Screen skepticism is surging worldwide, but the future of educational technology may depend less on defending devices and more on redefining value, accountability, and innovation.
GUEST COLUMN | by Ian McCullough
British comedy duo Mitchell and Webb have a classic sketch set during World War II. During the retreat from Operation Barbarossa, two German officers in a foxhole exchange artillery fire with Soviet forces. As explosions surround their besieged position, Mitchell turns to Webb and — contemplating their skull-decorated uniforms — wonders, “Are we the baddies?”
As explosions surround their besieged position, Mitchell turns to Webb and — contemplating their skull-decorated uniforms — wonders, “Are we the baddies?”
That captures the current mood among those of us who’ve built our careers in edtech.
While there’s been a growing rift between educators and the broader technology industry for some time now, early 2026 has seen that rift explode into a chasm. That breach is the result of one glaring question: should schools be using screen-based technology with students at all?
The Screen-Time Reckoning
Building on Dr. Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation and Dr. Angela Duckworth’s Phones in Focus project, Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath — whose book The Digital Delusion was released in December — appeared before a U.S. Senate Committee on January 15 and gave testimony. We have since seen a flood of blog posts, book reviews, news articles, opinion columns, and editorials asserting positions on our work that range from skeptical to dismissive to harsh.
On one hand, perhaps we deserve it.
The Trust Gap
To deliver on the promises we make, our most brilliantly designed classroom solutions often require factors beyond our control. When those factors aren’t present and the solution fails, edtech businesses lose trust from academic institutions. While we on the vendor side reflect on how to bridge the implementation gap, educators come to see us as blind evangelists, accountability-avoiding apologists, or full-blown fabulists. When we sell solutions into schools that aren’t equipped for a successful deployment, we’re to blame for the blowback and the damage to the entire industry’s revenue potential and reputation.
‘When we sell solutions into schools that aren’t equipped for a successful deployment, we’re to blame for the blowback and the damage to the entire industry’s revenue potential and reputation.’
On the other hand, perhaps we need perspective.
We’ve Been Here Before
Scrutiny of the relationship between kids and screens is nothing new. The first Congressional hearings about the impact of television on children were in the early 1950s. In pop culture, Roald Dahl’s children’s novel Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, featuring the screen-obsessed Mike Teevee, was published in1964 and Shel Silverstein published a pointed poem titled Jimmy Jet and His TV Set in 1974. In 1967, to ensure that programming with educational value was available on radio and television, Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act. From then through to today, we in the edtech industry have been accustomed to being celebrated for positive use of technology. It’s different and disquieting for us to not be seen as the star student.
This wave of criticism began to swell in early 2018. It was interrupted, however, by the very thing that later turned into a tsunami: the COVID-19 school shutdowns. In an instant, we leapt to screens being the only way students could receive instruction. As campuses reopened, the pandemic-driven saturation of screens spawned a new chorus of questions. While the immediate post-pandemic policy focused on whether or not schools should allow students access to personal mobile phones, the more general question of whether or not screens should be in classrooms was already gaining fresh momentum.
So… where does that leave us? Are we indeed the baddies?
Despite rhetoric from some corners that casts aspersions on the motivations of everyone who has ever worked in edtech, no. We are not the baddies.
For fellow idealists also in the midst of an existential crisis about career choices, I encourage you to read the open letter that a coalition of 17 education, library, and not-for-profit leadership organizations submitted to Senators Cruz and Cantwell in advance of the January 15 hearings. After that, review the January 20 policy statement on Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents published by the American Academy of Pediatrics that calls for prioritizing digital literacy initiatives and ensuring the availability of high-quality content.
The Politics of Screen Restrictions
Not being the baddies, however, does not mean we’ve been right. On top of challenging our own orthodoxies, we have to reckon with two facts:
1. It is exponentially more straightforward — and far less politically fraught — for policymakers to regulate government institutions like schools than it is to regulate what parents choose for their own children at home. Concerns about kids and screens are inextricably tied to socioeconomic status and much deeper challenges such as a dearth of affordable child care that effectively forces parents to use electronic devices as digital babysitters. Focusing on screens in schools is way easier than addressing any of those thornier issues.
2. Policymakers and legislators around the world are implementing restrictions on screens in classrooms. Whether or not it is warranted, this is what’s happening. Sweden began curtailing screen use in 2023. In mid-2025 the regional government of Madrid in Spain followed suit and then the state of Victoria in Australia passed a law in October. The movement has come to the United States with both Utah and Missouri now considering legislation.
Three Beacons Forward
I see three beacons lighting the way forward for edtech businesses resolved to improve, add value, and serve:
– Outcomes-based contracting (OBC) is gaining traction as a way to align vendor incentives to the actual needs of institutions. As an industry, the single most important thing we need to do is reestablish a foundation of mutual trust with our customers. If we only get paid when they get results, that changes relationships.
– A school isn’t just classrooms; it’s a campus. Effective technology use outside of classrooms can positively influence student experience inside them. Administrative tools, transportation and logistics, and facilities management are all areas where better technology can offer tremendous benefits.
– Screens have become the de facto symbols of technology in our smartphone-saturated world, but there remains vast underexplored potential for non-screen interfaces. Beyond the obvious progress in robotics, there’s so much more we could be doing with classroom soundscapes and lighting fixtures to inspire imaginations and ignite learning. When we further explore small quadrotor drones, beacons, haptics, kinesthetics, and even olfactory as ways to engage students, it becomes apparent that the edtech industry’s best days lie ahead.
Bigger Than Screens
When new constraints emerge, that merely means that it’s time to start innovating again. It may well come to pass that the most significant revelation from all this screen-time scrutiny is the degree to which screens have distracted us from bigger and bolder possibilities for better learning.
—
Ian McCullough is an edtech marketing executive with 25 years of experience spanning consumer products, institutional sales, and corporate learning. At Turnitin, he originated and scaled the K-12 regional marketing function across four progressive roles over six years, contributing to double-digit ARR growth for the business unit and forging strategic partnerships with NEA, AFT, and NASSP. He currently leads Americas K-12 marketing for 3P Learning and has held leadership roles at LeapFrog, Pearson Foundation, and Electronic Arts. Ian holds a Master of Entertainment Technology from Carnegie Mellon University and is based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Connect with Ian on LinkedIn
0 Comments