Listening to them strengthens both the legitimacy and effectiveness of our decisions.
Initial feedback from teachers, parents, and students has been encouraging. Anecdotal responses have been largely positive, with relatively little resistance to the framework. But community support is only the beginning.
We must examine whether students are reading more, writing more, engaging in meaningful discussions, and demonstrating stronger academic outcomes. We must also evaluate technology investments more rigorously. Platform usage and student logins do not establish instructional value.
Before purchasing or renewing digital tools, districts should consider evidence of effectiveness, instructional opportunity costs, teacher feedback, and financial sustainability. Educational technology should have to earn its place in the classroom.
Our experience suggests that effective technology governance requires shared responsibility and clear authority. States should establish broad requirements for safety, privacy, accessibility, and responsible technology use. But instructional boundaries should primarily be shaped by local decisions.
School boards, informed by their communities, should establish expectations and provide oversight. District leaders should develop coherent frameworks, ensure consistency, and evaluate results. Educators should retain professional discretion within those expectations. Parents and students must have meaningful opportunities to contribute to decisions and provide feedback.
Appropriate exceptions must remain available for students with disabilities, English learners, specialized coursework, and other circumstances where technology is necessary for access or learning. This approach is neither unrestricted classroom autonomy nor rigid centralized control. It is informed local governance supported by professional expertise and community participation.
For years, we asked how to ensure every student had access to technology. That was the right question for its time, and access remains important. But access alone is not an instructional strategy, and boundaries cannot be established without understanding the communities and classrooms they affect.
At Horry County Schools, Focused Learning represents our effort to move from access to intentionality through collaborative leadership, professional judgment, and community engagement. We know that the future of education is not simply more technology. It is not simply less technology. It is intentional technology. For us, it is using technology for the right amount of time, with the right tools, for the right tasks, guided by the people responsible for educating and supporting our children.
________________
Haidt, J. (2024). The anxious generation: How the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness. Penguin Press.
MyHorryNews. (2026). Protected learning: Horry County Schools to take further steps to reduce screen time. https://www.myhorrynews.com/news/protected-learning-horry-county-schools-to-take-further-steps-to-reduce-screen-time/article_57ef8d1b-305e-4456-80d6-a891c21eb5b8.html
