CAVEAT – In writing this article, we draw from both our extensive anecdotal experience, having presented to over 655,000 youth and teens across more than 1,000 schools, and a foundation of cited evidence-based research.
A keynote video titled “The Most Compelling Argument Against Tech in Schools” has been gaining traction on social media, particularly among those advocating for a complete ban on cellphones, laptops, iPads, and other digital tools in classrooms, which we would encourage you to watch. (1) The speaker, Lady Frederick Windsor, better known as actress Sophie Winkleman, delivers a polished and engaging speech. Given her background as both a British royal and a actress, it’s no surprise that she presents her argument with a theatrical flair that captures and holds the audience’s attention, something that as presenters we admire.
While some of the concerns she raises are not entirely without merit, we would suggest that much of her argument is rooted in anecdotal reasoning and leans heavily on moral panic rather than the good evidence-based research. (2) In this article, we will examine and provide counterpoints to several of Lady Windsor’s claims, offering a more balanced perspective on the increasingly heated debate surrounding youth and their use of technology in education for the reader’s consideration. Here are “some” of the quotes from the Lady Windsor YouTube video:
“Teens alone in their bedrooms glued to hours of futile or dangerous rubbish”
This characterization paints an overly simplistic and alarmist picture of teen technology use. Here’s a great balanced example from a teen about how they are using their tech (3) While excessive screen time can be a concern, it is important to recognize that not all digital engagement is futile or dangerous. Many teens use their time online for productive and meaningful activities, such as learning new skills, engaging in activism, socializing with friends, and exploring creative pursuits. Labelling all screen-based activities as harmful ignores the nuances of digital engagement and the many positive opportunities technology provides. (4)(5) Instead of moral panic, the focus should be on equipping teens with digital literacy skills, fostering healthy screen habits, and encouraging critical thinking about the content they consume.
However, we do agree that technology should not be allowed in the bedroom or bathroom, which is a parent or caregiver responsibility (6)
“Parents scrolling on their phones while their babies try in vain to catch their eye”
Parenting in the digital age requires balance, and it is true that excessive phone use by a parent or caregiver can detract from valuable face-to-face interactions with children. (7)(8) However, the idea that parents and caregivers are entirely disengaged because of their devices is an oversimplification. Technology also provides parents with support networks, parenting resources, and ways to manage their daily lives. Rather than demonizing parents for using their phones, the conversation should focus on mindful technology use. Encouraging parents and caregivers to set boundaries for their screen use during key bonding moments, such as mealtimes or play, can foster healthier interactions without resorting to guilt-driven narratives – again this is paren or caregiver responsibility.
“Toddlers given Siri voice companions in nurseries”
There is no widespread evidence, that we could find, to suggest that nurseries are systematically providing toddlers with Siri or other AI voice assistants as companions. However, children are increasingly interacting with voice-controlled technology in various other ways. The key issue is not the existence of these technologies but how they are integrated into children’s lives. Parents, caregivers, and educators should ensure that technology serves as a tool for learning and exploration rather than a substitute for human connection or as a digital pacifier (9)(10)
“The digital destruction of childhood is a crisis we must face if we’re to have an alliance of remotely functioning citizens, let alone responsible ones.”
Framing technology as a force that is universally destructive to childhood ignores the vast benefits it provides. Technology is a tool, and how we use it determines whether it enhances or diminishes childhood. Digital literacy, online collaboration, and creative expression through technology are key components of modern citizenship. A child learning to code, researching global issues, or staying in touch with family overseas is not experiencing “digital destruction” but rather digital empowerment. Instead of catastrophizing, we should focus on guiding children toward responsible and enriching digital experiences. It’s been our experience that the vast majority of the 655,000 youth and teens that we have presented to are well “functioning” and “responsible”.
“I saw children distracted in classrooms yet silent in playgrounds.”
Anecdotal observations do not equate to comprehensive evidence given that our experience is totally different when we visit schools and playgrounds (11) While some children may be quieter in playgrounds, others use digital tools to enhance their socialization, such as coordinating games or engaging in collaborative online creativity. When Darren was in school, there were students back then who would rather be by themselves at school. Additionally, distractions in classrooms have existed for centuries, with traditional culprits like paper notes, daydreaming, or whispering once being the main concerns. Having said this, do we believe that recess and lunch breaks during elementary and middle school should be tech free yo encourage free play – Yes. However, rather than blaming screens outright, educators and parents and caregivers should focus on teaching self-regulation and helping children balance online and offline engagement and providing them with the right technology at the right time for their age and development.
“Screens were taking their attention away from their teachers during lessons and away from each other during break time.”
Technology, when integrated effectively, can enhance rather than hinder learning. Interactive educational tools, digital collaboration, and personalized learning platforms can make lessons more engaging and accessible which the most recent evidence based research supports. (12)
“I also observed children in general becoming a different species.”
Every generation experiences cultural shifts due to technological advancements. This does not mean children are becoming “a different species,” but rather that they are adapting to the world they are growing up in. (13) Criticisms of youth behaviour due to new media have existed for centuries such as radio, television, and comic books were once seen as similarly harmful. Instead of fearing change, we should focus on guiding children to use technology in productive ways.
“The raucous exuberance of youth was being replaced with an anxious irritable insularity which was disturbing to see.”
Correlation is not causation. While youth mental health issues are rising, attributing them solely to screens ignores broader factors such as academic pressure, climate anxiety, family abuse, economic uncertainty, and social changes to name a few. (14) Studies show that moderate technology use can support mental well-being, social connection, and creativity. The key is balance, not alarmism.
“Rather than constantly having to prove that screen use is blighting childhood, we should ask simply where is the evidence to prove that it’s safe?”
This line of reasoning presents a logical fallacy known as “shifting the burden of proof” or “proving a negative”, a common strategy used in debate. A common phrased used in research applies to this argument, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” (15) The burden of proof should be balanced. Many studies demonstrate that technology can be used in a safer and beneficial way when managed appropriately. Additionally, no aspect of modern life, such as sports, food, or education, is free from potential risks. (16) The goal should be risk mitigation through informed, responsible use rather than assuming inherent harm.
“If we take these brave steps I believe we can veer away from catastrophe, return childhood to our young, and light the way to a hopeful future.”
Framing this as a catastrophe oversimplifies the issue. Childhood today is not inherently worse than before, it is different. Many children today have access to global knowledge, new ways to express creativity, and connections with diverse peers. (17) Rather than rejecting technology, we should focus on helping children develop healthy digital habits utilizing the right technology and the right time based on age and development. We believe the future is bright with our kids, however we adults need to start walking the walk and talking the talk when it comes to our own use of technology that our kids will model (18)
“I’d have been constantly distracted, thrilled by all the garbage available online. I wouldn’t have read any books and I’d have got up to goodness knows what on my various machines.”
Personal anecdotes do not reflect universal experiences or truths. Many children today still read books, engage in hobbies, and use technology for educational and creative purposes. The challenge is teaching responsible use, not eliminating access. It is essential to acknowledge that digital engagement varies, some children indeed struggle with distraction, while many many others use their devices to deepen their interests, explore new subjects, and create content that enriches their lives. Encouraging digital literacy and self-regulation skills can help children navigate the digital world productively rather than assuming that access inherently leads to harm.
“Instead we’ve given everyone else the good and the bad access to our children.”
Yes, the internet, like the real world, has risks, but it also offers tremendous benefits. Age and developmentally appropriate technology, digital literacy, parental involvement, and safety measures can minimize exposure to harmful content while maximizing learning and connection. Fear-based narratives ignore the protective strategies already in place and those that can be strengthened. Rather than positioning technology as an unchecked threat, we should focus on how responsible guidance can help children develop resilience and critical thinking in online spaces. (19)
“Let’s consider some facts and figures. As illustrated in Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Anxious Generation, the great rewiring of childhood is causing a plague of mental illness in our children.”
Haidt’s claims are debated among the vast majority of research experts, with the majority arguing that his conclusions oversimplify complex issues. (20) Factors like socioeconomic disparities, pandemic-related disruptions, family abuse, and academic stress, to name a few, contribute significantly to mental health concerns in youth.
It’s noteworthy that Lady Windsor and other advocates for banning phones, laptops, and iPads in schools do not reference Dr. Pete Etchells’ award-winning book, Unlocked – The Real Science of Screen Time (and How to Spend It Better). Like Lady Windsor, Dr. Etchells is based in Great Britain, and his book, released around the same time as Dr. Haidt’s, offers a well-researched, evidence-based alternative perspective. Notably, it won the British Psychological Society Popular Science Book Award (21)
Techuse is one piece of a larger puzzle, not the singular cause. Studies suggest that while excessive social media use may correlate with increased anxiety in some teens, it is not the sole driver of the youth mental health crisis. (14) Context matters and social support, family dynamics, and offline activities all play a role in shaping children’s well-being. Addressing mental health requires a multifaceted approach rather than reducing it to a single variable.
“In a British study last year, researchers found that one in three children are now short-sighted. Myopia is predicted to affect nearly a billion children around the world by 2050. Too much screen time is the culprit, with blue light harming developing eyes, not to mention interfering with children’s hormones and their sleep rhythms.”
In this 2025 research, the authors found that “the association between screen time and myopia has not been conclusively established and requires further investigation.” (22) So to say “too much screen time is the culprit” is just not supported in the good evidence based research.Yes, research indicates that spending more time outdoors, particularly in natural daylight, can help prevent the progression of myopia and extended screen use can interfere with spending more time outdoor. (23) Rather than eliminating screens, a balanced approach that integrates screen use with regular breaks, ergonomic viewing habits, and outdoor activities can help maintain eye health without compromising access to digital learning and entertainment.
Specific to “blue light” harming eyes and effecting sleep, researchers found, “it would require light levels of about 1,000-2,000 lux (a measure of the intensity of light) to have a significant impact to interfere with the production of melatonin to affect our sleep. Device screens emit only about 80-100 lux. At the other end of the scale, natural sunlight on a sunny day provides about 100,000 lux “ (24) Also, this 2024 research conducted by Dr Michael Gradisar found that blue light from screens did not disrupts sleep and revealed that the effects of blue light from screens on sleep are minimal and often overstated. As Dr Gradisar stated, “Screen time before bed is often blamed for sleep problems, but our findings show they are not the main contributors.” (25)
“This mass buy-in to smartphones is resulting in a lost and deeply damaged childhood, with screen addiction displacing nearly every wholesome activity you can think of.”
Studies show that children still engage in outdoor play, reading, and social activities. The key is balance, and many parents and caregivers already help children establish screen-time limits while encouraging offline hobbies. Data from reputable studies challenge the idea that screen time universally displaces all other activities; instead, the effects depend on how devices are used. (26) For instance, children who use technology to create, learn new skills, or connect meaningfully with others experience different outcomes than those who engage in passive consumption for excessive periods. A nuanced perspective recognizes both potential harms and benefits.
“Health professionals for safer screens recently issued guidance that 11 to 17-year-olds should have no more than one to two hours of screen time per day. This includes everything—iPads, school laptops, smartphones—it’s all just screen time to the brain. And yet, children aged eight to 18 are on average spending seven and a half hours per day on screens, outside of school hours.”
These recommendations do not account for screen use for school, creativity, or socialization. Blanket limits oversimplify the nuanced ways children use technology. (27) A one-size-fits-all approach ignores the reality that not all screen use is created equal. Educational use, skill development, and social connection should not be equated with passive entertainment. Instead of rigid restrictions, a focus on digital well-being, helping children develop a mindful approach to their screen use, ensures that technology serves as a tool rather than a distraction.
“Excessive consumption of screen-based technologies is damaging developing brains in ways too seismic yet to fully comprehend.”
Neuroscientific research on screen time is ongoing, and while overuse can have downsides, moderate and purposeful use does not inherently damage development. (28) In a 2023 OxFord University Study, researchers stated they found no evidence to show that screen time impacted their brain function or well-being. As one of the researchers stated “Our findings should help guide the heated debates about technology away from hyperbole and towards high-quality science. If researchers don’t improve their approach to studying tech, we’ll never learn what leads some young people to flounder and others to flourish in the digital age.” (29)
Critical thinking and problem-solving skills can be enhanced through digital learning. Fear-driven rhetoric about brain damage lacks robust scientific backing (30); rather, studies emphasize that digital engagement must be guided by quality over quantity. Encouraging active participation, creative expression, and critical engagement with technology fosters cognitive growth rather than stunting it.
“The battle on the smartphone front is being waged with ever more power, thanks in no small part to Jean Twenge and Jonathan Haidt, who’ve established that the harms of a front-facing camera, addictive social media platforms and 24-7 dopamine ignition are incontestable.”
While social media can be designed to be engaging, its effects depend on how it is used. Many youth use these platforms for activism, creativity, and connection. Digital literacy is a more effective response than prohibition. Overgeneralizing the effects of social media, especially when it comes to dopamine, disregards the diverse ways young people interact with these platforms. (31) Some experience negative impacts, while others find community, inspiration, and opportunities for learning. The solution is not elimination but education, ensuring young people understand how algorithms work, how to set boundaries, and how to engage online in ways that align with their well-being.
“The enhanced facilitation of knife crime, the enticement to radicalization and terrorism and the repulsively violent porn, these horrors are globally recognized yet still readily available on children’s phones.”
Agreed, these serious issues require policy solutions, such as content moderation, parental controls, and education on online safety. (32) Technology itself is not the root cause of violence or radicalization. Instead, social, economic, and psychological factors play significant roles. Effective interventions focus on digital literacy, critical thinking, and protective measures that allow children to navigate online spaces safely.
“The OECD found that most EdTech has not delivered the academic benefits once promised, and that students who use computers very frequently at school do a lot worse in most learning outcomes.”
The effectiveness of EdTech is not a simple matter of whether technology is present in the classroom but rather how it is used. (33) Research shows that when digital tools are poorly integrated into teaching practices, such as when they replace traditional instruction without thoughtful pedagogy or are used primarily for passive consumption rather than active learning, students often see little to no academic benefit. In some cases, excessive or unstructured technology use can even lead to distractions, reduced comprehension, and lower overall engagement.
However, when EdTech is implemented with clear educational goals, guided instruction, and a focus on interactivity, it can enhance learning outcomes significantly. Well-designed digital tools can provide personalized learning experiences, enable real-time feedback, and foster collaboration among students. Adaptive learning platforms, for example, can tailor content to a student’s individual progress, helping them strengthen weak areas while advancing at their own pace. Similarly, interactive simulations and virtual labs can make complex concepts more tangible and engaging, particularly in subjects like science and mathematics.
The key to maximizing EdTech’s potential lies in striking a balance and ensuring that technology supports and enhances teaching rather than replacing essential human interaction and critical thinking. Effective implementation requires proper teacher training, curriculum alignment, and a focus on meaningful engagement rather than mere screen time. Without these considerations, the promise of educational technology remains unfulfilled, leading to outcomes that fall short of expectations.
“Firstly, we must employ tech as our slave rather than our master.”
This is precisely the goal of digital literacy, helping young people develop a healthy relationship with technology where they control their use rather than being controlled by it. Education, not fear, is a big part of the solution in our opinion.
While Lady Windsor’s speech effectively captures the emotional concerns many parents and caregivers have surrounding youth and technology, it ultimately presents a one-sided polemic narrative mostly rooted in moral panic rather than a balanced examination of evidence. The reality is that technology is neither inherently harmful nor inherently beneficial, it is a tool that, when used thoughtfully, can enhance learning, creativity, and social connection.
Demonizing technology and advocating for outright bans ignores both the benefits that technology provides and the responsibilities of parents and educators to guide children in developing healthy digital habits. Rather than adopting a fear-based approach that seeks to eliminate technology from education and childhood, we should focus on fostering digital literacy, promoting critical thinking, and encouraging responsible screen use. We also need to ask ourselves who is really benefiting form this polarization (34)
The conversation about technology in schools should be guided by research, not rhetoric. There are valid concerns about overuse, distraction, and potential negative impacts on mental health, but these challenges are best addressed through parenting, education, engagement, and the implementation of thoughtful policies, and not through alarmist calls for total prohibition. The goal should not be to shield children from technology but to empower them to navigate the digital world safely, critically, and productively in an age and developmentally appropriate way.
By embracing a nuanced perspective, we can ensure that children and teens develop the skills and agency they need to thrive in an increasingly digital society, without succumbing to exaggerated fears of “digital destruction.” Technology is not the enemy; disengagement from meaningful evidence based conversations about its role in education and childhood is.
We will end with a quote from Dr Pete Etchells, a researchers and professor of psychology and science communication at Bath Spa University in Great Britain:
“That device in your pocket isn’t destroying a generation; whether you like it or not, it’s an integral part of it. So, the next time you see a doom-laden headline about the supposedly deleterious effects of digital technology, don’t just blindly agree (or even disagree) with it; instead, consider what the evidence might be for such a claim, and whether this presents an opportunity to think about how best to make screens work for you in your own life. After all, screens aren’t going away any time soon, so let’s make them work for us”
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
1/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V6nucKFK88&t=1s
2/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/the-echoes-of-moral-panic-what-is-old-is-new-again/
3/ https://cyberbullying.org/teens-view-of-social-media-in-2025
6/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/technology-in-the-bedroom/
7/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/why-kids-struggle-to-connect-with-tech-distracted-parents/
15/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/tech-social-media-risk-addressing-two-commonly-raised-arguments/
22/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2162098925000283
23/ https://bjo.bmj.com/content/early/2025/02/19/bjo-2024-326643
24/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6814154/
25/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6814154/
26/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1087079224000376
27/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/why-screen-value-is-more-important-than-screen-time/
31/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/dopamine-facts-vs-fear/
34/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/the-polarization-of-youth-technology-use-who-really-benefits/
