How the laptop revolution destroyed public education



A recent Fortune magazine article made waves with a grim admission: After more than $30 billion spent flooding classrooms with laptops and tablets, standardized scores keep sliding. Worse, neuroscientists now link more classroom screen time to lower performance. The device meant to modernize learning may be helping to unmake it.

Schools rushed into a technological revolution without asking the most basic question: What does this do to a child’s mind? Many teachers saw the answer firsthand and in real time. Administrators and “experts” ignored them because the fad sounded like “progress.”

A concerted push to remove screens from classrooms needs to begin now. Put the devices where they belong: limited tools, not the center of learning.

I taught history and civics in Florida public schools as the laptop trend took hold. Computers had sat in classrooms since my own childhood, but they played a supporting role. A few desktops in the back helped with research. A computer lab handled bigger projects. Most learning still happened on paper with books, notes, and conversation.

Then the Chromebook arrived: cheap, durable, limited, and perfect for one thing — living inside a web browser. Suddenly a district could put a machine not just in every room but in the hands of every student.

Buzzwords beat judgment

Public-school administrators love buzzwords. “Technological literacy” sounds noble, as if every ninth grader is training for Silicon Valley while working on their grammar assignment. Google did not just sell discounted laptops. It supplied a full ecosystem: Docs, Sheets, Slides, Classroom. The whole apparatus of schooling migrated into Alphabet’s software suite. Few people in the system asked why a private company wanted to become the operating system of childhood.

The laptop push also fit the religion of metrics. District offices love anything that produces dashboards, timestamps, and “engagement” graphs. A worksheet completed on paper frustrates the spreadsheet priesthood. A worksheet completed on a Chromebook generates data. The device did not just enter the classroom; it entered the managerial imagination, where metrics matter more than minds.

Once laptops became ubiquitous, the problems announced themselves. The deeper the integration, the harder it became to control.

Cheating became routine. Students searched answers in seconds. The larger problem went beyond quizzes. Googling replaced thinking. Kids refused to read because they assumed a quick search and a copy-paste counted as “learning.” Wikipedia became the default authority. Students stopped vetting anything because they treated the first search result as truth. Even writing shifted. Instead of building an argument, students stitched together paragraphs from the internet and hoped the teacher felt too tired to fight.

RELATED: The world changed, and now we homeschool

Cemile Bingol via iStock/Getty Images

The distraction machine

Schools tried parental controls. Teenagers treated those controls as a challenge. When thousands of bored adolescents share a building, they collaborate. A new filter went up; within days, kids found a workaround. Soon the screens again showed games, movies, even pornography — during class, in plain view, behind a pretense of “work.”

Students used shared Google docs as a covert messaging system. They gossiped, bullied, and planned actual crimes while keeping a document open to look studious. My school eventually held assemblies to remind students that everything typed into a document leaves a record and that bragging about criminal activity or sexual escapades can end up as evidence.

All of that raised another issue: privacy and capture. Google did not subsidize devices and software out of corporate charity. By making Google search and Google apps the center of a child’s information life, the system trained dependency. Google finds the truth. Google organizes the truth. Google presents the truth. A student’s education happens inside a Google ghetto. Pretend the company is not collecting that data if you want, but the incentives cut the other way.

Screens also fed the attention crisis. Administrators told teachers to stop showing videos longer than three minutes without pausing to explain because students could not stay focused. The device that was supposed to expand horizons kept shrinking attention spans. Teachers began competing with the entire internet for a child’s attention, and no lesson plan can win that contest for long.

Locked into the system

The system made escape difficult. Florida went all-in on Chromebooks and tied them to everything. Standardized tests moved entirely onto laptops. “Test prep” software got woven into daily coursework. Students with accommodations or limited English got pushed toward the device as a universal crutch. Denying a Chromebook got treated as denying an education. Teachers who resisted risked discipline.

I reached a point where my students mattered more than compliance. I rebuilt my classroom around paper, books, and discussion. Students used Chromebooks only for mandated testing and accommodations we could not meet otherwise.

The shift showed results fast. Students engaged more. Distraction dropped. Discipline improved. More assignments got finished. Grades rose.

Then COVID-19 struck.

RELATED: America’s new lost generation is looking for home — and finding the wrong ones

Wavebreakmedia via iStock/Getty Images

Remote learning turned the screen into the classroom itself. Even Florida, which resisted lockdown hysteria, shifted much of schooling online. Learning fell off a cliff. The lockdowns devastated achievement, but the damage did not end when students returned in person. After COVID, it became nearly impossible to pry students, parents, and administrators away from screen-based schooling. Digital integration became mandatory. No exceptions.

Now the corporate press arrives to play cleanup. Reporters discover the failure well after the money has been spent, the infrastructure has hardened, and a generation has been trained to treat a browser as a brain.

A way back

Public education is stuffed with managerial drones who chase consensus and trends while ignoring what helps students. The bureaucracy will keep this program alive through sheer inertia even as evidence piles up. Parents and lawmakers need to force a reset: paper-based instruction as the default, screens as a tightly limited accommodation, and tests that reward reading and writing instead of clicking. Districts should stop outsourcing childhood to Big Tech, stop laundering ideology through “digital citizenship,” and start treating attention as a scarce resource worth defending.

A concerted push to remove screens from classrooms needs to begin now. Start with elementary grades. Bring back books. Bring back handwriting. Bring back sustained attention. Put the devices where they belong: limited tools, not the center of learning.

Kids learn slower, but they learn for real.

Americans Can’t Afford To Keep Letting Leftists ‘Learn’ From Their Mistakes

MAGA needs to stop the next left-wing manmade disaster before Democrats can 'learn' from it. America can only survive so much more of this kind of education.

‘Moderate’ Abigail Spanberger Endorses Anti-ICE School Walkouts in Otherwise Dull SOTU Rebuttal

Self-described moderate Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D.) praised anti-ICE school walkouts on Tuesday in her otherwise unremarkable rebuttal to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address.

The post ‘Moderate’ Abigail Spanberger Endorses Anti-ICE School Walkouts in Otherwise Dull SOTU Rebuttal appeared first on .

'Hold Big Pharma accountable': Vaxx giants are sure to be nervous about Rand Paul's new bill



Vaccine manufacturers such as Pfizer made record profits pushing experimental drugs during the pandemic that were nowhere near as "safe and effective" as marketed.

Although their vaccines allegedly left some Americans badly injured and allegedly killed others, Big Pharma giants were largely protected from civil lawsuits as the result of special liability protections that were repeatedly extended by the Biden administration.

'When it comes to vaccines, and in many cases the COVID vaccine, the rules are rigged.'

Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) introduced legislation last week that would amend the Public Health Service Act to strip the liability shield from vaccine manufacturers.

"If a drug hurts someone, you can sue the company in court," said Paul, a licensed doctor of medicine. "You can hold them responsible through the normal legal process. But when it comes to vaccines, and in many cases the COVID vaccine, the rules are rigged: You're funneled into a federal no-fault program that limits damages, restricts your options, and — in many cases — leaves people without real justice. That's cronyism."

Presently, persons seeking compensation for injuries sustained as the result of a covered vaccine must file a petition with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is touted as a "no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury petitions."

Those specifically injured by one of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines — which were in many jurisdictions required to remain employed, eat in public, stay in school, or visit loved ones — must file a petition with the related Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.

RELATED: Finally: Vaccine guidelines that make sense for parents

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Parents, legal guardians, and legal representatives of those individuals who were killed by the vaccines — the U.S. Food and Drug Administration admitted in December that "at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination" — can file on behalf of the decedents.

The catch is that suffering an injury or dying around the time of the receipt of a COVID jab "is not sufficient, by itself, to prove that an injury is the direct result of a covered countermeasure."

Since there is a high bar for proving causation, few Americans' petitions are successful.

'Pharma giants are hiding behind legal protections to avoid being sued.'

CICP data shows that as of Feb. 1, a total of 14,102 COVID-19 claims have been filed, 10,944 alleging injuries or death from COVID-19 vaccines and 3,158 alleging injuries or death from other COVID-19 countermeasures.

Of the total, 6,556 were rejected outright. Of the 6,649 for which decisions were made, only 93 claims were found eligible for compensation — and of the 93, only 44 petitioners have actually received compensation.

Sen. Paul's End the Vaccine Carveout Act, which was co-sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and serves as a companion bill to the legislation of the same name introduced in the House in July by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), would reform the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by allowing vaccine-injured individuals or the legal representatives of those killed by vaccines to pursue direct civil action in state or federal court without having to first try their chances at the no-fault federal system.

Presently, vaccine-injured Americans are generally required to file a petition through VICP before seeking judicial relief. The Republican bill would eliminate that barrier to possible justice.

The bill would also exclude COVID-19 vaccines from the definition of "covered countermeasures," thereby ending the immunity shield that has for years protected vaccine manufacturers, distributors, and administration from vaccine injury claims.

Lee stated, "Pharma giants are hiding behind legal protections to avoid being sued by Americans experiencing serious vaccine side effects."

"Many of these patients were forced to get vaccinated or lose their jobs during the pandemic and are now dealing with permanent and very serious complications," Lee continued. "Our bill will end these unconstitutional vaccine carveouts so that all Americans can receive the justice they deserve and hold Big Pharma accountable."

Weeks after the 2024 presidential election, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra extended the liability shield for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers through Dec. 31, 2029.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Fear Porn About AI Dominance Follows The Covid Tyrants’ Playbook

I don't know what the future of AI holds. But neither do any of the people using panic rhetoric to induce population-wide fear and dread.

Cuomo Getting A Radio Show Instead Of Prison Proves There’s A Two-Tiered Justice System

Maybe we should wait until the criminal investigation is over before we hand out radio shows. Maybe facing consequences should come before rehabilitation tours.

Epstein files shine light on power networks: Revisit BlazeTV's 'The Coverup' on the same corruption web



On January 30, the U.S. Department of Justice dropped over 3 million pages of Epstein-related documents, as mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by President Trump in November 2025. This massive data dump includes roughly 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

These revelations seem to confirm what independent voices like Glenn Beck and Matt Kibbe have warned about for years: a shadowy cabal of insiders wield tremendous power to shape how we think.

As the dust settles around this 2026 bombshell, it's the perfect time to revisit BlazeTV’s docuseries "The Coverup” — Matt Kibbe’s deep dive into a similar web of corruption: the COVID-19 pandemic.

Months before this latest Epstein file dump, Glenn Beck sat down with Kibbe to dissect the insidious links between COVID mandates, Russiagate hoaxes, and censorship to pinpoint the very same shadowy forces now spotlighted in the Epstein files.

“The same people and the same machine that weaponized the Russiagate story and covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story are the same people in the [COVID-19] apparatus,” Kibbe told Glenn.

With the Epstein files shining new light on long-hidden networks of power and influence, now is the time to watch BlazeTV’s "The Coverup" series. Go to faucicoverup.com to access the full series.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Supreme Court can protect families or protect corporate cover-ups



When you get pregnant, doctors warn you to avoid everything from coffee to deli meat. When you build a home — as a spouse, parent, or homeowner — you make careful choices about what comes through the front door, onto your table, and into your yard.

But what if those precautions don’t matter? What if the food you serve, the lawn your kids play on, or the weeds you spray carry a poison approved through fraud, sold without warnings, and protected from accountability by the Supreme Court?

We ask parents to obsess over lunch meat. We can demand at least as much honesty about what gets sprayed on the yard.

That isn’t paranoia. It’s the situation Americans may soon face.

The Supreme Court last week agreed to hear Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a case pushed aggressively by Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant that bought Monsanto in 2018. The justices will decide one narrow but decisive question this term: Does federal pesticide law block state failure-to-warn lawsuits when the Environmental Protection Agency has not required a cancer warning on the label?

Bayer wants the answer to be yes. It wants federal pre-emption — a legal shield that turns an EPA-approved label into immunity. If Bayer wins, state juries could lose the ability to hold companies accountable even when families prove they used a product as directed, got sick, and never received a warning.

That outcome would reward the very behavior the law should punish.

Juries across the country have already heard evidence in Roundup cases and awarded billions to plaintiffs who developed cancer after using the herbicide. Yet Roundup still sells without a cancer warning. Now Bayer wants the Supreme Court to slam the courthouse door on future victims for good.

Consider what that means in human terms.

Pregnant mothers avoid raw fish and unpasteurized cheese to protect their children, yet millions of families unknowingly expose themselves to chemicals linked in research to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers. A major meta-analysis published in the journal Pediatrics found that children exposed to residential pesticides face significantly higher risks of leukemia and lymphoma. Another peer-reviewed 2019 meta-analysis linked glyphosate-based herbicides to an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

We get lectures about sushi, but weed killer gets a pass.

This fight should feel familiar. During COVID, Americans were told to trust emergency approvals as official guidance shifted rapidly. Those who raised concerns often got mocked or sidelined. Only later did many learn the story was more complicated than the public was allowed to hear.

We can’t undo that confusion. We can refuse to repeat it.

The evidence here does not revolve around a single labeling dispute. The deeper allegation is deception. Critics claim Monsanto relied on ghostwritten research and buried evidence to convince regulators glyphosate was safe — and that those approvals then became the foundation for selling Roundup without a cancer warning.

RELATED: The fruit of the US pesticide industry is poison

Firn via iStock/Getty Images

In late 2025, a key study used for years to defend glyphosate was retracted over serious ethical concerns and undisclosed corporate influence. That retraction matters because it goes to the heart of Bayer’s argument: that the government approved the label, so the company should be protected.

Pre-emption should not become a reward for fraud.

If the Supreme Court sides with Bayer, the fallout will spread far beyond Roundup. The ruling could shield tens of thousands of pesticides from meaningful liability so long as companies point to federal “compliance” — even when compliance was built on manipulated research, regulatory capture, or withheld evidence. Families could lose their best tool for accountability: state courts and state juries.

That isn’t pro-business; it’s regulatory capture. In fact, it’s immunity for wrongdoing.

The court should reject this power-grab. Federal minimum standards should not erase state-level accountability, especially when the federal process can be gamed. Americans deserve warnings when products pose real risks. Families deserve the ability to seek justice when corporations hide dangers and regulators fail to act.

We ask parents to obsess over lunch meat. We can demand at least as much honesty about what gets sprayed on the yard.

The Supreme Court has a choice: protect public health, or protect corporate cover-ups. The country should insist that it choose public health — for our families and for generations yet unborn.

Katy Perry’s Canadian Boyfriend Wants You To Believe He Never Forced Anyone To Get The COVID Vaccine

'I chose to make sure that all the incentives and all the protections were there'

How the 30-year mortgage helped create a permanent housing bubble



You won’t hear many people object to President Trump’s executive order to ban corporate purchases of residential homes. The idea sounds like common sense. But it targets a minor symptom while leaving the real disease untouched — and in some respects, it risks making that disease worse.

Institutional home-buying already peaked during the COVID-era bubble and has receded since then. In most markets, corporate ownership represents a small share of total inventory. Even at its height, it never explained why housing costs exploded for everyone else. High prices created the opportunity for institutional buyers, not the other way around.

The goal should not be cheaper debt. It should be cheaper homes.

Government policy inflated the housing market. Institutional buyers simply responded.

During COVID, the Federal Reserve pushed interest rates toward zero. Mortgage rates fell below 3%. At the same time, the Fed bought roughly $2.7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, and HUD expanded “affordable homeownership” programs that widened the pool of subsidized buyers. Those policies produced predictable results.

When the government offers 2.5% interest for 30 years — often paired with minimal down payments backed by the FHA — buyers flood the market. Sellers respond by raising prices. The bubble becomes a feature, not a bug.

Institutional buyers entered that environment because it looked like easy money. Higher home prices also pushed rents up, so developers built more homes for long-term rental. Both trends flowed from the same source: a government-shaped market that made housing unaffordable, then subsidized the unaffordability.

Trump now seems focused on the symptom — corporate buyers — while ignoring the machinery that inflated the market in the first place.

He has spent months fighting Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to bring rates back down toward zero. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve still holds about $2.1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. Trump has also announced a plan for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase another $200 billion in MBS. The stated goal is to lower mortgage rates.

But the goal should not be cheaper debt. It should be cheaper homes.

RELATED: ‘Rents will come down’ — but not in sanctuary cities: Loan agent chronicles homes apparently abandoned by illegal aliens

mphillips007 via iStock/Getty Images

Artificially lowering rates props up prices and slows correction. Prices in many markets have begun to soften. That correction should continue. Policies designed to suppress rates will keep prices elevated and risk inflating the next bubble.

That brings us back to corporate home-buying. Even at the COVID peak, institutional buyers — defined as entities owning at least 100 single-family homes — owned about 3.1% of the housing stock. That number has since fallen to around 1%. Investors see the market turning, and they have started backing away.

So Trump’s corporate-purchase ban arrives late, targets a relatively small share of the market, and risks becoming cosmetic cover for policies that keep the bubble inflated.

If Trump wants to drive prices down and permanently realign housing with median incomes, he has to reverse the policies that inflated the bubble. That means attacking the structure, not the headline.

Get government out of the mortgage market. Trump’s next Federal Reserve chair must commit to unwinding the Fed’s mortgage-backed securities portfolio. That $2.1 trillion cushion keeps mortgage rates lower than the market would otherwise set. Those artificially low rates inflate home prices.

End universal “homeownership for everyone” policy. The federal government keeps subsidizing buyers who are not ready to buy. Those programs inject cash into housing demand that would not exist in a real market. The goal should align prices with income, not chase a utopian dream of universal ownership. After decades of subsidies, deductions, and federal credit support, the home ownership rate still sits around the mid-60% range.

Stop chasing near-zero interest rates. A 30-year loan at 2% sounds appealing until you realize what it does to prices. Cheap money bids up homes across the board. Buyers pay the price forever even as politicians brag about the “deal.” Trump should let the market set rates. Recent rate cuts have not restored normal home buying either. Sales remain weak because prices remain too high.

End the 30-year fixed mortgage. Instead of floating longer loans — 50 years? Madness! — the country should move in the opposite direction. Before the New Deal era, short-term mortgages, often three to seven years, dominated the market. Federal policy transformed that structure.

Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the National Housing Act of 1934, establishing the Federal Housing Authority. The FHA insured long-term, fully amortizing mortgages with fixed rates, low down payments, and standardized payment schedules. That system moved the market away from short-term balloon loans and laid the foundation for longer terms.

RELATED: America tried to save the planet and forgot to save itself

jhorrocks via iStock/Getty Images

Congress eventually authorized the 30-year mortgage in 1954. VA loans under the GI Bill and the expansion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac later built a secondary market that made long-term fixed-rate loans attractive to lenders.

Government insurance, guarantees, and liquidity support made 30-year fixed mortgages feasible, which is why they represent 80%-90% of U.S. mortgages today. Without those interventions, lenders would not carry that risk.

The larger point remains simple: Sellers can’t charge prices buyers can’t pay. Prices explode only when government subsidies and government-backed long-term debt expand what buyers can “afford” on paper.

Unwind the subsidies. Unwind the guarantees. Unwind the cheap-money machinery. Let incomes, not federal policy, set the ceiling.

Housing should function like other consumer markets, not be engineered by Washington. Prices should reflect what people earn.

That’s the fix. Everything else treats symptoms and pretends to solve the problem.