The Los Angeles Unified School District has adopted one of the nation’s most restrictive classroom screen time policies. It will dramatically limit technology use across grade levels. Much of the reporting has focused on “banning devices,” but as I examined the actual policy, I noticed that it’s much closer to a low-tech approach rather than a tech ban.

While I think the policy gets many things right (including its focus on attention, child development, and intentional technology use) I also see some areas where I disagree a bit. In this article and podcast episode, I explore where a low-tech approach can strengthen learning, why quality matters just as much as quantity, and how schools can strike a better balance between screen time and deeper learning.

Listen to the Podcast

If you enjoy this blog but you’d like to listen to it on the go, just click on the audio below or subscribe via iTunes/Apple Podcasts (ideal for iOS users) or Google Play and Stitcher (ideal for Android users).

 

The Los Angeles Unified School District Is Significantly Limiting Screen Time Next Year

During this upcoming school year the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) will be implementing one of the most restrictive classroom technology policies in the US. Under the new guidelines, students face firm limits on screen time based on grade level. Grades K-1 will have no screen time at all. 

Beginning in second grade, students are limited to as little as twenty minutes of screen time per day, with gradually increasing limits in upper elementary to around 30 minutes per day. Then in middle school, it’s capped at one hour per subject per week (roughly 6 hours) and that moves to a total of 10 hours per week at the high school level. 

The policy does allow exceptions for required online assessments and specialized technology courses but it’s definitely a departure from the adaptive learning programs (think iReady) that I wrote about in my last blog post.

The district is also moving away from the assumption that every student should take a device home. In the elementary grades, more devices will remain at school, and families of students in third grade and above must actively opt in if they want their child to bring a district-issued device home. Families can also request paper-based homework instead, and schools must provide those alternatives without any academic penalty for students.

Beyond screen time, the policy includes stronger restrictions on how district devices and networks can be used. Sites such as YouTube, gaming platforms, and entertainment streaming services are broadly blocked unless specifically approved for instruction. The district will also expand internet filtering and monitoring in a way that essentially says, “Don’t expect privacy on your devices.”

Initially, I had a strong reaction to this policy, in part because I only saw the headlines and the bullet point list. But then I thought, “I should actually read the whole thing from a place of curiosity.” And what I found was a policy that was much more nuanced and thoughtful than what the reporting on the policy seemed to suggest. 

So, I’d like to share my thoughts on what this type of policy gets right and where it might be lacking. Full disclosure here. I’ve done some Gifted Education professional development with LAUSD but I promise that it didn’t influence my thoughts on this analysis. 

What I Like About the Policy

The following are a few of the areas that I think the policy gets right.

1. It Isn’t an Outright Technology Ban

Most of the headlines I’ve seen have used phrases like, “bans screen time” or “pulls devices” to describe the school district’s approach. While this is true for K-1, that’s not really an accurate overall description. Their approach is low-tech rather than an outright technology ban. 

There is a gradual build-up of technology that includes up to six hours a week of screen time at the middle school level and ten hours a week at the high school level. I’d describe a cap of 17% of academic time as “low tech” rather than a “technology ban.”

Do I agree with those specific numbers? I’m not sure. I can see some real value in using Google Docs for writing and revision in an English Language Arts class in a way that goes beyond the rigid rule of one hour per week per class (including homework). I’m not someone who wants to see all writing shift to paper and pencil. Students need to write essays and that will require a computer.

I might go closer to 70-30 in certain classes and 90-10 in others. But an overall ratio of about 80% non-tech in a secondary classroom makes sense to me.

 

2. This Approach Feels Developmentally Appropriate

I’ve written before about why low-tech options are often more developmentally appropriate. They’re more hands-on and tactile than high tech options. They’re more concrete compared to the abstraction inherent in high tech options. They’re often slower and simpler with more permission for imagination. 

None of this should surprise us. A laptop wasn’t designed with a five year old in mind. It’s designed for adults with adult bodies and adult brains. 

I love the fact that this LAUSD policy goes non-tech for grades K-1 and then gradually ramps up the technology through upper elementary before ultimately allowing for a balanced tech (but still largely low-tech) approach in middle school and high school. As someone who has done tech integration coaching and who nerds out on brain-based learning, I feel like this approach is intentional and aligned to childhood development. 

However, I actually think there are some moments where technology makes sense in the primary grades. While I generally don’t want to see screen-based tests, online options work better than humans when it comes to testing reading fluency. Computers don’t get bored or tired and it’s no surprise that they are more accurate in assessing speed and accuracy in reading. My hope is that districts that scrap tech at the early grades would still allow teachers and paraprofessionals to use tech tools alongside a child to get more accurate scores. My guess is that this would fit into the LAUSD policy area that allows for some technology via testing. 

Similarly, personalized phonics instruction continues to have a high effect size on reading outcomes. I can see where limited (think 15-30 minutes a week) screen-based phonics instruction makes sense. 

 

3. The New Default Will Be Away from Taking Devices Home

I love the fact that LAUSD has shifted away from sending devices home with students. On a basic, practical level, it addresses the daily challenge of students forgetting their computers or, more likely, forgetting their chargers. I’ve met so many teachers who are simply tired of managing devices that are constantly going home and back to school. 

But I also think this sends the message to students that technology devices are meant for learning. They’re powerful tools for problem-solving, research, and creativity rather than toys for entertainment. It sends the message to parental figures as well that the default should be a low-tech childhood. 

At the same time, they’re allowing for flexibility. If students need to use devices at home, they have that option to opt into it.  

 

4. They Are Being Intentional About Focus and Attention

On the surface, this seems to be a screen time policy centered on the quantity rather than the quality of the time spent using technology. But I actually think the strongest element of this policy addresses the larger issue of student attention and engagement. 

In The Depth Advantage, I added focus to the preexisting deeper learning frameworks as a prerequisite skill that they will need as they engage in problem-solving, deep mastery, collaboration, communication, and resilience. Focus is a skill that students will need to master in a world full of distractions. And this skill then becomes a habit and eventually a mindset of what Cal Newport calls “deep work.” 

Many schools have already banned cell phones at the full K-12 level. We’re seeing bi-partisan support ranging from conservative Texas to liberal Oregon. This is a great start. However, many of the worst distractions that exist on a phone also exist on a browser. 

For the longest time, experts have told teachers to simply “make the learning more engaging.” Meanwhile, students who had been raised with tablets as entertainment devices could still have access to YouTube, Roblox (and other games but really . . . mostly Roblox), and social media. Even the most engaging lesson on photosynthesis could not compete with the socially engineered dopamine casinos of the technological entertainment industry with platforms designed to keep children’s constant attention through short-term dopamine releases. 

I appreciate the fact that LAUSD’s default model will be to block entertainment-based platforms. I realize that YouTube has some amazing educational content. I mean, I put my writing prompts on there. I’ve used Crash Course videos on my courses. I think Veratasium videos can be amazing in science courses. 

However, teachers can still use these videos on a whole class level because their accounts will not be blocked. I appreciate the fact that they’re respecting teacher agency and autonomy here. 

I know some people will say, “But in the real world, students will be faced with a barrage of distractions and they’ll need to learn how to get work done without hopping onto YouTube or cursing social media.” 

Yes and . . . they cannot learn that skill if they haven’t developed the habit of deep focus. In many cases, they’ll develop those habits over the course of multiple years as they move closer to college and career. In other words, students who are already in the habit of focusing and engaging in class will be tested with distractions as they do homework in high school. If they’ve truly developed the habit of focus they’ll have an easier time.

 

5. The Policy Allows for Exceptions

Technology policies need to be comprehensive enough to provide unity and clarity while also flexible enough to allow for contextual differences between courses and within the student population. It makes sense to allow for exemptions in certain courses. It’s hard to teach coding, graphic design, yearbook, or journalism without the use of a screen. True, you can do some coding by hand and you can definitely storyboard a documentary on paper but ultimately those course require devices. 

But notice that those courses are hitting the highest levels of the SAMR model. Instead of substituting a worksheet for a digital worksheet or a poster board for Google Slides, they’re using technology to redefine the learning outcomes. 

Similarly, many CTEC programs will allow students to continue to use professional software in a way that mimics the tools that they will use in specific trades. Here students will use technology in a deliberate and intentional way that still allows for hands-on learning. 

Finally, students will still have access to assistive technology. I imagine this will create some friction in certain classes where students don’t always understand while a student has a device (especially when teachers need to respect FERPA and can’t share a diagnosis with fellow students). But teachers are already experts in handling the bigger conversations about equity and fairness. 

 

Where the Policy Falls Short

The following are a few small critiques I have with the policy.

1. It Treats Screen Time as a Single Variable

From what I could tell, this policy focuses on screen time usage at the individual student level. While I understand the need for this, I think it’s a little more complicated. For one, screen time isn’t always at the individual device level. Imagine a class where a teacher shows multiple documentaries and students watch the videos repeatedly and then fill out a short comprehension worksheet at the end of each class period. 

Contrast this with a class where students are blogging. They’re outlining by hand, typing on a Google Document, sharing their document with a classmate and pointing to specific words and phrases while also talking in person. I’d argue the second class, despite having more time spent with their device open to the internet, is more human in its approach and includes more active learning. 

If you walked into our Mock Trial meetings, you would have seen laptops open and students actively revising their work. But they’d also be turned away from their screens and focusing on eye contact, voice, and body language as they practiced as witnesses. A screen use audit might say “2 hours online” but if you actually counted the times that they looked at a screen, it might have been ten minutes per student at the most. 

One of my favorite strategies for student research is to have two students for every one device. Are we going to count that as fully on a screen or half time on the screen? When they turn to their neighbor and summarize information before adding it to a graphic organizer, do we have them shut their laptops so the clock doesn’t run on their screen time counter? 

If a student records a podcast and they’re interviewing an expert, does that count as screen time if they use an audio recorder? What if it’s a video instead?  

In Vintage Innovation, I described the mash-up of low-tech and high-tech tools. I wrote about the need to blend these two together so that we maximize the human element and embrace the tactile aspects of learning while also leveraging some of the real benefits of technology. But if we use both at the same time, do we consider this to be screen time? 

As I think about screen time audits, my fear is that we will focus solely on what is easiest to measure – the quantity. But along the way, we’ll fail to address the role of quality in technology integration. 

 

2. The Policy Doesn’t Differentiate Between Active and Passive Learning

The problem isn’t that LAUSD wants less screen time. In many cases, that’s a wise instinct. The screen time issue is one of both quality and quantity and I think it’s wise to ask, “How much time are students on their devices?” 

The problem is that the policy measures minutes instead of meaning. True, we need to pay attention to how long students are on their devices. However, we also need to ask how students are using technology. Does the technology integration help students think more deeply, create more meaningfully, collaborate more effectively, or solve more authentic problems?

In other words, are we making a distinction between passive and active learning? Are we tapping into the connective capacity of technology and allowing students to do deep dive interviews with experts around the world? Are we tapping into the creative capacity of technology so that they can run digital models and solve problems or craft a podcast or documentary? Are we giving them the opportunity to use vetted AI tools for deeper learning so that they can ask questions and have in-the-moment feedback? 

I think a good starting place with technology is to ask, “Does this develop the deeper learning competencies that students need in order to thrive in an unpredictable world?” 

I realize that a technology use policy needs to somewhat pedagogically neutral. They are attempting to solve a very real challenge of over dependence on technology and reducing screen time is a significant step in the right direction. However, it’s also important that they don’t slip into a place where teachers only use technology for efficient testing (the fluency example earlier) and miss the areas where it can lead to deeper learning. 

3. It Doesn’t Teach Ethical Use

If the goal of “low tech” is simply “less tech” rather than “better integration” we end up with a mindset that says, “Only use technology if you absolutely have to.” If that happens, students never learn to navigate the technological landscape that exists outside the walls of the school. 

Like I mentioned before, screen time limits are a great first step in helping students develop the habit of attention or focus. However, there are key skills they need to develop as they use technology ethically and wisely. When I look at the ISTE student standards, I find that most of these standards are the building blocks that they’ll need for the future. They’re also a sharp contrast to the shallow consumer-driven approach that they often have to navigate when they’re on their devices at home. 

School is still a great context for learning to use technology for problem-solving and creativity. We have the opportunity to provide a compelling vision for technology use that goes beyond social media, video games, and scrolling through videos. But again, this requires us to think deeper about the quality of technology use rather than just the quantity. 

Consider the skill of information literacy. In a world of deep fakes and misinformation, we need them to be curious but also analytical as they engage with information online. My concern is that if we close down everything and set up too many guardrails (only having curated articles rather than letting them do online research, for example) students won’t develop deeper information literacy. 

If they engage in passive learning tasks and digital worksheets, they won’t develop the type of information literacy they need in order to thrive in a generative age. 

 

4. The Policy Is Too Rigid with Weekly Quotas

While I generally support this type of policy, there are certain times (at the secondary level in particular) where it feels too rigid. Initially I couldn’t fathom a time where I would want more than an hour of screen time in a math class in a week. But then I thought about a class that really incorporates compacting and intentional AI tutoring and realized that there might be a few situations where students need access to tutorial videos as they work. 

Similarly, in an advanced statistics class, I can a unit where students might just need to use spreadsheets for p-values and z-scores. They might need to run advanced diagnostics and numerical modeling. Again, the question of “how is this used?” is critical. 

In a social studies class, we might have three weeks that are entirely technology free. But then students work on a social studies podcast or documentary project and suddenly they need to spend a longer chunk of time on their devices. Capping it at one hour fails to address the ebb and flow of authentic tech usage. 

In life, we tend to use technology in a way that’s more like interval training than marathon running. We have a week that’s heavy usage followed by a period where we don’t use technology at all. While it’s important to limit the overall quantity of screen time, there are times when certain projects can tap into the transformative aspects of technology while also going beyond the one hour mark. 

 

The Bottom Line

Educational technology should be evaluated by the quality of learning it enables, not merely by the amount of time students spend looking at a screen. These types of low tech policies are a great first step but they feel incomplete. My hope is that as they implement this policy, they’ll be able to incorporate a little more of the “how it’s being used” rather than just “how much it’s being used” with regard to technology.