Jared Cooney Horvath argues that the common defense of classroom technology — “there’s no definitive evidence of harm” — sets an unrealistic standard. Because ed tech evolves rapidly, product-specific causal trials are often impossible and ethically problematic. Instead, he points to converging evidence. In Utah, long-rising achievement scores reversed after digital tools became central in 2014, a pattern echoed in broader national and international data, raising concerns about large-scale tech adoption without clear evidence of benefit.
On Friday, I filmed former teacher and neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, PhD, for an upcoming project (more on that to come!). He specializes in the science of learning.
I asked if we could share his recent Substack post, and he said absolutely yes! (Find below)
His Substack is titled The Digital Delusion, which is also the title of his recently released book. I have read the book and definitely recommend it.
Horvath has spent years analyzing data around tech in schools. He is not antitech. Rather, he has wanted to understand how all the computer time in schools has impacted learning. Given that ed tech came bustling into schools without having to prove itself, he wants to look at data.
He points to Utah, where students' test scores climbed steadily for decades, until computers moved to the center of classrooms in 2014, after which scores started falling. And this pattern has repeated itself in state after state.
As I wrote about in phone-free school policies, the pushback is always some version of "the evidence isn't definitive yet." But here's what I keep coming back to: there is a ton of evidence.
As AI is now heading into classrooms with even less scrutiny. When the warning signs are this consistent, demanding airtight proof before acting isn't protecting kids. It's protecting the industries.
Definitely worth reading Jared’s insights and sharing with others. This is important stuff!
Find the full post below, recreated from the original you can view here. And be sure to subscribe to Jared's substack: The Digital Delusion
Jared Cooney Horvath | Feb 24, 2026
Last week, Mark Zuckerberg – founder and CEO of Meta - took the stand under oath for the first time in a criminal trial.
At one point, Zuckerberg was questioned about Meta’s use of beauty filters: digital effects that make users, including children, appear younger, fitter, and more conventionally attractive in photos and videos.
The prosecution referenced Meta’s own internal review, Project MYST. According to reports, 18 out of 18 wellbeing experts who evaluated the psychological impact of these filters raised serious concerns about potential harm to young users’ mental health.
Despite those warnings, the filters remained available.
Zuckerberg’s defense rested on a familiar line of reasoning: there was no peer-reviewed, causal evidence demonstrating this specific product directly harmed children. Absent validated proof of causation, harm could not be established.
“There is no evidence of harm.”
This is the same argument now being deployed by EdTech lobbyists at statehouses across the country as lawmakers attempt to regulate classroom technology.
This year, more than a dozen bills aimed at regulating EdTech have been introduced across at least nine states. Utah’s SAFE and BALANCE acts led the way, followed closely by Vermont’s effort to formalize parental opt-out rights and Tennessee’s proposal to remove digital devices from primary classrooms.
These efforts are informed by decades of research showing that, on average, classroom technologies do not outperform – and often underperform - well-implemented analog instruction.
Despite strong bipartisan support in most states, pro-tech lobbyists are pushing back with a familiar refrain: “There is no evidence of harm for emerging EdTech products.”
Strictly speaking, that statement is often true.
Educational technology evolves so rapidly that by the time researchers evaluate one platform, it has already been patched, rebranded, or replaced. Product-specific causal evidence is perpetually just out of reach.
But this is not a scientific defense. It is a misleading procedural maneuver.
Demanding product-specific, long-term, high-risk causative trials in children sets an unrealistic and ethically impossible standard.
Returning to beauty filters, no ethics board would approve a study deliberately exposing children to a tool that 18 experts consider risky simply to ‘prove’ harm. That is why no randomized control trial has tested whether these filters damage young users’ mental health – the likely harms of such a study outweigh any possible benefits.
Luckily, we don’t live in a vacuum.
A substantial body of correlational research links image manipulation and filter use to body dissatisfaction, self-objectification, weight concerns, and reduced wellbeing. The experts reviewing Meta’s policies were not guessing – they were applying decades of psychological research to a new technological wrapper.
Software changes. Human biology does not.
The same logic governs learning.
Learn more about showing our movies in your school or community!
Join Screenagers filmmaker Delaney Ruston MD for our latest Podcast
Learn more about our Screen-Free Sleep campaign at the website!
Our movie made for parents and educators of younger kids
Learn more about showing our movies in your school or community!
Utah’s digital inflection year occurred in 2014, corresponding with the statewide launch of SAGE - a fully computerized adaptive assessment system. Before this, digital tools were largely peripheral in Utah classrooms. After this, they became structurally embedded.
Before widespread digital adoption, Utah NAEP scores rose consistently from 1992 through 2013. Pooled by subject and indexed to 2013:
After 2014, the slopes reversed:
This represents a structural swing of -1.15 points per year in math, and -1.02 points per year in reading. Importantly, excluding 2022 - the year most impacted by COVID-related closures – leaves these swings essentially unchanged: -1.05 points per year in math and -1.07 points per year in reading. In other words, this pattern is not a lockdown artifact - it’s a structural break beginning in 2015.
These are correlational patterns, but so were the early signals about smoking, lead exposure, and beauty filters.
When consistent patterns appear across nearly all 50 states’ NAEP data and across dozens of countries’ PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS results - and when those patterns align with established cognitive mechanisms - we are no longer looking at coincidence. We are looking at converging evidence.
And what we cannot ethically do (just as with beauty filters) is deliberately expose children to systems we have strong reason to believe may undermine learning simply to satisfy an unrealistic evidentiary demand.
Demanding perfect causation before action doesn’t protect children; it protects developers.
Even if we assume the decline argument is overstated – that Utah’s NAEP data has merely ‘plateaued’ since 2014 - the harm does not disappear.
Between 2015 and 2025, Utah invested roughly $500 million in K-12 educational technology. If half a billion dollars produces stagnation, that’s not neutral.
Every dollar committed to devices and platforms is a dollar not spent on interventions we know improve learning: teacher development, structured literacy programs, small-group instruction, targeted support for struggling students.
Even under the most generous interpretation of the data, the opportunity cost alone is staggering.
Demanding definitive causative proof of harm before acting to protect children sets an unrealistic and dangerous standard. If we wait for perfect causation, we will always act too late.
Our society does not demand product-specific randomized trials before regulating food additives, vehicle safety standards, or consumer protections. We act when converging evidence suggests that risk outweighs benefit.
Education should be no different.
When billions of dollars and millions of children are involved, the burden of proof should rest on demonstrating clear, durable, replicable benefit – not on proving harm after the fact.
Caution is not fear, and restraint is not regression. They are marks of a society that prioritizes children over products.
Learn more about showing our movies in your school or community!
Join Screenagers filmmaker Delaney Ruston MD for our latest Podcast
Learn more about our Screen-Free Sleep campaign at the website!
Our movie made for parents and educators of younger kids
Join Screenagers filmmaker Delaney Ruston MD for our latest Podcast
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel! We add new videos regularly and you'll find over 100 videos covering parenting advice, guidance, podcasts, movie clips and more. Here's our most recent:
As we’re about to celebrate 10 years of Screenagers, we want to hear what’s been most helpful and what you’d like to see next.
Please click here to share your thoughts with us in our community survey. It only takes 5–10 minutes, and everyone who completes it will be entered to win one of five $50 Amazon vouchers.
On Friday, I filmed former teacher and neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, PhD, for an upcoming project (more on that to come!). He specializes in the science of learning.
I asked if we could share his recent Substack post, and he said absolutely yes! (Find below)
His Substack is titled The Digital Delusion, which is also the title of his recently released book. I have read the book and definitely recommend it.
Horvath has spent years analyzing data around tech in schools. He is not antitech. Rather, he has wanted to understand how all the computer time in schools has impacted learning. Given that ed tech came bustling into schools without having to prove itself, he wants to look at data.
He points to Utah, where students' test scores climbed steadily for decades, until computers moved to the center of classrooms in 2014, after which scores started falling. And this pattern has repeated itself in state after state.
As I wrote about in phone-free school policies, the pushback is always some version of "the evidence isn't definitive yet." But here's what I keep coming back to: there is a ton of evidence.
As AI is now heading into classrooms with even less scrutiny. When the warning signs are this consistent, demanding airtight proof before acting isn't protecting kids. It's protecting the industries.
Definitely worth reading Jared’s insights and sharing with others. This is important stuff!
Find the full post below, recreated from the original you can view here. And be sure to subscribe to Jared's substack: The Digital Delusion
Jared Cooney Horvath | Feb 24, 2026
Last week, Mark Zuckerberg – founder and CEO of Meta - took the stand under oath for the first time in a criminal trial.
At one point, Zuckerberg was questioned about Meta’s use of beauty filters: digital effects that make users, including children, appear younger, fitter, and more conventionally attractive in photos and videos.
The prosecution referenced Meta’s own internal review, Project MYST. According to reports, 18 out of 18 wellbeing experts who evaluated the psychological impact of these filters raised serious concerns about potential harm to young users’ mental health.
Despite those warnings, the filters remained available.
Zuckerberg’s defense rested on a familiar line of reasoning: there was no peer-reviewed, causal evidence demonstrating this specific product directly harmed children. Absent validated proof of causation, harm could not be established.
“There is no evidence of harm.”
This is the same argument now being deployed by EdTech lobbyists at statehouses across the country as lawmakers attempt to regulate classroom technology.
This year, more than a dozen bills aimed at regulating EdTech have been introduced across at least nine states. Utah’s SAFE and BALANCE acts led the way, followed closely by Vermont’s effort to formalize parental opt-out rights and Tennessee’s proposal to remove digital devices from primary classrooms.
These efforts are informed by decades of research showing that, on average, classroom technologies do not outperform – and often underperform - well-implemented analog instruction.
Despite strong bipartisan support in most states, pro-tech lobbyists are pushing back with a familiar refrain: “There is no evidence of harm for emerging EdTech products.”
Strictly speaking, that statement is often true.
Educational technology evolves so rapidly that by the time researchers evaluate one platform, it has already been patched, rebranded, or replaced. Product-specific causal evidence is perpetually just out of reach.
But this is not a scientific defense. It is a misleading procedural maneuver.
Demanding product-specific, long-term, high-risk causative trials in children sets an unrealistic and ethically impossible standard.
Returning to beauty filters, no ethics board would approve a study deliberately exposing children to a tool that 18 experts consider risky simply to ‘prove’ harm. That is why no randomized control trial has tested whether these filters damage young users’ mental health – the likely harms of such a study outweigh any possible benefits.
Luckily, we don’t live in a vacuum.
A substantial body of correlational research links image manipulation and filter use to body dissatisfaction, self-objectification, weight concerns, and reduced wellbeing. The experts reviewing Meta’s policies were not guessing – they were applying decades of psychological research to a new technological wrapper.
Software changes. Human biology does not.
The same logic governs learning.
Utah’s digital inflection year occurred in 2014, corresponding with the statewide launch of SAGE - a fully computerized adaptive assessment system. Before this, digital tools were largely peripheral in Utah classrooms. After this, they became structurally embedded.
Before widespread digital adoption, Utah NAEP scores rose consistently from 1992 through 2013. Pooled by subject and indexed to 2013:
After 2014, the slopes reversed:
This represents a structural swing of -1.15 points per year in math, and -1.02 points per year in reading. Importantly, excluding 2022 - the year most impacted by COVID-related closures – leaves these swings essentially unchanged: -1.05 points per year in math and -1.07 points per year in reading. In other words, this pattern is not a lockdown artifact - it’s a structural break beginning in 2015.
These are correlational patterns, but so were the early signals about smoking, lead exposure, and beauty filters.
When consistent patterns appear across nearly all 50 states’ NAEP data and across dozens of countries’ PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS results - and when those patterns align with established cognitive mechanisms - we are no longer looking at coincidence. We are looking at converging evidence.
And what we cannot ethically do (just as with beauty filters) is deliberately expose children to systems we have strong reason to believe may undermine learning simply to satisfy an unrealistic evidentiary demand.
Demanding perfect causation before action doesn’t protect children; it protects developers.
Even if we assume the decline argument is overstated – that Utah’s NAEP data has merely ‘plateaued’ since 2014 - the harm does not disappear.
Between 2015 and 2025, Utah invested roughly $500 million in K-12 educational technology. If half a billion dollars produces stagnation, that’s not neutral.
Every dollar committed to devices and platforms is a dollar not spent on interventions we know improve learning: teacher development, structured literacy programs, small-group instruction, targeted support for struggling students.
Even under the most generous interpretation of the data, the opportunity cost alone is staggering.
Demanding definitive causative proof of harm before acting to protect children sets an unrealistic and dangerous standard. If we wait for perfect causation, we will always act too late.
Our society does not demand product-specific randomized trials before regulating food additives, vehicle safety standards, or consumer protections. We act when converging evidence suggests that risk outweighs benefit.
Education should be no different.
When billions of dollars and millions of children are involved, the burden of proof should rest on demonstrating clear, durable, replicable benefit – not on proving harm after the fact.
Caution is not fear, and restraint is not regression. They are marks of a society that prioritizes children over products.
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel! We add new videos regularly and you'll find over 100 videos covering parenting advice, guidance, podcasts, movie clips and more. Here's our most recent:
Sign up here to receive the weekly Tech Talk Tuesdays newsletter from Screenagers filmmaker Delaney Ruston MD.
We respect your privacy.
On Friday, I filmed former teacher and neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, PhD, for an upcoming project (more on that to come!). He specializes in the science of learning.
I asked if we could share his recent Substack post, and he said absolutely yes! (Find below)
His Substack is titled The Digital Delusion, which is also the title of his recently released book. I have read the book and definitely recommend it.
Horvath has spent years analyzing data around tech in schools. He is not antitech. Rather, he has wanted to understand how all the computer time in schools has impacted learning. Given that ed tech came bustling into schools without having to prove itself, he wants to look at data.
He points to Utah, where students' test scores climbed steadily for decades, until computers moved to the center of classrooms in 2014, after which scores started falling. And this pattern has repeated itself in state after state.
As I wrote about in phone-free school policies, the pushback is always some version of "the evidence isn't definitive yet." But here's what I keep coming back to: there is a ton of evidence.
As AI is now heading into classrooms with even less scrutiny. When the warning signs are this consistent, demanding airtight proof before acting isn't protecting kids. It's protecting the industries.
Definitely worth reading Jared’s insights and sharing with others. This is important stuff!
Find the full post below, recreated from the original you can view here. And be sure to subscribe to Jared's substack: The Digital Delusion
Jared Cooney Horvath | Feb 24, 2026
Last week, Mark Zuckerberg – founder and CEO of Meta - took the stand under oath for the first time in a criminal trial.
At one point, Zuckerberg was questioned about Meta’s use of beauty filters: digital effects that make users, including children, appear younger, fitter, and more conventionally attractive in photos and videos.
The prosecution referenced Meta’s own internal review, Project MYST. According to reports, 18 out of 18 wellbeing experts who evaluated the psychological impact of these filters raised serious concerns about potential harm to young users’ mental health.
Despite those warnings, the filters remained available.
Zuckerberg’s defense rested on a familiar line of reasoning: there was no peer-reviewed, causal evidence demonstrating this specific product directly harmed children. Absent validated proof of causation, harm could not be established.
“There is no evidence of harm.”
This is the same argument now being deployed by EdTech lobbyists at statehouses across the country as lawmakers attempt to regulate classroom technology.
This year, more than a dozen bills aimed at regulating EdTech have been introduced across at least nine states. Utah’s SAFE and BALANCE acts led the way, followed closely by Vermont’s effort to formalize parental opt-out rights and Tennessee’s proposal to remove digital devices from primary classrooms.
These efforts are informed by decades of research showing that, on average, classroom technologies do not outperform – and often underperform - well-implemented analog instruction.
Despite strong bipartisan support in most states, pro-tech lobbyists are pushing back with a familiar refrain: “There is no evidence of harm for emerging EdTech products.”
Strictly speaking, that statement is often true.
Educational technology evolves so rapidly that by the time researchers evaluate one platform, it has already been patched, rebranded, or replaced. Product-specific causal evidence is perpetually just out of reach.
But this is not a scientific defense. It is a misleading procedural maneuver.
Demanding product-specific, long-term, high-risk causative trials in children sets an unrealistic and ethically impossible standard.
Returning to beauty filters, no ethics board would approve a study deliberately exposing children to a tool that 18 experts consider risky simply to ‘prove’ harm. That is why no randomized control trial has tested whether these filters damage young users’ mental health – the likely harms of such a study outweigh any possible benefits.
Luckily, we don’t live in a vacuum.
A substantial body of correlational research links image manipulation and filter use to body dissatisfaction, self-objectification, weight concerns, and reduced wellbeing. The experts reviewing Meta’s policies were not guessing – they were applying decades of psychological research to a new technological wrapper.
Software changes. Human biology does not.
The same logic governs learning.
Instagram’s new Teen Accounts are being promoted as safer for kids, but recent nationally representative data tells a more complicated story. This post invites families to take a research-based quiz together and have a calm, curiosity-driven conversation about what teens are actually experiencing on the platform — and what that means for trust, safety, and screen time.
READ MORE >
It feels like we’re finally hitting a tipping point. The harms from social media in young people’s lives have been building for far too long, and bold solutions can’t wait any longer. That’s why what just happened in Australia is extremely exciting. Their new nationwide move marks one of the biggest attempts yet to protect kids online. And as we released a new podcast episode yesterday featuring a mother who lost her 14-year-old son after a tragic connection made through social media, I couldn’t help but think: this is exactly the kind of real-world action families have been desperate for. In today’s blog, I share five key things to understand about what Australia is doing because it’s big, it’s controversial, and it might just spark global change.
READ MORE >
I hear from so many parents who feel conflicted about their own phone habits when it comes to modeling healthy use for their kids. They’ll say, “I tell my kids to get off their screens, but then I’m on mine all the time.” Today I introduce two moms who are taking on my One Small Change Challenge and share how you can try it too.
READ MORE >for more like this, DR. DELANEY RUSTON'S NEW BOOK, PARENTING IN THE SCREEN AGE, IS THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE FOR TODAY’S PARENTS. WITH INSIGHTS ON SCREEN TIME FROM RESEARCHERS, INPUT FROM KIDS & TEENS, THIS BOOK IS PACKED WITH SOLUTIONS FOR HOW TO START AND SUSTAIN PRODUCTIVE FAMILY TALKS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND IT’S IMPACT ON OUR MENTAL WELLBEING.
