Screen Drift
Several years ago the kid of a family friend told me that her English teacher assigned them to study the lyrics of an Ariana Grande song for homework and there were many classroom assignments that were pop-culture themed as well. I asked if they were also reading a big novel or play alongside this and the answer was no. She'd not heard of any American essayists or short-story writers either. I found this quite alarming given that this child went to a highly rated school district. Looks like things have taken a turn for the worse since that time.
This opinion piece from The Washington Post argues that early exposure to classroom technology, especially in kindergarten, may be doing more harm than good, despite heavy investment in digital tools. I could not agree more.
The author begins with a personal observation: her kindergartner was exposed to YouTube content, including entertainment clips and ads, during school. This raises a broader concern about how devices introduced for “educational purposes” often open the door to platforms not designed for young children. What starts as structured tech use can quickly blur into the wider attention economy.
She then points to research questioning the effectiveness of educational technology. Testimony from neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath and large international studies suggest that increased screen time in classrooms is not associated with improved learning outcomes—and may even correlate with worse performance in reading, math, and science. The issue isn’t teacher quality, but a mismatch between how children learn and how digital tools function.
The core argument is grounded in cognitive science: young children learn best through hands-on interaction, sustained attention, and human engagement. Activities like reading on paper, writing by hand, and conversational learning build deeper comprehension and memory. Screens, by contrast, tend to encourage distraction, rapid task-switching, and shallow processing—especially problematic for early literacy development.
The piece questions whether continued investment in ed-tech, especially in a high-spending district like District of Columbia Public Schools, is driven by evidence or inertia from pandemic-era decisions. The author calls for a reset: limit screens in early grades, restrict access to platforms like YouTube, increase transparency for parents, and redirect funding toward more traditional, evidence-based learning methods.
We can agree that technology is inevitable in children’s lives, but it is recklessness to introduce it too early in classrooms because that impairs foundational skills like focus, literacy, and social learning that matter most and the reason the kid goes to school in the first place.
This opinion piece from The Washington Post argues that early exposure to classroom technology, especially in kindergarten, may be doing more harm than good, despite heavy investment in digital tools. I could not agree more.
The author begins with a personal observation: her kindergartner was exposed to YouTube content, including entertainment clips and ads, during school. This raises a broader concern about how devices introduced for “educational purposes” often open the door to platforms not designed for young children. What starts as structured tech use can quickly blur into the wider attention economy.
She then points to research questioning the effectiveness of educational technology. Testimony from neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath and large international studies suggest that increased screen time in classrooms is not associated with improved learning outcomes—and may even correlate with worse performance in reading, math, and science. The issue isn’t teacher quality, but a mismatch between how children learn and how digital tools function.
The core argument is grounded in cognitive science: young children learn best through hands-on interaction, sustained attention, and human engagement. Activities like reading on paper, writing by hand, and conversational learning build deeper comprehension and memory. Screens, by contrast, tend to encourage distraction, rapid task-switching, and shallow processing—especially problematic for early literacy development.
The piece questions whether continued investment in ed-tech, especially in a high-spending district like District of Columbia Public Schools, is driven by evidence or inertia from pandemic-era decisions. The author calls for a reset: limit screens in early grades, restrict access to platforms like YouTube, increase transparency for parents, and redirect funding toward more traditional, evidence-based learning methods.
We can agree that technology is inevitable in children’s lives, but it is recklessness to introduce it too early in classrooms because that impairs foundational skills like focus, literacy, and social learning that matter most and the reason the kid goes to school in the first place.
Filed under:
Education