������Ƶ

Legislators in at least 16 states have introduced in public schools. Driven by increasing , a movement that began with advocacy for and resulted in , has now broadened its focus to target the broader edtech industry.��

While concerns over excessive tech-use are not unfounded, and meant to improve learning environments, these proposed blanket bans may have unintended consequences that result in the opposite effect and further inequities. Current efforts to limit technology in the classroom often miss two key points: First, technology itself is not the intervention but a tool that can support effective interventions when used appropriately. Second, meaningful impact depends on strong instructional design, implementation, and accountability.

The Problem 

Findings from show an increase in examining the purpose and use of digital tools and platforms, fueled by the infusion of artificial intelligence (AI) in education. Because of facilitated by technology, skeptics including parents, researchers, and education leaders are advocating for blanket or limited edtech bans.

Most recently, Senate posited that rising screen time has resulted in poor test scores. Although there were some valid points (i.e. too much screen time can be harmful), researchers and others question the and the to strip almost all edtech from K-12 classrooms. Other suggests that screens can improve education and learning; but too much time spent in front of a screen and multitasking with other media

Groups often at odds, such as Moms for Liberty and teacher unions like the American Federation of Teachers have found some . Their concerns overlap: Parents worry about overexposure, online safety, and loss of control, and educators point to classroom disruption, increased workload, and limitations of poorly designed tools. Both see the current edtech landscape as insufficiently accountable and often misaligned with effective learning and student well-being, pointing to the need for thoughtful limits rather than blanket bans on edtech. Keith Krueger, CEO of (CoSN) states in a , “I think some well-intentioned policymakers trying to do something are rushing so quickly that they haven’t thought through the implications.” 

Simultaneously, edtech proponents have made clear that technology’s benefits cannot be understated. Technology use is especially effective for , students with disabilities, and ; can enable and various methods of comprehension demonstration; builds the skills needed for an increasingly ; and provides opportunities to engage with diverse perspectives and sources. While concerns about technology are valid, some experts contend that technology can , meaning that sweeping school bans risk over-correcting for more complex issues that have plagued education before ubiquitous use of technology.

The Response

Several states, including , , , , and , are proposing legislation aimed at significantly restricting the use of edtech in schools. would prohibit students in grades K-5 from accessing digital devices altogether and bar teachers from using them for instruction in those grades. Some states, such as , seek to impose daily screen time limits on older students. Other measures focus on tighter oversight of educational tools, such as creating formal vetting processes for school software in states like . Proposals in would require strict internet filtering systems that block all websites by default, allowing access only to those individually approved by school districts.��

Student Voice

To better understand the potential impact of impending edtech bans, ������Ƶ’s Teaching, Learning, and Tech program recently convened a roundtable with high school, college, and graduate students. Participants discussed their learning experiences, opportunities and challenges of classroom technology, and recommendations for edtech policies.��

Some students reported that personal device-free classrooms were engaging and emphasized discussion, hands-on activities, and direct peer and educator interaction. Students felt more present, retained information better, and demonstrated stronger problem solving skills. Activities like debates, journaling, reenactments, and lab work fostered deeper learning and a stronger sense of classroom community.

Students shared that over use of technology can lead to distraction, overreliance on AI tools, and diminished critical thinking. The ease of accessing answers often discouraged persistence, while screen-heavy environments weakened interpersonal connections and engagement.

However, participants also emphasized that technology can enhance learning when used effectively. Digital tools expand access to a wide range of resources, support differentiated learning, and improve efficiency. Platforms can enable visualization, engagement, and creativity.��

When discussing regulation, participants highlighted both benefits and drawbacks. Limiting device use can improve focus and classroom management, but blanket bans may disadvantage students who rely on technology for accessibility, language support, or accommodations. Such restrictions can also limit access to legitimate learning materials and reduce student agency.

Several participants noted the observation that “many decision-makers haven’t experienced technology in learning at this scale. Without that lived experience, they often miss its nuances and how it can support student learning.” They stressed that technology does not inherently replace meaningful learning or classroom interaction, but rather can complement it when used thoughtfully.

To support effective integration, participants called for stronger teacher training, ongoing professional development, and more independent research on best practices. “Teachers need more research to understand how to effectively use the tech with students in practice and how to identify the tech needs of the students.” Building digital literacy for both students and teachers, along with more intentional tool selection across disciplines, was identified as essential.

Finally, participants emphasized that technology is constantly evolving and cannot simply be removed from education. Instead, policies should focus on thoughtful integration, informed by research and input from diverse stakeholders, including students and teachers. A healthy digital environment balances technology use with opportunities for disconnection, prioritizes in-person relationships, supports well-being, and promotes responsible use. Ultimately, participants agreed that there is no one-size-fits-all approach and that effective edtech integration requires nuance, flexibility, and ongoing reflection.

��𳦴dz�����Ի岹�پ��DzԲ���

Proponents and skeptics of edtech, including students most impacted, agree that the current state of student learning is not optimal. However, blanket edtech bans, while well intentioned, miss the mark. They overlook its  and opportunity to build more effective edtech tools, and ignore many other contributing to declining academic outcomes including chronic absenteeism, teacher shortages and turnover, and the global pandemic which have also contributed to low academic achievement. “Sweeping bans are a blunt force that fails to consider how tech can effectively support classroom learning,” says Sara Kloek, Vice-President of Education Policy, .��

Even policies designed to account for student diversity can fall short. seeks to reduce distraction and screen overuse by prohibiting digital device access for K–5 students, with exceptions for those covered under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, these students may still be by restricted access to technology.

Beyond the classroom, students’ engagement with technology is pervasive. Digital skills are essential for workforce participation, civic engagement, communication, and access to information and public services. Limiting access to technology in school may therefore hinder students’ preparedness as informed citizens and future workers. Instead of blanket bans, policymakers and educators should pursue more balanced, evidence-based approaches:

• Build greater understanding of screen time: Promote a shared understanding of “screen time” across stakeholders. Research from  distinguishes between cell phones/social media, edtech, and screens at home for leisure. Differentiating these categories can help guide more effective and targeted policies.
• Fund independent and peer-reviewed research: To understand what works and what does not, invest in rigorous, up-to-date research on edtech. Studies should evaluate not only the effectiveness of digital tools on learning outcomes, but also impacts on long-term skill development, equity, data privacy, attention, and belonging.��
• Implement a comprehensive digital literacy curriculum: Banning technology in the classroom leaves students unprepared for the realities of today’s school, community, and workforce spaces. To ensure technology use is safe and supports learning, schools should implement a digital literacy curriculum that equips students with skills for how to use, create, and evaluate digital content and tools including media literacy and responsible AI use. Without this instruction, students are left to navigate the digital world on their own, leading to gaps in understanding and potentially unsafe use.
• Implement comprehensive safeguards for edtech: Banning technology risks shifting responsibility away from edtech providers. means that low-quality products are being scaled in schools without evidence of positive impact. Instead policymakers should enforce standards for data privacy, product quality, and equitable design, and require evidence of effectiveness before adoption.��
• Ensure edtech use is guided by student, teacher, and parent voice: Edtech decisions should reflect classroom realities, not top-down mandates. Students, teachers, and parents each offer critical perspectives on engagement, instructional value, access, and safety.��