A recent analysis by neuroscientist and educator Jared Cooney Horvath attributes a decline in cognitive development among Generation Z compared to previous generations to the widespread introduction of digital technology in education. Horvath, author of the newly published book *The Digital Delusion*, argues that Gen Z is the first cohort to show lower average cognitive abilities than their parents, marking a reversal of a long-standing trend of increasing IQ scores throughout the 20th century.

Horvath points to data indicating that IQ scores globally improved steadily until around 2010, a period he describes as a "golden age of education." Since then, scores have declined, coinciding with the rapid adoption of technology such as personal laptops and tablets in classrooms. He contends that humans are wired to learn best through direct human interaction and that reliance on screens for educational purposes may hinder foundational skill development.

The author critiques current educational technology (ed-tech) practices, emphasizing that tools should support skills already acquired rather than replace the learning process. For example, introducing students to word processing software or calculators before mastering writing or arithmetic skills may create a dependency on these tools, limiting deeper understanding and problem-solving abilities. Horvath also challenges the widely held assumption that creativity and critical thinking can develop independently of knowledge acquisition, citing research that shows a strong correlation between academic achievement and creativity, with countries such as Singapore and Japan leading in both measures.

Horvath highlights that the highest-performing countries in international assessments, including Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and China, have been relatively cautious in integrating classroom technology, emphasizing quality teaching and educational rigor. In contrast, countries with early adoption of digital learning have experienced more noticeable declines in student performance. He warns that increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools risks enabling students to outsource cognitive effort rather than genuinely develop critical skills.

However, not all experts agree that technology use in education is inherently detrimental. Dylan Wiliam, emeritus professor of educational assessment at the UCL Institute of Education, acknowledges that while much current ed-tech is of poor quality, well-designed software can positively impact learning. He stresses that the key factor is whether technology fosters more cognitively demanding work rather than simply increasing screen time.

Horvath does not advocate for a wholesale rejection of technology in education. Instead, he calls for a more deliberate and judicious approach, suggesting that schools should return to teaching methods from around 2008 before widespread digital adoption and then build forward with intentional use of technology. He emphasizes that students must first acquire essential skills before technology can be used effectively as a facilitator.

Responding to these concerns, a Department for Education spokesperson affirmed the government’s commitment to using technology as a tool to enhance rather than replace critical thinking and creativity. The department is collaborating with teachers to develop AI tutoring tools aimed at supporting disadvantaged students, alongside a £23 million investment to explore which technologies yield the greatest educational benefits.

Horvath expresses hope that members of Gen Z, though affected by these educational shifts without their consent, will channel their experience into advocacy for better, more balanced approaches to learning in the future.