In 2015, the OECD looked at countries that spent heavily on classroom computers. It found “no appreciable improvements” in reading, math or science. That report is still quoted as proof that screens harm learning. But tech that did not raise scores is not tech that lowered them. If the headlines have left you feeling guilty, you are not alone.
Common questions from parents
Do screens cause lower test scores?
Should my child’s school ban phones?
Is the OECD report proof that classroom computers hurt learning?
What should I do if my child is struggling in school?
Three sources carry the "screens are ruining school" case. One found no benefit, not harm. One studied home computers from 2000 to 2005. One cites nothing. What holds up is smaller.
What do the most-quoted screen studies say?
Three sources carry most of the “screens are ruining school” case. Each one is real. Each one gets stretched.
The OECD report (2015). It compared about 65 school systems, country by country. Heavy spending on classroom tech did not bring better scores. That is a finding of no benefit. It is not a finding of harm. The mix-up is an easy one to make. No help feels like harm until you read the report.
Vigdor and Ladd (2010). This study followed North Carolina students from 2000 to 2005. It looked at computers at home, not in class. When a family got a home computer, scores dipped. The dip in math and reading was about one hundredth of a standard deviation. That is a tiny change. And those were dial-up era machines, not today’s phones.
The US Department of Education letter (August 2026). It says “cell phones and algorithm-driven social media distract students from learning and undermine the focused classroom environments they need to succeed.” It names no study and no data. It is a policy position. The worry is fair, but a federal seal is not evidence. The same letter backs useful classroom tech. It names assistive text tools for students who find reading hard. It says to judge tech by what students learn, not by screen time.
One more detail. In January 2025, the same department explained the fall in national scores. It pointed to learning lost in the pandemic. It did not mention screens, phones or devices at all. Same department, two documents, two stories. Our screens and technology research page lists the studies we hold, with their limits.
Tech that did not raise scores is not the same as tech that lowered them.
Laura Lurns · Learning Success expert
Did screens cause the drop in test scores?
The drop is real. The Nation’s Report Card has a long-term trend test. On it, one math score fell 14 points against a decade earlier. The fall was driven by students who were already scoring lowest. But the agency behind the test says it plainly: “NAEP is not designed to identify the causes of performance differences.” It measured the drop. It named no cause.
The slide also started early. The Education Recovery Scorecard comes from a Harvard and Stanford team. It dates a “learning recession” to 2013, years before the pandemic. The team names two things that changed around then. Test-based school accountability was rolled back. Teens took up social media. The Scorecard does not pick between them, and neither do we. In 2025, researcher Jim Wyckoff weighed five possible causes. His answer: “No single factor explains the pre-pandemic learning loss.”
Size matters too. The best US estimate for a phone ban is about one percentile point. The drop it gets offered to explain is 14 points on the national test. Phone rules are worth having. They do not explain the national fall.
“Screens” also lumps three things together. A phone in a pocket. A laptop handed out in class. A computer at home. Each has its own evidence. The one randomized trial on classroom devices ran at West Point, a military college. Students allowed laptops or tablets scored 0.18 standard deviations lower on the exam. But that was college, in classes where notes were optional. It says nothing about K-12 classrooms. Here is why classroom tech does not teach on its own.
Key takeaways
- No benefit is not harm: The OECD found tech spending did not raise scores, not that screens lowered them.
- The test names no cause: NAEP measured falling scores and, by its own design, names no cause.
- Phone bans help a little: Gains were small, and largest for the students furthest behind.
What does help, and who does it help most?
Here is the finding that gets buried. Taking phones out of schools helps a little. It helps the students who find school hardest the most.
England. Louis-Philippe Beland and Richard Murphy (2016) studied 91 English schools. Each brought in a phone ban at a different time. Test scores rose 0.064 standard deviations. The authors liken that to an extra hour of school a week. For the lowest-scoring fifth of students, the gain was 0.142 standard deviations. At the top, there was no real change. The schools chose their own bans, expecting to gain. So treat this as the upper end of the effect.
Florida. David Figlio and Umut Özek (2025) studied the 2023 ban in one large district. They compared schools where phone use had been high or low before the ban. By year two, scores rose by about one percentile point. Unexcused absences fell. Suspensions rose in year one, more for Black students. They faded by year two.
Rio de Janeiro. A 2026 study of 325 schools found a similar small gain. Again, it was bigger for lower achievers.
The other side. A study of 30 English schools compared strict and relaxed phone rules. It found no difference in English or math scores. It was a one-time snapshot. Its authors say cause and effect could run either way. Still, it is a fair reminder. A school rule is not the same as less screen time overall.
So a phone ban is cheap and has modest evidence behind it. It will not tell you how your own child will do. Is school hardest for your child? Then the phone is one question. It is not the only one. Our view: do not wait for national scores to recover. Help your own child now. Nobody will stand up for your child as hard as you will.
Taking phones out of schools helps a little, and it helps the students who find school hardest the most.
Laura Lurns · Learning Success expert
You want the truth about your child, not a headline about all children. Too often, the system hands down a verdict, then waits for scores to recover. Waiting has never taught a child to read. Teaching does. One free screener asks what you see in reading, math, writing and focus. It is a place to start: the free Learning Difficulties Analysis.
See what All Access gives your child
Is your child struggling in school?
Get your free personalized learning roadmap
You describe what you see at home. We turn it into a plan you start this week.
- Answer 5 short questionnaires about what you already notice, 30–45 minutes at your own kitchen table
- Your child sits no test and gets no score: nothing to schedule, nothing for them to dread
- You do the answering, the AI does the writing, and a person reviews it before it reaches you
- Access all 40+ courses instantly: reading, math, focus, processing and more, with new ones added regularly
Why we use AI, plainly: it writes from a knowledge base our team maintains and audits. We work through it line by line and pull anything the evidence stops supporting. The roadmap you get on Tuesday reflects what we corrected on Monday, and a human still reads it before you do.
Your school district must evaluate your child free of charge if you ask in writing, whatever your income and whatever the outcome (US, 34 CFR 300.111 and 300.301(b)). That route takes time and answers a different question than you do. This one starts today, from what you already know.
Your answers stay yours. We do not sell your personal information, and we do not hand identifiable assessment data to outside AI companies to train their models.
A screener is a starting point, not a diagnosis. If your child might need formal accommodations (an IEP or 504 plan), or you suspect a vision, hearing or medical cause, pursue a professional evaluation too. That is the only route to those supports.
