Evidence · Screens in school
Do classroom screens help or hurt learning?
Most US public schools now give every student a laptop or tablet, so the research on learning with screens matters.
The short answer
School laptops and tablets are now standard in American public schools. The evidence does not show that more screen time in class raises achievement. In PISA 2022, light use of devices for learning went with slightly higher math scores. Distraction from devices went with lower scores. A meta-analysis of 54 studies finds that readers understand text better on paper than on screens. A large trial that gave children laptops found no gain in math or language scores. Sweden, Denmark and Norway now steer young children back toward printed books and paper.
How common are school devices?
School-issued devices are now normal in American public schools. In a December 2024 federal survey, 88 percent of public schools reported a one-to-one device program for 2024-25. In the same survey, 89 percent of schools make laptops available and 27 percent make tablets available. Forty-six percent let students take the device home. Elementary schools allow this least often, at 23 percent.
The pandemic sped up this shift. In September 2021, 96 percent of public schools reported giving digital devices to students who needed them. Our page on learning loss covers what happened to scores after schools closed.
What PISA 2022 shows about screens in class
The OECD tests 15-year-olds around the world through PISA. In 2022, average OECD scores fell by 10 points in reading and almost 15 points in math compared with 2018. Students also answered questions about devices in class. On average across OECD countries, 65 percent said device use distracted them in at least some math lessons.
Distraction from other students carries a cost. Students distracted by classmates' devices scored 15 points lower in math than students who rarely faced this. The OECD equates that gap to about three quarters of a year of schooling.
Light use for learning shows a different pattern. Some students used devices for learning at school for up to one hour a day. They scored 14 points higher in math than students who used none. The OECD adjusted both comparisons for the socio-economic profile of students and schools. The same report finds that technology used for leisure, such as phones, often goes with poorer results.
These findings come from a survey and show correlations. They do not prove that devices cause higher or lower scores. The OECD reads them as support for moderate use of devices in school, not heavy use. Phones drive much of the distraction, and our page on phones and social media covers that evidence.
Does giving every child a laptop raise scores?
A randomized trial gives the clearest test of a laptop program. Researchers evaluated One Laptop per Child across 318 primary schools in rural Peru. The program raised computers per student from 0.12 to 1.18 in schools that received laptops. Children used computers much more at school and at home.
After 15 months, the study found no effect on math or language test scores. It found some inconclusive signs of gains in general thinking skills. The trial tested access to hardware, not a specific teaching method or software program.
Reading on paper versus reading on screens
Researchers have compared reading on paper and on screens many times. A 2018 meta-analysis in Educational Research Review pooled 54 studies with 171,055 participants. It found that readers understood text better on paper than on screens.
The paper advantage grew when readers worked under time limits. It held for informational texts but not in studies that used only stories. The advantage also grew across the years of publication, from 2000 to 2017. These patterns matter for digital textbooks and timed tests on screens. Our page on reading for fun covers how much children read outside school.
Handwriting versus typing
A 2014 study in Psychological Science compared notes taken by hand with notes typed on laptops. Across three studies, laptop note takers did worse on conceptual questions. The authors linked this to copying. Typists tended to transcribe lectures word for word instead of restating ideas in their own words.
Later work tested this claim. A 2021 direct replication in the same journal found no significant difference in quiz scores between typed and handwritten notes. A small meta-analysis of eight similar studies in that paper also found no significant effect. Typists in the replication still wrote more words that matched the lecture exactly. The evidence on note taking by hand is mixed.
Brain research adds a separate angle. A 2024 study in Frontiers in Psychology recorded brain activity in 36 university students as they wrote or typed words. Handwriting produced much wider connections across brain regions than typing. The authors link these patterns to memory and learning. The study is small and measured brain activity, not grades or test scores.
Countries pulling back
Sweden moved early. Its government has paid for printed textbooks through a state grant since 2023. The grant provided 685 million kronor in 2023, 658 million in 2024 and 755 million in 2025. The government has set aside 555 million kronor a year from 2026. Its goal is one textbook per pupil in each subject.
Sweden also chose not to proceed with the national school agency's proposed digitalisation strategy. The government wants digital tools introduced only at an age where they support learning. National tests in the early grades stay on paper. In preschool, a curriculum change on July 1, 2025 made preschool mainly screen-free. Children under two should use only analog tools such as books.
Denmark followed. In September 2025, the Danish government and five other parties signed an agreement on phone-free public schools. The agreement also states that schools generally need to limit screens in teaching. Schools should be able to justify all screen use, even for the oldest pupils. For the youngest pupils, screens should generally be dropped or used very little.
Norway plans a similar step. In June 2026, its education ministry proposed a legal duty for municipalities to provide printed teaching materials in primary and lower secondary school. The ministry wants every pupil to work with physical books. It cites studies that find better comprehension on paper than on screens. The proposed start date is August 1, 2027.
What Restore Childhood is doing
Restore Childhood is a 501(c)(3) that makes films, reporting and tools for everyone who cares about children. Its Substack has published two essays on this topic by educator Denise Champney. The EdTech Paradox: Screens in Schools and the Decline of Learning looks at the growth of edtech alongside falling test scores. Digital Danger: Are Screens in Schools Secretly Sabotaging Your Child's Mind? asks how classroom screens affect reading, attention and imagination. Our film 15 DAYS covers America's pandemic school closures.
What you can do now
- Ask your school how many minutes a day children in each grade spend on school devices.
- Ask whether children in the early grades read printed books and write by hand every day.
- Ask what evidence supports each edtech program and how the school measures its results.
- Ask how school devices block games and non-school websites during class.
- Keep longer reading on paper at home when you can.
- Share this page with teachers, principals and school board members.
Related
We update this page as new data comes out. If you see an error, please contact us.