Around the world, schools are reconsidering their relationship with screens.
Sweden has gone particularly far. Its revised preschool curriculum, which took effect in July 2025, says learning tools should primarily be analog. Requirements for digital learning tools were removed, while books, reading, play and physical activity received greater emphasis. Sweden is also moving toward phone-free compulsory schools.
It is tempting to look at changes like these and conclude that education is turning against technology.
That misses the bigger lesson: Schools are becoming more selective about what deserves students’ attention. And educational technology should be paying attention.
Not every screen minute delivers the same value
There is good reason for schools to reconsider indiscriminate screen use.
OECD data from PISA 2022 found that roughly 30% of students reported becoming distracted by digital devices in most or every mathematics lesson. Students also reported being distracted by classmates using them.
But the same research tells a more nuanced story. Students who used digital devices for learning in school in moderation performed better in mathematics, on average, than students who reported no digital use at all.
The issue is not simply whether a screen is present.
It is what that screen is asking a student to do, how much attention it requires, and what students get in return.
That distinction matters enormously.
A student spending ten minutes creating something, investigating a question or receiving meaningful feedback is not having the same experience as a student spending ten minutes trying to locate an assignment.
One is learning. The other is navigation.
Maybe schools need another screen-time metric
Schools measure technology in all kinds of ways: adoption, usage, logins, engagement and sometimes total screen time.
There is another measurement worth considering:
Time to answer.
How long does it take a student to answer the ordinary questions that allow learning to continue?
🤔 What is due?
🤔 What did my teacher say?
🤔 How am I doing?
🤔 What am I missing?
🤔 What happens next?
Those questions should not require a scavenger hunt through tabs, menus, separate platforms and notifications.
The goal should be almost boringly simple: find the answer and move on. Because every extra minute spent operating school software is still a minute of a student’s day.
Educational software should not compete for attention
That idea runs counter to much of the broader technology industry.
Consumer technology often measures success by increasing engagement. More sessions. More clicks. More minutes. More reasons to come back.
A student information system should have almost the opposite ambition. It should make itself unnecessary as quickly as possible.
A student should be able to log in, immediately understand what matters, take the next step and leave.
No hunting for assignments.
No deciphering where a grade came from.
No opening one system to discover that the information they need lives in another.
No five-click journey to answer a one-question problem.
For school technology, a short session can be a sign that the product is doing its job exceptionally well.
Sweden’s lesson is bigger than screens
Sweden’s decision to emphasize analog experiences in early education is particularly instructive because of what those experiences represent.
Reading a physical book is not valuable simply because there is no screen involved. Play is not valuable because it lowers a screen-time counter. They are valuable because they make room for concentration, language, movement, imagination and relationships.
Technology deserves a place in education when it protects or expands those things, not when it consumes them. UNESCO has made a similar distinction, arguing that technology in education should serve learners and support human interaction rather than substitute for it.
That’s an important standard for every education platform.
The question is not: Can this be digital?
Almost anything can.
The better question is: Does making this digital make the experience meaningfully better, easier or faster?
If the answer is no, schools should be willing to question why the technology is there.
Alma takes the quicker route
That philosophy is built into the way Alma approaches student information. Students already have enough competing for their attention. Their SIS does not need to become another destination demanding more of it.
Alma is designed to help students quickly understand what they need to do and how they’re progressing, with essential information organized clearly and predictably.
▶ Less searching.
▶ Less deciphering.
▶ Less time managing the system.
And then something intentionally uneventful happens:
They leave.
They go read the book. 👀 Finish the project. 👀 Ask the teacher a question. 👀 Talk with a classmate. 👀 Practice the instrument. 👀 Kick the ball. 👀 Draw something. 👀 Think. 👀
In other words, they get back to being students.
The fastest path may be the most student-centered one
The conversation about screen time is forcing education to ask useful questions about technology.
Schools should absolutely consider how often students are being asked to use screens. They should protect young children from unnecessary digital exposure. They should address distraction. They should preserve books, handwriting, conversation, movement and face-to-face teaching.
But schools should also examine something less obvious:
How much time does the technology they actually need require from the people using it?
Good educational technology makes complicated things possible. Great educational technology makes necessary things quick.
Because sometimes the most student-centered thing software can do is give students the answer they need and then get out of their way.
