AlphaMED Resources · https://alphamedicine.uk/Resources/cases/school-screens

Screens in schools and children's eyesight

On 12 October 2026 more than 150 clinicians warned the Education Secretary, Lucy Powell, that tablets and laptops in English classrooms may be harming children's health, from their eyesight to their speech. Studies link screen time with short sightedness but cannot show that screens cause it, and the government says technology helps many pupils learn. Its guidance on children's screen use is due this autumn.

Updated 19 October 2026 (5 minute read)

AutonomyBeneficenceNon maleficenceJustice
  1. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health says screen risks should not be overstated
  2. Global review finds about a third of children and teenagers are short sighted
  3. Schools in England must have regard to phone guidance
  4. Over 150 clinicians ask ministers to roll back classroom screens

Summary

  • Screens in schools means the tablets, laptops, interactive whiteboards and headphones that schools give pupils for lessons and homework, and the learning software on them, known as education technology or EdTech.
  • The clinicians say there is no statutory requirement for an EdTech product to show, before a school buys it, that it does not put children's physical health at risk. Schools in England spend around £900 million a year on EdTech.
  • Their main worry is short sightedness, or myopia, in which a person cannot see far away objects clearly. A review of 276 studies of 5.4 million children and teenagers, published in September 2024, estimated that about 24% were short sighted in 1990, a less certain figure, and about 36% by 2023, roughly a third.
  • The letter, sent on 12 October 2026, was signed by GPs, eye doctors, paediatricians, speech therapists and others. They said they are "prescribing glasses, hearing aids and speech therapy for a problem that is unintentionally being made worse in our schools", and asked for less screen use and health checks before EdTech is bought.
  • Since 29 June 2026, the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 has required head teachers in England, or in some schools the owner, to have regard to government guidance on pupils' phones and similar devices in school hours. Devices the school provides are left out, and those are the ones the clinicians mean.
  • The Department for Education replied that "Used well, technology can be a powerful tool to support learners who need it". Its first guidance on screen use for children aged 5 to 16 is due this autumn, after a call for evidence launched on 8 June 2026 that also asked about screens in schools.
A phoropter, the instrument used in an eye test to find a glasses prescription

Dig deeper

  • A 2025 review pooled 45 studies of every kind of screen, including phones, games consoles and television, so it does not single out school devices. Each extra hour of screen time a day went with 21% higher odds of myopia, meaning a higher chance of being short sighted, and four hours with almost double the odds.
  • Such studies show a link without proving a cause. Smoking and lung cancer were linked in the same way before the cause was proven. The clinicians' letter accepts that "some of this evidence is still surfacing". A randomised controlled trial in Guangzhou, China, added a 40 minute outdoor class each day and cut new cases of myopia over three years from 39.5% to 30.4%.
  • The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which sets standards for children's doctors, said in January 2019 that the evidence on screens was "relatively weak overall" and their impact on key health outcomes small. It found no evidence that homework on screens does more or less harm than homework on paper.
  • The letter says pupils with special educational needs are "often disproportionately steered" towards screen learning. The government's 2025 pilot lends schools assistive technology for these pupils, such as pens that read text aloud. Where schools already use it with staff training, 86% of staff surveyed saw a positive impact on behaviour and 89% saw greater confidence among these pupils.
  • UNESCO, the United Nations body for education, said in its 2023 report Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? that "Good, impartial evidence on the impact of education technology is in short supply". It found that 7% of UK EdTech companies had run randomised controlled trials.
  • Pepe Di'Iasio, who leads the Association of School and College Leaders, a union for heads, said screens are one part of a school day that also has sport and breaks. Ministers plan to consult later this year on independent safety certification for some school technology, including generative AI.

Ethical issues

PrincipleHow it applies here
AutonomyYoung children cannot weigh these risks, so parents decide for them through parental responsibility, the rights and duties a parent holds in law. Older pupils can weigh more of the choice for themselves as they grow up. Dr Becky Foljambe of the campaign group Health Professionals for Safer Screens says parents have had no chance to "opt out" of the "excessive" use of screens in schools.
BeneficenceAssistive technology lets some pupils with special educational needs read, write or communicate in class, and staff in the government's pilot reported better behaviour and confidence. Cutting screen use to protect eyesight could take that help away, and here beneficence pulls against non maleficence.
Non maleficenceThe clinicians want EdTech shown to be safe before schools buy it, which puts the burden of proof on the makers and is an example of the precautionary principle. The evidence they rely on covers all screen use, phones and television included, so it cannot say how much harm school devices cause.
JusticeThe letter claims the harm falls hardest on disadvantaged children, and that the NHS pays for glasses, hearing aids and speech therapy for a problem "made worse in our schools". No statutory requirement asks EdTech makers to show their products are safe for children's physical health before schools buy them, so it is not settled who is accountable if harm is later shown.

Interview questions

  • What do you know about the concerns over screens in schools?
  • What is the precautionary principle, and should it apply to technology in classrooms?
  • You are a GP, and a parent says the school's tablets are to blame for their eight year old's new glasses. What do you do?
  • How could researchers find out whether screens cause short sightedness or are only linked with it?
  • What are the arguments for and against cutting screen use for children with special educational needs?
  • Should parents be able to take their child out of screen based lessons?
  • Should doctors campaign on education policy?
  • Who should check that school technology is safe for children's health before it is bought?

Sources

  1. safescreens.orgsafescreens.org/…/DfE_DHSC-Clinicians-Letter-12-Oct.pdf
  2. NHSnhs.uk/…/short-sightedness
  3. bmjgroup.combmjgroup.com
  4. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…/39317432
  5. legislation.gov.uklegislation.gov.uk/…/36
  6. bbc.co.ukbbc.co.uk/…/cq4g18prn4l4o
  7. GOV.UKgov.uk/…/newguidance-on-screen-use-for-children-aged-5-16
  8. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…/39982728
  9. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…/26372583
  10. justonenorfolk.nhs.ukjustonenorfolk.nhs.uk/…/rcpch_screen_time_guide_-_final.pdf
  11. GOV.UKgov.uk/…/thousands-of-children-with-send-to-benefit-from-assistive-te
  12. gem-report-2023.unesco.orggem-report-2023.unesco.org
  13. legislation.gov.uklegislation.gov.uk/…/3

Photo: Frank C. Müller, Baden-Baden, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons, colour altered.

How to answer these is in the course

The Interview Masterclass teaches you how to answer, then puts you in front of mock panels marked by more than one mentor. Our offer rate is 93% across all cycles since 2022.

See the Interview Masterclass See our results

alphamedicine.uk/Services · alphamedicine.uk/Results

Related

ADHD and autism overdiagnosis debate AutonomyBeneficenceNon maleficenceJustice Far more people in England are diagnosed with ADHD and autism than 25 years ago. People disagree over whether ordinary difficulties are being given medical labels, or people who were missed for years are at last being recognised. A government review reported on 9 October 2026 that it could not show overdiagnosis on a large scale, partly because the data are out of date. It wants help to be given on need, without waiting for a diagnosis. Smoking and lung cancer consensus AutonomyBeneficenceNon maleficenceJustice In 1950 two British researchers found that almost every man with lung cancer in their study smoked. The British government called the link probably causal in 1954 but accepted it outright only in 1962, and the US government followed in 1964. Part of the delay was caution about evidence that came from observing people, and part was a tobacco industry that worked to keep the question open. Cholera and the birth of epidemiology AutonomyBeneficenceNon maleficenceJustice In 1854 a London doctor, John Snow, traced a cholera outbreak in Soho to a single water pump by mapping where the dead had lived, and the pump's handle was taken off. Officials rejected his claim that dirty water spread the disease until another epidemic in 1866. His way of finding a cause, by counting who fell ill and where, is the basis of epidemiology. In 2025, 7,870 cholera deaths were still reported worldwide.

More NHS hot topics, medical ethics case studies and medical school interview questions are in AlphaMED Resources, which we add to and update through the application cycle.