Have We Reached a Tipping Point on Screens in Schools?

Let's Think Carefully Before Pulling the Plug

In March of 2020, millions of teachers and students across the country pivoted online for distance learning because of the pandemic. Districts that did not have 1:1 laptop programs swiftly invested in Chromebooks for every child. Despite the imperfect nature of the experience, we would not have been able to teach or connect with our students without those devices. Chromebooks became a lifeline between many students and school, particularly those in the least resourced communities. Yet, even for schools with 1:1 devices before 2020, most never carefully designed pedagogy around providing every child with one. Recent cell phone bans and the rise of generative AI have created a perfect storm for an anti-screen movement. The impulse is both understandable and rooted in legitimate concern. My fear is that the same lack of forethought that led to bringing laptops into the classroom in the first place will result in an overreactive push to eliminate them at exactly the moment students most need to learn how to navigate an AI-infused digital landscape.

Recent mainstream media articles report an accelerating trend.¹ Parents and policy makers are demanding technology rollbacks in Los Angeles, New York, and elsewhere. Some middle schools have limited student access to Chromebooks. Others are trying to get rid of them altogether. The reporting describes negative reactions to the prevalence of screens in classrooms, with AI as a visceral catalyst that has helped transform long-standing discomfort into a national movement. The backlash is both understandable and real, and the responses range widely - from sensible restrictions on where, how, and for whom the devices are used, to outright calls for removal.

Bans are not the same thing as reforms - the distinction matters.

Any teacher who has spent time in a classroom over the past decade knows that screens can be the death of attention. I am sympathetic to the occasional urge to remove them. Yet, for lessons and activities designed well, digital devices that connect to the internet are one of the most powerful tools ever devised. Everyone reading this piece is either using a cell phone, a tablet, or a computer. Internet access is a necessity to participate in modern life.

The clash of these two realities - the difficulty of maintaining attention in the presence of a phone or computer that can deliver and create unlimited content - is at the heart of the conflict. At what age and in what circumstances can students be expected to responsibly use a device? How can teachers leverage intentional digital instruction and what can schools do to best ensure those devices are used appropriately? What does it mean when every child has their own device in the current paradigm, and what would it mean if we suddenly took these away?

The fundamental question around the issue is: Are the devices inherently the problem, or is the fact that we never developed real pedagogy around them - despite over a decade of trying - the real culprit? Some in the screen-removal movement increasingly claim it’s the laptops themselves. I've seen Chromebooks and classroom technology work for kids. Like almost everything when it comes to teaching, the results are context and classroom dependent.

Chromebooks were issued almost as a wartime emergency measure in 2020 and 2021. The devices have subsequently let in, among other things, first YouTube and now AI as a Trojan Horse, causing many of the problems outlined in the articles. Rather than ditching devices entirely, a better strategy is to pinpoint where the technology is doing more harm than good. Pulling the football away now, after a decade of telling kids and teachers digital and media literacy is essential, signals one thing above all: the adults have no idea what they are doing.

What the Movement Gets Right

Most of the horror stories in the recent coverage focus on the K-8 case, where the concern is clearly warranted. Before the pandemic, only about forty percent of districts had given devices to every elementary student. By March 2021, that number had jumped to eighty-four percent.² The pandemic's distinctive contribution was pushing screens down to the youngest students at scale, before anyone had figured out what those devices were supposed to be doing in elementary classrooms. Putting screens in the hands of seven and eight year olds as a primary means of learning is not pedagogically defensible (though I suspect most elementary school teachers would chafe at the characterization of what they are doing). Nevertheless, the bombshells in the reporting - a seventh-grader in Wichita accessing more than 13,000 YouTube videos over three months on his school-issued account, and a Los Angeles 4th grade classroom where an AI art assignment produced sexualized images of a children's book character - are damning evidence that issuing 1:1 devices to younger students is walking a tightrope at best. It doesn’t take a neuroscientist to support eliminating or, at the very least, significantly restricting screen time for kids still learning how to read.

The Larger Failure We’ve Yet to Grapple With

The stories about Chromebook misuse and unlimited access to YouTube treat the screens themselves as the problem. A more nuanced view is that most districts that issued devices never built the institutional capacity to manage them. Many schools that gave kids the keys to the kingdom in 2020 did not plan for what classroom use would look like after the emergency. For example, as the WSJ reported, internal Google documents showed that by 2019 the company itself acknowledged the YouTube experience in schools was broken and that filters were trivially easy for students to bypass. Schools have known this for years. Most have done very little. But some have used a scalpel rather than a hammer: Watertown Public Schools in Massachusetts blocked YouTube districtwide in January. They did not eliminate Chromebooks.

What the Reversal Would Actually Cost

Banning devices from older students as well as younger ones also does not realistically engage with what a full reversal would require. More than 88% of public schools now operate 1:1 device programs, according to government survey data cited by the Wall Street Journal. Schools have rebuilt their pedagogy around digital delivery for more than a decade. Teachers have rewritten units, redesigned assessments, and built classroom workflows that assume students can access shared documents, online texts, video resources, all layered on top of learning management systems.³ Standardized assessments are now digital. For many students, a school-issued device is their only means of completing their work in the upper grades. The infrastructure is not removable on a whim. It is replaceable, but not in a year, and not without enormous transitional cost. We rolled these devices out under emergency conditions in 2020 because there was no time to plan. Even though we have more time now, nothing suggests we are using it any better. Recent research on cell phone bans in the United States and on Australia's under-16 social media ban shows how hard it is for bans to deliver the outcomes their advocates promise.⁴

The K-8 Case for a Ban Is Not the 9-12 Case

The screen-removal movement is least defensible where it shifts from real concerns about K-8 into a blanket case for total bans. The districts at the forefront of the movement are pulling or scaling back 1:1 for elementary, and a few are now extending that to middle school. McPherson Middle School in Kansas collected back student Chromebooks in December and now keeps them in classroom carts, available for specific assignments. Bend, Oregon blocked YouTube for lower grades and is reviewing high school access where it remains the most-used app. Granville County, North Carolina is phasing out 1:1 for elementary while keeping it for upper grades. Even the most aggressive recent moves are almost all grade-specific.⁵ The rhetoric, however, is not making the developmental distinction explicit. More significantly, if we overcorrect and ban all devices without thinking through the consequences, re-introducing them later will be that much harder once the political moment passes. Better to do the slower work of assessing what we have than to make rash decisions that cannot easily be undone.

Chromebooks for second graders are entirely different from high school seniors learning to research with AI in preparation for college. Younger students still primarily need handwriting practice and tactile, deliberate work with physical tools in the classroom. Twelfth graders are about to enter an environment in which AI is already embedded across every common platform, and most of their academic experience will be mediated through devices. These are not the same question. A screen-removal movement that treats them as one risks landing somewhere that will likely need revisiting within a few years. Too wide a pendulum swing will compound the mistakes.

A More Thoughtful Path

Most of what is actually being reported and adopted is not a ban. It is a rollback. The districts pulling back are restricting YouTube, eliminating devices for the youngest students, scaling back from 1:1 to classroom carts, and developing screen time limits for higher grades. These are scaled-back approaches that require careful management but preserve the option to use the devices when it makes sense.

The same type of approach could be applied more broadly. Restrict use in lower grades. Conduct better and more rigorous research in middle and high school on device usage. Lock down YouTube and other sites of maximal distraction. Give parents real opt-outs. Tech-Free Tuesdays and Thursdays is a more elegant solution than immediate removal. The screen-use ratio should reverse over the course of an academic career - nearly 100% analog in lower grades, moving to more realistic usage by senior year of high school. As with so many debates, framing the issue as a binary - ban laptops or keep them - is what makes the conversation so contentious.

A Year Later: What’s the Message?

What message would laptop bans send to students? A year ago, the New York Times was profiling Miami-Dade for rolling out Google’s Gemini to 105,000 high school students. To my knowledge, the Times has not run a follow-up on how that experiment is going.⁶ Notably, the same reporter who profiled Miami-Dade's rollout, Natasha Singer, has since written two of the articles driving the backlash narrative - but not a follow-up on whether the largest AI deployment in American public schools delivered results.

In March, the Times also reported that NYC Public Schools, the largest district in the country, released formal guidance designating AI lesson planning, brainstorming, and drafting as “green” applications. Two of the nation’s largest districts, plus a growing number of others including Chicago, Denver, and Charlotte-Mecklenburg, are leaning in carefully. Now the mainstream media is running cover stories on the screen backlash, with at least one arguing for wholesale device removal. Across the country, many states are finally catching up by developing AI literacy plans while others are pursuing rollbacks and investigating outright device bans. These messages are more contradictory than complementary.

This is whiplash for teachers as much as for students. Many state legislatures, education experts, and consultants have spent the past two years building AI literacy frameworks and integration guidelines on the assumption that students would have access to devices. The screen-removal movement now wants to remove those devices. The signal to everyone is that, after fifteen years of use, we still have no consensus on what these tools are for, how to use them, or whether they belong in classrooms at all.⁷ Students are at the mercy of the adults in charge, and the adults in charge keep changing their minds.

How Can We Best Serve Our Students?

My fear is that education's response to AI will be to retreat rather than to engage. AI literacy taught in the abstract is not really AI literacy at all. That is not the future many states have spent the past two years building toward. That does not mean integrating AI into elementary classrooms. It does mean addressing AI head-on, which includes explaining, demonstrating, and recognizing where students are using it. That requires them to have access to devices at some stage of their academic career.

Older students, especially those in the years prior to college and university, need hands-on experience and guidance with teachers about both practical and ethical AI use. What that precisely looks like, how often and in what context, will be debated for the foreseeable future. To pull the rug out from under both students and teachers after almost a decade of training on digital content delivery would send a powerful message that we are moving backwards.

For some schools and communities, a flat out device ban in certain grades may best reflect their values. Claiming that 1:1 laptop programs have been the problem all along, however, when so many of our challenges in education pre-date the pandemic is to make the same reactive mistake over and over again. Students will encounter screens, devices, and AI outside of school regardless of what their schools decide. For students with limited home access, school may be the only place they will encounter these tools under adult guidance. Removing the devices does not remove the technology from their lives. It just shifts where, when, and how they encounter it, and which students get any meaningful instruction at all.

The K-8 screen reckoning is overdue, and if AI is the reason it finally arrived, thoughtfully considered rollbacks happening now are largely the right response. But banning screens at every grade level, in reaction to a technology that has barely had time to be understood, would throw away almost fifteen years of pedagogical infrastructure to fix a problem most schools have not yet seriously tried to manage. Students need to learn to master the machines at some point in their education. When and how to do that in the face of emerging and powerful technologies will be an enduring question. Let schools and teachers make these decisions based on their own experiences, not in response to a reactive and contradictory national conversation simultaneously demanding AI literacy while calling for the removal of the devices students would need to develop it. We need to get this right.

I am especially interested in hearing from anyone making the case for high school bans. Tell me what I am missing.

---

Connect With Me

Beyond this newsletter, I work directly with schools, educators, and other institutions about pedagogical questions raised by AI. Take a look at my website and reach out - I’d love to hear what you’re working on.

1. The pieces which sparked this include the New York Times reporting on parent-led tech rollbacks, a specific Times feature on Chromebook remorse in middle schools, the Wall Street Journal feature on YouTube use in classrooms, the New Yorker’s argument for getting AI out of schools, and Jean Twenge’s November 2025 op-ed making the academic case against classroom screens. They argue different things and start from different concerns, but all suggest that the current arrangement is not working for many. Another excellent piece worth reading is Logged In, Tuned Out from Education Next, which documents the full scope of the problem while arguing for reform over removal.

2. An Education Week Research Center survey found that about 42 percent of district leaders recalled providing 1:1 devices to elementary students before the pandemic. By March 2021, 84 percent reported doing so — roughly doubling elementary device saturation in under a year.

3. The Canvas hack currently disrupting college exams illustrates how deeply entangled these systems have become across higher ed and many K-12 schools. See Universities Suspend Final Exams after Canvas Hack), Inside Higher Ed.

4. The first national-scale study of strict cell phone bans, recently reported by the New York Times, found that bans got phones out of students’ hands but had “close to zero” effect on test scores. A separate study of Australia's December 2025 social media ban for those under 16 found that only about one in four of the banned teens were complying four months in (Leonardo Bursztyn et al., "Why Bans Fail: Tipping Points and Australia's Social Media Ban").

5. Nick Potkalitsky recently tracked the legislative landscape on this question. His piece “The Chromebook Is Next” catalogs the bills state by state.

6. I first wrote about the story here and I also wrote about the lack of follow up six months later. As far as I can tell, Miami-Dade is full steam ahead but with very little coverage I can find.

7. Justin Reich, an associate professor at MIT who helped write A Guide to A.I. in Schools, told the New York Times in March: “Historically, when we try to guess the best ways of using new technologies, we’re often wrong. There are lots of people who are out there who will say, ‘This is what we need to do, this is best practice,’ and they’re making stuff up.”