Frequently Asked Questions

About Our Campaign

Close Screens Open Minds is a campaign calling for evidence-based technology policy in UK education. We believe children deserve education grounded in what actually works, not what tech companies promise might work. We’re parents, teachers, researchers, and concerned citizens advocating for a return to proven teaching methods whilst technology is properly evaluated and regulated.

No. We use technology every day and recognise its value in appropriate contexts. We’re against the uncritical, evidence-free deployment of technology in classrooms when research shows it harms learning, health, and wellbeing. We believe technology should serve children’s needs, not commercial interests.

We’re calling for:

  • An immediate pause on expanding EdTech until proper safety standards and evidence requirements are in place
  • Return to paper-based learning materials, particularly for primary schools
  • Strict limits on school screen time aligned with paediatric health recommendations1
  • Mandatory independent audits of EdTech products before classroom use2
  • Strong data protection for children with meaningful parental consent
  • Evidence requirements before any EdTech product can be used in schools

The Evidence

No. We have decades of research from multiple countries showing consistent patterns.3 We also have clear biological mechanisms explaining why screens harm learning – human brains evolved to learn from other humans through subtle social cues that screens remove.4 Additionally, when countries like Sweden comprehensively review all available evidence, they conclude digital tools “risk impairing rather than improving” learning and invest €104 million to reverse their digitalisation policies.5

EdTech companies frequently cite studies they’ve funded or conducted themselves. Independent research – including UNESCO’s 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report and the OECD’s analysis – consistently finds very little robust evidence that EdTech improves learning.6,7 The OECD specifically found that students who use computers very frequently at school do worse in most learning outcomes.7

This is a common assumption, but a massive Columbia University study of 450,000+ children found paper reading was associated with better comprehension for all children, with even stronger positive effects for children with ADHD.8 The assumption that screens help children with additional needs is not supported by evidence and may actually cause harm.

This is perhaps the most persistent EdTech myth. Children need skills – critical thinking, problem-solving, communication – not specific technologies that will be obsolete by the time they graduate. The best preparation for any future is deep learning, strong literacy, and analytical thinking – all of which are better developed through paper-based learning and human interaction. As Emily Cherkin testified to Parliament: “We cannot know what technologies will matter in ten years, but we do know that solving problems and thinking critically will always matter.”9

About Learning and Screens

Valencia University research shows digital reading is 6-8 times less effective than paper for comprehension.10 A UCL analysis of PISA data found students taking tests on paper scored equivalent to 6 months more schooling than those on screens.11 A meta-analysis of 54 studies consistently showed paper reading leads to better comprehension, especially for complex texts.12

Multiple factors: screens encourage shallow processing (skimming and scanning) rather than deep reading;13 they remove the spatial and tactile cues that aid memory; they fragment attention through notifications and the temptation of other apps; and crucially, they remove the human social cues (mirroring, mimicry, synchrony) that our brains evolved to rely on for deep learning.4

The problems are inherent to the medium, not just poor implementation. Even when used “properly,” screens encourage shallow processing.13 Additionally, any internet-connected device in a child’s hands cannot be adequately protected – as Harry Amies demonstrated in his parliamentary testimony, even the best filters fail consistently.14

Health and Safety

The Spanish Paediatrics Society recommends maximum 1 hour total daily screen time for ages 7-12, including all school use.1 Excessive screen time is associated with: reduced physical activity, sleep disruption, rising rates of myopia, increased anxiety and depression, attention problems, and postural issues.15,16 Many schools far exceed safe limits in a single school day.

Yes. Every school filter supplier admits “no filter is 100% effective.”14 In Scotland alone, over 100,000 children were exposed to pornography and violent content due to filter failures.14 Case studies document 6-year-olds accessing hardcore pornography for weeks, 10-year-olds groomed by predators, and 11-year-olds developing pornography addictions – all on school-issued devices with supposedly “protected” filters.17

School-mandated devices that children take home mean children cannot escape digital environments. Cyberbullying, which used to stop at the school gates, now follows children into their bedrooms. Schools cannot adequately monitor or protect devices used at home, yet children are required to use them.

Privacy and Data

Human Rights Watch found 89% of EdTech platforms monitor children.18 They track: grades, behaviour, how children write, how they hold their pencil, what captures their attention, their mistakes, their conversations, their fears – everything.19 This data builds commercial profiles used to predict and influence behaviour, then sold to third parties, often without meaningful parental consent.19

The current legal framework is shockingly inadequate. Product safety laws from the 1980s-90s regulate classroom teddy bears more strictly than supercomputers. As Ben Kingsley testified to Parliament, “it is bonkers that under product safety legislation introduced in the 80s and 90s, the classroom teddy bear is subject to tighter child safety standards than the supercomputers we are handing out to primary school children.”20

Often no. Schools frequently make device use mandatory, and parents are not given genuine choices about data collection. Even when “consent” is requested, the alternatives (your child cannot participate in lessons) make it coercive rather than genuine consent.19

What Parents Can Do

This is complex and depends on your school. Some parents have successfully negotiated paper-based alternatives, but schools often claim devices are “essential.” We’re working to establish clearer legal rights for parents. Contact us if you need support – our community includes parents who have navigated these conversations.

Approach calmly with specific evidence. Focus on your child’s wellbeing. Request to see: the educational evidence for device use, the risk assessment, the data protection impact assessment, and the filtering policy. Ask how screen time limits align with paediatric recommendations. Suggest reviewing the research we’ve compiled. Offer to share information about international policy reversals.

Connect with other parents – schools respond to collective concerns. Contact your local councillor or MP with evidence. Report safeguarding concerns to your local authority. Join parent groups like SafeScreens, Generation Focus, Smartphone Free Childhood and Tech-Safe Learning Coalition who can provide support and guidance. Document everything – concerns raised, responses received, any incidents.

Policy and Change

No – they’ve tried and are now reversing course. Finland is reducing EdTech.21 Spain has banned screen-based homework in Madrid.22 South Korea cancelled its AI textbook programme.23 Countries that review the evidence comprehensively are moving away from screen-first education. Sweden no longer requires digital tools for preschools and has invested in book purchases for schools.

COVID was an emergency requiring emergency measures. The problem is that emergency EdTech – deployed without evidence or proper safeguards – has become permanent policy. Now we have the evidence showing the harms, it’s time to return to what actually works.

No. As Diego Hidalgo from Spain’s OFF Movement testified: “We have a choice – none of this is a foregone conclusion.”22 Madrid implemented paper-based policies affecting 500,000 children in record time.22 Sweden reversed course.5 Change is possible when policymakers prioritise evidence over commercial interests.

There are currently several opportunities for legislative change, including amendments to strengthen EdTech regulation, protect children’s data, and require evidence before products reach classrooms. We’re working with other campaigners and MPs across parties who recognise these concerns. The November 2024 parliamentary event brought together international experts and has catalysed significant political interest.

Getting Involved

  • Share our evidence with your school, MP, and local councillor
  • Join parent groups in your area like SafeScreens, Generation Focus, Smartphone Free Childhood, and Tech-Safe Learning Coalition.
  • Follow us on social media and share our content
  • Attend local meetings and raise these concerns
  • Contact your child’s school governors
  • Write to your MP and local education authority

Teachers are crucial to this campaign. Many teachers privately share these concerns but face pressure from school leadership.

You can:

  • Document the impact of devices on your students
  • Raise concerns through proper channels in your school
  • Join teaching unions advocating for evidence-based policy
  • Share your professional expertise with parents and policymakers
  • Connect with other teachers through our network

Governors have a legal duty to ensure children’s safety and wellbeing. You should:

  • Request evidence that EdTech products improve learning
  • Review data protection impact assessments
  • Examine filtering policies and test their effectiveness
  • Ensure screen time aligns with health recommendations1
  • Question costs vs. benefits of digitalisation spending
  • Consider schools that have successfully limited or removed devices

Our website contains comprehensive research summaries, expert profiles, international policy examples, and practical resources. We also recommend: SafeScreens (legal support), the OFF Movement (international coordination), Emily Cherkin’s work on the Six Myths of EdTech, and the EdTech Law Center (US-based but applicable principles).

Common Concerns

The evidence shows the opposite. Countries investing less in classroom technology improve faster than those investing more.7 Students in paper-based environments develop better comprehension, deeper thinking, and stronger analytical skills10,12,13 – exactly what children need to thrive in any future.

Sweden calculated that restoring textbooks costs significantly less than maintaining digital infrastructure (devices, networks, software licenses, IT support, regular replacement). Paper books last years and can be shared. Digital licences require ongoing subscription costs, plus hardware that must be replaced every few years.

The issue is the amount and context. Brief, targeted use of specific tools by teachers is very different from children spending hours daily on devices for core learning and homework. Spanish paediatricians recommend maximum 1 hour daily total screen time for ages 7-121 – most schools exceed this in a single day before homework.

Devices are designed to be appealing – that’s the problem. They’re engineered using persuasive design techniques from the gambling industry to capture and hold attention.19 A child’s enjoyment of something doesn’t make it educational or healthy. Children also enjoy sweets, but we don’t build their diet around them.

Sources

  1. Spanish Paediatrics Society (AEP), December 2024 recommendations
  2. Dr Velislava Hillman, Parliamentary testimony (November 2024)
  3. University of Maryland (2017): Review of decades of research
  4. Sophie Winkleman & Dr Jared Cooney Horvath, Parliamentary testimony (November 2024)
  5. Karolinska Institute Sweden (2023); Sweden policy reversal
  6. UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report (2023)
  7. OECD findings, cited in Parliamentary testimony (November 2024)
  8. Columbia University (2024): Study of 450,000+ children
  9. Emily Cherkin, Parliamentary testimony (November 2024)
  10. Valencia University (2023): Digital reading 6-8× less effective than paper
  11. UCL (2018): Analysis of PISA 2015 data
  12. Valencia University Meta-Analysis (2018): 54 studies
  13. University of Oslo (2024): Screen reading encourages shallow processing
  14. Harry Amies, Parliamentary testimony (November 2024)
  15. Gasol Foundation data, cited by Diego Hidalgo, Parliamentary testimony (November 2024)
  16. Dr Rangan Chatterjee, Parliamentary testimony (November 2024)
  17. Julie Liddell, EdTech Law Center case studies, Parliamentary testimony (November 2024)
  18. Human Rights Watch (2022): Investigation of EdTech in 49 countries
  19. Julie and Andrew Liddell, EdTech Law Center, Parliamentary testimony (November 2024)
  20. Ben Kingsley, SafeScreens, Parliamentary testimony (November 2024)
  21. Close Screens Open Minds policy research: Finland (Reuters 2024)
  22. Diego Hidalgo, OFF Movement, Parliamentary testimony (November 2024): Spain policy
  23. Close Screens Open Minds policy research: South Korea

Have a question we haven't answered?

Contact us