In a webinar Thursday hosted by nonprofit education publication The Hechinger Report, a conversation facilitated by reporter Jackie Mader suggested the era of "screens for all" is meeting formidable resistance not only from teachers, but also caregivers, the media and policymakers.
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
The COVID-19 pandemic forced many districts into 1:1 device rollouts and scaled digital instruction. However, what began as a necessity has, in many cases, continued on autopilot, said Jill Anderson, a third-grade teacher in New York.
Anderson described pre-pandemic tech use as peppered throughout the school day, referencing the computer lab or typing class, but “now it’s like we took technology and shoved it in every single content area,” she said, mentioning district-mandated online curriculum, homework assignments that require a computer, and the gamification of learning.
“The truth is, engagement and learning are not equal,” Anderson said. “And there are times when, as a teacher, I need to make the decision to do something engaging because I want to connect with my students. But that engagement should be through us as a class, forming this class family, not through a one-to-one device.”
The truth is, engagement and learning are not equal.
Jill Anderson, third-grade teacher, New York
Kendall said parents have reported a lack of transparency regarding how often students use devices for entertainment outside of instructional purposes, like music videos on YouTube. She also said that by gamifying learning, “we are training our kids’ brains that learning is like a video game ... that it should be fun and exciting ... what was maybe intended as a way to get kids excited about learning is actually really to their detriment.”
Moreover, she expressed worry that attempts to make learning more engaging during and immediately after the pandemic may have made it harder for students to focus on standard academic tasks like reading, which require sustained attention and are less immediately stimulating.
Anderson shared this concern, highlighting that high-stimulation digital engagement does not necessarily lead to deep and meaningful understanding of content. As a teacher, she said her goal is to create experiences where students collaborate and build community, which is vital for young children, and a screen-based curriculum often removes or reduces that component.
"We’re all trying to recalibrate post-COVID," Anderson said. For many, she noted, that readjustment involves questioning whether the digital tools that served as emergency infrastructure now contribute to an unhealthy default pedagogy, where screens are always — and in her view, unnecessarily — present.
BARRIERS AND THE PATH FORWARD
Anderson described how the traditional wisdom of using 1:1 device plans to close the digital divide has started to erode, given the research on negative impacts of excessive screen time on young people. In her experience, students with the most resources are often those who don’t use screens as much at home, while students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds appear to have more screen exposure.
In her view, the path to de-screening requires both top-down support and grassroots action, with educators and guardians working in tandem. Anderson emphasized that teachers need resources to do their jobs — such as a printer in every classroom, pedagogical texts to refer to, and materials like pens and paper — and that if a district only provides online curriculum, it puts teachers in a challenging position.
She recommended small choices to make the de-screening process manageable, such as “no-tech brain breaks” and prioritizing read-alouds. Anderson also suggested that teachers try to not give homework that requires a screen.
Kendall also emphasized that parents are uniquely positioned to be advocates, encouraging them to voice their preferences within reason, such as by telling a teacher if they prefer an assignment to be printed on paper.
“Tech is a tool,” Anderson stated. “But it doesn’t mean it needs to be involved in everything.”
