Published on March 24th, 2025 in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo
In a context where 32% of teenagers spend over five hours daily online (rising to nearly 50% on weekends), according to recent UNICEF data, and mounting evidence links hyperconnectivity to the profound deterioration of Generation Z’s mental health, the relentless push to digitalise education without proof of learning benefits or assurances of no harm raises serious concerns. A EdTech de-escalation is imperative until evidence conclusively demonstrates its benefits and confirms the absence of harm.
However, this rollout clashes with the impartial, non-commercially driven recommendations of educational, health, and data protection authorities, as well as qualified experts who question its rationale and urge reconsideration.
In 2015, the Students, Computers and learning OECD report noted that countries deploying computers in classrooms beyond average levels tended to achieve significantly poorer results. In 2023, UNESCO cautioned against underestimating the short- and long-term economic, wellbeing, and environmental costs stemming from classroom technology use. It also expressed concern about the growing influence of the digital industry on education policies. That same year, Swedish authorities reversed their classroom digitalisation programme, returning to textbooks following findings from a panel of experts coordinated by the Karolinska Institute. Also in 2023, Quebec’s National Institute of Public Health conducted a systematic review of scientific literature on the effects of digital device use, concluding that at best there were no learning benefits, and at worst, cognitive harm to minors.
There are at least ten compelling reasons to reverse the digitalisation of school education:
- Technological deployment does not respond to real, objective needs but to an unfounded association between modernity and learning—as if replacing analogue tools with digital ones inherently marked progress.
- Students face constant temptation to use devices for non-educational purposes (social media, videos, games, pornography, etc.), whose excessive consumption is linked to mental health issues, addictive behaviours, and a sense of disconnection from reality. Children receive conflicting messages: schools mandate connectivity, while paediatric guidelines urge drastically reducing screen time.
- Furthermore, digital devices negatively impact concentration and listening skills. The stimuli to which children become accustomed erode sustained attention and foster distraction. They encourage multitasking, which leads to more errors and superficial thinking.
- Pedagogically, paper-based materials remain superior for reading and writing, especially in early education stages. Reading on screens diminishes comprehension, while handwriting fosters deeper learning, memory development, and fine motor skills.
- Habitual use of digital tools before mastering essential skills reinforces the misconception that technology can solve all problems on behalf of the students, undermining effort and intrinsic motivation. Often presented as active learning methods, these tools tend to promote passivity. Practices such as submitting homework online instead of students writing it themselves fail to foster responsibility.
- Privacy is another critical concern. Last year, Spain’s Data Protection Agency warned about risks posed by educational platforms exploiting minors’ data. According to UNESCO’s 2023 GEM report, 89% of the 163 supposedly educational technology products recommended during the pandemic enabled surveillance of children.
- A common argument for digitalising education is the necessity for young people to acquire “digital skills.” In truth, thriving in a highly digitalised world depends not on early familiarity with devices, but on cultivating critical thinking, contextualising information, creativity, and a deep understanding of these tools—skills not acquired through mere usage.
- Society must also reflect on the human role amid rapid technological advances. Gradual classroom technology introduction—especially one-to-one device programmes—may foreshadow the gradual sidelining of teachers in an environment where human interaction should prevail.
- The drive to digitalise schools would not have succeeded without the considerable pressure from the “Ed Tech” industry, which invests heavily in sponsoring conferences, media content, and often biased studies. This sector wields powerful influence favouring digitalisation, rife with conflicts of interest and prioritising commercial logic over pedagogical considerations.
- Investments in digitalising education impose substantial economic costs on families and public coffers, diverting resources from other priorities. Device operation and periodic replacement also carry unaccounted environmental costs.
Acknowledging that a policy rests on a flawed premise and admitting the need to rethink it demands political courage—especially when significant resources have been mobilised. The wellbeing and future of a generation hang in the balance; hence, the enduring principle of precaution must prevail.
In this spirit, urgent measures include: (1) guaranteeing school textbooks remain available in paper form; (2) limiting screen use in classrooms to exceptional circumstances; (3) ensuring homework can be completed without devices; (4) making digital literacy a genuine subject of study rather than a mere support tool. Meanwhile, screen-free alternatives must be offered to students whose families so wish.
Catherine L’Ecuyer holds a doctorate in Education and Psychology, and is the bestselling author of It looks better in 3D.
Diego Hidalgo Demeusois is founder of the OFF Movement.
María Angustias Salmerón is a paediatrician at Hospital Ruber Internacional and president of the Spanish Society of Adolescent Medicine.
Darío Villanueva is Emeritus Professor of Literary Theory and Comparative Literature and former Director of the Royal Spanish Academy.
