2 ms·

> From the beginning parents have been extremely skeptical > There is every evidence that this was driven by administrators and tech companies hoping to make m

by mbesto 7y ago

> From the beginning parents have been extremely skeptical > There is every evidence that this was driven by administrators and tech companies hoping to make money selling software and devices. > There has never been any evidence that giving kids screens helps them learn No offense, but you made three fairly bold claims there with little sources to back them up. It's not that I disbelief any of your assertions, but refuting someone else's claim because it has no evidence and providing counterpoints without evidence isn't really helpful...

reallydude 7y ago
These aren't bold claims, if you've been reading about it for a decade. Even the New York times covered these points (more or less). https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-... All these issues were at the forefront of the "discussions". The strategy to upsell technological improvements to struggling schools, was a simple way to by pass skepticism. Might as well try something new? I don't remember specific "Powerful Educators" looking to boost student scores, via a massive monetary investment, but someone had to sign off. There were a few newsworthy failures and no demonstrable good...although it's a little early to tell. I found that my early exposure to computers when I was six, led in to my current career. So there may not be any conclusions for decades. Other proponents included vendors like Apple (iPads for everyone in a Los Angeles school, lol) and politicians, who were either bribed or philosophically sold (if there's a difference). Again, this wasn't a scientific decision and one-off school trials are VERY difficult to get past entrenched interests like regulators and unions via equivalence challenges (ie if it's good enough for 1 school it's good enough for all, right? Oh so you're experimenting on these kids but not these?).

by mbesto 7y ago

reallydude 7y ago

These aren't bold claims, if you've been reading about it for a decade. Even the New York times covered these points (more or less). https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-... All these issues were at the forefront of the "discussions". The strategy to upsell technological improvements to struggling schools, was a simple way to by pass skepticism. Might as well try something new? I don't remember specific "Powerful Educators" looking to boost student scores, via a massive monetary investment, but someone had to sign off. There were a few newsworthy failures and no demonstrable good...although it's a little early to tell. I found that my early exposure to computers when I was six, led in to my current career. So there may not be any conclusions for decades. Other proponents included vendors like Apple (iPads for everyone in a Los Angeles school, lol) and politicians, who were either bribed or philosophically sold (if there's a difference). Again, this wasn't a scientific decision and one-off school trials are VERY difficult to get past entrenched interests like regulators and unions via equivalence challenges (ie if it's good enough for 1 school it's good enough for all, right? Oh so you're experimenting on these kids but not these?).