Feels like an issue that could be approached with a randomized trial, assigning some "high-tech" schools (every student gets a laptop) and some "low-tech" schoo

Feels like an issue that could be approached with a randomized trial, assigning some "high-tech" schools (every student gets a laptop) and some "low-tech" schools (mostly paper-based), to get a better idea of whether ed-tech is a cause of the decline. I think the problem with inferring conclusions from the pandemic is that there are a huge number of other factors involved, like being largely stuck at home and with less-direct teacher supervision. It's unclear whether the suggested low-tech alternative ("sending kids [...] art kits, building blocks and engaging picture books, instead of $1,000 laptops") would've fared better under the circumstances; to me it doesn't seem adequate for teaching the bulk of material that students would need to know, and at the point where you're mailing out worksheets and textbook chapters I think you'd have the same if not worse problems with engagement (Only get to contact teacher by mail? Even more isolated from classmates?).