"EdTech" is *Not* "Tech Ed"
What So Many Get So Wrong About Technology in School and the 3 Questions We Should Be Asking
This essay is an updated reprint from the original which was posted on November 21, 2024 and can be found on my website here.
When the school I was teaching at announced the arrival of “smart boards” for our classrooms in 2012, I was underwhelmed. Theoretically, I could now project a copy of the day’s agenda onto a fancy screen at the front of my classroom that would allow me to add notes with a stylus. Then, if I wanted, I could save the page and my notes.
But that didn’t seem like an improvement on what I was already doing: writing the agenda on my whiteboard with a dry erase marker, where I could add notes on with another dry erase marker if I so desired.
I suppose the only change was being able to save a copy of my agenda, but I had already written it down in my paper teacher planner. How was this making my life as a teacher better? What did this add to my students’ experience in the classroom? Didn’t this actually create more work for me?
To quote my friends at EverySchool, this type of technology for my classroom seemed like an excellent example of “tech for tech’s sake.”
Over a decade later, I’ve had the chance to tour several schools around the country. Proud administrators show off classroom smart boards or gush about students using reading apps on iPads or highlight the AI “tutors” who can help children “brainstorm” (isn’t that what brains are for?). It’s fancy and flashy…but is it necessary?
Unfortunately, no.
Yet I hear constantly:
“But children need access to technology now to learn how to use it!” (How much of the tech from your childhood do you still use today?)
“If schools don’t give kids internet-connected 1:1s, they’ll be left behind!” (Behind whom? Look at where tech executives send their children to school— it’s low-tech and nature-based, not tech-saturated!)
“Tech is here to stay! We can’t not use it!” (Ok, but tech has always been a new and evolving thing, and if something is unsafe and ineffective should we still be handing it to children just…because it’s new and here?)
In this FOMO-induced frenzy, however, we have have lost sight of a very important distinction: EdTech is not the same thing as Tech Ed.
“EdTech” typically refers to any digital tool, platform, or app used by schools, teachers, or students, including the hardware itself (like an iPad) in addition to the software (the curriculum or learning management system).
“Tech Ed” on the other hand, refers to teaching about technology, including the skills required to learn how to use it safely and effectively– such as typing, media literacy, critical thinking, and safe searching– skills that are extremely important in today’s highly digitized world and skills that can be taught without the need for 1:1 internet-connected devices.
What’s currently happening, however, is that we are confusing EdTech with Tech Ed and thinking they are one and the same. They are not.
Pedagogy is how we teach something; curriculum is what we teach. EdTech is a form of pedagogy; Tech Ed is curriculum.
Children do need to learn Tech Ed— how the internet and GenAI work, what is an algorithm, and how a computer operates. But lessons about technology can be taught with books and human teachers, like this excellent example, and do not require each student to have a personal device. Students should understand what it means to cite sources, identify mis- and disinformation, and do research online, but that is not currently what’s happening in schools.
In other words, we can and absolutely should teach children technology education— and we can do that without individual internet-connected devices or digital curricula or gamified apps to “teach” concepts. But that is very, very different from handing a 5-year-old an iPad in the name of “teaching her how to read” or providing access to ChatGPT so a high schooler can get “help with his essay.”
Unfortunately, Big Tech’s sway over administrators and school leaders has led them to believe that children having an iPad in school is somehow equivalent to educating them about technology. That is complete nonsense.
As educational neuroscientist Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath has pointed out, the argument “we should teach computer skills” has become “we should teach all skills through a computer.” When it comes to good pedagogy, he argues, we should “select the tool that is best suited to the job; not the tool that is most prevalent.”
Schools are in a position now where they are going to need to answer some tough questions:
Are you still teaching typing and handwriting skills, including cursive?
Are there lessons in how to to cite sources, both analog and digital; critical thinking exercises around identifying mis- and disinformation; and lessons on how to safely search the internet?
Are these lessons taught by a human teacher?
Are there procedures in place for when (not if) children encounter harmful content on their devices?
Are the EdTech tools used in alignment with child development, used only because they are universally better than an analog alternative, and in compliance with privacy laws?1
Unfortunately, I do not see schools approaching these questions with the same enthusiasm they have for adding additional digital tools or platforms, especially as EdTech companies woo them with convincing marketing techniques. Most parents have no idea how many EdTech tools are being used in districts (estimates range from the hundreds to the thousands, depending on what source you use), let alone the additional risks that come with the massive quantities of data collected about our children and sold to third parties for profit.
As with most things, there is significant nuance to all of this. Just because we can use technology in a classroom doesn’t mean we should. “Technology” is not created equal, nor are children standardized– what might be fine for one will not work for others. Which is why human teachers2 play such a vital role in schools, perhaps more than ever before, even as they face increased demands and decreased support.
Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, about whom I’ve written before, researches the science of learning. He makes reasoned arguments about what needs to be taken into consideration when we introduce or utilize technology in schools. Like me, he is not anti-technology, but tech-intentional.
Based on Dr. Horvath’s work, here are three things we know to be true about children and education:
Relationships and empathy are keys to learning. Technology decreases human relationships and increases stress and distraction. The influx of EdTech and GenAI products threatens not just the learning process, but also the teaching profession itself.
As we’ve long suspected, multi-tasking isn’t possible– we can only focus on one thing at a time. Technology invites us to multi-task, which, to the underdeveloped brain of a child, requires significant mental effort to stay on task. In education, it is a disaster for focus.
Mistakes and friction are key to progress. Technology claims to make our lives easier and more convenient. When it comes to learning, that’s not a good thing. Learning happens in moments of struggle and friction.
Schools face increasing pressure from concerned parents, angry taxpayers, and lawyers who are reading the fine print. If such pressure leads to positive change for children, then I welcome it.
Here are few proposals to consider as you explore what it might mean to become a tech-intentional school3:
First, get rid of the 1:1 programs and bring back computer labs, laptop carts, and library computers. For school administrators concerned about finances, this could cut by a third or more your school’s technology costs. For teachers, utilizing a computer lab involves enough friction to promote more intentional and purposeful tech use. For children, when digital tools are pedagogically appropriate, safe, and legal and used in the context of a classroom with a trained educator, we prepare students with skill-building (Tech Ed) over digital or online learning (EdTech).
Second, and on that note, schools must prioritize developmentally appropriate skill building before introducing screens. Kindergarteners do not need iPads to learn. iPads are completely out of alignment with child development. For all students, we must emphasize executive function, critical thinking, creativity, and perseverance– skills that will be imperative in a future workforce and none of which require digital technology to acquire.
Third– and here is a great example of nuance– schools must prioritize the use of non-internet connected tools. I have joked about “Bringing back CD-Roms” but I’m serious. There is something to be said about a resource that has an end (much like a book), but which might still provide information not otherwise accessible in an analog form. Even if you have Kindergarteners on iPads (and you shouldn’t), why is it that the digital tools they use require an internet connection, if the point is to “learn about technology”?
Any time you are considering introducing or using digital technology in a school or classroom setting, ask these three questions:
Is it effective?
Is it safe?
Is it legal?
As of today, I know of no EdTech product used in schools that meet all three of these criteria.
**A word of caution. The tech industry is aware of growing concerns about excessive screen use in schools and they have been hard at work building and marketing “digital wellness” and “media literacy” curricula to layer on top of the online, gamified lessons and apps kids already used. Do not be fooled and do not trust a curricula that is funded or endorsed by a tech company.
For a full list of questions to ask your school about EdTech, download my free Unplug EdTech Toolkit here.
I’m finding I have to specify “human” in front of teachers in my essays these days. Auspicious.