It’s time to talk about screen time in classrooms

I suspect most of us, both parents and teachers, have an uneasy intuition about how much technology there is in our children’s classrooms. Teachers may feel ever-increasing demands from administrators to use the technology provided to them. Parents may feel uncomfortable with how much technology their children are absorbing, but feel the need to trust the teachers. All feel disempowered. They may not be telling their leaders, but they are talking among themselves.

Many years ago, when I served as a public school principal, we were replacing very expensive computers with the newest versions, and we had not even utilized the existing technology to its capacity. This problem has been exacerbated by the ubiquitous software systems today. The recurring overhead costs of classroom technology and licensing agreements are mind-numbing.

A few months ago, I saw Jared Cooney Horvath provide compelling testimony before the U.S. Senate. As an educator and neuroscientist, he expressed grave concerns about our over-reliance of technology in our schools today. He has written a book this year entitled, “The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids’ Learning — and How to Help Them Thrive Again.”

His arguments, based upon his own experiences and an analysis of research across the globe, show the same concerns we all have. However, he links what we intuitively sense with brain research. He aims his harshest criticism toward what he refers to the EdTech industry. The industry has oversold and overpromised their fancy products. Not only do they not have any sound research indicating their programs help kids learn, the independent research and data that do exist are to the contrary.

Perry Rettig. (Courtesy)

Our children’s attention spans are getting severely curtailed, they are becoming poor thinkers, their test scores are falling, and mental health concerns are clearly on the rise. Simply put, as students spend more time in front of computer screens, they are becoming cognitively flabby. They are passively entertained by the newest programs, but they are not intellectually engaged — they are not learning. Gen Z is the first generation to be less cognitively capable than its parents. My experience of 44 years in education aligns with Horvath’s findings.

Horvath explains that the brain processing of reading on paper and handwriting notes is far more robust than using a computer screen and keyboard. Intuitively we know this, and standardized tests prove it. As a matter of fact, these tests are even becoming easier. For example, Horvath noted, the SAT had previously required students to read and analyze 750-word essays with 10 questions, while today’s exam uses 75-word essays with one question. Deep thinking is being replaced by recall only.

Shallow learning and thinking impact the students’ ability to transfer what they learn in school to both their future workplace and to the college classroom. Computer programs are designed to make learning fun and entertaining. But real learning is not easy. It takes dedication, focus and hard work. Just as athletes must push their bodies in order to improve, students must push their brains to improve. Passive computer time does not do that, and tests show it.

Horvath aims his writing and his speaking toward parents, educators and policymakers. I mention this to make you aware that people are listening. The U.S. Senate received him favorably. Parents and parent groups are purchasing his book. So are teachers. People are beginning to coalesce around these concerns and they are beginning to make demands.

Horvath asks educators and parents to ask their school leaders a couple imperative questions: What evidence do you have that these computer programs improve student learning? How much time do students spend in front of a computer each class period and day? Schools will often share research conducted or sponsored by the EdTech companies themselves, or they will tell of other school districts who are already using the same software. To what end?

Horvath concludes by giving parents and teachers a how-to guide in how to ask these questions, how to organize and how to set expectations. He uses sample letters and documents to show the way.

I find myself in agreement with Horvath. I hope parents and educators will enter an earnest and honest dialogue about the role of technology in the classroom. I hope we begin as partners. It is my suggestion that school district leaders put this topic on their board agendas and PTAs and principals put it on their meeting agendas. For if you don’t place this on your agenda, someone else will. Our children deserve it.