Responding to screen time limits

From 2027, Victorian government primary schools are expected to limit digital device use in Foundation to Year 6, with the tightest limits in the early years. Less screen time does not always mean less technology work. Shared devices still need charging, updates, filtering, storage, repairs and clear booking processes.

There is a push for schools to give greater consideration to the reasons and timing of student screen time.

From 2027, Victorian government primary schools are expected to plan for minimal device use in Foundation–Year 2 and a maximum of 90 minutes per day in Years 3–6, with curriculum-required use recognised. Disability-related access, participation or communication support, and Virtual School Victoria students, are exempt. Secondary schools are expected to include planned daily device-free learning; further departmental guidance is forthcoming. [1]

While this is a matter of policy for the government sector, one finds the same dialogue at Catholic and independent schools. Parents want to know about the impact on wellbeing, handwriting and attention, while school leaders and teachers are posing their own practical questions as to whether a digital tool is truly an improvement over a book or a hands-on task.

The objective is hardly to banish technology from the classroom. Rather, it is to ensure that when it is used, the purpose is obvious and well justified in the context of what the students are learning.

A useful planning question is: what can students learn, practise or demonstrate more effectively because this task uses a computer? Moving a worksheet onto a screen may change the format without improving the learning. Making work easier to distribute may help a teacher, but that alone does not establish a learning benefit for students.

Two established planning frameworks can give staff a shared language. Ruben Puentedura's SAMR model distinguishes substitution, where the tool changes without a functional improvement, from augmentation, where it adds useful functionality. Modification and redefinition describe more substantial changes to the task. [2] The Triple E framework's enhancement questions ask whether technology deepens understanding, provides useful scaffolding or offers another way for students to demonstrate learning. [3]

Use these as discussion prompts. A framework label is not evidence that students learned more, and a lesson does not need to reach the most complex category to be worthwhile. A small accessibility improvement may be the most valuable feature for a particular student.

Start with a simple comparison

For a lesson or unit, teachers can work through five questions together:

What is the learning intention? Name the knowledge or skill students should develop and what successful work would show. If the goal is handwriting, a keyboard changes the practice. If the goal is explaining a scientific idea, an audio recording might make a student's understanding easier to assess.
What would the task look like without a device? Compare it with a realistic alternative: paper, a discussion, physical materials or a teacher demonstration. Identify the particular digital feature that makes a difference.
Does the feature support the thinking students need to do? Useful additions might include feedback students act on, replaying an explanation, testing variables or accessing text. Check that automation is not doing the reasoning or practice the lesson is meant to develop.
What does it cost in classroom time and attention? Include logging in, switching apps, waiting for equipment, managing notifications and teaching the tool. Consider accessibility, supervision, privacy and whether every student can participate.
What evidence will guide the next decision? Review student explanations, revisions, misconceptions and independent application. Decide whether to keep, adapt or remove the digital element.

For example, typing answers into a digital worksheet offers little added learning value if students complete the same questions in the same way. Feedback that helps them identify a misconception, retry and explain their correction could add value. A spreadsheet might help students test several scenarios and interpret patterns, but it could bypass the intended learning if the lesson is about calculating those values themselves.

When a school puts limits on screen time, it tends to change the demands placed on its device fleet. Take the primary years as an example: there are some schools that have stopped making it a point for every child to have a device within reach at all times. Others will focus their efforts on establishing sounder booking and charging arrangements or perhaps shared sets for the classroom, in order to draw a clearer line between what is used for everyday lessons and specialist or accessibility equipment.

The implications are felt in support services too. It would be a mistake to think that fewer minutes on a screen means less technology to contend with. The burden on ICT and administrative staff does not abate; they still need to have no-nonsense processes in place for app approvals, filtering, repairs and any questions from parents. Then there is the matter of the teacher’s confidence in the gear when a lesson requires it. Any piece of shared equipment has to be put through its paces – stored, cleaned, updated and filtered – before it can be of use.

Aligning the constraint to your strategy

Map the learning tasks before choosing the fleet. Record who needs a device, which features they need, how often they need access and how many students need it at the same time. Lower total screen time does not necessarily mean fewer devices: a short whole-class activity still creates simultaneous demand.

Use that map to review the program:

Shared devices: check bookings, charging, secure storage, movement between rooms and time to start a lesson. Confirm students can access their work without leaving accounts or personal information available to the next user.
One-to-one access: justify it through reliable curriculum access, continuity or individual needs. Set clear routines for when devices are open, closed or stored.
Specialist and assistive technology: plan availability, compatibility and support around the students and subjects that depend on it. Keep essential access separate from general fleet reductions.
Whole-life cost: include management, licences, accessories, repairs, spare devices, staff learning and replacement. Removing useful equipment prematurely can add costs, just as retaining unused subscriptions can.

Trial changes with a year level or teaching team before committing to a wider purchase. Review lesson readiness, booking conflicts, lost teaching time, support demand and student work together. That gives leadership, teachers and ICT staff a shared basis for the next decision.

Education Advantage puts schools in a position to deal with changes before they become the source of friction. We may start with a review of the existing device fleet and its current usage, looking at where the curriculum actually demands it. From there, EA is on hand to help plan any necessary changes.

Get in touch

Student wearing headphones uses a stylus and computer during a learning activity.

From “more tech” to “purposeful tech”

Australian schools are moving from broad technology access to more intentional, evidence-aware use. Education Advantage helps schools make technology purposeful: clear in its learning role, manageable for teachers and ICT teams, safe for students, and explainable to families.

Teacher demonstrates a 3D printer while primary students examine models and a laptop.

STEM learning built around real problems

There is a point at which STEM takes on real meaning for students: when they have something of substance to put their hands on, be it to investigate, design or put right. With the likes of coding, robotics, 3D printing and mixed reality, a student can test an idea and take away lessons from what fails on the first attempt.

Sources

[1] Department of Education, Victoria (2026) Digital Learning: Policy. Available at: https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/digital-learning/policy (Accessed: 23 October 2026). [2] Puentedura, R.R. (2013) The SAMR Ladder: Questions and Transitions. Available at: https://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2013/10/26/SAMRLadder_Questions.pdf (Accessed: 23 October 2026). [3] Kolb, L. (n.d.) Triple E Level 2: Enhanced Learning. Available at: https://www.tripleeframework.com/enhancement.html (Accessed: 23 October 2026).