Natasha Singer is a reporter for The New York Times who writes about technology and its effects on schools and students. She understands how the race to sell technology as the panacea to education problems is at bottom a race for profits, not for better education.
She has covered the growing backlash against technology in the schools, a Mad Dash to Cash. More and more educators see the downside of tech: the limited attention span, the bullying, an inability to concentrate.
In her latest report, she details why a middle school in Kansas decided to limit technology in the classroom.
She wrote:
Inge Esping, the principal of McPherson Middle School, has spent years battling digital devices for children’s attention.
Four years ago, her school in McPherson, Kan., banned student cellphones during the school day. But digital distractions continued. Many children watched YouTube videos or played video games on their school-issued Chromebook laptops. Some used school Gmail accounts to bully fellow students.
In December, the middle school asked all 480 students to return the Chromebooks they had freely used in class and at home. Now the school keeps the laptops, which run on Google’s Chrome operating system, in carts parked in classrooms. Children take notes mostly by hand, and laptops are used sparingly, for specific activities assigned by teachers.
“We just felt we couldn’t have Chromebooks be that huge distraction,” said Ms. Esping, 43, Kansas’ 2025 middle school principal of the year. “This technology can be a tool. It is not the answer to education.”
McPherson Middle School, about an hour’s drive from Wichita, is at the forefront of a new tech backlash spreading in education: Chromebook remorse.
For years, giants like Apple, Google and Microsoft have fiercely competed to capture the classroom and train schoolchildren on their tech products in the hopes of hooking students as lifelong customers. For more than a decade, tech companies have urged schools to buy one laptop per child, arguing that the devices would democratize education and bolster learning. Now Google and Microsoft, along with newcomers like OpenAI, are vying to spread their artificial intelligence chatbots in schools.
But after tens of billions of dollars of school spending on Chromebooks, iPads and learning apps, studies have found that digital tools have generally not improved students’ academic results or graduation rates. Some researchers and organizations like UNESCO even warn that overreliance on technology can distract students and impede learning.
Schools in North Carolina, Virginia, Marylandand Michigan that once bought devices for each student are now re-evaluating heavy classroom technology use. And Chromebooks, the laptops most popular with U.S. schools, have emerged as a focal point. School leaders, educators and parents described the laptop curbs as an effort to refocus schooling on skills like student collaboration and conversation.
“We’re not going back to stone tablets,” said Shiloh Vincent, the superintendent of McPherson Public Schools. “This is intentional tech use.”
The classroom device pullback is the latest sign of a growing global reckoning over how tech giants and their products have upended childhood, adolescence and education.
In a landmark verdict last week, a jury found the social media company Meta and the Google-owned YouTube liable for hooking and harming a minor. More than 30 states have limited or banned student cellphone useat school. Last year, Australia began requiring social media companies to disable the accounts of children under 16, a move that other countries are considering.
Now children’s groups and educators concerned about screen time are turning their attention to school-issued laptops and learning apps. Parents are flocking to support efforts, like Schools Beyond Screens and the Distraction-Free Schools Policy Project, to vet and limit school tech.
At least 10 states, including Kansas, Vermont and Virginia, have recently introduced bills to restrict students’ screen time, require proof of safety and efficacy for school tech tools or allow parents to opt their child out of using digital devices for learning. And Utah recently passed a law that would require schools to provide monitoring systems for parents to see which websites their children had visited — and how much time they spent — on school devices.
Some parents are particularly concerned about YouTube, saying the platform has steered children to inappropriate videos on school devices. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, recently expressed concern that one of his school-age sons had watched YouTube videos of manosphere podcasters on his school laptop.
“It was his school device,” Mr. Newsom said during a podcast interview this month. “It was YouTube. It was the Chromebook and all these algorithms.”
Google said it provided tools for schools to lock students’ Chromebook screens, restrict the content they saw, manage their YouTube access and disable Chromebooks after school hours. The company said it also turned off YouTube by default for K-12 students with school-issued Google accounts.
In a small town surrounded by wheat fields, McPherson Middle School serves sixth through eighth graders in a red brick schoolhouse built in 1938. In science class, eighth graders sit at vintage lab tables next to cabinets brimming with old microscopes. The school auditorium still has its original wooden seating.
“We already have a little bit of an old-school vibe for sure,” said Ms. Esping, now in her fourth year as principal.
She is also revisiting years-old school tech decisions.
In 2016, as part of the national trend, administrators at McPherson decided to buy a $225 Chromebook for every middle schooler. Google had introduced the low-cost laptops five years earlier, with a pitch that the tech would help equalize learning opportunities and equip students with vital career skills.
“The individual use of Chromebooks is a way to empower students to maximize their full potential,” the middle school’s device policy explained in 2016.
School leaders were enthusiastic.
“The general idea was: Students are going to be more engaged because it’s online — and how exciting for them!” Ms. Esping recalled.
To capitalize on the Chromebooks, the middle school invested in online textbooks and learning apps. But administrators, parents and students found that some of the platforms seemed too gamelike or did not work as advertised.
The coronavirus pandemic only increased school reliance on tech tools. In 2021, Chromebook shipments to schools more than doubled to nearly 16.8 million, compared with shipments in 2016, according to Futuresource Consulting, a market research firm.
When Ms. Esping took over as principal in 2022, she worried that rampant tech use was hindering learning. So the school banned student cellphones.
Online bullying and disciplinary incidents quickly decreased, she said. But online distractions continued.
Some students became so hooked on playing video games on their Chromebooks that teachers had difficulty getting them to concentrate on their schoolwork, administrators and teachers said.
Students also sent mean Gmail messages or set up shared Google Docs to bully classmates with comments. Hundreds of children logged on to Zoom meetings where they made fun of their peers, teachers and students said.
The school blocked Spotify and YouTube on school laptops. Then administrators stopped students from messaging one another on school Gmail.
Even then, some educators said they were spending so much time policing student Chromebook use that it was detracting from teaching. Some parents complained their children were spending hours playing video games on their school-issued devices.
Although the idea of taking back students’ Chromebooks seemed unorthodox, given U.S. schools’ deep reliance on Google’s sprawling education platform, the middle school went ahead. The changes took effect in January.
On one recent morning, school formally began with the Pledge of Allegiance, broadcast over school loudspeakers. Homeroom teachers then led group sessions on organizational and interpersonal skills to help children navigate life without their own laptops.
Homeroom topics have included tips for students on using paper planners for school assignments and doing homework during school hours. (Students who want to practice things like extra math problems online can borrow Chromebooks from the school library to take home.)
Teachers have also taught students how to play board and card games like Scattergories and Uno.
The new laptop minimalism has also changed core courses.
During a recent English class on writing thesis statements, Jenny Vernon, the teacher, gave seventh graders a choice. They could answer questions by hand on bright salmon-colored paper or use a class Chromebook. Most students chose the paper.
In a sixth-grade lesson on fractions, a teacher asked the class to convert three-twentieths into a percentage. Students each worked on the problem on small dry-erase boards. They balanced the boards on their heads to indicate they were ready to be called on.
Computer science classes promote purposeful tech use. In one recent lesson, students used Chromebooks to program sensors and LED lights.
“It’s coding the physical world,” said Courtney Klassen, the computing teacher. “It’s not just staring at the screen.”
Some students have welcomed the changes.
Jade LeGron, 13, said curtailing Chromebooks had been “super beneficial” because students had stopped fighting with teachers over video games and had less opportunity “to be mean to each other.”
Sarah Garcia, also 13, said spending less time online had prompted students to talk more. “Since we don’t have our Chromebooks in front of our face,” she said, “most people now interact with their, like, peers and stuff.”
The school is part of a trend. In Wichita, Marshall Middle School is trying “tech-free” Fridays. In January, the Kansas Senate introduced a school device bill that would prohibit laptops and tablets in kindergarten through fifth grade — while restricting device use for middle schoolers to just one hour during the school day.
Schools like McPherson say they are not just curbing Chromebooks to reduce children’s screen time. They are also aiming to refocus learning on child development, student-teacher interactions and old-fashioned fun.
“They’ve learned how to make darts again!” Ms. Esping exclaimed, pointing up at a student-made dart jutting out from a school hallway ceiling. “They are going back to the old ways of being ornery.”
If you have a subscription, open the story to see the visuals that accompany it.

It is long overdue for school districts to take charge of their curriculum and instruction which includes using technology as tools that can be deployed by teachers based on curricular needs. Parents and districts have voiced concerns over lower scores on standardized tests and a lack of social skills among students. Technology overuse contributes to these problems.
LikeLike
I recall posting here a study that showed students do better on paper tests than online tests. They have time to think and write out their answer.
LikeLike
I would love to discuss this with you. (I sure wish you could have participated in Constructing Modern Knowledge, as our friend Deborah Meier did four times. Your sense of computing might be different.)First of all, why are we justifying tests in any form? That is the priority of education?The weakness of computers in education is precisely because they were proposed as textbooks, drill and practice machines, and testing systems – not intellectual laboratories or vehicles for self-expression that amplify human potential.I find myself in the unenviable position of defending computers in education when 99% of their use IS misguided, or worse. However, the remaining 1% is glorious and critical. Some of us have spent decades advocating for progressive, humane, creative, and personal computing in classrooms. I would assert that there is no progressive education with computational fluency and unfettered access to information.The anti-screen folks are not pro-child. They are projecting adult anxiety, guilt, and economic insecurity onto children. It is like scapegoating immigrants or eroding civil rights. School tech bans are ultimately a tax on poor children. The sloppy journalism and moral panic fueling this “tech backlash” is inextricable from the disempowerment of children and rise of pedagogical authoritarianism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Proper uses: as intellectual laboratories, as vehicles for self expression
I could not agree more. Yes, yes, yes
LikeLike
However, there is almost no current guidance or curricula for using computers in classrooms in these ways (the important ways in which I have used them myself, for my own purposes, for decades). The backlash against tech is for good reason. It’s because computers are now used PRIMARILY for taking practice test and for doing test prep skill drill, as anyone who has spent time in U.S. K-12 schools recently can attest. Kids are being robbed, and a lot of current teachers, sadly, are fine with this because they can tell the kids to work at their computers and then sit back and read a magazine. I have witnessed this first-hand. It’s common.
LikeLike
There is nothing about a computer that reduces thinking time.
ㅤ
It is also possible that the online tests are poorly designed, but that’s not the point. Why are we talking about tests at all?
LikeLike
“On one recent morning, school formally began with the Pledge of Allegiance, broadcast over school loudspeakers.”
The most prominent interruption of my classes over the 34 years was this one. When a new principal decided we should teach children about patriotism by having the pledge over the intercom, it shortened first period in ways I never dreamed. And it did not teach patriotism at all. Students slouched to a sort of attention and faced a struggling, static version of the pledge.
I told them this would happen. I told them each teacher should involve the class in deciding how to begin class each morning, inducing them to discuss the use of the pledge, its history, and its purpose. Nothing doing. The new principal was adamant in her desire to control life. It was a miserable failure.
Like the pledge over the intercom, Chromebooks and such abstract the values of education.
LikeLike
Many in my classes, made up largely of Latino and black student, were not too keen on saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I used to add on to the end “with liberty and justice for all SOMEDAY.”
LikeLike
This post prompted me to recall a meeting back in 2016 when the then RI Commissioner of Education, Ken Wagner, made a jaw-dropping comment. When the one high school student on the RI Council on Elementary and Secondary Education described a loss of instructional time due to insufficient technology in some schools during mandatory standardized test administration, so that schedules were interrupted for weeks, Wagner insisted that it’s necessary to get all schools to use the online version, rather than the paper and pencil version of the PARCC (previous state assessment) as soon as possible. He insisted that this was important not only for the testing, but for an underlying instructional purpose. He stated:
“We can’t think about student engagement unless we have a serious strategy around digital learning.”
I can’t think of a more misguided understanding of student engagement than this, can you?
In the elementary school where my daughter teaches, third graders are struggling to TYPE their “essays” on the current incarnation of the state assessment. These children do not know how to type! They don’t even have the manual dexterity to type. They are spending inordinate amounts of time trying to complete these tests. The results will inevitably show that they and their teachers are failures. How can this travesty still be going on?
So many teachers recognized from the beginning that the wholesale shift to digital “learning” would be a disaster for students. Our knowledge, experience, and judgement were disdained and discounted. This is the tragic result.
LikeLike
I stopped subbing at a district I had really enjoyed subbing for when they got a new superintendent who went gung ho on tech. There were some good uses, like providing a communication avenue for some autistic students. However, watching kindergarteners pull out Chromebooks to complete a science lesson disgusted me. The end came when I subbed in a middle school special ed math class. The students spent the entire time on an online math program. Understanding was not required. They just chose each potential answer until they hit the correct one. They were not interested in reviewing problems as a group and sharing their thinking. They saw no need for any discussion. That was the last time I subbed. I did not sign up to be a computer lab monitor.
LikeLike
Finally, WordPress let me log in without authentication.
Fact is that if you are putting your students on Chromebooks more than once in a great while, you’re frankly not a very good teacher. Sorry!
LikeLike