With Little Federal Guidance, States Take on Screen Time Themselves -- THE Journal

Viewpoint

With Little Federal Guidance, States Take on Screen Time Themselves

By Beth Holland, Ed.D.
11/02/26

Key Takeaways

"Screen time" describes too many different problems to mean anything useful. Los Angeles Unified, New York City Public Schools, a dozen state legislatures, and now billions in incoming settlement money are all getting filed under one term that shares nothing but a headline.
With no federal office left to do this work, states have to do it themselves. The U.S. Department of Education eliminated its educational technology office in March 2025, leaving states to produce guidance and build coherence.
That work is already underway. Through a research-practice collaborative with state education technology leaders at SETDA, state leaders have started building the resources this moment requires.

A federal judge recently approved a settlement between 51 state attorneys general and Meta, opening the door for billions to fund initiatives such as youth online safety, phone-free classroom grants, mental health training, and after-school programming. Importantly, this is social media money, not to be confused with education technology funding. However, "screen time" is the phrase we are most likely to see describe the issue once it reaches a school board agenda. As a result, when states move to disburse these funds, it may only exacerbate the general public's perception that social media and education technology are different sides of the same coin.

The Screen Time Debate Requires Specificity

Weeks after the settlement was announced, two of the largest public districts reversed course on their technology policy. First, Los Angeles Unified, which launched one of the first AI chatbots for students, ended their guidance that allowed students 13 and older to use generative AI under supervision. Then, New York City announced a one-year moratorium on student-facing AI for PreK-8 alongside grade-band screen-time limits. Two of the largest districts in the country made significant decisions within a day of each other, with no state or federal guidance.

In 2026, state legislatures introduced 12 bills addressing classroom screen time limits. The three that became law share no common mechanism: Utah restricts devices when not tied to instruction, guidance, or teacher interaction; Kansas completely prohibits devices through fifth grade; and Alabama sets developmental screen-time standards for early childhood learners. Media coverage flattened these policies into one sentence: States are banning screens.

Through a collaboration with state ed tech leaders at SETDA and with support from the William T. Grant Foundation, I have watched state leaders respond in real time, working to untangle the confusion in settings that range from community meetings to state boards of education, and now attorneys general's offices. School boards, legislators, district leaders, and governors' offices all mean something different when discussing "screen time." The result is they end up treating education technology — like Chromebooks and instructional tools — and consumer technology — like phones and social media — synonymously.

As an umbrella term, education technology encompasses everything from learning management systems and student information systems to productivity tools and AI platforms. While some of it is student-facing, a significant portion is now core to how schools and systems function. More specific language clarifying the difference between education technology and consumer-facing tools would allow state leaders to match the right evidence, expertise, and policy to the right questions.

The Federal Office that Produced Guidance No Longer Exists

States previously looked to the Office of Educational Technology (OET) for direction. Though it was eliminated by the U.S. Department of Education in March 2025, the need for federal guidance did not disappear. Since then, states have introduced dozens of AI bills with minimal support. The Meta settlement requires interpretation. Screen time needs defining, and each state finds itself working to address it alone.

An Aug. 20 Dear Colleague Letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education provided the categorical distinction states needed, "Recreational technology and education technology should not be viewed as synonymous," but left decisions about ed tech to states and local communities. A national poll conducted by The Century Foundation indicates that 77% of voters want clear government rules on classroom technology and AI. A survey from the National Parents Union adds texture. Parents are not asking for less technology, but for someone to explain the difference between the kinds, the effects on their children's learning, and the skills that students need to develop. With no real federal guidance, the onus falls on states to fill that gap.

Support for States, Just Not from Washington

Meta's settlement money should start reaching states within the year. Although some of it will fund mental health training, digital literacy, supports, or other programs that directly benefit teachers and students, states could choose to spend a significant chunk on something else entirely, because nobody defined the spending categories, or established the priority need, before the check arrived. However, that outcome is not an inevitability.

With the right resources and support, state ed tech leaders can better advocate for this money to reach the students who would benefit the most and in ways that would be effective to meet their needs. Through our collaborative with SETDA, state leaders have spent the past several months building shared definitions and leadership briefs for the field. We have also started working on designing assessments to identify and define local needs. The next legislative session will most likely bring more bills, the next settlement more money, and the next screen time debate more confusion. However, state leaders have the opportunity to build the shared language, vision, and evidence that this moment requires.

E-Mail this page

Printable Format

Featured

Ransomware Attacks Move Beyond Enterprise Systems to Theaten Employees' Families

Attackers are exploiting enterprises' own artificial intelligence systems and extending pressure beyond internal networks to employees and their families, according to a new Semperis survey of organizations that suffered disruptive ransomware attacks.
Why Lower Phishing Volume Doesn't Mean Lower Cyber Risk for the Education Sector

As threat actors adopt more targeted and convincing tactics, education leaders need practical ways to reduce risk without undermining the open, connected environments their institutions depend on.
Cyber Criminals Choosing Shared Prompts, Fraud Kits Over Custom Malicious AI Models

Increasingly, cyber criminals are sharing AI prompts, jailbreak techniques, and access to existing models that can be incorporated into fraud and phishing operations, according the latest AI Threat Report from Flashpoint.
SMART Technologies Launches Audio Accessibility Solution for SMART Boards

SMART Technologies has introduced SoundFlow, a plug-and-play broadcasting system that allows classroom audio content to flow directly from a SMART Board display to students' compatible hearing aids, earbuds, headphones, personal listening devices, or speakers.