91��Ƭ

According to an April 14 update of an , 37 states and the District of Columbia have enacted bans or restrictions to students’ use of personal devices in schools, and 19 states are considering legislation to limit all screen time.

These bans offer an immediate and visible response to a deeper problem: student wellbeing, engagement, and distraction in K–12 schools. However, for district and state edtech leaders, the real challenge is not simply limiting access to technology, but designing learning environments—digital and otherwise—that are accessible, meaningful, and engaging.

Device debate: Why now?

Books such as Jean Twenge’s and Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation sparked growing backlash against “screen time” in schools, and recent Congressional testimony from neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath about the correlational relationship between an increase in available technology and declining assessment scores further exploded that debate.

At the same time, schools and systems face mixed messages around advancements in artificial intelligence. On the one hand, federal policy and the technology industry call for students to develop critical skills for an AI-saturated future.

On the other hand, some experts claim that it could be detrimental to learning as well as students’ well-being.

Given these concerns, banning devices presents an immediate, visible, easily communicated response. However, as I asked previously, if screen time bans are the answer, what is the problem they are trying to solve?

Real problem: It’s not the device

Screens have become an inanimate scapegoat for a more difficult challenge facing schools today: distraction and disengagement. For many students, traditional, brick-and-mortar schooling feels disconnected from their interests and goals; rigid in their schedules and course offerings; and unresponsive to their needs.

Ironically, one of the solutions that could serve thousands of students might be derailed by blanket bans. We have evidence that virtual and hybrid learning models address student and family needs while keeping them engaged within public school systems.

During the 2024-25 school year, we studied five promising virtual and hybrid models designed to meet specific student needs in specific contexts. For example:

• Bismarck Public Schools’ Empower[Ed] hybrid program serves 11th and 12th graders who may not see the relevance of traditional school or who want to explore a specific topic or career. Students can demonstrate core academic standards through experiences connected to their interests and goals.
• Novi Virtual supports students when in-person learning is not feasible, such as during medical challenges or extended travel. In partnership with other districts, it also offers a pathway for students experiencing chronic absenteeism, behavioral concerns, or who have otherwise become disengaged.
• St. Vrain Valley School District’s AGILE program expands course access by allowing students to attend their home school and engage in hybrid learning through a virtual class, dramatically increasing access to specialized and advanced coursework that might otherwise be unavailable.

Across these settings, we found clear evidence that the models not only improve outcomes for students, but also provide high-quality, meaningful learning opportunities that would not otherwise have been possible. Each model was intentionally designed to increase access, nurture relationships, offer flexibility, and improve learning outcomes, especially for students who had not been served by traditional structures.

Overreaching screen time limits and device bans do more than remove access to technology. They cut off access to powerful learning.

Restriction to intention: Next steps for leaders

Leaders need policies that recognize the difference between personal phones and school-issued laptops or tablets; between passively watching videos and actively creating with technology; and between mindlessly scrolling through social media and engaging in a high-quality virtual or hybrid course.

Bans may feel like an immediate, decisive action to reduce distraction, but they also remove access to powerful learning opportunities. The solution should not simply be less technology, but better-designed learning.

To get started:

1. Separate distraction from learning access. Provide schools and educators with strategies to mitigate off-task personal use without blocking instructional tools, accessibility supports, online coursework, or flexible learning pathways. For example, Desert Edge High School implemented a stoplight protocol to help students build responsible technology habits, engage critically with technology, and develop broader digital literacy skills.
2. Define what effective technology use looks like. Give teachers, principals, families, and community stakeholders concrete examples of purposeful use, such as researching, collaborating, accessing specialized courses, using assistive tools, or connecting learning to student interests. Organizations such as ISTE, Digital Promise, and FullScale have websites loaded with examples from the field.
3. Audit policies for unintended consequences. Before restricting access or implementing bans, determine which students could lose access to coursework, accessibility features, learning continuity, or alternative pathways that keep them connected to school.

The image above was created with AI.