Recent testimony to the US Senate on “cognitive decline” and educational technology has reignited a familiar debate: whether screens are eroding young people’s capacity to think, and whether technology itself is inherently detrimental to learning. The clip has been widely shared on LinkedIn as a serious intervention. But I see it slightly differently: less as a definitive verdict, and more as a useful provocation, even if its conclusions, in my view, are subtantially off-target.
You see, the problem is not devices. It is how attention is captured, shaped, and monetised, largely outside schools, and largely unregulated.
Devices are not neutral, but neither are they the cause
Blaming “screens” or “technology” flattens important distinctions. A device used to read, write, model worked examples, or practise retrieval is cognitively different from a phone delivering algorithmically curated feeds designed to maximise dwell time and engagement.
One supports thinking. The other actively erodes it.
What has changed most dramatically over the past decade is not classroom technology but the rise of algorithm-driven social media, optimised to hook users, reward emotional arousal, and fragment focus. These platforms bypass reflection; they do not deepen it. To conflate them with educational tools designed explicitly to support learning is to miss the point entirely.
Attention is being shaped elsewhere
If children are indeed less cognitively able today, we should look first at the environment young people inhabit for hours each day. Short-form video, endless scroll, and attention-hogging social media cultivate habits of shallow processing and rapid switching. These are not accidental side-effects; they are design features. And this is why regulation matters.
Schools can make thoughtful decisions about pedagogy and tools, but they cannot compete with unregulated platforms whose business model depends on capturing and selling data and engagement. Treating this as a matter of individual self-control or blaming teachers’ use of technology lets the real drivers off the hook.
Correlation is not destiny
Much of the evidence cited in critiques of EdTech relies on correlations between screen exposure and attainment. These deserve scrutiny, of course, but they do not settle the question. Screen use is not monolithic, and context matters.
There are also positive associations between technology use and achievement, particularly where tools are aligned with well-established pedagogical principles rather than novelty or engagement for its own sake.
In the UK context, adaptive tutoring platforms such as Sparx Maths and Century Tech provide immediate feedback and targeted practice in maths and literacy. Used alongside explicit classroom teaching, both have shown particular benefits for lower-attaining pupils by diagnosing gaps, responding to misconceptions, and pacing practice more precisely than whole-class instruction alone.
Similarly, retrieval and spaced-practice platforms like Carousel Learning and Seneca Learning strengthen long-term retention when embedded in regular classroom routines. Their impact lies not in gamification, but in making recall frequent, low-stakes, and curriculum-aligned.
For pupils with additional needs, assistive technologies play a different but equally important role. Tools such as Texthelp’s Read&Write and Microsoft’s Immersive Reader improve access to reading and writing, enabling participation in mainstream learning that would otherwise be restricted. In these two examples, technology does not accelerate learning so much as remove unnecessary barriers.
Some of the most powerful uses of technology in UK classrooms remain strikingly simple. Visualisers and tools such as Explain Everything allow teachers to model worked examples, annotate thinking in real time, and reduce cognitive load for novices. The gains here come from clarity, sequencing, and expert explanation. Once again, technology is serving instruction, not replacing it.
Across all of these examples, the pattern is consistent: technology supports cognition when it is bounded, purposeful, and subordinate to pedagogy. None resemble the unregulated, engagement-optimised social media platforms that dominate young people’s lives beyond school. The issue then is not the presence of technology in classrooms, but the failure to distinguish between tools that support learning and platforms designed to maximise dwell time and engagement.
Repeat after me: technology helps when it supports the processes known to work in teaching and learning, but it hinders when it distracts from them.
The deeper causes sit upstream
If we are concerned about cognitive stagnation or decline, there are more plausible primary drivers than classroom technology:
- narrowed curricula that prize pace over depth
- insufficient time for sustained reading and writing
- drift away from evidence-based practice
- reduced teacher capacity to plan, explain, and give feedback due to excessive workload
- and, yes, social media platforms that have largely been left to police themselves, with predictable consequences
Classroom technology, used poorly, can of course have negative effects on learning. But to suggest it is the primary driver of “cognitive decline” is, frankly, unserious.
Regulation, not retreat
The policy implication is not to retreat from technology in schools, but to differentiate and regulate more intelligently. That means:
- stronger regulation of social media platforms whose algorithms are explicitly designed to maximise engagement at the expense of wellbeing
- clearer, age-appropriate protections that do not place the burden on schools and families alone
- evidence-informed standards for educational technology procurement that prioritise learning function over novelty
- data protection and transparency requirements that treat pupils as learners, not products
A more useful framing
The Senate testimony usefully reminds us that technology adoption should never be uncritical. But the better question is not “Are screens harming cognition?” It is:
Which technologies, used in which ways, under which conditions, support thinking, and which undermine it?
Answering that question requires nuance, evidence, and a willingness to look beyond the classroom. If you have watched this clip and been persuaded by its simplicity, that may say more about how effective the algorithm that brought it to you is than how well it explains what is happening.
What follows for school leaders
For school leaders, the priorities remain grounded and familiar:
- protect time for deep reading, writing, and thinking
- be explicit about pedagogy before choosing tools
- teach pupils how to learn, not just what to learn
- distinguish clearly between learning technologies and social media platforms
- advocate collectively for regulation that schools cannot deliver alone
Blaming devices feels decisive. But if we are serious about cognition, we need to stop mistaking the tool in the classroom for the forces that shape habits of mind outside of it.
”Thoughtlessness — the heedless recklessness or hopeless confusion or complacent repetition of ‘truths’ — seems to me among the outstanding characteristics of our time.
— Hannah Arendt
