Bring back human-centered classrooms.

International assessments show a similar relationship across students of all ages worldwide: higher daily screen exposure consistently corresponds to lower scores in reading, mathematics, and science. These datasets are extremely robust and all point to the conclusion that heavy classroom screen exposure is not improving learning outcomes at scale. Researchers have also begun to correlate the adoption of devices in schools with falling test scores worldwide, a decline that began well before COVID in 2012.

A large scale synthesis of educational research shows that when benchmarked against the efficacy of established analog classroom methods, almost all digital interventions were less effective. The following digital interventions are significantly less effective than analog methods:

• 1:1 device programs
• Fully online instruction
• General classroom technology integration
• Programs targeting disadvantaged populations

Handwritten note-taking reliably outperforms laptop note-taking for long-term learning, and there is so much evidence that we understand and retain less when reading text on a screen that this phenomenon has its own name: the screen inferiority effect.

These independent studies stand in contrast with the research studies commissioned by EdTech companies themselves. It's not a new move to see companies funding research to shape the evidence base for their own benefit. When Coke funds research on physical activity rather than the impacts of drinking 39 grams of sugar, the resulting data distracts from the true addictive qualities of their products. Big Tobacco also strategically funds research to serve their interests, a practice that continues today with vaping and e-cigarettes. We're in the midst of a slow public reckoning with technological harms only after our kids have already been affected.

By integrating tech into the classroom and giving 1:1 devices to students, we are pursuing a path that is less effective than when kids were reading real books, writing on real paper, and doing project-based learning. Tech, when used, should be intentionally chosen as the best option for a specific problem, not used simply because it's there.

If promoting screen-free classrooms sounds uncomfortably close to something a tech naysayer would say, then consider the fact that tech leaders and CEOs (the definition of technology advocates!) avoid giving their children heavily tech- and screen-enriched experiences.

Tech billionaires and CEOs severely limit their children's exposure to iPads and screens. In 2018, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel (makers of Snapchat) said he limits his child to 1.5 hours per week(!) of screen time. Apple cofounder Steve Jobs told a New York Times reporter his kids had never used an iPad and that, "We limit how much technology our kids use at home." Jony Ive, the highly revered designer of the iPad, implemented strict limits on it for his young sons–these same tablets that reside casually and unquestioned in our school classrooms!

Tech leaders also do not send their children to schools where tech is interwoven in the classroom experience. Waldorf schools, which strictly avoid screens in the classroom before the age of 12, are particularly popular with Silicon Valley executives and employees. The chief technology officer of eBay sent his children to a nine-classroom Waldorf school in the Bay, and so do employees of Google, Apple, Yahoo and HP.

Consider that 88% of American public schools follow what's known as the 1:1 policy, providing one laptop or tablet for every student — a policy that makes Big Tech enormously profitable. Although Google and Apple appear to altruistically lose money through educator discounts, once a school adopts their devices, it turns into a self-sustaining cash cow, generating users highly likely to stick with the brand. If customer retention rate increases by only 5%, company profits can increase by 25-95%! The younger the user, the more lifetime value they generate.

But there's simply no good reason for a 1:1 model versus a computer lab model where students have a weekly "computer skills courses" similar to PE or music, or a shared laptop cart that teachers can reserve for a specific purpose. Each of these removes temptation from students and from teachers who, exhausted and underresourced, may end up using the iPads for classroom management purposes in order to get some quiet in the classroom.

The idea that our children are predisposed to learn from screens arises from the myth of the "digital native," or the idea that those born after a certain time period are innately digital, with natural multitasking abilities and fundamentally different cognitive processing. This narrative was regularly wielded by EdTech advocates to justify retooling the classroom; however, it was soundly debunked back in 2017. Our children have the same brains as we do. While they may want the screens in the classroom, they do not innately need them. It’s true that digital literacy is important for workforce development, but neither mere exposure to digital technology nor gamified learning inherently equips students with this skill.

When schools simply allow kids to get quick hits of dopamine all day, learn in a context where distractions are a click away, and ingrain gamified patterns into their neural pathways, their brains are physically shaped by this and not by what deep focus feels like. It feels delusional that we could think otherwise when considering our own lived experience as adults. The itch to check our email 17 times a day. The likes on social media. The discomfort when the phone is accidentally left at home. Our vulnerable kids aren’t magically wired for tech. Analog childhoods best prepare kids for digital futures.

This is a structural problem and not an individual one, caused by an underinvestment in the humans who can best help our kids learn. In a 2025 survey, a third of parents who utilized screens at home did so because they could not find childcare: If they had another human around to help, they wouldn’t necessarily have turned to the screen for their child.

This is congruent with what I observed in my week of volunteering in my son’s kindergarten classroom. When there were three adults, the student:adult ratio shrank from 11:1 to about 7:1, and it was much easier to manage the class and provide extra support to students who needed it. My son’s teacher was able to pull off structured learning activities, like learning about symmetry while painting butterfly wings. During an iPad-less free time block, I watched the kids do dance routines, make their own crafts, build train tracks, and order bizarre pizza combinations with each other using a fake telephone. The time felt grounded and fulfilling.

In the long term, re-centering our teachers can draw students back into our public schools. If students come home full of chatter about how much they love their teachers instead of talking about the bosses they beat or the coins they earned, parents will take note; this can meaningfully how folks feel about our public schools.