The United States invested more than $30 billion to replace traditional textbooks with laptops and tablets in classrooms. Decades after the first large-scale experiments, many psychologists and learning experts now argue the results have been far more complicated than originally hoped.
Maine was an early pioneer. In 2002, the state became the first in the nation to launch a statewide laptop initiative. Then-Governor Angus King promoted the program as a way to give students direct access to the internet, allowing them to explore information beyond the limits of printed materials.
By the fall of that year, roughly 17,000 Apple laptops had been distributed to seventh graders across hundreds of middle schools. Over time, the initiative expanded significantly. By 2016, Maine students had received approximately 66,000 laptops and tablets.
Similar technology-driven programs soon spread nationwide. By 2024, U.S. schools were spending more than $30 billion annually on classroom devices. Yet more than two decades into the digital shift, some researchers warn that increased access to screens may not have translated into stronger learning outcomes.
In testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath argued that Generation Z — despite unprecedented exposure to technology — has shown declining performance on several standardized assessments. According to Horvath, Gen Z represents the first modern generation to record lower average test scores than its predecessors.
While standardized tests measure specific skills rather than intelligence itself, Horvath contends they still reflect broader cognitive capabilities. Data from international assessments and other studies, he noted, show a concerning pattern: higher amounts of classroom screen time often correlate with weaker academic performance.
“This is not a debate about rejecting technology,” Horvath wrote. “It is a question of aligning educational tools with how human learning actually works.”
Skepticism about device-heavy classrooms is not entirely new. In 2017, reports indicated Maine’s test scores had seen little measurable improvement during the years of its technology initiative. Critics at the time labeled the program ineffective, despite continued financial investment.
Researchers now argue that the challenge extends beyond test scores. Horvath and others warn that diminished attention spans, memory formation, and critical thinking skills could have long-term consequences, particularly as younger generations enter a workforce already reshaped by automation and artificial intelligence.
Technology’s influence on learning environments has grown rapidly. Surveys of teachers reveal that digital tools now occupy a substantial portion of classroom time. Yet studies observing student behavior suggest devices are frequently used for non-academic activities, raising concerns about distraction.
Horvath points to attention fragmentation as a key issue. Interruptions and task-switching, he argues, weaken memory and increase errors. Deep learning, by contrast, typically requires sustained focus and mental effort.
“Learning is effortful, difficult, and oftentimes uncomfortable,” he said. “It’s the friction that makes learning deep and transferable.”
Psychologist Jean Twenge echoes similar concerns. Many modern apps, she notes, are intentionally designed to maximize engagement. Features such as endless scrolling and algorithm-driven content create environments optimized for constant stimulation rather than prolonged concentration.
Growing anxiety over digital dependency has even reached the courts, with lawsuits alleging that major technology platforms contributed to mental health struggles among young users.
To address these challenges, Horvath proposes policy-level solutions. Lawmakers, he suggests, could fund rigorous research into which educational technologies genuinely enhance learning. Stronger protections around data collection and behavioral tracking of minors could also be implemented.
Some states have already taken action. A growing number now restrict or ban cellphone use during instructional time. Although many schools report having device policies, enforcement remains inconsistent.
Ultimately, Horvath frames the issue less as an individual failure and more as a systemic one.
“Students did not ask to spend their entire education in front of screens,” he said. “If critical skills have eroded, that reflects decisions made by adults and institutions.”
As debates over technology in education continue, researchers emphasize that the goal is not elimination but balance — ensuring digital tools support, rather than undermine, how humans learn best.
