A screen time epidemic: The culprit is in the classroom

Most children can attest to having heard adults complain about kids these days: they can’t function without a screen in front of them, can’t make eye contact, or aren’t able to hold a conversation.

Children might roll their eyes in response and defend the phone in their hands that is said to be the culprit behind these issues.

The grown-ups aren’t entirely wrong. The developing brains of children in the current digital craze are being negatively impacted by the devices that play such a large role in their lives.

People are quick to blame phones for children’s short attention spans or poor social skills, but they don’t realize that children are likely exposed to more screen time at school than they are at home.

Screen time in schools is responsible for not only the declining quality of education, but also the damaging effects on children’s brains.

The facts and findings

The Nation’s Report Card reading assessment scores have been declining since 2019, around the same time most schools began implementing one-to-one computers or iPads in the classroom.

The Nation’s Report Card 2025 long-term findings determined only 13 percent of teenage students scored at Level 300, a level marked by the ability to understand complicated information. Twenty-one percent of nine-year-old students scored at Level 250 with the ability to interrelate ideas and make generalizations.

In New York, the percentage of fourth-grade students that measured at or above the basic level of reading comprehension has declined from 71 percent in 2009 to 59 percent in 2024.

More than just test scores

Schools’ reliance on screens instead of human connection is damaging students’ developing minds, according to study by psychiatrist Gary Small at the University of California, Los Angeles. The study found:

When comparing children who spent five days without any screen use to those who used digital media regularly, those that went without screens had significantly better emotional and social cue recognition.

Screen use was shown to physically alter white-matter pathways in the brain. Children exposed to excessive screen time had decreased connectivity in regions of the brain that control reading comprehension and cognition, according to Small’s study.

The studies go on to name other adverse effects: reduced attention span, negative impact on sleep, technology addiction and social isolation, to name a few.

Neuroscientist, author and former teacher Jared Horvarth wrote his book, “The Digital Delusion,” on this exact issue. The book has inspired change in schools across the country; he recently testified before Congress in a hearing regarding technology’s impact on students.

In his testimony, he elaborated on the connection between decreasing test scores and the negative effects screens have on the brain.

“This is not a debate about rejecting technology,” he said. “It is a question of aligning educational tools with how human learning actually works. Evidence indicates that indiscriminate digital expansion has weakened learning environments rather than strengthened them.”

The issue close to home

Parents may have been able to control the damage, allowing only small amounts of television or holding off on buying a phone as long as possible.

But what were they to do when their child is issued an iPad at school?

Thirty minutes of screen time that may have been allowed at home turns into upwards of six hours a day, five days a week.

Almost all districts provide one-to-one computers or iPads to their students that are used for nearly every in-class and homework assignment.

“We don’t even use a pencil anymore,” said Fiona Goeghegan, a sophomore at Chester Academy.

“I’m not a fan of Chromebooks,” added Tyler Fleury, a sophomore at Warwick Valley High School. Fleury noted how computers can be a big distraction to learning.

“We have access to a lot more than just our schoolwork when we use a Chromebook, as opposed to just pencil and paper.”

While it wouldn’t be feasible to switch back to the old-fashioned pen, paper and textbooks type of learning, even teachers agree that digital learning isn’t as beneficial as handwritten work.

“When they’re given paper notes that they have to follow along with and physically write down, they often take much better notes and get much better results on the material related to the notes,” said an educator from the Florida School District.

Efforts for change

Heather Franklin, a Warwick parent, is a lead ambassador of the ScreenStrong organization, a group aimed at educating school districts on how to move away from classrooms’ heavy reliance on tech.

Franklin presented her findings to the Warwick Valley School Board this summer and was met with promising efforts to make a change.

“I applaud the efforts of the Warwick Valley School District for being on the front-end of this issue,” Franklin said.

“They have already provided education this summer to our school leaders ... regarding how screens can affect the developing brain and best practices for learning in the classroom,” she added. “They are proactively putting together a screen time task force to help guide all teachers in the district for the 2026-27 school year.”

Similarly, the Monroe-Woodbury School District is aware of screen time’s pitfalls and working toward bettering the classroom environment.

In a statement, the district said: “We are moving away from a ‘how many minutes on devices?’ mindset toward a purposeful use approach, where technology is only used when it clearly supports learning, accessibility and student well‑being.”

According to Chester School District Superintendent Catherine O’Hara, the district stopped sending Chromebooks home with elementary students this past year.

No changes have been made to the middle or high school curriculum, as the district continues to use one-to-one devices to enhance instruction.

In New Jersey, the Vernon School District was one of the first to ban cell phone use in schools and, as far as instructional technology, is working towards steps to reduce screen time in classrooms.

At a Vernon School Board meeting in June, curriculum committee chair, Dr. Carrie Ross brought more attention to the issue.

“Research is increasingly conclusive that the devices present a type of distraction that is ultimately disadvantageous to our students’ learning,” she said. “To many of us this makes intuitive sense: We’ve all experienced the distraction that our devices pose, and many of us have seen the distracting powers at work upon our kids.”

Going beyond awareness

While schools should be recognized for their awareness of these issues, awareness needs to be followed by action. Echoing the downsides of screen use doesn’t change the amount of time a student spends on their school-issued computer.

In fact, many local districts are still without a plan to address the issues at all.

The amount of money that districts put into classroom technology is a significant portion of their budget.

For example, the Monroe-Woodbury District spends approximately $430 per iPad and $400 per Chromebook, according to Bhargav Vyas, assistant superintendent for compliance and information systems.

With the amount of money being spent on this technology, districts should ensure that it is being used in a way that benefits students’ education, not damages it.

To avoid further harm to the education system and children’s developing brains, the issues present today need to be dealt with today.

Advocacy like Franklin’s is how parents and community members can make a difference in their children’s education.

Another piece of advice from the ScreenStrong program is the implementation of family-school partnerships and teacher support. Before turning to experts for input, look to teachers and students; no one knows the classroom better.

Holding school districts to the changes they promise to make is how advocacy creates policy. Education is far too important to succumb to the pitfalls of technology.

As Horvarth, the neuroscientist and author of “The Digital Delusion,” said in his testimony before the U.S. Senate: “Rather than determining what we want our children to do and gearing education toward that, we are redefining education to better suit the tool. That’s not progress, that’s surrender.”