What do you think?
Rate this book
The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids' Learning--and How to Help Them Thrive Again; Updated Edition
Educator and neuroscientist Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath reveals why digital tools in school consistently undermine learning—and what parents, teachers, and schools can do to push back with purpose.
Our children are struggling.
Schools, once alive with human connection, are now dominated by screens and digital tools. The result is declining performance, fractured attention, and the slow erosion of rigorous thought. For the first time in recent history, children are falling behind previous generations on many key measures of cognitive development.
In The Digital Delusion, neuroscientist and educator Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath reveals how the widespread use of laptops, tablets, and classroom software is undermining how children learn and develop. Drawing on decades of research, he provides practical tools for families to reassess device use at home, equips educators with the means to restore attention-rich learning environments, and helps schools make smarter decisions about technology. He exposes and dismantles the central myths driving the EdTech movement and lays out a clear path for putting people—not programs—back at the center of education. This is not a call to reject technology.
It’s a call to reclaim real learning.
* This audiobook edition includes a downloadable PDF that contains charts and information from the book.
Our children are struggling.
Schools, once alive with human connection, are now dominated by screens and digital tools. The result is declining performance, fractured attention, and the slow erosion of rigorous thought. For the first time in recent history, children are falling behind previous generations on many key measures of cognitive development.
In The Digital Delusion, neuroscientist and educator Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath reveals how the widespread use of laptops, tablets, and classroom software is undermining how children learn and develop. Drawing on decades of research, he provides practical tools for families to reassess device use at home, equips educators with the means to restore attention-rich learning environments, and helps schools make smarter decisions about technology. He exposes and dismantles the central myths driving the EdTech movement and lays out a clear path for putting people—not programs—back at the center of education. This is not a call to reject technology.
It’s a call to reclaim real learning.
* This audiobook edition includes a downloadable PDF that contains charts and information from the book.
457 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 18, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 251 reviews
December 9, 2025
Bravo! If I had to distill my reaction to The Digital Delusion into a single line, it would be this: finally, an education book that actually says the quiet parts out loud—and backs them with coherent thought instead of tech-evangelist glitter.
This is, without hyperbole, one of the most incisive examinations of the modern classroom I’ve ever encountered. It’s as though the author took every half-formed instinct educators have whispered in faculty lounges—Kids aren’t actually learning better with more screens, the data dashboards are running us instead of the other way around, this isn’t innovation, it’s distraction with a marketing budget—and unfolded those instincts into a rigorous, elegantly argued narrative.
This is, without hyperbole, one of the most incisive examinations of the modern classroom I’ve ever encountered. It’s as though the author took every half-formed instinct educators have whispered in faculty lounges—Kids aren’t actually learning better with more screens, the data dashboards are running us instead of the other way around, this isn’t innovation, it’s distraction with a marketing budget—and unfolded those instincts into a rigorous, elegantly argued narrative.
December 12, 2025
In the MAKE IT MAKE SENSE Era, here's the book that does!
If you've ever asked questions about EdTech or your own attention, The Digital Delusion reads like a relief and a rallying cry. Essentially: If you can read it, you can change things for the better, starting right now.
The genius of this book is the genius of coherence and in some ways the genius of the obvious: Collectively, we got distracted by information overload. And when you're distracted you're vulnerable, you're overwhelmed, and it’s easy to lose track….
But Dr. Horvath (cognitive neuroscientist, educator, writer) cuts through the noise, throws FOMO in the back seat and drives home the huge breadth of what we know about how humans learn best, backed up by brain science and history; paired with critical insights and practical actions. It's an expertly structured exit from DeLuluville—and makes a compelling case that it's time to get out.... while we still can.
Educators, parents, technologists and policy makers have huge roles to play here (and the how-to is included). This is all information that students/kids deserve to know as well.
Dr. Horvath delivers light friction (reading!) for a great payoff: Renewed clarity and purpose with the ability to communicate how students/our kids learn best—and why. In sum: It’s a prescription for sanity and human flourishing that people across the political spectrum can get behind.
*Spoiler alert*: The Rx is not gamification. It's not a cheap app. And it's not AI. It's all relational and deeply human. And it will make people's whole lives—not just classrooms—better if we can get there.
[Note that this book is a tuning fork for awareness to marketing messages and false-promises. It may cause instances of sudden alertness and strokes of insight.]
Good to know: There are 3 practical "Toolkit" sections for Parents, Teachers, and Leaders that have checklists, frameworks, samples, alternatives, etc. The book is 267 pages (with an additional reference section totaling 333 pages), but it's a fast read.
JCH studies pedagogy and presentation: He nails the topic with expertise, wit and a distinctive voice. There's a lot here, it's all fascinating, and none of it is filler.
Save humanity and pass it on!
2 Writing Samples from Sidebars:
"What's at Stake - The purpose of education is to prepare kids for an ever-changing world--to build skills they can carry into new and unpredictable situations. Digital learning delivers the opposite. It flattens experience, making knowledge harder to recall and apply outside the device. Our children need real-world learning that transfers. If they're never taught to think beyond the screen, they'll forever remain trapped inside it." p. 52
"Prove It - When someone claims that EdTech has 'potential', don't argue with their beliefs--ask for their data. Potential is not a plan. If a tool truly works, there should be clear, independently verifiable results to prove it. If that data doesn't exist, then it's not a viable solution. It's merely a sales-pitch and it doesn't belong in our children's classrooms." p. 68
If you've ever asked questions about EdTech or your own attention, The Digital Delusion reads like a relief and a rallying cry. Essentially: If you can read it, you can change things for the better, starting right now.
The genius of this book is the genius of coherence and in some ways the genius of the obvious: Collectively, we got distracted by information overload. And when you're distracted you're vulnerable, you're overwhelmed, and it’s easy to lose track….
But Dr. Horvath (cognitive neuroscientist, educator, writer) cuts through the noise, throws FOMO in the back seat and drives home the huge breadth of what we know about how humans learn best, backed up by brain science and history; paired with critical insights and practical actions. It's an expertly structured exit from DeLuluville—and makes a compelling case that it's time to get out.... while we still can.
Educators, parents, technologists and policy makers have huge roles to play here (and the how-to is included). This is all information that students/kids deserve to know as well.
Dr. Horvath delivers light friction (reading!) for a great payoff: Renewed clarity and purpose with the ability to communicate how students/our kids learn best—and why. In sum: It’s a prescription for sanity and human flourishing that people across the political spectrum can get behind.
*Spoiler alert*: The Rx is not gamification. It's not a cheap app. And it's not AI. It's all relational and deeply human. And it will make people's whole lives—not just classrooms—better if we can get there.
[Note that this book is a tuning fork for awareness to marketing messages and false-promises. It may cause instances of sudden alertness and strokes of insight.]
Good to know: There are 3 practical "Toolkit" sections for Parents, Teachers, and Leaders that have checklists, frameworks, samples, alternatives, etc. The book is 267 pages (with an additional reference section totaling 333 pages), but it's a fast read.
JCH studies pedagogy and presentation: He nails the topic with expertise, wit and a distinctive voice. There's a lot here, it's all fascinating, and none of it is filler.
Save humanity and pass it on!
2 Writing Samples from Sidebars:
"What's at Stake - The purpose of education is to prepare kids for an ever-changing world--to build skills they can carry into new and unpredictable situations. Digital learning delivers the opposite. It flattens experience, making knowledge harder to recall and apply outside the device. Our children need real-world learning that transfers. If they're never taught to think beyond the screen, they'll forever remain trapped inside it." p. 52
"Prove It - When someone claims that EdTech has 'potential', don't argue with their beliefs--ask for their data. Potential is not a plan. If a tool truly works, there should be clear, independently verifiable results to prove it. If that data doesn't exist, then it's not a viable solution. It's merely a sales-pitch and it doesn't belong in our children's classrooms." p. 68
February 24, 2026
This is not a serious piece of research, it is a self-published manifesto. The few valid points made are buried beneath cherry-picked statistics, correlational evidence, logical fallacies, straw men, and moral panic.
Within the first 5 pages, the central flaw of The Digital Delusion becomes clear: Dr. Horvath views ‘EdTech’ as a singular instructional intervention.
This is wrong. A laptop is an instructional medium, not an instructional intervention.
Dr. Horvath should know this, given some of the research he cites.
In his landmark Visible Learning: The Sequel, Dr. John Hattie dedicates a chapter to instructional technology. After recounting generally positive effect sizes for the different ways in which it can be used to actualize pedagogy (“The message throughout this chapter is not that technology has not made a difference. It has, and that is what an effect of 0.3 to 0.5 signifies” (p.408, Visible Learning), Dr. Hattie says the following. Bolding is mine:
“If there is to be a third edition of Visual Learning, there would not be a chapter on technology influences, as it is time to think of technology like curricula, books, and other resources, and focus more on the implementation effects when including technologies and teaching methods, the when and how within the teaching cycle, the dosage and the fidelity of various apps, and so on….”
“Edtech” isn’t a single treatment, it’s a blanket term for thousands of different digital curricula and applications. You can’t aggregate the impact of all of them simply because they all have a screen and connect to the internet. To do so is bad science, as is argued by Dr. John Hattie, the United Nations, and many other researchers.
To me, this undercuts the entire thesis of the book. It also leads directly into some of the logical fallacies that follow.
Dr. Horvath argues that “Edtech” perpetuates 5 lies: Education is broken, multimedia enhances learning, free choice leads to better learning, kids learn best on their own, and intelligent tutors make kids more intelligent.
First, who is “Edtech”? Dr. Horvath doesn’t provide sources.
For example, while explaining the first “lie” that Edtech perpetuates, that education is broken, he says: “This narrative has been repeated so many times in op-eds, on TED stages, and in keynote speeches that it almost feels self-evident.” He then fails to cite a single op-ed, TED talk, or keynote speech.
It seems he’s referencing Sir Ken Robinson’s famous Do Schools Kill Creativity? If so, what does that have to do with technology?
Somewhere in the middle of slaying each of these 5 straw men, I started to wonder: Who published this? How could they let him say all this without citing specific companies, people, or organizations perpetuating these lies? Then I looked at the copyright page and realized it was self-published.
Chapter 3 of Dr. Horvath’s book is the most important chapter, as it presents the corpus of evidence he feels justifies “pulling the plug” on Edtech.
Dr. Horvath cites declining PISA scores (the world’s largest standardized test) from 2012, 2015, and 2018, which correlate with the widespread adoption of educational technology in developed countries: “The more time students spent on screens at school, the further their scores fell. Those who used a computer for more than 6 hours per day scored 66 points lower than their peers who didn’t use them at all.”
This argument is a logical fallacy: Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc. After, therefore, because of. Correlation is not causation. Just becuase EdTech use increased, and scores dropped, does not prove that EdTech caused the drop. People who carry umbrellas are more likely to wear rain boots, etc., etc.
None of the research on test scores presented is causal. Let’s look at it anyway, as we’ll find that even the correlational evidence was cherry-picked to fit a narrative.
The OECD analysis correlating screen time and PISA scores showed a correlation in which students who spent 5–7 hours per day on “digital devices” for leisure at school scored 10–12 points lower than students who spent 3–5 hours per day. First, Dr. Horvath has left the “for leisure” qualifier. Second, he’s left out that this study lumps all digital devices under one label. No distinction is made between personal cellphones vs. school-managed laptops. These are both critical distinctions if we’re going to use this study to justify school laptop policies.
Regardless, other important data have also been left out: Students who spend one to five hours per day on digital devices for learning at school achieve twenty PISA score points higher in mathematics than those who spend no time on such devices. 15-year-old students who use digital devices moderately for learning at school tend to perform better and report a greater sense of belonging at school. Why were these points left out? Dr. Horvath even acknowledges them later in the book (see p.78-79), but argues “learning isn’t unique to computers,” so these researchers are wrong. If the researchers are wrong, why are you citing them?
Another critical point to note: Many great technology tools aren’t primarily designed to improve standardized test scores! If a tool’s theory of change isn’t focused on raising PISA scores, then declines in those scores don’t falsify their value.
These illogical conclusions happen when you ignore the advice of researchers and erroneously lump all digitally mediated interventions under one misleading “Edtech” banner.
Dr. Horvath continues with the correlational evidence between declining test scores and technology usage using Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) data. He simply references scores on the respective websites of these tests. If he were to seek out studies of these scores, here’s what he’d find:
Researchers warn against his exact approach. Simply correlating aggregate tech use and test scores is not useful. Researchers rightfully argue, similar to Hattie and the U.N. previously, that we should instead study effective tech use & scores vs. ineffective tech use. They argue for this precisely because there are so many experimental and small-scale studies showing positive effects of technological applications on student performance in various subject areas such as literacy, mathematics, and science (Chauhan, 2017; Cheung & Slavin, 2012, 2013; Sung et al., 2016). I would also add this recent meta-analysis by Dr. Rebecca Silverman at Stanford, which, among other things, showed a positive effect size for digitally mediated early childhood literacy tools. Because of this, Dr. Silverman concluded that “investment in educational technology to support literacy is warranted, and the prevalence of educational technology in schools is justified.”
Not only does Dr. Horvath not include this mountain of research, he does the opposite of what the researchers in these studies advocate for. Why?
Dr. Horvath does acknowledges Hattie’s meta-analysis showing positive effect sizes for Edtech. He then does mental gymnastics to deny them, essentially arguing “yes, they are positive, but other interventions have higher effect sizes, so we should use those instead.” To quote him: “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 like explicit instruction (+.64), guided discussions (+.82), and jigsaw teaching (+1.16).”
The misunderstanding of technology as a intervention rather than a medium has again led into a logical fallacy: False dichotomy: You either use “Edtech” OR you use explicit instruction, guided discussion, etc. This fails to acknowledge that…YOU CAN USE EDTECH TO AUGMENT EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION, GUIDED DISCUSSIONS, AND JIGSAW TEACHING!
Dr. Horvath concludes the evidence section of the book by arguing that chemicals and structures in our brains make technology an inherently flawed medium for learning. He leans heavily into his background as a neuroscientist here (“..rulesets must be loaded into a small area called the lateral prefrontal cortex (LatPFC)” etc.).
Some of what he argues is true. Split attention is bad for learning. Technology can be distracting. Empathy and belonging are built around human connection, which screens cannot offer. Technology can sometimes make things too easy.
This is all overstated, as it ignores context.
Most of the studies cited in this chapter were done at the neurological level or in the context of large, undergraduate courses on personal devices with no content filters. Most importantly, neuroscience ≠ classroom practice, because teaching is inherently social and complex.
Dr. Daniel Willingham has referred to these sorts of arguments as nuero-garbage: using neuroscience language and concepts in education that overstate what brain findings can tell teachers about how to teach. To quote Dr. Willingham:
“We can’t take lab findings and pop them right into the classroom… lab findings consistently show that repetition is good for memory. But you can’t mindlessly implement that in schools--”keep repeating this til you’ve got it, kids!” Repetition is good for memory, but terrible for motivation.”
Neurons are not classrooms. They describe what is happening inside a brain; classrooms describe what is happening between people. The behavioral outcomes teachers care about (e.g., reading fluently, solving equations, writing, etc.) are shaped by instruction, motivation, and social context. The technology tools teachers use operate at that same level.
Pointing to a brain region that lights up during a grammar lesson doesn’t tell a teacher what to do on a cold Thursday morning in February when Bart keeps making fart noises and Lisa is mad at Jessica because Steven told her something he wasn’t supposed to, so now Lisa is acting out and distracting Jackie, who is now behind and confused about her grammar lesson.
There’s a gap between knowing that a neural process exists and knowing how to design instruction around it. It’s never one-to-one in the way that Dr. Horvath presents. There are too many ever-changing variables in teaching to reduce it to laboratory science and neurological chemicals. It’s why “good teaching”, and even intervention effect size, are deeply contextual.
Brain science doesn’t show that technology is incompatible with learning. It shows that attention, retrieval, feedback, and cognitive effort drive learning. Technology can both support and undermine those processes, depending on how it’s designed and implemented.
Dr. Horvath literally testified in front of the United States Senate, using aforementioned evidence, to encourage lawmakers to strip educational technology resources from the hands of educators. These blanket screen bans would be a profound mistake, like much of this book is. They ignore the difference between poorly designed technology and thoughtful design and implementation. They would remove tools that tens of thousands of educators rely on to differentiate instruction, provide feedback, reduce administrative burden, and respond to the very real assessment challenges posed by AI. They would do so based on cherry-picked data, correlational evidence, logical fallacies, straw men, and moral panic.
We should improve how technology is used in K12 classrooms. We should push back on arguments that treat technology as inherently incompatible with learning, like those presented in this book.
Within the first 5 pages, the central flaw of The Digital Delusion becomes clear: Dr. Horvath views ‘EdTech’ as a singular instructional intervention.
This is wrong. A laptop is an instructional medium, not an instructional intervention.
Dr. Horvath should know this, given some of the research he cites.
In his landmark Visible Learning: The Sequel, Dr. John Hattie dedicates a chapter to instructional technology. After recounting generally positive effect sizes for the different ways in which it can be used to actualize pedagogy (“The message throughout this chapter is not that technology has not made a difference. It has, and that is what an effect of 0.3 to 0.5 signifies” (p.408, Visible Learning), Dr. Hattie says the following. Bolding is mine:
“If there is to be a third edition of Visual Learning, there would not be a chapter on technology influences, as it is time to think of technology like curricula, books, and other resources, and focus more on the implementation effects when including technologies and teaching methods, the when and how within the teaching cycle, the dosage and the fidelity of various apps, and so on….”
“Edtech” isn’t a single treatment, it’s a blanket term for thousands of different digital curricula and applications. You can’t aggregate the impact of all of them simply because they all have a screen and connect to the internet. To do so is bad science, as is argued by Dr. John Hattie, the United Nations, and many other researchers.
To me, this undercuts the entire thesis of the book. It also leads directly into some of the logical fallacies that follow.
Dr. Horvath argues that “Edtech” perpetuates 5 lies: Education is broken, multimedia enhances learning, free choice leads to better learning, kids learn best on their own, and intelligent tutors make kids more intelligent.
First, who is “Edtech”? Dr. Horvath doesn’t provide sources.
For example, while explaining the first “lie” that Edtech perpetuates, that education is broken, he says: “This narrative has been repeated so many times in op-eds, on TED stages, and in keynote speeches that it almost feels self-evident.” He then fails to cite a single op-ed, TED talk, or keynote speech.
It seems he’s referencing Sir Ken Robinson’s famous Do Schools Kill Creativity? If so, what does that have to do with technology?
Somewhere in the middle of slaying each of these 5 straw men, I started to wonder: Who published this? How could they let him say all this without citing specific companies, people, or organizations perpetuating these lies? Then I looked at the copyright page and realized it was self-published.
Chapter 3 of Dr. Horvath’s book is the most important chapter, as it presents the corpus of evidence he feels justifies “pulling the plug” on Edtech.
Dr. Horvath cites declining PISA scores (the world’s largest standardized test) from 2012, 2015, and 2018, which correlate with the widespread adoption of educational technology in developed countries: “The more time students spent on screens at school, the further their scores fell. Those who used a computer for more than 6 hours per day scored 66 points lower than their peers who didn’t use them at all.”
This argument is a logical fallacy: Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc. After, therefore, because of. Correlation is not causation. Just becuase EdTech use increased, and scores dropped, does not prove that EdTech caused the drop. People who carry umbrellas are more likely to wear rain boots, etc., etc.
None of the research on test scores presented is causal. Let’s look at it anyway, as we’ll find that even the correlational evidence was cherry-picked to fit a narrative.
The OECD analysis correlating screen time and PISA scores showed a correlation in which students who spent 5–7 hours per day on “digital devices” for leisure at school scored 10–12 points lower than students who spent 3–5 hours per day. First, Dr. Horvath has left the “for leisure” qualifier. Second, he’s left out that this study lumps all digital devices under one label. No distinction is made between personal cellphones vs. school-managed laptops. These are both critical distinctions if we’re going to use this study to justify school laptop policies.
Regardless, other important data have also been left out: Students who spend one to five hours per day on digital devices for learning at school achieve twenty PISA score points higher in mathematics than those who spend no time on such devices. 15-year-old students who use digital devices moderately for learning at school tend to perform better and report a greater sense of belonging at school. Why were these points left out? Dr. Horvath even acknowledges them later in the book (see p.78-79), but argues “learning isn’t unique to computers,” so these researchers are wrong. If the researchers are wrong, why are you citing them?
Another critical point to note: Many great technology tools aren’t primarily designed to improve standardized test scores! If a tool’s theory of change isn’t focused on raising PISA scores, then declines in those scores don’t falsify their value.
These illogical conclusions happen when you ignore the advice of researchers and erroneously lump all digitally mediated interventions under one misleading “Edtech” banner.
Dr. Horvath continues with the correlational evidence between declining test scores and technology usage using Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) data. He simply references scores on the respective websites of these tests. If he were to seek out studies of these scores, here’s what he’d find:
Researchers warn against his exact approach. Simply correlating aggregate tech use and test scores is not useful. Researchers rightfully argue, similar to Hattie and the U.N. previously, that we should instead study effective tech use & scores vs. ineffective tech use. They argue for this precisely because there are so many experimental and small-scale studies showing positive effects of technological applications on student performance in various subject areas such as literacy, mathematics, and science (Chauhan, 2017; Cheung & Slavin, 2012, 2013; Sung et al., 2016). I would also add this recent meta-analysis by Dr. Rebecca Silverman at Stanford, which, among other things, showed a positive effect size for digitally mediated early childhood literacy tools. Because of this, Dr. Silverman concluded that “investment in educational technology to support literacy is warranted, and the prevalence of educational technology in schools is justified.”
Not only does Dr. Horvath not include this mountain of research, he does the opposite of what the researchers in these studies advocate for. Why?
Dr. Horvath does acknowledges Hattie’s meta-analysis showing positive effect sizes for Edtech. He then does mental gymnastics to deny them, essentially arguing “yes, they are positive, but other interventions have higher effect sizes, so we should use those instead.” To quote him: “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 like explicit instruction (+.64), guided discussions (+.82), and jigsaw teaching (+1.16).”
The misunderstanding of technology as a intervention rather than a medium has again led into a logical fallacy: False dichotomy: You either use “Edtech” OR you use explicit instruction, guided discussion, etc. This fails to acknowledge that…YOU CAN USE EDTECH TO AUGMENT EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION, GUIDED DISCUSSIONS, AND JIGSAW TEACHING!
Dr. Horvath concludes the evidence section of the book by arguing that chemicals and structures in our brains make technology an inherently flawed medium for learning. He leans heavily into his background as a neuroscientist here (“..rulesets must be loaded into a small area called the lateral prefrontal cortex (LatPFC)” etc.).
Some of what he argues is true. Split attention is bad for learning. Technology can be distracting. Empathy and belonging are built around human connection, which screens cannot offer. Technology can sometimes make things too easy.
This is all overstated, as it ignores context.
Most of the studies cited in this chapter were done at the neurological level or in the context of large, undergraduate courses on personal devices with no content filters. Most importantly, neuroscience ≠ classroom practice, because teaching is inherently social and complex.
Dr. Daniel Willingham has referred to these sorts of arguments as nuero-garbage: using neuroscience language and concepts in education that overstate what brain findings can tell teachers about how to teach. To quote Dr. Willingham:
“We can’t take lab findings and pop them right into the classroom… lab findings consistently show that repetition is good for memory. But you can’t mindlessly implement that in schools--”keep repeating this til you’ve got it, kids!” Repetition is good for memory, but terrible for motivation.”
Neurons are not classrooms. They describe what is happening inside a brain; classrooms describe what is happening between people. The behavioral outcomes teachers care about (e.g., reading fluently, solving equations, writing, etc.) are shaped by instruction, motivation, and social context. The technology tools teachers use operate at that same level.
Pointing to a brain region that lights up during a grammar lesson doesn’t tell a teacher what to do on a cold Thursday morning in February when Bart keeps making fart noises and Lisa is mad at Jessica because Steven told her something he wasn’t supposed to, so now Lisa is acting out and distracting Jackie, who is now behind and confused about her grammar lesson.
There’s a gap between knowing that a neural process exists and knowing how to design instruction around it. It’s never one-to-one in the way that Dr. Horvath presents. There are too many ever-changing variables in teaching to reduce it to laboratory science and neurological chemicals. It’s why “good teaching”, and even intervention effect size, are deeply contextual.
Brain science doesn’t show that technology is incompatible with learning. It shows that attention, retrieval, feedback, and cognitive effort drive learning. Technology can both support and undermine those processes, depending on how it’s designed and implemented.
Dr. Horvath literally testified in front of the United States Senate, using aforementioned evidence, to encourage lawmakers to strip educational technology resources from the hands of educators. These blanket screen bans would be a profound mistake, like much of this book is. They ignore the difference between poorly designed technology and thoughtful design and implementation. They would remove tools that tens of thousands of educators rely on to differentiate instruction, provide feedback, reduce administrative burden, and respond to the very real assessment challenges posed by AI. They would do so based on cherry-picked data, correlational evidence, logical fallacies, straw men, and moral panic.
We should improve how technology is used in K12 classrooms. We should push back on arguments that treat technology as inherently incompatible with learning, like those presented in this book.
January 27, 2026
I was looking forward to read this book because it touches on some really important issues, but I was unable to finish it because of the constant use of 'it's not this... it's this...'
Here are just a few examples from the first 11 pages alone:
"Our mistake wasn't in trusting schools or teachers. It was in trusting the seductive promises."
"Schools may not be perfect - but they aren't broken"
"Creativity isn't the opposite of knowledge - rather, it emerges from it"
"Their stories fell flat; not because they lacked creativity, but because they lacked knowledge"
"The real danger isn't that schools are broken. It's that we've been persuaded that they are"
"It's not the technology that makes the difference; it's the pedagogy"
"Unnecessary audiovisual elements often interfere with understanding rather than deepen it"
"The multi-media didn't enhance the lesson; it completely misdirected it"
"If our goal is deep, durable learning, then our time, energy and resources are better spent improving teaching - not upgrading multimedia."
I was also distracted by phrases like "Repetition without scrutiny is how a myth becomes a mandate" which felt quite vague, meaningless and I hate to say it... like something ChatGPT would come up with.
I could be wrong. I'm also not completely against using AI - I use it myself when I have writer's block or I'm struggling to make sense of something complex. But when I buy a book (especially one from a doctor writing about the dangers of technology in education), I'd like to think I'm reading genuine insights from an expert's brain rather than something thrown together by an LLM. And unfortunately, I couldn't trust that was the case here.
Here are just a few examples from the first 11 pages alone:
"Our mistake wasn't in trusting schools or teachers. It was in trusting the seductive promises."
"Schools may not be perfect - but they aren't broken"
"Creativity isn't the opposite of knowledge - rather, it emerges from it"
"Their stories fell flat; not because they lacked creativity, but because they lacked knowledge"
"The real danger isn't that schools are broken. It's that we've been persuaded that they are"
"It's not the technology that makes the difference; it's the pedagogy"
"Unnecessary audiovisual elements often interfere with understanding rather than deepen it"
"The multi-media didn't enhance the lesson; it completely misdirected it"
"If our goal is deep, durable learning, then our time, energy and resources are better spent improving teaching - not upgrading multimedia."
I was also distracted by phrases like "Repetition without scrutiny is how a myth becomes a mandate" which felt quite vague, meaningless and I hate to say it... like something ChatGPT would come up with.
I could be wrong. I'm also not completely against using AI - I use it myself when I have writer's block or I'm struggling to make sense of something complex. But when I buy a book (especially one from a doctor writing about the dangers of technology in education), I'd like to think I'm reading genuine insights from an expert's brain rather than something thrown together by an LLM. And unfortunately, I couldn't trust that was the case here.
January 22, 2026
What a powerful and challenging read! In Horvath's conclusion he says; "This was never a book about rejecting technology; it was about reclaiming education as a deeply meaningful and human endeavor. It wasn't about moving away from screens; it was about reorienting toward deep thought and true understanding. It wasn't about scrapping devices; it was about reclaiming rigor."
This book has given caused me to stop and consider; what really is best for our students in today's classrooms.
This book has given caused me to stop and consider; what really is best for our students in today's classrooms.
March 30, 2026
3.5 stars (rounded down because I am more inclined to read a 3 star review than a 4 star one). I would recommend this one to all teachers and parents (regardless of whether their kids attend school), as it concerns an issue in dire and urgent need of addressing: are the computers now integrated into most children’s education harming their cognitive development?
The book is interesting and very readable. It’s written to inform parents, teachers, school staff and stakeholders about the evidence that computer (and related tech) usage in schools is eroding true learning, and to offer a blueprint for these folks to seek reform in schools. It does a great job presenting the case and offering concrete solutions, including form/draft letters and agreements people can use themselves to start taking action.
I came into it agreeing with the book’s message and came out still wholeheartedly agreeing that tech has a dubious place in education, but here’s where it fell short for me:
1. It’s self-published (but that’s not immediately clear looking at the book unless you are looking for the publisher and then realize there is none). Self-published is not a problem for fiction. But traditional publishing typically utilizes fact checkers, and it was hard to feel confident in Horvath’s claims without knowing a competent professional had reviewed them. He DOES provide sources in the back, but to check all these yourself would be full time work for several months.
2. When I realized it was self-published, I panicked that maybe Horvath isn’t even a real person. Searching online led to a bizarre dearth of information about him. Even the university he’s associated with had less than a sentence about him and a link to research that led to a blank page. He does appear in some neuroscience citations from the mid 2010s, and there is a clip from CSPAN on YouTube showing him testifying before US Congress. So he’s real, but also seems to have appeared out of nowhere. Which just adds to the skepticism I feel about not being traditionally published.
3. He never clarified what EdTech is actually being used in schools and how. His argument is very general (intentionally and rightly so), but it could have been better supported with illustrations of actual programs (laptop use in classrooms, digital assignments, behavior tracking…).
4. The crux of his argument relies upon a statistical measurement that is difficult to follow. The actual measurements he tells you are made to be easy to understand (anything about 0.40 is good) but what on earth this actually means is not clearly conveyed. This is particularly unfortunate in a book trying to empower parents. And almost ironic in a book that says one problem with AI is that students don’t have the background knowledge to get responses and know whether they are reasonable or absurd. Which brings me to…
5. Some of Horvath’s arguments feel weak. Arguments against EdTech rely on the statistical methods that remain unclear to me. But his logic is that school works and has always worked and improved up until EdTech infiltrated it. This is a fairly big assumption to make. I was educated when home desktops were common but laptops were rare; some kids had Nokia cell phones but smart phones hadn’t been invented. And some of my classes were absolutely terrible, for a variety of reasons, but the common thread being that I was smart and academically high-performing student who was completely lost and confused in these classes. I didn’t have the internet, but if Khan Academy and Crash Course had been available then, I may have been able to figure things out for myself at home. This is not to say EdTech is the solution, just that I think Horvath gives a little too much credit to school competence. He also does things like say no one knows a lot about Socrates because he didn’t write anything, then makes conclusions about Socrates’ opinions about writing. Just a bit of a head scratcher.
6. He makes the claim that without background knowledge, children cannot judge if AI content is garbage or not, which is true, but then he created a plausible sounding but made-up fact as evidence that it’s easy to believe things if you don’t have background to fully understand them. Sure… but this human limitation extends far beyond AI content; I have read hundreds of scientific studies and was educated pre-smart phones, but I was fooled by his example. I likewise lack the expertise to evaluate Horvath’s claims about statistics and neuroscience throughout the book.
7. He doesn’t adequately account for the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. At the very end there is a graph showing increased spending on EdTech correlating to declining performance on tests. The major uptick in spending and major downturn in results both happen in 2020… when, you know, millions of children suddenly converted to online students with teachers who were never trained to teach online; when it was necessary to purchase devices so all kids could access their online education. I’m not saying that if only teachers knew how to teach online everything would’ve been honky-dory, but it feels disingenuous to point to data from that time period. The pandemic also affected kids in other ways that could account for some of that learning loss.
The best part of the book is about the mechanisms of WHY EdTech harms learning and why bell-to-bell cell phones bans are effective but less stringent policies are not.
Hopefully Horvath manages to inspire widespread discussion among stakeholders with this important contribution to the conversation around modern education.
The book is interesting and very readable. It’s written to inform parents, teachers, school staff and stakeholders about the evidence that computer (and related tech) usage in schools is eroding true learning, and to offer a blueprint for these folks to seek reform in schools. It does a great job presenting the case and offering concrete solutions, including form/draft letters and agreements people can use themselves to start taking action.
I came into it agreeing with the book’s message and came out still wholeheartedly agreeing that tech has a dubious place in education, but here’s where it fell short for me:
1. It’s self-published (but that’s not immediately clear looking at the book unless you are looking for the publisher and then realize there is none). Self-published is not a problem for fiction. But traditional publishing typically utilizes fact checkers, and it was hard to feel confident in Horvath’s claims without knowing a competent professional had reviewed them. He DOES provide sources in the back, but to check all these yourself would be full time work for several months.
2. When I realized it was self-published, I panicked that maybe Horvath isn’t even a real person. Searching online led to a bizarre dearth of information about him. Even the university he’s associated with had less than a sentence about him and a link to research that led to a blank page. He does appear in some neuroscience citations from the mid 2010s, and there is a clip from CSPAN on YouTube showing him testifying before US Congress. So he’s real, but also seems to have appeared out of nowhere. Which just adds to the skepticism I feel about not being traditionally published.
3. He never clarified what EdTech is actually being used in schools and how. His argument is very general (intentionally and rightly so), but it could have been better supported with illustrations of actual programs (laptop use in classrooms, digital assignments, behavior tracking…).
4. The crux of his argument relies upon a statistical measurement that is difficult to follow. The actual measurements he tells you are made to be easy to understand (anything about 0.40 is good) but what on earth this actually means is not clearly conveyed. This is particularly unfortunate in a book trying to empower parents. And almost ironic in a book that says one problem with AI is that students don’t have the background knowledge to get responses and know whether they are reasonable or absurd. Which brings me to…
5. Some of Horvath’s arguments feel weak. Arguments against EdTech rely on the statistical methods that remain unclear to me. But his logic is that school works and has always worked and improved up until EdTech infiltrated it. This is a fairly big assumption to make. I was educated when home desktops were common but laptops were rare; some kids had Nokia cell phones but smart phones hadn’t been invented. And some of my classes were absolutely terrible, for a variety of reasons, but the common thread being that I was smart and academically high-performing student who was completely lost and confused in these classes. I didn’t have the internet, but if Khan Academy and Crash Course had been available then, I may have been able to figure things out for myself at home. This is not to say EdTech is the solution, just that I think Horvath gives a little too much credit to school competence. He also does things like say no one knows a lot about Socrates because he didn’t write anything, then makes conclusions about Socrates’ opinions about writing. Just a bit of a head scratcher.
6. He makes the claim that without background knowledge, children cannot judge if AI content is garbage or not, which is true, but then he created a plausible sounding but made-up fact as evidence that it’s easy to believe things if you don’t have background to fully understand them. Sure… but this human limitation extends far beyond AI content; I have read hundreds of scientific studies and was educated pre-smart phones, but I was fooled by his example. I likewise lack the expertise to evaluate Horvath’s claims about statistics and neuroscience throughout the book.
7. He doesn’t adequately account for the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. At the very end there is a graph showing increased spending on EdTech correlating to declining performance on tests. The major uptick in spending and major downturn in results both happen in 2020… when, you know, millions of children suddenly converted to online students with teachers who were never trained to teach online; when it was necessary to purchase devices so all kids could access their online education. I’m not saying that if only teachers knew how to teach online everything would’ve been honky-dory, but it feels disingenuous to point to data from that time period. The pandemic also affected kids in other ways that could account for some of that learning loss.
The best part of the book is about the mechanisms of WHY EdTech harms learning and why bell-to-bell cell phones bans are effective but less stringent policies are not.
Hopefully Horvath manages to inspire widespread discussion among stakeholders with this important contribution to the conversation around modern education.
July 27, 2026
I rate this book infinity stars and want every single person in the world who believes that “children are the future” to read it. I am energized and affirmed that my suspicions about EdTech are true and have actual data to support them. I hear parents/teachers/people say regularly “I just don’t know what’s wrong with kids today” or something along those lines. “Why can’t students focus as well as they used to?” “Why can’t students retain information?” “Why are problem solving, critical thinking, and creative skills on the decline??” I’ve noticed these trends even with my 9 years of teaching.
Read this book and gain understanding, knowledge, and a plan. I am so fired up to start this school year with the information I have learned. I will be the Katniss Everdeen of this revolution!!
Read this book and gain understanding, knowledge, and a plan. I am so fired up to start this school year with the information I have learned. I will be the Katniss Everdeen of this revolution!!
January 26, 2026
3.5 stars. Sensationalist writing, lack of clarity around the definition of EdTech, and issues of causation vs causality got in the way of what might otherwise be solid arguments.
December 23, 2025
An important book for every educator!
I will admit, when ChatGPT first emerged I was an advocate for bringing it into the classroom. I believed it was our duty as educators to teach students how to use it because it was "inevitable" and "necessary" for their future. I believed it was a signal to teachers that we had to (nay, had the opportunity to) get more creative with the ways we assessed our students. It didn't take long for me to change my mind.
I plan on recommending this book to the administration at my school. In staff meetings, team planning, and PLCs we have discussed at length how to address the fragmented attention spans, rapidly decreasing frustration tolerance, lack of foundational skills, and decreased confidence to little avail. Horvath not only uses research and concrete evidence to explain how technology has harmed student learning, but he provides action steps with reproducible tool kits that all stakeholders can use to start fixing the problems.
I will admit, when ChatGPT first emerged I was an advocate for bringing it into the classroom. I believed it was our duty as educators to teach students how to use it because it was "inevitable" and "necessary" for their future. I believed it was a signal to teachers that we had to (nay, had the opportunity to) get more creative with the ways we assessed our students. It didn't take long for me to change my mind.
I plan on recommending this book to the administration at my school. In staff meetings, team planning, and PLCs we have discussed at length how to address the fragmented attention spans, rapidly decreasing frustration tolerance, lack of foundational skills, and decreased confidence to little avail. Horvath not only uses research and concrete evidence to explain how technology has harmed student learning, but he provides action steps with reproducible tool kits that all stakeholders can use to start fixing the problems.
June 11, 2026
I try to remain aware of specious arguments that I agree with just because they say what I want to hear. Did I agree with this book? Yes. Did I also think the arguments somewhat specious? Also yes. I am exhausted by alarmist reading, and this was quite alarmist in places. I do think the education system swallowed the edtech promise hook, line, and sinker without any caution, and I do believe that edtech is making education worse, not better. That said, a lot of the points felt repetitive. Reminds me of reading books that started out as an article in The Atlantic or something and had to be stretched out into a full-length book but there just wasn't enough to say.
I would love for Michael and Peter to take this one on in If Books Could Kill 😁
I would love for Michael and Peter to take this one on in If Books Could Kill 😁
September 23, 2026
Might be some confirmation bias here, but I found this enlightening and spot on to my experience as a teacher and parent. Lots of useful information specifically for teachers.
AI is a TOOL, not a skill. We must teach kids the skills first. School teaches kids to persevere through a challenge and maybe some boredom, to interact with people and wrestle with ideas... The specific content doesn't matter as much as going through the learning process. Ed tech takes away a lot of that and leads to poorer outcomes.
AI is a TOOL, not a skill. We must teach kids the skills first. School teaches kids to persevere through a challenge and maybe some boredom, to interact with people and wrestle with ideas... The specific content doesn't matter as much as going through the learning process. Ed tech takes away a lot of that and leads to poorer outcomes.
July 23, 2026
Wow. This book is coming for EdTech’s throats! Yes, it’s the exact type of proselytizing you’d expect, but it articulates well many of the things teachers have been thinking and saying for years.
October 14, 2026
Pretty much what I hoped for and expected. As a classroom teacher, none of this surprised me. It is good to have a lot of data to back up both my personal anecdotes, those of other educators, and just the general sense that this technology is taking something away from our humanity when we don't use it intentionally.
Some good resources and suggestions here. Much will still need to be adapted to specific context (as Horvath acknowledges). I particularly liked the copious amount of research in the back, the specific strategies, and the international nature of this text.
Some good resources and suggestions here. Much will still need to be adapted to specific context (as Horvath acknowledges). I particularly liked the copious amount of research in the back, the specific strategies, and the international nature of this text.
September 30, 2026
A pretty damning account of ed tech and its effects on children’s development and learning. Given how sparse and imperfect a lot of the data is, I think Horvath did a good job of pulling it together in an accessible way to make a strong case that something needs to change.
I think it’s a shame that more of the appendix wasn’t in the main body of the book because that’s what convinced me of the validity of his arguments, although appreciate the book wasn’t written for researchers. Also found it a bit annoying to read at times with how heavy-handed he was on the calls to action - his very clear agenda made me want to find issues with his arguments, even though I broadly agree with his agenda. Also would’ve liked more discussion about class.
But overall I think it has a good chance of being a very influential book.
I think it’s a shame that more of the appendix wasn’t in the main body of the book because that’s what convinced me of the validity of his arguments, although appreciate the book wasn’t written for researchers. Also found it a bit annoying to read at times with how heavy-handed he was on the calls to action - his very clear agenda made me want to find issues with his arguments, even though I broadly agree with his agenda. Also would’ve liked more discussion about class.
But overall I think it has a good chance of being a very influential book.
March 23, 2026
Highly recommend for all teachers/ parents/ community members interested in education. Throw out the screens! TL; DR -- it is better for literacy to invest in heating and cooling systems for schools than technology. (Coming out from Penguin RH this summer)
June 10, 2026
Well researched and a must read for any educator or parent! The author lays out his case so well as to why EdTech is ineffective and strategies to help make the change to help our students learn to their fullest capacity!
June 26, 2026
Every parent and individual who works in education in any capacity needs to read this. I love how the author explains the WHY and the HOW behind tech harm in a way that makes sense. It’s time to make a change in how we use technology in our schools!
July 22, 2026
Nothing that I wasn’t already thinking about screens in classrooms, but clear, quick, and convincing nonetheless.
August 11, 2026
This is a mandatory read for anyone in education, especially administrators and board members, and those who work at an admin building for the county/edu district. It’s not anti-tech, just pro-learning. We can’t learn to run before learning to walk first. Let’s apply this truth to education.
March 3, 2026
Every teacher and parent should read this book. As a parent, the book resonates. As a teacher, I’ve already gone analog. This book helps me to navigate those questions I get when there’s push back.
March 17, 2026
A colleague of mine in the high school English department where I teach put it best when he said it felt like the author had been in the office with us over the past three years, listening to our conversations about AI and what digital technology was doing to our students. For a book about education, and endorsement like this is the highest praise imaginable, and Jared Cooney Horvath's 2026 book The Digital Delusion does feel like the most timely and coherent take on everything that has gone wrong with school in the years since the field was infiltrated by EdTech and Silicon Valley startups. As a classroom teacher, I can tell you: it's been a disaster, and there's something deeply affirming about a book that validates what I've seen in the past decade of my 20+ year career in the classroom. I wish I could say it isn't a crisis, but it absolutely is.
Horvath, a neuroscientist and former classroom teacher, makes cognitive development his primary focus in the book, demonstrating through a body of research how learning occurs and how all these apps and sites and screens undermine all of our best practices. Look, I'm not a neuroscientist or researcher myself, so I'm taking for granted that these studies are reliable and valid, but everything in the book squares with what I see as a teacher: students unable to focus, pull themselves away from their screens, or resist the urge to offload their thinking to counterproductive LLMs. I can only hope The Digital Delusion gains a fraction of the audience and influence Jonathan Haidt's similarly insightful book The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Caused an Epidemic of Mental Illness has. Schools that correctly banned cellphones need to give serious thought to eliminating screens altogether (or at least relegating them to a designated computer lab). I'm happy books like this exist and that professionals and the general public are finally starting to push back against the tech industry and dumb narratives about inevitability and being left behind. Here's to the new Luddites!
Horvath, a neuroscientist and former classroom teacher, makes cognitive development his primary focus in the book, demonstrating through a body of research how learning occurs and how all these apps and sites and screens undermine all of our best practices. Look, I'm not a neuroscientist or researcher myself, so I'm taking for granted that these studies are reliable and valid, but everything in the book squares with what I see as a teacher: students unable to focus, pull themselves away from their screens, or resist the urge to offload their thinking to counterproductive LLMs. I can only hope The Digital Delusion gains a fraction of the audience and influence Jonathan Haidt's similarly insightful book The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Caused an Epidemic of Mental Illness has. Schools that correctly banned cellphones need to give serious thought to eliminating screens altogether (or at least relegating them to a designated computer lab). I'm happy books like this exist and that professionals and the general public are finally starting to push back against the tech industry and dumb narratives about inevitability and being left behind. Here's to the new Luddites!
December 24, 2025
Devoured this in three days. Might be the most important work in education in the last decade. Read it, then buy a copy for your head of school / principal and give to them. Then recommend it to all the parents you can.
May 24, 2026
One million stars. Edtech is trash and students need teachers and books and productive struggle, not computers 🤑
August 1, 2026
One of the biggest tragedies in education over the last decade is the proliferation of technology in classrooms, particularly the spread of 1:1 devices at the elementary level. Educators have been fed the lie that more is better when it comes to getting devices into the hands of kids. It’s common to day to see kids today as young as kindergarten level spending a significant amount of time each day in front of a screen. Where do we place the blame? There’s plenty to go around. From districts that insist on making assessments accessible through a digital platform only to administrators who require a certain number of minutes per day on tech programs to classroom teachers who fall back on technology because it’s easier, there’s a piece of the blame pie for everyone. But it goes even higher than that. With many state assessments being given exclusively online, often through a separate testing system, ed tech is big business. Cash strapped school districts no doubt spend big money on the latest and greatest ed tech learning programs. This would be money well spent if in fact these programs delivered on their promises to increase student achievement. However, recent research is proving just the opposite. Students are actually experiencing a decrease in achievement and their ability to learn at high and deep levels. That’s the premise of this enthralling book by Jared Cooney Horvath.
Part of the problem is that schools have been asked to sign on to these digital products based on their “potential” to improve student learning rather than based on actual data. Results from flawed students are often used to promote the success of these programs. And many of those in the education field are still waiting for those promises to materialize. Along with state mandated curriculum, schools are now finding it necessary to also teach tech skills.
The push to prepare students for “work readiness and 21st century skills overlooks the fact that these are children who at times aren’t even prepared for a day in 3rd grade. The goal of education should be to help each student achieve their personal best at that level, not looking toward some obscure goal in the distant future.
We should be teaching students how to think, learn, and adapt. If we are successful at this, our students will be successful using technology when the time is right.
When we say that today’s students learn differently, that’s not necessarily a good thing. Feeding students a constant diet of short clips and sound bites leads to weaker retention, shallower reasoning, and impaired critical thinking. There’s also the myth of multi tasking…research has shown that when students are using technology they’re in constant multi tasking mode which negatively affects everything they’re working on. In addition, around 80% of student screen time is devoted to passive media consumption.
Another side effect is that today’s kids don’t know how to deal with boredom. They’ve become used to everything being instantaneous, at their finger tips entertainment. They’re conditioned to constant mental stimulation to the point of developing actual addictions to technology. And, younger students are likely to take answers arrived at through technology as gospel since they lack the cognitive abilities to know better
Is there a middle ground? Or is it too late to unring the bell? That remains to be seen. Already many school districts in countries around the world are backtracking on their student technology policies. This trend really took flight this past year as schools implemented rules banning personal student devices while in school. Reactions from families were mixed with many heralding the change while others blasted the schools for denying them access to their child through personal technology during the day. There’s also the concern of school leaders that their students will be left behind if they don’t adopt the latest tech program or platform. And it’s admittedly difficult to move away from reliance on technology when state mandated programs and tests exist exclusively as online platforms.
We should all be concerned about these disturbing trends. Educators are experiencing it in real time. It’s hard to teach when students' waning attention spans are being pulled in a digital direction. And it affects all students…gifted students, struggling students, middle of the road students. They’re all suffering the consequences of this digital delusion we’ve been sold.
July 20, 2026
I think it's fair to be skeptical of pop culture books written by PhDs who haven't yet published peer-reviewed research about their aforementioned work, so take this book with a grain of salt. Some of the statements and claims he makes are way too broad, and the research studies he does reference aren't explained with enough detail for readers to make informed opinions.
All that said, I agree with his overall sentiment: Edtech in schools CAN negatively impact student outcomes. Students are best served when they are fully engaged in rigorous learning opportunities within their classrooms. 1 to 1 digital devices can lead to distractions when they do not serve a clear purpose. Paper, pencil, live experiments, in-class discussions, feedback, etc. are still powerful teaching tools that should be preserved and utilized where ever possible.
AI can also lead to self-destructive behaviors: when students heavily lean on AI to create and do the thinking for them, they are not able to build the requisite skills and conventions to do things on their own. I appreciated Dr. Horvath's analogy: AI can be similar to using an electric bike. If you rely fully on the bike's motor to get you through long, hilly stretches, you likely haven't trained enough to keep going if the motor dies. "Capacity has to be built. If you train hard, you can rely on that training when needed. If you don't, you'll struggle the moment support disappears."
Dr. Horvath also touches on the use of cell phones and references Haidt's "Anxious Generation." It's no surprise that he also advocates for district-wide cellphone bans through at least middle school. He argues that phones should not be visible or obtainable throughout the school day to encourage socialization during passing time, lunch, and recess as well.
Overall, I enjoyed the read and appreciated the resources he provides to teachers, admin, and families. I didn't love the implication that it's the school board/admin versus teachers and families, because I'd like to believe most leadership makes their decisions in good faith for students, but ultimately these are the people that can implement real change in the face of this information.
All that said, I agree with his overall sentiment: Edtech in schools CAN negatively impact student outcomes. Students are best served when they are fully engaged in rigorous learning opportunities within their classrooms. 1 to 1 digital devices can lead to distractions when they do not serve a clear purpose. Paper, pencil, live experiments, in-class discussions, feedback, etc. are still powerful teaching tools that should be preserved and utilized where ever possible.
AI can also lead to self-destructive behaviors: when students heavily lean on AI to create and do the thinking for them, they are not able to build the requisite skills and conventions to do things on their own. I appreciated Dr. Horvath's analogy: AI can be similar to using an electric bike. If you rely fully on the bike's motor to get you through long, hilly stretches, you likely haven't trained enough to keep going if the motor dies. "Capacity has to be built. If you train hard, you can rely on that training when needed. If you don't, you'll struggle the moment support disappears."
Dr. Horvath also touches on the use of cell phones and references Haidt's "Anxious Generation." It's no surprise that he also advocates for district-wide cellphone bans through at least middle school. He argues that phones should not be visible or obtainable throughout the school day to encourage socialization during passing time, lunch, and recess as well.
Overall, I enjoyed the read and appreciated the resources he provides to teachers, admin, and families. I didn't love the implication that it's the school board/admin versus teachers and families, because I'd like to believe most leadership makes their decisions in good faith for students, but ultimately these are the people that can implement real change in the face of this information.
June 15, 2026
If his advice is followed in schools across America, this country will have a lot to be grateful for to Dr. Jared Horvath. Quite simply, we need to divest ourselves of the over-reliance on screens and the software programs that have taken over our schools, making billions for ed tech companies and leaving our kids further and further behind in their learning. In Part One he lays out the problem and presents the research basis to support his thesis: Classroom technology harms our kids' learning but we can help them thrive again. In Part Two he continues that focus by examining two special cases: smart phones and AI, the newest flavor of the month. Part Three is "Pushing Back," a how-to for concerned constituents.
However, the book is essentially two books in one, the first centering on proving the first half of his thesis, and the second providing a detailed game plan for how parents and teachers, other educators, schools and school leaders can progressively shift us back to a sounder educational program, based on the expertise of teachers and the understanding parents have of what is best for their children.
For me, the most powerful section was Horvath's call for more long-form reading by students. Currently, with much of their reading transferred to tablets for the purpose of evaluating them and preparing them for standardized tests, students do a lot of short form reading ... decontextualized passages about which they are quizzed ... rather than whole books. iReady rather than Maniac McGee. Horvath bases his recommendation on his background as a neurologist and the science of how neural networks are formed. He calls long-form reading "one of the most powerful developmental tools we possess," and concludes "The aim is to rebuild a culture of sustained, immersive reading – not to chase marks."
This is a book for anyone who wants to understand where and how we went wrong in capitulating to ed tech and ceding control of our schools to those profit-focused companies, without any proof (other than what they tell us) that technology will help our kids learn better ... it doesn't. Horvath provides a wealth of documents (draft letters, check lists, draft policies, tech audits, action plans etc.) to help all interested parties roll up their sleeves and have at ed tech. He's already done much of the leg work. The rest is up to us.
As a school board member, I know where my focus will be this coming school year.
However, the book is essentially two books in one, the first centering on proving the first half of his thesis, and the second providing a detailed game plan for how parents and teachers, other educators, schools and school leaders can progressively shift us back to a sounder educational program, based on the expertise of teachers and the understanding parents have of what is best for their children.
For me, the most powerful section was Horvath's call for more long-form reading by students. Currently, with much of their reading transferred to tablets for the purpose of evaluating them and preparing them for standardized tests, students do a lot of short form reading ... decontextualized passages about which they are quizzed ... rather than whole books. iReady rather than Maniac McGee. Horvath bases his recommendation on his background as a neurologist and the science of how neural networks are formed. He calls long-form reading "one of the most powerful developmental tools we possess," and concludes "The aim is to rebuild a culture of sustained, immersive reading – not to chase marks."
This is a book for anyone who wants to understand where and how we went wrong in capitulating to ed tech and ceding control of our schools to those profit-focused companies, without any proof (other than what they tell us) that technology will help our kids learn better ... it doesn't. Horvath provides a wealth of documents (draft letters, check lists, draft policies, tech audits, action plans etc.) to help all interested parties roll up their sleeves and have at ed tech. He's already done much of the leg work. The rest is up to us.
As a school board member, I know where my focus will be this coming school year.
June 11, 2026
This book was so eye opening! As an educator and parent I have long suspected that our children were being harmed by all of the technology thrown at them, but I didn’t realize the extent of harm being done via EdTech.
I was drawn in from the first page of The Digital Delusion. This book has shaped my mindset concerning the business of EdTech and how I will proceed going forward as a teacher and parent.
I’m saddened that we have lost a generation of kids to this for-profit scheme disguised as learning.
In the Outward, Horvath writes, “This was never a book about rejecting technology; it is about reclaiming education as a deeply meaningful and human endeavor. It wasn’t about moving away from screens; it was about reorienting toward deep thought and true understanding. It wasn’t about scrapping devices; it was about reclaiming rigor. I am not anti-tech. I am pro- learning.”
Whenever we are prescribed a medication by our physician, we are asked to weigh the risk versus the reward— same with EdTech. Spoiler: the risk is high and the reward is nil. EVERY PERSON connected with children should read this book and ACT! In the end, if we stay the digital course, we are sending the message that we care more about money than we do children.
I was drawn in from the first page of The Digital Delusion. This book has shaped my mindset concerning the business of EdTech and how I will proceed going forward as a teacher and parent.
I’m saddened that we have lost a generation of kids to this for-profit scheme disguised as learning.
In the Outward, Horvath writes, “This was never a book about rejecting technology; it is about reclaiming education as a deeply meaningful and human endeavor. It wasn’t about moving away from screens; it was about reorienting toward deep thought and true understanding. It wasn’t about scrapping devices; it was about reclaiming rigor. I am not anti-tech. I am pro- learning.”
Whenever we are prescribed a medication by our physician, we are asked to weigh the risk versus the reward— same with EdTech. Spoiler: the risk is high and the reward is nil. EVERY PERSON connected with children should read this book and ACT! In the end, if we stay the digital course, we are sending the message that we care more about money than we do children.
March 16, 2026
This is a must read for parents and educators. I felt very validated in the decisions I made in the classroom. Because teachers have known this all along! Sadly, systems require certain platforms be used and often are sold the idea that we have to stay current with the times and prepare kids for the newest technology. Often times these decisions are made with the adults in mind and not the students and their learning.
This book provides you with the cognitive science of how the brain learns and demonstrates that Ed tech cannot physically do what our brains need in order to learn. You can’t unlearn it once you know it; after reading, you’ll want to go back completely old school. But if you know anything about learning, this shouldn’t be shocking to you. They give great chapters and resources for parents, teachers, and school leaders for how to advocate for and make these changes in your school. As the adults, we have to do better for our kids, and we have to start asking the questions and pushing back.
This book provides you with the cognitive science of how the brain learns and demonstrates that Ed tech cannot physically do what our brains need in order to learn. You can’t unlearn it once you know it; after reading, you’ll want to go back completely old school. But if you know anything about learning, this shouldn’t be shocking to you. They give great chapters and resources for parents, teachers, and school leaders for how to advocate for and make these changes in your school. As the adults, we have to do better for our kids, and we have to start asking the questions and pushing back.
March 30, 2026
Incredible research. Feels like the next level of Anxious Generation. Wouldn’t be shocked if it swept the nation in a similar way.
Takeaways as an educator:
-Do a tech audit
-Use handwritten whenever possible
-Default should ALWAYS be no tech
-Introduce friction whenever possible to increase intentionality.
-No AI whatsoever.
-One tech free day per week.
-Worked examples in notes help.
-Handwritten notes.
-Prep things so kids don’t need to use tech.
-Typing only for final draft of papers
-Practice/review: okay to use tech (IXL) to post problems, but they should be solved in groups discussing together.
-Assessments: paper based, short answer/essay. Less MC, TF.
-2 min brain dump at end of lesson (think, pair, share- refine).
-Tech lives in carts, NOT in backpacks or with kids.
-Analog weeks
-Device caps (wait to do these)
-Initially: Tech audit, no new tech for a year, do cost/benefit analysis, have a teacher tech task force.
Takeaways as an educator:
-Do a tech audit
-Use handwritten whenever possible
-Default should ALWAYS be no tech
-Introduce friction whenever possible to increase intentionality.
-No AI whatsoever.
-One tech free day per week.
-Worked examples in notes help.
-Handwritten notes.
-Prep things so kids don’t need to use tech.
-Typing only for final draft of papers
-Practice/review: okay to use tech (IXL) to post problems, but they should be solved in groups discussing together.
-Assessments: paper based, short answer/essay. Less MC, TF.
-2 min brain dump at end of lesson (think, pair, share- refine).
-Tech lives in carts, NOT in backpacks or with kids.
-Analog weeks
-Device caps (wait to do these)
-Initially: Tech audit, no new tech for a year, do cost/benefit analysis, have a teacher tech task force.
August 14, 2026
Excellent book. I cannot recommend this enough for educators, administrators, and parents. It’s easy to read, and while the main text may be light on the details, the references section is packed with the details or the citations of where you can find the details. The book walks through the data and the neuroscience about why most technology in schools either does not improve or harms educational outcomes. Then it offers suggestions for making positive changes if you are a student, parent, educator, or in school leadership.
This book reflects my experiences as an educator just in the last 3 years. It also affirms my choice to move as much as I possibly can off computers in one of my classes (where I graded so much AI garbage in last year). And while I am not a parent, this book further solidifies my strong opinion that tech especially does not belong in early education.
This book reflects my experiences as an educator just in the last 3 years. It also affirms my choice to move as much as I possibly can off computers in one of my classes (where I graded so much AI garbage in last year). And while I am not a parent, this book further solidifies my strong opinion that tech especially does not belong in early education.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 251 reviews