Position Paper: Instructional Materials and Device Use in Arlington Public Schools

Arlington Parents for Education (APE) recommends that Arlington Public Schools (APS) adopt an “analog as default” instructional model. Under this approach, printed textbooks, handwritten work and direct instruction serve as the primary instructional foundation, while digital tools are used selectively when they clearly improve learning outcomes.

Recommended Policy Changes

  • When adopting new curriculum, APS should prioritize book- and paper-based instructional materials as the primary format, with digital components used as supplements rather than replacements.

    Curriculum adoption decisions should emphasize materials that support:

    • printed textbooks and workbooks

    • written note-taking and problem solving

    • structured practice and reference materials accessible offline

    Investment in durable instructional materials can provide stronger learning supports while reducing reliance on multiple digital platforms.

    This approach aligns with Virginia’s emphasis on evidence-based instruction and structured literacy practices, including requirements established under the Virginia Literacy Act, which directs school divisions to implement evidence-based reading instruction grounded in the science of reading (Virginia General Assembly, 2022; Virginia Department of Education, 2023).


  • APE recommends that APS:

    • Remove the 1:1 device model in elementary grades

    • Only use shared classroom devices only when instructionally necessary

    • Establish a consistent district-wide policy that elementary devices are not sent home as a default practice

    • Not allow iPad use during extended day nor recess.

    APS has already taken a positive step by eliminating the 1:1 device policy for Pre-K through Grade 1. Expanding developmentally appropriate technology practices across elementary grades would further support foundational learning and sustained attention.


  • APE recommends that APS:

    • Eliminate the 1:1 iPad program in grades 6–8

    • Replace it with limited laptop access when needed for writing, research, and specialized coursework

    While tablets can support certain tasks, iPads are designed to be consuming, not producing.  Extended writing, structured note-taking, and complex academic work are generally better supported by traditional computers with keyboards.

    Several nearby school divisions, including Fairfax County Public Schools, provide laptops rather than tablets for upper elementary and secondary students.


  • APS should:

    • Restrict non-instructional domains on student devices

    • Use monitoring tools such as Lightspeed to evaluate domain usage and time spent

      • Reports to families should filter out domains that are noise (e.g. administrative)

    • Use device analytics such as Apple Screen Time to monitor overall usage patterns

    • Adopt a default-deny allow-list model for websites, similar to the existing application approval process. Under this approach, devices would access only approved instructional domains rather than broad internet access with reactive filtering.

  • APS should ensure that:

    • EdTech vendors comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for students under age 13

    • Student data collection is limited to what is necessary for instructional purposes

    • Vendor contracts prohibit the commercial use or resale of student data

    • Families receive transparent information about digital tools used in classrooms and the data they collect

    Reducing the number of platforms used across classrooms can also simplify instruction and improve oversight.


  • Maintaining distraction-reduced learning environments supports both academic outcomes and healthy child development.

    APS’s “Away for the Day” personal device policy (2025) is an important step toward reducing digital distractions. Effective implementation should include:

    • consistent enforcement across schools

    • inclusion of internet-enabled wearable devices such as smart watches

    Limiting device use during recess, extended day programs, and other unstructured times can also reinforce distraction-reduced environments and encourage face-to-face interaction.


Background

A growing body of research finds that reading and learning from digital screens can be associated with lower comprehension and greater distraction compared with printed materials, particularly for longer or more complex texts (Clinton, 2019; Delgado et al., 2018; Mangen et al., 2013; OECD, 2015). At the same time, technology can provide valuable benefits for research, accessibility supports and specialized coursework when used intentionally. For this reason, major international education organizations recommend integrating technology purposefully rather than as the default instructional medium (OECD, 2015; UNESCO, 2023).

Instructional Materials and Learning

Research in cognitive science and education identifies several advantages to printed materials and handwriting in learning environments.

Meta-analyses of controlled studies find a small but consistent advantage for printed text over digital screens in reading comprehension, particularly for informational texts and longer passages (Clinton, 2019; Delgado et al., 2018). Experimental research comparing reading formats has similarly found that students reading printed texts often demonstrate stronger comprehension and recall than those reading the same material on screens (Mangen et al., 2013).

Printed textbooks also provide students with a stable and coherent reference resource, allowing them to review learning units sequentially and revisit prior material within a single structured source. Printed textbooks also allow students to review learning units sequentially and access prior lessons and reference problems within a single structured resource, which can make studying and cumulative review easier than when materials are distributed across multiple digital platforms.

Handwritten note-taking can also support deeper cognitive processing. Experimental studies suggest that writing notes by hand encourages students to summarize and process information rather than transcribing it verbatim, which may support stronger conceptual understanding in some contexts (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014). Neuroscience research using EEG methods further shows that handwriting engages broader neural networks associated with learning and memory formation compared with typing (Van der Meer & Van der Weel, 2017).

Digital learning environments can also introduce additional cognitive demands. When instructional materials are distributed across multiple applications, websites, and learning systems, students must navigate different interfaces and organizational structures for each class. Research on cognitive load theory suggests that unnecessary interface complexity and task switching can increase extraneous cognitive load and interfere with learning, particularly for younger students whose executive-function skills are still developing (Sweller, 2011; Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017).

High-quality curriculum and instructional materials are also among the most cost-effective ways to improve student outcomes. Policy research has found that the selection of strong instructional materials can have significant effects on classroom learning relative to their cost (Chingos & Whitehurst, 2012; Kaufman et al., 2017).

Teachers are also affected by fragmented instructional systems. National surveys indicate teachers spend approximately 7–12 hours per week searching for or creating instructional materials, time that could otherwise be spent on instruction or student support (Center for American Progress, 2016). Using coherent curriculum resources, including printed materials, can help reduce this burden.

APS Context

Arlington Public Schools currently operates a system-wide 1:1 student device program beginning in elementary grades, providing school-issued devices to students across most grade levels.

APS continues to purchase printed textbooks in some subjects; however, many courses rely heavily on digital instructional materials delivered through learning platforms and educational applications. When instructional resources are distributed across multiple platforms, students may find it more difficult to review prior lessons, locate reference materials, or study content sequentially.

Classroom Attention and Digital Devices

Digital devices—particularly connected devices—introduce structural features that can interfere with sustained attention during instruction.

Experimental and observational studies show that multitasking and task switching during learning are associated with lower comprehension and reduced academic performance (Rosen et al., 2011; Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013; Sana et al., 2013). Even students seated near peers who multitask on laptops have been shown to perform worse on learning assessments (Sana et al., 2013).

International education research similarly emphasizes that educational technology should be integrated into classrooms only when there is clear evidence that it improves learning outcomes, rather than being adopted as a default replacement for traditional instructional practices (OECD, 2015; UNESCO, 2023).

Instructional Materials

APS should prioritize high-quality printed textbooks, planners, and structured curriculum materials, using digital platforms as supplemental tools rather than replacing core instructional resources with multiple applications and websites. APE encourages APS to prioritize investment in durable instructional materials such as textbooks and planners rather than expanding reliance on numerous EdTech platforms.

Classroom Environment and Student Development

Maintaining distraction-reduced learning environments supports both academic outcomes and healthy child development.

Effective classroom practices include:

• handwritten work and note-taking
• flashcards and retrieval practice
• direct instruction and structured repetition

Schools that limit device use during recess, extended day programs, and other unstructured times also help reinforce distraction-reduced environments and encourage student interaction.

APS’s “Away for the Day” personal device policy (2025) is an important step toward reducing digital distractions. Effective implementation should include consistent enforcement across schools and inclusion of internet-enabled wearable devices such as smart watches.

Ensuring that students have distraction-free environments for learning—and regular opportunities for face-to-face social interaction—supports both academic achievement and healthy development.

References (APA)

Center for American Progress. (2016). The hidden cost of curriculum materials.

Chingos, M. M., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2012). Choosing blindly: Instructional materials, teacher effectiveness, and the Common Core. Brookings Institution.

Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288–325.

Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38.

Kaufman, J. H., et al. (2017). Use of open educational resources in an era of common standards. RAND Corporation.

Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education.

Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252.

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen. International Journal of Educational Research.

Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168.

OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection.

Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011). The educational impact of task switching. Computers in Human Behavior.

Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning. Computers & Education.

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation.

UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report: Technology in education.

Van der Meer, A. L. H., & Van der Weel, F. R. (2017). Only three fingers write, but the whole brain works. Frontiers in Psychology.

Virginia Department of Education. (2023). Virginia Literacy Act implementation guidance.

Virginia General Assembly. (2022). Virginia Literacy Act.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.). Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).