To Our New Superintendent: Please revisit EdTech
A guest letter by a parent expressing her hopes for change around school-based technology in Seattle Public schools
Note from Emily: We have a new Superintendent in Seattle, and a friend of mine wrote a beautiful letter to him to express her concerns and seek his leadership on technology use in the classroom. She does an excellent job of weaving Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath’s research into the struggles she witnessed her own child having throughout elementary school, and the aha moments when she realized how many of the issues were connected to the use of school-based technology. As you read, note how many distinct programs her child used for different subjects, as an elementary school student, and reflect on your own days as a child in school. How many apps did you use to learn how to read or do math? How many does your child use?
Dear Superintendent Shuldiner,
Welcome to Seattle! I am a proud parent and volunteer in our district. In the past I have avoided advocating at the district level because the district administration felt detached from what was happening within the schools. Your personal emails and invitations to correspond have given me the courage to write to you today and the hope that I will be heard. This is a lengthy email. Please bear with me as I have a story to share.
I write to urge you to revisit SPS’s online curriculum (EdTech programs), 1:1 device program, and Generative AI use. You wrote in your February 8, 2026 email, “In each building, I saw deep and vibrant learning. I saw educators teaching with rigor and care.” And, “I want to give a shout out to the teachers doing a hands-on lesson where students built their own pinball game to learn about force.”
Our school principal wrote to parents after your visit to the school stating that you asked administrators and teachers if they, as adults, have the disposition and skill to increase rigor. You reminded them that students rise to the level of our adult expectations. From this, I know that you care about deep learning, student-teacher relationships, the value of education, and humanity in general.
EdTech and Generative AI put all of that at risk.
I recently finished reading, The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids’ Learning – And How to Help Them Thrive Again by Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, in which he provides a practical understanding of cognitive learning science, specifically how classroom technology interferes with children’s learning and how to advocate for healthy learning environments. I learned that children today are less cognitively capable than previous generations. One contributor is the rise of 1:1 internet-connected technology in schools around 2012.
My journey with EdTech in the classroom began in 2022 when my daughter was in 3rd grade. My daughter does not have a personal device at home. She watches PBS, participates in family movie nights, and uses my laptop to learn how to type and occasionally watch instructional math videos. We are not opposed to technology, but rather are a ‘tech intentional’ family. So I figured a minimal amount of ‘educational’ technology use at school was acceptable. My first gut feeling that something was ‘off’ was when my daughter mentioned that she played a game on her school issued iPad during free choice time rather than playing with classmates, reading, creating art, etc. As I watched my daughter decline academically in 4th grade, I knew it was the fault of EdTech, but I didn’t fully understand why until I read Dr. Horvath’s book where he explains the mechanisms (attention, transfer, and empathy) for how and why screens disrupt learning.
When our home is quiet and still, I know that my daughter has curled up on the couch with a book. She has always loved to read. I was therefore perplexed when, in 4th grade, with each new book she started, she would complain that she didn’t like the book and wanted to read a different one. After a long discussion each time, I convinced her to finish each book. Near the end of the school year, I attended a meeting with my daughter’s teacher and classroom parents where the teacher explained that she had tried several incentives, but was having a hard time getting students to finish books.
A parent asked about the EdTech reading program, Epic, and I had an AHA moment. I knew that with Epic, my daughter could read a few pages or even a few sentences, decide she didn’t like a book, and with a few clicks start a new one or even decide instead to complete a Google search or play a game on her school issued device. I didn’t fully understand the consequences of her and her classmates’ actions at the time. I do now.
Dr. Horvath explains that the primary function most children associate with a device is multitasking, “Research suggests that when studying on a screen, the average student lasts less than six minutes before drifting into unrelated digital distractions” (pg. 51). He further explains that humans cannot multitask. When students cannot focus their attention and rather switch between - or within - EdTech programs, the internet, social media, gaming, etc. on their school devices, accuracy decreases and time and deep learning are lost. Within a couple of weeks of detoxing from and no longer reading on Epic, my daughter stopped asking to switch books and reverted back to her former avid-reading self.
In addition, also in 4th grade, my daughter’s neat handwriting became messy, her creative and detailed stories became boring, and her challenges with math became more challenging. I later learned that she was typing more than handwriting and focusing on a gamified EdTech math program, Prodigy, more than on her teacher. I knew that handwriting builds fine motor skills and typing caused my daughter’s handwriting to become scribbles, but Dr. Horvath’s book taught me that “handwriting activates thinking in ways typing can’t” (pg. 41). And because handwriting is varied (we use different tools, surfaces, and motor patterns), we learn the mechanism of transfer, which is the ability to apply learned skills in new situations. After switching back to handwriting when drafting writing assignments, I could once again read my daughter’s writing and her creativity returned.
But math was still difficult. In 5th grade, my daughter used a personalized adaptive math program called SuccessMaker, which I thought would change everything because it wasn’t a math game. It didn’t. My daughter complained that the program fed her math problems that were either too easy or too hard and that she preferred learning with her teacher. I learned from Dr. Horvath’s book that my daughter preferred learning with her teacher because of empathy. Empathy requires two biological systems – two humans; not a student and a screen. Teachers, not EdTech programs, help students move through their frustrations and understand new concepts in a deep and rigorous way. In addition, learning through a device makes knowledge harder to recall and apply when not using the device – the transfer mechanism I mentioned in the previous paragraph. In 6th grade, my daughter uses math worksheets, not EdTech, based on my request. I am happy to report that she is thriving in math.
EdTech also harms children by sharing their data and exposing them to harmful content such as pornography. EdTech is highly commercialized, embedded with manipulative design techniques, and not developmentally appropriate for children. There have been mass EdTech data breaches. I have shared this information with many parents and have been discouraged when they don’t want to join me in doing something about it.
I can understand why though: EdTech companies are masters of propagating the lie that “this is how the world works now”. I wonder if parents will take action now, when I share the new information that I have learned from Dr. Horvath. That our children are not as smart as we were when we were their age. That devices lead to multitasking that impairs learning. That devices cannot support students through the required friction of learning, only teachers can. That learning primarily with a device means our children will find it challenging to apply their learning in the real world.
I wonder if you will act now that you are aware. Dr. Horvath states, “We can’t let the fear of admitting a mistake prevent us from doing what’s right” (pg. 84). I believe we as a society, including myself, must all admit that we thought technology would improve education or was necessary, but in fact, it didn’t and it wasn't. As Maya Angelou says, "When you know better, you do better.”
You are asking the administration and teachers in our schools to increase rigor and raise their expectations of their students. In order to do so, I believe that the use of EdTech should to be greatly minimized, the 1:1 device program discontinued, and Generative AI use by students and teachers stopped. As I mentioned, I am not opposed to technology. I am in favor of our children using non-internet connected devices in a computer lab to learn coding, typing, researching, etc. As Dr. Horvath expresses, “I am not anti-tech. I am pro-learning” (pg. 263).
Thank you—
MHB