IncluShift Research Brief · 2026-04-19

Substitution Limits

Why paper-based instruction cannot replace screen-based assistive technology for students with disabilities — and what the “return to books” trend does and does not carve out.

By Davit Janunts, M.Ed. Special Education (Lehigh University — Fulbright Foreign Student Program); co-author, Morin, Janunts, et al. (2024), Exceptional Children, 90(2), 145-163, doi:10.1177/00144029231165506.

Summary

A growing policy trend — most visibly in Sweden and Denmark since 2023, and now in U.S. district and state-legislative debates — argues for reduced classroom screen time and, in some proposals, the partial substitution of paper books for digital instructional materials. The peer-reviewed evidence base behind that trend addresses primarily typically-developing readers in early-childhood and general-education contexts. It does not, on close reading, carve out students with disabilities. For the 7.5 million U.S. students who receive services under IDEA — and especially for students who use text-to-speech, adaptive practice, or augmentative and alternative communication — paper cannot substitute for screen-based assistive technology, and substitution is constrained not only by evidence but by federal civil-rights law.

What the “return to books” trend actually rests on

The peer-reviewed studies most often cited in the screen-reduction policy turn — Mangen, Walgermo & Brønnick (2013, International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68) on paper-versus-screen reading comprehension, Mueller & Oppenheimer (2014, Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159-1168) on longhand versus laptop note-taking — measure outcomes in typically-developing populations performing reading or note-taking tasks for which paper is a workable medium. The findings are genuine and replicate within the populations studied. They are also tightly scoped: neither study includes a special-education sample, neither addresses instruction for students who require text-to-speech to access grade-level text, and neither addresses students for whom the digital surface is the communication channel.

Policy proposals that translate these results into across-the-board paper substitution — including for students with disabilities — extrapolate beyond the studies. The boundary is not contested within the underlying literature. It is set by what the studies actually measured.

Three categories where paper cannot substitute, by evidence and by law

1. Text-to-speech and other assistive technology — IDEA-mandated

Wood, Moxley, Tighe & Wagner (2018, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 73-84) meta-analyzed K=22 studies of text-to-speech (TTS) for students with reading disabilities and reported reading-comprehension effect sizes of d=0.35-0.61. Keelor, Creaghead, Silbert & Horowitz-Kraus (2020, Assistive Technology, 32(4), 222-231) document the optimal TTS rate range for students with learning disabilities. A printed book has no native TTS, no rate control, no synchronized highlighting, and no on-demand pronunciation. The federal AT mandate at 34 CFR §300.34(c)(1) defines assistive-technology service as “any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device.” For a student whose IEP names TTS as required, paper-only delivery is not a procurement choice; it is a denial of a documented related service.

2. Adaptive practice — the structural feature paper does not have

Wilson, Shenhav, Straccia & Cohen (2019, Nature Communications, 10, 4646) establish the 85 % success rate as the difficulty target that maximizes learning under reinforcement models. Pavlik, Cen & Koedinger (2009, Proc. AIED 2009, 531-538) operationalize the same constraint in Performance Factor Analysis, the adaptive-difficulty algorithm that targets the 85 % band item-by-item. Benavides-Varela et al. (2020, Computers & Education, 157, 103953) report a meta-analytic effect of g=0.55 (N=1,073) for digital interventions for students with mathematical learning difficulties. A printed worksheet exposes a student to a fixed, pre-printed difficulty distribution; it cannot move the next item up or down based on the current item’s response. The substitution argument therefore is not paper versus screen for a fixed activity. It is whether the activity is the kind of activity for which the adaptivity matters at all — and for students whose IEPs target a specific phonics scope, math fluency band, or PFA-tracked skill, it does.

3. AAC — the screen is the student’s voice

Beukelman & Light (2020, AAC, 5th ed., Brookes) is the canonical clinical reference on augmentative and alternative communication. Millar, Light & Schlosser (2006, JSLHR, 49(2), 248-264) meta-analyzed 27 cases and reported speech-production gains in 89 % of AAC users with no documented decreases. Romski & Sevcik (2005, Infants & Young Children, 18(3), 174-185) definitively address the persistent myth that AAC delays natural speech: it does not. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 21, frames access to communication — including AAC — as a human right. For a student who uses an AAC device, the screen is the channel through which they speak. A classroom policy that removes that screen is not pedagogically equivalent to removing a general-education chromebook. It removes the student’s voice.

The federal floor — three statutes that constrain substitution

IDEA at 34 CFR §300.34(c)(1) requires districts to provide assistive-technology services as a related service when documented in the IEP. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794; 34 CFR Part 104) requires reasonable accommodations for any student with a disability in any program receiving federal funds, including digital-format alternatives for print-disabled students. The DOJ Title II Final Rule (April 2024; 28 CFR Part 35; 89 Fed. Reg. 31320) requires public entities — every public school district — to make their web content and mobile apps conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA (compliance dates April 24, 2026 for districts of 50,000+; April 26, 2027 for smaller districts).

The combined effect is asymmetric. Paper-based content can be entirely inaccessible to a print-disabled student and remain commercially printable. Digital content delivered to a public school is, by April 2026, required to meet WCAG 2.1 AA. The screen surface in a U.S. public school is therefore the surface on which the federal accessibility floor is now most clearly enforceable. Any substitution policy that removes the screen surface without first meeting the underlying accessibility need on whatever surface replaces it is, on its face, a Section 504 problem.

What the typical-development research does — and does not — say about disability

The Mangen, Walgermo & Brønnick (2013) and Mueller & Oppenheimer (2014) findings have been widely cited in the screen-reduction policy turn. They are also widely overinterpreted. Mangen et al. measured comprehension on a single linear text in a non-disabled adolescent population. Mueller & Oppenheimer measured semantic encoding of lecture material in college students. Neither addresses students who, by the structure of their disability, cannot decode the printed text without a TTS scaffold; cannot benefit from massed paper practice without adaptive item selection; or cannot communicate at all without a screen-mediated AAC system. The honest reading of the underlying literature is that these findings constrain typical-development general-education design choices. They do not, on their published methodologies, transfer to special-education contexts.

Marinus, Mostard, Segers, Schubert et al. (2016, Dyslexia, 22(3), 233-244) is a useful counter-anchor: the readability gains for students with dyslexia come from spacing — letter, word, and line — and those settings are configurable on screen and effectively fixed on paper. A book cannot dynamically widen tracking for a particular student. A digital reader can.

Equity guard — and the part of the policy debate that is correct

The Sweden/Denmark and U.S. screen-reduction proposals identify real problems: passive consumption media in early childhood, surveillance affordances in K-12 platforms, and one-to-one device deployments that displaced teacher time without delivering instruction. Reasonable district policy for general education can — and increasingly should — restrict those failure modes. The argument in this brief is narrower: those policy responses must include an explicit special-education carve-out for assistive technology, adaptive practice tied to documented IEP goals, and AAC. Without that carve-out, the policy unintentionally disproportionately harms exactly the students the federal accessibility floor exists to protect.

The architecturally simpler position — “paper for general education, screen-based AT for students with disabilities who need it” — is also the legally cleaner one. It is consistent with IDEA, Section 504, ADA Title II, and the underlying peer-reviewed evidence in both directions.

What changes operationally

The shift is not screens versus books at the building level. It is stakeholder-appropriate medium at the IEP level. A district can adopt a screen-restriction policy for general-education core instruction and remain fully compliant with IDEA, Section 504, and ADA Title II if the policy explicitly preserves AT delivery, adaptive practice access, and AAC use as documented in each student’s IEP or Section 504 plan. The procurement question is not “screens or paper.” It is “does our AT-delivery procurement still meet IDEA §300.34 and ADA Title II under the new policy.”

The deliverable is not a building-wide ban or mandate. It is an IEP-level policy footnote that names what the new screen-reduction policy specifically does not cover.

Disclaimer. This brief is a research-informed analysis of the published peer-reviewed literature, federal regulation, and the publicly disclosed Sweden and Denmark policy record. It is not legal advice and is not a clinical or instructional recommendation for a specific student. Districts evaluating screen-reduction policy should consult their state education agency’s special-education compliance office and qualified disability-rights counsel.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Final Rule, 28 CFR Part 35; 89 Fed. Reg. 31320 (April 2024).
Benavides-Varela, S., Zandonella Callegher, C., Fagiolini, B., Leo, I., Altoè, G., & Lucangeli, D. (2020). Effectiveness of digital-based interventions for children with mathematical learning difficulties: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 157, 103953.
Beukelman, D.R., & Light, J.C. (2020). Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (5th ed.). Brookes Publishing.
Cheatham, J.P., & Allor, J.H. (2012). The influence of decodability in early reading text on reading achievement: A review of the evidence. Reading and Writing, 25(9), 2223-2246.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34 CFR §300.34(c)(1) — Definition of assistive technology service.
Keelor, J.L., Creaghead, N., Silbert, N., & Horowitz-Kraus, T. (2020). Text-to-speech technology: Enhancing reading for students with learning disabilities. Assistive Technology, 32(4), 222-231.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68.
Marinus, E., Mostard, M., Segers, E., Schubert, T.M., Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2016). A special font for people with dyslexia: Does it work and, if so, why? Dyslexia, 22(3), 233-244.
Mesmer, H.A.E. (2001). Decodable text: A review of what we know. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 121-141.
Millar, D.C., Light, J.C., & Schlosser, R.W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 248-264.
Mueller, P.A., & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159-1168.
Pavlik, P.I., Cen, H., & Koedinger, K.R. (2009). Performance Factors Analysis — A new alternative to knowledge tracing. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2009), 531-538.
Romski, M., & Sevcik, R.A. (2005). Augmentative communication and early intervention: Myths and realities. Infants & Young Children, 18(3), 174-185.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794; 34 CFR Part 104.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), Article 21.
Wilson, R.C., Shenhav, A., Straccia, M., & Cohen, J.D. (2019). The eighty five percent rule for optimal learning. Nature Communications, 10, 4646.
Wood, S.G., Moxley, J.H., Tighe, E.L., & Wagner, R.K. (2018). Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 73-84.