ed-tech pause – A Colorado teacher paused ed-tech in class and found fewer distractions, clearer student thinking, and tougher—but stronger—teaching routines.
Leadville, Colorado — a seventh-grade math teacher decided to run what looked, at first, like a simple experiment: remove screens for an entire month and see what changed.
His name is Dylan Kane, and his results are stirring debate far beyond his classroom.. Kane says dropping ed-tech didn’t make lessons easier; it made them harder in the day-to-day sense.. Yet the trade-off—more live discussion. fewer “screen problems. ” and a closer read on student thinking—may be exactly why his no-tech approach worked.
A classroom built on paper instead of Chromebooks
But after reading a critique of ed-tech, Kane paused and asked a blunt question: if he had repeated the same technology habits “for a bunch of years” without much reflection, what would happen if he broke the pattern? For January, he went cold turkey.
What changed when screens disappeared
With screens removed, Kane shifted activities from independent online work to interactive whole-class moments.. Instead of assigning practice tasks for students to complete quietly. he brought more questions front-and-center and used mini-whiteboards so students could answer and revise in real time.. He describes the classroom as “more nimble. ” because he no longer had to manage the rhythm of getting devices out. setting up logins. and closing screens at the right time.
Another reported change was psychological and social.. Kane saw a slight increase in student effort, especially among learners who sometimes hide behind devices when math feels uncomfortable.. Screens, he argues, can separate students into “little worlds,” making it easier to look busy without engaging deeply.
The data problem—and why paper showed more
In contrast, Kane felt more connected to confusion as it emerged.. With pencil and paper. he could watch where students got stuck. interpret their mistakes more directly. and adjust instruction without wading through dashboards.. For educators. this is a core tension: the more information a system collects. the less usable it may be in the moment you need a response.
Student feedback wasn’t unanimous
A particularly telling detail is that some students described Chromebook work as “easier,” partly because handwriting requires more effort.. Kane suggests that effort might be valuable, not just punishing—learning can deepen when students have to actively construct answers.. But he also acknowledges the downside: screens can provide immediate feedback that students rely on.. Without it, learners may get stuck longer or fall into frustration.
Kane’s view is nuanced. He doesn’t claim immediate feedback is always bad. Instead, he argues that in some situations, delayed feedback may actually support stronger thinking—especially when students have to reason rather than correct instantly.
The cost teachers pay for going back
Yet Kane says he’s benefited from that effort. Paper-based assessment led students to engage more with their mistakes, using errors as learning rather than treating assessment as a quick verdict.
Misryoum also sees a policy angle here.. Kane notes that Colorado law and state rubrics expect technology integration.. During an observation, he says certain items in the rubric related to tech were left blank.. He wasn’t overly concerned about the impact on his evaluation. but his point underscores how deeply ed-tech has been woven into expectations—not just classroom practice.
What this could mean for the next wave of learning tools
Instead. his story suggests a more practical editorial lesson for schools: the question may not be whether technology belongs in classrooms. but whether it helps teachers maintain autonomy and responsiveness to student needs.. Kane believes some tools act like a crutch—shifting the burden of teaching onto software while narrowing what teachers can shape in real time.
In a learning environment where students need clarity. feedback. and engagement. Misryoum argues that the most effective approach may look less like “more screens” or “fewer screens. ” and more like deliberate choices.. Kane’s experiment shows what happens when those choices turn toward live discussion, visible thinking, and fewer interruptions.. For one month in one math classroom, that shift made the work harder—then, in his view, made it stronger.
Chico State’s farm research finds fertilizer alternative for students
NYC Schools Use Coaching to Strengthen Staff Behind Classrooms
College aid offers: the hidden cost math families can’t easily see