There is increasing discussion and debate around the question “Is EdTech good for learning?”
The short and immediate answer to this question is “No.”
When it comes to the use of any EdTech products in schools, in terms of harms to children and threats to democracy, there are actually three critically important questions that must be answered unanimously with “Yes”:
Is it effective?
Is it safe?
Is it legal?
In 2019, I raised concerns about the adoption of a new all-digital science curriculum for K-8 students in Seattle Public Schools. The Board was leaning towards approving a $9-million, 9-year contract with Amplify Science, in spite of the fact that the volunteer-based curriculum adoption task force recommended a different curriculum.
Initially, I was concerned that children as young as five years old were going to be experiencing science through an iPad: this seemed counter to what I assumed science learning should be– hands on, messy, tactile, experimentative. My questions fell on deaf ears and the Board approved adoption of the curriculum, with the full support of the teacher’s union.
And this was six years ago. Today, things have gotten much worse. Depending on whose estimate you trust, schools today are using anywhere from 125 unique EdTech platforms per school (according to the independent and non-profit organization Internet Safety Labs) or as many as 2,000 (according to the EdTech industry giant, Instructure’s, own report).
It’s not dozens; it’s hundreds or even thousands of EdTech tools, platforms, and products that are filling our children’s educational life, and the harms go far beyond “are they good for learning?” (Again, No.)
Unpacking the two other questions (“Is it safe?” and “Is it legal?”) when it comes to adopting EdTech products in schools, however, is more challenging. Unfortunately, schools, teachers, and parents are up against a very well-funded industry when it comes to finding “evidence” and slick marketing campaigns hawking questionable products. Sure, you can find “research” that shows a specific app is good for learning, or even hear from previously reputable organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics or Common Sense Media that “not all tech is bad for children” and they “need to learn to navigate it in today’s digital world,” but that research is industry-funded and deeply problematic. (See Dr. Richard Freed’s book Better Than Real Life for more on this capture.)
I’ve said before that EdTech is just Big Tech in a sweater vest, but it’s even more blatant now.: EdTech is Big Tech. The business models are identical, relying on users’ “time on device” to make money. And when it comes to EdTech, those “users” are our children. (One of my favorite quotes: “There are only two industries that call their customers ‘users’: illegal drugs and software” (Computer Scientist Edward Tufte).)
Just like pharmaceutical sales reps directly targeting doctors, the same sales techniques are being deployed by EdTech marketers. A teacher recently told me that salespeople are now directly contacting and visiting principals in the schools to hawk their wares, and PTAs are raising funds to pay for EdTech licenses, which bypasses the formal curriculum adoption process and avoids public scrutiny (in addition to it being extremely unethical). (The National PTA itself is not without issue either– they are funded by TikTok, Discord, and Google, and more)
It is good to ask if EdTech is good for learning, but even if the answer were “Yes” (and it isn’t), the two remaining questions raise far more concerning issues. In order to make change, we cannot accept just the question of “efficacy”-- we must address safety and legality first.
We can find ample stories of children accessing harmful or inappropriate content on their school-issued devices– a massive safety concern. This doesn’t surprise me at all; we are handing them internet-connected devices and expecting their underdeveloped brains to self-manage (they can’t and they won’t).
Here are just a few examples that might pose safety concerns:
Children have access to YouTube on school-issued devices. YouTube is social media. Social media is harmful to youth mental health.
Children can view violent imagery and videos, including beheadings and shootings, on school-issued devices.
Children can access and watch pornography on school-issued devices.
Children can be groomed by predators on school-issued devices.
Use of screens at and for school increases daily screentime. Increased screentime causes numerous mental, physical, and emotional health problems.
Gamefied EdTech products encourage children to spend more time engaging with these products, increasing screen use and health risks.
Safety also goes way beyond content. In fact, as Social Media Victims Law Center attorney Laura Marquez-Garett says, “Content moderation is actually a red herring.” Schools may claim to have filters, blocking software, surveillance technology, etc. to “protect” children from viewing harmful content; children are viewing it anyway (and to be clear, this is not their fault. They are children. Their brains are not fully developed, and they are up against persuasively designed products whose sole goal is to hijack their attention for profit.) Surveillance erodes trust and those “surveillance” tools themselves are deeply problematic.
Safety concerns bleed into our third question: legality, and unfortunately, when it comes to protecting childrens’ (and teachers’) privacy, things are not good. In the United States (and in the EU via the GDPR and Digital Services Act), citizens do have a right to privacy. We don’t need new laws; we need to enforce the laws that currently exist. And numerous laws around privacy rights in the U.S. include a child’s right to privacy.
Adults can be flippant about our own privacy risks (“Google knows everything I do anyway”). But for children, we’re setting them up for a lifetime of potential dangers by allowing EdTech companies unfettered access to our children’s private information via school-based technologies. How? Just as one example, law enforcement agencies can access student behavior records to predict future criminal behavior.
Broadly, the use of EdTech products by children in schools violates privacy laws by constantly surveilling kids and taking their personal and private info without effective parental consent. Fortunately, groups like the EdTech Law Center are fighting back and filing lawsuits. Recently, in response to a bellwether case (mine, in fact) a judge declared:
“Collecting student data for commercial benefit without parental notice or consent plausibly describes conduct that is ‘highly offensive to a reasonable person and . . . constitutes an egregious breach of the social norms.’”
— U.S. District Judge James Donato, denying in part PowerSchool's Motion to Dismiss (March 2025)
EdTech (and Big Tech) companies should be concerned about this ruling. Change will not come quickly, but it is coming, and momentum is building. More parents (and many teachers) are increasingly concerned by what they are observing. We don’t need to wait around for long-term research to show what is already obvious: Children are being harmed by these products. Children who cannot learn skills like critical thinking and empathy do not become young adults who question authoritarianism or have courage to ask tough questions. Yes, the EdTech issue is about children today, but it is also about our existence tomorrow.
As dire as that may sound, I have hope. I’m teaching a seminar for the Evans School of Public Policy at the University of Washington this quarter and my students are amazing. They were shocked to see photos of kindergarteners on iPads and stunned that schools are handing out Chromebooks to middle school students (and not a single one of my students, when asked, said they would buy a Chromebook as an adult). They couldn’t believe how much private interest has crept into public education and they are studying public policy because they want to do something to make the world a better place.
I know it’s cliche, but it’s true: my young students are the future. They care about what happens. They want to do the right thing and that means learning about the not-so-good things that are happening so they can find solutions to make them better.
If they have hope, then how can I not?