The release of the 2026 NAPLAN results has reignited a familiar debate in Australian education: are students spending too much time on screens?

It is an understandable question. Schools have spent more than a decade integrating laptops, tablets and other digital tools into everyday learning. At the same time, concerns around student attention, distraction and literacy have become increasingly prominent.

The conversation is now influencing policy, too. From 2027, Victorian secondary schools are expected to include planned device-free learning time in their teaching and learning programs, while primary schools will face tighter guidance around device use.

For school principals, however, the more useful question may not be how much technology are we using?

It may be:

Is the technology we use actively supporting teaching and learning, or simply adding more screen time?

What do the 2026 NAPLAN results actually show? The national picture is more nuanced than some headlines suggest.

According to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), the 2026 NAPLAN results remained broadly stable nationally, with no reportable change in average scores compared with either 2025 or 2023. Within that picture, there were areas requiring attention.

Average reading scores for Years 5, 7 and 9 were lower than in 2025, and there has been a slight increase since 2023 in the proportion of students requiring additional support in reading and writing.

Numeracy presents a different picture. Average numeracy scores for Years 5, 7 and 9 were the highest recorded since the current proficiency levels were introduced in 2023, while Year 3 numeracy declined.

That makes it difficult to draw a simple line between NAPLAN 2026 results and classroom technology.

And it certainly doesn’t demonstrate that screens alone caused changes in student performance.

Did screen time cause the drop in 2026 NAPLAN results?

There is not enough evidence to say that screen time caused changes in the 2026 NAPLAN results.

Student achievement is influenced by a much broader combination of factors, including teaching practice, attendance, socioeconomic disadvantage, curriculum, student wellbeing and the learning environment.

But the renewed focus on screen time does raise an important question for schools.

Not all screen time is equal.

There is a considerable difference between a student independently moving between apps, websites and digital activities for an extended period and a teacher using classroom technology to guide an explanation, model a concept or facilitate discussion.

Treating both as simply “screen time” risks overlooking that distinction.

Are Australian schools banning devices in the classroom?

Some schools are reducing their reliance on student devices, but Australia is not introducing a nationwide classroom device ban.

Instead, there is a growing push towards more intentional use.

Victoria provides one of the clearest examples. The Victorian Government has announced that secondary schools will include planned device-free learning time from Term 1, 2027.

More importantly for Victorian school leaders, the Victorian Department of Education’s Digital Learning Policy now sets out what this means for schools.

From 2027:

schools with secondary students are expected to include planned device-free learning time in their teaching and learning programs
device-free learning will form part of the implementation of the Victorian Teaching and Learning Model 2.0
primary schools are expected to limit student use of digital devices, with minimal use in Foundation–Year 2 and a maximum of 90 minutes per day in Years 3–6, except where curriculum requirements apply.

Importantly, the policy does not say schools should eliminate technology.

Instead, the Department says technology use should be teacher-led and not the default mode of instruction, with student devices used for identified and limited learning purposes.

That distinction matters.

What is Victoria’s new device-free time policy for secondary schools?

From 2027, Victorian secondary schools are expected to incorporate planned periods of device-free learning into their teaching and learning programs.

According to the Victorian Government’s announcement, this could include activities such as using whiteboards or paper, group debates, practical experiments or performances rather than individual devices.

The intention isn’t to return Australian classrooms to a pre-digital era.

It is to make the decision to use technology more deliberate.

For school leaders, that creates an opportunity to ask a broader question across the school:

Where does technology genuinely improve the learning experience — and where has it simply become the default?

Screen time vs purposeful instructional technology

This distinction should be at the centre of the screen time in Australian schools debate.

Purposeful instructional technology has a clear role in the lesson.

A teacher might share a student’s work with the class to discuss different approaches to a problem. They might display a text and annotate it together. They might move between a whiteboard, class discussion and digital content depending on what best supports the learning objective.

In these examples, technology isn’t replacing teaching.

It’s supporting it.

And importantly, classroom technology doesn’t always require every student to be looking at their own device.

A shared classroom display can allow the teacher to bring digital content into a lesson while students continue to discuss, write, read, collaborate and work away from individual screens.

That creates a very different classroom experience from one where digital devices become the lesson itself.

What should principals consider when reviewing classroom technology?

The current digital detox in schools conversation presents a useful opportunity for leadership teams to review their technology strategy — not necessarily to remove technology, but to become more deliberate about where it belongs.

Rather than starting with the number of devices in the school, consider asking:

Purpose: Does this technology solve a genuine teaching, communication or operational need?
Teacher control: Can teachers easily decide when technology enters and leaves the lesson?
Student attention: Does it help direct students towards the teacher and learning objective, or create another source of distraction?
Flexibility: Can teachers move easily between digital and device-free teaching?
Simplicity: Are multiple platforms creating unnecessary complexity for teachers?
Whole-school value: Can existing technology support more than one school priority?
Teacher mobility: Can the teacher operate the display from anywhere in the room, or only from the front of it?

These questions shift the conversation from “Do we need less technology?” to “Are we using the right technology, in the right way?”

Technology should support the teacher, not compete with them

For years, digital transformation in education was often measured by access: more devices, more platforms and more digital content.

The next stage may look very different.

As Australian schools reconsider device use, the measure of good classroom technology may increasingly be how little it gets in the way.

At Vivi, that’s an important part of how we think about classroom technology.

Wireless screen sharing gives teachers control over what appears on the classroom display without requiring the lesson itself to revolve around individual student devices. Teachers can bring content onto the screen when it adds value, then move back to discussion, handwriting, practical activities or other device-free learning without changing the way the classroom works.

Where a teacher can stand while using the display matters as much as what the display can show. A screen fixed to the wall is generally operated from that wall, and it is the position with the least visibility of what students are actually doing. Vivi lets a teacher present, change what’s on screen and mark it up from anywhere in the room, from the device already in their hand. The screen stays at the front, but the teacher doesn’t have to. A teacher moving between desks while students work on paper can pick up an exercise book showing a useful approach and put it on the shared display in seconds, in the student’s own handwriting, without a laptop being opened. Rather than stepping away from technology to run a device-free activity, the technology follows the teacher into it.

The screen becomes a shared teaching resource rather than the centre of the learning experience. The goal isn’t more technology. It’s better teaching.

The debate around classroom device bans in Australia, Victoria’s device-free learning policy and the 2026 NAPLAN results is unlikely to disappear soon.

Schools should continually question whether the technology they invest in is improving learning. But reducing unnecessary screen time and embracing useful classroom technology don’t have to be opposing ideas.

A classroom can be digital when digital makes sense, analogue when it doesn’t, and give teachers the freedom to move between the two. For principals reviewing their school’s technology approach, that may be the most useful principle of all:

Technology should earn its place in the classroom.