A Vision
for Technology
in Schooling

After nearly two decades of steady optimism regarding technology in schools and rapid tech integration, we find ourselves suddenly at a moment of deep uncertainty. The acceleration of tech integration during the pandemic, a slew of worrying new student outcomes data, new scrutiny of longer-term trends, and increasing concerns in various scientific fields about the negative effects of screens on attention, cognition, reading comprehension, note-taking, physical health, eyesight, etc., is forcing many schools, districts, and governments to stop and ask questions. 

 

But amidst state-level discussions of phone-free schools, new promises and new dangers from emerging technology, executive orders, heavy marketing from tech companies, and debates over particular policies, it can be hard to see the forest for the trees. The goal of this document is to step back and think at a high level about the role we want technology to play in our schools. 

 

We want to be forward-looking. This does not mean embracing the newest gadget to come down the pipeline, which is just immersion in the present moment. Rather, it means looking ahead: thinking long-term, about our students and the world in which they’re growing. Our responsibility is what it has always been: not to train students in particular tools that will constantly change and evolve, but to inculcate in them the ability to learn, adapt, think, and problem solve; to work hard, focus, manage their time; to listen, read, understand, and speak cogently; to respect others, attend to nuances, navigate social codes and situations; to keep sight of their moral compass. These are the qualities and habits of a truly future-ready - not merely present-ready - learner.

 

Given these considerations, we identify six student characteristics that guide our thinking about technology in schooling:

 

1. We want students who can focus deeply and stay focused (persevere) in the face of challenging tasks and setbacks—who have grit.
    

2. We want students who can use digital tools without succumbing to distraction and multitasking. 
    

3. We want students who are self-reliant, confident in their abilities, and able to think for themselves; who know when and how to use technological tools without becoming dependent on them or allowing them to supplant their own thinking.
    

4. We want students who are comfortable, confident, and adept at relating to other human beings: speaking, listening, observing, building relationships, sharing ideas, and (when appropriate) feelings. This means knowing, for example, how to communicate effectively and with nuance via email; it means knowing when a conversation is better had in person. It means being comfortable and confident at navigating challenging in-person interactions.
    

5. We want students who have moral and intellectual integrity, who avoid cheating not because they’re afraid of getting caught but because they have real pride in their work and abilities and do not want to miss opportunities to learn.
    

6. Finally, we want students who are masters of tools, not consumers of products. This means they understand the tools they’re using: not only what they’re for and how to use them, but also (to whatever extent possible) how they work. 

​

Several principles of in-school technology use follow from these aims:

 

a. Technology in school should serve as a tool, not as entertainment. (1)

​

b. Any software used in the course of instruction should put students’ focus on the material they’re learning, not on bells, whistles, or gamified features. 

 

c. Technology use should not take place at ages and in contexts that will lead to (and hence inculcate habits of distraction and multitasking. (2)

​

d. Technology should make educational tasks richer, not easier.

​

e. Technology should never replace or deprioritize human interaction in the classroom. 

 

f. Students should never be placed in situations where there is overwhelming temptation to substitute AI-generated material for their own thought and work. (3)

​

g. Students should be taught to make conscious choices about when and when not to offload cognitive tasks to technology— and should never offload skills they’re still in the process of acquiring. (4)

​

h. Students should be praised for the results of their own focus, creativity, ingenuity, and effort, rather than “impressive” effects generated automatically by software and technology— and hence teachers must be able to distinguish between the two. (5)

​

i. Students should be taught to approach technology with a critical lens, asking not only how a given product may be useful but also how it works, what kinds of mistakes it is prone to, how it affects their own cognitive experience, how it uses their personal data, how it is being marketed to them, etc.

​

j. In addition, schools should become active partners with parents and guardians in placing responsible limits on overall screen-time, fighting addiction or addiction-like use patterns, and protecting students from harmful content.

 

In our vision, teachers and administrators maintain these principles through a process of ongoing reflection. They think carefully about what technology to use, when, how and how often, applying the same critical lenses that they teach to students (principle i. above). They develop a perspective defined not by marketing narratives but by observation and research.

​​

 

Notes

​

(1) We know that American school-aged children get more recreational screentime than is healthy, and schools have a responsibility not to contribute to this problem. School should be a place where students expect to use technology only for productive purposes. The more consistent this is, the more students will acquire good habits and expectations around technology use in school, and the easier it will be to maintain norms. (See note i below.)

​

(2) When technology is used inappropriately, it not only detracts from learning in the moment, it also creates bad student habits around tech use that have larger downstream consequences.

 

(3) To take an extreme case: If a student is invited to use AI to help develop her ideas for an essay, she will soon find herself looking at text written by AI, much more academic in tone, impressive in syntax, and grammatically correct than what she could produce on her own. Once this happens, it becomes extremely difficult for her to write her own sentences, and it becomes extremely tempting to simply hand in the AI’s work as her own. But we must consider whether, at least for younger students, simply asking them to write an essay on a computer connected to the internet is not putting them in a state of unreasonable temptation. If we think about our students, how many of them do we predict will succumb to this temptation? If the answer is even a few, then we are setting them for moral failure.

​

(4) For example, the calculator should never become an automatic default for arithmetic, even in higher math classes. A strong math student doing algebra or calculus will always ask herself, Can I do this in my head? Is there a trick I can use?, and turn to the calculator only if there is not. In this way, she constantly tones her mind, develops her number sense, and maintains an attentiveness that helps reveal patterns.

​

(5) In an age when a few words of text is enough to generate a detailed painting in the style of Van Gogh, it is essential that we find ways to focus on and value real human effort, skill, and thought. This means focusing on process over product. It also means directing students, especially younger students, towards tools that don’t do too much for them. More powerful tools should be reserved for students who have developed the discipline, skills, patience, and purposes to use them with care and focus.

​​