Schools across the developed world have spent billions equipping students with tablets and laptops. Now, parents are starting to push back, arguing that the devices meant to enhance learning are actually undermining it.

What’s Happening

A mother in Los Angeles noticed her son’s maths grades had collapsed from excellent to D’s and F’s. His teachers confirmed he understood the material—he simply couldn’t stay focused on his school-issued iPad. The device, required throughout the school day, was being used to watch YouTube and play video games during lessons.

Another parent reported her 6-year-old repeatedly wetting himself in class because he became so fixated on tablet activities he couldn’t notice normal bodily signals. A teenage boy used his school iPad to communicate with strangers online and at one point ran away from home.

These stories emerged at parent meetings in the second-largest school district in the United States, where approximately 300 parents gathered last month to voice concerns about mandatory classroom screen time. Nearly all described deteriorating behaviour and grades as students watched YouTube and played games during lessons.

“You’re basically giving them the cocaine, and then you’re telling the teachers that they have to figure out how to get it out of the kids’ hands,” one mother said. “That’s bananas.”

Los Angeles is the first major district facing organised parent opposition to educational technology. But the concerns reflect a growing unease about classroom screen time in many countries.

The Promise Versus the Reality

A decade ago, school districts embraced one-to-one device programmes—giving every student a personal tablet or laptop. Leaders described it as essential for equality, ensuring children of all backgrounds had technological access. The pandemic accelerated these programmes dramatically.

Today, 88% of US schools provide students with personal devices, typically iPads or Chromebooks. Similar programmes exist across the UK, Australia, Canada, and much of Europe.

The theory: technology would personalise learning, track struggling students, and prepare children for a digital world.

The reality: teachers describe classrooms where all students stare at screens with headphones on, with no direct teaching or conversation occurring. Students use AI chatbots to complete assignments, bypass monitoring software, and spend lesson time on entertainment rather than education.

The Schools’ Defence

School administrators defend the technology investment. They argue that restricting devices means eliminating opportunities for students who lack technology at home. They point to data showing students spend less time on screens than parents fear—typically under two hours daily in school.

Educational software companies market their products as essential for tracking student progress, identifying those falling behind, and providing personalised learning paths. Schools face pressure to show improvement in standardised testing, and these programmes promise data-driven results.

“Technology is a tool, but it is not what drives our instruction,” administrators say. They note that teachers have flexibility in how they use devices, and direct instruction remains central.

But the gap between policy and practice concerns parents. Schools may recommend limited screen time—45 minutes per subject per week, for instance—but teachers report pressure to show improvement in software-generated reports. The result: far more screen time than guidelines suggest.

How We Got Here

The one-to-one device model—one tablet or laptop per student—became standard practice in developed countries over the past decade. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption dramatically as schools rushed to enable remote learning.

What began as emergency response became permanent infrastructure. Schools that had hesitated to invest in technology suddenly had devices for every student. When pupils returned to classrooms, the devices stayed.

Today’s schools use monitoring software to track what students do online, require “digital citizenship” training, and assign educational software for maths, reading, and assessment. Children as young as five receive school-issued tablets.

The Software Problem

Educational software poses particular challenges. Programmes use algorithms to generate personalised questions and track student progress, but the questions themselves are proprietary—parents and teachers cannot see what children are asked.

“There’s this black box of my kids’ education now that I don’t have access to and the teacher doesn’t have access to,” one parent said. “In order to help figure out how I can best support my child, I need accurate information about what’s happening at school.”

Software companies say questions must remain confidential to “protect the accuracy and fairness of the assessment.” They recommend students spend limited time on their platforms—typically under two hours weekly—and emphasise that “digital learning tools should make up only a small part of a student’s day.”

But teachers describe a different reality. Students use AI chatbots to complete assignments. They create alternative user profiles to bypass monitoring software. On days when software time is mandated, that’s time taken from direct instruction in subjects like science, art, or physical education.

The enforcement challenge is significant: schools can monitor devices, but students find workarounds. Proxy servers allow them to conceal their activity. Alternative profiles defeat tracking software. The technology intended to enhance learning becomes an escalating cat-and-mouse game.

The Youngest Users

The concerns intensify with younger children. One parent believed mandatory tablet time created a health issue for her first-grade son. Over a month, her son wet his pants during iPad time four times—something he’d never done before at school or home. He cried after each incident, asking “what’s wrong with me?”

The parent and her son’s paediatrician believed the iPad time, which required headphones for game-based quizzes, was overstimulating and made it difficult for him to notice normal bodily signals. When the teacher agreed to limit device time to 20 minutes daily, the accidents stopped.

Parents also question why kindergarten-aged children are asked to sign agreements promising to honour intellectual property law and refrain from meeting people in person whom they met online. When one parent asked whether it was possible for children to meet people over the internet on school-issued devices, administrators declined to answer.

The Global Context

The pushback comes as schools worldwide implement mobile phone bans. The UK, France, Netherlands, and numerous US states have prohibited students from using personal phones during school hours. Australia’s states are introducing similar policies.

But banning personal phones whilst providing school devices creates an obvious contradiction. As one parent noted: “We’ve banned the mobile phones, but it doesn’t matter, because the kids are using the school-issued devices in exactly the same way.”

The question facing educators: is the problem phones specifically, or is it screen-based distraction during learning time? And if it’s the latter, do school-issued devices solve anything—or simply shift the problem from devices parents control to devices schools control?

Some schools are reconsidering device provision for younger pupils. Proposals to prohibit device use until age seven or eight are gaining traction. But the complexity differs from simple phone bans: educational software, remote learning capacity, and digital skills development all rely on these devices.

“The mobile phone ban was almost rudimentary,” one administrator said. “But with educational software in class, it’s not as simple, because if the pendulum swings too far, we’re doing kids a disservice.”

What Happens Next

The district plans to create a committee that will consider parent feedback on educational technology next year. Byock says she’s gratified by these steps but wants concrete changes to how devices are used in classrooms.

In the meantime, she’s opted her son out of i-Ready. Instead, his English teacher offered to do one-on-one novel study with him when other students use the software.

“Which is incredible,” Byock said, “because now he’s actually getting the kind of education that I wish all the kids were getting.”

The teachers’ union is attempting to address mandatory classroom technology in its next contract negotiation.

The Wider Question

The Los Angeles situation raises questions facing school systems globally: Where’s the line between providing equal technological access and creating technology dependency? Between preparing children for a digital world and subjecting them to digital distraction during formative developmental years?

As one district in the world’s fifth-largest economy grapples with these questions, parents, teachers, and administrators elsewhere are watching closely. The answers could reshape how schools approach educational technology for years to come.

Sources:

• NBC News: “Parents say school-issued iPads are causing chaos with their kids”
• National Centre for Education Statistics: Device usage statistics
• Los Angeles Unified School District board meetings and official statements