Something striking landed before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in January. Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, drawing from decades of international assessment data, delivered a finding that has since rippled across education policy circles: Gen Z is the first generation in modern history to score lower on standardized tests than the one before it.

This wasn’t a small dip. Horvath’s testimony described declining performance across attention, memory, literacy, numeracy, executive function, and general IQ — a pattern he tied directly to how digital devices have been deployed in schools.

The investment behind that trajectory is substantial. By 2024, the United States had spent more than $30 billion distributing laptops and tablets to students — roughly ten times the annual spend on textbooks. And yet data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that states implementing one-to-one device programs often saw stagnant or declining scores.

A Vision Deferred

This outcome might have surprised — and disappointed — Seymour Papert. The MIT mathematician and pioneering learning theorist argued decades ago that personal computers in schools should be tools for student creation: writing code, exploring mathematical concepts through discovery, and developing logical reasoning through direct experimentation. Papert’s vision was constructionist — the computer as an instrument of thinking, not a delivery mechanism for content.

What followed looked different. Before widespread internet access, educational software often defaulted to repetitive “drill and kill” exercises that replicated the logic of a worksheet on a screen. And we can’t forget the “edutainment” style games like Oregon Trail. When broadband arrived in schools, devices largely became information terminals — browsers, not builders. The technology changed; the pedagogy, in many classrooms, did not.

The result is what Horvath describes: a generation of students whose schools adopted technology broadly but without, in many cases, application of a coherent constructionist theory of how learning would be supported with specific applications of this instructional treatment.

Policy Is Moving Fast

Outside of school-provided tech, policymakers have responded to concerns about the tech students carry in their pockets. In the United States, 39 states now have statewide bans or regulations requiring districts to adopt policies restricting personal device use in classrooms.

The movement is global: 114 education systems now have a national ban on mobile phones in schools, representing 58% of countries worldwide — up from just 24% in 2023. New York enacted a bell-to-bell ban as part of its FY2026 state budget. Massachusetts legislation is currently pending. More states are expected to follow in 2026.

Our own 2025 PDK Poll revealed attitudes held by the American public about cellphones. 46% prefer phones be allowed only during lunch and breaks, while 40% support a full-day ban. Only 11% favor unrestricted use—highlighting strong public support for setting boundaries on technology in the classroom.

The Original Vision Is Still Alive

The policy response, though warranted, risks conflating distraction with design failure. Signs of Papert’s original vision persist — and they tend to appear wherever instructional intention is highest.

The maker movement, school robotics programs, and classrooms grounded in project- and challenge-based learning represent continuations of the constructionist model: students using technology to produce, not merely consume.

Frameworks like TPACK — Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge — offer a structure for this kind of integration. Developed by Mishra and Koehler, TPACK describes the intersection where effective technology use actually lives: in a teacher’s fluency across what they know about content, how students learn, and what technology makes uniquely possible. When all three are present, the device becomes a design resource. When they aren’t, it becomes a distraction.

The SAMR model, developed by Ruben Puentedura after observing one of the nation’s early laptop rollouts in Maine, extends this further. Most classroom technology operates at the Substitution level — doing the same task on a different medium. The “R,” Redefinition, is where technology enables tasks that simply couldn’t exist without it: real-time community data collection, cross-cultural collaborative design, student-produced public-facing work.

As UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report observes, schools remain among the few places where young people can develop digital literacy and critical thinking skills — which means the goal isn’t less technology. It’s better-designed instruction around it.

————————

Educators Rising Rapid Responders

A note from our students: This week, we asked Educators Rising members a direct question — do they feel they spend too much time on screens for schoolwork? Their responses add something the research alone can’t provide: the view from inside the experience.

In our survey, all the students we polled attend schools where a 1:1 device is provided.

• We asked students if their parents have expressed concern about cellphone use.
• 42% agreed that their parents have expressed concern, 33% reported no concern, and 25% reported mixed feedback.

• We asked the same question regarding laptops or tablets for schoolwork.
• 25% reported mild concern, 25% reported no concern, and 33% reported very mild concern.

• We asked students if they personally have concerns about their school-related screen time.
• 58% expressed concern, while 33% expressed little or no concern.

• We asked whether technology supports their learning in a positive way.
• 33% agree that technology is helpful. 25% are neutral, and 42% believe it is not supporting their learning positively. No one felt strongly that technology was not supporting their learning.

We asked a bonus question: “If you could change one thing about how technology is used in your school, what would it be?”

Here are some paraphrased responses:

• “Chromebooks are bad—you can’t do anything with them that you’ll need for your future.”
• “With writing, I learn best without a computer. Copy and paste dulls my thinking.”
• “Access to AI cuts our creativity and originality.”
• “Students need life skills beyond being on a screen all day.”
• “I’d advocate for a 50/50 split between digital and physical assignments.”
• “Overuse of technology hurts relationships with teachers.”
• “Legitimate sources are blocked—we need fuller internet access.”
• “Bring back cellphones, we need them when the filters are keeping us out of what we need!”
• “I’d rather use my own device at school, the ones given to us are unreliable most of the time.”

————————

The research suggests that indiscriminate digital expansion has not served all students well. Papert’s original question — what can a student do with this tool? — remains the right one. When it comes to screentime specifically? The research we’ve collected below points to documented negative effects, especially so with applications such as television watching and video games, while purposeful academic use shows neutral or positive associations in several studies. Furthermore, the research on the implementation of early one-to-one programs showcases that the need for pedagogical support and professional development for instructors has always been cited as a necessary component to supporting improvement around academic outcomes alongside a new technological treatment in schools and classrooms.

While policymakers are beginning to shape how technology is used in classrooms, school leaders can move faster by applying well-developed instructional models and by listening directly to teachers and students.

Given the scale of investment, one-to-one devices are not going away. Today’s Educators Rising students — as future teachers and leaders — will be the ones responsible for finding the balance between using technology to support learning and using it to redefine what learning can be.

Further Reading

On the research behind screens and student performance

• Gen Z Is the First Generation Less Cognitively Capable Than Their Parents — Fortune, February 2026
• Opinion: A Reckoning for Devices in Schools Is Overdue — Government Technology, April 2026

On the policy landscape

• Phone Bans in Schools Are Spreading Worldwide — UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report, March 2026
• Top 2025 Policy Trend: 28 States Commit to Phone-Free Classrooms — ExcelinEd in Action, January 2026
• Survey: Parents and Teens Support School Cellphone Bans — Brookings Institution, January 2026

On the history of educational technology

• Seymour Papert, Pioneer of Constructionist Learning, Dies at 88 — MIT News, 2016
• The Maker Movement in K-12 Education: A Guide to Emerging Research — Education Week

On frameworks for technology integration

• What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? — Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, Mishra & Koehler
• SAMR: A Powerful Model for Understanding Good Tech Integration — Edutopia

Research-Based Background and Insight

• Abell Foundation, The. (2008). One-to-one computing in public schools: Lessons from “laptops for all” programs.
• Adelantado-Renau, M., Moliner-Urdiales, D., Cavero-Redondo, I., Beltran-Valls, M. R., Martínez-Vizcaíno, V., & Álvarez-Bueno, C. (2019). Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA pediatrics, 173(11), 1058–1067.
• Bebell, D. & O’Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1).
• Burns, M. (2002). From compliance to commitment: Technology as a catalyst for communities of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(4), 295-302.
• Chandrasekhar, V. S. (2009). Promoting 21st century learning: A case study of the changing role of teachers in one-to-one laptop classrooms. University of California, Irvine and California State Polytechnic University, Pomona). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
• Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Dunleavy, M. M., Dexter, S. S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 440-452. 
• Harel, I. & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
• Nagata, J. M., Al-Shoaibi, A. A. A., Leong, A. W., Zamora, G., Testa, A., Ganson, K. T., & Baker, F. C. (2024). Screen time and mental health: A prospective analysis of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 2686.
• Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 38(3), 329-348.
• Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. 
• Silvernail, D. L., Pinkham, C. A., Wintle, S. E., Walker, L.C., & Bartlett, C. L. (2011). A middle school one-to-one laptop program: The Maine experience. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine.
• Stiglic, N., & Viner, R. M. (2019). Effects of screentime on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: A systematic review of reviews. BMJ Open, 9, e023191.
• Tagsold, J. T. (2012). Student distraction in a 1:1 learning environment (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3521045)
• Tang, S., Werner-Seidler, A., Torok, M., Mackinnon, A. J., & Christensen, H. (2021). The relationship between screen time and mental health in young people: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 86, 102021.
• Wild, M. (1996). Technology refusal: Rationalizing the failure of student and beginning teachers to use computers. British Journal of EducationTechnology, 27(2), 134-143.
• Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations: Executive summary. Teachers College Record, 104(3) 482-515.

————————

This blog post was written by Dr. John Hendron, PDK International’s principal story architect (email John). In 2014, John received the Carnegie Project on the Educational Doctorate’s best dissertation award for his team’s research on the best practices of implementing a one-to-one program in school districts.