Neuroscientist challenges assumption that classroom screens improve future readiness

Jared Cooney Horvath’s new book questions whether the increasing use of screens in schools actually hampers children’s cognitive development, reigniting the debate over digital tools in education.

Jared Cooney Horvath is challenging a long-held assumption in education: that more classroom technology automatically means better preparation for the future. In his new book, “La ilusión digital”, the neuroscientist and former teacher argues that the spread of screens, laptops and other digital tools in schools has coincided with weaker cognitive outcomes, especially for younger pupils.

According to reporting by The Guardian, Horvath links that shift to a broader flattening in student performance that, he says, began around the early 2000s, when digital devices became far more common in classrooms. He points to international test results and historical measures of academic progress, arguing that children spending more than six hours a day on screens at school tend to score worse than those with little or no classroom screen exposure. His case is not that technology is always harmful, but that it can pull attention away from the kind of deep focus early learning requires.

That argument has drawn pushback. Rose Luckin, professor emerita at UCL Knowledge Lab, has said the rush to embed technology in schools was not supported by enough evidence, but she does not accept the idea that all digital learning is damaging. Citing the same international data, she argues that moderate use appears to outperform the extremes of either no screen use or very heavy use. Dylan Wiliam, an assessment expert, has also warned that the available evidence shows correlation rather than proof that screens themselves are causing the decline.

The debate reflects a wider tension in schools and homes alike: how to prepare children for a digital world without undermining concentration, memory and reading skills. Supporters of more cautious use of devices say paper, handwriting and in-person instruction still have a strong role in building those foundations. Horvath’s work has added fresh fuel to that discussion, but the evidence, as his critics stress, still leaves room for competing interpretations.