When the school I was teaching at announced the arrival of “smart boards” for our classrooms in 2012, I was underwhelmed. Theoretically, I could now project a copy of the day’s agenda onto a fancy screen at the front of my classroom that would allow me to add notes with a stylus. Then, if I wanted, I could save the page and my notes.

But that didn’t seem like an improvement on what I was already doing: writing the agenda on my whiteboard, with a dry erase marker, where I could add notes on with another dry erase marker, if I so desired.

I suppose the only change was being able to save a copy of my agenda, but I had already written it down in my paper teacher planner. How was this making my life as a teacher better? What did this add to my students’ experience in the classroom?

To quote my friends at EverySchool, this seemed an excellent example of “tech for tech’s sake.” 

I’ve recently had the chance to tour several schools. Proud administrators show me the smartboards at the front of the classroom or the students using reading apps on iPads. It’s fancy, but is it necessary?

In the rush to push more technology into the classroom, we are losing sight of a very important distinction between EdTech and Tech Ed. 

“EdTech” typically refers to any digital tool, platform, or app used by schools, teachers, or students, including the hardware itself (like an iPad) in addition to the software (the curriculum or learning management system). “Tech Ed” on the other hand, refers to teaching about technology, including the skills required to learn how to use it safely and effectively– such as typing, media literacy, and safe searching– skills, I would argue, that are extremely important in today’s highly digitized world.

What’s currently happening in schools, however, is that EdTech is superseding TechEd. Teachers often talk about pedagogy vs. curriculum: pedagogy is how we teach something; curriculum is what we teach. EdTech is a form of pedagogy; Tech Ed is a curriculum. When schools dole out iPads to kindergarten students to provide them access to reading apps and math tools, we are bypassing the necessary skills that make effective utilization of technology possible. 

I absolutely believe that children do need to learn things like how the internet works, how AI works, and how a computer works– that is what I see as a Technology Education curriculum.  But ironically, most lessons about technology can be taught with books, teachers, and maybe the occasional video. Students should understand what it means to cite sources, search safely, and do research online, but that is not currently what’s happening in schools. 

Instead, we are being told (mostly by Big Tech but also by a lot of school administrators) that our children having an iPad in school is equivalent to educating them about technology, which is complete nonsense. Most of us can admit that the majority of how we use our iPads and smartphones is not to educate ourselves (or our children) about technology (curricula). The irony is that we can and should teach and embrace Tech Ed, but we do not need technology as the pedagogy (like iPads in kindergarten or other forms of EdTech) through which to teach them that information. 

Or, as educational neuroscientist Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath has pointed out, the argument “we should teach computer skills” has become “we should teach all skills through a computer.” When it comes to good pedagogy, he argues, we should “select the tool that is best suited to the job; not the tool that is most prevalent.” 

Schools are in a position now where they are going to need to answer some tough questions. In schools that offer 1:1 programs (which most now do), how many are also teaching typing and handwriting skills, including cursive? Are there lessons in analog and digital research citations, critical thinking exercises around identifying mis- and disinformation, and lessons on how to safely search the internet? Are there procedures in place for when children encounter harmful content on internet-connected devices and precautions to minimize exposure? Are the EdTech tools used in alignment with child development, and used only because they are universally better than an analog alternative?

Unfortunately, I do not see schools approaching these questions with the same enthusiasm they have for adding additional digital tools or platforms, especially as EdTech companies inundate them with seemingly convincing marketing efforts. Additionally, most parents have no idea how many EdTech tools are being used in districts (estimates range from the hundreds to the thousands, depending on what source you use), let alone the additional risks that come with the massive quantities of data collected about the users (our children) by the technology companies and sold to third parties for profit. 

Not all tech is bad. And not all tech is good. Like most things in life, it’s not a simple all or nothing.

As with most things, there is significant nuance to all of this. Just because we can use technology in a classroom doesn’t mean we should. “Technology” is not all created equal, nor are children standardized– what might be fine for one will not work for others. Which is why teachers play such a vital role in schools, perhaps more than ever before, even as they face increased demands and decreased support. 

Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, about whom I’ve written before, researches the science of learning. He makes reasoned arguments about what needs to be taken into consideration when we introduce or utilize technology in schools. Like me, he is not anti-technology, but tech-intentional. His recommendations, rooted in the science of learning and child development, are nuanced, something that gets lost in the all-in-on-technology approach currently happening in schools. But if we’re going to tackle this big challenge of screens in schools, we are going to need to approach things with a lot more nuance and not get distracted by the “Vegas lights,” as one former colleague of mine described school technology. 

Based on Dr. Horvath’s work, here are three things we know to be true about learning:

1. Relationships and empathy are keys to learning. Technology decreases human relationships and increases stress and distraction.

2. As we’ve long suspected, multi-tasking isn’t possible– we can only focus on one thing at a time. Technology invites us to multi-task, which, to the underdeveloped brain of a child, requires significant mental effort to stay on task. 

3. Mistakes and friction are key to progress. Technology claims to make our lives easier and more convenient. When it comes to learning, that’s not a good thing.

Schools are going to face increasing pressure from concerned parents, angry taxpayers, and lawyers who are reading the fine print. If such pressure leads to positive change for children, then I welcome it. 

In the meantime, I have a few solutions for parents and concerned school administrators to consider as you explore what it might mean to become a tech-intentional school.

First, get rid of the 1:1 programs and bring back computer labs, laptop carts, and library computers. For school administrators concerned about finances, this could cut by a third or more your school’s technology costs. For teachers, utilizing a computer lab involves enough friction to push them towards more intentional and purposeful use. For children, when computers are pedagogically appropriate, it can happen in the context of a classroom or educator who is trained and prepared to support skill-building (Tech Ed) before digital or online learning (EdTech). 

Second, and on that note, schools must prioritize developmentally appropriate skill building before introducing screens. Kindergarteners do not need iPads to learn. Period. That is completely out of alignment with what young children need. For all students, we must emphasize executive function, critical thinking, creativity, and perseverance– skills that will be imperative in a future workforce and none of which require digital technology to acquire.

Third– and here is a great example of nuance– use non-internet connected tools. I have joked about “Bringing back CD-Roms” but I’m serious. There is something to be said about a resource that has an end (much like a book), but which might still provide information not otherwise accessible in an analog form. Even if you have Kindergarteners on iPads (and you shouldn’t), why is it that the digital tools they are using require an internet connection? 

Another way to frame this is to ask these three questions, created by my activist buddy Laura Derrindinger, any time you are considering introducing or using digital technology in a school or classroom setting:

1. Is it effective? 

2. Is it safe?

3. Is it legal?

As of today, I know of no EdTech tool used in schools that meet all three of these criteria. 

For more on your rights as a parent around EdTech, please visit edtech.law here or explore my UnPlug EdTech Toolkit here.