6 Questions To Determine Whether Technology Is Worth the Time

How District Leaders Can Evaluate Screen Time Based on Instructional Value, Not Minutes Alone

Screen time. Everyone is discussing it. Parents, teachers, and board members are asking a straightforward question: How much time are students spending on screens during the school day? It’s the starting point for a larger conversation, but the answer alone won’t explain how school leaders choose technology resources or measure their ability to support students.

We know time away from screens is vital for a well-rounded education. Students need access to physical education, pencil-and-paper activities that develop fine-motor skills, and meaningful face-to-face collaboration with their peers and teachers. 

We also know well-built and well-implemented educational technology is scientifically proven to support student success. Articulating the value of both to your larger school community helps you build a well-communicated screen time policy.

District Leaders Must Balance Competing Priorities

Walk into a classroom where technology is working the way it’s supposed to, and you’ll know it immediately. A third grade student who struggled with reading instruction is now moving through a lesson at their individual pace while getting personalized feedback the moment they need it. A multilingual learner is engaged with grade-level science content while their English proficiency grows alongside it. A teacher glances at a dashboard and knows—before the lesson is even over—which three students need a small-group intervention.

The challenge district leaders face isn’t figuring out whether to embrace technology or reject it. Instead, they must build a transparent standard for deciding which technologies belong in the school day, balancing the confirmed benefits of both digital supports and digital-free instructional time.

Not All Screen Time Is the Same

Many parents feel understandably anxious about their child’s screen time. They see children glued to smartphones and tablets and wonder if time in front of a device at school is compounding the problem.

Those concerns are not surprising and grounded in real-life experiences. We know social media use is detrimental for children. Passive consumer content is designed to maximize profits, not support children’s development. Keeping negative, unauthorized, and wasteful screen time out of classrooms is a core responsibility for educators.

Beyond protecting students, district leaders must determine the highest-quality, evidence-based use of educational technology. Twenty minutes of screen time logs the same number on a digital minutes dashboard, but could have substantially different instructional value.

A few distinctions:

• Passive consumption is different from targeted practice. Watching content scroll by is not the same as working through an activity that requires a student to respond, think, and apply a learned skill.
• Recreational device use is different from a structured instructional experience. One fills time; the other advances learning. 
• Technology used in isolation is different from technology connected to teacher-led instruction. A tool that works with what a teacher is teaching is far more effective than one that operates as a separate system.

None of this minimizes the concern about total exposure. What this does mean is time limits, if they’re part of your district’s approach, make prioritization more important, not less. 

When every digital minute counts, the question becomes: What measurable learning gains does each minute accomplish? 

Evaluate Each Tool With the Same Six Questions

Applying a consistent evaluation process protects district leaders from having to defend every existing tool and helps them respond to pressure for an across-the-board time-based banning of screens.

These six questions work for any tool:

1. Purpose: What learning problem does this tool solve?
2. Evidence: What independent research shows it improves student outcomes?
3. Time: Does it use instructional minutes better than the available alternatives?
4. Instructional integration: Does it strengthen teacher-led instruction and return usable information to teachers?
5. Developmental appropriateness: Does it match how students at this age and stage actually learn?
6. Local outcomes: Are the students using it making the progress the district expects?

These six questions belong in curriculum and technology reviews, renewal decisions,

instructional walkthroughs, leadership meetings, and the conversation that starts when a parent or board member asks about screen time.

Use ‘Impact per Minute’ As the Decision Standard

District leaders need a simple way to explain how they evaluate instructional time. Lexia® calls its approach the Impact per Minute standard. It asks how much learning an activity produces in the time spent on it.

This standard isn’t just for digital resources. It applies to every part of the instructional day. Question a digital program that shows no clear purpose, and question a worksheet or any nondigital activity that offers no constructive feedback. This standard means aligning time spent to a defined instructional need. It also means confirming how the activity helps students move forward.

Three questions to help determine ‘Impact per Minute’

1. What specific skill or learning need does this activity target?
2. What can students and teachers do with this activity that they couldn’t do without it?
3. What evidence shows students are learning from the time they spend on it?

Impact per Minute applies to teacher time, too. A valuable tool should help educators identify student needs, plan appropriate instruction, or free up time for the direct student work that requires their unique expertise. When technology preserves time for teaching, that’s Impact per Minute working in the teacher’s favor and driving student growth.

In Literacy, Quality Depends on Design and Implementation

When it comes to reading and writing, the discussion becomes more data-centric. Literacy is the area where the “screens vs. paper” debate runs hot, and it’s also where a close look at the evidence is most valuable.

Science of reading principles show how children learn to read: Explicit, systematic, cumulative instruction and sufficient opportunities for deliberate practice. Based on that understanding, the related screen time question becomes: How does well-designed technology fit into the Structured Literacy picture?

Research suggests technology can play a valuable role here. A well-designed program, used as intended, gives each student practice in specific literacy skills at the right level, with meaningful, real-time feedback. 

Digital classwork should support a comprehensive literacy approach, not serve as the sole source of literacy instruction. When it’s implemented correctly, this digital practice amplifies teacher-led, evidence-based reading instruction.

What does high-value literacy technology look like? The research points to a consistent set of characteristics:

1. Addresses a defined literacy skill or need (not generic “reading time,” but a specific instructional target).
2. Requires active student thinking and responding (not passive consumption).
3. Adjusts or provides feedback based on performance (meeting students where they need the most support).
4. Makes progress visible and trackable (to the student and the teacher).
5. Gives educators information they can use (not data for its own sake, but insight that shapes instruction).
6. Connects to classroom lessons (reinforcing, not replacing, what the teacher is providing).

Choose the format that best serves the learning goal. A lesson might work better on a device, on paper, with the teacher leading a small group, or as a hands-on activity. The right choice also depends on the student’s reading level, whether the text is informational or narrative, how complex it is, and what the assignment asks students to do.

Handwriting instruction, for example, may suit paper-based activities better. At the same time, well-built technology can offer things paper never can, like interactive visualizations, dynamic simulations, and immediate feedback. Matching the format to the learning goal is what ultimately matters. This same approach is embraced in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent Screen Time Guidelines.

Keep the Teacher at the Center

The strongest predictor of whether educational technology produces learning gains is the teacher. 

Research shows technology that works alongside teacher-led instruction creates the strongest learning gains. This means simply putting technology in classrooms isn’t progress. Integrating it well (with trained and supported teachers) is. The highest return on investment now is in the professional learning that helps teachers use digital tools with confidence and purpose. 

A 2025 Gallup and Walton Family Foundation survey found 61% of teachers who felt adequately supported in using technology said it gave them better insight into student learning and achievement data.

The message? Invest in teachers and every classroom tool gets better. Technology should amplify and extend quality instruction, with the teacher remaining at the center.

Clearly Communicate the District’s Approach

Parents and board members will keep asking about screen time. A clear, consistent message builds a partnership that supports quality learning for years to come.

1. Start with shared priorities: “We want the same thing you do: Students who are learning, paying attention, and doing well.”
2. Explain how the district chooses educational tools: “We evaluate technology by its purpose, the evidence behind it, whether it fits how students this age learn, how it supports the teacher, and whether it’s helping students progress.”
3. Demonstrate accountability: “We evaluate tools and determine whether they deliver what our students need. If they don’t, we remove them, freeing up that time for instruction that does meet their needs.”

Focus communication on what instructional minutes produce:

• The learning need a tool addresses
• What students do while using it
• How the experience connects to teacher-led instruction
• What information educators receive
• How the district examines student progress
• How accessibility, accommodations, and differentiated support are preserved

Include Equity in the Screen Time Discussion

When it comes to value gained from digital devices, the research points most clearly to three groups: Students with disabilities, multilingual learners, and students working below grade level. These students consistently gain the most from well-designed digital tools, and many rely on them to reach the lesson in the first place.

A student still learning English may understand only a few sentences of a grade-level science text. Translation support, a built-in glossary, or read-aloud features help that student follow the same lesson as the rest of the class and join the discussion. The student’s English keeps improving at the same time.

A student who can’t yet decode fluently can use text-to-speech to hear the chapter everyone else is reading. That means working with grade-level ideas now instead of waiting for reading skills to catch up. A nonverbal student with an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device can answer a question or share a joke with a friend. Remove the device, and that student has no way to join in.

Blanket device limits often hit these students hardest. A student who uses text-to-speech or an AAC device may have no other way to participate in the lesson. District leaders should consider these students at the start of any discussion about limiting technology. Before removing a digital tool, a district must determine how the students who rely on it will get the same support. Without a plan, those students lose.

Move From Reacting to Directing

Lexia is built on one belief: Technology should expand access to evidence-based literacy support and strengthen the work educators already do.

Most parents aren’t asking educators to ban technology entirely. They see the potential value but also recognize the perils of misuse. To feel comfortable, they need honest guidance about how digital tools support their child’s academic growth and how educators protect them from unnecessary or distracting screen time.

District leaders have evidence that well-designed tools, used as intended, help students learn. They can share information with families about the tools students use and what research supports each one. When leaders also share how they track student progress, parents discover how technology is integrated responsibly into successful learning.

Get the Full Framework