In their new vision for public schools, Randi Weingarten and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) are right: students need more active, human, hands-on learning. They need projects, movement, collaboration, civic engagement, career-connected experiences, and chances to tackle real problems.
That is the strongest part of the AFT’s 10-point plan. The emphasis on career and technical education (CTE), experiential learning, and preparation for the future of work deserves attention. If we are serious about preparing students for modern careers, students need learning experiences that reflect the tools, practices, and expectations they will actually encounter beyond school.
The 10-point plan’s name, “Devices Down, Eyes Up, Hands-On,” may sound appealing, especially to adults exhausted by distraction, low-quality screen use, and Big Tech overreach. The problem is that it aims at the wrong target. Devices are not the enemy of active learning. Passive, drill-and-kill learning is.
A drill-and-kill worksheet on a Chromebook is still a worksheet. A lecture with a slide deck is still a lecture. A multiple-choice test on a screen is still a multiple-choice test. Technology did not create passive learning. In many cases, it exposed how much passive learning was already there and made it easier to scale.
Not every lesson needs a device. Rather than considering whether screens are up or down, the better questions are: what are students doing, why they are doing it, and whether the tool helps them learn, create, connect, solve, or demonstrate understanding.
The AFT plan includes several worthwhile ideas: stronger privacy protections, independent research, limits on manipulative technology, more hands-on learning, and adequate public school funding--all of which is important. But when the frame becomes “devices down,” schools risk confusing a management strategy with a learning strategy.
While the plan’s name is misguided, it is worth looking at each of the 10 points directly. Some parts are right, some need a better frame, and others would create the opposite of what our students and schools actually need.
What follows is where the plan gets it right, where it falls short, and why “devices down” is not the path to meaningful learning.
Point 1. No screens for pre-K through second grade
The AFT calls for no screens for students in pre-K through second grade unless there is a compelling reason, such as support for a student with special needs.
The instinct is understandable. Young children need play, language, movement, stories, relationships, manipulatives, exploration, and hands-on learning. They do not need to spend large parts of the day watching videos or completing low-level digital tasks.
But “no screens” goes too far. A child passively consuming content is not doing the same thing as a child using literacy tools to hear a story, build vocabulary, practice phonics, illustrate writing, translate a word, enlarge text, or share a recording with family. Those are different experiences and policy should treat them differently.
Accessibility should not be treated as an exception or afterthought. Some students read, write, listen, speak, translate, caption, enlarge text, dictate, or produce work more effectively with digital tools. That includes students with disabilities and multilingual learners, but it also includes students who may not have a formal accommodation. A policy that says “no screens unless you have special needs” can unintentionally stigmatize the students who benefit from access.
The standard should be higher than “screen or no screen.” Screens should be purposeful, adult-guided, developmentally appropriate, and never allowed to crowd out human interaction, play, movement, stories, and hands-on work. That is more demanding than a ban. It requires educators and policy makers to consider thoughtful choices.
Point 2. No student-facing AI in elementary schools
The AFT also calls for no student-facing artificial intelligence in elementary schools, supervised AI use for older students, and a ban on social companion chatbots for students under 16.
Most would agree that social companion chatbots do not belong in elementary schools. Schools should not help companies simulate relationships with children. But banning all student-facing AI in elementary school is too broad. There is a difference between a child forming an emotional attachment to a chatbot and a teacher using an AI-supported tool for translation, accessibility, vocabulary support, feedback, or differentiated practice under supervision.
There is also a difference between using AI to avoid thinking and using AI to strengthen thinking. Responsible AI use should start with the learning goal, not with the tool. Teachers need to help students understand when AI supports learning and when it gets in the way.
Young children should not be using AI freely. However, that does not mean they should learn nothing about AI or never encounter an AI-supported learning experience. They need age-appropriate digital and AI literacy: this includes what responsible and appropriate use is, how it should be questioned, and how to think critically before tools are placed in front of them without context.
Avoidance is not preparation. Guardrails, judgment, and age-appropriate instruction are.
Point 3. Redesign schooling around active and career-connected learning
This is where the AFT plan is strongest. Active learning, project-based learning, experiential learning, and career-connected learning should be at the center of the conversation.
If students are bored, distracted, and disengaged, removing devices may make a classroom quieter. It does not make the learning better. The real work is designing learning students have a reason to care about.
This matters most in CTE. Students preparing for healthcare, media, construction, design, engineering, business, computer science, culinary arts, public service, or green energy will not enter device-free workplaces. They will use digital tools to research, design, diagnose, communicate, manage projects, analyze data, create media, document work, collaborate with teams, and solve problems.
If we say we value career-connected learning while making “devices down” the default, we are sending mixed messages. Modern CTE requires meaningful technology use. Students should not just learn about careers, but practice with the tools of those careers in authentic ways.
Every lesson does not need a screen. But when a device helps students do the work more authentically, collaboratively, creatively, or effectively, putting it away makes no sense.
Point 4. Build literacy, numeracy, and civic engagement
Students need strong literacy, numeracy, and civic engagement. But “devices down” is not how students build those skills for the world in which they live.
Students need to read deeply. They also need tools that support vocabulary development, translation, accessibility, feedback, publishing, and access to high-interest texts at different reading levels. Learning to write in a world with AI, or using a strong digital reading platform well, is not the same as random screen time.
Students need number sense. They also need opportunities to explain their thinking, use data, create tutorials, and learn from one another. When students create a video explaining a math concept, they are not just answering a problem. They are making their thinking visible.
Students need civic knowledge. They also need to understand how algorithms, misinformation, surveillance, platforms, AI, and online communities shape public life. Digital citizenship is civic education now. It cannot be treated as an extra lesson after something goes wrong.
A device-down approach does not teach students how to evaluate information, protect their privacy, manage their digital footprint, communicate responsibly, or participate thoughtfully in online spaces. Schools should recognize students are in these spaces.
Point 5. Focus on well-being
The AFT is right to connect learning with student and family well-being. Students do not learn well when they feel unsafe, unsupported, isolated, anxious, sleep-deprived, or disconnected from school.
But well-being is not simply a screen-time issue. If students are struggling, schools should look at schedules, relationships, homework loads, sleep, movement, food insecurity, school climate, mental health support, family communication, social media, and the habits students are developing in digital spaces.
Digital well-being belongs in the curriculum, not just in the device policy. Students need to understand how notifications affect attention, how platforms are designed to keep them engaged, how to protect their privacy, how to communicate respectfully, when to disconnect, and when a face-to-face conversation, movement, rest, or quiet focus is the better choice.
A ban can make adults feel as if they acted meaningfully while leaving the deeper issues untouched. The goal should be healthier learning environments and healthier digital habits, not simply less device access or fewer minutes with screens.
Point 6. Protect academic freedom, intellectual property, and educator judgment
Educators should not be handed technology because a vendor made a good pitch. They also should not be blocked from safe and useful tools because policymakers are scared. Academic freedom matters. Teachers should have the professional judgment to decide how their students learn best. That includes the ability to choose when a digital tool supports learning, when it gets in the way, and when a mandated curriculum or platform is not serving their students well. A district-approved tool is not automatically good instruction. A required platform is not automatically the right fit for every learner, lesson, or classroom.
Educator judgment should be central, but teachers should not be left alone to evaluate every app, platform, privacy policy, accessibility claim, AI feature, and instructional promise. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair.
Schools need trusted public-facing reviews, privacy ratings, accessibility information, safety indicators, AI risk assessments, and quality signals that help educators make better decisions before tools reach students. Common Sense Media, ISTE+ASCD, Digital Promise, and similar organizations have all contributed pieces of this infrastructure, but the work is fragmented, unstable, and unevenly known.
Teacher judgment matters most when it is supported by reliable information and respected in practice. The answer is not to tell every educator to vet everything alone, but to build stronger, transparent systems that help educators understand risk, quality, accessibility, privacy, and instructional value, while still trusting teachers to make the final instructional call for the students in front of them.
Point 7. Establish a gold standard for AI safety and privacy
Schools should demand strong safety and privacy protections from AI providers. Companies that cannot meet those standards should not serve K-12 education.
Student data should not be the price of participation. Schools should know what data is collected, how it is used, who has access to it, how long it is retained, whether it is used to train models, and what happens when a tool is discontinued or sold.
This is where clear standards matter. Schools need transparent contracts, strong data rules, parent communication, accessibility review, bias testing, security review, educator training, and ongoing monitoring. They also need the will to say no to tools that do not meet the standard.
Safety and privacy standards should not become a back door to blanket avoidance. The right response to risk is governance. If AI is going to affect the future of work, schools need to teach students how to use it safely, ethically, and critically. That starts with adults making informed decisions before tools are placed in front of students.
Point 8. Create an independent research consortium
There needs to be independent research on AI, screens, and educational technology, research that is not funded by the industries selling the products. Schools have been flooded with products that make big promises and provide thin evidence. Too often, districts are left to figure out impact on their own while vendors move on to the next sale.
Some useful work already exists through organizations such as Common Sense Media, ISTE+ASCD, Digital Promise, and the EdTech Evidence Exchange. Again, the issue is that this work is scattered, unevenly used, and not always connected to the decisions schools make every day.
The research questions also need to improve. “Are screens good or bad?” is too shallow. We should be asking which kinds of screen use support learning, which kinds undermine learning, for which students, at what ages, under what conditions, with what teacher support, and for what goals.
Passive consumption and active creation should not be treated as the same thing. A student scrolling through entertainment content is not doing the same work as one using a device to interview a community member, analyze data, produce a podcast, translate materials for a family audience, or document a science investigation. That is why the goal should not simply be more research. Educators do not need another disconnected report that treats all screen use the same. They need trusted evidence they can actually use to make better decisions about tools, teaching, and learning.
Point 9. Adequately fund public education
Public schools need adequate funding. That includes staffing, facilities, professional learning, mental health supports, libraries, arts, athletics, career pathways, accessibility tools, modern infrastructure, and technology that works.
It also includes the basics too many people skip over: reliable WiFi, adequate bandwidth, devices that function, enough technical support to keep systems running, and clear guidance on how to use educational technology well. It is not enough to hand schools devices and platforms and then blame teachers when the infrastructure, support, or instructional guidance is not there.
Too often, schools are told to prepare students for the future while being funded for the past. That is especially damaging for CTE. Students need access to current tools, not outdated simulations of work. They also need educators who have the training, support, and time to use those tools in ways that strengthen learning rather than digitize old assignments.
The AFT is right to warn against AI and vouchers becoming another excuse to defund public education. But this is also why the “devices down” frame is risky. Wealthier families will still provide access, tutoring, devices, AI tools, enrichment, internships, and networks outside of school. If public schools pull back from teaching students how to use modern tools well, students with less access outside school lose the most.
That is not equity. That is retreat.
Point 10. Tax Big Tech
The AFT calls for a tech tax on Big Tech earnings and some business operations to address harms and disruptions caused by technology and AI.
A real argument exists for that. Technology companies have profited enormously from public attention, public data, public infrastructure, and public institutions. If their products create costs for schools, workers, communities, and the environment, they should not get to externalize those costs while public systems clean up the mess.
But a tech tax should not become a substitute for better education policy. If money comes from Big Tech, it should support public-interest goals: independent research, educator professional learning, privacy enforcement, accessibility, digital citizenship, AI literacy, CTE infrastructure, and public accountability.
It should not become another funding stream that sends public dollars back to the same companies with minimal oversight.
The better frame is purpose first
The AFT is right about a lot. More hands-on learning. Stronger privacy protections. More scrutiny of Big Tech. Better protection for children from manipulative platforms and simulated relationships. A renewed insistence that education is human work.
But “devices down” is the wrong goal. It makes the device the problem when the deeper issue is often learning design, adult guidance, infrastructure, privacy, safety, and support.
Devices can distract students. Notifications distract. Poorly designed platforms distract. So do boring lessons, unclear tasks, weak relationships, irrelevant assignments, and classrooms where students are asked to comply rather than think.
Removing the device may solve an immediate classroom management problem, but it does not prepare students to manage attention when the device comes back. And it will come back. In college, at work, in civic life, in relationships, and in nearly every modern career, students will need to focus, create, communicate, and make good decisions in technology-rich environments.
Students need explicit practice with digital well-being, attention management, purposeful tool use, and knowing when technology helps and when it gets in the way. They need to learn when to close the screen, when to use it, when to silence notifications, when to collaborate face-to-face, when to use AI, when to question it, and when to do the thinking without it.
Sometimes devices should be down. Students should discuss ideas face-to-face, build with their hands, play outside, conduct experiments, write privately, make art, and listen to one another without a screen in sight.
Other times, devices should be up. Students should use them to research, create, collaborate, publish, translate, document, code, communicate, design, get feedback, and solve problems.
The goal is not more technology or less technology, but better learning, healthier habits, and students who know when and how to use the appropriate tools to think, create, communicate, collaborate, and solve problems.
