Generation Guinea Pig

How schools became laboratories for Big Tech's classroom experiment.

Originally published in the Moultrie News.

Los Angeles’ school board voted to restrict student screen time in classrooms and allow parents to opt out of digital tools. Should all districts do this?

This is a movement that’s gaining traction. At least 10 states have introduced bills similar to L.A.’s.

The problems started over a decade ago, when tech companies like Apple began hard-selling districts on the concept of 1:1 digital devices: one tablet or Chromebook for every student.

Lured by the promise of higher achievement, schools went all in, investing billions in money, time, and resources.

And the numbers rose. The numbers, of course, being the dollars taken in by tech companies. Classrooms are now one of the most strategically important markets in technology. Currently, education accounts for 60% of Chromebook use, helping drive a $14 billion global market.

The growth of 1:1 was a key reason I labeled students of the 2010s “Generation Guinea Pig.” High-risk ideas were tested en masse with little research and zero consideration for the long-term repercussions if things went badly.

Unfortunately, things went badly.

Screen proliferation’s toll on student mental health is well-reported, and 1:1 is a contributor. Less explored is the failure of digital tools to provide the academic gains 1:1 promised.

To wit: Classroom computer use significantly correlates with poorer student outcomes in math and science, according to TIMSS. A study published in the Economics of Education Review found that 1:1 did not improve math and language results. Maine, the first to take 1:1 statewide, showed no improvement in scores after 15 years of the policy. “If the goal is learning,” says Jared Cooney Horvath, a Harvard-trained neuroscientist and author of The Digital Delusion, “analog learning is better than digital learning in almost every situation.”

One big problem is that digital learning apps are often unreliable, ineffective, or misguided. I’ve witnessed a popular grammar-instruction app repeatedly teach students incorrect information. But since such apps are student-directed, teachers would never know. Many apps for younger students are simply dopamine-driven shlock.

Speaking of dopamine drivers, Chromebooks are loaded with them. Students are constantly watching videos or playing games of the non-educational variety. The distractions make classroom concentration a continual battle, supporting UNESCO’s stance that unregulated classroom technology actively interferes with student learning.

1:1 has made many teachers Chromebook-dependent. The devices have become their go-to for even the most basic lessons. When a lesson like “using semicolons” pops up in their standards, they assign a digital app to teach it, even though any good teacher could teach students everything they need in about fifteen minutes.

Districts are fine with that because they’ve swallowed the 1:1 legend that digital apps meet students where they are and carry them where they need to go, thus giving districts what they most desire: individualized instruction.

Sounds good. Doesn’t work. A glance at score trajectories will verify.

One thing 1:1 excels at is sedation. As districts pull away from high behavioral expectations, teachers reach for anything that can get them through a class without chaos, and Chromebooks qualify. When students are staring blankly at screens, calmness pervades. One colleague in a meeting about removing cellphones from her high school was shocked to hear teachers push back because phones “kept kids quiet.” Chromebooks do, too.

Unfortunately, 1:1 hasn’t merely failed to add anything of value; it has stolen treasured assets. Students are losing the ability to discuss complex ideas. They’re becoming incapable of engaging with quality analog instruction. They cannot read long or complex texts. Teacher-student relationships are suffering.

If education doesn’t stem the tide, parents should absolutely have the power to opt their kids out of the digital app invasion, and districts should follow their example.

And some, to their benefit, have. But darker days are ahead. Having drained districts dry with digital devices, Google and its competitors have come creeping back, maws open, with a new get-smart-quick scheme: Artificial Intelligence. Prepare for a spending spree on AI apps “guaranteed” to boost achievement.

Anyone who falls for it again will have earned their bust in the Generation Guinea Pig Hall of Shame.

---

Jody Stallings has been an award-winning teacher in Charleston since 1992 and is director of the Charleston Teacher Alliance. To submit a question, order his books, or follow him on social media, please visit JodyStallings.com.