Correlation isn’t causation, as Jared Cooney Horvath, a neuroscientist and author of The Digital Delusion, tells us, when it comes to education technology. Yet despite that caveat, he’s pretty sure that technology writ large is causing us as a society to get dumber. And state legislators are lining up behind his work to ban technology in schools with the blunt axe of one-size-fits-all policy.
Even though Horvath seems occasionally to forget that correlation and causation aren’t the same, as he makes his own points and irresponsibly lumps in averages across a wide range of studies looking at vastly different programs, I still readily agree with him on a few things.
Is there too much edtech in traditional schools? Absolutely.
Is there too little coherence in traditional schools? In general, yes—and edtech largely hasn’t helped.
Is layering edtech into the traditional education system ever going to produce great outcomes? No, absolutely not, as I’ve argued since 2008.
Are there, however, some really good edtech products that don’t fall into the narrow categories that Horvath endorses, that have strong research behind them, and that, if used in discrete ways within a coherent blended-learning model, can get great results? Absolutely. Look at the research behind programs like Amira Learning, just to take one example.
What’s interesting to me is that some of the edtech products out there actually require students to do many of the things that Horvath says students should do—for example, taking notes on paper by hand.
Zearn, a K–8 math program, is one such example. I’ll never forget the first time I saw Zearn in a classroom and asked why students had journals next to them in which they were taking notes. The answer was clear—this act of taking notes and working physically with pencil and paper is really important to learning.
Lexia Learning pairs its literacy software with extensive professional development programs for teachers around the so-called science of reading.
The takeaway? Digital and analog not only don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but they often shouldn’t be. It’s the blend that matters.
Doubt that edtech can be used thoughtfully and productively in the real world? Just look at the portfolio of grantees that the Silicon Schools Fund has supported over the years. Although not an RCT, compare the results that those schools have achieved historically with their district counterparts, with a similar student makeup. Or look at the RCT results from Imagine Worldwide, about which I wrote recently.
Ultimately, as I’ve said again and again, more important than the edtech is the model of learning. Does it prioritize mastery, rigor, and deliberate practice? Or is it an exercise in compliance and incoherence?
The last thing we need right now in education is more pendulum swings, fads, and a lack of nuance in a world bereft of nuance. Yet here we go again.
Does edtech have a place in schools? You bet.
Is it way too much right now? You also bet.
So let’s focus on the outcomes. Implement outcomes-based contracts, something I’ve been calling for since I learned about how the Florida Virtual School only was paid when students successfully completed a course. There’s now a template to make this reality for schools, thanks to the Center for Outcomes Based Contracting.
Let’s give parents the means to find the right options for their families.
And let’s build capacity among educators so they can make the right call for the students they serve.
All of that is much more likely to pay off than a blunt policy hoping for yet another silver bullet.
Here are a few other good reads that paint a more nuanced picture around this debate:
- Richard Culatta in The74
- Ben Wallerstein for Whiteboard Advisors
- Thomas Rodgers for Whiteboard Advisors
- Matt Barnum in Chalkbeat
- Caitrin Wright on LinkedIn
- Lina Eroh & Anu Malipatil in The74
- Andrew Marcinek on Substack
