After more than 15 years of laptops in the classroom, do Australian schools need a rethink?
Australia is reconsidering its heavy reliance on laptops and personal devices in classrooms, after federal education minister Jason Clare suggested children need a "digital detox" and Victoria announced it will scrap bring-your-own-device programmes in primary schools from January. The debate has gained momentum following disappointing Naplan results, which some commentators have labelled a "national tragedy", reviving longstanding concerns from teachers and parents about unstructured screen use in schools despite laptops having been promoted for over 15 years as essential 21st-century learning tools.
Under Victoria's new policy, primary schools will drop BYOD schemes entirely, screen use for years 3 to 6 will be capped at 90 minutes daily, and high schools must introduce screen-free learning blocks. A change.org petition citing the Naplan results has attracted more than 25,000 signatures calling for reduced device reliance, though research directly linking screen time to academic performance remains limited. Similar rethinks are under way internationally, including reduced tech-time in Madrid's primary schools, a curriculum review in Sweden, tighter device limits in Los Angeles's LAUSD school district, and campaigning by the UK group Closed Screens Open Minds, backed by celebrities including Hugh Grant.
- Australia debates cutting classroom screen time after weak Naplan results
- Victoria to end primary school BYOD schemes, cap screen time from January
- Similar device-reduction moves under way in Spain, Sweden, US and UK
New here? Start with this
Australian schools have used laptops and other personal devices in lessons for more than 15 years, often through bring-your-own-device schemes. Supporters have seen them as useful tools for learning, while teachers and parents have raised concerns about how much time pupils spend on screens and how devices are used.
The debate involves federal Education Minister Jason Clare, state governments such as Victoria’s, and schools deciding how technology fits into lessons. Naplan, Australia’s national tests of pupils’ literacy and numeracy, has also brought renewed attention to questions about learning outcomes, although evidence directly linking classroom screen time to results is limited.
Similar discussions are taking place in other countries, including Sweden, Spain, the United States and the UK. The decisions matter to pupils, families and teachers, and may shape how schools balance digital tools with other ways of teaching.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
National academic results have declined during the period of heavy device integration, and whilst causation remains unproven, the correlation warrants caution. Teachers and parents consistently raise concerns about distracted, unstructured screen use undermining foundational skills, and successful reductions in other countries suggest that carefully limiting device time—particularly in primary years—may help students develop literacy, numeracy and sustained attention before adopting more sophisticated digital tools. If research on technology harms remains limited, so too does definitive proof of learning benefits, making a measured retreat a sensible precaution.
The case against
Attributing academic decline solely to devices ignores multiple disruptions, including pandemic learning loss, that affected this cohort, and the research evidence linking devices to poor outcomes remains inconclusive. Removing devices risks disadvantaging students, particularly those without home technology access, whilst depriving all learners of tools enabling personalised learning, accessibility features and digital competencies essential for modern employment. Rather than wholesale reduction, focus should shift to improving how devices are used through structured pedagogy and teacher training.