The Solitary Display

Why Real Learning Demands Shared Attention and What This Means for Public Schools

(Translated with the assistance of AI)

The Swiss Educational Illusion

In the regular PISA surveys, the Swiss school system reliably ranks near the top in subject testing. When looking at the social dimension of these findings, however, a structural problem emerges: in educational equity, Switzerland ranks among the bottom group in comparative studies of wealthy nations. According to UNICEF’s report on educational equality, the country places 31st out of 41 surveyed high- and middle-income nations. A child’s educational success in Switzerland remains linked far above average to the socioeconomic background and educational attainment of the parents.

In recent years, the promise of school digitalization entered this imbalance. The core argument seemed disarmingly simple: if educational inequality stems from unequal access to resources, providing digital devices should have an equalizing effect. One tablet per child, standardized learning software for everyone, and immediate access to digital knowledge were meant to create equal starting conditions.

That calculation does not add up. It rests on the illusion that identical devices automatically create identical conditions, regardless of the child’s living environment. The screen hardly levels social differences. It acts as an accelerator, deepening existing disparities across the education system.

The Unequal Resource: Mechanisms of Asymmetry

Physical access to digital devices is now common across nearly all social strata. Almost every primary school child has access to digital media via smartphones or tablets. The true dividing line runs along the presence of guidance and care in everyday family life.

Three mechanisms explain why shifting learning processes to digital media widens existing inequalities:

First, the unequal distribution of parental time and energy. In stable, education-oriented households, media consumption is actively guided. Parents set screen limits, talk about content, and offer a wide range of analog experiences, from music lessons and sports clubs to reading together. In households under constant financial, professional, or psychological strain, the device often becomes an inexpensive substitute caregiver. Those working shift jobs or carrying existential worries rarely have the energy left in the evening for daily battles over screen time. The smartphone becomes a pacifier. The result is a growing gap in total screen time and in the quality of content with which children are left alone.

Second, the way children develop attention and language. Cognitive scientist Michael Tomasello showed in his research on human communication that learning is fundamentally grounded in shared intentionality: language, thought, and self-regulation grow within a shared focus of attention between child and caregiver, sustained by mutual rules and genuine resonance. Commercial apps and platforms are designed for the exact opposite. They capture attention through rapid stimuli and short reward loops while the child sits alone before the screen. Without a present adult at home to counter this fragmentation with steady attention, focus and stamina suffer, both of which remain indispensable for deep school learning.

Third, shifting didactic responsibility onto families. This mechanism mirrors the well-known dynamic of traditional homework: the more school relies on independent digital research, learning apps, and self-organized work at home, the more pedagogical guidance shifts to the family. Children whose parents possess the language skills and time build on their head start. Children without that support struggle with demanding assignments and experience this overwhelm as personal failure.

The Misconception of Self-Directed Learning

That this dynamic is rarely addressed in its full gravity within educational policy stems in part from language that softens institutional realities. Philosopher of language Israel Scheffler noted early on how educational rhetoric uses appealing slogans to smooth over institutional contradictions.

Educational theorist Roland Reichenbach highlights where this leads in his critique of pedagogical trends: when schools describe relationships as learning partnerships on equal footing, they create a false impression of equality. Public schooling is compulsory. As long as children are required to attend and the institution decides on grades, school reports, academic tracking, and rules, the relationship between teachers and students remains fundamentally unequal. Where compliance is expected, there can be no partnership between equals.

Pairing this partnership ideal with digital tools turns it into a social hurdle. Placing young pupils in front of learning software and declaring them self-directed learners overwhelms many children developmentally. A learning app offers little genuine autonomy; it demands executing predefined clicks within set algorithms.

Children from disadvantaged backgrounds need clear direction: reliable subject guidance, transparent expectations, and structured paths to acquiring knowledge. Those who still need to build self-regulation and perseverance in class suffer the greatest setback when learning is outsourced to the screen.

Public Schools as Physical Equalizers

The equalizing power of the public school rests on a defining trait: as Zurich school principal Nora Bussmann highlights, it is the last shared physical place in our society where everyone encounters one another and that every child attends.

In a world increasingly segregated by social class and geography, the classroom brings together backgrounds, ways of life, and values that rarely cross paths elsewhere. Children experience firsthand how differently families organize their lives. Directly experiencing other life realities within the same room forms the cornerstone of social judgment. Digital environments largely filter out the personal context of others; a shared classroom requires pupils to recognize differences and navigate them through daily coexistence.

Self-efficacy thrives through reliable leadership. As educational scientist Katjuscha von Werthern emphasizes, maturity develops through tangible responsibilities within clear boundaries of care. When adults ensure protection, stability, and rules, children can safely take on responsibility: resolving playground disputes, fulfilling everyday classroom duties, or collaborating on schoolwide projects whose results remain visible throughout the building.

Teaching remains daily relational work. Teachers absorb worries, fears, and family burdens. Uniting a diverse class relies on personal continuity and human closeness. When school leadership expects teachers to spend their time monitoring dashboards and screen activity, the core pedagogical mission gets pushed aside: undivided attention between people sharing the same room.

Pedagogical Presence and Collective Responsibility

When screens amplify social divisions, school leadership must value stance over technology trends.

The framework of New Authority developed by Haim Omer and Regina Haller offers orientation. This authority abandons threats and permissiveness alike; it is rooted in presence, relationship, and reliability. Adults earn authority by staying accessible in children’s everyday lives, taking responsibility, and maintaining a secure environment.

For digital media in schools, this carries two practical consequences:

First, it demands undivided presence from teachers in the classroom. Pedagogical vigilance cannot be delegated to software. Children need to feel that the teacher is engaged with them and leading the room, unhindered by monitoring tools or screens.

Second, it calls for united action from the entire staff. Teachers burn out when left to enforce phone and tablet rules as lone fighters in isolated classrooms. As Omer and Haller emphasize, authority functions through the school’s collective stance: “We are here.” When the entire team upholds consistent guidelines and preserves the classroom for direct human exchange, it relieves individual teachers and provides reliable orientation for all pupils.

The Role of Technology in Education

This critique targets unconsidered classroom use, not technology itself. Digital tools have their clear place: recording a podcast or radio play together, targeted lookups in science or social studies, or collaborative coding of simple routines. Technology also brings immense value behind the scenes, where it frees up school administrators and teaching teams in scheduling, coordination, and documentation.

The problem starts when the screen is turned into the primary conduit for instructional content and daily drills. Learning software individualizes instruction to the point where students become isolated from one another. It privatizes the learning process and ties educational success once more to self-regulation skills that are profoundly unequal in society.

The evidence on educational inequality points to a clear conclusion: if public schools are to honor their mission of educational equity, they must avoid mirroring home media divides in the classroom. Schools fulfill their purpose by offering a consciously analog space: an environment that nurtures shared focus, builds reliable relationships, and gives children the experience that true understanding grows out of direct, human conversation.

References

• Bussmann, N. in Strupler, M. (2026). «Nervt Sie den Ruf der Hippieschule?» Durch den Monat mit Nora Bussmann (Part 4). WOZ Die Wochenzeitung, No. 39, September 24, 2026.
• OECD (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. OECD Publishing.
• Omer, H. & Haller, R. (2019). Raus aus der Ohnmacht: Das Konzept Neue Autorität für die schulische Praxis. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
• Reichenbach, R. (2013). Für die Schule lernen wir: Plädoyer für eine gewöhnliche Institution. Klett-Kallmeyer.
• Scheffler, I. (1960). The Language of Education. Charles C. Thomas.
• Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. MIT Press.
• UNICEF (2018). An Unfair Start: Inequality in Children’s Education in Rich Countries. Innocenti Report Card 15, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti.
• Werthern, K. von in Wimmer, L. (2025). «Verhältnis von Schule und Demokratie ist kompliziert». TAZ, November 3, 2025.