Designing Purposeful Technology Policy for Schools

 You’re reading the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society’s Weekly Digest, a recap of the biggest (or most overlooked) broadband stories of the week. The digest is delivered via e-mail each Friday.

Round-Up for the Week of August 10-14, 2026

Concerns about students' use of technology in school environments are growing, and so is the pressure on school districts to address those concerns. Educators, families, policymakers, researchers, and technology leaders are all thinking about how social media use, generative artificial intelligence (AI), and screen time in general are affecting the educational ecosystem in the U.S. This week, the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) released guidance designed to help school districts respond thoughtfully to state requirements, community concerns, and board-level policy conversations about screen time.

"From Screen Time Mandates to Purposeful Technology Policies and Guidance: A CoSN Guide for District Leaders" provides a framework districts can use to create or revise local policies that minimize low-value screen use while protecting purposeful educational technology. The following includes excerpts from CoSN's report.

Asking the Right Questions to Develop Needed Guardrails

The public conversation about screen time in schools has changed rapidly. Initially, much of the debate focused on limiting personal devices, particularly cell phones, and social media use during the school day. Over the past two years, most states have passed bans or restrictions on student cell phone use at school.

More recently, the debate has widened to include educational technology, school-issued devices, digital curriculum, online assessments, artificial intelligence, learning management systems, and the use of screens, particularly in elementary classrooms. State action is happening quickly. Some states now require local districts to adopt policies on screen time or technology use. Other states require state agencies to develop model policies, conduct studies, establish age-appropriate guidance, or place limits on certain forms of device use.

CoSN's goal behind this resource is not to simply limit screen time entirely. It's to ensure that every use of technology has a clear instructional purpose, protects students,
reflects local priorities, and meaningfully advances learning. That means asking the right questions, such as:

• What is the learning purpose of a given technological tool?
• Is the use active or passive?
• Is it teacher-guided or unsupervised?
• Does it support accessibility, collaboration, creativity, feedback, student agency, assessment, intervention, or future readiness?
• Is the tool approved, secure, accessible, age-appropriate, and privacy-protective?
• Are students also receiving essential analog, hands-on, relational, movement-based, and discussion-rich learning experiences?
• Are we helping students learn when and how to use technology responsibly?

The list of technologies that interact with the school system is long. So are the kinds of policies school districts can develop to address:

• Instructional screen time,
• School-issued devices,
• One-to-one programs,
• Digital displays,
• Elementary technology use,
• Take-home device policies,
• Parental controls,
• Digital assessments,
• AI tools,
• Accessibility and assistive technology,
• Student data privacy, and
• Technology use outside the school day.

Districts face a significant challenge: they must comply with federal, state, and local laws while responding to legitimate family and community concerns. At the same time, districts must ensure safe, effective, equitable, and purposeful use of educational technology.

CoSN's core position on screen time is: purpose before minutes. A quality-over-quantity approach recognizes that not all screen use is the same. Districts can set age-appropriate boundaries, define high-quality instructional use, limit passive consumption, protect device-free learning time, and engage families without eliminating tools that support accessibility, safety, equity, and learning.

The CoSN Purposeful Technology Policy Framework

CoSN recommends that local screen time and educational technology policies be built on three core pillars.

Pillar 1: Centered on Learning

Educational technology should be centered on student learning needs, guided by educators, and built with evidence-based practices that prioritize active learning and prepare students for the digital world. Technology should not be used simply because it is available. It should be used when it strengthens, extends, personalizes, or makes learning more accessible.

A local policy should affirm that:

• Learning goals come before tool selection.
• Educators use professional judgment to determine when technology is the right tool.
• Technology should support active learning, feedback, creativity, collaboration, accessibility, differentiation, and future readiness.
• Students should experience a balanced learning environment that includes discussion, handwriting, physical books, manipulatives, labs, movement, outdoor learning, the arts, hands-on experiences, and relationship-building.
• Low-value or passive screen use should be reduced, replaced, or eliminated.

Pillar 2: Students are Protected Online

Education technology is subject to a strong framework of federal and state laws, school policies, and district safeguards that help protect students online and support student privacy.

For districts that participate in E-Rate, filtering requirements compliant with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) are a key part of this protection framework and are effectively near-universal in K–12 practice because of the widespread use of E-Rate.

It is important to be precise about what different safeguards do. CIPA compliance is tied to E-Rate participation and internet safety requirements. Protection on take-home devices when they are used away from the school network typically depends on additional district implementation choices, such as device-level filtering, filtering agents, DNS protections, MDM configuration, identity management, or other vendor-supported tools.

When students use school-issued devices and district-approved accounts, districts are generally better positioned to apply these layered protections than when students use personal devices, personal accounts, or consumer tools outside the district-managed environment.

A local policy should address:

• Content filtering
• Cybersecurity safeguards
• Student data privacy
• Vendor vetting
• Approved application processes
• Age-appropriate access
• Account management
• Accessibility
• Parent and caregiver transparency
• Reporting and responding to concerns
• Safe and responsible use expectations

Pillar 3: Led Locally

School districts—working with parents, educators, students, and community stakeholders—are best positioned to purposefully implement technology in ways that reflect local needs.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to educational technology. Communities differ in their instructional priorities, grade configurations, student needs, infrastructure, resources, broadband access, staffing, assessment requirements, and family expectations.

A local policy should:

• Reflect state/local laws and local community priorities
• Be developed with stakeholder input
• Preserve educator professional judgment
• Protect student access and accommodations
• Align with district instructional goals
• Connect to the district’s portrait of a graduate and strategic plan
• Be transparent to families
• Be reviewed regularly

Supporting Better Systems

The screen time debate is an opportunity to ask better questions about technology in schools. CoSN believes it is appropriate to challenge excessive, passive, distracting, or poorly designed screen use. It is also appropriate to periodically evaluate whether the use of instructional technology remains aligned with learning goals and student needs.

However, the conversation should not begin and end with reduction. It should begin with purpose. Schools adopted technology to solve real problems of access, equity, personalization, accessibility, communication, assessment, and readiness. Those problems have not disappeared. Some have become more complex.

The most responsible path is a recommitment to purposeful, evidence-informed, equitable, developmentally appropriate, and locally guided use of technology. Before deciding what to remove, districts should be clear about what students may lose. A strong policy should reduce low-value screen use while preserving the tools, supports, safeguards, and learning experiences students need to thrive in a digital world.

The goal is neither more screen time nor less screen time. The goal is better learning, safer systems, healthier habits, and purposeful use of technology that reflects the needs of each local community.

CoSN's full report is available on its website for its members here. Anyone can view the extended executive summary here.

Quick Bits

• President Trump Nominates Danielle Thumann Severs for FCC
• Texas broadband grants paused as critics allege favoritism toward Elon Musk’s Starlink
• Fiber speeds of 1 Gig are ‘standard’ now, according to ISP execs
• The Farm Bill Fight That Will Shape Rural Broadband

Weekend Reads

• Digital Connectivity Landscapes in the Southeastern United States
• From Patron to Persecutor: The Evolution of the US Government’s Role in Disinformation Research
• Longitudinal effect of early social media use on standardized learning outcomes during school career

ICYMI from Benton

• Bridging the Broadband Health Gap
• FCC Adopts USAC Reform NPRM
• FCC Adopts Rural Health Care Program Review
• Summer State Broadband Work Continues
• Starshield: The Military-Grade Starlink No One is Talking About

Upcoming Events

Aug 19—Normalcy, Never Again (Institute for Local Self-Reliance)

Aug 20—Tribal Workshop (Federal Communications Commission)

Aug 20—2026 Digital Equity Spark Grants Informational Webinar (Michelson 20MM Foundation)

Aug 26—Permitting That Delivers: Practical Tools & Strategies for Broadband Buildouts (National Telecommunications and Information Administration)

Aug 26—Can the United States Win the AI Race if Americans Oppose Data Centers? (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation)

Aug 27—Books and Broadband: Advancing Rural Connectivity and Early Literacy Through Strategic Partnership (Fiber Broadband Association)

Aug 27—Bridging the Last Mile: How Fiber and Next-Gen Fixed Wireless Can Work Together to Accelerate Broadband Expansion (Fiber Broadband Association)

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2026. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-220-4531
headlines AT benton DOT org

Share this edition:

Broadband Delivers Opportunities and Strengthens Communities