Trusting teachers should be central to device-free learning

From Term 1, 2027, Victorian schools with secondary students will be required to include planned daily device-free learning time within their teaching and learning programs. At the same time, primary schools will no longer be permitted to operate Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs, shifting responsibility for student devices back to schools.

At face value, the policy appears straightforward. Reduce screen exposure, create more opportunities for face-to-face learning and ensure technology is used intentionally rather than habitually.

The challenge is that education policy is rarely as simple as the headlines suggest. This debate should not be reduced to whether we are pro-technology or anti-technology.  Most educators, parents and researchers would agree that technology has an important place in modern learning. Equally, most would agree that unregulated, unsupervised and excessive device use can negatively impact children’s wellbeing, attention and development.

The science is reasonably clear on that point.

What is less clear is whether screen time itself is the problem or whether poor-quality screen time is the problem.

There is a significant difference between a student mindlessly consuming content and a student using technology within a supervised classroom, to create, collaborate, research, communicate or solve complex problems.

One is passive consumption. The other is active learning.

The risk in any policy focused primarily on time limits is that it can inadvertently treat all screen use as equal when the educational value of that use varies enormously.

That distinction matters because Australia’s education system is becoming more digital every year.

Students submit work online. Assessment increasingly occurs through digital platforms. Schools communicate with families through digital systems. The Australian Curriculum expects students to conduct online research, create digital content, develop digital literacy skills and engage with technology in meaningful ways.

Yet at the same time, schools in some Australian states and territories are being encouraged by government to reduce student device use in classrooms.

The obvious question becomes: where exactly is the balance?

At present, the answer remains unclear.

Perhaps the most significant issue is not the policy itself but the language surrounding it.

One of the challenges is that the public messaging and the published policy do not appear to be aligned. Public announcements have largely presented device limits as strong requirements, possibly even mandatory.

In the case of the Victorian Department of Education, currently published policy uses different language stating schools are “recommended to design teaching and learning programs consistent with” the proposed limits, including minimal device use in Foundation to Year 2 and a maximum of 90 minutes per day for students in Years 3 to 6.

Those words matter.

For parents, teachers and principals, there is an important distinction between something that is mandated and something that is recommended.

One implies compliance. The other implies professional judgement.

When governments and education departments use different language to describe the same reform, uncertainty follows.

Schools need clarity. Parents need confidence. Principals need certainty.

Teachers need to know whether they are being directed, advised or expected to exercise local judgement.

Without that shared understanding, even well-intentioned reforms can create unnecessary confusion and tension.

The Victorian Government policy also raises practical questions that remain unanswered.

• How will a 90-minute limit in primary schools be measured?
• How will secondary schools monitor two-hour thresholds?
• Will schools be expected to track cumulative device usage across different subjects throughout the day?
• Will there be reporting requirements?
• Will compliance be audited?

These questions may sound administrative but they have significant implications for workload in a profession already grappling with increasing demands.

The removal of BYOD programs presents another challenge.

If families are no longer permitted to provide devices, schools will need sufficient infrastructure, replacement cycles, maintenance budgets and technical support to ensure students can still access technology when it is educationally necessary.

That brings us to resourcing.

The Allan Government’s decision to delay Victoria reaching 75 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard until 2031 effectively reduces funding growth that schools were expecting over coming years.

Against that backdrop, schools are being asked to implement another significant operational reform.

The question is not whether the policy has merit. The question is whether schools will receive the support required to implement it effectively.

Good policy cannot simply announce change. It must create the right conditions for success.

There is also a broader philosophical question about trust.

Teachers make hundreds of instructional decisions every day based on the needs of their students, the curriculum being taught and the learning outcomes they are trying to achieve.

Technology is a tool.

Like any tool, its value depends on how, when and why it is used.

There will be moments when students are best served by reading a physical text, engaging in discussion, participating in practical activities or receiving explicit instruction. There will be other moments when technology provides opportunities that simply cannot be replicated through traditional methods.

What we should be striving for is ensuring teachers retain the professional flexibility to make those decisions.

A perceived fixed time limit may be simple to communicate but learning itself is rarely that simple.

Ultimately, I support efforts to reduce low-value screen time and I support conversations about healthy technology habits.

I also support ensuring students can learn, connect and engage without becoming overly dependent on digital devices.

What concerns me is ambiguity in a time where our schools need clarity.

The central issue for me is not whether less screen time is desirable. It is whether schools will be trusted to make decisions about technology use based on the needs of their students, without unnecessary bureaucratic interference.

If the objective is better learning, healthier technology habits and improved student wellbeing, then success will depend less on how many minutes are spent on a device and more on whether technology is being used in ways that genuinely add value to learning.

Successful education reform is rarely about the policy announcement itself.

It is about what happens after the announcement, when schools are left to make it work.

Ben Sacco is an author and Managing Director of Education Economy.