Sixteen states are advancing legislation to limit tech use in schools. (From NBC: AL, IA, IL, IN, KS, MA, ME, MN, MO (2), OK, RI, TN (2), UT (3), VA (2), VT, WV.) Something is going to pass—if not this legislative cycle, then the next.

We’re also seeing a global low-tech shift. Sweden moved toward low-tech schooling in 2023, and Denmark, Finland, Norway, South Korea, and Germany appear to be following, largely by returning to physical learning tools and pulling back on student screen time.

But US states aren’t copying Europe. This looks more like a wave driven by “pundit accelerants” such as Emily Hanford (science of reading) and Jonathan Haidt (phonefree schools). These voices capture public attention, then land in state policy forums where leaders are ready to act. Accelerantdriven agendas move fast when they hit.

The next accelerant seems to be Jared Horvath, author of The Digital Delusion. Haidt and others are amplifying his call for low-tech education, and I expect he’ll be active across policymaking bodies as related bills gain traction.

If low-tech bills pass, the sector will feel it. Directtostudent technologies will face headwinds. Some argue it’s cheaper to toss the tablets (see NC's Wake Field as an example), but transition costs will be real: buying physical curriculum, retraining teachers, while managing the remainder of digital subscriptions. Curriculum providers operating outside the deviceheavy model stand to gain, and we may see more DIY curriculum emerge.

On the policy merits, some early bills are sharper than others. A few thoughts:

1. We live in a deeply digital world.
If we’re not teaching students about that world, we’re limiting their future. Students still need access to computers and computer science—not constantly and not without guardrails. For younger learners, I still like the 1980s model: rotating through computer stations for typing, basic coding, and tool literacy.

2. The low-tech push collides with an AI wave.

Classrooms are being flooded with AI solutions, and there’s real anxiety around that. But early evidence suggests AI can help identify academic and behavioral struggles earlier, reduce lessonplanning time, and even support tutoring. These tools will improve. If we go fully low-tech, what benefits do we lose?

3. We need a Goldilocks approach.

We probably overuse tech today. But abandoning it altogether isn’t the answer. We need intentional, moderated use, not extremes.

Low-tech education is a reaction. Our job is to turn reaction into strategy. My sense is that the future will belong to systems that can thread the needle--reducing counterproductive screen time while still preparing students for an AIdriven world.