The federal government is pushing for a "digital detox" in schools.
In a new report, it outlines growing concerns about the use of digital technologies in classrooms. This includes concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) harming children's critical thinking, concentration and problem-solving skills.
The government now plans to reduce the time students spend on screens and limit AI use at school to improve learning.
Education Minister Jason Clare told ABC Radio National on Thursday: "I'm not making the argument here to burn the iPads … but I am saying that there's a pretty good argument here for more pen and paper and less tech."
This position reverses a decades-long trend of expanding the use of digital technologies in Australian classrooms.
What does this report mean for schools? And what's missing in our discussion about screens in schools so far?
What's in the report?
State and federal education ministers have agreed to consider national limits on screen use. This builds on screen time limits already flagged in NSW and Victoria and soon to be piloted in WA. It also follows international examples such as Norway and New York.
The report also flags:
some of the year 5 NAPLAN tests will return to a written assessment (it is currently all done online)
a new taskforce to look at "digital detoxing" in schools, set to report to ministers three times next year, and
generative AI to be restricted in primary schools and for high school assessments.
The argument for making these changes is that educational technology should be used to support effective teaching, but not replace it.
The report says: "When technology is used, it should be for a purpose, including supporting student learning and wellbeing, and if it causes harm, it should be restricted."
What does this mean for schools?
In practical terms, these changes will mean less emphasis on technology, with a return to pens and paper. And teachers will increasingly have hard limits on the amount of time they can use technology in lessons, particularly in primary schools.
For some teachers, this may require a complete revamp of their teaching practices. For others, there may be no noticeable difference as they are not using technology much currently.
There is no comprehensive national data on how much time Australian children spend on devices at school.
The rules around tech use have been just as patchy. For example, phone bans are implemented at state level. Almost everything else has been decided school by school, including whether students bring a laptop and which AI tools they can use.
What does the research say?
The evidence around how much technology is optimal for learning is also mixed.
Recent international test results suggest 15-year-old students who use devices moderately for learning do better than both heavy users and non-users. But given so few students now go without technology, critics argue the comparison with non-users does not tell us anything particularly useful.
Research also suggests raising the bar for the use of educational technologies (which most of the time means screens) makes sense. For decades, we have lacked sufficient evidence of their positive impact on learning.
For example, a 2015 OECD analysis found countries that had invested heavily in computers for schools saw no appreciable improvement in students' reading, maths or science scores.
Tech can help, but …
That isn't to say technology never helps. Used for something specific, such as more targeted practice or more precise feedback, it can improve learning.
But there has not been enough onus on those selling technologies to schools to demonstrate their positive impact on learning. Instead, implementation decisions are often made on the basis of pilots and word of mouth.
And with the introduction of generative AI and AI agents, concerns have moved beyond a lack of evidence around the positive impact of technology on learning to a concern about negative impacts.
Discussions about students using AI to offload their learning have dominated global conversations in education. The main concern is AI use will lead to "cognitive stunting", where repeated use of the technology can weaken learning and thinking skills.
UNESCO has published arguments that "cognitive friction", or struggle, is where real learning happens. In September, at a global meeting, education ministers called for AI that makes learners reason and do the "hard thinking" work themselves.
What next?
But while this latest report is a step in the right direction, we need more planning and more information.
Whether we like it or not, technology (including AI) is increasingly part of the world young people live in and will work in. It's now almost unavoidable if you use Google, for example.
One of the major questions the new taskforce will need to address is: when are the appropriate times and circumstances to integrate technologies into classrooms?
Students will increasingly be interacting with technologies such as AI as soon as they walk out of the school gates (if they aren't already). Preparing them to survive and thrive in this new era of AI is an important job for schools.
A complete technology ban across all of primary and secondary schooling is not what is being suggested by the government. So, questions about how and when remain open.
We need to do a lot more research and thinking to truly ensure our education and training systems are appropriate for the age of AI.
As world leaders Singapore and Estonia have shown, this will require investing in teachers and using tools designed for learning, rather than just churning out answers.
