The controversy is unfolding at the national level as well as in statehouses and school boards across the U.S., but among CoSN's panelists, there was a clear consensus: The legislative rush to ban screens has often failed to distinguish between tools that empower students and commercial products that distract them and hinder deep learning. They argued that districts should advocate for intentional tech use over banning it altogether.
CATEGORIZING SCREEN TIME
Central to the discussion was the release of a new CoSN report and toolkit designed to help school leaders navigate the complexities of tech use. Cooper Sved, an elementary school teacher in Virginia and CoSN Blaschke fellow, who also authored the report, explained that the term "screen time" is often overgeneralized. To build effective policy, Sved argued that districts, families and lawmakers must recognize three distinct kinds of screen use, each of which has different rationales and cognitive effects on students.
One kind of screen use is smartphones and social media, exemplified by platforms like Instagram or games like Candy Crush, which Sved noted are designed to maximize user engagement. He said the ubiquity of access is staggering: According to a 2022 report from the nonprofit Pew Research Center, 53 percent of children aged 8-12 and 95 percent of teenagers in the U.S. have access to an Internet-connected device.
Sved then moved to education technology as the second, and decisively positive, category of screen use, which he said includes highly vetted tools like phonics programs and AI platforms designed specifically to support learning, in addition to being meant to “supplement, not replace, high-quality instruction from a trained teacher.”
He said ed tech is a matter of equity in his own multilingual classroom.
“My work would be impossible without the ability to use ed-tech platforms for translation and for [English Language Learner] services,” he said.
Sved pointed to non-cellphone entertainment such as virtual reality headsets and video games as the third category of screen use. Especially since these pastimes are not always social, they can be “highly addictive if not enjoyed in moderation,” he said.
According to Barbara Hunter, executive director of the nonprofit National School Public Relations Association, school communities — including district staff and student families — must become more proactive in their messaging about how and when technology benefits students.
“We have to be advocates for … the good things that are happening using ed tech in schools and with our kids,” she said. “And it’s incumbent upon us … to be sharing that story and trying to minimize confusion.”
Sved thus advised a shift in focus from the quantity of time spent on screens to the quality of engagement students have using technology. He shared a road map for this mindset, featured in the toolkit he created, that distinguishes between “structured and intentional use” and “unstructured consumption.”
Structured use, he said, has a clear purpose and supplements in-person experience. By contrast, unstructured use is often “mindless consumption,” such as scrolling on TikTok for hours.
“My students are very open about the fact that they will sit on TikTok for three, four, five hours straight after getting home from school," he said. "Imagine what that's doing to their attention span once they actually get into the classroom and they're expected to engage in long form, challenging material."
COMMUNICATION IS KEY
Addressing the screen-time issue requires navigating a complex parental paradox, where most parents reportedly believe cellphone bans are good, but many simultaneously favor constant access to their children during the school day, panelists explained.
Howie Berman, executive director of the National Parent Teachers’ Association (PTA), noted that parents are stretched thinner than ever and crave simple explanations, particularly when having to do with the nuances of tech use. PTA, he said, encourages a “three P’s” approach to technology conversations: Keep them positive, proactive and practical.
The National Association for Elementary School Principals Executive Director Earl Franks reinforced that screen time is not inherently good or bad, but is about "context, the content and control.” He urged schools to host workshops or send home digital-wellness newsletters to help families feel confident in managing technology.
To Hunter, the solution to effective and balanced screen time use lies in radical transparency and storytelling, and having technology directors work closely with communications teams to "show" rather than just "tell" what learning looks like in a modern classroom.
"Screen time at school is learning time at school," Hunter said, advising leaders to avoid jargon that confuses parents and focus on plain language — ideally at a fifth-grade reading level, which is what she does when communicating nuanced information to families — to explain tech initiatives. This transparency is especially critical as AI capabilities expand, she added.
A CALL FOR COHERENCE
Panelists offered three recommendations for school districts to take a more intentional and coordinated approach to tech integration if they hope to see meaningful gains in student outcomes.
First, speakers stressed the importance of securing teacher buy-in and modernizing teacher-preparation programs, which Sved described as lagging significantly behind classroom realities. Without updated training and support, he said, even the most advanced tools risk going underutilized.
Franks also underscored the need to model strong digital citizenship both in schools and at home.
“Students develop their digital habits by observing the adults around them. Teachers and families alike shape how students perceive and use technology,” he said. “So it starts with us, as professionals, as school leaders, as the teachers. Are we modeling effective use of those devices that we have?”
Equally important, panelists said, is ensuring that technology initiatives align with a school’s broader instructional framework. When tools are introduced without clear purpose or integration, they can become an added burden for teachers rather than a support system.
“School leaders must provide clear, actionable and context-specific guidance on ed-tech use," Franks said. "So we have to [ensure] school teachers know how to effectively use these resources."
