Polk County superintendent proposes procedures, not a strict screen‑time policy, recommending age‑based expectations

Superintendent Hyde told the Polk County School Board at its Sept. 9 work session that the district will pursue procedures to guide instructional use of devices rather than imposing a strict screen‑time policy. "The initial intent was to work, over the last few months to develop a policy — potential policy — for the board to consider based off of screen time," Hyde said, adding the district has begun auditing instructional materials for publisher recommendations.

Why it matters: Board members said they want clarity on what current classroom practice looks like and on how procedures will limit unintended overuse for young students. Hyde said the district must align any procedures to curriculum needs, publisher requirements and state mandates for instructional minutes.

Hyde reviewed research and district work so far. He said national bodies do not set a uniform minute‑by‑minute standard for instructional screen time and that recommendations vary by age. He described proposed age‑based expectations: short, intentional use in preK–2 (roughly 10–20 minutes at a stretch with a break), breaks every 20–30 minutes for grades 3–5, and use of the "20–20–20" eye‑break guidance for middle and high school students. "Set age appropriate screen time expectations, not limitations," Hyde said.

He said staff are contacting curriculum publishers to determine whether specific online lessons or assessments require minimum time allotments and that the district will annotate its instructional materials list with publisher guidance. Hyde also emphasized student data privacy and staff professional development: any procedures must include exemplars and training so teachers understand not just "what" to do but "how."

Board members raised practical concerns. Board Member Wyatt said the packet was substantial and 10 minutes was insufficient time to review, calling 30–40 minutes per content area for a kindergartner "really excessive" if interpreted as daily practice. "Ten minutes is probably not enough to totally digest all of it," Wyatt said when asked about the materials. Board Member Fields asked staff to inventory current practice, noting it likely varies by classroom.

Hyde responded that the draft guidance is intended as a flexible set of expectations, not strict mandates, and that the district will present draft procedures to the board after input from principals, instructional staff and parents. He said the procedures will include guidance about breaks, age‑appropriate expectations, publisher‑specific time guidance and technical features (for example, save points in online lessons that prevented students from losing work). Hyde indicated the district will continuously review and adjust procedures as curriculum and technology evolve.

What comes next: Hyde asked to return to a future board meeting with draft procedures and an expected timeline for review. Staff will update the instructional materials table to show publisher time recommendations and will gather feedback from building leaders and families before bringing a procedural draft back to the board.

Ending note: The board did not vote on policy or procedures on Sept. 9; Hyde framed the item as an ongoing discussion and requested the board’s expectation that draft procedures be returned for review.