By Dr Ragnar Purje
Sasha Rogelberg (2026), writing in Fortune, reports that the United States invested more than $30 billion to expand access to laptops and tablets in schools. As Rogelberg’s reporting indicates, policymakers framed this initiative as a means of broadening access to information and improving learning and educational outcomes.
According to Rogelberg (2026), the evidence accumulated over the past 20 years indicates that the widespread introduction of digital devices in classrooms has coincided with a measurable decline in students’ academic, cognitive and educational abilities. Rogelberg notes in her article that this development raises significant teaching, learning, pedagogical and educational questions about how learning environments are structured in schools and how educational methods and resources align with student learning potential.
The origins of the digital classroom movement
Rogelberg (2026) reports that the United States national push toward classroom digitisation began in 2002, when the State of Maine launched the first statewide one‑to‑one laptop program. Furthermore, Rogelberg reports that the Maine Learning Technology Initiative distributed 17,000 laptops in its first year and expanded this program to 66,000 devices by 2016. However, subsequent analysis indicated that by 2017, Maine’s standardised educational test scores had not improved.
Twenty years of evidence of student academic and cognitive decline
The report by Rogelberg (2026) noted that neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in 2026, drawing on global data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and other standardised measures. Rogelberg also reported that Horvath stated that Gen Z is the first generation in modern U.S. history to score lower than its predecessor.
According to these 20 years of research, Rogelberg reports that Horvath states that when students do not engage in disciplined self-initiated physical and mental effort (by outsourcing note-taking, recall, or problem-solving to devices), they are less likely to succeed academically. Rogelberg also notes that Horvath emphasised there was a positive correlation between declining academic and educational scores and increased time spent on digital engagement at school. Further to this, Rogelberg reports that Horvath argues that learning requires unrelenting ongoing self-initiated physical and mental effort, persistence, and sustained cognitive engagement.
Consequently, according to Rogelberg, the research over these two decades prominently informs that when students bypass the universally required mental work, physical effort, and sustained persistence and personal application (which neurologically construct complex connections), they do not develop, advance, or enhance their neurological capacities, nor do they enhance their cognitive, intellectual, academic, or educational possibilities.
Further to this, Rogelberg (2026), citing an OECD (2023) study, found that declines in academic, educational, and overall cognitive performance span literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving, which are core indicators of cognitive capability. According to Rogelberg, this OECD finding was consistent with research showing that constant and regular digital multitasking (also referred to as task switching) is linked to reduced working memory capacity, diminished sustained attention, lower levels of recall, and significantly poorer academic and overall educational performance (Loh & Kanai, 2014; Uncapher et al., 2016).
Additional independent research
While Rogelberg’s report offers a contemporary two-decade review of research on present-day digitally driven educational and cognitive concerns arising from large-scale classroom digitisation, many other independent studies report similar findings. These studies also show that, over many years, reduced physical and cognitive effort in the classroom lowers learning quality and is associated with significantly lower academic and educational achievement. Together, these digital classroom conditions lead to measurably lower comprehension, poorer cognitive and intellectual retention, and a significant decline in cognitive and learning potential, as well as in academic and educational performance.
These independent findings align with Rogelberg’s reporting. When digitised learning environments reduce the need for sustained personal attention and effort, research shows that students’ cognitive engagement declines, and their overall academic and educational outcomes also decline (Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Clinton, 2019; Liu, 2005; Martin et al., 2025; Kostić & Ranđelović, 2022).
This pattern is consistent with many other independent cognitive studies showing that rapid task switching (i.e., multi-tasking) disrupts working memory, thereby reducing cognitive, intellectual, and learning potential. Research also indicates that frequent digital interruptions undermine the potential for analytical thinking, deeper cognitive comprehension, and reduced intellectual problem-solving. All of which profoundly and negatively impact learning potential and the ongoing, all-important development of skills, knowledge, and higher-order and critical thinking (Mark et al., 2008; Richter & Yeung, 2012; Schneider, 2019).
Additional independent evidence indicates that reading in digital environments reduces comprehension compared with print, especially when texts are complex and require prolonged attention. Other studies have linked heavy social media use with poorer academic outcomes, heightened distractibility, and weakened executive functioning. All of which lead to lowered academic and educational standards and reduced intellectual development (Delgado et al., 2018; Montag et al., 2019; Twenge, 2023; van der Schuur et al., 2015).
Further to this, from a neurological perspective, Hutton and colleagues (2020) conducted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) research, which found that children aged 3–5 with higher screen-time engagement had significantly lower white‑matter (myelin) integrity. According to Hutton and colleagues, this meant that the essential neurobiological critical connections for language, literacy, and executive function were not developing. Correspondingly, Fields (2008) affirms that this is associated with the underdevelopment of the complex neurological architecture that children require for thinking, attention, reasoning, learning, self-regulation, and self-management.
At the tertiary and university level, Rogelberg (2026) reported that a 2021 EdWeek Research Centre poll found teachers were spending between one and four hours each day using educational technology, with roughly a quarter spending five hours or more. In addition, Rogelberg reports that the EdWeek poll indicates university students do not use these digital tools to support learning as often as expected.
Additional independent peer‑reviewed research confirms this pattern. Studies involving university students show that a significant proportion of laptop use during class is unrelated to learning, with off‑task digital behaviour constituting between 40 and 65 per cent of device use (Junco, 2012; Kraushaar & Novak, 2010).
Further research shows that such off‑task multitasking (task switching) reduces comprehension and undermines real‑time learning (Wood et al., 2012). These findings independently verify the broader concerns reflected in Rogelberg’s report: i.e., high levels of digital engagement do not necessarily translate into meaningful cognitive engagement or improved learning and educational outcomes.
Emerging corrective measures
In terms of pedagogical and educational redirection possibilities, drawing on the National Centre for Education Statistics (2025), Rogelberg (2026) notes that several U.S. states have begun introducing policy responses to growing concerns about digital distraction in schools.
Rogelberg reports that 17 states now prohibit mobile phones during instructional time, while 35 have adopted more limited restrictions on classroom phone use. Added to this, Rogelberg notes that neuroscientist Horvath believes these measures address only a narrow aspect of what are broader cognitive development, personal learning, pedagogical application, and the all-important educational challenges
Rogelberg also reports that Horvath advocates for a comprehensive national strategy. Horvath’s recommendations include establishing rigorous, evidence-based standards for technology use; conducting further independent research to identify which academic and educational methods genuinely enhance learning and, in turn, objectively and measurably improve critical thinking skills, deeper knowledge potential, and deeper levels of robust analytical reasoning.
Based on the 20 years of accumulated evidence that have now emerged, as reported by Rogelberg (2026), it appears that large-scale digitisation has objectively weakened the cognitive and physical foundations (in terms of personal persistence) and the associated academic and educational standards of an entire generation. As such, Rogelberg reports that neuroscientist Horvath argues that these findings should prompt a reconsideration of how academic and educational standards can be objectively and measurably advanced with clarity and universality to the highest level possible for all students from primary to tertiary levels.
Educational philosophical assumptions
Further to this, Rogelberg reports that the $30 billion federal investment represented more than a budgetary commitment; it reflected an educational philosophical assumption that increasing access to technology would automatically improve learning. It also assumed that digital convenience could substitute for cognitive effort and that children’s brains would adapt without cost. The evidence now shows that these assumptions were unfounded.
Rogelberg also reports that Horvath emphasises that young people are not responsible for these outcomes. Students did not choose to spend their entire K–12 education in front of screens; adults—policymakers, administrators, and technology companies—made those decisions on their behalf.
Dr Ragnar Purje is an Adjunct Senior Lecturer with the school of education at CQUniversity.