Framework sets out how schools can make more effective decisions about classroom technology

With hopes the framework will sometime in the future be adopted nationally, Effective screen use in NSW schools: A Panoramic Framework for intentional technology decisions examines how schools can manage technology use in a way that supports their overall wellbeing while preparing young people for a digital and artificial intelligence (AI) future. 

A major policy shift being spearheaded across Australia, alongside similar global movements, is aimed at scaling back classroom screen time, restricting generative AI, and returning to traditional pen-and-paper learning.

But rather than eliminating technology entirely, the push is focused on ensuring digital tools are used purposefully to support teaching rather than replace foundational thinking. The Framework is a timely and rigorously researched response.

As state and federal education ministers have just endorsed the Australian Government Department of Education’s Digital Detox paper, which is rolling out several national and state-level reforms, Dr Jo Orlando’s APPI Policy Fellowship offers a connected framework for more coherent and consistent technology decisions within this policy landscape, tapping into evidence on how best to embed technology in curricula and relevant government policies.

It draws on Australian and international literature, an analysis of media coverage of technology in schools and interviews with representatives from the NSW Department of Education.

The whole idea of putting caps on screens in schools is a response to how much tension there is in the community about kids on screens, Orlando tells EducationHQ.

“There’s a lot of issues and worries that aren’t getting resolved. And that’s obvious. And they’re just escalating and just nothing is working out the situation.

“So this framework is built on the tensions – it accounts for the complexity and complaints and what everyone’s been saying. And the whole idea of the framework is that it can actually resolve it and start to move forward.

“It listens to everyone – it listens to all the issues so that when we actually do use tech in schools, it actually is intentional in the right way for 2026 and beyond. It’s trying to really conceptualise what intentional is.”

Dr Orlando’s report responds to the NSW Government’s announcement to limit screen use in schools, and draws on Australian and international research, media analysis and interviews with NSW Department of Education representatives.

The framework complements the NSW Department of Education’s existing policy tools by bringing learning, safety, wellbeing and equity together to support teachers and school leaders’ day-to-day technology decisions.

These considerations are often addressed separately across policy, procurement, research and public debate. The framework provides a shared approach to considering them together.

“While each mandated domain is important, the reality for schools is that they must translate separate, disconnected policies and legislation into the single daily reality of their school,” the report reads.

Orlando says there’s a lot of tension around safety and kids in schools on screens, along with a lot of tension around wellbeing.

“So these four things (learning, safety, wellbeing and equity) they’re talking past each other and that’s why this issue isn’t getting resolved - because no one’s listening to each other, they’re working along their separate paths,” she contends.

“If we bring it all together, it’s more holistic and everyone actually gets listened to – so we then can weigh up things properly when we’re making a decision.

“By looking at all four things at the same time together and weighing it out, we’ll see where the unexpected consequences are – so we can actually make a better decision, one that’s really informed.”

The Framework is intended to serve as both a thinking tool and a record of the decision-making process, guiding decision-makers (policymakers, principals, researchers and teachers) through the questions to ask before making an EdTech decision. It provides evidence that the decision has been rigorously examined across all four domains.

“So if you’re a principal and someone says, ‘oh, I don’t agree with it’, then you can pull out the record and say, ‘well, this was our process, we thought about everything that we needed to think about, and this is how we thought about it, and this is what we decided on’. So it’s a bit of a safeguard for principals as well.”

Built on a sequenced line of questioning, it surfaces how a decision affects multiple aspects of a student’s life simultaneously, including consequences that often become visible only when something has already gone wrong.

While its eight core questions stay constant, the nature of the decisions it supports varies across system levels, from state-wide policy and school leadership to daily choices teachers make in classrooms.

At every level, the Framework supports the goal of equitable and intentional decision-making about technology where a choice is weighed across the necessary four key domains.

Coming up with the eight core questions was an exhaustive undertaking, Orlando admits.

“It really was. I interviewed a lot of Department of Education NSW senior strategic people, and one of the things they were all saying was, ‘no one’s going to do it unless it’s simple. It’s just not going to work. Teachers are exhausted, and we just need something simple, that isn’t another thing that teachers can do’.

“So I tried to bring it down to the simplest form, and it just overlays all the policies that the department or departments have already in school. So it’s not an extra thing, it’s just a slightly different way of doing it.”

A great deal of Orlando’s typical research involves dealing directly with leading tech – particularly social media and gaming platforms – both here and in the US.

One would imagine they’re less than happy with the present ‘digital detox’ movement that’s trending on these shores at the moment and the growing push towards a return to pen and paper.

“I think that the tech companies are thinking, ‘you’re right, we probably need to shift our approach, provide more support around what ‘intentional’ actually means, around what ‘quality’ means.

“So hopefully we’ll be getting a better response rather than just a commercial response, but better, around quality, from them.”

Orlando is hopeful the Framework will eventually be adopted by all states and territories.

“It’s a system-wide approach,” she says.

“The beauty of that is that we are all in the same playing field and everyone can talk to everyone.

“One of the good things about that is it should start to resolve the tension and we can move forward. It also should ensure that kids are using tech in the best way possible in schools, regardless of the screen time caps – that what they’re doing on there when they’re using it is good quality stuff. That’s my aim here.”