Please sign- remove distractions and over loading on screen time

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please consider signing this petition

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrPTaWOGE5tvFci7Q4C5kpKRVZ2zXhXKWqompRdIXJm-RFjQ/viewform?usp=sharing&ouid=100075753513425593908

No. I fully support using screens in school. I want my kids to have a modern education.

[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.

Teachers should be able to spend the majority of their time in whole class instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

2010-12, there was non-stop texting and using iPods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

2010-12, there was non-stop texting and using iPods.

Okay? Phones are not allowed and that rule should be strengthened.

[Anonymous]

Less screen time in schools is a great idea. Many school districts have a complete ban on cell phones throughout the school day but MC parents freak out at the thought.

[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.

Are you sure they're mostly using the Internet appropriately? See the stats in this column for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/16/opinion/laptop-classroom-test-scores.html?fbclid=IwdGRjcAOJ_O5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR6iSvhvl_-2QHSXCZKtjvV1lh9oNm5pKt4thjJnpfRAUxyrGm6uDHGwQPuqig_aem_6ZsiCUARlvhrzPpY1JSmdg

And the solution to differentiation is not computers. It is either 1) appropriately-leveled classes where minimal differentiation is needed; or 2) strong curricula with built-in differentiation strategies that include a plan other than "computer time" for kids who aren't with the teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

2010-12, there was non-stop texting and using iPods.

Okay? Phones are not allowed and that rule should be strengthened.

No, phones are allowed upon approval of the teachers. Some teachers require phones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

2010-12, there was non-stop texting and using iPods.

Kids just use their chromebooks and other work arounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And, sometimes they do. We have had multiple teachers have textbooks and choose not to use them blaming the students ability. This is a teaching and curriculum issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even the short stories my kid is assigned for English are online. Can't you just print the darned story with your billion dollar budget MCPS?