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

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

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.
How Developers Are Making AI Your Kid’s Third Parent In The Classroom
The CEOs of Anthropic and OpenAI admit AI is like a parent nobody can resist, while teachers unions support Big Tech’s rule.'Amateur hour': The Nancy Guthrie kidnapping case through the eyes of a security expert

Though the search is entering its 17th day for “Today” anchor Savannah Guthrie’s kidnapped mother, Nancy Guthrie, Spencer Coursen, founder and CEO of the Coursen Security Group and author of “The Safety Trap,” believes that officials are dealing with amateurs.
“What we do know is that she’s missing. What we do know is that there has been no proof of life. And after that, we really cannot verify much more because of the information flow,” Coursen tells Stu.
“But until there is proof of life, a lot of what we are seeing should be treated more as noise and less as signal,” he adds.
And in the recent door-camera video footage released of the alleged kidnappers, Coursen tells Stu that it looks like “amateur hour.”
“Professional kidnappers control communication. They control their environment. Amateurs engage in chaos. And what I am seeing looks more and more like that of chaos than that of control,” Coursen explains.
Stu points out that at one point in the recently released footage, it appears the kidnappers are “trying to block the ring cam with plants.”
“Exactly. If you’re a professional, you have done research and planning up until that point, and then you either know that there’s a Ring camera or a Nest camera or Google camera or some kind of security deterrent, and you either go in the back door where there isn’t one, or you walk up with a spray can,” he says.
“What you don’t do is walk up and go, ‘Oh, camera. Oh, what do I do?’” he continues.
“Professionals conduct an orchestra. Amateurs bang drums.”
Want more from Stu?
To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The Doorbell Camera Surveillance State Is Not Just About Finding Fido And Grandma
The mass surveillance state is quite literally on your doorstep in the form of a big-tech owned doorbell camera.Big Tech just got a whole lot bigger

When it comes to the best Big Tech brands, Apple, Google, and Microsoft usually top the list (though not always in that order). Below that, the rest usually jockey for position based on a range of product launches and economic factors. However, thanks to the AI boom of 2025, one brand in particular leapt up the charts, and it could clamber even higher if AI growth continues apace. To understand what caused the market shift, let’s look at the top five most valuable Big Tech brands of 2026.
If there were an award for most changed brand of the year, it would go straight to ...
Apple at $608 billion
As the first trillion-dollar company on the stock market, Apple regularly occupies the top spot, thanks to its multi-tiered business strategy that covers premium products, cloud services, and entertainment content. This year is no different with the Cupertino giant earning a valuation of $608 billion for 2026, a 6% increase from last year. Apple is expected to make waves with a stacked list of innovative new hardware in 2026, including the long-anticipated foldable iPhone and a more affordable (i.e., financially accessible) base model MacBook alongside multiple new MacBooks Pro, and it will enter the smart home category with a smart home hub that includes an integrated display.
Microsoft at $565 billion
Microsoft has spent several years in the second valuation slot, driven in part by the AI rush of the 2020s. As an early investor in OpenAI, Microsoft was one of the first brands that brought generative AI to market. Although Microsoft’s origin story is all about Windows, its business portfolio today covers a wide range of products and services, including its cloud platform Azure, office applications under Microsoft 365, AI endeavors built on the back of Copilot, and the gaming division under Microsoft Gaming and Xbox. All these together helped the brand grow 23% year over year, maintaining its spot on the chart.
RELATED: US officials tell Nvidia not to send top AI chips to China, prompting backlash

Google at $433 billion
Also unchanged this year, Google maintains its third-place ranking due to its diverse portfolio driven largely by Google Cloud services, Google Ads, and revenue from Search. While these categories have long been value makers for Google’s brand, the company also built a robust AI platform known as Gemini. Last year, Google released Gemini 3, a generative AI solution so powerful that it made OpenAI sweat. This year, Google is partnering with Apple to build a custom version of Gemini 3 for Apple Intelligence in a deal worth $5 billion, further adding to Google’s 2026 valuation, which is 5% higher than last year.
Amazon at $370 billion
You know Amazon as the world's largest online retailer, but it also runs the most popular cloud service provider known as AWS. With a leading 30% market share over Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure, Amazon’s steady sales performance and cloud market dominance led to a valuation increase of 4% from last year, helping the e-commerce giant maintain its 4th place slot for the third year in a row.
Nvidia at $184 billion
If there were an award for most changed brand of the year, it would go straight to Nvidia.
As a recent newcomer to the top 10 most valuable tech brands in the world, GPU maker Nvidia blew the market away, jumping four spots from number nine to number five. With rapid growth exceeding 110% of its market value since 2025, Nvidia rode the AI wave to grand success. Today its high-powered GPUs are used in data centers to train and maintain the LLM models for the biggest generative AI companies on the planet, including OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft. Nvidia is also a strategic partner in President Trump’s Stargate AI initiative.
Nvidia’s meteoric leap up the charts highlights how important AI is for the brand, and it also shows that the company has a lot to lose if the AI bubble bursts. This may be why Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang is so adamant about pushing AI into society, adding AI agents into the workforce, and proclaiming AI as our digital manifest destiny.
What happens next?
This year marks the first time Nvidia has cracked the top five valuation list. Last year, it was barely in the top 10, and before that, it didn’t rank at all. Needless to say, the AI boom has been a huge boon to Nvidia’s business, catapulting it from a gaming GPU company to a vital AI hardware powerhouse. As for what will happen to the company next, that all depends on the future of AI itself.
If generative AI continues to expand throughout our apps, work, and daily life, Nvidia’s valuation will inevitably grow with it, potentially overtaking Amazon as it rises up the chart with ever-evolving hardware for the next block of data centers. Still there is a wide value gap between fifth and fourth place and an even greater gap between Nvidia at the bottom and Apple perched on top. It’s hard to believe that Nvidia will ever crack the big three tech brands that power the U.S. economy, much less overtake the top spot entirely, but it’s fun to watch it try.
Chinese spy busted for stealing Google secrets faces 175 years

A Chinese spy was caught trying to steal Google's trade secrets while communicating back home to the People's Republic of China.
The FBI announced a first-of-its-kind conviction with Google software engineer Linwei Ding, also known as Leon Ding, who was taking technology for the benefit of China.
'A calculated breach of trust involving some of the most advanced AI technology in the world.'
The 38-year-old was initially indicted in March 2024 and eventually charged with seven counts of stealing trade secrets and seven counts of economic espionage.
The Department of Justice announced that between May 2022 and April 2023, Ding stole more than 2,000 pages of confidential information from Google, including trade secrets surrounding its AI model. He later uploaded them to his personal Google Cloud account and then downloaded those to his personal computer.
At the same time, the spy was secretly affiliated with two Chinese technology companies and was in discussions to become the chief technology officer at another. In early 2023, he was even in the process of founding his own tech company focused on AI and served as CEO, federal authorities said.
Some of the spy's crimes were also revealed in his statements to potential investors.
RELATED: Another secret Chinese biolab found on US soil?
Ding told investors he could build an AI supercomputer by copying and modifying Google's existing tech. Ding downloaded the industry information to his computer just two weeks before he resigned from Google.
A jury found that Ding had stolen information on hardware and software for Google's data center that trains large AI models, as well as detailed specs about the infrastructure and functionality of Google's Tensor Processing Unit chips and graphics processing unit systems.
"In today's high-stakes race to dominate the field of artificial intelligence, Linwei Ding betrayed both the U.S. and his employer by stealing trade secrets about Google's AI technology on behalf of China's government," FBI Assistant Director of Counterintelligence and Espionage Roman Rozhavsky said.
Rozhavsky called the case the "first-ever conviction" on AI-related economic espionage and said it demonstrates the bureau's "unwavering dedication to protecting American businesses" from China.
RELATED: Why the FBI ditched Chevy Suburbans for BMW SUVs

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg described the case as "a calculated breach of trust involving some of the most advanced AI technology in the world at a critical moment in AI development."
"Ding abused his privileged access to steal AI trade secrets while pursuing [Chinese] government-aligned ventures. His duplicity put U.S. technological leadership and competitiveness at risk," Eisenberg added.
Ding faces 10 years in prison for each of his seven counts of theft of trade secrets and 15 years in prison for each count of economic espionage, totaling upwards of 175 years.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Hugh Grant goes scorched-earth on teachers who give kids tablets: 'The last f**king thing they need'

Movie star and father of five Hugh Grant says he’s fed up with seeing his children glued to screens — and insists he’s speaking not as a celebrity activist but as “just another angry parent.”
Grant has campaigned on digital privacy issues since accusing journalists at the now-defunct News of the World of hacking his phone in 2011, later securing settlements with publishers, including Mirror Group Newspapers and News Group Newspapers (the Sun), most recently in 2024.
'And you think, "What is this? What happened with you and Google Classroom or whatever it might be?"'
But a recently resurfaced clip shows the "Bridget Jones" star venting about something far more familiar to parents: schools pushing screens, Chromebooks, and app-based learning on children who already spend much of their lives online.
Screen idol
In the clip — recorded last June during a panel discussion on rolling back “phone-based childhood and screen-based school days" — Grant complained of an “eternal, exhausting, and depressing battle” with children who only want to be on screens.
RELATED: Here’s how to opt out of Google gobbling your iPhone data
“And the final straw was when the schools started saying, with some smugness, ‘We give every child a Chromebook, and they do a lot of lessons on their Chromebook, and they do all their homework on their Chromebook,’” Grant said. “And you just thought, that is the last f**king thing they need — and the last thing we need.”
Pwning parents
Grant also criticized the defensive posture schools and politicians adopt when parents raise concerns about classroom technology.
“Suddenly you get letters in a kind of semi-legalese,” he said. “And you think, ‘What is this? What happened with you and Google Classroom or whatever it might be?’”
RELATED: Saudi Arabia scraps its futuristic city inside a giant wall — to turn it into this

The actor said his skepticism has been shaped by years of experience confronting powerful institutions. Grant is a board member of Hacked Off, the media-reform group founded after the phone-hacking scandal to campaign against illegal surveillance and press abuses.
Game over
While Hacked Off does not focus on school technology, Grant suggested the same instinct to close ranks now appears when parents question the role of screens in education.
“I don’t think politicians ever do anything because it’s the right thing to do,” Grant said. “Even if it’s the right thing to do to protect children. They’ll only do what gets them votes.”
According to Grant, meaningful change will come only when enough parents push back — not just against smartphones but against what he sees as the normalization of screens throughout childhood.
“I think that once you get a critical mass of parents who are outraged by ed-tech as well as all the other issues — the phones, etcetera — that is when politicians listen,” he said.
“And it’s when schools start to listen because they’re scared of people leaving their schools and losing business.”
Grant is the father of five children between the ages of 7 and 14.
Google’s new motto: Don’t be Christian

Google once had an informal motto: “Don’t be evil.” How about be ideologically driven? Opaque? Arbitrary?
Google sells itself as online Switzerland — a neutral search engine that doesn’t tilt one way or the other. That neutrality vanishes fast when you search for something its algorithm doesn’t like. Suddenly the thing you want becomes strangely hard to find unless you already know exactly where it lives. If you don’t, good luck.
You can’t fix what you’re not allowed to understand.
And good luck advertising it, too — if Google disapproves.
Most people still think of Google as a search engine. That’s outdated. Google is the 900-pound gorilla of online advertising through Google Ads. It has vacuumed up so much of the market that anyone who wants to advertise online usually has to go through Google’s pipeline, under Google’s terms, with Google acting as judge and jury.
This isn’t the print era, when advertisers bought space from newspapers and magazines directly, publication by publication. Today, a huge share of the ad economy runs through a single gatekeeper.
Some might call that a monopoly. Monopolies become even more dangerous when they turn ideological.
Google — and it is far from alone — leans hard left. It dislikes conservative and Christian content, and it has learned how to suppress it without leaving fingerprints. It buries the content in search rankings so that almost no one sees it unless they already know where to look. It throttles monetization. It blocks ads with vague warnings and “policy” language designed to end the conversation.
Google and TikTok now appear to be doing the same thing to faith-based content.
Have you heard of TruPlay? Probably not. That’s the point.
TruPlay is an entertainment app that offers faith-based games and videos for kids. It’s explicitly family-friendly — no sexual themes, no violence, no garbage disguised as “content.” Parents want that. Millions of them. There’s a market for wholesome screen time, and there’s money to be made providing it.
But according to the American Center for Law and Justice, Google has refused to do business with TruPlay for ideological reasons. The ACLJ says Google rejected TruPlay’s efforts to launch advertising campaigns, citing “religious belief in personalized advertising.”
Read that again. Google flagged religious belief as the problem.
The ACLJ says TruPlay tried to comply, filing appeals and revising its ad content repeatedly, only to receive the same rejection notices no matter what changes it made. The ads weren’t inflammatory. They were straightforward: “Turn Game Time into God Time,” “Christian Games for Kids,” “Safe Bible Games for Kids.”
Google’s policy supposedly prohibits “selecting an audience based on sensitive information, such as health information or religious beliefs.” But TruPlay wasn’t targeting a religious audience or harvesting private data. It was advertising Christian kids’ content to the general public.
Google’s response wasn’t “you’re targeting.” It was “your content is too sensitive to advertise.”
That’s the move. “Sensitive” once meant porn, violence, or content not suitable for children. Now it means “Christian games for kids.”
TikTok, the ACLJ says, applied the same logic with even less transparency. The platform allegedly suspended TruPlay’s advertising account over unspecified “repeated violations,” without explaining what those violations were. The ACLJ says one rejected ad contained the word “church.” Another issue allegedly involved an App Store preview image showing Jesus on the cross — not in the ad itself, but in the app’s images. The ACLJ claims TikTok barred advertising anyway.
RELATED: Google’s new plan: To learn everything about you from your online shopping

You can’t fix what you’re not allowed to understand. That’s the point of opacity. You don’t get a rule you can follow. You get a verdict.
What makes this even more revealing is the economic angle. This isn’t Google or TikTok avoiding ads that risk scaring off customers. TruPlay offers the kind of content parents actively want. Platforms should want that money. Instead, they appear willing to lose revenue just to suppress anything overtly Christian and family-friendly.
The ACLJ has sent a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, urging an investigation into what it calls “systemic discrimination” against Christian content creators and advertisers — part of a broader pattern of viewpoint-based censorship.
Google and TikTok will respond with the standard defense: We’re private companies. We can do what we want.
Fine. But stop pretending you’re Switzerland. If you present yourself as a neutral platform open to all, while quietly functioning as a political gatekeeper, you don’t get to hide behind the language of neutrality when people notice the double standard.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you’re Switzerland — or you’re not.
Google and TikTok are not. It’s time to treat them accordingly.
