After $30 Billion Shift from Textbooks to Laptops and Tablets, U.S. Sees First Generation with Lower Cognitive Ability Than Parents

In 2002, Maine launched a statewide program to provide laptops to certain grade levels. The initiative, championed by then-Governor Angus King, was envisioned as a method to give children direct access to the internet, allowing them to immerse themselves in information.

By that autumn, the Maine Learning Technology Initiative had provided devices to seventh-grade students in 243 middle schools. The program expanded significantly, reaching 66,000 laptops and tablets distributed to students in the state by 2016.

King’s pioneering approach was replicated nationwide. By 2024, U.S. expenditures on such technology surpassed a substantial figure. However, after more than 25 years and numerous iterations of technology, psychologists and education experts are observing results that contradict King’s original goal. Instead of empowering a generation with greater knowledge, the technology appears to have had an adverse impact.

Earlier this year, during testimony for the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath stated that Generation Z demonstrates lower cognitive capability than earlier generations, despite having unparalleled access to technology. He reported that Gen Z is the first modern generation to achieve lower scores on standardized tests than their predecessors.

Although the skills assessed by these tests, such as literacy and numeracy, are not always direct measures of intelligence, they do reflect cognitive ability, which Horvath said has been declining for roughly the past decade.

Referencing international data from 15-year-olds and other standardized assessments, Horvath highlighted not only falling test scores but also a strong correlation between lower scores and increased time spent on computers in school. He attributed this to students’ unrestricted access to technology, which he believes has diminished rather than enhanced learning capacities. The debut of the iPhone in 2007 further exacerbated the issue, he suggested.

“This is not a debate about rejecting technology,” Horvath wrote. “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.”

Signs of trouble were likely evident earlier. Reports indicated that Maine’s public school test scores showed no improvement over the 15 years of the state’s technology initiative. Then-Governor Paul LePage labeled the program a “massive failure,” even as the state continued to invest significant funds in contracts with technology providers.

Gen Z is now poised to confront the consequences of these declining learning abilities. The generation is already being significantly affected by the other major technological shift of the 21st century: generative artificial intelligence.

Preliminary data from a study published the previous year found that AI progress has a “significant and disproportionate impact on entry-level workers in the U.S. labor market.” However, Horvath cautioned that a less capable populace implies more than just reduced job opportunities and fewer promotions; it threatens humanity’s capacity to address existential challenges in the future.

“We’re facing challenges more complex and far-reaching than any in human history—from overpopulation to evolving diseases to moral drift,” he told a publication. “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.”

Technology’s impact on learning

The use of technology in classrooms has surged in recent years. A 2021 survey of 846 teachers revealed that 55% spend one to four hours daily using educational technology. An additional 25% reported using digital tools for five hours each day.

While teachers may intend for these tools to be used solely for education, students frequently have other plans. A 2014 study that surveyed and observed 3,000 university students found that they were engaged in non-academic activities on their computers almost two-thirds of the time.

Horvath identified this propensity for distraction as a major reason technology impedes learning. When attention is disrupted, it requires time to regain focus. The act of switching between tasks is also linked to cognitive costs. Horvath stated that concentrating on a single, difficult topic is challenging, which is inherent to effective learning.

“Unfortunately, ease has never been a defining characteristic of learning,” he said. “Learning is effortful, difficult, and oftentimes uncomfortable. But it’s the friction that makes learning deep and transferable into the future.”

Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University who studies generational differences and authored 10 Rules for Raising Kids in a High-Tech World, argues that focused attention on one subject is completely opposed to the way modern technology is designed. Increased screen time is not merely ineffective for learning; it is actively detrimental.

“Many apps, including social media and gaming apps, are designed to be addictive,” Twenge told an outlet. “Their business model is based on users spending the most time possible on the apps, and checking back as frequently as possible.”

A Baylor University-led study published in November 2025 discovered the reason for this: TikTok was found to require the least cognitive effort to use, even less than competing short-form video platforms, by mixing relevant content with surprising and unexpected videos.

Worries about social media addiction have escalated to the point that 1,600 plaintiffs, representing 350 families and 250 school districts, have filed lawsuits alleging that Meta, TikTok, YouTube, and other platforms created addictive products that contribute to mental health issues such as depression and self-harm in young users.

Solving the tech crisis

Horvath put forward a range of potential solutions to address Gen Z’s technology issues, specifically concerning classroom use. He proposed that Congress could establish efficacy standards to fund research into which digital tools genuinely benefit education. Legislators could also mandate strict limitations on tracking, profiling, and data collection involving minors who use technology.

Some educational institutions have proactively addressed the problem. By August 2025, 17 states had enacted laws banning smartphone use during instructional hours, and 35 states had legislation restricting mobile phone use in classrooms. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, a majority of schools report having policies that ban cellphone use for non-educational reasons, although the enforcement of these rules has seen mixed results.

Horvath concluded that the decline in critical thinking and learning skills is not primarily a failure of individuals but rather a failure of policy. He described the generation of Americans educated with pervasive technology as the casualties of an unsuccessful educational experiment.

“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 said. “That means we…screwed up—and I genuinely hope Gen Z quickly figures that out and gets mad.”