麻豆精品

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 麻豆精品 Newsletter

When it comes to tech and kids, America has made serious mistakes. For years, children have been allowed unsupervised access to social media apps in school and at home that were not designed with their safety in mind. This has contributed to an in adolescent anxiety, depression, cyberbullying and suicide. Americans have every reason to be concerned 鈥� and every reason to act.  

Responsible legislation could limit the dangers by requiring age verification before kids can sign up for social media accounts, making learning content easier to access and demanding that cellphone providers provide safety tools for families. Instead, a huge wave of poorly constructed bills is working its way through state legislatures that could cause unintended consequences and set young people back even further. 

For example, in Missouri, a recently passed the statehouse that will require 70% of elementary school assignments to be completed with pencil and paper and prohibit schools from assigning any homework that uses technology. In Tennessee, legislators passed to ban all technology in grades K-5 for students and teachers. A proposed Kansas would mandate that all K-5 instructional materials be 鈥減rint-based.鈥� Virginia鈥檚 Senate has legislation directing the state to cap instructional screen time by grade level. And in Utah, a package of signed by the governor will sharply curtail the use of technology to support learning.

There are two consistent problems in the current wave of bills. First, they treat distracting entertainment media and research-based educational technology as if they are the same. But not all screen time is created equal, and these bills completely ignore that distinction. Lumping TikTok together with a math tutoring app, or Instagram with a text-to-speech tool for a student with dyslexia, is a practice that has been repeatedly . 

Second, they assume that the best way to limit tech use is with a timer. But the issue is quality, not quantity. Many of these bills set a daily time limit (e.g., one hour of digital instruction), though any amount of time would be too much for a student who is not using the technology effectively. On the flip side, technology used thoughtfully to increase student engagement and creativity should not be constrained by an arbitrary time limit, especially when supporting evidence-based pedagogical practices. What鈥檚 worse, not one of the bills requiring paper-based worksheets to be used in place of technology imposes any quality standards on the types of activities assigned. According to these bills, a teacher could replace a highly effective math app with a dot-to-dot worksheet, and it would be totally fine. That’s an 鈥渙ut of the frying pan into the fire鈥� situation.

As a parent and former educator, I understand the desire for . Personal devices and non-learning apps that don鈥檛 support educational goals can hijack students鈥� attention and try any teacher鈥檚 patience. But when learning is not engaging, literally anything will become a distraction. Limiting instruction to filling out paper-based worksheets would be mind-numbing for any student.

In contrast, the key to get kids to love learning is to make it meaningful, and this is where ed tech can be a game-changer. Recently, I visited a school in Los Angeles that was transforming math instruction by having students play a research-based math game, which informed the teacher exactly who needed extra help with specific concepts. Other technologies adapt learning activities based on students鈥� interests or skill levels, let teachers know which kids need help before they fall behind and enable educators to meet each student鈥檚 needs in ways that would otherwise be impossible. The effectiveness of these tools is backed by decades of . A bill like Missouri鈥檚 would make this kind of data-informed teaching nearly impossible.

For children with disabilities, assistive technology 鈥� screen readers, text-to-speech software, adaptive learning systems and language translation tools 鈥� is not just a nice-to-have; it whose needs might otherwise go unmet. Today, in the U.S. receive special education services, many of which include technology as part of their individualized education plans. For students with dyslexia using a text-to-speech app, for example, technology isn鈥檛 a distraction 鈥� it鈥檚 how they access learning. Tennessee鈥檚 original proposal would have barred teachers from even using digital devices for instruction, meaning the very tools these students depend on could have been eliminated.

In today’s economy, there is no college or career path that doesn鈥檛 require the effective use of technology. Students who develop digital literacy skills early than those who don’t. Essentially all jobs 鈥� 鈥� now require applicants to have digital proficiency. Preventing K-12 students from learning to use technology for writing, research and collaboration would undermine their future employability and the nation鈥檚 economic competitiveness.

This is even more striking in a global context. While America’s state legislatures debate whether to let elementary students touch a keyboard, other countries are on teaching students how to use technology 鈥� including artificial intelligence 鈥攖o solve complex problems. They recognize that technology can enhance curiosity, critical thinking and other essential skills, ensuring their graduates can thrive in the workplace and beyond. 

With the emergence of artificial intelligence, the world is at the . If the nation’s goal is to prepare kids to thrive in a complex and modern economy, it cannot retreat to the tools of the last century.

There is no disputing the need for guidelines and guardrails for children using consumer technology. But by treating math software the same as Netflix, and assistive technology the same as TikTok, the ed tech bans gaining momentum in statehouses around the country guarantee that the students who can least afford to fall behind will be the ones hurt most. If these bills become law, America won鈥檛 have protected its children 鈥� it will have forced them to learn for a paper-based world that no longer exists.

Banning technology for learning doesn鈥檛 make us principled 鈥� it makes us negligent.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 麻豆精品鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.