A quiet transformation is taking place in schools: commercial technology is rapidly changing how children learn, often without much public discussion or scrutiny.
From the widespread use of Google and Microsoft to experimental AI tools like Century Tech, both large corporations and education technology companies promise “personalised learning” while collecting vast amounts of data and turning education into monetised products and digital badges.
In reality, the so-called digitalisation of education is far less revolutionary. Children spend time at screens creating PowerPoint slides or clicking through apps like Dr Frost or Quizlet. Lessons are frequently interrupted by pop-up ads and cookie-consent banners—gateways to surveillance and profiling. Others chase streaks on Duolingo, supposedly learning French, or scramble for coins and leaderboard rankings on Blooket. Meanwhile, teachers are given dashboards from platforms like Arbor or NetSupport, where students are reduced to scores and traffic-light charts—a shallow representation of the complex reality of classroom life. All the while, these systems are caught up in corporate competition and profit-seeking.
Throughout this work, I’ve noticed echoes of tactics once used by big tobacco (regarding health): manufacturing doubt to delay regulation and framing market uncertainty as progress. Parents often feel uneasy watching their children absorbed by screens, yet worry that resisting might leave them at a disadvantage. That self-doubt is no accident. It mirrors the marketing logic that kept people smoking for decades—big tobacco sowed doubt and turned public concern into private guilt by funding biased research claiming there was “not enough evidence” of harm, shifting responsibility onto individuals and spending heavily on lobbying to stall regulation.
As these systems expand and become cheaper, a troubling divide is emerging: app-based mass instruction for the majority, while human tutoring and intellectual exchange are reserved for the elite. What is marketed as the “democratisation” of education may actually be deepening inequality. Take Photomath, with over 300 million downloads: snap a photo of an equation, and it provides the solution. Convenient, yes—no tutor needed, perhaps—but it reduces maths to copying steps and removes the dialogue and feedback that help deepen understanding.
Amid this digital acceleration, parents’ unease is not misplaced. The industry promotes these tools as progress—personalised, engaging, efficient—but the reality is more concerning. The apps are designed to extract data with every click and use psychological nudges to maximise screen time: Times Tables Rockstars rewards correct answers with coins; ClassDojo gives points for compliant behaviour; Kahoot! keeps students hooked with countdown clocks and leaderboards. These are variations of the same psychological lever that keeps children scrolling through social media late at night. Even if such tools improve test scores, the question remains: at what cost to classroom relationships, child development, and wellbeing?
Here, the gap between promise and reality becomes clear: despite all the talk of equity and personalisation, the evidence for ed tech is narrow, industry-driven, and shaky at best. There is little tracking of how much time children spend on school devices, which platforms they use, or the impact these have on learning—let alone on wellbeing and development. One study found that to achieve the equivalent of a single GCSE grade improvement, students would need to spend hundreds of hours on one maths app in a year—with no evidence this narrowed achievement gaps for the least advantaged. The lack of definitive evidence is spun as proof of safety, while digital promises are built on an illusion of certainty.
Meanwhile, UK public funding continues to support classroom digitisation, with calls for AI even in early years education. Schools in England feel pressured to demonstrate innovation, even without strong evidence that it improves learning. A study published this year byA study by the National Education Union shows that standardized curricula, often delivered through commercial platforms, are now common. However, many teachers report that these systems limit their professional independence, fail to reduce their workload, and shut them out of curriculum planning decisions.
This trend is often framed in terms of children’s “digital rights,” but rights are hollow without matching obligations—especially from those in power. Simply writing privacy policies to comply with data laws is not enough. Education technology companies must be held to enforceable standards, including regular audits, public reporting, and independent oversight. This is necessary to ensure their tools genuinely support children’s learning—a demand widely shared across the education sector.
It’s time to ask harder questions. Why are apps based on gamification and behavioral design—techniques originally developed to maximize screen time—now standard in classrooms? Why is a child’s future automatically assumed to be digital? These are not minor issues. They go to the very purpose of education. Learning is not a commercial transaction, and childhood is not a market opportunity. As educational theorist Gert Biesta points out, education should not only provide qualifications and socialization but also help children become independent, responsible individuals. That final goal—subjectification—is exactly what gets lost when learning is reduced to gamified clicks and algorithmic nudges.
We can’t prevent technology from entering children’s lives, but we can insist that it serves education, not corporate interests. My message to parents is this: your voices, alongside those of teachers, are essential in holding tech companies accountable for what they create, how they market it, and the values they introduce into our classrooms.
Dr. Velislava Hillman is an academic, teacher, writer, and consultant specializing in educational technology and policy. She is the author of Taming Edtech.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about how big tech has reshaped the classroom written in a natural tone with clear direct answers
General Beginner Questions
1 What does big tech in the classroom actually mean
It means the use of technology and platforms from large companies like Google Apple and Microsoft as core tools for teaching learning and school administration
2 What are some common examples of this tech
Common examples include students using Chromebooks for assignments teachers sharing lessons through Google Classroom or Canvas and schools using apps like Seesaw for parentteacher communication
3 What are the main benefits of using this technology
The main benefits are easier access to information tools that help teachers personalize learning for each student and platforms that help students teachers and parents stay organized and connected
4 Why should I as a parent be concerned
Parents have valid concerns about their childs screen time data privacy potential for distraction and ensuring the technology is used for learning and not just as a digital babysitter
Privacy Safety Concerns
5 What data is big tech collecting on my child
Companies may collect data such as a students name email birth date what they search for what they click on their location when using the device and their performance on assignments and tests
6 Is my childs data safe and private
Most educational tech companies have strict privacy policies for school accounts that limit how data can be used However breaches are always a risk and parents should understand what the schools agreement with the tech provider covers
7 How can I protect my childs privacy
Talk to your childs teacher and school administration Ask what their data privacy policy is what specific apps are being used and what data is shared with third parties You can also review the privacy settings on any device your child uses at home
Impact on Learning Development
8 Will too much screen time harm my childs development
Excessive unproductive screen time can impact attention spans sleep and social skills The key is balance Schools should be using technology as a tool for creation and research not just passive consumption
