How digitalisation in schools is held up

Twelve patterns used to slow digitalisation in schools.

When digitalisation in schools is discussed, the arguments for why it cannot be done right now, right here and in this particular way are remarkably persistent. The Excuses Compass documents twelve recurring patterns which serve, alone or combined, to delay reform, to declare it failed or to recast it as a threat to children. Each figure is a type, not a caricature of a person.

The four axes

Some patterns push responsibility onto others, some end in resignation and defeatism, a third group plays down the need to act, and a fourth reads digitalisation as a source of harm to children.

“Let the others go first” · Pushing responsibility away

FIG. 1 · THE FEDERALISM EXCUSE The One Who Points Elsewhere “Education is a matter for the states. The federal level may not act here at all. And the municipality only owns the building, ask somewhere else.”

The states' authority over education is real, but it explains the complexity rather than justifying the inaction.

In Germany education is a matter for the states, and municipalities as school owners are responsible for equipment and buildings, while the federal level was long kept out. This division of competences is anchored in the constitution and is not a pretext. The pattern uses it not to clarify but to relieve, though: where state, federation and municipality each carry a piece of responsibility, nobody in the end feels responsible for the whole.

The figure is seductive because it argues formally correctly. It does point to a genuine structural problem: the so-called ban on cooperation was only loosened by amending Article 91b of the Basic Law, in order to make the Digital Pact possible at all. The error is in the conclusion: from “responsibility is shared” it does not follow that “therefore I can do nothing here”. The strategy of the standing conference of education ministers and the Digital Pact exist for exactly this cross-level coordination.

The counter-position: where one level takes the lead instead of waiting for the question of competence to be settled, results appear. The excuse conserves the standstill it describes.

Further reading
FIG. 2 · THE SUPPORT GAP The One Who Asks Who Will Maintain It “Buying devices is easy. But who maintains them? It all ends up with one teacher doing it on the side.”

Missing IT support is a real problem, but it is a task to solve, not a reason to do nothing.

Procuring hardware is only the beginning; operation, maintenance and support cause running costs that are often underestimated. In many places one committed teacher really does take this on without any reduction in teaching hours. The problem is real and well documented. The pattern concludes from it, though, that digitalisation is not worth it, instead of organising the support.

The figure is seductive because it points to a justified worry and radiates experience. The error lies in the inversion: that professional support is missing is an argument for building it, not against the devices. Studies of total cost of ownership have shown for years that support must be solved structurally and not on a voluntary basis.

The counter-position: states and school owners that create professional third-level support structures solve the problem. The support gap describes an omission; it does not justify it.

Further reading
FIG. 3 · THE DIGITAL NATIVES MYTH The One Who Says They Already Know “Young people grew up with smartphones. They bring media literacy with them, we don't have to teach that as well.”

Being able to operate a device is not the same as understanding and using media critically.

Young people today grow up with digital devices as a matter of course and operate them confidently. That observation is correct. The pattern draws the false conclusion, though, that technical familiarity already amounts to media literacy and that schools can therefore save themselves the teaching.

The figure is seductive because it connects to everyday experience and saves effort. The error is well evidenced: the notion of the “digital native” is regarded in educational research as refuted. Studies such as ICILS show that a considerable proportion of young people have only rudimentary computer and information literacy. Operating is not evaluating; searching is not source criticism.

The counter-position: precisely because devices are ubiquitous, schools need to teach judgement, data protection and the assessment of sources. The myth confuses familiarity with competence and releases schools from a core task.

Further reading
FIG. 4 · PUSHING IT ONTO THE HOME The One Who Says It Is a Family Matter “Parents should teach them how to handle media. We cannot also make up for what is neglected at home.”

Homes shape a great deal, and that is exactly why pushing it onto them widens digital inequality in education.

The home strongly shapes how children handle media, and upbringing is not the school's task alone. That is accurate. The pattern shifts responsibility completely, though: whatever is not taught at home is said not to be the school's business.

The figure is seductive because it draws a line that relieves teachers and sounds reasonable. The error lies in the consequences: equipment and guidance at home depend strongly on socioeconomic background. Studies such as KIM and JIM document these differences. If the school withdraws, it cements exactly the inequality it could offset.

The counter-position: media education at school is the only place where all children are reached regardless of their home. Pushing it onto the home saves effort at the cost of equal opportunity.

Further reading

“It will never work here” · Resignation and defeatism

FIG. 5 · CHALK-AGE FATALISM The “Always Done It With Chalk” Administrator “Good teaching has worked with blackboard and chalk for a hundred years. Why would we overturn that now?”

Proven methods matter, but being proven is no argument against learning new ones as well.

Classical methods, blackboard, exercise book, teacher exposition, work and are tried and tested. School culture is built for continuity, and not every innovation is progress. This scepticism has a true core. The pattern turns it into immutability, though: because chalk always worked, it must stay that way.

The figure is seductive because it radiates experience and pedagogical solidity and connects to genuine overreach in “digital first” rhetoric. The error lies in the either-or construction: the point is not to abolish what works but to widen the repertoire. The education ministers' strategy “Education in the digital world” explicitly formulates digitalisation as a complement to pedagogical goals, not a replacement for them.

The counter-position: research on teaching and learning shows that the didactic benefit depends on the method, digital as much as analogue. The fatalism defends not quality but habit.

Further reading
FIG. 6 · PESSIMISM ABOUT THIS PLACE The One Resigned to Having No Network “Until we even have decent wifi here, there is no point talking about tablets. It will never work with us.”

Infrastructure shortfalls are real, but here they are inflated into blanket hopelessness.

Many schools really do struggle with inadequate connectivity, missing wifi or slow broadband. These shortfalls are real and a serious obstacle. The pattern turns them into fundamental hopelessness, though: until everything is perfect, nothing is worth doing.

The figure is seductive because it points to a tangible and often frustratingly stubborn problem. The error lies in the generalisation: “the infrastructure is inadequate” becomes “therefore every step is pointless”. In fact the sluggish drawdown of Digital Pact funds shows that frequently it is not the network that is missing but application processes, concepts and staff that are stalling.

The counter-position: infrastructure build-out and pedagogical preparation have to run in parallel; waiting for perfect conditions delays both. Pessimism about one's own place declares every lag inevitable and blocks the steps that would already be possible.

Further reading

“It is not that urgent” · Playing down the need to act

FIG. 7 · PLAYING DOWN THE STATUS QUO The “It Is Not That Bad” Preserver “Our pupils manage. In the end the school-leaving certificate counts, not the tablet. None of this is that urgent.”

A great deal works, but the lag only shows when you look beyond your own walls.

The German school system produces qualifications, imparts knowledge and functions in its essentials. That achievement should not be talked down. The pattern concludes from it, though, that there is no urgent need to act and that the lag is only half as bad.

The figure is seductive because it radiates calm and avoids alarmism. The error lies in the missing benchmark: international comparative studies such as ICILS show German pupils remaining in the middle of the field on computer and information literacy while other countries move past. What looks sufficient from the inside is, by international measure, a growing lag.

The counter-position: the costs of the status quo, missed competences, unequal preparation for a digital working world, do not show up immediately in the school day; they are deferred into the pupils' future. “It is not that bad” confuses the absence of a visible crisis with the absence of a need to act.

Further reading
FIG. 8 · DIGITALISATION IN NAME ONLY The One Selling the Whiteboard as Progress “We have been digital for ages! Every classroom has an interactive whiteboard. It hardly gets more modern.”

A digital device in the room is not the same as changed teaching and learning practice.

Many schools have invested in equipment: interactive boards, tablets, wifi. That is visible and it is not nothing. The pattern sells the purchase as completion, though: the presence of devices is equated with pedagogical digitalisation.

The figure is seductive because it points to investments you can show. The error lies in confusing equipment with use: an interactive whiteboard serving only as an expensive projector for teacher-fronted lessons does not change learning practice. Models such as SAMR distinguish for exactly this reason between mere substitution of analogue means and genuine didactic transformation.

The counter-position: effective digitalisation is measured by whether tasks, collaboration and learning paths change, not by the number of devices. Digitalisation in name only claims the progress without changing the practice.

Further reading

“It harms children more than it helps” · Digitalisation as the source of harm

FIG. 9 · DEVELOPMENTAL ALARM The One Warning That Screens Make You Stupid “Screens damage concentration and memory. Writing by hand teaches better. We are endangering a whole generation.”

There are real findings on handwriting and attention, but they argue for careful design, not for a blanket no.

There is serious research on screen time, handwriting and attention, including findings that taking notes by hand aids retention in certain situations. This evidence is real and belongs in the discussion. The pattern generalises it into a blanket verdict, though: digital things harm development, so they should be avoided.

The figure is seductive because it invokes science and appeals to concern for children, both legitimate. The error lies in the selective and overstretched reading: individual study effects become a general judgement. Balanced overviews such as the 2023 UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report call for reflective, evidence-based use, not abstention.

The counter-position: the robust consequence of the research is design, not prohibition, when handwriting, when keyboard, when screen. The alarm topos turns a task of differentiation into a reason to block and discards the tool instead of clarifying its use.

Further reading
FIG. 10 · INSTRUMENTALISING DATA PROTECTION The One Who Says the GDPR Forbids It “We are not allowed to use that for data protection reasons. The GDPR makes digital teaching practically impossible.”

Data protection protects fundamental rights, but here it is misused as a blanket reason to prevent.

Pupils' data is particularly worthy of protection, and data protection in schools is a serious and legally demanding task. The debate about using US cloud services in schools, for instance, is justified and not harassment. The pattern uses data protection as a blank refusal, though: whatever is inconvenient or laborious is declared impermissible without further examination.

The figure is seductive because it places itself behind a fundamental right and therefore seems hard to attack. The error lies in the blanket nature of the claim: the GDPR does not forbid digital tools, it sets requirements for their use. Data protection authorities publish guidance and compliant alternatives; the lawful route is usually more laborious but it exists.

The counter-position: frequently the obstacle is not data protection but an unwillingness to use the routes the law provides and the solutions already assessed. “The GDPR forbids it” is often a supposition standing in for an assessment, not the result of one.

Further reading
FIG. 11 · THE DEHUMANISATION TOPOS The Defender of Education as Relationship “Learning lives on the relationship between teacher and child. Digitalise everything and you replace pedagogy with cold technology.”

Relationship is central to learning, but here it is played off against tools that do not threaten it.

The relationship between teacher and learner is among the most effective factors for learning success; this is well evidenced in research on teaching and learning. The worry that school could become anonymous processing deserves to be taken seriously. The pattern places relationship in a false opposition to technology, though: digitalisation versus humanity.

The figure is seductive because it defends the most valuable thing about school and connects to real experience of bad learning software. The error lies in the either-or construction: digital tools do not replace the teacher; they can relieve routine and ease differentiation, and thereby create time for relationship. Research on learning effectiveness emphasises the teacher, not the medium.

The counter-position: technology used well supports relationship instead of displacing it. The topos defends not pedagogy but the status quo in the name of pedagogy.

Further reading
FIG. 12 · THE DISTRACTION TOPOS The Guardian Who Says a Phone Ban Solves Everything “Smartphones only distract and are addictive. A consistent ban is the real solution, not yet more digital.”

Distraction is a real problem, but it argues against bad use, not against digital education.

Smartphones can distract in lessons, and questions about concentration and problematic use are justified. There are indications that unmanaged device use goes together with poorer results, and a clear rule for private phones makes sense. The pattern turns a ban on private devices into an argument against digitalisation in schools as a whole, though.

The figure is seductive because it promises a clear, simple solution and connects to visible problems. The error lies in conflating two things: the private, unmanaged smartphone at break time is not the same as the didactically embedded use of digital tools in lessons. Reports such as the 2023 UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report argue for regulating distraction and, at the same time, for the purposeful educational use of technology.

The counter-position: from “unmanaged use is harmful” it follows that use should be managed, not that digitalisation should be avoided. The topos uses a real problem to sweep a pedagogical design task off the table.

Further reading

Related

Let us talk about what you have in mind.

A first conversation costs you half an hour.

Arrange a first conversationPrefer a call back?