 | “We must rethink measuring educational technology by minutes on a screen. We should measure it by the type of access, creativity, connection, and learning those minutes make possible.” — Dr. Sheryl R. Abshire |
Let’s stop pretending that all screen time is the same.
A student endlessly scrolling through social media is not having the same experience as a student using text-to-speech to access grade-level content. Watching algorithm-driven entertainment is not equivalent to creating a documentary, collaborating with classmates, receiving targeted intervention, or connecting to an advanced course unavailable locally.
Yet much of today’s debate reduces all these experiences to a single number: minutes.
That is not meaningful measurement. It is convenient measurement and convenience is a dangerous foundation for education policy.
Families and policymakers are right to be concerned about distraction, mental health, excessive screen use, and the erosion of human connection. Schools should limit passive consumption, protect time for discussion and movement, and preserve hands-on, relational, creative, and device-free learning.
But broad restrictions based primarily on minutes risk solving the wrong problem.
A student endlessly scrolling through social media is not having the same experience as a student using text-to-speech to access grade-level content. Watching algorithm-driven entertainment is not equivalent to creating a documentary, collaborating with classmates, receiving targeted intervention, or connecting to an advanced course unavailable locally.
Yet much of today’s debate reduces all these experiences to a single number: minutes.
That is not meaningful measurement. It is convenient measurement and convenience is a dangerous foundation for education policy.
Families and policymakers are right to be concerned about distraction, mental health, excessive screen use, and the erosion of human connection. Schools should limit passive consumption, protect time for discussion and movement, and preserve hands-on, relational, creative, and device-free learning.
But broad restrictions based primarily on minutes risk solving the wrong problem.
CoSN’s From Screen Time Mandates to Purposeful Technology Policies and Guidance makes the crucial distinction: quantity tells us how long students used technology; quality tells us whether technology supported learning.
The 2025 CoSN Blaschke Report, Screens in Balance, further warns that “screen time” is an umbrella term that blurs three fundamentally different experiences: smartphones and social media, educational technology, and screen-based entertainment.
The U.S. Department of Education’s recent guidance reinforces this distinction. It urges policymakers and education leaders to focus on educational value rather than screen exposure alone. The Department’s message is direct: “Technology should remain a tool in service of learning, not an end in itself.”
That guidance also recognizes what can be lost when technology use is judged only by minutes. Digital tools can connect rural students to advanced coursework, help educators identify learning needs earlier, provide families with timely information, and give students with disabilities access to grade-level instruction through text-to-speech, captioning, visual supports, and other assistive technologies.
Conflating these uses with social media and digital entertainment may lead schools to restrict the very tools that expand opportunity and help students succeed.
The 2025 CoSN Blaschke Report, Screens in Balance, further warns that “screen time” is an umbrella term that blurs three fundamentally different experiences: smartphones and social media, educational technology, and screen-based entertainment.
The U.S. Department of Education’s recent guidance reinforces this distinction. It urges policymakers and education leaders to focus on educational value rather than screen exposure alone. The Department’s message is direct: “Technology should remain a tool in service of learning, not an end in itself.”
That guidance also recognizes what can be lost when technology use is judged only by minutes. Digital tools can connect rural students to advanced coursework, help educators identify learning needs earlier, provide families with timely information, and give students with disabilities access to grade-level instruction through text-to-speech, captioning, visual supports, and other assistive technologies.
Conflating these uses with social media and digital entertainment may lead schools to restrict the very tools that expand opportunity and help students succeed.
Was the experience active or passive? Was it guided by a teacher? Did it improve access, deepen understanding, encourage creativity, or strengthen human interaction? Was the tool safe, age-appropriate, accessible, and supported by evidence?
If leaders cannot answer those questions, the technology probably does not belong in the lesson. But when they can, an arbitrary time limit should not stand between a student and a meaningful learning opportunity.
The U.S. Department of Education recommends evaluating educational technology by its demonstrated learning outcomes and instructional value, not by screen time alone. It also emphasizes that these decisions are best made by states and local communities with input from parents and teachers.
In The Savvy EdTech Leader, Chapter 4 challenges leaders to “Proceed with Intention and Navigate with Purpose.” That is precisely what this moment demands. Chapter 10’s “Future-Proof Your Organization” reminds us that leadership is not about reacting to the loudest voices. It is about building thoughtful systems that protect students today while preparing them for tomorrow.
We should not defend technology simply because we invested in it. Nor should we abandon it because the public conversation has become uncomfortable.
Savvy leaders do something harder: They separate distraction from instruction, consumption from creation, and convenience from educational value.
Schools do not need more screen time.
They do not need less screen time.
They need better learning and the courage to measure what truly matters.
If leaders cannot answer those questions, the technology probably does not belong in the lesson. But when they can, an arbitrary time limit should not stand between a student and a meaningful learning opportunity.
The U.S. Department of Education recommends evaluating educational technology by its demonstrated learning outcomes and instructional value, not by screen time alone. It also emphasizes that these decisions are best made by states and local communities with input from parents and teachers.
In The Savvy EdTech Leader, Chapter 4 challenges leaders to “Proceed with Intention and Navigate with Purpose.” That is precisely what this moment demands. Chapter 10’s “Future-Proof Your Organization” reminds us that leadership is not about reacting to the loudest voices. It is about building thoughtful systems that protect students today while preparing them for tomorrow.
We should not defend technology simply because we invested in it. Nor should we abandon it because the public conversation has become uncomfortable.
Savvy leaders do something harder: They separate distraction from instruction, consumption from creation, and convenience from educational value.
Schools do not need more screen time.
They do not need less screen time.
They need better learning and the courage to measure what truly matters.
Further Reading
- U.S. Department of Education: Guidance on Education Technology and Screen Time in Schools
- CoSN: From Screen Time Mandates to Purposeful Technology Policies and Guidance
- CoSN: Screens in Balance—2025 Blaschke Report and Toolkit
- The Savvy EdTech Leader: Innovative Strategies to Boost Influence and Elevate Your Career
Ready to lead technology decisions with greater purpose, influence, and confidence? Purchase The Savvy EdTech Leader and explore practical strategies for navigating today’s most complex education technology challenges.