In a year in which schools have made headlines for every problem imaginable, one issue is slipping through the cracks, the consequences of which not only impacts our kids' education, but every aspect of their lives. Schools are lobbying for students' attention by embracing technology in ever increasing ways. This is the moment, however, to pause and consider whether we want to sacrifice our kids' last remaining hours of non-screen time by incorporating Facebook, iPads, and other devices into the curriculum. The cost of going too far down the digital highway is enormous: Without engaging with the real world, kids' ability to form relationships, sustain focus, and maintain optimal health are all at risk of being compromised.
Teachers, painfully aware of how distracted and disinterested their students have become, attempt to teach while kids wistfully gaze at the clock for the moment when they can freely check their text messages. Those who cannot endure being "unplugged" for the duration of a 45-minute class, secretly text their friends ("friends") while pretending to fumble in their backpack. In an attempt to make class work more interesting to the over-stimulated, many teachers are subscribing to the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy, weaving the Internet into more and more elements of the curriculum.
Our kids don't need to be on screens more; they need to be on them less. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study shocked its researchers by discovering that children and teens are spending over seven and a half hours a day on some form of screen, not including texting. According to a study by Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project, one in three teens send more than 100 texts a day, or more than 3,000 texts a month. If we don't set clear guidelines about how many hours we want our youngsters glued to a screen every day, we will find them increasingly incapable of functioning without being plugged into something. Regardless of how adept our children are at managing the bells and whistles of today's latest device, success in the real world still requires real life skills that cannot be acquired by even the latest and greatest Apple ipodpadtouchthingie.
Today's kids are losing the ability to enjoy the sweet and mundane moments that are part and parcel of ordinary life. Most youngsters, if stuck waiting for a ride, cannot endure simply waiting: they whip out their cell phone to feed their insatiable need for stimulation. The tradition of playing outside after school to shake off the stagnation of sitting at a desk all day has been abandoned in favor of more sitting in front of the TV or computer, contributing to alarming obesity rates in children.
Communication skills are falling by the wayside as children master the shorthand lingo of email and text messaging. When it's time for family dinner -- one of the best opportunities for developing the ability to converse by actually speaking in full sentences and patiently listening to others, they beg off with, "I'm not hungry." (Why risk missing the five-way chat that's going on in your pocket -- even if the gist of that "conversation" is, "Whassup?") Research has shown that the dinner table is one of the key places that young people learn how to argue and engage in civilized debate; clearly there's a desperate need in our society for that set of skills.
In addition to losing the capacity for meaningful conversation--an essential ingredient to genuine connection -- our kids are taking multi-tasking to new heights, exhibiting ADD'ish characteristics even when they don't have the disorder. In an experiment at Cornell University, half the students were allowed to surf the web during a lecture, while the others weren't. It should come as no surprise that those who surfed the Internet during the professor's lecture performed worse on a follow up test. But this is how our youngsters study: simultaneously browsing You Tube videos, checking sports scores, texting their friends, uploading photos, downloading apps, all while watching their favorite TV show.
Which leads us to another point: From the moment our kids get home from school they announce that they have to plug in, since nearly every stitch of homework requires the use of the computer. Remember poster board, magic markers and shoebox dioramas? Surely there was some value in creating something with paper, scissors, cardboard and imagination.
Increasing the use of technology in the classroom is like feeding our kids pop tarts and soda; it tastes good and they like it, but it doesn't offer the nourishment they need. If schools go hi-tech across the board, they'll be feeding an addiction that, as most parents can tell you, is already out of control. Many teens sleep with their cell phone, the equivalent of an adolescent security blanky. A survey of sixteen hundred women between the ages of eighteen and fifty-four conducted by Lightspeed Research found that thirty-nine percent considered themselves Facebook addicts. Of those women, a significant percent admitted that they check their accounts in the middle of the night. Once these devices become waterproof, our kids will be taking them into the shower with them. No need to be "cut off" just because you're a tad odiferous.
As two women who are in the trenches everyday with kids (family therapist and moms) we are deeply concerned about what digital overload is doing to our children, not to mention those of the next generation. Today's toddlers are routinely given Mommy's iPhone when they need to be quieted down, promoting fixation on devices at ever-younger ages. If school can't be a screen-free place for learning -- at least for a significant part of the day -- imagine the results of the next Kaiser study.
It is time to engage in a purposeful, reasoned debate about where we're headed with the use of digital devices in the classroom. We recognize that there is tremendous value in technology and learning, and are by no means advocating abstinence. But we need to be cautious about plugging our kids in more, pushing them into an even greater dependence on electronics. We need balance that stems from understanding that more isn't necessarily better.
Childhood is a brief flicker on the screen of life, and is meant to provide children with the chance to engage with people, nature and the world around them. If we encourage yet more activities that involve staring at a screen, we'll be depriving our youngsters with essential ingredients that are vital to being human.
Laurie David is the author of The Family Dinner. Susan Stiffelman is the author of Parenting Without Power Struggles
Follow Laurie David on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Laurie_David
Liz Willen: Social Media and a Tale of Two New Jersey Principals
We all agree that information and technology literacy (ITL) is important. But how many schools can say that they are producing ITL students? How many educators [1] have edtech tools readily available (on demand) and [2] make use of them? I still see too many computer labs (1980s model) and far too few classroom-based resources. Should computer be available all the time to any teacher and student that needs one to look something up or create something? Isn't that what we want?
To be innovative and truly trasnform schools, we need to look at structures we take for granted - the length of the class period, day and year; student promotion; assessment practices; professional development; leadership. It's a long list. It wll be difficult, if not impossible, to maximize technology's potential with changing many of these components, many of which have changed little in decades.
My preference would be to limit technology completely, force kids to focus and develop critical thinking skills -- and then introduce in mid-high school when they can developmentally and emotionally handle the freedom.
even at my 35 year old female self's age, i go what the hell is happening..i have to conform to learning the gadgets and how all the technology works but to parents with kids my god..god help you all. i don't care if you are gay,straight or however your family works. it's crazy now.
nodoby wants to find things out or get out there&do things face-to-face. you can learn-like the teachers are realising now- you can teach a class on-line."oh it's okay, i can just blackle/google it", as i say when i can learn something new..but i miss the days of talking. sadly i'm older¬ really had the "family dinner talking ritual" you so are pushing right now, but i miss talking with friends,co-workers and even those old-timers have the BEST stories since they've been around for like ever.
i miss that. note to self; take more long walks&spend more time outdoors.
It's all being backed by a state superintendent of public ed whose major campaign contributors include all the top online, for-profit education vendors, including K12, Education Networks of America, and the Apollo Group (U of Phoenix) whose ad ironically accompanies this very article. At a state Senate hearing today, dozens of Idahoans waiting to testify against the bills were passed over for a lobbyist from .... Intel.
Then three years later we had our first school play in four years. Throughout it, you saw the blue lights on the faces of parents as they texted.
There are no right or wrong amounts of incorporating technology, but we need to talk about it. And we must set social norms or we must enforce school rules on its misuse.
I'm in favor of pulling the plug - mostly. Technology is a tool, not a skill. For example, spelling is best taught by rote. Spellcheckers still mistake your and you're. Math - the basics - have to be taught through drills. You can't learn it by punching buttons. Reading and research? I'm a bit ambivalent there, although I find reading a screen difficult (the lines are too long for my speed reading skills) and Internet research has to be combined with acceptable content and no, I don't mean excluding Wikipedia. And the way we teach science sucks anyway - no amount of technology can do more harm than the thought that science is a body of fact and not a way of thinking about problems. In fact, there's some good science out there, far beyond making a rocket using Mentos.
Sadly, many schools--either because of tight budgets or inertia--are so far behind the technology curve that they don't really understand how to implement or utilize the best technological tools.
On that site, there is a tab labeled Classroom, where students are encouraged to take action in their school through all sorts of tech activities: joining a virtual march, reading a downloadable guide to global warming, accessing a list of action items, and finding out if their local mayor has signed a Climate Protection Agreement through an online list.
Another link under the Classroom tab takes visitors to a site promoting another book by David, The Down-To-Earth Guide to Global Warming, published by Scholastic. It is a fun, engaging site (http://www.scholastic.com/downtoearth/index.htm ) that encourages kids to take an online pledge to be green, send e-cards, and talk about global warming on a message board - all screen enabled activities.
David contradicts herself when she adds her byline to statements like: "If we encourage yet more activities that involve staring at a screen, we'll be depriving our youngsters with essential ingredients that are vital to being human."
Statements like this only serve to stir the simmering anxiety parents have about finding a tech balance for their family without providing thoughtful, tangible solutions.
Accept, perhaps, to buy a cookbook.
And I bet it will help with that pesky childhood obesity problem, too.
I don't know horw or, frankly, why anyone today would want to be a public school teacher.
When I was growing up school teachers were revered in the community, on a par with doctors and lawyers. If the teacher said it, it was so, period, and mom or dad did not argue.
Today, not only are teachers blamed for the coming end of western civilization and the destruction of state budgets, but they have to deal with parents whose sense of entitlement is exceeded only by that of their children.
honestly, I think the troops in Afghanistan have it easier; they can fight back.