Why Some US Schools Are Cutting Back On the Technology They Spent Billions On (msn.com) 81
America's school districts "spent billions on technology during the pandemic," reports the Washington Post.
"But now some states are limiting in-school screen time because of concerns about its impact on children."
Nationwide [U.S.] schools invested at least $15 billion and possibly as much as $35 billion from federal pandemic relief funds on laptops, learning software and other technology between 2020 and 2024, according to an estimate by the Edunomics Lab, an education think tank. By last school year, 88% of public schools reported in a federal survey they had given every child a laptop, tablet or similar device.
Now, some states and school districts are walking back their technology use following pressure from parents who claim too much in-school screen time has zapped children's attention spans and left them worse off academically. At least a dozen states introduced or adopted policies this year that attempt to regulate screen time in schools — from prescribing limits to allowing families to opt out of virtual instruction... In Missouri, a bill would require every school district in that state to come up with a screen time policy is making its way through the state legislature. "Ed tech is just big tech in a sweater vest," said Missouri state Rep. Tricia Byrnes (R), who introduced the legislation and blames what she described as the overuse of technology for middling test scores...
Complicating the issue is research that shows students do not see any academic gains when provided with laptops. A meta-analysis of studies on reading comprehension suggests paper-based texts are better than digital-based reading... A body of research has established that excessive or unstructured screen time can have detrimental effects on children, including harming language development, weakening social skills and triggering anxiety and depression. But the effects of school-issued devices and in-school usage on children's development are less understood, said Tiffany Munzer, a developmental behavioral pediatrician and digital media researcher at the University of Michigan. Some studies report that high-quality digital tools can support students' learning goals, Munzer said. But "a lot of the apps that are marketed as educational ... are not actually educational and contain a lot of commercialized content."
Now, some states and school districts are walking back their technology use following pressure from parents who claim too much in-school screen time has zapped children's attention spans and left them worse off academically. At least a dozen states introduced or adopted policies this year that attempt to regulate screen time in schools — from prescribing limits to allowing families to opt out of virtual instruction... In Missouri, a bill would require every school district in that state to come up with a screen time policy is making its way through the state legislature. "Ed tech is just big tech in a sweater vest," said Missouri state Rep. Tricia Byrnes (R), who introduced the legislation and blames what she described as the overuse of technology for middling test scores...
Complicating the issue is research that shows students do not see any academic gains when provided with laptops. A meta-analysis of studies on reading comprehension suggests paper-based texts are better than digital-based reading... A body of research has established that excessive or unstructured screen time can have detrimental effects on children, including harming language development, weakening social skills and triggering anxiety and depression. But the effects of school-issued devices and in-school usage on children's development are less understood, said Tiffany Munzer, a developmental behavioral pediatrician and digital media researcher at the University of Michigan. Some studies report that high-quality digital tools can support students' learning goals, Munzer said. But "a lot of the apps that are marketed as educational ... are not actually educational and contain a lot of commercialized content."
Screens don't teach. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Screens don't teach. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't disagree but I will say the screen time in school at least has some kind of learning involved. The screen time outside of school, not so much. Parents also need to parent. Take away the digital babysitters and have your kids go outside and be active or at least read a book if they won't go outside.
Why educational technology has failed schools (Score:3)
I'm not going to deny most anti-social media and too much screen time is bad for humans, especially kids. The suggestion you make to have kids spend more time outside is great -- although it is difficult to implement if all the other kids they might play with are inside, and if parents nowadays face arrest for "neglect" if they encourage their children to learn independence outside the home. See the book "Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder" and "In Defense of Childhood
Re: (Score:2)
They cannot solve the most basic problems on their own.
That effect is not new and most people are suffering from it. The remaining minority keeps things running. But making that already small group even smaller is a really bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Screens don't teach. (Score:3)
Screens aren't really the problem. The problem is wifi. There's absolutely nothing wrong with learning by reading a book on an e reader.
Re:Screens don't teach. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the screen. A screen is just a way of showing information.
Saying that screens don't teach, is like saying that paper doesn't teach. But nobody objects to using paper in the classroom.
It's not the screen, it's how the screen is used, just like it's how the paper is used.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But that level of reasoning is too complex for most people. Hence they say "screen", but what they really mean is a specific environment. Sure, the UI has some problems of its own, for example you learn better when handwriting things on paper (not in cursive though, that causes too much cognitive load) than when typing on a keyboard. But these effects are relatively small.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. There are a lot of educational strategies that don't make sense, the reasoning is too complex. But these things do tend to work themselves out over time. In the 1970s, for example, there was a big push for "new math" that focused on abstract ideas rather than basic numerical skills like addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. While some of the ideas had merit, they weren't a good fit for younger students who weren't ready yet for that kind of abstract reasoning. As a res
Re: (Score:2)
New math is back. They just call it "common core" now. The problem with it "working itself out over time" is that yeah it's fine for society as a whole in the long run, but my kid in particular only gets one shot at a primary education. It doesn't really matter much to her if they get it right 5 years from now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true. The odds are stacked against just about every kid. Even if we did have a good general system, schools vary greatly in quality of education. Parents who care about this, often go to great lengths, choosing where to live based on where the good schools are. Even those who don't move, make sure their kids are taught well, even if that means they have to supplement their children's education. Parents who don't care, place their children in a losing position from the start.
I would argue that the great
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the "new math" was quite useful to me. Some set theory and logic early on was very useful later in studying CS. But I am likely not very typical.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you *also* learned the basics of math, the traditional skills.
It's true, "new math" isn't useless. It's just not appropriate for most young children. People who grow up to be software engineers are by definition atypical. As a group, developers excel at math and science, and this is part of why they were attracted to computers. We picked up the basics of math very early, and were *ready* for more advanced theories long before our peers. On the other hand, most of us were behind the curve when i
Re: Screens don't teach. (Score:2)
On the other hand, most of us were behind the curve when it came to relational skills
Probably in the US, where intelligent people tend to get bullied and ostracized in school, as a cultural peculiarity.
It's not everywhere like that.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it. Thankfully, even in the US, in recent times it has become "cool" again to be good with computers, which is kind of a proxy for "intelligent".
Re: Screens don't teach. (Score:2)
On the other hand, most of us were behind the curve when it came to relational skills
Probably in the US, where intelligent people get bullied and ostracized in school, as a cultural peculiarity.
It's not everywhere like that.
Re: (Score:2)
But these things do tend to work themselves out over time. In the 1970s, for example, there was a big push for "new math"
The problem is, every generation of educators seem to get a bee in their bonnet to come up with new teaching methods and we go through it all again. We seem sadly incapable of learning from past experiments. There's always some new fad method. What I find annoying is we also seem incapable of trying controlled experiments and patiently waiting to see how well it works. If new math is so great, try it with 1,000 schools for a few years, then objectively study the outcome before rolling it out to the masses.
A
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately (or unfortunately) these trends and ideas make much less of a difference in a child's educational success, than parents. Parents who care for their children, teach them, and make sure they have every chance to succeed, are likely to have children who succeed, regardless of how poor the schools are. Parents who don't care for their children, who neglect and ignore them, are likely to have children who fail, even in the best schools.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately (or unfortunately) these trends and ideas make much less of a difference in a child's educational success, than parents.
That's my belief. Do you know of any data comparing all the various influences? Money, parental involvement, charter vs. traditional public, teaching methods?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an article with some statistics related to parental involvement.
https://www.positiveaction.net... [positiveaction.net]
I'm sure there are other studies addressing the items you listed. There's Google for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you human? Please complete the following captcha:
What's 0.1 + 0.2.
If the answer is 0.30000000001 then you failed.
Seriously, it's a pretty common metaphor. People don't literally mean the physical objects known as screens are bad per-se. It's what's on the majority of them in the hands of kids the majority of the time. It's much easier to say "screens" as opposed to specifying particular kinds of social media, and particular genres of short form videos and etc. Because we both know that if people didn't
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't trying to draw a distinction between "screen" and "social media" or "videos" or whatever is shown on that screen. Videos, for example, if done well, can be highly educational.
My point wasn't about the screens, per se, but that you shouldn't blame (or credit) the medium too much, when it comes to educational quality. In all forms of communication (textbooks, workbooks, videos, lectures, you name it), there are examples of excellent quality education, and low quality education. The screen (laptop, ta
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The issue is that at the end of the day you do need pen and paper because the motion of it reinforces brain pathways in a weighted screens don't.
You also still want teachers. The electric company and sesame Street did amazing things for students that were getting abandoned. And you can't exactly have a kid in class 24/7 so it's okay to have some screen ti
Re: (Score:2)
You just won't stop throwing out nuance (Score:2)
This does not mean that having a screen completely destroys education and that we must burn them all like we used to burn books we didn't like.
And yes I am aware that you're not suggesting we burn screens like we used to burn books. However you're complete unwillingness to recognize any nuance whatsoever will
Re: (Score:3)
Again there are nuances. I do not know why Americans hate nuance so much but it's pretty deeply ingrained in our culture.
Well, nuances require insight and understanding. Simplistic and unsupported "I love xyz" or "I hate xyz" does not. Americans all think they are geniuses, when in reality most people are average in mental capability and the average is not that impressive. The cultural response in America is to deny reality and ignore things like nuances and details that make it clearer where you stand mentally. It gets replaced by grandiose language, grandstanding, deep unsupported beliefs and other cult-like behaviors.
There
Re: Screens don't teach. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not know why Americans hate nuance so much but it's pretty deeply ingrained in our culture.
Puritanism.
Murder a bunch of toddlers? Murder is a sin and you're going to hell.
Steal a loaf of bread to feed you starving kid? Stealing is a sin and you're going to hell.
The end result's the same and equally bad either way, regardless of the sin. This strips away all nuance. If you're good you go to heaven, if you sin you go to hell.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Screens don't teach. (Score:1)
I find them to be useless... (Score:5, Interesting)
Our younger kids have had school issued chromebooks since they were in kindergarten. They seem to mostly be used for roblox, mindcraft, and surfing "school safe" youtube. On the rare occasion that I see actual "school work" happening, it's more like a game than actual education. So we've redirected most of their after school time to team sports and playing outside. The world seems all stocked up on overweight children that are glued to games and screens. I'll make sure they know how to use computers, tablets, etc, but it's not going to be their constant companion or a viable alternative to actual social interaction and exercise.
Re:I find them to be useless... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd suggest that it's not the Chromebook's fault, but rather, the lack of real effort to turn it into a teaching tool.
If a school hands out paper notebooks for students to take notes in, and they never teach the students how to use them effectively, the notebooks are useless as a teaching tool. There are also many bad textbooks that do a miserable job of teaching.
Many schools jumped on the technology bandwagon without thinking it through. "Give the students computers!" but little thought was put into what those computers would be used to actually do. This is no better than given them blank sheets of paper and thinking the paper will somehow help them.
Re:I find them to be useless... (Score:4, Interesting)
30, 40 years ago "Get computers in the schools" was a valid project. The computers sat in a lab, and the kids would interact with them a couple times a week in a structured (instructed) setting. The late push for tablets and laptops seems more about "hand the kids something to occupy them" combined with the cargo-cult duplication of what worked in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
The computers sat in a lab, and the kids would interact with them a couple times a week in a structured (instructed) setting.
Good grief no!
All the value I got was in the non structured settings where you could fart around on the computers without interference from teachers who by and large didn't know much about computers at all. Of course there was no internet at that point so that was mostly programing. I always did best in the least heavily structured subjects.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest that it's not the Chromebook's fault, but rather, the lack of real effort to turn it into a teaching tool.
yes. The fact of the matter is that creating teaching content that works without a teacher teaching it is much, much harder. A prof that had 30 years experience with (classical) distance education gave me an estimate of 10x more effort, possibly higher. This is in addition to specific teaching skills being needed that are different from in-person teaching and it is no surprise that we do not have much good teaching content suitable for computer-based self-learning.
public schools need revamped (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's simple really. Just do what we did twenty years ago. Pencils and paper are a lot cheaper then laptops and software subscriptions. Also, there have been studies showing that when you write stuff down, it tends to be more intentional then just entering the same information into a computer. Likely due to the fact that writing legibly requires more focus. You put more thought into what you are writing down.
As the top post on this thread mentions, many of us could of told the world this information 20 years
Re:public schools need revamped (Score:5, Insightful)
Parents no longer parent and expect the schools to teach their unruly and coddled child.
Re: (Score:2)
The kids get home from 'school' before the parents, and just go straight to doomscrolling, or their game system, or their cellphones... by the time the parents get home, the kids are totally lost in whatever non-educational thing they are doing on their "screens", and only get pulled away from the devices for dinner in front of the TV, then it's back to screens until bed... while the parents finish dinner and go to their offices and do more work.
The screens have become babysitters and parents, while the par
Re: (Score:2)
Not all kids from the 80's and 90's were latchkey kids, though. They did go outside and play and that stuff, they camped and fished and did sports for fun (not only for free college scholarships)... now, 98%+ only go outside to go to school and only get into sports for the free college (the good grades to stay in sports are easy now that they dumbed down classes so much).
Re: (Score:2)
Parents no longer parent and expect the schools to teach their unruly and coddled child.
cool.
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the parent(s) have their $100k+ office job and have to continue working when they get home.
The kid is coddled by society because 'we can't punish kids anymore because that's child abuse', and so the kid becomes unruly because they learn they can get away with everything.
Home-time for the kid is Facebook, game console, computer time... maybe a little homework (depends on the kid)... the parent(s) make dinner and the kid eats and that's about all the parent-kid interaction that happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the parent(s) have their $100k+ office job and have to continue working when they get home.
The median salary is $51,000, with the median household income being $84,000.
The kid is coddled by society because 'we can't punish kids anymore because that's child abuse',
People need 2 jobs to make rent, and tech companies are profiting massively by relentlessly pushing massively addictive device behaviour and your solution is to start beating kids to see if it helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I say anything about beating kids? Does punishing kids in your mind equate to beating kids?
So much as taking their phone away or sending them to bed without dinner because they did something wrong, or not letting them text all night with their friends can be construed as child abuse if the "right" (actually, wrong) person hears about it.
Maybe a single parent didn't need that four bedroom 2 1/2 bath mansion for just that parent and one kid... if they'd gotten a smaller place, they could afford it
Re: (Score:2)
(From Google)
"False accusations of child abuse, while relatively uncommon, can occur during custody disputes, family conflicts, or due to misunderstandings, and they carry serious legal, emotional, and social consequences.
Causes and Context
False allegations of child abuse often arise in child custody battles, divorce proceedings, or family disputes. Adults may make false claims to gain leverage in court, retaliate against a parent, or remove the accused from the child’s life.
Children themselves may fa
Re: (Score:2)
*smacks the turntable to unstick the needle* Yeah, technology abuse!
So, no Karen has ever inflated a non-situation? So, no teacher has ever done that?
(Google)
"Can taking a kids phone away be seen as abuse?
Taking a child's phone away can be seen as abuse if it is done as a form of punishment or retaliation for minor infractions. It is important to note that while parents have the right to set rules and consequences, they should do so in a way that respects the child's privacy and does not infringe on their
Re: (Score:2)
See what's happening in the schools that can afford things...including teachers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Any really good teacher is significantly overqualified. It is not a surprise that many are in better paying jobs.
what is the goal... ? (Score:1)
Education USED to be the goal of school. I think it is more standardized indoctrination these days. "They" don't want free or critical thinkers, but rather sheeple that flow with the current. We need to go back to the greek model. Small classes in the real world, teaching by physical example and exposure.
teach the test (Score:2)
teach the test
Re: (Score:2)
That's all the schools worry about... teach the kid how to pass the test so the kids all get over some grade level and the state sees that the school is getting the good grades and the school gets more funding.
Re: (Score:1)
It sounds like those smarter minds have already given you the solution. Didn't you see when Melania walked down the red carpet with that teaching robot last week? Obviously a missive from the future. No further discussion needed.
oh, pish, schools always resist any reforms (Score:1, Troll)
Schools always walk back any attempts at reform, successful or not, because they're seeking the cheapest possible solutions. Most of the attempts at reforms were harebrained in the first place, but even the ones that work are liable to be thrown into the dumpster. They'll drop the new failing system and return to the old failing system, because success doesn't seem to actually be part of what they're aiming for.
It is painfully obvious that technology is all around us and everybody needs to be familiar with
Re: (Score:2)
I graduated high school in 2001 and we only had computers for computer classes. Some how, I still turned into a tech hobbyist that knows more about computers, networks, software, etc, then the vast majority of folks.
Kids have plenty of opportunities to use technology but just having the tech for the sake of tech is not helping them learn.
You don't need a computer to learn Math, languages, history, science or art. The kids are already being pushed into computer classes to learn programming (lol, sure) and no
Re: (Score:2)
I also graduated high school in 2001 and turned into a tech hobbyist that knows more about computers, networks, software, etc, than the vast majority of folks - but the fact that we know more than the vast majority of folks means we are a rarity. Most of my peers didn't have the option of learning what I did because yeah, we didn't have much tech education at school, but also their parents weren't teaching them about it either, nor giving them access to it and free range to learn on their own (coupled with a desire to learn on their own, which not everyone has). And people shouldn't be giving kids free range access to technology, but when most of the adults don't know enough to educate the kids, how are the kids going to be educated?
My parents know diddly about computers beyond using a web browsers and office software. They didn't teach me. 1/7 is 14%... in other words, 86% of households do have a computer. It's a parents responsibility to instill the value of learning and education. The best way to accomplish this is to read to them very young and take them to the public library for unlimited free books. All of my peers had the option to learn this stuff as it was free to access.
Parents already give their children free range access to
Re: (Score:2)
Give a man a fish or teach him how to fish? The former isn't working.
Re: (Score:3)
Classical Education is still a thing: Logic, rhetoric, grammar, debate, mathematics, reading, memorization, public speaking. Not available via the public school system, because the ratio of students to teachers does not work out.
My child has to carry a lot already (Score:1)
My child has to carry books in addition to a laptop, charger, laptop bag, headphones, and mouse (the school insists on this) and it's all very heavy. We got a thin laptop too.
We were lucky to find a good device at $200 (didn't want to spend more because who knows what can happen with kids at school) but now with prices you are lucky if you find anything decent around $400 and prices are just increasing.
They don't end up doing much with the computer in class except opening up a page to worksheets they have t
Re: (Score:2)
Fine for grade school. But in middle/high school, those desks belong to whoever is seated in them next period.
you know what is going to happen (Score:2)
Parents (Score:2)
>"following pressure from parents who claim too much in-school screen time has zapped children's attention spans and left them worse off academically."
And how many of these parents gave their children phones/tablets/computers with full internet/app access?
Re: (Score:3)
And how many of these parents gave their children phones/tablets/computers with full internet/app access?
Gotta have that phone in case there's a school shooting.
Kids, you ever think about why [wikipedia.org] your parents want to ring your phone when there's a nut running around with a gun and you are hiding in a closet?
Re: (Score:2)
>"Gotta have that phone in case there's a school shooting."
Um yeah, sure. But that doesn't require unrestricted internet/app access.
Why? same reason (Score:2)
Why? It's always the same reason when it comes to schools. Stupid people followed the fad of piles of gee whiz tech. Now, stupid people are following the fad of tech bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? It's always the same reason when it comes to schools.
Because schools have been focused on "not-getting-sued", and to a lesser extent, "graph of standardized test scores go up and to the right", for a while now. In fairness, the outcomes we generally want - students with working-understandings of the world, life skills, problem solving, critical thinking, social awareness, self-awareness, and emotional stability - are all *very* difficult to quantify. It's even more difficult if we understand that every child has the same finish line, but different starting li
Re: (Score:1)
Ed tech (Score:2)
"Ed tech is just big tech in a sweater vest," said Missouri state Rep. Tricia Byrnes (R),
Republicans. So out of touch. It's not a sweater vest. It's a hoodie, sagging jeans and a puffy jacket. Just like the other fent dealers in the parking lot wear. Sweater vests are for undercover FBI agents. All the smart kids know this.
Useful purchase is less useful as times change (Score:2)
News at 11.
During the pandemic, when there was choice between studying remotely and not studying, the good thing to do was to provide laptops. Now that it's less needed, it's less needed.
How is this news? The money wasn't wasted, it was put to good and necessary use.