What do you think?
The Digital Delusion: A 'terrifying and essential' (Hugh Grant) guide to how classroom technology is harming children's learning
402 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 20, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
September 25, 2026
A must-read for education leaders and highly compelling for parents with school-age students. This is not an anti-tech book—it focuses on student learning and best practice, which is technology use with intention and not as the default.
As the author states: “The purpose of a general K-12 education in a technological age: to remain in control of the tools that would otherwise control us.”
As the author states: “The purpose of a general K-12 education in a technological age: to remain in control of the tools that would otherwise control us.”
Review of advance copy received from Goodreads Giveaways
It's been a minute since I've been a K-12 student in a public school classroom. And after reading The Digital Delusion I'm grateful for my B.C. education experience--B.C. = "Before Chromebook."
I graduated around the birth of Google, AOL Instant Messenger, and Game Boy Color. When connecting to the internet was a noisy event that included swooshes, crackles, and beeps.
The use of technology had focused and limited purposes. I recall using a computer to format an article or two for the yearbook. I took a word processing class that focused on...using a word processor to type stuff. If I got done quick, the teacher let us play Oregon Trail. A journalism class gave me and a friend the chance to record a movie review show--"Popcorn Picks." And they even reimbursed our movie tickets!
But core instruction was low-tech. Teachers and basic tools. Blackboards, dry erase boards, something called an overhead projector where a dry erase marker was used to write on a clear piece of plastic placed on a glowing screen (sounds kind of magical to me now).
Us students were left with textbooks, notebooks, binders, pens, pencils. Group project? Solo presentation? We swung down to the local drugstore and grabbed a neon colored poster board. I still have journals from my English classes. They're filled with ramblings and sketches that crack me up.
In the years following my school experience, things have changed. EdTech--the author's term for student-facing, internet-connected devices--is the foundation that course content is built upon. More than half of children use a computer up to four hours per day and 25% spend more than four hours on screens across a single school day (see Prologue, xviii).
Schools market their innovative use of digital learning, students bring their iPhones to class, 1-to-1 youth-to-Chromebook ratios are the norm, parents navigate online portals to see how their child is doing, and there's no shortage of apps for content, quizzes, and anything else that can be dreamed up from an industry that is $400 billion and growing.
And throw AI into the mix for fun!
Has all this change left today's students better off than yours truly? Are they mastering literature, math, and science at an accelerated rate? Digital natives who can code their way to any solution?
Jared Cooney Horvath's title gives us the spoiler. It is, he argues (quite compellingly) a delusion. His central argument is that the rise in EdTech has produced no meaningful increases in student achievement. It has, in fact, harmed learning (page 47).
Horvath does an excellent job laying out evidence against digital tools. In addition to citing large reviews of research literature, he delves into details that put things into proper perspective. For instance, 95% of all educational interventions result in a positive effect size (page 32). However, researchers agree that meaningful gains start around +0.40. How does EdTech measure up to this standard? A review of nearly 400 meta-analyses covering more than 21,000 studies found an effect size of +0.29.
He explains this: "So, yes, students can learn with EdTech: the effect sizes aren't negative. But this learning is almost always slower, shallower, and less durable than what's achieved through human-centered methods" (page 34).
Smartphones--which the author calls a "special kind of bad"--and AI get their own chapters. Regarding cell phone bans, the author has found that "once the smartphones are gone, students are more focused, teachers are more engaged, and everyone is more connected" (page 106). A case is made that "AI undermines the very function of school" (page 142). Schools should help students "organize knowledge in ways that allow culture to grow...to transmit facts, but also to curate meaning."
Beyond exposing myths and misconceptions behind digital learning, Horvath provides students, teachers, and school leaders with a roadmap for fighting back. Action Toolkits offer sample language for things like parent coalitions, learning first charters, tech audits, lesson alternatives for teaching without tech (e.g., replace gamified quiz apps with paper flashcards), and tech free surveys where students can reflect on how learning felt without all the bells and whistles.
The author provides one lengthy appendix further exploring data against EdTech. And another appendix on "The Job of Education." He explores the larger story behind education. What type of citizen are schools striving to produce? The answer is a bit unnerving, but did ring true to me. (To find out, you'll have to get your own copy of this book!)
While Horvath's position on EdTech is crystal clear, I appreciated his measured and practical approach to creating change. It's evident that he has worked alongside school leaders in the Real World.
He's not calling for the immediate disposal of every Chromebook in America. But he is asking everyone involved in education (and that's most of us in some way) to hit the pause button. He calls on school leaders to do just this: to pause adding any new digital tools for an entire year. This time would allow for auditing what's in use. Truly assessing it's value or lack thereof.
He offers teachers advice like "Never use tech simply because it's there. Digital tools should be reserved only for those things that are impossible...to do offline...digital tools must meet your standards, not the other way around" (page 187).
I enjoyed this eye-opening book. The arguments, data, and anecdotes were solid. The gray-box "At a Glance" summary sections found throughout were helpful. It offered high-level commentary in combination with deeply vetted sources (a rabbit hole, if you will).
One critique: the flow of things felt a bit choppy at times. Appendix B had the feel of the beginning of an entirely new book on the "why" behind schools.
Apart from that, I'm giving a strong 3-stars to this one.
*Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this book through a Goodreads giveaway.*
I graduated around the birth of Google, AOL Instant Messenger, and Game Boy Color. When connecting to the internet was a noisy event that included swooshes, crackles, and beeps.
The use of technology had focused and limited purposes. I recall using a computer to format an article or two for the yearbook. I took a word processing class that focused on...using a word processor to type stuff. If I got done quick, the teacher let us play Oregon Trail. A journalism class gave me and a friend the chance to record a movie review show--"Popcorn Picks." And they even reimbursed our movie tickets!
But core instruction was low-tech. Teachers and basic tools. Blackboards, dry erase boards, something called an overhead projector where a dry erase marker was used to write on a clear piece of plastic placed on a glowing screen (sounds kind of magical to me now).
Us students were left with textbooks, notebooks, binders, pens, pencils. Group project? Solo presentation? We swung down to the local drugstore and grabbed a neon colored poster board. I still have journals from my English classes. They're filled with ramblings and sketches that crack me up.
In the years following my school experience, things have changed. EdTech--the author's term for student-facing, internet-connected devices--is the foundation that course content is built upon. More than half of children use a computer up to four hours per day and 25% spend more than four hours on screens across a single school day (see Prologue, xviii).
Schools market their innovative use of digital learning, students bring their iPhones to class, 1-to-1 youth-to-Chromebook ratios are the norm, parents navigate online portals to see how their child is doing, and there's no shortage of apps for content, quizzes, and anything else that can be dreamed up from an industry that is $400 billion and growing.
And throw AI into the mix for fun!
Has all this change left today's students better off than yours truly? Are they mastering literature, math, and science at an accelerated rate? Digital natives who can code their way to any solution?
Jared Cooney Horvath's title gives us the spoiler. It is, he argues (quite compellingly) a delusion. His central argument is that the rise in EdTech has produced no meaningful increases in student achievement. It has, in fact, harmed learning (page 47).
Horvath does an excellent job laying out evidence against digital tools. In addition to citing large reviews of research literature, he delves into details that put things into proper perspective. For instance, 95% of all educational interventions result in a positive effect size (page 32). However, researchers agree that meaningful gains start around +0.40. How does EdTech measure up to this standard? A review of nearly 400 meta-analyses covering more than 21,000 studies found an effect size of +0.29.
He explains this: "So, yes, students can learn with EdTech: the effect sizes aren't negative. But this learning is almost always slower, shallower, and less durable than what's achieved through human-centered methods" (page 34).
Smartphones--which the author calls a "special kind of bad"--and AI get their own chapters. Regarding cell phone bans, the author has found that "once the smartphones are gone, students are more focused, teachers are more engaged, and everyone is more connected" (page 106). A case is made that "AI undermines the very function of school" (page 142). Schools should help students "organize knowledge in ways that allow culture to grow...to transmit facts, but also to curate meaning."
Beyond exposing myths and misconceptions behind digital learning, Horvath provides students, teachers, and school leaders with a roadmap for fighting back. Action Toolkits offer sample language for things like parent coalitions, learning first charters, tech audits, lesson alternatives for teaching without tech (e.g., replace gamified quiz apps with paper flashcards), and tech free surveys where students can reflect on how learning felt without all the bells and whistles.
The author provides one lengthy appendix further exploring data against EdTech. And another appendix on "The Job of Education." He explores the larger story behind education. What type of citizen are schools striving to produce? The answer is a bit unnerving, but did ring true to me. (To find out, you'll have to get your own copy of this book!)
While Horvath's position on EdTech is crystal clear, I appreciated his measured and practical approach to creating change. It's evident that he has worked alongside school leaders in the Real World.
He's not calling for the immediate disposal of every Chromebook in America. But he is asking everyone involved in education (and that's most of us in some way) to hit the pause button. He calls on school leaders to do just this: to pause adding any new digital tools for an entire year. This time would allow for auditing what's in use. Truly assessing it's value or lack thereof.
He offers teachers advice like "Never use tech simply because it's there. Digital tools should be reserved only for those things that are impossible...to do offline...digital tools must meet your standards, not the other way around" (page 187).
I enjoyed this eye-opening book. The arguments, data, and anecdotes were solid. The gray-box "At a Glance" summary sections found throughout were helpful. It offered high-level commentary in combination with deeply vetted sources (a rabbit hole, if you will).
One critique: the flow of things felt a bit choppy at times. Appendix B had the feel of the beginning of an entirely new book on the "why" behind schools.
Apart from that, I'm giving a strong 3-stars to this one.
*Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this book through a Goodreads giveaway.*
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Disclaimer: I am a public school teacher and an adjunct instructor in a Teacher Education program. I use technology tools in my classroom. The views expressed here are mine and are not necessarily shared by my employers.
In “The Digital Delusion,” Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath explains his case that technology use harms children. His focus is on the harm caused by using tech tools at school. Horvath postulates that EdTech companies and their tools are undermining learning.
There are several points on which I agree with Horvath:
Cell phones are a distraction at school. Cellphone policies (no phones during class time) seem to improve student learning outcomes. Inconsistent enforcement of policies diminish the effectiveness of bans.
Studies that discuss the efficacy of tech tools are often conducted by the manufacturer of the tool. Educators should be cautious about accepting these results.
Students should not be on computers all day in a face-to-face setting. There is no research to support that this is the best way to learn.
There are also areas where I disagree with Horvath:
Horvath’s argument persistently points to “tech tools are bad” even though he says he’s not trying to say that. While I agree that tech tools are sometimes used without intention, I do believe that, when used with intention, tech tools have the power to transform student learning.
Horvath does not make clear the distinction between physical tech tools (iPads, Chromebooks, etc.) and software tools in student learning. It would have been helpful to discuss the concept of false engagement when using the physical and/or software tools when discussing gamification and harms to learning.
Horvath urges readers (parents, teachers, students, administrators) to get rid of tech tools or severely limit their use in schools. He provides a blueprint for each group to make that happen. This is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. If students enter the work world without knowing how to effectively perform basic computer-based tasks (e.g. send a professional email, format a document or slide presentation, use a spreadsheet, etc.) how are schools preparing students for college and career?
Horvath seems to misunderstand the depth to which technology is embedded in K-12 schools. Teachers cannot give up their computers. We use them for planning, data tracking, and required reporting. Schools and school systems sometimes choose to purchase online textbooks because the hard copy is significantly more expensive and heavier. Lockers aren’t available in many schools anymore, so where would students even store their books? If parents opt their students out of technology, those same parents will also need to opt their students out of state testing, AP testing, SAT at School testing and more. These tests aren’t available on paper in some states.
With all of this said, “The Digital Delusion” is an engaging and quick read meant for a general audience. Horvath offers suggestions for parents and students to minimize student tech use (the study tips for students are great). The suggestions for teachers, administrators, and school systems are sometimes less practical, but can provide those groups with issues to consider, particularly around cell phone policies and students spending too much time online.
I received an advance review copy for free from Netgalley and Convergent, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.
In “The Digital Delusion,” Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath explains his case that technology use harms children. His focus is on the harm caused by using tech tools at school. Horvath postulates that EdTech companies and their tools are undermining learning.
There are several points on which I agree with Horvath:
Cell phones are a distraction at school. Cellphone policies (no phones during class time) seem to improve student learning outcomes. Inconsistent enforcement of policies diminish the effectiveness of bans.
Studies that discuss the efficacy of tech tools are often conducted by the manufacturer of the tool. Educators should be cautious about accepting these results.
Students should not be on computers all day in a face-to-face setting. There is no research to support that this is the best way to learn.
There are also areas where I disagree with Horvath:
Horvath’s argument persistently points to “tech tools are bad” even though he says he’s not trying to say that. While I agree that tech tools are sometimes used without intention, I do believe that, when used with intention, tech tools have the power to transform student learning.
Horvath does not make clear the distinction between physical tech tools (iPads, Chromebooks, etc.) and software tools in student learning. It would have been helpful to discuss the concept of false engagement when using the physical and/or software tools when discussing gamification and harms to learning.
Horvath urges readers (parents, teachers, students, administrators) to get rid of tech tools or severely limit their use in schools. He provides a blueprint for each group to make that happen. This is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. If students enter the work world without knowing how to effectively perform basic computer-based tasks (e.g. send a professional email, format a document or slide presentation, use a spreadsheet, etc.) how are schools preparing students for college and career?
Horvath seems to misunderstand the depth to which technology is embedded in K-12 schools. Teachers cannot give up their computers. We use them for planning, data tracking, and required reporting. Schools and school systems sometimes choose to purchase online textbooks because the hard copy is significantly more expensive and heavier. Lockers aren’t available in many schools anymore, so where would students even store their books? If parents opt their students out of technology, those same parents will also need to opt their students out of state testing, AP testing, SAT at School testing and more. These tests aren’t available on paper in some states.
With all of this said, “The Digital Delusion” is an engaging and quick read meant for a general audience. Horvath offers suggestions for parents and students to minimize student tech use (the study tips for students are great). The suggestions for teachers, administrators, and school systems are sometimes less practical, but can provide those groups with issues to consider, particularly around cell phone policies and students spending too much time online.
I received an advance review copy for free from Netgalley and Convergent, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.
September 19, 2026
Not especially well argued, seems to assume agreement from the beginning and leave many logical loops unconnected, having said that the proposals all seemed fairly reasonable and considerably possible.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews