Several years ago, I was asked a question that stuck with me:
“I want to reduce my child’s screen time, but what do I replace it with that they won’t hate?”
It’s a great question. And one we still hear today, only now it’s coming from school and district leaders navigating conversations about technology use, virtual learning, and student engagement at scale.
We spend a lot of time debating how much screen time students are getting. Far less time asking a more useful question:
What kind of screen time is it?
Because not all screen time is created equal. And the difference between passive and active screen time matters more than most policies or headlines suggest.
When concerns about screen time surface, the instinct is often to reduce, restrict, or remove. But before making those decisions, whether at home or across a system, it’s worth pausing to examine what students are actually doing when they’re on a screen.
Years ago, I started by simply looking at my own kids’ viewing patterns. What surprised me wasn’t how much they were watching—it was what they were watching. I saw patterns: science experiments, cooking videos, exploration content, creators explaining how things work. There was curiosity there. Inquiry. Even learning.
That same mindset applies in schools.
Before reacting to screen time as a monolith, leaders can ask:
Are students watching, or are they responding?
Are they consuming information, or creating meaning?
Are they isolated, or interacting with another human being?
This kind of reflective examination often reveals that the real issue isn’t technology, it’s the disengaged use of it.
Research consistently shows that learning improves when students are cognitively engaged; when they explain, question, respond, and apply. Screens used passively tend to shut those processes down. Screens used intentionally can do the opposite.
Passive screen time often looks like:
Watching without responding
Clicking through content with little feedback
Working alone with no dialogue
Active screen time, by contrast, is designed to:
Require participation
Prompt explanation and reasoning
Create opportunities for feedback and adjustment
This distinction matters deeply in classrooms, intervention spaces, and supplemental learning environments. It also reframes the conversation for leaders who are being asked to justify technology use without oversimplifying its impact.
One of the most powerful shifts leaders can make is moving from managing screen time to designing learning experiences that foster participation.
Years ago, instead of removing devices from my kids, I encouraged them to use technology differently. They became creators instead of viewers, explaining their thinking, organizing ideas, speaking to an audience, reflecting on their work. The screen didn’t disappear. The learning deepened.
That same principle applies in schools.
When screen-based learning is structured to require:
verbal reasoning
problem-solving dialogue
immediate feedback
accountability to another person
…it becomes far less about “time” and far more about engagement.
Across K–12 settings, active screen time often includes:
Students explaining their thinking aloud
Educators or tutors responding in real time
Guided practice with immediate correction
Structured opportunities to reflect and revise
These elements are especially important in intervention and support settings, where students need more than exposure, they need interaction.
This is where conversations about virtual learning deserve more nuance. When learning experiences are synchronous, structured, and human-centered, screens function as a vehicle—not a barrier.
High-Impact Tutoring: Read more about research-backed tutoring models that emphasize interaction, consistency, and feedback over independent screen-based practice.
School and district leaders are navigating real pressures:
Persistent learning gaps
Staffing shortages
Increased scrutiny around technology
The need to show measurable progress
In that environment, it’s tempting to default to broad rules or reactive decisions. But the leaders making the greatest impact are those willing to inquire more deeply—to distinguish between what looks similar on the surface but functions very differently in practice.
The most productive question isn’t:
“How do we reduce screen time?”
It’s:
“How do we ensure learning time, on or off a screen, is active, engaging, and effective?”
When learning experiences are active and intentionally designed, students are better prepared to apply what they know in new contexts—including moments when it matters most, like state assessments.
The screen time debate isn’t going away. But it can mature.
When leaders shift the focus from minutes to meaning, from tools to design, and from reaction to reflection, the conversation becomes far more useful—and far more aligned with what students actually need.
Active learning doesn’t happen by accident. It’s created through intentional choices, thoughtful structures, and a willingness to look beyond the surface.
And sometimes, the most effective move isn’t removing the screen at all, but reimagining what happens on it.