Big Tech Hubris And Greed Behind Digital Education Failure
It’s time to go back to paper and pencil
In 2010, the US Department of Education released its ambitious National Educational Technology Plan, setting a goal to transform the future of education through technology. In many ways, this vision has now been realized. Today, students across the country use computers to learn English, Math, Science, and History. Tech companies and curriculum developers claim that this is helping them. Personal devices and digital platforms, they say, increase student engagement and have huge educational benefits.
Yet in my experience as a speech-language pathologist, digital programs are ineffective and distracting for kids.
I recently asked a 5th-grade student to show me how he uses My Path, an individualized math program through Curriculum Associates iReady Math. This student has a diagnosis of ADHD and is a struggling reader. Although he understood the math concept the program presented to him, he had trouble solving problems because of the presentation on a screen. Using a computer for math increased his ADHD tendencies, impacted his reading, and caused him to become so frustrated that he impulsively clicked and swiped. He would have had far less difficulty if he’d been given the same problems on paper.
To be sure, technology has a role in the classroom. Students must develop digital literacy and digital skills. Tech tools can also be used for enrichment and advanced instruction.
But this student is not the only child who struggles to learn from a computer. The optimistic vision of technology in education from 2010 does not match the realities of 2024. If you walk through the halls of a high school or middle school (and sadly some elementary schools), rather than the fantasy of students enthusiastically engaging in self-directed learning, you’ll instead see many students in a zombie-like stance staring at a Chromebook or laptop opened in front of them while only half listening to the teacher.
“It would be great if our education stuff worked. But that we won’t know for probably a decade,” billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates said about his edtech initiatives in 2013.
In truth, over a decade later, it’s clear that this “education stuff” has not worked at all. Despite billions spent, test scores have declined since then, and mental health issues among teens have risen.
Some K-12 curriculum developers, such as McGraw Hill, claim their digital programs are supported by research. Yet they often use small sample sizes, do not include control groups, and admit that their results have major limitations. Other studies from RAND are funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has invested tens of millions of dollars in personalized programs.
The best available evidence shows that excess technology is detrimental to learning and development. An increasing amount of research demonstrates that screens have a negative impact on reading comprehension.
One study published last year suggests that cognitive engagement is higher in children when reading printed books versus digital media. Another such study in 2018 found that there was higher functional connectivity in the brain when reading from print versus a decrease while reading from a screen. And yet another research review highlights, “Paper-based reading yields better comprehension outcomes than digital-based reading.”
Other studies reveal the harms of screen time on brain development. More alarmingly, new research shows changes in brain structure of children with higher screen time use. There may be a physiological and psychological effect as well. One research review found, “Excessive digital media use by children and adolescents appears as a major factor which may hamper the formation of sound psychophysiological resilience.”
A United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report released in 2023 provides an in-depth evaluation of technology in education. The findings are mixed, but one that stands out is that “There is little robust evidence on digital technology’s added value in education.”
In my experience as a professional trained to work with struggling students, most children’s developing brains are not equipped to engage in the self-directed learning imagined years ago, especially online. As a result, students multitask and divert their attention to popular games such as Roblox or streaming videos off YouTube and Netflix while simultaneously completing assignments, degrading their capacity to learn.
Tech developers are skilled at designing their products to keep kids using them while maximizing profits. Tristan Harris, former Google employee and Co-Founder of the Center for Humane Technology, describes this as the race to the bottom of the brain stem. Since classrooms inundate kids with access to technology throughout the day, their precious attention is constantly being robbed.
The evidence against screen time is strong enough that executives with ties to Big Tech and edtech often send their own kids to private schools that don’t use technology.
So, how did we go from the promise of self-directed learning with unlimited information at our fingertips to what we see now, impacting an entire generation of kids? Many point to virtual learning due to Covid-19 as the time when technology took over and student achievement levels dropped. But those paying attention saw the insidious technology creeping in long before then.
High Tech Profits Trumped Achievement
Profits rather than achievement appear to be driving the push for technology in schools. The Digital Textbook Playbook, released by the FCC and US Department of Education in 2012, was designed to “help K-12 educators and administrators advance the conversation toward building a rich digital learning experience.” Not surprisingly, many contributors to the playbook, such as Apple, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and Microsoft, had obvious profit-driven motivations to support this project.
In the same year, reading and math scores for 13-year-olds reached their peak based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report card. Since then, scores on the NAEP have declined. At the same time, according to Forbes, edtech companies have seen their profits grow into the billions.
Kids pay a steep price for the supposed benefits of edtech. Many edtech programs are considered to be “High-Quality Curriculum Materials” (HQCM), defined as instructional materials that are aligned to rigorous college—and career-ready standards, also known as the Common Core Standards. A closer look at these materials raises the question: Are they truly high-quality, or are they just another way to profit from the education system?
In 2015, an organization known as EdReports was created with the support of some of the following philanthropic organizations: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation just to name a few. Since then, at least 12 states began using the now nationally recognized EdReports as a guide for choosing the curriculum that school districts in their states can use. To this day, they are lauded as the gold standard for identifying HQCM.
EdReports’ criteria to evaluate whether instructional materials are “meeting expectations” include their alignment with the Common Core standards and their usability. Curiously, it does not use any criteria to evaluate whether or not a program actually supports student achievement. These same Common Core standards received hundreds of millions of funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation when they were first introduced in 2010. It should be no surprise that they are currently the largest donors to EdReports, a company that is described as an independent non-profit organization, providing expert reviews of instructional materials.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation can also be connected through generous donations to many other organizations developing and promoting technology in the classroom. The US Department of Education, the American Instructional Resources Survey (AIRS), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) are just a few of the institutions that receive funding from the Gates Foundation.
Curriculum developers are also playing the profit over educational benefit game. They were more than willing to move from traditional print to digital formats and not because it’s what's best for children. Digital is better for their bottom line. McGraw Hill, a leading curriculum developer, states, “we’re working to expand the possibilities of content and technology to support learning in a connected world”. They also boast that in 2019, “The Company's total digital billings (based on the last 12 months) were greater than 50% for the first time.” Their company's timeline history reveals they have been acquiring many edtech platforms, including gaming, since 2009.
Edsurge is another organization funded by philanthropic supporters with ties to big tech. They released a four-part series detailing The State of Edtech 2016. Their report discusses the profit from the edtech boom and the future role of technology in the classroom. What is unanswered in this and similar lengthy reports is whether using digital materials for K-12 learners actually supports their achievement in reading, writing, and math.
Despite a lack of evidence, the number of devices in schools has exploded. In 2010, Google unleashed their Chromebook through a small pilot program in Wisconsin, which then took off to districts across the country a few years later. Fast forward to the spring of 2020, when over 20 million Chromebooks were ordered and disbursed to students throughout the US to support the transition to virtual learning during Covid school closures.
With the introduction of the 1:1 trend in high schools, meaning a device for every student, the profitable rush to provide education technology materials began. The “virtual learning” debacle only sped up the process of putting a device in the hands of even our youngest learners. Promoters and creators of edtech compellingly describe their technology as transformative, supporting “21st-century skills” and personalized learning. Unsuspecting educators have been allured with buzz words such as “engaging,” “data-driven,” “adaptable,” and “self-paced.” In reality, edtech has largely only served the interests of wealthy investors and for-profit companies.
Back to Basics
Have we jumped the gun thinking that technology would solve problems in education?Many teachers, administrators, and parents say “yes.” When I talk to them, there is a palpable defeated feeling that we have gone too far and that there is no way to reel it all back in.
Fortunately, there are other parents, educators and child development experts that disagree. Jonathan Haidt, author and social psychologist, has been at the forefront exposing the connection between mental health and social media. His new book, The Anxious Generation, details significant research that documents how society has transitioned from what he calls a “play-based” childhood to “phone-based” childhood. This transition has had a negative impact on the mental health of our youth.
Social psychologists such as Haidt and Peter Gray, a research professor at Boston College, provide well-researched evidence on the importance of play in childhood and its positive impact on cognitive development. Organizations such as Let Grow share cost-effective ways that schools can adopt and promote free play, an integral part of childhood that fosters cognitive and social development. Haidt's movement to create phone-free schools is a step in the right direction.
There are dozens of other organizations, such as Fairplay and EverySchool, that provide a plethora of free resources for parents, educators, and administrators to use to create a healthier and balanced technology-intentional environment in schools. Those in the health fields should step up as well. Especially at the state and national level to develop and implement guidelines that support healthy brain development and limit the harms of excessive tech and screen time. Much like the 1970’s, when the harmful effects of cigarettes were recognized and policies were created.
Since there is no reliable data to support edtech’s benefits and only more revealing its harms, digital curricula should be strictly limited in schools, particularly in preschool through 5th grade. Severe restrictions should also be placed in middle school and high school. Although children and adolescents should learn digital skills, computers cannot replace education that involves interaction with teachers and peers. Children have plenty of access to technology in their lives, putting it in their hands while in school is only creating “21st century” learners with fewer skills, not more.
Traditional print-based, paper/pencil tasks are key to supporting learning. Developing brains learn best when all of the senses are used. This is called multisensory learning. For example, the act of writing on paper creates pathways in the brain that can help solidify learning. It is an intricate perceptual sensorimotor process that is an important part of the cognitive learning process. Kids benefit greatly from writing to learn, and this part of learning gets lost when we just tap letters on a keyboard or swipe a screen.
Advocating to remove technology from education is not old-fashioned or wrong. It is the right thing to do for kids. Technology will never replace the nuance of what educators are able to do when they have a child directly in front of them. Let’s get back to teaching them how to write with a pencil and paper. Remove the screen barrier that blocks kids' opportunity to speak to each other and develop their social skills. Teach them how to deal with boring moments because that is where creativity comes from.
The clock is ticking and we need to restore schools and childhood by doing what's right for children before it’s too late.
 | A guest post by
|
I'm a "recovering" college professor (of speech pathology, coincidentally) who has been happily retired for 10 years. Back in the late 1980s, a student of mine came to me, excitedly, with a new program he had found: a spell checker. I told him, "I don't know about that - it will make you lazy." Although I embraced technology over the course of my career - I'm no Luddite - I saw very little about it that helped students be *better* at thinking or attention.
Computers can be great in many ways. They are not good for teaching critical thinking.