THE EDUCATION CATALYST

What happens when technology policy focuses on phones but ignores the bigger picture?

The Conversation Stops Too Soon

Missouri and Illinois lawmakers have recently taken steps to restrict student cellphone use during the school day. The reasoning behind these policies is familiar: distractions, student engagement, cyberbullying, mental health concerns, and academic performance.

Many educators understand these concerns.

Students today face a digital environment unlike anything previous generations experienced. Social media, notifications, online conflicts, artificial intelligence, and constant access to information compete for attention throughout the day.

Yet as policymakers debate phones, the conversation often stops too soon.

If technology's impact on students is significant enough to justify statewide legislation, why does the discussion rarely extend beyond cellphones?

Missouri and Illinois policymakers are signaling legitimate concern about student technology use. However, much of the public conversation focuses on personal devices while giving far less attention to the broader technology ecosystem students encounter throughout the school day.

Across Missouri and Illinois, districts continue operating one-to-one technology initiatives that place devices in the hands of students throughout the school day. Schools rely on digital curriculum, online assessments, cloud-based platforms, student information systems, educational software, and increasingly complex technology ecosystems that have become deeply embedded in modern education.

This article is not an argument against technology.

It is an argument for asking whether we are asking the right questions.

The Skills We Say Matter Most

One of the most consistent findings from this research was not about technology at all.

It was about people.

District strategic plans across Missouri and Illinois repeatedly emphasize communication, collaboration, leadership, critical thinking, problem-solving, citizenship, resilience, and career readiness. Montgomery County R-II's mission focuses on developing lifelong learners and productive citizens. Other districts describe technology as a tool intended to support collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking rather than an end goal itself.

Employers tell a remarkably similar story.

The National Association of Colleges and Employers continues to identify communication, teamwork, professionalism, critical thinking, problem-solving, leadership, and career management as some of the most important workplace competencies. Missouri employers report many of those same skills as areas where applicants continue to struggle.

That alignment should get our attention.

Schools say these skills matter.

Employers say these skills matter.

The question becomes whether our current educational priorities are creating enough opportunities for students to practice them.

If schools and employers agree that communication, collaboration, leadership, and problem-solving matter, how do we ensure students have sufficient opportunities to develop those skills in increasingly technology-centered learning environments?

Communication develops through communication.

Collaboration develops through collaboration.

Leadership develops through leadership opportunities.

Problem-solving develops through authentic challenges.

Many of the skills employers consistently identify as most valuable are developed through classroom discussion, hands-on learning, career and technical education, service learning, work-based experiences, and face-to-face interaction.

Technology can support those experiences.

Technology cannot replace them.

Consider two students learning about electrical circuits.

One student completes a digital simulation on a Chromebook. The other physically wires a circuit, troubleshoots mistakes, uses tools, and collaborates with classmates to solve a problem.

Both students may learn the same concept.

However, only one student is simultaneously practicing communication, teamwork, troubleshooting, adaptability, and hands-on problem-solving.

Technology can support learning. The question is whether it is sometimes replacing experiences that build additional skills students will need after graduation.

The Priorities We Never Revisited

During COVID, schools were forced to make decisions under extraordinary circumstances.

Students needed devices.

Teachers needed ways to deliver instruction remotely.

Districts needed systems capable of functioning during a global emergency.

Federal relief funding accelerated investments in technology, and many of those investments were necessary at the time.

The question is not whether those decisions were right.

The question is whether we have adequately revisited those decisions since the emergency ended.

Nationally, schools invested billions of dollars in educational technology during and after the pandemic. Devices, software subscriptions, online learning platforms, digital curriculum, cloud-based systems, and technology infrastructure expanded rapidly. Those investments were intended to solve immediate problems and ensure schools could continue operating.

Today's challenges look very different.

Districts across the country are navigating teacher shortages, special education staffing shortages, student mental health concerns, chronic absenteeism, learning gaps, workforce readiness concerns, and growing budget pressures.

Many districts are being forced to make difficult choices about staffing and student services while simultaneously maintaining increasingly complex technology ecosystems.

That does not automatically mean technology is the problem.

It does raise an important question:

Are our current investments aligned with our current needs?

Every educational investment should be able to answer the same question:

What return are students receiving?

If districts continue investing significant resources in devices, software, digital platforms, cybersecurity, and technology infrastructure, how do we determine whether those investments are producing the outcomes schools and communities expect?

More importantly, has the return on our technology investment matched the priority we have given it?

The Trade-Offs We Rarely Discuss

Technology often enters educational conversations as a solution.

It can increase access to information.

It can support accommodations.

It can simplify communication.

It can streamline data collection and reporting.

However, every solution introduces new challenges.

The more schools rely on devices, software platforms, cloud-based systems, digital assessments, and electronic data collection, the more dependent they become on those systems functioning properly.

Technology requires maintenance.

Technology requires cybersecurity.

Technology requires ongoing subscriptions, infrastructure, training, and support.

Technology also creates new questions about privacy, student data, long-term costs, and sustainability.

These concerns are not reasons to abandon technology.

They are reasons to evaluate it thoughtfully.

Every educational investment involves trade-offs.

Time spent on a device is time not spent on something else.

Money spent on technology is money not spent elsewhere.

The question is not whether technology has value.

The question is whether we have found the right balance between digital tools and the human experiences that schools, employers, and communities continue to say matter most.

Following the Money and the Decisions

This may be the most important part of the conversation.

Many educational decisions are not made by a single person or organization.

School districts operate within a system influenced by state requirements, federal requirements, grant opportunities, accreditation standards, assessment systems, funding formulas, educational organizations, vendor recommendations, and legislative priorities.

Over time, technology becomes embedded within that system.

Devices require software.

Software requires cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity requires infrastructure.

Infrastructure requires ongoing funding.

Eventually, technology is no longer simply a purchase.

It becomes part of the operating model.

That reality makes it even more important to ask difficult questions.

How are priorities established?

What evidence supports those priorities?

How often are those priorities reevaluated?

Who benefits from those decisions?

Most importantly, do those decisions align with the outcomes schools say they value?

Missouri is currently engaged in this discussion through the School Funding Modernization Task Force. Established by Executive Order 25-14, the task force has been charged with reviewing the state's K-12 funding model and developing recommendations based on educational outcomes, sustainability, adequate funding, equity of opportunity, support for various educational options, and local flexibility in meeting student needs.

What makes this particularly relevant is that the task force is not simply asking how much funding schools need. It is also examining how funding decisions connect to outcomes and whether current investments continue to reflect the needs of students, educators, and communities.

That is the conversation we should be having.

Not simply whether schools need more funding or less funding.

Not simply whether schools need more technology or less technology.

But whether our investments are producing the outcomes we say we value.

At its core, this conversation is not about devices, software, funding formulas, or even technology itself.

It is about students.

Every educational decision ultimately affects how students spend their time, what experiences they have access to, and which skills they develop before entering adulthood.

If communication, collaboration, leadership, problem-solving, citizenship, and career readiness remain the outcomes schools value most, then those outcomes should remain at the center of every funding decision, policy discussion, and instructional practice.

Technology should support those goals.

It should not replace them.

The Question We Should Be Asking

The evidence does not suggest schools should eliminate technology.

Technology provides important benefits.

Technology increases access to information.

Technology can support accommodations.

Technology can improve organization and expand learning opportunities.

The goal is not to turn back the clock.

The goal is to ensure technology remains a tool rather than becoming the priority itself.

As policymakers continue debating technology in education, the conversation should extend beyond cellphones.

As Missouri reviews its school funding formula, educators, families, community members, and policymakers have an opportunity to ask difficult but necessary questions about how resources are allocated and what outcomes those investments should produce.

Technology should be evaluated using the same standard as every other educational investment.

Does it improve student outcomes?

Does it support district goals?

Does it prepare students for life after graduation?

Does it help develop the communication, collaboration, leadership, citizenship, and problem-solving skills schools and employers continue to value?

Those questions matter far more than whether a device is in a student's hand.

Practical Tip

The next time you observe a classroom, ask yourself:

"If I removed the technology from this lesson, what skills would students still be learning?"

The answer may reveal whether technology is enhancing learning or simply replacing other experiences.

Reader Reflection

If your school district received an additional $1 million tomorrow, what would you invest in first?

Additional staff?

Student support services?

Career and technical education?

Mental health resources?

Technology?

Why?

The answer may reveal a great deal about what we believe students need most.

Closing

Educational decisions are rarely simple. Every investment, policy, and initiative reflects a choice about what we believe matters most for students.

Technology has an important place in modern education, but it should not be exempt from the same questions we ask of every other educational investment.

The goal is not more technology.

The goal is not less technology.

The goal is better decisions.

Perhaps the most important question is not whether schools need more technology or less technology.

It is whether every educational decision, every funding priority, and every classroom practice is helping students become capable, responsible, and productive adults.

Technology should support that goal.

It should never become the goal itself.

In solidarity,

Lyndsay LaBrier
The Education Catalyst
Merchant Ship Collective

References

Capitol News Illinois. (2025). Illinois classroom cellphone legislation and student engagement reporting.

Chicago Public Schools. (2025). Student data breach notifications and vendor cybersecurity disclosures.

Edunomics Lab. (2023). The massive ESSER experiment.

Government Accountability Office. (2022). K–12 education: Education needs to address cybersecurity risks to safeguard student data and school operations.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2026). School Funding Modernization Task Force.

Missouri Economic Research and Information Center. (2019). Missouri employer survey.

Montgomery County R-II School District. (2025). Comprehensive School Improvement Plan.

National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2025). Career readiness competencies.

Saint Louis University. (2025). Public opinion polling regarding Missouri cellphone restrictions in schools.

Independence School District. (2025). Technology initiative resources.

Yorkville Community Unit School District 115. (2025). Strategic plan and technology department resources.

Transparency Statement

This newsletter was developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence as a research, organization, and writing support tool. All topics, analysis, opinions, conclusions, and editorial decisions reflect the views of the author. Whenever possible, information is reviewed against publicly available sources, official reports, and original documents before publication.

Readers are encouraged to review cited sources and conduct their own research when making decisions based on information presented in this newsletter.