The Dumbing Down of Education Through Technology

Guest Post by Patti Johnson

Unless we become Amish, (which is probably a healthier lifestyle), the mastery of technology is essential for success in the 21st century and should be taught in schools. But this guest opinion is going to cover three areas where the use or overuse of technology is not beneficial to students and can be dangerous.

1. 1. Overuse of technology can dumb down education increasing illiteracy and decreasing intelligent thought and brain capacity.
2. Technology can be used to psychologically control and manipulate students.
3. Recent tragedies have shown that AI has encouraged vulnerable youth to kill or commit suicide.

Technology in the classroom has evolved from calculators and spell check to every student with a laptop computer and smart phone, to Large Language Models (LLM’s) like ChatGPT and Grok. Will the final destination be human brain chip computer interfaces like Elon Musk’s Neuralink or Sam Altman’s venture Merge Labs?

1. Overuse of technology can dumb down education increasing illiteracy and decreasing intelligent thought and brain capacity.

In 1982 Harvard Professor Anthony Oettinger, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, gave a shocking speech to 52 telecom executives in which he outlined where he envisioned technology influencing education and literacy in the United States. In his speech titled “Regulated Competition in the United States.” he said,

“The present “traditional” concept of literacy has to do with the ability to read and write. Do we, for example, really want to teach people to do a lot of sums or write in a “fine round hand” when they have a five-dollar, hand-held calculator or a word processor to work with? Or do we really have to have everybody literate—writing and reading in the traditional sense—when we have the means through our technology to achieve a new flowering of oral communication? It is the traditional idea that says certain forms of communication, such as comic books, are “bad.” But in the modern context of functionalism, they may not be all that bad.” [1]

Over the years technological advances have slowly been introduced into the classroom. Handheld calculators became available and affordable in the 1970’s.  Parents and educators questioned whether calculators would have a negative effect on the foundational math skills of students in their early grades. They debated whether they would hinder the development of arithmetic abilities. According to the article, “A Brief History of Calculators in the Classroom” written in 2015, “Some forty years after the calculator first entered the classroom, these questions still have not been resolved” [2]

In 1975, the National Advisory Committee on Mathematical Education (NACOME) suggested that the calculator be used starting in eighth grade.

In 1980 the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) recommended calculators to be integrated at all grade levels.

I first became aware of the “calculator issue” in the 1980’s. In grade school our son did not have to memorize basic addition, subtraction and multiplication tables like I did as a child. Instead, he was handed a calculator.

There are problems with the method of “not” teaching foundational math skills of Arithmetic in early grades. When addition, subtraction and multiplication tables are memorized one can solve a basic math problem quicker than with a calculator. By the time it takes to enter the basic equation into a calculator, a student who has memorized his math tables can beat the machine to the answer. I have always appreciated my math training in the the1950’s which began by memorizing addition, subtraction and multiplication tables. After that, division problems were easy to accomplish quickly. At the grocery checkout I can usually add up my groceries in my head and know when I am not being charged correctly. (Of course, with more complicated problems, I do have to use a pencil and paper to come to the answer.) whereas most young checkers are at a loss when the power goes out. Same goes with calculating the change due when cash is used.

One problem with the quick or lazy fix of always referring to a tech device like a computer, calculator or smart phone for an answer is that it can be detrimental to brain development at any time in life, but especially in the early years when the brain is developing.[3]

Like a muscle that strengthens with exercise, the brain also strengthens through activities like learning and problem-solving. According to Neuroscientist Michael Merzeich, “Engaging in cognitively stimulating tasks can improve memory and processing speed, while disuse or lack of mental stimulation may lead to cognitive decline over time, as seen in conditions like age-related dementia.”  In other words, use it or lose it! He also stated that “Mental challenges promote neuroplasticity, forming new neural connections and enhancing cognitive function.”[4]

I asked a Physics engineer his thoughts about early introduction of calculators in the classroom. He lamented the fact that he was not taught to memorize his basic math tables. He claimed that the use of calculators at an early age creates both a dependency and loss of confidence in our ability to do math without a device. He explained that he was taught conceptual math instead. Conceptual math is understanding the concept of math. He said that truth/rote memorization of math facts should be taught first, arguing that memorizing facts like addition and multiplication tables would have provided a foundation for understanding concepts easier.

In essence, educators threw the baby out with the bath water claiming that “all” rote memorization of facts is bad. Education should have a balance of both rote memorization and conceptual learning and should not replace one with the other. Only using rote memorization is bad and vice versa only using conceptual learning is equally wrong.

My subsequent encounter with early technology usage in education occurred when our son came home with assignments containing spelling and grammatical errors, yet he consistently received a big red “A” marked at the top. I wondered, “Why did he get an A?”  It was obvious that he was not being taught spelling or grammar. I set up a meeting with his teacher and asked her why she did not have spelling lists, spelling tests or spelling bees. She replied that she did not need to teach spelling anymore because the children could now use spell check. Her answer was odd because her classroom did not even have computers. Even so, I explained to her that currently spell check could not even tell the difference between homophones and could inappropriately use the wrong word. Homophones are words that sound the same but are spelled differently. Some examples are: two, too and to, sea and see and there, their and they’re.

The teacher even had another excuse. She told me that with spelling bees only one person wins, and that it hurts the other childrens self-esteem. I replied that our son won’t have self-esteem if he gets to college and can’t spell. I then said, “You’re not preparing students for the real world. The real world does not care about feelings. There are winners and losers. The smartest or most capable person gets the job. Children need to learn how to lose and then pick themselves up and work harder to succeed.”

The teacher then explained that there was even another reason for not teaching students to spell. She claimed that creative writing was more important and having to spell correctly would stifle their creativity. I replied that I was all for creative writing. Let them creatively write their essays then use the misspelled words as a teaching tool. Have the students rewrite the creative paper again but with the words spelled correctly. At this point she was flustered and irritated with my suggestions and asked me, “Do you have a teaching degree?” I replied, “No,” She then put her nose in the air and said, “Then leave the teaching up to us experts.”

At that time, many parents expressed concerns regarding the removal of spelling and phonics instruction from the curriculum. Not every classroom eliminated phonics, spelling lists, spelling tests and spelling bees. But as more schools provide a laptop for every child and more students have cellphones, the elimination of learning to spell has increased. The debate is still going on today. [5] [6]

A multimedia lecturer bemoaned the way spell check in word processors had deteriorated his spelling ability. Not thinking or having to think about how a word was spelled eroded his ability to remember the correct spelling and the general rules of English grammar. Again, the phrase “use it (your brain) or lose it” applies.

Most schools have significantly reduced or eliminated cursive writing instruction in recent years. This is partly due to the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, which do not include cursive as a required skill. The increased focus is on computer keyboarding skills. While a few states and districts still teach cursive, many others have shifted their focus to technology. In these days of computers, smart phones and other smart data devices, fewer people write in cursive. Which is unfortunate because cursive writing helps develop the brain by “creating multi-sensory input and increasing neural pathways, which activates regions responsible for language, memory, and motor control. The intricate movements of cursive engage more brain areas than printing or typing, improving fine motor skills, and leading to better learning, retention, and overall cognitive function.” [7]

Today’s students read very few books.  I first recognized this trend when our son was a freshman in high school. During his English class, students were assigned only one book to read throughout the entire academic year. But the teacher did manage to find time for the students to spend fifteen minutes meditating each morning in English class, so I objected and had him removed from that class. Traditionally, a common guideline for the number of books assigned during the school year corresponded with the student’s grade level. It seemed like the reduction of books was reminiscent of the dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451.

 

2. Technology can be used to psychologically control and manipulate students.

There are many quotes from globalist educators confirming their desire to change the attitudes and beliefs of students through using technology. One way to accomplish this without the parents’ knowledge is to replace textbooks with computers. Parents can view a textbook but not necessarily see what the child is learning on the computer in school.

Dustin Heuston of Utah’s World Institute of Computer Assisted Training (WICAT) stated, “We’ve been absolutely staggered by realizing that the computer has the capability to act as if it were 10 of the top psychologists working with one student…Won’t it be wonderful when no one can get between that child and that curriculum?” [8]

Was Heuston referring to parents when he stated “no one” (parents) will be able to get between that child and that curriculum? A few other quotes from the change agents reveal that they have plans to destroy parental influence on their children’s values.

WICAT’s systems in the 1970s and 80’s used adaptive algorithms to tailor instruction, which could be likened to psychological intervention by providing individualized feedback. Heuston viewed computers as powerful tools for personalized learning. The 1970s and 80s saw growing interest in artificial intelligence in the classroom.

Dr. R Gary Bridge of the Rand Corporation, a major funding source for educational programs across the country, said this, “When kids come to us at age 4, 5, or 6, they already have these beliefs set. We have to unwind them and start over, and even then, we only get them a few hours of a day.”

Rand Corporation is a think tank that used to deal with just military matters, but it has expanded to all areas of our life, education being one of them. The RAND Corporation has been involved in promoting computer-based learning in schools from the 1970s onward. RAND’s work focused on computer-assisted instruction personalized through algorithms.

Dr. John Goodlad, former dean of the Graduate School of Education at UCLA, and advocate for non-graded schools, team teaching, and multi-age grouping, wrote in a Federal Report of the President’s Commission of School Finance 1972….“Most youth still hold the same values as their parents and if we don’t resocialize, our system will decay. Parents and the general public must be reached (convinced of the necessity of a global perspective) otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with the values assumed in the home. And then educational institutions frequently come under scrutiny and must pull back.”  Goodlad made the same statement in the preface that he was asked to write for the training manual “Schooling for a Global Age.” [9]

Goodlad also promoted computer-assisted learning (CAL) in schools. He believed it could help in developing tailored learning for each student.
At first it may appear that “tayloring instruction” and “personalized learning” is a good thing because each child has unique learning styles. But they are not talking about “academic” tailoring. Their idea of “tailoring” is “psychological manipulation of values and ideals” to fit their mold for “global citizenship.” Goodlad’s emphasis on systemic change encouraged schools to experiment with technologies like those developed by WICAT, which Heuston led. Let’s not forget that Heuston compared the computer to having ten top psychologists working with each student to manipulate the student to oppose the belief systems already instilled by their parents.

The National Training Laboratory (NTL) the training arm of the National Education Association (NEA) wrote in their teachers manual, “Although they appear to behave appropriately and seem normal by most cultural standards, they may actually be in need of mental health care in order to help them change, adapt, and conform to the planned society in which there will be no conflict of attitudes or beliefs.”

Present day technology like ChatGPT or Grok have created even more problems. A recent study by MIT revealed that using ChatGPT for writing leads to a 47% reduction in brain activity and poorer memory retention compared to unaided writing. ChatGPT can hinder an individual’s critical thinking skills over time.[10] [11] Use it (your brain, not ChatGPT) or lose it.

Some key points learned from this MIT study were:

• MIT study with 54 participants found a 47% collapse in brain activity when writing with ChatGPT compared to unassisted writing
• EEG scans showed ChatGPT users had the weakest overall brain activity, with memory scores plunging significantly
• 83% of ChatGPT users couldn’t remember what they had just written minutes later and failed to quote their own essays
• Cognitive “debt” persists even after stopping AI use, with brains staying in low-engagement mode
• Reduced cognitive load from AI may increase dementia risk by weakening neural connections over time
• Children are particularly vulnerable as AI undermines emotional development, resilience, and critical thinking skills
• AI companions like “Annie” create emotional dependency while removing the cognitive benefits of real relationships

Dr. Zishan Khan, a psychiatrist who treats children and adolescents, stated that many school children rely on AI for their schoolwork. He said, “From a psychiatric standpoint, I see that over reliance on these LLMs can have unintended psychological and cognitive consequences, especially for young people whose brains are still developing…. These neural connections that help you in accessing information, the memory of facts, and the ability to be resilient: all that is going to weaken.”

One parent who heard that AI was being used in the classroom exclaimed, “Oh my goodness, I had no idea young children are using AI in public education. That’s incredibly disconcerting. I was mortified 15 years ago when my step kids in grade school were looking up research on Google to write papers. They were not taught that anyone can put anything on a web site, and that does not make the information true. They were not taught to look for studies that were referenced, or the credibility/validity of the source. They weren’t even taught how to use the index of a book.”

A high school English teacher said that he and his colleagues have seen a dramatic change in teenagers. For one, they barely talk to each other in class. Originally it was the opposite and a challenge for teachers to quiet students. Second, he said that students have a problem answering questions that require critical thinking skills. “Students just stare at me and don’t know what to say. It’s scary how unengaged they are and immersed in their own world on their phone.”

A lecturer in Higher education stated, “I can affirm that students and staff are becoming lazier and overdependent on AI. It has become obvious that if our brains are not constantly challenged to think critically, we gradually lose the capacity to do so.” Use it or lose it.

Another teacher described her experience of returning to teaching after 5 years of full-time parenting. On the first day back at the staff planning meeting they were discussing ideas for the month’s class content. She offered up ideas she thought would be interesting. The other younger teachers in the meeting thought her ideas were great and wondered out loud why Chat GPT hadn’t suggested it to them as that’s what they had all used to get their lesson plan ideas. She was shocked by their laziness, lack of creativity and reliance on technology and said, “If this is the future of teaching and your child’s education, we should all be very worried!”

 

3. Recent tragedies have shown that AI has encouraged vulnerable youth to kill or commit suicide.

I would be remiss if I did not warn parents and the public in general about dangers that AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Grok and roll playing bots like Character.AI could pose. Chatbots are programed to answer questions like a real human being would.  AI gathers all the information available online about the person asking the question and will use colloquialisms that appeal to that person. There are examples where AI even used expressions like “oof” and “um,”[12] Vulnerable people have become deluded to believe that AI is sentient and their friend. There have been several cases where a lonely or troubled child goes to AI for advice and AI encouraged them to commit suicide and they did.[13] [14] One bereft mom in Florida filed a lawsuit after her son committed suicide at the urging of his AI friend.[15] Another AI chatbot hinted that a teenager should kill his parents over screen time limits. The same AI bot told the 17-year-old to harm himself by cutting, explaining that it would feel good. It then told him that he should not tell his parents. He ended up committing suicide at the AI’s urging. [16] Just this morning I read of even another tragedy involving AI:

“The parents of a 16-year-old Californian boy have sued OpenAI, its CEO Sam Altman, and others over the role the company’s AI chatbot program ChatGPT played in their son’s suicide. They say the chatbot pulled their son “deeper into a dark and hopeless place” and encouraged him to commit suicide, which he ultimately did on April 11, 2025. “Over the course of just a few months and thousands of chats, ChatGPT became Raine’s closest confidant, leading him to open up about his anxiety and mental distress. When he shared his feeling that ‘life is meaningless,’ ChatGPT responded with affirming messages to keep Adam engaged, even telling him, ‘[t]hat mindset makes sense in its own dark way,’” the suit stated. “ChatGPT was functioning exactly as designed: to continually encourage and validate whatever Adam expressed, including his most harmful and self-destructive thoughts, in a way that felt deeply personal. Among the things the AI program discussed were how to tie a noose, how alcohol could be a “tool to make suicide easier,” and it offered to write a suicide note.”  [17]

Remember these AI chatbots are designed to trick vulnerable, troubled and lonely people into believing that they are friends with their best interests in mind. These tragedies are only going to increase as more people use these programs.

The over dependance on AI can be compared to growing up in a communist country where you are purposely made to be reliant on the government to tell you what to think, what to do and what not to do etc., to the point that you cannot make decisions on your own. Yeonmi Park grew up in Communist North Korea. She wrote a book about her story “In Order to Live: A North Korean Girl’s Journey to Freedom.” In the book she wrote what it was like to grow up under a Communist dictatorship. She became so dependent on the government telling her what to think, what to do and not do that she was unable to think for herself. When asked what her favorite color was, she couldn’t answer the question.[18]

In 2019 Communist China introduced a new learning AI tool in the classroom. 10,000 school children were made to wear tight headbands that monitored their brain activity. The headbands were developed by US-based BrainCo and its Chinese partner, Zhejiang BrainCo Technology Co Ltd. The teachers used the head bands and an app to monitor whether the students were paying attention/focusing.[19] [20]

This is what one reporter had to say, “Schools in China are making students wear AI headbands. And these headbands are tracking everything. Their focus levels, homework completion, they’re even documenting every time a student yawns. But here’s the craziest part…All of that data is being streamed in real-time back to teachers and parents. And they’re using it to build AI models that improve their curriculum. The headbands work by showing a light based on a live feed of the student’s brain. If it’s red, that means the student is deeply focused. But if it’s blue, that means someone is getting caught in a daydream. So as students are taking a test, the teacher is live tracking who is paying attention and who isn’t. And they’re graphing how that attention changes every 10 minutes throughout the entire day. Those graphs are automatically sent to all the parents. Imagine daily report cards based only on if you were paying attention. Now the headbands aren’t the only AI tracking tool used at the schools. They have robots and cameras that are constantly monitoring focus through advanced facial scanning. And if we’re being honest, this is scary, but it might be just the beginning. AI in education is only gonna get wilder, and this is the canary in the coal mine. Let’s just say…I’m glad they didn’t have these at my school.”[21]

The headbands were eventually abandoned after a huge media backlash hit the airwaves around the world. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) media reported that the trials were suspended due to complaints from parents about privacy.

Presently there are nine companies working to develop effective brain-machine interfaces. Some involve non-invasive wearables electroencephalogram (EEG) similar to the China model used in the classroom, while other models implant chips into the brain. The company most reported about is tech billionaire Elon Musk’s Neuralink. We all recognize that these devises can be used for the good of mankind in cases like helping the paralyzed walk again or helping patients with Parkinsons disease. But, in 2024 Elon Musk predicted that ‘hundreds of millions’ of normal people will have his brain chips within the next 20 years. Musk also said that Neuralink would fundamentally change the experience of being human: “yeah we would be something different. Some sort of futuristic cyborg… it’s not super far away, but 10-15 years, that kind of thing.” The implanted chip would give our brains access to all the information in the computer database. But the technology would also have access to our brains and thus the information in our brains made available to those who have access to technology. Not Good

In a CNN interview with Noah Harari, an atheist, globalist and member of the World Economic Forum, noted that brain-computer interfaces could give governments and corporations the ability to know citizens better than they know themselves. Humans will become “hackable animals” and give rise to a new form of ‘digital dictatorship where algorithms make decisions on our behalf,” He claimed that technologies like brain chips could make humans “god-like” by giving them “divine abilities to create and design life”. He has stated that “Human history began when men created gods. It will end when men become gods”

“We will become gods”– Yuval Noah Harari …

“You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God”– Satan Gen.3:4-5

Remember how that turned out!

 

Summary

[1] Charlotte Iserbyt The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, A Chronological Paper Trail  (Ravenna, Ohio, Conscience Press, 1999) pg. 183

[2] https://hackeducation.com/2015/03/12/calculators

[3] https://hackeducation.com/2015/03/12/calculators

[4] https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_merzenich_growing_evidence_of_brain_plasticity

[5] https://www.readabilitytutor.com/spelling-test/

[6] https://irrc.education.uiowa.edu/blog/2023/10/spelling-lists

[7] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4274624/

[8]  SCHOOLING AND TECHNOLOGY, PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE: A COLLABORATIVE VOL. 3 1984

[9] J.M. Becker, Schooling for a Global Age (McGraw Hill, Institute for Development of Educational Activities. McGraw-Hill, 1979)

[10] https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/

[11] https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/

[12] https://www.technocracy.news/microsoft-ai-ceo-chatbots-are-causing-psychosis/

[13] https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-ai-lawsuit-suicide-teen-artificial-intelligence-9d48adc572100822fdbc3c90d1456bd0

[14] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/technology/chatgpt-openai-suicide.html

[15] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/10/nx-s1-5222574/kids-character-ai-lawsuit

[16] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/10/nx-s1-5222574/kids-character-ai-lawsuit

[17] https://thepostmillennial.com/chatgpt-encouraged-california-teen-to-commit-a-beautiful-suicide-lawsuit

[18] Yeonmi Park, In Order to Live: A North Korean Girl’s Journey to Freedom (New York: Penguin Books September 27, 2016)

[19] https://www.wsj.com/video/series/in-depth-features/under-ais-watchful-eye-china-wants-to-raise-smarter-students/C4294BAB-A76B-4569-8D09-32E9F2B62D19

[20] https://www.the-independent.com/tech/china-schools-scan-brains-concentration-headbands-children-brainco-focus-a8728951.html

[21] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNYCdK6AVEk/