Screens in Balance: What the Experts are Saying About “Screen Time” in Schools

School leaders are navigating a fast moving public conversation about “screen time” that often blends together very different experiences. The literature is clear on one starting point: “screen time” is a broad label that can refer to social media on a phone, entertainment viewing, or the use of digital learning tools during instruction (Sved 4). A useful way to reduce confusion is to separate categories of screen use and then evaluate technology use by purpose, context, and design rather than assuming all screen exposure has the same impact (Sved 4; Barnwell; Odgers, “Building What’s Next” 52). This matters because day to day school decisions sit at the intersection of learning, student well being, family expectations, and classroom realities.

Across a variety of experts engaged in the screen time conversation, a consistent theme is that there are no widely adopted time limit rules for screen use at school. Instead, guidance emphasizes the difference between active and passive use (American Academy of Pediatrics, “Screen Time at School” 2). Active use is described as technology that supports critical thinking and creation, such as collaboration, design, coding, and media production. Passive use is described as activities such as digital worksheets or consuming content with little reflection or interaction (American Academy of Pediatrics, “Screen Time at School” 2). This shift is important because it reframes the leadership question from “How many minutes?” to “What is the learning purpose, and is the tool strengthening instruction or displacing better options?” (Barnwell; Odgers, “Building What’s Next” 52).

The literature also supports a balanced view of educational technology. When technology is teacher guided and tied to a clear learning goal, it can improve access and participation, especially through accessibility supports such as audiobooks, text to speech, and voice to text (American Academy of Pediatrics, “Screen Time at School” 2–3). CoSN similarly describes EdTech as most effective when it supplements high quality instruction rather than replacing it (Sved 18). From a school leadership perspective, the strongest justification for classroom technology use is often the clearest one: it enables learning tasks that would otherwise be less accessible, less efficient, or less inclusive, while remaining aligned to instruction (Sved 18).

At the same time, some literature flags instructional risks when screens become the default mode for too many tasks. Dr. Jared Horvath argues that broad increased classroom screen exposure is generally associated with weaker learning outcomes, and that more consistent academic gains tend to appear with intentional uses (Horvath 1–5). He also argues that digital environments can encourage task switching that conflicts with sustained attention needed for learning (Horvath 6). Related sources highlight that reading and deep learning may be especially sensitive. Evidence summarized in the review indicates that comprehension and retention may be stronger on paper than on screens for complex or extended texts, and that handwritten note taking may better support long term learning than typing for some tasks (Horvath 5). These findings point toward thoughtful balance: technology where it adds value, and non screen options where they support deeper learning.

The student well being side of the conversation deserves equal care. The American Academy of Pediatrics frames youth media experiences as part of a broader “digital ecosystem” shaped by design incentives that often prioritize engagement and can crowd out sleep, movement, relationships, and sustained attention (Munzer et al. 2–8). Dr. Candice Odgers’ work adds two important cautions. First, much of the research connecting social media to adolescent mental health is correlational and often cannot distinguish cause from effect (Odgers and Jensen 336–38). Second, large preregistered studies often find small associations between daily technology use and well being as commonly measured, and intensive daily studies report few day to day linkages between daily digital technology use and symptoms compared with other stressors (Odgers and Jensen 343–44; Odgers, “Building What’s Next” 24–25). Odgers also emphasizes that risks are not evenly distributed and that offline vulnerabilities often predict negative online experiences. Sleep disruption is repeatedly highlighted as a concern, especially with late night device use (George and Odgers 846–49). For school leaders, this points toward a practical posture: take online risks seriously, avoid oversimplified claims that one factor explains everything, and focus on protective conditions schools can reliably influence.

The literature also reflects an active debate about policy responses. Jonathan Haidt argues for norms such as phone free schools as part of a broader set of collective expectations (“The Four Norms”; Haidt). Odgers agrees youth well being deserves urgent attention but warns that bans can be blunt tools and may create unintended consequences if they divert attention from safety improvements, healthy routines such as sleep, and approaches that meet young people where they are (Odgers, “Building What’s Next” 35–36, 52). Taken together, the literature supports a school strategy that is clear, balanced, and defensible: define what “screen time” means in school contexts, prioritize active and purposeful learning uses, reduce avoidable distraction, protect literacy and deep learning routines, and strengthen student supports and digital literacy so students are better equipped to navigate online spaces (American Academy of Pediatrics, “Screen Time at School” 2–4; Barnwell; Munzer et al. 2–8; Odgers, “Building What’s Next” 52).

To help schools lead these conversations with clarity and consistency, CoSN released the 2025 Blaschke Report, Screens in Balance: Education, Technology, and Community Conversations, alongside a Screen Time Toolkit designed to help educators navigate screen use conversations within their own communities. The toolkit includes adaptable resources such as quick reference guides, customizable presentation templates, take home materials for families, and structured reflection documents to facilitate dialogue among school staff. This work was done in partnership with AASA, NAESP, NASSP, National PTA, NEA, and NSPRA. These resources are available here: CoSN 2025 Blaschke Report and Screen Time Toolkit.

Disclaimer: This article was edited with the assistance of generative AI to improve clarity and readability; the author reviewed and approved the final content and remains responsible for its accuracy and citations.

Citations:

American Academy of Pediatrics. Screen Time at School. Updated 13 Mar. 2025.

Barnwell, Paul. “Screen Time in School: Finding the Right Balance.” Common Sense Education, 2 Oct. 2025.

George, Madeleine J., and Candice L. Odgers. “Seven Fears and the Science of How Mobile Technologies May Be Influencing Adolescents in the Digital Age.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 10, no. 6, 2015, pp. 832–851.

Haidt, Jonathan. The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. Penguin Press, 2024.

Horvath, Jared Cooney. “Written Testimony.” U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Munzer, Tiffany, et al. “Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents: Policy Statement.” Pediatrics, vol. 157, no. 2, 2026, e2025075320.

Odgers, Candice L. Building What’s Next: Supporting Youth in a Digital World. CoSN Keynote, Apr. 2026.

Odgers, Candice L., and Michaeline Jensen. “Adolescent Mental Health in the Digital Age: Facts, Fears and Future Directions.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 61, no. 3, 2020, pp. 336–348.

Sved, Cooper. Screens in Balance: Education, Technology, and Community Conversations. Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), 2025. 

“The Four Norms to Roll Back the Phone‑Based Childhood.” The Anxious Generation Movement, https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/. Accessed 31 Mar. 2026.