US Department of Education tells schools to judge ed tech by learning, not screen time
The US Department of Education told states on 20 August 2026 to evaluate classroom technology on demonstrated learning outcomes rather than screen time alone.
Photo by Yan Krukau on Pexels
The US Department of Education issued education technology guidance on 20 August 2026 telling states and school districts to evaluate classroom software on evidence of learning gains rather than on how long students spend in front of a screen. The guidance takes the form of a Dear Colleague Letter signed by Kirsten Baesler, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and published alongside a Department press release. Its central argument is that recreational device use and instructional device use are different problems that should not share one policy.
“Recreational technology and education technology should not be viewed as synonymous,” the six-page letter states. It goes on: “The question should not be whether teachers and students use technology. The question should be whether the technology we ask teachers and students to use improves learning and students’ academic outcomes.”
The letter arrives as US districts and legislatures move the other way. Los Angeles Unified School District’s board voted unanimously on 21 April 2026 to create a districtwide screen time limit by the 2026-27 school year, including a ban on district-issued devices from early education through first grade. K-12 Dive reported that classroom screen time limits or bans have been adopted by some school systems and by at least six states in 2026. Education Week put the legislative picture differently, writing that lawmakers in more than a dozen states supported screen-limit bills this year but only a handful became law.
What the education technology guidance asks districts to do
The letter sets out five actions for states and school districts and five for vendors. It leans on the evidence framework in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, and it points to outcomes-based contracting, naming Louisiana, Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan and Texas as states exploring models that tie vendor payment to results.
| Audience | What the Dear Colleague Letter asks for |
|---|---|
| States and districts | Separate policies on recreational technology from policies on instructional technology |
| States and districts | Evaluate ed tech on demonstrated learning outcomes, not screen time alone |
| States and districts | Build evidence of effectiveness into procurement and renewal, favouring products with randomised controlled trials |
| States and districts | Review implementation and outcomes so investments keep meeting instructional goals |
| States and districts | Fund professional learning that helps educators integrate technology into instruction |
| Ed tech providers | Design products with teacher and parent input to support high-quality instruction |
| Ed tech providers | Demonstrate effectiveness through independent evaluation, RCTs and transparent reporting |
| Ed tech providers | Minimise unnecessary screen exposure while maximising instructional value |
| Ed tech providers | Supply implementation resources and professional learning |
| Ed tech providers | Improve products using classroom evidence, parent feedback and student outcomes |
Source: Dear Colleague Letter, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 20 August 2026.
Separately, the Department’s press release set out a five-question test that it said every education technology product should be able to answer: what learning problem does it solve, when should it be used, for whom should it be used, for how long should it be used, and what evidence demonstrates that it improves student learning. Those five questions appear in the announcement rather than in the letter itself.
The letter carries no footnotes, cites no named study and contains no statistics. Its evidence language is general: “Research and experience have demonstrated that technology is a valuable instructional tool when it supports strong pedagogy”. On product design it is blunter, stating that “Responsible design is the floor.”
Why screen time became a school policy question
The pressure the letter responds to has been building through 2026. The US Department of Health and Human Services declared harmful screen use by children and teens a public health concern in a surgeon general’s advisory issued on 20 May 2026, accompanied by a 29-page toolkit that urged schools to assign work in books or on paper wherever possible. The Federal Communications Commission opened a comment period on the future of the E-rate programme on 18 August 2026, citing school screen time debates as it considers changes to or elimination of the scheme that subsidises school internet access.
The Consortium for School Networking, which represents district ed tech leaders, pushed back earlier in the month. Its guide “From Screen Time Mandates to Purposeful Technology Policies and Guidance”, released on 10 August 2026, advised districts against blanket time limits and set out three principles instead: centred on learning, students are protected online, and led locally.
That debate lands on a device base that is close to universal. CoSN surveyed more than 600 district ed tech leaders between January and March 2026 for its report “U.S. State of EdTech 2026”.
CoSN also reported that 38 per cent of districts expect reduced funding for devices, which could lengthen refresh cycles. On the concern that prompted the screen-limit push, its data shows the worry is mostly about personal devices: 53 per cent of districts reported serious community concern about students’ personal device use, against 23 per cent about education technology.
How this fits the Department’s earlier AI position
The letter explicitly builds on a Dear Colleague Letter of 22 July 2025 from Secretary Linda McMahon on the use of federal grant funds for artificial intelligence in education. That earlier letter set five principles for AI-related educational initiatives: educator-led, ethical, accessible, transparent and explainable, and data-protective. The 2026 letter restates them in shortened form. Winss Solutions has covered how the U.S. Department of Education frames AI in schools and set out a 10-step guide to building an AI policy in schools.
Neither letter is binding. States and districts set their own device rules, and the guidance repeats that decisions should stay local. In practice districts have been writing those rules themselves: Ohio’s mandatory school AI policy requirement makes adoption a legal duty, Maryland’s fall 2026 deadline for district AI policies applies to every district in the state, and Katy ISD limiting AI chatbots for K-6 students shows the same question being answered at district level. Witnesses at a Senate hearing on AI guardrails in schools in June 2026 argued that federal guidance and teacher training funding were both missing.
The learning-format question the letter sidesteps has its own evidence base, which Winss examined in Paper vs. Screens: How Students Really Learn in 2025.
About the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education is the US Department of Education unit responsible for K-12 formula and discretionary grant programmes, including Title I. Kirsten Baesler has led it as Assistant Secretary since her Senate confirmation on 7 October 2025, part of a bloc of 108 appointees approved in a single vote under Senate Resolution 412. She was sworn in on 24 November 2025 after a delay caused by the federal government shutdown.
Baesler came to the role from North Dakota, where she was the longest-serving chief state school officer in the country. She took office as the state’s elected superintendent of public instruction in January 2013 and was elected to a fourth four-year term in 2024. Before that she spent 24 years in Bismarck public schools as an instructional assistant, elementary teacher, library media specialist and vice principal, and served nine years on the Mandan school board, seven of them as president. She is a past president of the Council of Chief State School Officers. In North Dakota she led implementation of the Choice Ready accountability framework and has advocated personalised, competency-based learning, the approach the 20 August letter now asks districts to measure rather than to time.
Sources: U.S. Department of Education; U.S. Department of Education; K-12 Dive; Education Week; THE Journal; U.S. Department of Education; CoSN; K-12 Dive; North Dakota Department of Public Instruction
Featured image: photo by Yan Krukau on Pexels (free Pexels license).
Become a Sponsor
Our website is the heart of the mission of WINSS – it’s where we share updates, publish research, highlight community impact, and connect with supporters around the world. To keep this essential platform running, updated, and accessible, we rely on the generosity of you, who believe in our work.
We offer the option to sponsor monthly, or just once choosing the amount of your choice. If you run a company, please contact us via info@winssolutions.org.
I specialize in sustainability education, curriculum co-creation, and early-stage project strategy. At WINSS, I craft articles on sustainability, transformative AI, and related topics. When I’m not writing, you’ll find me chasing the perfect sushi roll, exploring cities around the globe, or unwinding with my dog Puffy — the world’s most loyal sidekick.
