iPads Do Not Belong in School

6 Fallacies About EdTech and 6 Ideas for a Tech-Intentional™ School.

Let’s start with facts: Children as young as five years old are being handed iPads by their schools, in the name of “education.” According to one report, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics found 94% of public schools surveyed provided digital devices to students in 2022.

Of course, we know that actual use of such devices varies significantly from district to district, school to school, and even classroom to classroom. Getting an accurate quantitative measure of “time spent on iPads for Kindergarten” is difficult. But I would argue that even knowing an exact number wouldn’t make me feel better about an iPad’s presence in the Kindergarten classroom in the first place.

Let me illustrate. Here is a photo of Seattle kindergarteners on the playground, before school starts, playing on their district-issued iPads…not on the playground equipment nearby:

I do not know any educator, parent, or child expert (who hasn’t been bought by Big Tech) who would argue that scrolling on an iPad before school instead of running around playing with friends is inherently better for children, especially when we know that those same children are about to enter a building where they will continue to use those same devices while seated in their desks in the classroom.

The iPads on the playground issue alone is shocking enough, but we also have very recent data showing children ages 8 to 18 years old average 7.5 hours per day on screen-based media…outside of school hours.

Unfortunately, the pandemic and remote learning accelerated the use of screens at and for school and pulling back now feels like trying to turn the Titanic. Schools have caved to persuasive marketing campaigns by EdTech companies that purport to solve systemic problems like oversized classes and overburdened teachers with technology (“Here’s an AI chatbot tutor to help!”) or prey on adult fears about overexaggerated risks relating to safety, diluting the real risks and ignoring meaningful and effective non-tech solutions (like supporting teachers and reducing class sizes).

Whether or not the technology in schools is good (most aren’t), effective (most aren’t), or even legal (often not), many schools have jumped on the tech-bandwagon and children are the collateral.

Those of us who harbor concerns about excessive technology use in school often are put on the defensive, asked to justify the claim that iPads impede learning or Chromebooks for third graders harm educational outcomes.

But it makes me angry that we’re not turning this around and asking the opposite questions: “Show me how iPads improve learning. Show me that YouTube use on a student Chromebook in a classroom benefits a child’s social skills. Show me that learning to read or write on a screen is better than with pencil and paper.”

To be clear– there is plenty of “evidence” that iPads “help” learning…but dig a little deeper and you find that these “studies” are conveniently funded by the very companies who benefit from favorable findings in the first place. Of course they “find” the results that support their claims. The first place I look when someone sends me “research” or a “study” about the benefits of a product? The “funding source” page. Inevitably, all positive reports of EdTech “solutions” lead back to industry-funded marketing and “research.”

Where is the independently-funded, peer-reviewed research that says More Tech=Better Learning outcomes or that the hefty price tag justifies any meager returns?

That’s what I’m waiting for.

On the one hand, I am tired of having to justify what should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about child development, learning, and teaching: using iPads (or other such devices), especially with young children, to teach “reading” or “math” or anything that isn’t simply entertainment is fundamentally wrong and misguided and completely out of alignment with child development (though, unfortunately, completely in alignment with Big Tech and EdTech’s business models).

If I worked for a company that made surgical tools, I would not walk into an operating room and tell the surgeon how to do the surgery simply because I know a lot about the tools. That’s absurd. No surgeon or patient should trust me to operate on a patient. Yet that is what we are letting technologists do in the name of education. Why are we allowing this?

But such is the state of EdTech these days. Tech companies, whose business model is to create and sell digital products, are not guided by child development, research-based pedagogy, or even altruism. They are guided by profit, and every decision they make contributes to their bottom line, not what’s best for teachers or students or learning or childhood.

Let me be clear: Technology should play a role in education. Children should learn critical skills about how to use technology, safely navigate digital tools, and how to type. EdTech, however, is not Tech Ed, as I’ve written about previously. No question– there is a tremendous amount of nuance to all of this.

I hear a lot of the same arguments for why kids “need” computers or tablets to learn. (And, as always, there are very clearly documented exceptions to this– a non-verbal child who relies on a digital tool to communicate, for example. But those are the exceptions, not the rule. Just because one child in a classroom needs eyeglasses does not mean every child in the class should receive eyeglasses.)

Here are some of the logical fallacies I confront regularly about young children and learning on tech:

1. “EdTech is better for learning.” No. At best, it’s neutral, which isn’t enough to justify the exorbitant costs (financially, educationally, and environmentally.)

2. “Tech reduces paper waste.” Ha. The environmental impacts of technology, especially GenAI, which is increasingly appearing in schools, are horrifying.

3. “Technology makes learning easier.” When did “easier” come to mean “better” for learning? We know that learning happens in moments of struggle and friction (and in the context of human relationships). “Easier” is not “better” when it comes to learning.

4. “Tech is the future.” Sure, but the tech we used as kids is pretty different from the tech our kids use today, and it’s only going to continue to change. This alone is not a good enough reason to hand iPads to kindergarteners.

5. “Tech-based tools improve learning.” Show me the research. And then show me who funded that research. And then, if it’s independently funded, replicable, and high quality, show me the benefits. (As one example, Boston Children’s Digital Wellness Lab is funded by TikTok, Snap, Meta, and Discord. So I’m not going to trust any “studies” they produce. See the problem? Here is a list of a few more problematic groups to be wary of. )

6. “EdTech closes the digital divide.” Nope. The new digital divide is between the parents with resources and information about the harms who will restrict, limit, or prevent their children from using screens excessively, and those parents who have been heavily marketed to about the “benefits” of all this excess screentime but lack the means to limit their child’s exposure, including at school. As usually, the communities who suffer disproportionate harms will continue to be most impacted.

Increasingly, I am asked: “Ok, so what should a school look like when it comes to incorporating technology?”

In my view, the most successful schools of the future will be tech-intentional™. This is my plan: to help schools to become tech-intentional in their approach to incorporating technology into their classrooms and schools.

As a reminder:

Being tech-intentional™ means using screen-based technologies that enhance, nurture, and support students in a way that aligns with our values, and resisting, limiting, or delaying screen use that interferes with healthy mental, physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development.

The TL;DR version is this:

1. Later is better

2. Less is more

3. Relationships and skills before screens

(Whenever I write about “tech-intentionality” I try to provide my definition for it. Because I have trademarked this phrase, I am responsible for protecting the mark. I am also very aware that the technology industry itself might attempt to co-opt this idea of intentional tech use, and I want it to be explicit about what it means. It does not mean “using EdTech products with intention.”)

Technologists are correct– tech isn’t going anywhere. But child development hasn’t changed, even if tech has. Any technology we use with or for children needs to consider the impacts on brain development, social skills, mental and emotional well-being, and the value of human relationships.

For schools exploring a shift towards tech-intentionality, here are six suggestions:

1. Eliminate all 1:1 programs for K-8th grade, at a minimum. The benefits of “less is more” at younger grades especially is well-documented. The costs to implement such programs is high, as well as the costs to maintain hardware and update software. That money could be much better spent on policies and programs that reduce class size or support teachers.

2. Bring back computer labs and technology teachers (and school library computers, too). If a dedicated computer lab isn’t possible, bring back laptop carts that can be shared between classes. Having a dedicated technology teacher to teach Technology Education is far more valuable than every second grader having their own iPad.

3. Teach Technology Education without technology, especially for younger students. Beware buzzwords like “digital wellness” or “healthy tech use” and search out skill-based curricula that do not have a digital component (here’s one example or here’s another.) If it is funded by a tech company or requires an app or screen or the internet to operate, don’t use it.

4. If your school uses curriculum with a digital component, uncouple it from the internet and disconnect all student-used devices from the internet. If a curriculum is high quality and only available digitally, great; download or install it on the school devices and use it free from the internet. If that isn’t possible, it’s unlikely the curricula is high quality or beneficial for teaching and learning.

5. Go smartphone/watch-free from first bell to last bell. There is ample movement towards this right now, and administrators are seeing immediate benefits. This is a no-brainer— ban all student smart devices from campus. (And note that enforcement is what equals effective implementation).

6. Invest in parent, teacher, and administrator educational programming. A surprisingly high number of adults lack understanding about child development and brain growth, setting children up for problematic screen use at home and at school. Adults have some important learning to do.

There is much more we can– and should– do to shift the focus away from profits and back to people. This is just a start.

Change takes time. As my first fish know, we need to find second and third fish to join us. We can’t do it alone. We need each other to shift course.

Change is coming.

Emily’s Note: This essay was originally published on my website on December 5, 2024. This version has been edited and updated slightly from the original.

**If you are a school leader interested in being a “first fish” making changes in how your school uses digital products, please visit my website to learn about our Tech-Intentional School Certification option!**