Across Ireland, a growing number of secondary schools are introducing compulsory one-to-one digital device programmes for students entering Senior Cycle. In practice, this means that every student in Transition Year, Fifth Year, or both, is required to purchase a school-approved laptop or tablet—typically an iPad or Chromebook—through a designated education technology supplier. (Click here to listen to a podcast based on this article).
Schools argue that this move is necessary to prepare students for major changes to the Leaving Certificate under the new Senior Cycle reforms. Yet the policy raises a serious question: If digital devices are now considered essential to participation in state education, who should bear the cost—the family or the education system?
Senior Cycle Reform and the 40% Additional Assessment Component (AAC)
Under Ireland’s redeveloped Senior Cycle, each revised Leaving Certificate subject will include an Additional Assessment Component (AAC) worth at least 40% of the final grade, with the written examination accounting for the remaining 60%. These components may include projects, portfolios, practical investigations, and other coursework completed during the two-year cycle and externally assessed by the State Examinations Commission.
The policy is being phased in between 2025 and 2029 and represents one of the most significant changes to Irish post-primary education in decades.
In principle, the reform has merit. Students will be assessed in more varied ways rather than relying solely on terminal examinations. They will conduct research, prepare reports, create presentations, and submit digital work.
There is little doubt that digital devices will be highly useful—and in many cases practically necessary.
Why Schools Are Moving to One-to-One Devices
To address these new requirements, many schools are adopting one-to-one device programmes, meaning every student has their own managed laptop or tablet.
Schools cite several reasons:
Preparation for AACs and digital submissions.
Development of digital literacy.
Access to eBooks and online learning resources.
Easier classroom management.
Standardisation of software and security settings.
From an administrative perspective, the logic is understandable.
From a parental perspective, however, the issue is more complicated.
The Typical Cost to Parents
In many schools, parents are required to purchase a specific device through approved suppliers such as Wriggle Learning.
Typical packages include:
Estimated Costs
| Device Type | Typical Package Cost |
|---|
| Chromebook | €400–€650 |
| iPad Package | €550–€900 |
| Higher-spec Packages | €900+ |
Parents discussing mandatory programmes on Irish forums report package costs of around €640–€800, sometimes financed over several years.
For a family with two or three children in secondary school, the cost can easily reach:
€1,200–€2,400 for two children
€1,800–€3,600 for three children
This is in addition to expenses for uniforms, transport, extracurricular activities, and voluntary contributions.
The Contradiction: Schools Banning Students’ Own Devices
One of the most controversial aspects of these programmes is that schools often:
Require parents to purchase a designated device.
Prohibit students from using devices they already own.
Ban personal smartphones and tablets during the school day.
The Department of Education and Youth’s mobile phone guidance requires schools to restrict students’ access to personal mobile phones during the school day.
Restricting smartphones is widely supported.
The more contentious issue is when schools also reject perfectly suitable personal laptops or tablets—even when they are identical to the approved model.
A family may already own:
Yet they may still be compelled to purchase another device solely because it comes through a contracted supplier.
The Role of Ed-Tech Companies
Education technology providers offer real benefits:
However, the commercial model can effectively create a captive market.
When schools require purchases through a single supplier, parents lose the ability to:
Shop around for lower prices.
Buy refurbished devices.
Reuse existing equipment.
Choose alternative retailers.
This arrangement resembles a tied purchasing agreement in which participation in education is contingent upon buying from approved vendors.
Even where intentions are entirely legitimate, the structure can reduce consumer choice and increase costs.
The Cost-of-Living Context
Ireland continues to face high living costs, particularly in:
Housing and rent
Mortgage repayments
Energy bills
Childcare
Insurance
Food
For many households, an additional €600–€800 per child is not a minor expense.
Families with modest incomes may need to:
Use credit or instalment finance.
Delay other essential spending.
Draw down savings.
Seek assistance from schools or charities.
When a public education requirement leads to substantial private expenditure, the question of fairness becomes unavoidable.
Educational Equity Concerns
Mandatory device programmes can deepen inequality.
Students from better-resourced households may experience little disruption.
Students from lower-income households may face:
Financial stress at home.
Delays in obtaining devices.
Feelings of embarrassment.
Reduced participation if payment is difficult.
Senior Cycle reform was intended to promote equity and broaden assessment. Yet requiring families to fund core digital infrastructure risks transferring state costs onto households.
Teacher organisations have also warned that the new AAC system could widen inequalities if schools and students do not receive adequate supports.
The Moral Issue: Public Education or Private Procurement?
At its core, this is an ethical issue.
Irish families accept that they may need to purchase optional extras. But when a device becomes essential for completing state-certified assessment, it is no longer an optional enhancement.
It becomes part of the basic educational infrastructure.
A useful comparison is with other essentials:
Students are not expected to buy their own classroom desks.
Schools provide projectors and whiteboards.
Science laboratories are funded by the state.
If a laptop or tablet is now indispensable for achieving a Leaving Certificate grade, it belongs in the same category.
The Consumer Rights Argument
Parents may reasonably ask:
Why must we buy from one supplier?
Why can’t we use a device we already own?
Why are refurbished alternatives discouraged?
Why are identical devices excluded if purchased elsewhere?
Standardisation and technical support are valid administrative concerns, but they do not fully justify eliminating parental choice.
In many sectors, organisations manage mixed-device environments successfully.
A practical compromise is to publish minimum technical specifications and allow any compatible device that meets those requirements.
The Environmental Dimension
Forcing families to buy new devices when suitable devices already exist also has environmental consequences:
Increased electronic waste.
Higher carbon emissions from manufacturing.
Shortened useful life of existing equipment.
At a time when schools encourage sustainability, mandatory replacement of functional devices sends a conflicting message.
Arguments in Favour of the Policy
Supporters make several legitimate points:
Uniform devices simplify technical support.
Security settings can be pre-installed.
Teachers can plan around a common platform.
Students become familiar with the tools they will use.
Technical issues are easier to resolve.
These are real benefits.
The issue is not whether devices are useful—they clearly are.
The issue is whether the financial burden should be imposed on parents and whether alternative devices should be excluded.
A More Equitable Policy
There are two fair and defensible approaches.
1. School-Provided Devices
If digital devices are essential, schools (with state support) should provide them in the same way they provide other core educational resources.
This would:
2. Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
If schools cannot fund devices, students should be allowed to use any device that meets published technical specifications.
This would:
Reduce costs substantially.
Permit reuse of existing devices.
Encourage refurbished purchases.
Preserve parental choice.
The Most Reasonable Conclusion
There is little disagreement that digital devices are increasingly necessary in modern education, particularly with Senior Cycle reforms introducing Additional Assessment Components worth 40% of the final grade.
The real issue is who should pay and whether parents should be forced into a restricted purchasing system.
Compelling families to buy expensive devices from approved suppliers while simultaneously banning the use of devices they already own is difficult to justify, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis.
If a device is genuinely essential for participation in state education, then the principle is straightforward:
Either the school (supported by the State) should provide the device, or students should be permitted to use whatever suitable device they already own.
Anything else effectively transfers a public educational cost onto private households and limits consumer choice at a time when many families are already under significant financial pressure.
