Do we use too much technology in schools?
- Brent Conway
- 12 hours ago
- 10 min read
Preparing our students to be college and career ready has been a focus of K-12 schools for some time now. The promise that technology would help us achieve that has also existed for an entire generation of learners. But what if too much technology actually had the opposite effect - and what we have done with all our apps, programs and devices - is lower the performance of students? How can we prepare students for a digital world, one they are already immersed in, without using the technology? These are some of the questions that are gaining traction in conversations among educators.
One leading researcher, neuroscientist and former teacher, Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath made waves when he testified at the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in January 2026. Dr. Horvath claimed the global trend of plummeting test scores correlates with the rise of easy access to computers and tablets in schools. Furthermore, he claimed that it also correlates with a decrease in young people’s cognitive skills.
“For the first time in modern history, today’s generation has failed to outperform their parents on standardized assessments. In other words, Gen Z is the first generation to be less cognitively capable than their predecessors.”
When did this start?
What is commonly referred to as EdTech, a multi-billion dollar industry, seemed to become more of a push for schools to “get kids ready” for what was to come. This March 2026 Fortune magazine article does a good job outlining the emergence in the past 20 years.
2002 - Maine became the first state to implement a statewide laptop program in some elementary and middle schools.
2004 - saw the development of learning management systems followed by streaming video in 2005
2010 - iPad adoption in schools started
2017 - Chromebooks - offered an inexpensive 1:1 option for schools
2020 - Covid 19 forced schools to quickly adapt to digital options for all students
2024 - AI turns schools upside down
2026 - Cell phone and Social Media “bans” - and what else?
The New York Times reported that Google’s Chromebooks account for over half of all devices in classrooms across the entire country.
Finland and Sweden retreating -
While a great deal of attention has been given to too much screen time and the negative influence of cell phones on kids, we have not seen a full scale pushback regarding technology in schools yet, even though there is some momentum brewing. There are multiple recent reports out of Sweden and Finland where they have begun rethinking about how technology is used in schools. Some of these reports even suggest that both Finland and Sweden have some buyers' remorse and regret about the current approach to technology. Data is primarily behind the purposeful movements to roll some back.
In this article titled Sweden Went All in on Screens in Childhood. Now It’s Pulling the Plug by Swedish-American author, Linda McGurk, she explores what is fueling this new approach to technology,
“In the 2022 international PISA assessment, Swedish 15-year-olds recorded their lowest scores in math and reading in a decade, with more than a quarter of the students falling into the low-performing category in math. When the Swedish National Agency for Education analyzed the results, they concluded that the students with the highest digital media use for things other than learning, both at school and at home, performed the worst.”
Sweden’s approach largely focused on phones and their prevalence in schools. This is consistent with emerging policies here in the US and specifically in MA. As this blog is being written the State House is preparing a vote to ban cell phones in schools and place significant age restrictions on social media access. The State Senate already approved a similar bill and Governor Healy has indicated strong support for such legislation. It would seem inevitable that this will be in place before the 2026-27 school year begins.
When it comes to the phrase “EdTech”, there is mounting discussion, likely fueled by the successful legislation around the country limiting cell phone usage, around the need to reduce the amount of overall technology students end up using throughout the day. This February 2026 EdWeek article explored both sides of the debate. The argument for technology in schools was that our world is increasingly technological and students must keep pace to be prepared. It’s hard to argue against preparing our kids for the future however, it’s also apparent that using technology should have a clear purpose and benefit. The lack of intentionality around the use of technology is where overuse becomes the issue. Just because we can do something with technology doesn’t mean it is better or more effective at teaching a student. In fact, the lack of evidence of effectiveness, particularly with programs that purport to “teach” students, is concerning.
Testing requirements
It is also important to consider the role that state and federal testing requirements have played in shaping how technology is used in schools. Over the past decade, many standardized assessments have transitioned to fully digital formats. This shift has required districts to ensure that all students have access to devices, are comfortable navigating digital interfaces, and can complete extended tasks on screens.
In this context, technology adoption has not always been a philosophical or instructional choice. In many cases, it has been a logistical necessity. Schools must prepare students not only for the content of these assessments, but also for the medium through which they are delivered. This includes typing responses, interacting with digital tools, and managing time in an online environment.
As a result, reducing technology use is not as simple as removing devices from classrooms. Any meaningful shift would need to account for the continued expectation that students demonstrate their learning through digital platforms. The rapid emergence of tools such as artificial intelligence further complicates this landscape, as schools work to balance access, integrity, and evolving expectations around how students demonstrate their learning. This raises an important question - as expectations around digital assessment and emerging tools continue to grow, are we asking schools to both increase and decrease technology use at the same time?
Pentucket’s approach
At Pentucket, the goal has never been to maximize technology use. Like most districts, access expanded quickly during the pandemic because it had to. What has happened since is more interesting and, honestly, more difficult. The question shifted from "how do we get kids connected?" to "when does being connected actually help them learn, and when doesn't it?"
This is not an easy question to answer, and anyone who tells you it is probably isn't spending much time in classrooms. There are days when a device opens up something that wouldn't be possible otherwise - a collaboration tool, a resource, a way to reach a student who isn't accessing the material any other way. There are also days when the right move is to close the laptop and have a conversation, read something on paper, or work through a problem without any assistance. Both of those things can be true, and Pentucket has been trying to hold that tension rather than resolve it too quickly in either direction.
Cell phones and social media access during the school day are part of this conversation too. This is less about technology in general, and more about distraction specifically, but it belongs here because it shapes how students relate to screens in every context.
Pentucket uses a variety of platforms that create digital learning experiences. Programs like Lexia in grades K-3 can be used for targeted practice. Lexia has multiple studies demonstrating its effectiveness for supporting literacy instruction, but a key distinction is that it doesn't replace instruction. It also has been around since the 1980’s and was one of the first technology based solutions in education to receive a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) grant, establishing scientific credibility.
Pentucket also provides our students with the Google Learning suite. The purpose is to provide a digital solution for communication and production consistent with what may be used in college and careers. As adults we all have access to various digital tools that are meant to help us organize our work, make some things more efficient and other things more streamlined and consistent.
As a district we have remained committed to preparing students for technology use now and in the future. Our Computer Science AP exam scores are among the highest in the state while also expanding enrollment for students. Our High School students are regularly using technology to create content through video production, solve problems through complex math programs and research and communicate collaboratively in social studies and English classes.
It is possible that some technology platforms and tools we have used may be discontinued or phased out in favor of paper and pencil activities or face to face activities. As an example, in K-8 our Literacy program, Wit and Wisdom, is centered around full texts and having students read from books. The only digital texts used are often paired selections or articles that support or relate to the full core text. At the secondary level, while almost all publishers sell digital subscriptions to text books as their primary tool, the district has invested in actual hard cover text books to go with the digital access.
Is all tech bad?
It would be easy to read the data coming out of Sweden and Finland or Dr. Horvath's Senate testimony concludes that technology in schools has been a mistake, but that conclusion moves too fast.
The more honest answer is that unstructured or purposeless use of technology causes real problems, and there is plenty of evidence for that. Educators are witnessing shorter attention spans, reduced tolerance for difficult or slow-moving tasks, and weaker interpersonal skills -pretending otherwise would be its own form of denial. But tracing all of that back to a classroom Chromebook misses a lot of what is actually going on.
Social media is a different beast altogether. Most school-based technology is assigned, supervised, and tied to something instructional. Social media is the opposite - it is designed by people whose job is to keep users engaged as long as possible, it is available around the clock, and most students have had unrestricted access to it for years. The cognitive and social effects of that kind of exposure do not disappear when students walk into a building. Schools are dealing with the consequences of something they did not create and largely cannot control.
There are also factors that have nothing to do with screens. Shifts in how families operate, changes in how kids spend their time outside of school, and broader cultural pressures on young people all contribute to what teachers are seeing in classrooms. Technology is part of that picture, but it is not the whole picture, and treating it as the sole cause of declining academic performance lets a lot of other things off the hook.
Evidence based approaches to Technology use
One thing that has become clearer over time is that not all technology is the same, and not all of it works. Buying a tool because it exists, or because a vendor made a compelling pitch, is not a strategy. Neither is keeping something around because getting rid of it feels like going backward.
The more useful standard is simple: does this actually help students learn something better than they would without it? If the answer is yes, and there is evidence to back that up, it belongs in the conversation. If the answer is unclear, or if the evidence is mostly coming from the company selling the product, that is worth paying attention to.
Professional development matters more than most technology conversations acknowledge. A tool that works well in the hands of a teacher who understands it and has had time to integrate it thoughtfully can fail completely when it is rolled out without support. Implementation is not a secondary concern. It is often the whole thing.
Artificial intelligence adds a new layer of difficulty to the conversation. The tools are developing faster than schools can evaluate them, and the questions they raise go beyond effectiveness into territory around academic integrity and what we actually want students to be able to do on their own. There are legitimate uses and real concerns, and most schools are still figuring out where to draw those lines. That is probably the right place to be right now, as long as the figuring out is actually happening.
Provides access
Whatever concerns exist about overuse, one thing technology has done is expand access in ways that are hard to argue with. For a significant number of students, the device they get from school is the primary tool they have for completing work, reaching teachers, and connecting to resources outside of school. Removing that without replacing it with something equivalent is not a neutral act.
Technology has also made it possible to reach students who struggle in more traditional formats. Text-to-speech, translation tools, adjustable pacing - these are not workarounds. For some students, they are the difference between engaging with material and not. That is worth protecting even in a conversation that is rightly skeptical about how much technology schools use.
These are forms of Adaptive Technology (AT) and for students with disabilities, a well chosen, taught and used AT can be the difference between success and perceived failure. Where do we draw the line with technology that is actually being helpful? If we use speech to text in place of teaching a student to write, then we are not providing the student with critical skills they need. Did we make something easier - maybe - but we still need to address the skill deficit.
None of this means access is enough on its own. Students still need guidance on how to use these tools in ways that support their learning rather than circumvent it.. Digital citizenship is not a unit in a health class - it is something that has to be woven into how schools talk about and use technology every day. The goal is students who can navigate a digital world with some judgment, not just students who have devices.
Where do we go from here?
Technology is not going away. In fact most industry leaders are calling for the workforce to have more technology skills and an in-depth understanding of tools such as AI. However, when we use technology in schools we must be mindful of why we are using it. Is it being used to replace something like a worksheet that a student used to do? If so - it is our responsibility to evaluate the evidence of effectiveness on the digital replacement. Is the technology used getting a better result, more efficiently? If not - why are we using something that costs more money but has no better outcome than a traditional method. We also must consider that when something is more efficient and seemingly equally or more effective, is it at the cost of something else, like a loss of student conversations and dialogue? Striking the balance will be the key moving forward as is the case for just about everything in life.
Dr. Brent Conway
Assistant Superintendent
Cat Page
Director of Technology
Comments