Preface
People often ask me what I think of the Swedish decision to ban digital technology from education. My first answer is always the same: that is not what Sweden decided. Let me explain what really happened.
Mark Desmaele
Founder and Chairman at TDSO
What Sweden actually did
During the 2010s, Sweden put digital technology into its classrooms faster than almost any other country. The national education agency even planned to make digital devices compulsory in preschools. It is worth noting how this happened. The rollout was national. It was based on the promise of a modern, future-ready education. But nobody was asked to prove that the tools actually improved learning. And no study was set up to measure the results.
In 2022, a new government took office. The Minister of Education, Lotta Edholm, started a correction. It had three parts. First, the plan to make devices compulsory in preschools was reversed. The youngest children would use only books, paper and pens. Second, the government spent large sums, about SEK 685 million (70 million USD) in 2023 plus further yearly amounts, to bring printed textbooks back into classrooms. Third, the national digitalisation strategy was paused. Schools were told to give more attention to handwriting and to reading from paper in the early grades.
Now note what is missing from this list. There is no ban. Devices were not removed from secondary schools. Systems used by teachers and school administrators were not touched. The government itself called the policy a rebalancing, not a war on technology. “Sweden banned digital from education” is a slogan that has travelled around the world. It does not describe the actual policy.
A correction with good instincts but weak methods
The Swedish correction rested on two supports. The first was a real problem. In the international PIRLS study, Swedish children’s reading comprehension fell between 2016 and 2021. The second was a statement from the Karolinska Institute. It said there is clear scientific evidence that digital tools harm rather than help learning.
Both supports need a closer look. The PIRLS test period ends in 2021. So, it includes the COVID years, when schooling was disrupted everywhere. The study itself never said that screens caused the decline. The Karolinska statement was not new research. It was an opinion submitted during a public consultation, and other Swedish researchers disagreed with how far it went. The solid evidence behind it is narrower. Reading from paper tends to work better than reading from screens. Handwriting supports memory and early literacy. That evidence justifies Sweden’s actions in the early grades. It does not justify a verdict on all educational technology.
There is also a deeper irony. Sweden rolled out technology nationwide without asking for proof. Then it rolled it back nationwide, again without any study attached. No targets were set. No evaluation was planned. So whatever the next test results show, both sides will claim victory. Twice in fifteen years, a serious education system changed course on belief rather than on evidence.
How the story is used in England
In Britain, the Swedish story has become a weapon in a campaign to remove all pupil-facing technology from schools. A widely shared speech at a recent conference shows the method. It opens with a story about one headteacher who cancelled lessons and sent the children out to play. It then puts smartphones, social media and all educational technology into a single category, described as teeth of the same shark. It lists authorities, from research institutes to the private choices of tech billionaires. And it ends with a total demand: no devices, no educational apps, no AI, for any pupil, in any form.
Some of the concerns behind the campaign are fair. Many learning apps copy social media tricks, such as daily streaks and rewards. These features serve the EdTech company’s business model rather than the child’s learning. It is also true, and troubling, that some elite schools are reducing screen time while disadvantaged pupils are given more devices. That is a two-tier pattern, and it deserves criticism.
But the method of argument is the mirror image of the sales pitch it attacks. One story replaces data. One metaphor joins things that are, in fact, very different. A teacher using a projector, a school administration system, a game-like reading app and an AI chatbot are not one thing, and the evidence on each is different. Falling test scores are blamed on classroom technology while COVID and other causes are waved aside. A few observations are pressed into one simple slogan. That is campaigning. Campaigning has its place. But it should not be confused with analysis, on either side of the debate.
What this means for Cambodia: teachers first, and evidence always
The whole debate above takes place in rich countries. There, the alternative to a screen is a qualified teacher, a full library and a small class. In much of Cambodia, that is not the alternative. This changes the question, but it does not lower the bar. If anything, it raises it. Where public money and classroom time are scarce, bad technology costs more, not less.
Two principles follow. The first: put teachers first, and second, and third. Decades of evidence, quoted by the campaigners themselves, show that the teacher is the decisive factor in learning. So in a system like Cambodia’s, the sensible role for technology is to strengthen teachers: their training, their materials, their professional community. Products aimed directly at pupils, especially products that replace teaching or use game-like tricks to hold children’s attention, should face the heaviest burden of proof. Such tricks have no place in anything we build or endorse.
The second principle is the real lesson from Sweden. Do not roll out, and do not roll back, at national scale without building in a requirement for evidence. Pilot before you scale. Decide in advance what success will look like. Ask every provider, including ourselves, to show learning results, not usage figures. A ministry that works this way is protected against both the salesman and the campaigner. It no longer has to choose between enthusiasm and panic. It can simply ask the only question that matters: does this help children learn, and how would we know?
References
- Government Offices of Sweden (2024, updated), *Government investing in more reading time and less screen time*. https://www.government.se/articles/2024/02/government-investing-in-more-reading-time-and-less-screen-time/
- Associated Press (September 2023), *Sweden brings more books and handwriting practice back to its tech-heavy schools*. https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-international/ap-sweden-brings-more-books-and-handwriting-practice-back-to-its-tech-heavy-schools/
- Karolinska Institutet (2023), *Yttrande över förslag till nationell digitaliseringsstrategi för skolväsendet 2023–2027* (consultation response on the proposed national digitalisation strategy for schools, ref. 1-322/2023). Quoted in English in the AP report above.
- IEA (2023), *PIRLS 2021 International Results in Reading*. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
- Winkleman, S. (2026), *Why AI in the Classroom is a Catastrophe*. Speech at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference, London, 22 June 2026. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFp5-i5fzyQ ; transcript: https://singjupost.com/transcript-why-ai-in-the-classroom-is-a-catastrophe-sophie-winkleman/