This is excellent, Andrew! Those that have been pushing technology in schools have written books using "Disruptive Innovation" in their titles. The NTIA is holding a listening session tomorrow (12/10) https://www.ntia.gov/events-and-meetings/kids-excessive-screen-time-listening-session. You should consider speaking. As an SLP, I plan to speak about how excessive screen time impacts students and their learning.
Great piece! I really appreciate the comparison to healthcare. Of note, healthcare systems have Quality and Safety oversight mechanisms, both internal and with external regulators. Healthcare providers at an individual level document everything and are supposed to have transparent workflows. This has been made possible by a long-term shift in culture, in which healthcare professionals (especially those with lots of degrees!) welcome and participate in this oversight as a vital component of competent care, rather than fight it as an offense to their professional expertise.
I think in K-12, the tangible paper-based curriculum had organically allowed for parents to be the quality and safety oversight mechanism. But with a digital curriculum, that is no longer the case.
This is a great point! You’re right that there is a lot to be said about professional practices, and about the unintended effects of digital mediums on parental oversight. Wonderful insight.
Thank you for this piece, Andrew. I recently gave a talk to some parents about AI and said, “we can’t move fast and break our kids!”
I’m extremely frustrated with the exemptions our society readily gives tech companies to foist there products into the lives of our children under the guise of innovation with the use of “they’ll-fall-behind” scare tactics.
You’ve offered helpful, relatable examples with which to help prove the point that moving fast is not always the best approach—especially with our children. I can’t think of any other sector we would allow to take such a reckless approach.
Powerful reframing of the stakes here. The parallel to leaded gasoline is especially sharp because it exposes the same mechanism: immediate commercial benefits for a few, while longterm neurological costs get offloaded onto children who can't opt out. The fiduciary framing is the right lens because it shifts the question from "does this engege students" to "have we proven this won't damage developing brains." Markets optimize for profit, not for the irreversible effects on kids stuck in classrooms.
Great piece! I think there are some other key things that students are missing in education: movement, music, and arts. The decline in these three pillars has a direct cognitive effect on brain development. I listened to this old interview last night and I highly recommend it: https://youtu.be/KVZD1oOe584
It’s interesting— the science behind rhythmic movement therapy and music therapy for healing all kinds of injuries (breast cancer survivors and brain injury) and yet we have all but eliminated these in schools for young minds.
I say replace technology with these classes in the primary schools. Kids really don’t need it at those grades. They’re not going to fall behind. Learning to use a computer is linear. Plug it in and that’s it. It’s as intuitive as it gets these days.
This is excellent, Andrew! Those that have been pushing technology in schools have written books using "Disruptive Innovation" in their titles. The NTIA is holding a listening session tomorrow (12/10) https://www.ntia.gov/events-and-meetings/kids-excessive-screen-time-listening-session. You should consider speaking. As an SLP, I plan to speak about how excessive screen time impacts students and their learning.
Thanks Denise!
I wish I could, but I’m tied up at noon tomorrow with a prior commitment. Next time an opportunity comes up, do let me know.
Great piece! I really appreciate the comparison to healthcare. Of note, healthcare systems have Quality and Safety oversight mechanisms, both internal and with external regulators. Healthcare providers at an individual level document everything and are supposed to have transparent workflows. This has been made possible by a long-term shift in culture, in which healthcare professionals (especially those with lots of degrees!) welcome and participate in this oversight as a vital component of competent care, rather than fight it as an offense to their professional expertise.
I think in K-12, the tangible paper-based curriculum had organically allowed for parents to be the quality and safety oversight mechanism. But with a digital curriculum, that is no longer the case.
This is a great point! You’re right that there is a lot to be said about professional practices, and about the unintended effects of digital mediums on parental oversight. Wonderful insight.
Thank you for this piece, Andrew. I recently gave a talk to some parents about AI and said, “we can’t move fast and break our kids!”
I’m extremely frustrated with the exemptions our society readily gives tech companies to foist there products into the lives of our children under the guise of innovation with the use of “they’ll-fall-behind” scare tactics.
You’ve offered helpful, relatable examples with which to help prove the point that moving fast is not always the best approach—especially with our children. I can’t think of any other sector we would allow to take such a reckless approach.
I couldn’t agree more! Thanks for your support, Dawn.
Powerful reframing of the stakes here. The parallel to leaded gasoline is especially sharp because it exposes the same mechanism: immediate commercial benefits for a few, while longterm neurological costs get offloaded onto children who can't opt out. The fiduciary framing is the right lens because it shifts the question from "does this engege students" to "have we proven this won't damage developing brains." Markets optimize for profit, not for the irreversible effects on kids stuck in classrooms.
Great piece! I think there are some other key things that students are missing in education: movement, music, and arts. The decline in these three pillars has a direct cognitive effect on brain development. I listened to this old interview last night and I highly recommend it: https://youtu.be/KVZD1oOe584
It’s interesting— the science behind rhythmic movement therapy and music therapy for healing all kinds of injuries (breast cancer survivors and brain injury) and yet we have all but eliminated these in schools for young minds.
I say replace technology with these classes in the primary schools. Kids really don’t need it at those grades. They’re not going to fall behind. Learning to use a computer is linear. Plug it in and that’s it. It’s as intuitive as it gets these days.
I’m all for more music and arts education in school, Gema. Thanks for your comment.