DCI middle school

[Anonymous]

Okay, I see your point. Agree that question may not be a good one. For younger kids, I see maybe having some hands on experience with taking some things, mixing them together in correct proportions, then coming up with an end product.

[Anonymous]

Forgot to add, I am worried about tech focus at DCI but I want my kid to learn coding.

[Anonymous]

It's just dumb to call the poster concerned about wifi radiation on growing children crazy, there are constantly studies being funded as the grown of this industry and the speed of technology moves so fast, it is truly unknown whether there will be long term health problems associated with wifi everywhere. In fact, some countries and cities in the US (starting on the west coast of course) are promoting "wi-FREE" zones in hotels, cafes, etc… All that being said, the greatest risks come from regular use of cell phones, and kids shouldn't put them against their heads (and neither should we, it says so in your i-phone or smartphone instructions when you buy one! ). For now, it seems as if the progressive state of Washington has taken the cause seriously, and here's a link to a study from Jan. 2014. As for too much focus on technology, at WIS every MS student is mandated to use i-pads in most classes and for homework, even take them on field trips. We need to help our kids embrace technology and learn to use it well, it's something WIS is doing a great job with and DCI is on the same track. http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/4100/WiFiSafety_Jan2014_DraftFinal.pdf

[Anonymous]

Kids can learn how to use technology without requiring them to use an ipad or chromebook in every class, especially in middle school. Kids need a balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's just dumb to call the poster concerned about wifi radiation on growing children crazy, there are constantly studies being funded as the grown of this industry and the speed of technology moves so fast, it is truly unknown whether there will be long term health problems associated with wifi everywhere. In fact, some countries and cities in the US (starting on the west coast of course) are promoting "wi-FREE" zones in hotels, cafes, etc… All that being said, the greatest risks come from regular use of cell phones, and kids shouldn't put them against their heads (and neither should we, it says so in your i-phone or smartphone instructions when you buy one! ). For now, it seems as if the progressive state of Washington has taken the cause seriously, and here's a link to a study from Jan. 2014. As for too much focus on technology, at WIS every MS student is mandated to use i-pads in most classes and for homework, even take them on field trips. We need to help our kids embrace technology and learn to use it well, it's something WIS is doing a great job with and DCI is on the same track. http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/4100/WiFiSafety_Jan2014_DraftFinal.pdf

No, it's not dumb to call people who keep recycling discredited claims crazy. And it seems you did not read the document you linked to. The conclusion was that there is no evidence that low level RF is harmful. Period.

"The work group reviewed every comprehensive scientific review performed by national or international health agencies, and published in English since 2000. The consensus conclusion of these 16 documents was that there is no clear and consistent evidence that low levels of RF fields, such as produced by Wi-Fi equipment, have any adverse health effects in humans."

[Anonymous]

PP I posted the link and of course I read it. I didn't suggest I believe wifi is dangerous, I suggested one is not crazy to question the safety, especially around kids in school all day. The point is this is one of numerous samples of the research being conducted because of this rational concerns. Duh.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP I posted the link and of course I read it. I didn't suggest I believe wifi is dangerous, I suggested one is not crazy to question the safety, especially around kids in school all day. The point is this is one of numerous samples of the research being conducted because of this rational concerns. Duh.

As the linked document pointed out, the state looked into this because of parent concern, not because people who understand physics were concerned. That's the same reason that many of these studies were conducted. This is exactly like vaccinations And autism --- it has been repeatedly studied because of the concerns of people who don't understand science. The number of studies does not legitimize the concern, especially when everyone who studies it has concluded that there is NO danger from low level RF fields. This is not an ambiguous or controversial topic, but there are a couple of people who bring it up every time DCI is mentioned. It's crazy.

[Anonymous]

OMG you are just an ass. Parent paranoia about unknown results of unknown quantitate data on delicate growing brains is actually LEGIT. If you are just a DCI booster, get a grip -- while many of your peers may have concluded there are no known risks, don't dis your fellow parents who may be worrying. That's ALL I'M SAYING. YOUR WAY there is not the HIGHWAY EVERYWHERE. And by the way, watch how much you and your kids put the cell to the head.

[Anonymous]

Paranoia=Legit???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG you are just an ass. Parent paranoia about unknown results of unknown quantitate data on delicate growing brains is actually LEGIT. If you are just a DCI booster, get a grip -- while many of your peers may have concluded there are no known risks, don't dis your fellow parents who may be worrying. That's ALL I'M SAYING. YOUR WAY there is not the HIGHWAY EVERYWHERE. And by the way, watch how much you and your kids put the cell to the head.

Not a DCI booster or prospective parent --- we're delighted with our DCPS.

But: the point here is that the effects are not unknown. They have been studied. We know the answer. The parent paranoia is based on unwillingness to accept reality and a choice to cling to an alternate reality instead.

I'm really worried by the increasing number of presumably educated people in our country who seem to believe that they have a right to select what to believe (and then expect government to act according to their wishes) regardless of the science and objective reality say. Apparently, there are people at DCI trying to get the school to make policy based on fears of radiation that is almost undetectable compared to background radiation (and far weaker than direct sunlight). In Washington state, we have people making public heath policy based on fears that fluoride in the water causes cancer. In California, there are whole school districts where herd immunity to diseases we conquered long ago is threatened by people choosing to read nutty internet articles rather than actual science. It's a problem, and it needs to be called out.

Meanwhile, hunger, homelessness, violence, addiction, poorly designed standardized tests and all the other real issues that our schools need to deal with are still out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG you are just an ass. Parent paranoia about unknown results of unknown quantitate data on delicate growing brains is actually LEGIT. If you are just a DCI booster, get a grip -- while many of your peers may have concluded there are no known risks, don't dis your fellow parents who may be worrying. That's ALL I'M SAYING. YOUR WAY there is not the HIGHWAY EVERYWHERE. And by the way, watch how much you and your kids put the cell to the head.

Not a DCI booster or prospective parent --- we're delighted with our DCPS.

But: the point here is that the effects are not unknown. They have been studied. We know the answer. The parent paranoia is based on unwillingness to accept reality and a choice to cling to an alternate reality instead.

I'm really worried by the increasing number of presumably educated people in our country who seem to believe that they have a right to select what to believe (and then expect government to act according to their wishes) regardless of the science and objective reality say. Apparently, there are people at DCI trying to get the school to make policy based on fears of radiation that is almost undetectable compared to background radiation (and far weaker than direct sunlight). In Washington state, we have people making public heath policy based on fears that fluoride in the water causes cancer. In California, there are whole school districts where herd immunity to diseases we conquered long ago is threatened by people choosing to read nutty internet articles rather than actual science. It's a problem, and it needs to be called out.

Meanwhile, hunger, homelessness, violence, addiction, poorly designed standardized tests and all the other real issues that our schools need to deal with are still out there.

Radiation or not, a tech focus is just not good for kids. The science, hopefully the type okay with you, supports that. Until the school finds a balance, it'll be no for our family.

[Anonymous]

Agree with 14:21. There is research to suggest kids learn or process information differently when using a computer. There is research showing screen time at night affects sleeping patterns. I have not followed research re: radiation exposure so I can't really comment. Just wanted to stress that screen time has and is being studied. l
Not to say that computers can't help kids learn or that kids shouldn't be exposed to technology but there needs to be balance. Schools should use existing research to guide how they use computers.

[Anonymous]

^Information is received and retained better when reading a hard copy book, not a screen. We don't know the longterm of kids all learning on computers because they are the guinea pigs. I don't want to learn when it's too late that my child should've been limited on the computer. Why is this so hard for DCI boosters to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with 14:21. There is research to suggest kids learn or process information differently when using a computer. There is research showing screen time at night affects sleeping patterns. I have not followed research re: radiation exposure so I can't really comment. Just wanted to stress that screen time has and is being studied. l
Not to say that computers can't help kids learn or that kids shouldn't be exposed to technology but there needs to be balance. Schools should use existing research to guide how they use computers.

Thanks for bringing those two concerns (information retention and circadian rhythms) up. I'm 14:21, and I think those are great examples of real, research-based concerns about over exposure to tech. Personally, I think they are BS, but that's the beauty of evidence-baseD policy making - my personal opinion doesn't matter. If there is research suggesting a concern, we need to take it seriously.