The heavy use of technology in K-12 schools—from 1-to-1 computing programs to artificial intelligence—is causing some policymakers and parents to call for educators to dial back their use of educational technology.
One reason for the pushback, according to Richard Culatta, the CEO of ISTE+ASCD, a professional development organization: Schools haven’t explained to families and caregivers exactly what their children are gaining from all these laptops, tablets, and learning platforms.
The “big problem” is that schools “have not been doing a good job of sharing ‘the why’” for using education technology, Culatta said during a Feb. 10 panel discussion on education technology and data privacy at George Washington University law school. “Either there is a why that isn’t being shared clearly, or there isn’t one.”
And if schools don’t have a compelling reason for picking a particular platform, then “technology should not be used,” he added.
At the same time, Culatta argued that ditching technology altogether won’t prepare students for the complex digital world they live in and the workforce they’ll one day join.
“We have kids that are growing up in a world where in order to be effective problem-solvers and creators and leaders, they have to know how to use technology effectively,” Culatta said during the panel, which was put on by Japan’s Toyo University, GWU law school, and the Public Interest Privacy Center, a nonprofit organization.
While parents worry that ineffective education technology may waste students’ time, the same can be said of plenty of analog activities, Culatta added. For instance, he was recently doing a school visit and saw 3rd graders working on a word search, even though they had advanced beyond letter recognition, he said.
The assignment was “not teaching anything. It was not helpful” Culatta said.
Learning experiences need to be high quality, whether they are digital or not, he added. “When we’re doing activities that have no value and are distracting on a piece of paper, it is equally as problematic” as a substandard technology platform for learning.
But panelist Meg Jones, a professor in communication, culture and technology at Georgetown University, argued that education technology comes with risks that a worksheet does not.
Jones said she’d rather have her elementary-school age son doing the word search than staring at a low-quality learning platform.
“Being bored on a networked device is different than being bored on a piece of paper,” Jones said, noting that kids on school devices have access to the broader internet. “If he’s going to be wasting time, I’d rather him be doing it on a piece of paper than this network device that has a bunch of stuff that nobody has told me about and that I didn’t give my permission for.”
Parent pushback and legislative moves aim to curb ed-tech use
A growing number of parents appear to share some of those concerns.
Nearly 7 in 10 parents said they did not support schools using AI software to store and analyze students’ grades, assessment data, or other personal information, according to the annual PDK poll on the public’s views on education. The survey of a random sample of 1,005 adults was conducted last June by the Wason Center for Civic Leadership at Christopher Newport University in Virginia.
There’s also been a growing amount of legislative activity around the idea of limiting the use of education technology. For instance, a bill introduced by state lawmakers in Utah seeks to require ed-tech tools to meet certain standards and prove their efficacy before they can be used in public schools, according to the Deseret News. Another Utah bill would limit screen time, including on ed-tech tools, particularly in early elementary school.
And last month, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing about education technology. Lawmakers heard from three expert witnesses selected by the panel’s chairman, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, argue that digital learning tools impede students’ ability to learn and offer a portal to platforms that harm children’s mental health.
Compounding matters: Educators—as well as parents and caregivers—aren’t given clear information about the data privacy risks various ed-tech tools present, some panelists argued.
Learning platforms’ privacy policies are often written in inscrutable legalese, said Nicol Turner Lee, the director of the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution, a think tank, who also spoke on the panel.
The information is “written for lawyers. They’re not necessarily written for everyday people,” Lee explained.
That “lack of transparency has parents up in arms,” wondering how much screen time their children are getting on school ed-tech platforms and how safe those platforms are, Lee added.
Part of the problem is that the major law that protects children in a digital context—the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act—is outdated. It was passed in 1998, predating not just generative artificial intelligence chatbots, but even smartphones and social media.
What’s more, COPPA wasn’t crafted with school districts in mind, said Sara Kloek, the vice president of education policy at the Software & Information Industry Association, an organization that represents education technology interests, who also spoke on the panel.
COPPA is “a law designed to work in the outside the school context,” Kloek said. That’s made it unclear for educators.
A plea for better training for educators on effective use of tech
School districts are taking their best guesses as to what constitutes compliance with federal privacy laws, panelists said.
That means ed-tech companies are often the ones assuring parents and educators that their products are safe, Culatta said.
“We have the companies that are building these tools going, ‘Oh, our tools are good. For real, you guys, it’s good! Trust us.’ Nope, that is not good enough,” Culatta said.
He noted that ISTE and other organizations—including 1EdTech, CAST, Digital Promise, InnovateEDU, and the State Educational Technology Directors Association—have come up with an EdTech Index that evaluates products on a range of factors, including privacy protections.
Culatta also argued that educators aren’t trained well in how to use technology tools.
“We would not be here having this conversation if we had prepared educators effectively for the amount of technology that is in their classrooms,” Culatta said.
Teacher training on tech may be a problem, but there’s also a lack of policy leadership on these issues, Turner Lee argued.
That problem is likely to get bigger given that the Trump administration has moved forward on its plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, including nixing its office of educational technology.
“I’m really scared about not having a Department of Education, because I think they are the ones that offer the good [tech] hygiene and now I think it’s going to be every state for themselves,” Turner Lee said.
