“No” Tech or “Know” Tech In The Classroom! - Are We Throwing The Baby Out With The Bathwater?
- The White Hatter
- 27 minutes ago
- 10 min read
CAVEAT - Recently, we delivered a professional development program for educators here in Canada. During that session, one participant asked about the Los Angeles Unified School District’s decision to revise how technology is being used in its classrooms. It was a timely and important question, especially given the growing debate around EdTech, screen time, student distraction, and classroom learning. That question became the spark for this article.
Recently, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the largest school district in the United States of about 400,000 - 450,000 students with over 1000 schools and educational centres, announced that they will be setting screen limits in classrooms (1)(2). Contrary to what some are reporting in social media, they are not getting rid of laptops, Chromebooks, iPads, or computers, instead they are setting use limits on these devices by grade level.
The LAUSD resolution isn’t about removing technology from the classroom altogether, it’s a shift toward placing clearer boundaries around how and when it’s used. Devices like computers, Chromebooks, and tablets are still part of the learning environment, but their role is being more intentionally defined.
The focus is on reducing overuse, particularly when it comes to passive consumption or activities that don’t meaningfully support learning. Rather than defaulting to screens for large portions of the day, there is a growing effort to ensure that technology is used with purpose.
At the same time, there’s a renewed emphasis on balance. Schools are looking to reintroduce more paper based work and hands on learning experiences, recognizing that not everything needs to happen through a screen to be effective. The goal isn’t to replace one approach with another, although some do wish it was, but to create a more thoughtful and intentional blend of both, something that we here at the White Hatter have been advocating for years.
Since the release of Dr. Jared’s Cooney Horvath’s book, “The Digital Delusion”(3), there has been a more focused conversation happening in education right now that feels familiar. It’s the kind of pendulum swing we’ve seen before, where a real concern leads to a reaction that risks going too far in the opposite direction. In fact, just this week we provided professional development training to educators in Canada, where the LAUSD announcement was a topic of discussion.
Some are now positioning Dr. Horvath’s book as the definitive authority for why all educational technology should be removed from classrooms. However, since its publication, a growing number of researchers, statisticians, and education experts have begun closely examining and fact checking several of the book’s claims and underlying thesis. These experts are raising important questions about how certain research findings were interpreted, whether some conclusions overreach the available evidence, and whether the broader argument against classroom technology is as clear cut as it is sometimes being presented.
Elizabeth Tipton, a Northwestern University statistician who specializes in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis, does not appear to reject all concerns about educational technology. In fact, Chalkbeat reports that she describes herself as skeptical of ed-tech. However, she disagrees with a key methodological choice in Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath’s argument in The Digital Delusion. Specifically, Tipton argues that Horvath’s benchmark for comparing educational technology to ordinary classroom instruction is “wildly unrealistic,” and she raises concerns that his broad review may suffer from a “garbage in, garbage out” problem because it relies on multiple layers of research summaries, some of which may include low-quality or outdated studies (4). In other words, her critique is not that ed-tech is automatically beneficial, but that Horvath’s evidence does not appear strong enough to support the sweeping claim that educational technology is broadly harming learning. A 2025 OECD review also supports Tipton’s methodological concern (5). It notes that effect sizes in education are highly context-dependent and should not be interpreted in isolation. A “small” effect may still matter depending on the group of students, the instructional context, and the learning goal. That directly challenges arguments that dismiss ed-tech benefits simply because effect sizes are modest.
We need to be honest about what today’s students are walking into. Post secondary education and most career pathways are deeply connected to digital tools. Collaboration happens online, research is conducted in digital spaces. Communication, creation, and problem solving are increasingly tied to technology. If we remove those tools from classrooms, we are not protecting students, we are limiting their readiness.
At the same time, simply placing devices in the hands of students without a clear purpose does not move learning forward either. It is clear, out of necessity, that the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a shift that had already been building, moving many schools toward a 1:1 student to device model. Practically speaking, that meant a Chromebook or similar device in every backpack without any kind of well researched pedagogy to do so. In some classrooms today, those devices are no longer just a support tool, they’ve become the primary interface for learning out of convenience. Students are using these devices to access lessons, complete assignments, read course materials, take quizzes and tests, and communicate with their teachers. However, we also need to be honest that these same devices can become a source of distraction (6) . A student who is supposed to be engaged in a lesson may instead be watching a YouTube makeup tutorial, scrolling social media, gaming, or catching highlights from an NBA game. This is why the issue is not simply whether devices are present in the classroom, but whether their use is being guided, supervised, and connected to a clear learning purpose.
That level of integration brings both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, it opens the door to access, collaboration, and personalized learning. On the other, it raises important questions about balance, instructional design, and whether technology is enhancing learning or simply replacing traditional methods without added value. As we like to say here at the White Hatter, “Access without intention is not innovation, it’s noise, and that noise can have a negative effect on the learning environment, and this is where the conversation needs to shift.”
Over the past two decades of working directly with students and educators, we have seen what happens when technology is used with purpose. We have seen classrooms where students connect with subject matter experts from around the world in real time. A science class is no longer confined to a textbook when a volcanologist can speak directly to students about an active eruption, or when climate scientists can explain real world data as it unfolds.
We have also seen students, including those in general education classrooms, discover strengths they didn’t know they had. Coding, robotics, and digital design have opened doors for many young people, particularly in STEM areas (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). Some of these students were not traditionally engaged in learning, yet with the right tools and guidance from a teacher, they began to thrive. They moved from consumers of information to creators of it. Often, these opportunities don’t happen without access to technology in schools, especially for students who many not have access to technology at home because of socio-economic reasons.
So when technology becomes the problem, it’s worth asking a different question. Is the issue the tool, or how the tool is being used, or maybe even a combination of the two?
If a device is primarily a source of distraction, that points to a need for stronger instructional design, clearer expectations, and better support for educators. If safety and privacy are concerns, that points to a need for digital literacy, policy, and platform accountability. If students are off task, that points to engagement, structure, and teaching strategies. Technology did not create these challenges. In many cases, it has simply exposed gaps that already existed. This is why the focus needs to be on tech pedagogy in the classroom, not prohibition.
When educators are given the training, time, and support to understand when and how to use technology effectively, the conversation changes. Devices become tools for collaboration rather than isolation. They become platforms for creation rather than passive consumption. They support differentiated learning, allowing students to move at their own pace and explore areas of interest more deeply. However, in speaking with hundreds of educators, such meaningful professional development training is lacking in many schools and school districts, even when a school has a 1:1 Edtech program.
For parents and caregivers, this is an important principle to bring into the discussion. It’s easy to support calls for removal when we hear about distraction or misuse. However, it is important to ask how technology is actually being integrated into the classroom. What training and support have teachers received, or not received, on the effective pedagogical use of technology? What safeguards and boundaries are in place to help reduce distraction and misuse? Equally important, how are students being taught to use these tools responsibly, critically, and with purpose? The goal should not be to raise children who are completely sheltered from technology until graduation day. The goal should be to help raise young people who understand how to use technology thoughtfully, responsibly, and effectively in both their academic and everyday lives.
That means understanding not just the benefits, but also the boundaries. It means learning how to manage distraction, protect privacy, and engage respectfully in digital spaces. These are skills, and like any skill, they require practice in real environments.
Education has always evolved. the challenge today is not whether technology belongs in the classroom, the real question is whether we are going to teach students how to navigate it with competence and confidence (13), or remove the opportunity and hope they figure it out later. History has shown us that overcorrection in education and schools rarely serves students well (14). What does serve them is balance, thoughtful integration, clear expectations, and ongoing support for both educators and students.
Andrew Marcinek, an American educational technology leader, author, and speaker in the K-12 space, recently wrote an article titled “The Viral Video That’s Getting EdTech Wrong Again” (15). In that article, he argues for a more thoughtful approach to educational technology, one that we believe aligns with what good research and good teaching already support. His framework includes four important pillars.
#1 - “Purpose Before Platform.” Before bringing technology into a classroom, educators should be able to answer a simple question. “What specific learning goal is this tool serving?” If the same goal can be achieved more effectively without technology, then the screen may not be needed.
#2 - “Active Over Passive Use.” Students should not simply be consuming content while the technology does the work for them. They should be creating, questioning, building, researching, collaborating, solving problems, or demonstrating understanding. There is a major difference between a student passively watching videos for 40 minutes and a student using technology to create a presentation, code a project, analyze data, or connect with a subject matter expert.
#3 - “Teacher First, Technology Second.” No educational tool will be effective if the adults using it have not been properly trained. Teachers need sustained, meaningful support, not a one-day workshop and a login password. If schools want technology to improve learning, they must invest in the people responsible for guiding its use.
#4 - “Communicating The Why To Families.” Parents and caregivers deserve to know why a tool is being used, what learning goal it supports, what data it collects, how privacy is protected, and how families can ask questions or raise concerns. Transparency builds trust. Silence creates suspicion.
For parents and caregivers, these are important key points to bring into the discussion. It can be easy to support calls for removal when we hear about distraction, misuse, or excessive screen use. However, it is worth asking more specific questions such as.
How is technology being integrated?
What learning goal does it support?
What kind of pedagogy training has the teacher received on the use of technology in the classroom?
What safeguards are in place?
What privacy protections exist?
How are students being taught to use these tools responsibly?
Is the technology being used for active learning, or passive consumption?
Is it supporting learning, or simply replacing paper without adding value?
These are fair questions, and schools should be able to answer them.
History has shown us that overcorrection in education rarely serves students well. What does serve them is balance, thoughtful integration, clear expectations, strong pedagogy, transparency with families, and ongoing support for both educators and students. This is the conversation we believe parents, caregivers, educators, and policy makers should be having rather than “all technology is good”, or, “all technology is bad.”
We agree, there are times when paper is better and there are times when handwriting is better. There are times when direct instruction, discussion, outdoor learning, hands-on projects, physical books, and face-to-face collaboration should take priority.
However, there are also times when technology can open doors that paper alone cannot. It can connect students with experts around the world, it can support students with disabilities, it can allow for coding, robotics, digital design, video production, language learning, simulation, research, collaboration, and creative expression, and it can help students build skills they will need in post-secondary education, the workplace, and life. The key is not more technology, it’s better technology use.
At The White Hatter, our position has always been “Know Tech, Not No Tech.” We do not believe in blindly adopting technology just because it is new. We also do not believe in rejecting technology simply because it makes us uncomfortable. The goal should be thoughtful integration, guided by research, supported by good pedagogical teacher training, communicated clearly to families, and grounded in the needs of students.
Access alone is not the same as readiness when it comes to technology in the classroom. Technology in schools can harm learning when it is passive, excessive, distracting, poorly implemented, or used as a substitute for teaching. However, when used intentionally, with teacher guidance, clear learning goals, and proper training, we have seen first hand how it can support positive learning outcomes.
The path forward should not be framed as “more tech” or “no tech”, it should be about the better pedagogical use of technology in the classroom. Access alone does not create readiness, and putting a device in a student’s hands does not automatically improve learning. Technology can harm learning when it is passive, excessive, distracting, poorly implemented, or used as a substitute for good teaching. However, when it is used intentionally, guided by a teacher, connected to clear learning goals, and supported by proper training, we have seen first-hand how it can support positive learning outcomes, and that is the balanced approach our students deserve!
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
