A neuroscientist who previously worked as a teacher has warned that extensive use of screens and digital tools in classrooms is undermining how children learn, arguing that younger cohorts are “less cognitively capable” than previous generations and calling for a major reduction in screen‑based academic learning.
Jared Cooney Horvath sets out his case in a new book, The Digital Delusion, and links declining population‑level cognitive measures and international test scores to the rapid growth of educational technology in schools since about the year 2000. He pinpoints the expansion of laptops and one‑to‑one programmes that accelerated from around 2010–12 and surged further during the Covid pandemic, when many systems adopted digital delivery as an emergency response.
“Our children are less cognitively capable than we were at their age,” he writes.
What the neuroscientist says
Horvath argues that for almost two centuries western societies experienced steady generational improvements in health, wellbeing and education, but that trend has reversed in recent decades. He writes that IQ scores began to decline around 2000, even as time in school continued to rise, and suggests the answer lies in the “meteoric rise” of edtech.
He points to the scale of the sector to underline his concern. A recent Department for Education report cited by Horvath estimates the UK edtech market generates annual turnover of about £6.5bn, while he says the US market is worth about $400bn (£295bn) and that 88% of US school districts now have one‑to‑one computers for learners.
From pandemic Band‑Aid to permanent practice
Horvath accepts the shift to digital during Covid‑19 was a necessary emergency measure — “better to have something than nothing” — but questions why many schools did not reverse that pivot when classroom teaching resumed. He warns the problem is not limited to recreational screen use: to preserve “deep transferrable knowledge” in learners’ heads, screens used for academic learning should also be reduced as much as possible, he says.
- Timeline: Horvath traces major uptake of laptops in schools to about 2010–12, with a further surge during the Covid pandemic.
- Market scale: UK edtech turnover about £6.5bn; US market estimated at $400bn (£295bn).
- Device penetration: Horvath cites that 88% of US school districts now provide one‑to‑one computers.
Those figures form the empirical backbone of his argument that schools worldwide — including systems that embraced digital teaching during and after Covid — should reconsider how and how much they rely on screens for instruction.
Implications for classrooms and policy
The claim that generational cognitive gains have stalled or reversed raises practical questions for teachers and policymakers. If deep, long‑term knowledge acquisition suffers when learning is mediated primarily through screens, classroom practice and curriculum design may need to emphasise activities that build durable understanding and transferable skills without excessive reliance on devices.
Horvath’s position is likely to provoke debate among educators who point to the benefits of carefully integrated technology: personalised practice, access to resources and support for learners with special needs. His central recommendation is not a blanket ban on devices for leisure, but a call to reduce screen use for academic learning where it undermines deep learning.
| Indicator | Figure |
|---|---|
| UK edtech annual turnover | £6.5bn |
| US edtech market | $400bn (£295bn) |
| US districts with one‑to‑one computers | 88% |
For South African classrooms, where debates continue about digital access, the quality of teaching, and post‑Covid learning recovery, Horvath’s arguments add a cautionary perspective. They invite school leaders and education departments to weigh the measurable short‑term conveniences of technology against potential long‑term costs to foundational learning.
At minimum, the book and its claims underline the need for rigorous, local research on how devices affect learning outcomes in different contexts, and for professional support that helps teachers design instruction that builds deep understanding—whether mediated by screens or not.
Horvath’s conclusions are a clear provocation to educators: the solution will require careful judgement, not reflexive adoption or rejection of technology.
