By Lina Irawan 
By the fall of that same year, the MLTI had made significant strides, distributing an impressive 17,000 Apple laptops – specifically iBooks – to every seventh-grade student across 243 middle schools in Maine. This was not merely a pilot program; it was a wholesale adoption, marking a pivotal moment in educational technology. The program continued to expand over the years, demonstrating a sustained commitment to its foundational principles. By 2016, the scope had multiplied dramatically, with 66,000 laptops and tablets distributed to Maine students, encompassing more grade levels and adapting to the evolving landscape of personal computing devices.
King’s initial efforts in Maine were not an isolated experiment; they resonated deeply across the nation and indeed, the world. His pioneering vision has since been mirrored by countless districts and states, eager to leverage technology for educational advancement. The belief that more technology inherently leads to better educational outcomes became a guiding principle for policymakers and school administrators alike. Consequently, by 2024, the U.S. education system was spending an astonishing sum, over $30 billion, on integrating laptops and tablets into schools, reflecting a widespread commitment to digital learning environments.
However, more than a quarter-century after Maine blazed this trail, and through numerous evolving models of educational technology, a starkly different and concerning outcome has emerged. Psychologists, neuroscientists, and learning experts are now observing an inverse effect to what Governor King and many others had intended. Rather than empowering a generation with unprecedented access to knowledge and bolstering their cognitive capabilities, the pervasive integration of technology appears to have had the opposite effect, potentially hindering genuine learning and critical thinking skills.
This alarming trend was brought into sharp focus earlier this year during written testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, a leading voice in the field of educational neuroscience, delivered a sobering assessment. He stated unequivocally that Generation Z, despite its unparalleled access to digital technology from an early age, is less cognitively capable than previous generations. His testimony included a stark revelation: Gen Z is the first generation in modern history to score lower on standardized tests than its immediate predecessor, a statistic that challenges the very premise of widespread technology adoption in schools.
Horvath clarified that while skills measured by these standardized tests, such as literacy and numeracy, are not always a direct proxy for overall intelligence, they are undeniably a critical reflection of cognitive capability. His research and observations indicate a clear decline in these fundamental cognitive abilities over the last decade or so, coinciding with the exponential growth of digital device usage among young people.
To bolster his claims, Horvath cited comprehensive data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which evaluates the academic performance of 15-year-olds across the globe, alongside other widely recognized standardized tests. He not only highlighted the pervasive dipping test scores but also underscored a "stark correlation" between these declining scores and the amount of time students spent on computers in school. The evidence suggested a clear pattern: more screen time in educational settings was directly related to worse academic outcomes. Horvath attributed this decline to students having "unfettered access" to technology, which, rather than bolstering learning capabilities, appeared to have atrophied them. He also pointed to the introduction of the iPhone in 2007 as a significant turning point, further accelerating the integration of personal devices into daily life, including school environments, thereby exacerbating the issue of constant digital distraction.
Horvath was careful to frame his argument not as a blanket rejection of technology. "This is not a debate about rejecting technology," he wrote in his testimony. "It is a question of aligning educational tools with how human learning actually works. Evidence indicates that indiscriminate digital expansion has weakened learning environments rather than strengthened them." His emphasis was on intentional, evidence-based integration, rather than a default assumption that more technology is always better.
Indeed, the warning signs were perhaps already visible years ago. Fortune magazine reported in 2017 that, 15 years into Maine’s pioneering laptop initiative, the state’s public school test scores had shown no significant improvement. This lack of tangible academic benefit, despite massive investment, led then-Governor Paul LePage to famously call the program a "massive failure," even as the state continued to pour money into contracts with tech giants like Apple. The initial promise of a digital revolution in education seemed to have stalled, yielding meager academic returns for the considerable financial outlay.
The ramifications of these eroding learning capabilities for Gen Z are profound and extend far beyond the classroom. This generation is already grappling with the seismic shifts brought about by the 21st century’s other major technological revolution: generative artificial intelligence. Early data from a first-of-its-kind Stanford University study, published last year, found that advancements in AI are having a "significant and disproportionate impact on entry-level workers in the U.S. labor market." This suggests that a population with diminished cognitive skills will face even greater challenges in a rapidly evolving job market where AI is increasingly capable of performing tasks traditionally assigned to new entrants.
Horvath warned that the consequences of a less cognitively capable population are dire, extending beyond poorer job prospects and fewer promotions. He argued it "endangers how humans are able to overcome existential challenges in the decades to come." Elaborating on this grim forecast, he told Fortune: "We’re facing challenges more complex and far-reaching than any in human history—from overpopulation to evolving diseases to moral drift. Now, more than ever, we need a generation able to grapple with nuance, hold multiple truths in tension, and creatively tackle problems that are stumping the greatest adult minds of today." The very future of humanity, he implied, hinges on a generation equipped with robust critical thinking and problem-solving skills, which current trends suggest are in decline.
Technology’s Impact on Learning: A Deeper Dive
The explosion of classroom technology usage in recent years underscores the scale of this issue. A 2021 EdWeek Research Center poll, which surveyed 846 teachers, revealed that 55% reported spending between one and four hours per day utilizing educational technology in their classrooms. An additional quarter of teachers indicated using these digital tools for five hours or more per day. This signifies an almost ubiquitous integration of technology into the daily educational experience of students.
However, while teachers may intend for these tools to be strictly educational, students frequently harbor different ideas. A revealing 2014 study, which surveyed and observed 3,000 university students, found that students engaged in off-task activities on their computers nearly two-thirds of the time during class. This pervasive distraction fundamentally undermines the pedagogical intent of technology integration.
Horvath pinpointed this tendency to stray off-track as a critical contributor to technology hindering, rather than helping, learning. The human brain is not designed for constant, rapid task-switching. When one’s attention is interrupted, it takes a significant amount of time and cognitive effort to refocus and re-engage with the original task. Furthermore, research indicates that frequent task-switching is strongly associated with weaker memory formation and greater rates of error. Grappling with a challenging singular subject matter is inherently difficult, Horvath explained, and for the deepest learning to occur, it is supposed to be hard.
"Unfortunately, ease has never been a defining characteristic of learning," he stated. "Learning is effortful, difficult, and oftentimes uncomfortable. But it’s the friction that makes learning deep and transferable into the future." The pervasive quest for "easy learning" through technology may, paradoxically, be making learning less effective.
Jean Twenge, a San Diego State University psychology professor who studies generational differences and is the author of 10 Rules for Raising Kids in a High-Tech World, further reinforces this perspective. She argues that sustained attention to a singular subject is antithetical to how technology, particularly social media and entertainment apps, has been deployed. More time on screens isn’t just ineffective in facilitating learning; it’s actively counterproductive. "Many apps, including social media and gaming apps, are designed to be addictive," Twenge told Fortune. "Their business model is based on users spending the most time possible on the apps, and checking back as frequently as possible." This design fundamentally clashes with the sustained attention required for deep learning.
A Baylor University-led study published in November 2025 shed light on the mechanics of this addiction, specifically focusing on short-form video platforms. The research uncovered that TikTok, in particular, required the least amount of cognitive effort to use, even less than Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts. It achieved this by masterfully balancing relevant videos with surprising and unexpected content, creating an almost irresistible pull that keeps users scrolling indefinitely. This constant stream of low-effort, high-reward content trains the brain for distraction rather than focus.
The concerns over social media addiction have escalated to such dire levels that legal action is being taken. In a landmark move, 1,600 plaintiffs, representing 350 families and 250 school districts, filed a lawsuit alleging that Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Snap (Snapchat), TikTok, and YouTube intentionally created addictive platforms. The lawsuit contends that these platforms have led to severe mental health challenges in children, including increased rates of depression and self-harm.
Solving the Tech Crisis: A Path Forward
Recognizing the severity of the situation, Horvath proposed a swath of solutions to address Gen Z’s tech problem, particularly concerning its use in educational settings. He suggested that Congress could play a pivotal role by imposing efficacy standards for digital tools, requiring robust research to determine what technologies are genuinely effective in the classroom before widespread adoption. Furthermore, the legislature could mandate strong limits on tracking behavior, building profiles, and collecting data on minors using educational technology, safeguarding student privacy and preventing exploitative design.
Some schools and states have already taken matters into their own hands. As of August 2025, 17 states have implemented "bell-to-bell bans" on cellphone use in school, prohibiting the technology during instructional time. An additional 35 states have enacted laws limiting the use of phones in the classroom. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics indicates that more than 75% of schools now report having policies prohibiting cellphone use for non-academic purposes, though the enforcement of these bans has been met with variable success, often encountering resistance from students and parents.
Ultimately, Horvath argued that the widespread loss of critical thinking and learning skills is less of a personal failure on the part of students and more of a systemic, policy failure. He characterized the generation of Americans educated with ubiquitous digital gadgets as "victims of a failed pedagogical experiment." His message to teenagers is one of empathy and empowerment.
"Whenever I work with teenagers I tell them, ‘This is not your fault. None of you asked to be sat in front of a computer for your entire K-12 schooling,’" Horvath shared. "That means we—the adults, the policymakers, the educators—screwed up. And I genuinely hope Gen Z quickly figures that out and gets mad." His call to action is for the generation most affected to recognize the profound impact of these policies and demand a re-evaluation of how technology is integrated into their learning environments.
The journey initiated by Maine in 2002, with its hopeful vision of a digitally empowered generation, has led to an unforeseen crossroads. The evidence now suggests that an indiscriminate embrace of technology in education, without a deep understanding of human learning mechanisms and the addictive nature of digital platforms, carries significant risks. The challenge ahead is not to abandon technology, but to redefine its role—to integrate it thoughtfully, purposefully, and ethically, ensuring it serves as a true tool for learning rather than a source of distraction and cognitive atrophy. For the sake of Gen Z and future generations, and for the capacity of humanity to confront its looming challenges, a critical re-evaluation of our digital educational experiment is not just necessary, but urgent.