DCPS (or a charter) should pilot a tech-free (or tech-lite) ES/MS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

Just as a counterview, my kid went to a tech-heavy DCPS ES. We later moved and sent him to an advanced MS, and was very well-prepared because of all the apps he used. He's a kid who prefers to learn on his own vs. through a teacher, so this was a fortunate circumstance -- and something I couldn't have predicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

I agree that a lot of ed tech sucks and isn't worth what it costs. But I still wouldn't want to give up what's beneficial about doing things on screens (even if the benefit is just that it makes grading easier for the teacher). And I certainly wouldn't want to lose the possibility of technology stuff for middle school science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

I agree that a lot of ed tech sucks and isn't worth what it costs. But I still wouldn't want to give up what's beneficial about doing things on screens (even if the benefit is just that it makes grading easier for the teacher). And I certainly wouldn't want to lose the possibility of technology stuff for middle school science.

can you elaborate on the bolded? I'm asking because we are making the opposite decision - choosing a school that doesn't have technology aspect to science - I personally think that's one subject that needs to be either totally hands on - biology, physics, chem experiments or worksheet/textbook based (chem formulas). We took Social Justice school off our list completely because their science is all on a computer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

I agree that a lot of ed tech sucks and isn't worth what it costs. But I still wouldn't want to give up what's beneficial about doing things on screens (even if the benefit is just that it makes grading easier for the teacher). And I certainly wouldn't want to lose the possibility of technology stuff for middle school science.

can you elaborate on the bolded? I'm asking because we are making the opposite decision - choosing a school that doesn't have technology aspect to science - I personally think that's one subject that needs to be either totally hands on - biology, physics, chem experiments or worksheet/textbook based (chem formulas). We took Social Justice school off our list completely because their science is all on a computer.

I would be very happy for them to learn coding, and I also think screens have a role in bio, things like using a microscope with a screen attached so they don't have to squint through a tiny lens like my generation did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

NP. This is not my experience at all. Every ECE parent on our school's tour asks about how much screens are used... by the time kids are in 3rd, parents are proactively going to our math coach to ask that their kid be given access to the differentiating tech resources used for acceleration (e.g., Beast Academy).

NP. Which DCPS is offering Beast Academy? This is excitng news!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

I agree that a lot of ed tech sucks and isn't worth what it costs. But I still wouldn't want to give up what's beneficial about doing things on screens (even if the benefit is just that it makes grading easier for the teacher). And I certainly wouldn't want to lose the possibility of technology stuff for middle school science.

can you elaborate on the bolded? I'm asking because we are making the opposite decision - choosing a school that doesn't have technology aspect to science - I personally think that's one subject that needs to be either totally hands on - biology, physics, chem experiments or worksheet/textbook based (chem formulas). We took Social Justice school off our list completely because their science is all on a computer.

I would be very happy for them to learn coding, and I also think screens have a role in bio, things like using a microscope with a screen attached so they don't have to squint through a tiny lens like my generation did.

Oh, yes - electornic microscopes - great! The whole ed tech science curriculum - hard no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

NP. This is not my experience at all. Every ECE parent on our school's tour asks about how much screens are used... by the time kids are in 3rd, parents are proactively going to our math coach to ask that their kid be given access to the differentiating tech resources used for acceleration (e.g., Beast Academy).

You have to wait until MS. And no, I don’t think parents are actually wanting teachers to be replaced by Beast Academy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

Just as a counterview, my kid went to a tech-heavy DCPS ES. We later moved and sent him to an advanced MS, and was very well-prepared because of all the apps he used. He's a kid who prefers to learn on his own vs. through a teacher, so this was a fortunate circumstance -- and something I couldn't have predicted.

He was well prepared *despite* the apps, and that the g-d honest truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

I agree that a lot of ed tech sucks and isn't worth what it costs. But I still wouldn't want to give up what's beneficial about doing things on screens (even if the benefit is just that it makes grading easier for the teacher). And I certainly wouldn't want to lose the possibility of technology stuff for middle school science.

can you elaborate on the bolded? I'm asking because we are making the opposite decision - choosing a school that doesn't have technology aspect to science - I personally think that's one subject that needs to be either totally hands on - biology, physics, chem experiments or worksheet/textbook based (chem formulas). We took Social Justice school off our list completely because their science is all on a computer.

I would be very happy for them to learn coding, and I also think screens have a role in bio, things like using a microscope with a screen attached so they don't have to squint through a tiny lens like my generation did.

Oh, yes - electornic microscopes - great! The whole ed tech science curriculum - hard no.

Yeah I can tell that the parents who are naively saying “oh tech, neat!” have not actually encountered or understood what is happening particularly in math instruction. If you thought that the no phonics thing was bad, this is even worse.

[Anonymous]

DCPS loves tech and online work. They are bad managers; they don't know how to lead and are too insecure to trust their teachers.

So centralizing curriculum, progress tests, RCTs, math homework apos, etc etc, gives Central a sense of control.

It's not in the best interest of the students, but the DCPS leaders seem mostly concerned about hanging onto their jobs, so they grasp for control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

NP. This is not my experience at all. Every ECE parent on our school's tour asks about how much screens are used... by the time kids are in 3rd, parents are proactively going to our math coach to ask that their kid be given access to the differentiating tech resources used for acceleration (e.g., Beast Academy).

You have to wait until MS. And no, I don’t think parents are actually wanting teachers to be replaced by Beast Academy.

What? Of course they'd rather teachers than ed tech, but again that is not the trade-off. A tech free DCPS doesn't magically have the cash for extra teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

Just as a counterview, my kid went to a tech-heavy DCPS ES. We later moved and sent him to an advanced MS, and was very well-prepared because of all the apps he used. He's a kid who prefers to learn on his own vs. through a teacher, so this was a fortunate circumstance -- and something I couldn't have predicted.

He was well prepared *despite* the apps, and that the g-d honest truth.

If your kid used apps more, they’d be better off, and that’s the g-d honest truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

NP. This is not my experience at all. Every ECE parent on our school's tour asks about how much screens are used... by the time kids are in 3rd, parents are proactively going to our math coach to ask that their kid be given access to the differentiating tech resources used for acceleration (e.g., Beast Academy).

Does DCPS pay for Beast Academy these days?

[Anonymous]

This thread is shocking and sad

- DC parent of a 20-yr old who missed literally ALL of this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you'll find many parents care less about that than you do. As your kids get older you may care less too. Not that it isn't important, but there are a lot of other very important concerns and reasons to choose a school. People's choice of ES/MS is heavily driven by academic performance and feeder pattern (and obviously those things are linked), and behavior and their own commute. People who care about low screen don't necessarily care enough to compromise the other factors.

Maybe you're thinking EOTP DCPS wants to attract more high income crunchy people who fret about this kind of thing. But you need to question that assumption.

My kids are middle and high school and I car very much. My middle schooler knows how to game the ed tech to get through it quickly and not learn (click three times and it gives you the answer etc). My high school has adhd and a lot of interests, which means he is always sneaking off ed tech programs to watch youtube videos on his niche topics of interest.

Please - textbooks and worksheets and my kids would learn so much more!

Kids rush through classwork to play the dumb lame free games they can still get on their school devices.

plus, so much money saved without paying for tech.

Okay, you care. I'm saying lots of other people don't, even if they might have said they care when their kids are little.

I think you have it backwards. A lot of people who didn’t mind some screens in K are really fed up with the terrible “Ed tech” that gets more heavily used beginning in late ES.

NP. This is not my experience at all. Every ECE parent on our school's tour asks about how much screens are used... by the time kids are in 3rd, parents are proactively going to our math coach to ask that their kid be given access to the differentiating tech resources used for acceleration (e.g., Beast Academy).

You have to wait until MS. And no, I don’t think parents are actually wanting teachers to be replaced by Beast Academy.

What? Of course they'd rather teachers than ed tech, but again that is not the trade-off. A tech free DCPS doesn't magically have the cash for extra teachers.

You’re missing the point. having kids learn math by a bad computer app is worse than not having extra teachers.