Educators and school administrators love digital devices that studies show mostly have a negative impact on learning, harming lower performing students the most
Educators love digital devices, but there's little evidence they help children—especially those who most need help. Tweets: @alexlindsay , @naomikritzer , @drewharwell , @e_mln_e , @onlinecrslady , @davecormier , @justinparmenter , and @techreview Tweets: @alexlindsay : A technology is built but only sub-standard items are added to it. Then, we decide the technology doesn't work. When actual learning tools and platforms arrive, that transcend old ways of learning... we will look back and wonder why it took so long. https://www.technologyreview.com/ ... Naomi Kritzer / @naomikritzer : This article is hair-raising and really worth reading. I also wonder at what point students will start to deal with surveillance by buying a second phone for the spyware and some student will make extra cash by carrying a sack of classmates' phones along to class. https://twitter.com/... Drew Harwell / @drewharwell : College officials say tracking students' location and movement helps boost “student success.” But some called it another way to surveil and infantilize adults. One student told me, “Have a basic respect for our privacy. We don't need hall passes anymore” https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Dr Emeline Brul / @e_mln_e : This article is problematic on so many levels. 1) Citations and critical reviews of the research: some arguments refer to specific studies, without looking at meta-studies or into the methodology of said study. The issue is bad design, not that tech in learning is inherently bad. https://twitter.com/... Laura Gibbs / @onlinecrslady : you do not—I repeat: YOU DO NOT—need AI to get students excited about learning. so, before you buy the snake-oil algorithms, think about humanizing your class... it won't get you a shiny NYTimes puff piece, but hey: your students will thank you! https://brocansky.com/... @brocansky https://twitter.com/... Dave Cormier / @davecormier : Me: You realize that CoolMath isn't a math website Daughter: We use it at school Me: Does it actually teach you math? Daughter (giving me a look): of course not, when we use it we don't have to do math https://twitter.com/... Justin Parmenter / @justinparmenter : I do not share the “near-universal enthusiasm for technology” taking more and more of our class time. We're allowing ed tech companies to redefine what teaching and learning look like so they can line their pockets by selling us unvetted crap. #nced https://www.technologyreview.com/ ... @techreview : Why digital learning tools like laptops and iPads are actually holding students back. https://www.technologyreview.com/ ... Expand More For Next Unexpand More For Next
Context & Ripple Effects
This MIT Technology Review piece lands mid-arc in a debate that had already split along class lines: a year earlier, the New York Times reported that children of Silicon Valley's elite were moving away from screen-based schooling while US public schools doubled down on devices, presaging what it called a new digital gap. The article's core finding — devices mostly harm learning and hurt lower-performing students hardest — explains why the buyers and the beneficiaries diverged.
What came after validates the skepticism: UNESCO called for a global school smartphone ban in 2023, Bloomberg reported in 2025 that billions in US laptop spending coincided with worsening social skills and test scores, and by December 2025 parents were pressuring LA Unified, the second-largest US district, to cut mandatory screen time on school-issued iPads and Chromebooks.
First-order effects
- Districts that procured iPads and Chromebooks at scale now own hardware whose measured learning impact is negative, while their lowest-performing students absorb the largest harm — the exact population the purchases were meant to help.
- Educators quoted in the coverage defend the tools as unfinished rather than failed, keeping vendor relationships intact even as the evidence base turns against deployment at current intensity.
Second-order effects
- Parent coalitions like the one pressing LA Unified convert research findings into procurement leverage, forcing districts to renegotiate mandatory-use policies with the same vendors that sold them the devices.
- Device makers' K-12 business faces a demand-side risk: if districts cap screen time or shift spending away from one-to-one programs, the replacement cycle that sustained the category weakens.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, the digital gap inverts — affluent families opting out of screens while public schools remain the last heavy adopters — turning edtech procurement from a equity story into an equity liability.
- Sustained negative evidence plus regulatory calls like UNESCO's points toward formal limits on classroom technology, shifting the industry's growth case from access expansion to demonstrable learning outcomes.
The trend: US schooling is moving from maximal device adoption toward negotiated screen limits, as accumulating evidence of learning harm converts parents and regulators into checks on the edtech procurement cycle.