For anyone interested in a major report on the future of A.I. in K-12 education, the recently published Brookings Report is the most comprehensive review of research available, and has international coverage. The findings largely support the claims made by Jared Horvath in "The Digital Delusion". Stephen Fitzpatrick discusses the Brookings report here. For most teachers, as Fitzpatrick says, the harms in K-12 classrooms are immediate, are already here, while the benefits remain theoretical. Not a "moral panic" or "doomerism", just the reality of teachers attempting to do their jobs.
Especially important explanation of why adults' or experts' use of AI differs fundamentally from that of children or adolescents, who are still developing their brains.
Couldn't agree more, that line about the 'obvious category error' equating internet-enabled devices with just comic books hits differently for a teacher trying to explain to students that a browser isn't an app, it's an entire ecosystem of distraction.
Yes, thank you! You'd be surprised by how frequently this category error is made by some highly educated academics who've involved themselves in this debate. It's part of the whole "moral panic," "doomerism," and "scaremongering" cliche cluster, trotted out to shut down any discussion or debate about the very real problems with phone-and-Internet-caused distractions and attention problems, in classrooms, or in any other settings. Also, "ecosystem of distraction" is an apt phrase describing too many social or educational environments. Thanks for describing it well.
"Ed Tech is profitable. It is also mostly useless."
Excerpt from the article:
"Although ed-tech companies tout huge learning gains, independent research has made clear that technology rarely boosts learning in schools—and often impairs it. A 2024 meta-analysis of 119 studies of early-literacy tech interventions, led by Rebecca Silverman of Stanford University, found the studies described programmes that delivered at best only marginal gains on standardised tests. The majority had little effect, no effect or harmful ones. Jared Horvath, a neuroscientist and author of a book called "The Digital Delusion", has reviewed meta-analyses covering tens of thousands of studies. His verdict: "In nearly every context, ed tech doesn't come close to the minimum threshold for meaningful learning impact."
The prevalence of tech in schools owes less to rigorous evidence than aggressive marketing. Teachers are now flooded with daily offers for free tech. In 2024 American schools spent $30bn on education technology. Globally, it is a $165bn industry. Technology does save money on textbooks and streamline lesson planning. But licensing and training costs add up, and many teachers feel burdened rather than liberated by all the admin and dashboards.
Long-term trends raise the possibility that the rise of in-class devices is responsible for an alarming decline in performance in reading and other subjects. Scores on 21 nationwide benchmark tests rose from 1994 until peaking in 2012-15, when screen use started to soar; they then began to sink(see chart 1). In major assessments for maths, science and reading from 2011 to 2019, greater in-school computer use for learning correlates with lower scores. In contrast, students in classes with rare or no computer use at all typically score highest (see chart 2).
Distraction is one likely culprit. Another is that some tools emphasise gamification at the expense of education, meaning that children focus more on winning points than mastering concepts. But there are more insidious issues, such as the ways digital tools weaken human connection and empathy in the classroom."
The author of this book, Jared Horvath, has started a substack on Ed Tech. Here's his first post:
He explains here the qualitative differences in levels or "tiers" of ed tech research. And no, the meta-analyses (supposedly the standard for determining effect sizes of instructional interventions), aren't getting any better. Ed Tech doesn't help to improve classroom learning (after decades).
For anyone interested in a major report on the future of A.I. in K-12 education, the recently published Brookings Report is the most comprehensive review of research available, and has international coverage. The findings largely support the claims made by Jared Horvath in "The Digital Delusion". Stephen Fitzpatrick discusses the Brookings report here. For most teachers, as Fitzpatrick says, the harms in K-12 classrooms are immediate, are already here, while the benefits remain theoretical. Not a "moral panic" or "doomerism", just the reality of teachers attempting to do their jobs.
Especially important explanation of why adults' or experts' use of AI differs fundamentally from that of children or adolescents, who are still developing their brains.
https://fitzyhistory.substack.com/p/what-brookings-gets-right-about-ai
Couldn't agree more, that line about the 'obvious category error' equating internet-enabled devices with just comic books hits differently for a teacher trying to explain to students that a browser isn't an app, it's an entire ecosystem of distraction.
Yes, thank you! You'd be surprised by how frequently this category error is made by some highly educated academics who've involved themselves in this debate. It's part of the whole "moral panic," "doomerism," and "scaremongering" cliche cluster, trotted out to shut down any discussion or debate about the very real problems with phone-and-Internet-caused distractions and attention problems, in classrooms, or in any other settings. Also, "ecosystem of distraction" is an apt phrase describing too many social or educational environments. Thanks for describing it well.
Highly educated, or merely credentialed?
In The Economist, January 22, 2026:
"Ed Tech is profitable. It is also mostly useless."
Excerpt from the article:
"Although ed-tech companies tout huge learning gains, independent research has made clear that technology rarely boosts learning in schools—and often impairs it. A 2024 meta-analysis of 119 studies of early-literacy tech interventions, led by Rebecca Silverman of Stanford University, found the studies described programmes that delivered at best only marginal gains on standardised tests. The majority had little effect, no effect or harmful ones. Jared Horvath, a neuroscientist and author of a book called "The Digital Delusion", has reviewed meta-analyses covering tens of thousands of studies. His verdict: "In nearly every context, ed tech doesn't come close to the minimum threshold for meaningful learning impact."
The prevalence of tech in schools owes less to rigorous evidence than aggressive marketing. Teachers are now flooded with daily offers for free tech. In 2024 American schools spent $30bn on education technology. Globally, it is a $165bn industry. Technology does save money on textbooks and streamline lesson planning. But licensing and training costs add up, and many teachers feel burdened rather than liberated by all the admin and dashboards.
Long-term trends raise the possibility that the rise of in-class devices is responsible for an alarming decline in performance in reading and other subjects. Scores on 21 nationwide benchmark tests rose from 1994 until peaking in 2012-15, when screen use started to soar; they then began to sink(see chart 1). In major assessments for maths, science and reading from 2011 to 2019, greater in-school computer use for learning correlates with lower scores. In contrast, students in classes with rare or no computer use at all typically score highest (see chart 2).
Distraction is one likely culprit. Another is that some tools emphasise gamification at the expense of education, meaning that children focus more on winning points than mastering concepts. But there are more insidious issues, such as the ways digital tools weaken human connection and empathy in the classroom."
The author of this book, Jared Horvath, has started a substack on Ed Tech. Here's his first post:
He explains here the qualitative differences in levels or "tiers" of ed tech research. And no, the meta-analyses (supposedly the standard for determining effect sizes of instructional interventions), aren't getting any better. Ed Tech doesn't help to improve classroom learning (after decades).
https://thedigitaldelusion.substack.com/p/no-edtech-isnt-getting-better-research