Earlier this month, the NSW Government’s announced new school screentime limits coming into effect from 2027, and which will be mandatory across the state’s public school system from 2028.
Under the changes, Kindergarten to Year 2 students will be limited to 15 minutes a day on laptops, tablets or desktop computers, increasing slowly up to a maximum of half the time per subject for senior high school students.
The move comes as the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) shows Australian students are nearly twice as likely to spend more than two hours per day using digital devices for learning as the OECD average, while academic results are falling – particularly among 12 to 15-year-olds in reading and writing.
James Lister, a former Principal with more than 25 years of experience, now works as National Head of Curriculum at Twinkl, a digital EdTech firm and educational publisher that provides more than 900,000 fun and engaging resources for students in roughly 200 countries.
Lister says that while the NSW Government’s cap on screentime in schools is a positive step, there’s a bigger conversation to be had around not just how long students are using tech but when and why they’re using it.
“I believe the intent behind the new guidelines is sensible. I’ve seen technology move from something relatively novel in classrooms to something that can very easily become the default. I don't think that was ever the intention,” Lister told The Educator.
“Importantly, the NSW guidelines aren't saying technology is bad or that screens should disappear from classrooms. The Department's own principle is that screens should be used when they are better for learning than the alternative.”
Lister said the new limits are more flexible than many teachers might expect.
“The recommended maximums range from 15 minutes a day in K–2 through to 45 minutes in Years 5–6, with different arrangements in secondary school. They're also averaged across a week rather than being a stopwatch running in every classroom,” he said.
For teachers, Lister said this will mean being more deliberate.
“Before putting a device in front of a student, we should be asking a simple question: why am I using this, and is it the best way to achieve the learning intention? Sometimes the answer will certainly be yes. At other times, a book, a conversation, a pencil and a piece of paper will be better,” he said.
“That’s a conversation we’re having at Twinkl as well. Digital resources should earn their place in a lesson.”
Lister said the starting point has to be the curriculum and the learning intention, not the technology.
“Technology can do some wonderful things in classrooms. But simply putting something on a screen doesn't make it better teaching.”
The quality of edtech batters as much as screentime
Lister said the conversation about screen time becomes “fairly meaningless” if educators don't also talk about what students are doing on screens.
“There is an enormous difference between twenty minutes spent passively clicking through something and twenty minutes using a carefully designed resource that gives a student targeted practice, feedback or access to learning they might otherwise struggle to reach,” he said.
“The 2024 UTS report raises an important issue here. Australia's EdTech sector generates around $3.6 billion annually, yet schools operate in an enormous marketplace without a comprehensive, independent mechanism to determine quality.”
Lister said the report identifies some “useful markers”, such as curriculum alignment, evidence-based teaching practice, accessibility and inclusion, usability and appropriate protection of student data.
“Australia's experience should also make us cautious about assuming that greater access to technology automatically translates into better educational outcomes,” he said.
“PISA 2022 showed Australian students remained above the OECD average in mathematics, reading and science, but the longer-term picture is less comfortable. Australian performance has declined substantially from the early PISA cycles, particularly in mathematics and reading.”
Lister again cautioned about drawing a causal link between increased technology use and Australia’s PISA results.
“The evidence doesn't support that. But equally, the results challenge any assumption that putting more technology into schools will, by itself, improve learning.”
‘Being engaging or visually impressive isn't enough’
Lister also noted that equity remains a significant issue in this context, too.
“OECD data shows that 43% of Australian students in the lowest socioeconomic quartile were low performers in mathematics in PISA 2022, compared with 12% of students from the most advantaged quartile. So, when we talk about quality EdTech, accessibility and equity need to be considered,” he said, adding that “being engaging or visually impressive isn't enough.”
“Quality EdTech should be built around curriculum and sound pedagogy.”
Lister said that is something which Twinkl is very conscious of.
“In Australia, our starting point is increasingly not simply ‘what resource can we make?’, but 'what does the curriculum require, what does the evidence tell us about how this should be taught, and how can we genuinely make that easier for a teacher to deliver?’” he said.
“For me, that’s where good edtech earns its place; not by replacing the teacher, but by giving teachers high-quality, curriculum-aligned tools and allowing them to exercise their professional judgement about when and how to use them.”
Lister said quality edtech ultimately comes down to three simple tests.
“It should reduce unnecessary workload rather than create more of it, be accessible to the students who need it and give teachers the flexibility to exercise their professional judgement.”
Reframing the ‘paper versus screen’ question
The push to bring back handwriting and paper-based learning is gaining momentum, yet a growing body of research also points to the benefits of digital learning. For school leaders, Lister said, the debate is often framed the wrong way.
“I don't think schools should be choosing between a pencil and a laptop. They do different things,” he said. “There is good evidence supporting handwriting, particularly in the early years when children are developing letter knowledge, spelling and the foundations of reading and writing.”
Lister said recent experimental research with pre-readers found stronger letter and word learning following handwriting than typing.
“That matters, and it reinforces the point that handwriting shouldn't quietly disappear simply because devices are available,” he said. “But I don't think this should become a nostalgic argument about returning schools to some supposedly better pre-digital age either.”
Lister said the wider evidence is “more nuanced than saying paper is good and screens are bad.”
“Research comparing paper and digital reading shows the picture varies depending on the learner, the text and the conditions,” he said. “Similarly, research on early writing doesn't suggest that any one mode is inherently superior across all aspects of writing development.”
Lister said that for leaders, the answer is balance, but not balance for balance's sake.
“It's about matching the tool to the learning,” he said. “That balance is something we're thinking about a lot at Twinkl, particularly as we develop Australian curriculum resources across areas such as literacy, phonics, spelling and handwriting.”
Lister said digital doesn't have to mean learning happens on a screen.
“Technology can also help teachers plan, model and prepare high-quality learning experiences that ultimately occur with a book, a pencil, in conversation or through direct instruction,” he said.
“Perhaps we've spent too much time asking whether learning should be digital or traditional. The better question is: what are we trying to teach, and which approach gives this student the best chance of learning it?”
Enthusiasm over AI shouldn’t get ahead of the evidence
Earlier this month, a major global study by the University of Sydney and The Barker Institute found that Australia has “little local evidence to guide decisions about generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in schools”.
The finding has prompting researchers to call for a major expansion of Australian research into how GenAI affects student learning and development.
When asked if schools have put ‘the cart before the horse’ when it comes to GenAI being rolled out in classrooms before its impact was properly understood, Lister expressed doubt that this tech can be “put back in the stable.”
“It's already here; students are already using it, teachers are experimenting with it, and it will undoubtedly be part of the world our young people enter,” Lister said. “Education needs to be careful that enthusiasm doesn't get ahead of evidence.”
Lister said one of the most interesting findings in the OECD's Digital Education Outlook 2026 is the distinction between performance and learning.
"A student using a general-purpose AI tool might produce a better piece of work, but that doesn't automatically mean they have learned more," Lister said. "The OECD points to emerging evidence that some advantages disappear, and can sometimes reverse, when students subsequently have to perform without AI."
At the same time, Lister noted, AI designed or used with a clear educational purpose can support genuine learning.
"That distinction is incredibly important for schools," he said, adding that this is particularly relevant when looking at Australia's longer-term achievement data. "Our PISA performance has declined significantly over the past two decades in mathematics and reading."
Lister said the answer lies neither in banning AI nor in putting it into every classroom because it happens to be the latest technology.
"We should be asking what thinking we want the student to do themselves," he said. "If AI removes the very cognitive struggle through which learning occurs, we haven't necessarily helped that child by making the task easier."
Lister said there are also "very real" questions around age appropriateness, privacy, bias, academic integrity and equity.
"Australia already has a national framework for the responsible and ethical use of generative AI in schools; that's a useful starting point for leaders, rather than every school inventing its own rules," he said. "My approach would be measured rather than fearful."
Lister said teachers need the space to experiment responsibly and build their understanding.
"Teach students to question and critique AI rather than simply consume what it produces. Keep the purpose of schooling front and centre: we are developing young people who can think, reason, create and make judgements for themselves," he said.
"AI should support that process, not do it for them."