As I’ve visited classrooms in the last few years, I’ve heard something that I rarely heard prior to the COVID pandemic: silence. The deafening silence of students sitting side by side, hoodies up, headphones on, eyes focused on screens.
In March 2020, we sent every student home with a device. At the time, it was a lifeline that kept students connected and learning. But when we returned to school, we never fully recalibrated how that lifeline should be used. We dove in headfirst, experimenting with ways technology might support differentiated learning, help teachers target instruction, or make lessons more engaging. Yet we rarely stopped to ask whether we still needed that lifeline – whether these tools were working as intended, or whether they might be introducing new harms for kids.
That’s why, after leading the effort to ban cell phones in Los Angeles Unified schools last year, I’m now asking a more difficult question: in an increasingly digital world, how much time should students actually spend on screens in the classroom?
Unlike smartphones and social media, the research on educational screen use is not black and white. It depends on age, context, and how technology is used in the classroom. When I visit schools and speak with parents, teachers, and students, I see a wide range of approaches. In some classrooms, devices are used strategically and sparingly. In others, screens fill much of the day. The inconsistency alone suggests that we need clearer and more thoughtful guidance.
The stakes are particularly high right now because students are still recovering from pandemic learning disruptions. Across California and the country, reading and math scores remain below pre-pandemic levels. At a moment when students need more direct instruction, stronger literacy foundations, and deeper engagement with teachers and classmates, we should be asking whether hours spent on screens are helping that recovery or holding it back.
Research raises real concerns about excessive screen use for children. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that half of teenagers ages 12 to 17 already average at least four hours of recreational screen time per day. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting screen exposure for younger children to about an hour of high quality programming each day. Many students exceed that before they even enter kindergarten.
Studies have also linked excessive screen exposure to sleep disruption, attention challenges, and increased symptoms of anxiety and depression among adolescents. Research comparing print and digital reading suggests that younger students often comprehend and retain less when reading longer texts on screens instead of paper. Technology can enhance learning when it is used thoughtfully. Heavy or passive use does not consistently lead to stronger academic outcomes.
There is also an important equity dimension to consider. Not every student has reliable internet or access to technology at home. Schools play an important role in providing digital tools. But real educational equity is not simply about putting a device in every child’s hands. It means ensuring every student has access to strong teachers, books, discussion, art, science labs, movement, and meaningful human interaction. A child sitting silently in front of a screen for hours is not receiving a richer education simply because the content is digital.
Right now LAUSD has policies on responsible use, digital citizenship, artificial intelligence, and online safety. What we do not yet have is a clear, developmentally grounded policy on screen time and instructional technology. We need a north star that sets thoughtful guardrails by age and stage.
For these reasons I brought forward a resolution directing the district to develop a clear policy informed by research, best practices, and expert input. The goal is to establish developmentally appropriate guidelines that balance access to technology with the kinds of instruction and interaction we know help students thrive.
The resolution directs the district to examine whether one to one devices should be eliminated for students in preschool through second grade during the school day. It calls for clear expectations around when devices should not be used. This includes exploring restrictions during passing periods, lunch, and recess in elementary and middle schools so that students have protected time for social interaction and unstructured play.
It also directs the district to review major instructional technology contracts to evaluate their academic benefits compared with the time students spend on screens. Renewal decisions should be based on independent evidence of improved learning outcomes, not simply on habit or convenience. The proposal also asks the district to consider restricting or prohibiting access to algorithm driven platforms such as YouTube on student devices, while preserving appropriate educator directed instructional use.
If enacted, this resolution could lead to LAUSD being the first district in our nation to establish comprehensive, developmentally grounded screen time limits in schools—showing the rest of the country that it is possible to put students before screens, and setting a new standard for what responsible technology policy in public education can look like.
This effort is not about going backward. Technology will always be part of modern education. Our students must graduate ready for a world that relies on digital tools.
But technology should be a powerful tool in the classroom. It should not be the default setting. As we rethink screen time in our schools, our guiding question should be simple. What actually helps kids learn best?
Nick Melvoin serves on the Los Angeles Unified school board.