Please sign- remove distractions and over loading on screen time

[Anonymous]

Also, no need for typewriters. Kids can and should take notes by hand. They will learn more that way and it is good for their fine motor skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, no need for typewriters. Kids can and should take notes by hand. They will learn more that way and it is good for their fine motor skills.

I agree that it is better for them, but meanwhile the majority have illegible handwriting. I also have 25 students with a typing accommodations. I can’t just say FTK, you’re handwriting because your classmates are addicted to games so we got rid of Chromebooks as a district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have an issue with using Chromebooks, I have an issue with Chromebooks having so many distractions and not being adequately locked down. If during class a kid could only open one single application I’d be all for it.

What vendor do you suggest to replace Google?

Chromebooks only run on google. There is nothing to replace it except a laptop, macbook or tablet, all much more money and less secure.

Block. The. Internet.

Then the device does not function.

Should MCPS buy carts full of electric typewriters because a few kids can’t control themselves?

They should not be providing kids with addictive devices. Should we start serving alcohol in schools too?

It’s not the device that’s addictive, it’s the content. A more accurate analogy would be to ban water bottles because some kids fill them with vodka.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have an issue with using Chromebooks, I have an issue with Chromebooks having so many distractions and not being adequately locked down. If during class a kid could only open one single application I’d be all for it.

What vendor do you suggest to replace Google?

Chromebooks only run on google. There is nothing to replace it except a laptop, macbook or tablet, all much more money and less secure.

Block. The. Internet.

Then the device does not function.

Should MCPS buy carts full of electric typewriters because a few kids can’t control themselves?

They should not be providing kids with addictive devices. Should we start serving alcohol in schools too?

It’s not the device that’s addictive, it’s the content. A more accurate analogy would be to ban water bottles because some kids fill them with vodka.

If the numbers of kids who are using their devices inappropriately were getting drunk in class, we'd do exactly that.

[Anonymous]

I'm all for away all day policies for elementary and middle school, but in high school I just want phones put away during instruction time, or maybe even during passing periods, but not during lunch. My HS kid is at a school with open lunch all four years because there's not enough room in the cafeteria. He uses his phone to meet up with his friends and to order Chipotle or whatever through the app so he doesn't spend his entire lunch break in line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have an issue with using Chromebooks, I have an issue with Chromebooks having so many distractions and not being adequately locked down. If during class a kid could only open one single application I’d be all for it.

What vendor do you suggest to replace Google?

Chromebooks only run on google. There is nothing to replace it except a laptop, macbook or tablet, all much more money and less secure.

Block. The. Internet.

Then the device does not function.

Should MCPS buy carts full of electric typewriters because a few kids can’t control themselves?

They should not be providing kids with addictive devices. Should we start serving alcohol in schools too?

It’s not the device that’s addictive, it’s the content. A more accurate analogy would be to ban water bottles because some kids fill them with vodka.

if we actually follow your analogy, the schools are providing kids water bottles (devices) with vodka (the internet) already in them. They don't need to bring in their vodka (internet) separately.

[Anonymous]

And adding that teachers are telling kids to take shots during the day when they needlessly direct them to use the internet

[Anonymous]

FTK, you’re handwriting because your classmates are addicted to games so we got rid of Chromebooks as a district.

Yes, actually it would be appropriate to
A) teach kids handwriting - even those who struggle with it
B) get rid of Chromebooks because a non-minor number of kids are addicted to games

These are both reasonable actions to take. They aren't easy and they would require going back on decisions may have previously made. But continuing in this direction despite mounting evidence of adverse impact on kids learning and development is not the right choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have an issue with using Chromebooks, I have an issue with Chromebooks having so many distractions and not being adequately locked down. If during class a kid could only open one single application I’d be all for it.

What vendor do you suggest to replace Google?

Chromebooks only run on google. There is nothing to replace it except a laptop, macbook or tablet, all much more money and less secure.

Block. The. Internet.

Google is internet based. Do you not understand what a chromebook is?

Could everything be blocked other than a whitelist of sites that are needed? That might work better than individually blocking the distracting sites.

I think MCPS and many other school systems are sticking to notion that kids can't be properly educated unless they are able to access most of the internet. This is despite mountains of evidence showing that internet access distracts from learning, and that higher percentages of kids were proficient in math and reading before they gave everyone individual internet-connected devices. Those devices make a lot of people lots of money and are addictive for the teachers as well (isn't it so nice to be able to get a breather while the kids watch a youtube video, plus it's just like reading a book, right?), so parents need to organize and advocate. It isn't easy, that's for sure, but it can work. Without parents' advocacy, teachers would still be teaching kids to guess words from pictures instead of actually teaching them to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have an issue with using Chromebooks, I have an issue with Chromebooks having so many distractions and not being adequately locked down. If during class a kid could only open one single application I’d be all for it.

What vendor do you suggest to replace Google?

Chromebooks only run on google. There is nothing to replace it except a laptop, macbook or tablet, all much more money and less secure.

Block. The. Internet.

Google is internet based. Do you not understand what a chromebook is?

Could everything be blocked other than a whitelist of sites that are needed? That might work better than individually blocking the distracting sites.

I think MCPS and many other school systems are sticking to notion that kids can't be properly educated unless they are able to access most of the internet. This is despite mountains of evidence showing that internet access distracts from learning, and that higher percentages of kids were proficient in math and reading before they gave everyone individual internet-connected devices. Those devices make a lot of people lots of money and are addictive for the teachers as well (isn't it so nice to be able to get a breather while the kids watch a youtube video, plus it's just like reading a book, right?), so parents need to organize and advocate. It isn't easy, that's for sure, but it can work. Without parents' advocacy, teachers would still be teaching kids to guess words from pictures instead of actually teaching them to read.

I would say I don’t think kids need to go back to having zero access to the internet, just back to the amount they had ~1995-2012.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have an issue with using Chromebooks, I have an issue with Chromebooks having so many distractions and not being adequately locked down. If during class a kid could only open one single application I’d be all for it.

What vendor do you suggest to replace Google?

Chromebooks only run on google. There is nothing to replace it except a laptop, macbook or tablet, all much more money and less secure.

Block. The. Internet.

Google is internet based. Do you not understand what a chromebook is?

Could everything be blocked other than a whitelist of sites that are needed? That might work better than individually blocking the distracting sites.

I think MCPS and many other school systems are sticking to notion that kids can't be properly educated unless they are able to access most of the internet. This is despite mountains of evidence showing that internet access distracts from learning, and that higher percentages of kids were proficient in math and reading before they gave everyone individual internet-connected devices. Those devices make a lot of people lots of money and are addictive for the teachers as well (isn't it so nice to be able to get a breather while the kids watch a youtube video, plus it's just like reading a book, right?), so parents need to organize and advocate. It isn't easy, that's for sure, but it can work. Without parents' advocacy, teachers would still be teaching kids to guess words from pictures instead of actually teaching them to read.

I would say I don’t think kids need to go back to having zero access to the internet, just back to the amount they had ~1995-2012.

Adding that even the 2013-2019 era would also be an improvement I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have an issue with using Chromebooks, I have an issue with Chromebooks having so many distractions and not being adequately locked down. If during class a kid could only open one single application I’d be all for it.

What vendor do you suggest to replace Google?

Chromebooks only run on google. There is nothing to replace it except a laptop, macbook or tablet, all much more money and less secure.

Block. The. Internet.

Google is internet based. Do you not understand what a chromebook is?

Could everything be blocked other than a whitelist of sites that are needed? That might work better than individually blocking the distracting sites.

I think MCPS and many other school systems are sticking to notion that kids can't be properly educated unless they are able to access most of the internet. This is despite mountains of evidence showing that internet access distracts from learning, and that higher percentages of kids were proficient in math and reading before they gave everyone individual internet-connected devices. Those devices make a lot of people lots of money and are addictive for the teachers as well (isn't it so nice to be able to get a breather while the kids watch a youtube video, plus it's just like reading a book, right?), so parents need to organize and advocate. It isn't easy, that's for sure, but it can work. Without parents' advocacy, teachers would still be teaching kids to guess words from pictures instead of actually teaching them to read.

I would say I don’t think kids need to go back to having zero access to the internet, just back to the amount they had ~1995-2012.

Right. For example, no access while in class.

[Anonymous]

What folks don't seem to understand is that many (most?) kids are using the internet correctly.

If the teacher is working with a group, other kids might have an assignment to complete online.

Yes, it would be good if they had paper books instead, but they don't. So taking away the internet is going to result is less differentiated instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What folks don't seem to understand is that many (most?) kids are using the internet correctly.

If the teacher is working with a group, other kids might have an assignment to complete online.

Yes, it would be good if they had paper books instead, but they don't. So taking away the internet is going to result is less differentiated instruction.

Smh they do not need the Internet. They can buy books instead of Chromebooks..this is a conscious and corrupt choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What folks don't seem to understand is that many (most?) kids are using the internet correctly.

If the teacher is working with a group, other kids might have an assignment to complete online.

Yes, it would be good if they had paper books instead, but they don't. So taking away the internet is going to result is less differentiated instruction.

I love how you act like buying books is an impossible pipe dream.