For years, parents, educators, pediatricians, and policymakers have raised the same concern: kids are spending too much time on screens.
As a father, I understand that concern. As someone who has spent years working alongside K–12 technology leaders, I also see another side of it. Our children may spend too much time looking at screens, but we oversimplify the issue when we treat every minute in front of a screen as though it has the same purpose or effect.
Instead of asking only, “How much screen time in schools are students getting?” we should also ask, “What are they doing during that time, and what is it replacing?”
New guidance recently released by the U.S. Department of Education encourages states and school districts to distinguish between recreational and instructional technology use. It also emphasizes evaluating educational technology by its instructional value and impact on students, not simply by the number of minutes spent looking at a screen.
That is the conversation K–12 education should be having. Forty-five minutes spent researching a historical event, collaborating on a science project, learning to code, or receiving individualized math instruction is fundamentally different from 45 minutes of endless social-media scrolling. The clock measures them the same, but the impact on the student is not the same.
Not All Screen Time Is Created Equal
We do not talk about “paper time.” A student might spend an hour reading a novel, completing a math worksheet, or flipping through a magazine. All three involve paper, but we would never consider them educationally equivalent simply because the medium is the same.
Technology deserves the same context. A device is a tool, and its value depends on how, why, and when it is used. Screen exposure still matters, but it is an incomplete measurement on its own.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is making a similar distinction. In its 2026 technical report on children and digital media, the AAP explains that traditional measures of screen time capture only one part of a much larger digital ecosystem. Both the quantity and quality of media use matter.
That leads to better questions: What is the child doing? What is the purpose of the interaction? How was the technology designed? Is it supporting learning, or displacing sleep, physical activity, conversation, and other healthy experiences?
Screen Time in Schools Should Support Good Teaching
Technology is now part of the infrastructure of education. Devices, digital curriculum, accessibility tools, video conferencing, assessments, and learning platforms have created opportunities that did not exist when many of us were students.
For some students, these tools provide essential access. Assistive technology can help a student with a disability participate more fully. A rural student may access a course the district could not otherwise offer. A homebound student can remain connected to teachers and classmates. Real-time assessment data can help a teacher identify a learning gap before moving forward.
Technology can do remarkable things, but more technology does not automatically mean better education. Every lesson does not need a device, every assignment does not need an app, and every problem does not need a software solution.
Sometimes the best instructional decision is to close the Chromebook, open a physical book, build something, conduct an experiment, work through a problem on a whiteboard, or have a face-to-face conversation. Good teachers use different tools for different purposes. Technology should support that work, not replace it.
The Screen in a Student’s Pocket Matters Too
The AAP also has a resource addressing screen time at school, reflecting legitimate questions about how devices are used during the school day. Parents should have visibility into that use, schools should be able to explain why a technology is part of instruction, and providers should be able to explain what problem their product solves.
At the same time, concern about children’s screen use cannot fall entirely on schools. A teacher intentionally using a Chromebook during a structured lesson is different from a child having nearly unrestricted access to a smartphone after school. One has an educational purpose, adult supervision, and a defined beginning and end. The other may provide continuous access to platforms designed to hold attention through autoplay, endless scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, and notifications.
A school-issued device used to complete an English assignment and a smartphone delivering an algorithmic feed late at night both have screens. That does not make the experiences equivalent. If we focus only on “screens in schools,” we may regulate the easiest screen to control instead of addressing the one with the greatest influence on many children’s daily lives.
Schools Should Be More Demanding About Technology
None of this is a defense of unlimited technology use in schools. Instructional screen time matters, not every edtech product improves learning, and districts should not add technology simply because they can.
Schools should regularly evaluate whether their tools are earning their place. If a platform is not being used or delivering meaningful value, question it. If several systems accomplish the same thing, simplify them. If an activity works better without a device, put the device away. If technology interferes with learning, change course.
The Department of Education’s guidance offers a useful framework. Before adopting a technology product, schools should ask:
- What learning problem does it solve?
- When and for whom should it be used?
- How long should it be used?
- What evidence shows that it improves student learning?
The starting point is the problem, not the product. That principle should apply not only to software, but also to devices, repairs, protection programs, deployment, refresh cycles, and other technology investments.
From “Can We Buy It?” to “Should We Buy It?”
The past decade brought a rapid expansion of educational technology. Districts built 1:1 programs, thousands of platforms entered classrooms, and pandemic relief funding accelerated adoption.
Now, budgets are tighter. Technology teams are managing aging device fleets while cybersecurity costs rise, subscriptions accumulate, and artificial intelligence introduces new opportunities and risks. The question is shifting from “Can we buy this?” to “Should we buy this?” Sometimes, the right answer is no.
That requires discipline from districts and from the companies that serve them. At Secured Tech, we believe the best recommendation for a district may not always produce the best short-term sale for us. If repairing current devices makes more sense than replacing them, we should say so. If a district can responsibly extend a refresh cycle, recover more value from retired technology, or solve a problem by changing a process, we should help it evaluate those options. If something we sell is not needed, we should be willing to say that too.
That approach may cost a transaction today, but it builds something more valuable over time: trust. A true partnership is about understanding a district’s goals, respecting its constraints, and helping its leaders make decisions that serve students, teachers, and taxpayers.
Look at the Full Technology Lifecycle
A device is not a single purchase. It is selected, configured, deployed, protected, used, repaired, refreshed, and eventually retired. Ideally, its remaining value is recovered and reinvested into future technology needs.
Every decision across that lifecycle affects total cost. The cheapest device is not always the least expensive long-term option. Replacing devices frequently is not always responsible, and keeping them indefinitely can create reliability and instructional challenges.
The goal is to find the point where learning needs, reliability, staff capacity, repair costs, residual value, and district budgets intersect. That is a more useful conversation than focusing only on this year’s purchase price, just as understanding the purpose of screen use is more useful than counting minutes alone.
Purpose Over Volume
Parents, schools, technology leaders, and industry partners all have a role in creating healthier and more effective digital environments. Parents must consider phones, social media, sleep, and boundaries outside the school day. Schools must decide when technology strengthens instruction and when students are better served without it. Technology leaders must regularly evaluate whether their digital ecosystem is delivering value. Companies like ours must be honest about whether the products and services we offer are actually helping.
The Department of Education and the American Academy of Pediatrics are both pointing toward a more thoughtful conversation—one centered on purpose, quality, context, and outcomes.
The future of education is not screenless, but it should not be dominated by screens either. Screen time in schools should be intentional: technology when it improves learning, a book or pencil when either is the better tool, a conversation when students need connection, and time away from every screen when that is what they need most.
Technology itself is not the goal. Learning is.
And whether we’re parents, educators, technology leaders, policymakers, or industry partners, keeping that as our main focus is our shared responsibility.
Ready to take a more intentional approach to district technology? Learn more about Secured Tech.
Nate Holmes is the CEO and co-founder of Secured Tech, a company focused on helping K-12 schools successfully manage and support student technology programs. Since launching the company, he has worked with districts across the country to improve device lifecycle management through practical solutions like repairs, protection plans, buyback programs, and affordable device sourcing.
Nate is passionate about helping schools reduce risk, control technology costs, and keep devices working for students and teachers. He holds a degree in secondary education and remains closely connected to the needs of educators. Nate lives in Indiana with his family and enjoys coaching and following sports.
