Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most if not all privates would work. My son has ADHD and is at STA and they do not allow phones during the day and use all textbooks and basically no laptop screen time. It's a paper and pencil kind of place.

Same with my kids' school. I think the question would have to be asked in the reverse: which private schools routinely use screens.

You would have to specify the grade levels. The Waldorf web page said all of their high schoolers take a year-long technology course. And if you surveyed students in the Ivies, I'd wager 99% of them did lots of computer-based work in high school.

Whether it's suitable for middle school and below is another issue. You can be sure that no significant college will have students working mostly with books and paper. Just doesn't happen nowadays.

Anonymous wrote:I think most if not all privates would work. My son has ADHD and is at STA and they do not allow phones during the day and use all textbooks and basically no laptop screen time. It's a paper and pencil kind of place.

Same with my kids' school. I think the question would have to be asked in the reverse: which private schools routinely use screens.

Anonymous wrote:Let us know what you find. Most private have parents who think screentime in school is preparing the kids for AI.

lol, no.

Bullis could be a fit

I think most if not all privates would work. My son has ADHD and is at STA and they do not allow phones during the day and use all textbooks and basically no laptop screen time. It's a paper and pencil kind of place.

Our Lady of Lourdes

Washington Waldorf is a great option for upper grades. Lots of movement during the day, extra events and celebrations, handmade projects and kids get to make decisions in a government like style. They have weekly meetings. They also have sports.

I would NOT consider Waldorf, I have heard they are very inflexible for students with adhd or dyslexia etc. Do some searching around, yes it's no tech and outdoor time but the methodology is not conducive for kids that need supports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let us know what you find. Most private have parents who think screentime in school is preparing the kids for AI.

There are plenty of legitimate uses of tech in moderation that have nothing to do with AI.

The "screentime" debate has devolved so far that the real role of tech in the classroom gets reduced to a simple "Screen bad, book good" when kids and adults alike use technology throughout the day every day of their lives.

Teachers have to make sure kids can use that technology effectively for researching and writing on their own. The idea that reading a physical book and writing by hand is going to make your kid a super whiz to function in the modern world is an ideological stance, not a practical one. No one at their future employers staff meeting will be there without a laptop, and their boss won't want work submitted on paper. They won't be sourcing and evaluating much printed info either.

It will all be on a screen.

At the same time, you have to keep kids out of the games/YouTube/TikTok rabbit hole that just sucks their brains into the entertainment dimension.

Good privates with small classes work hard to find that balance. Bigger schools will struggle mightily. Teachers just can't track what 100s of kids do all day.

That's the reality.

The research and computer-based program elements can all be developed in high school. All students would benefit from a few more years of pen in hand fully K-8. Not one student is hurt by low / no tech. However many, many are hurt by tech in place of pencil / paper / book learning. Tech in the lower grades hurts the lower- and middle-class students the most and of course, a good percent of boys.

There are plenty of kids with disabilities who would be hurt by no tech. Students with communication disabilities who need AAC (communication) devices. Students with dyslexia or who are blind who need audiobooks. Students with dysgraphia or certain physical disabilities who can't hold a pencil/write.

We need to have students with disabilities have the tools that work for them. But this does not require all students to be held hostage by tech that is impeding their academic progress. Reading tutors certified in Orton-Gillingham will tell you that writing in script is a BENEFIT for dyslexic students. There is something about the hand / brain connection that improves their performance. So, I'd argue that every tech tool should be analyzed if it is actually better for the student. The answer for special situations could very well be a mix. But again, the benefits of traditional education for the general student population that includes books, pencils, long division etc... all the old fashioned stuff FAR EXCEEDs today's EdTech results.

Agreed that there should be an individualized assessment about the appropriateness of tech. But the PP's assertion that no tech harms "no one" erases the experience and needs of students with disabilities -- something that happens all too often in the private school world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let us know what you find. Most private have parents who think screentime in school is preparing the kids for AI.

There are plenty of legitimate uses of tech in moderation that have nothing to do with AI.

The "screentime" debate has devolved so far that the real role of tech in the classroom gets reduced to a simple "Screen bad, book good" when kids and adults alike use technology throughout the day every day of their lives.

Teachers have to make sure kids can use that technology effectively for researching and writing on their own. The idea that reading a physical book and writing by hand is going to make your kid a super whiz to function in the modern world is an ideological stance, not a practical one. No one at their future employers staff meeting will be there without a laptop, and their boss won't want work submitted on paper. They won't be sourcing and evaluating much printed info either.

It will all be on a screen.

At the same time, you have to keep kids out of the games/YouTube/TikTok rabbit hole that just sucks their brains into the entertainment dimension.

Good privates with small classes work hard to find that balance. Bigger schools will struggle mightily. Teachers just can't track what 100s of kids do all day.

That's the reality.

The research and computer-based program elements can all be developed in high school. All students would benefit from a few more years of pen in hand fully K-8. Not one student is hurt by low / no tech. However many, many are hurt by tech in place of pencil / paper / book learning. Tech in the lower grades hurts the lower- and middle-class students the most and of course, a good percent of boys.

There are plenty of kids with disabilities who would be hurt by no tech. Students with communication disabilities who need AAC (communication) devices. Students with dyslexia or who are blind who need audiobooks. Students with dysgraphia or certain physical disabilities who can't hold a pencil/write.

We need to have students with disabilities have the tools that work for them. But this does not require all students to be held hostage by tech that is impeding their academic progress. Reading tutors certified in Orton-Gillingham will tell you that writing in script is a BENEFIT for dyslexic students. There is something about the hand / brain connection that improves their performance. So, I'd argue that every tech tool should be analyzed if it is actually better for the student. The answer for special situations could very well be a mix. But again, the benefits of traditional education for the general student population that includes books, pencils, long division etc... all the old fashioned stuff FAR EXCEEDs today's EdTech results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let us know what you find. Most private have parents who think screentime in school is preparing the kids for AI.

There are plenty of legitimate uses of tech in moderation that have nothing to do with AI.

The "screentime" debate has devolved so far that the real role of tech in the classroom gets reduced to a simple "Screen bad, book good" when kids and adults alike use technology throughout the day every day of their lives.

Teachers have to make sure kids can use that technology effectively for researching and writing on their own. The idea that reading a physical book and writing by hand is going to make your kid a super whiz to function in the modern world is an ideological stance, not a practical one. No one at their future employers staff meeting will be there without a laptop, and their boss won't want work submitted on paper. They won't be sourcing and evaluating much printed info either.

It will all be on a screen.

At the same time, you have to keep kids out of the games/YouTube/TikTok rabbit hole that just sucks their brains into the entertainment dimension.

Good privates with small classes work hard to find that balance. Bigger schools will struggle mightily. Teachers just can't track what 100s of kids do all day.

That's the reality.

The research and computer-based program elements can all be developed in high school. All students would benefit from a few more years of pen in hand fully K-8. Not one student is hurt by low / no tech. However many, many are hurt by tech in place of pencil / paper / book learning. Tech in the lower grades hurts the lower- and middle-class students the most and of course, a good percent of boys.

There are plenty of kids with disabilities who would be hurt by no tech. Students with communication disabilities who need AAC (communication) devices. Students with dyslexia or who are blind who need audiobooks. Students with dysgraphia or certain physical disabilities who can't hold a pencil/write.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let us know what you find. Most private have parents who think screentime in school is preparing the kids for AI.

There are plenty of legitimate uses of tech in moderation that have nothing to do with AI.

The "screentime" debate has devolved so far that the real role of tech in the classroom gets reduced to a simple "Screen bad, book good" when kids and adults alike use technology throughout the day every day of their lives.

Teachers have to make sure kids can use that technology effectively for researching and writing on their own. The idea that reading a physical book and writing by hand is going to make your kid a super whiz to function in the modern world is an ideological stance, not a practical one. No one at their future employers staff meeting will be there without a laptop, and their boss won't want work submitted on paper. They won't be sourcing and evaluating much printed info either.

It will all be on a screen.

At the same time, you have to keep kids out of the games/YouTube/TikTok rabbit hole that just sucks their brains into the entertainment dimension.

Good privates with small classes work hard to find that balance. Bigger schools will struggle mightily. Teachers just can't track what 100s of kids do all day.

That's the reality.

We had paper and then learned to sue tech as adults. It’s reasonable t want the same for our kids.

And sorry, but using a Chromebook is so easy a Ker can do it, so it’s not like they need years to practice.

I agree that the tech use is easy and all around us (including kids) that they will actually use it outside of school plenty. You taken your kids to McDonald's recently? You almost CAN'T order without tech interface. Additionally, I'd argue that just bc a kid can navigate a program - that doesn't translate into accumulation of any real knowledge. Kids use tech and have enough exposure that the only thing they ARE lacking in exposure to is... you guessed it! Books and actual learning and content knowledge.

I've learned through first-hand experience (especially with my boys over girls) there is a window that we get to control what they do / don't do. That window closes by 8th grade so for many kids (mostly boys I'd wager) that aren't that into school - cajoling them into reading anything like a book goes out the window. K-8 no tech maximized your opportunity to impart actual knowledge reading/ writing skills. Math also! We adults that didn't "benefit" from ed tech actually KNOW our times tables. I can't say that for my kids that have been "blessed" by the benefit of tech and app-based learning. What an utter tragedy that we have done such an injustice to our children. My youngest are now in tech free school.

Agreed, most everyday life tech is designed to be easy and straightforward. You don't need specific knowledge to use an order kiosk. I would go even further, however, and say that much tech-based education in school doesn't get into the hard and less straightforward stuff! I've seen students who struggle with anything that doesn't have a really well-designed and tested user interface. They can get around an app, no problem, but freeze up when given just a web browser or an excel sheet. My oldest uses a chromebook all the time in DCPS and can drill away on iReady – but didn't learn how to open a browser, google something, and then make sense of what she was seeing. Basically, I think the problem is two-fold: too much tech, but not actually helpful tech (in many cases).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let us know what you find. Most private have parents who think screentime in school is preparing the kids for AI.

There are plenty of legitimate uses of tech in moderation that have nothing to do with AI.

The "screentime" debate has devolved so far that the real role of tech in the classroom gets reduced to a simple "Screen bad, book good" when kids and adults alike use technology throughout the day every day of their lives.

Teachers have to make sure kids can use that technology effectively for researching and writing on their own. The idea that reading a physical book and writing by hand is going to make your kid a super whiz to function in the modern world is an ideological stance, not a practical one. No one at their future employers staff meeting will be there without a laptop, and their boss won't want work submitted on paper. They won't be sourcing and evaluating much printed info either.

It will all be on a screen.

At the same time, you have to keep kids out of the games/YouTube/TikTok rabbit hole that just sucks their brains into the entertainment dimension.

Good privates with small classes work hard to find that balance. Bigger schools will struggle mightily. Teachers just can't track what 100s of kids do all day.

That's the reality.

I've seen this posted "In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching remedial English in college." hello Columbia!

I can't disagree. It is hard to argue that progressive teaching methods and tech have advanced the education industry. Bring back books.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let us know what you find. Most private have parents who think screentime in school is preparing the kids for AI.

There are plenty of legitimate uses of tech in moderation that have nothing to do with AI.

The "screentime" debate has devolved so far that the real role of tech in the classroom gets reduced to a simple "Screen bad, book good" when kids and adults alike use technology throughout the day every day of their lives.

Teachers have to make sure kids can use that technology effectively for researching and writing on their own. The idea that reading a physical book and writing by hand is going to make your kid a super whiz to function in the modern world is an ideological stance, not a practical one. No one at their future employers staff meeting will be there without a laptop, and their boss won't want work submitted on paper. They won't be sourcing and evaluating much printed info either.

It will all be on a screen.

At the same time, you have to keep kids out of the games/YouTube/TikTok rabbit hole that just sucks their brains into the entertainment dimension.

Good privates with small classes work hard to find that balance. Bigger schools will struggle mightily. Teachers just can't track what 100s of kids do all day.

That's the reality.

We had paper and then learned to sue tech as adults. It’s reasonable t want the same for our kids.

And sorry, but using a Chromebook is so easy a Ker can do it, so it’s not like they need years to practice.

I agree that the tech use is easy and all around us (including kids) that they will actually use it outside of school plenty. You taken your kids to McDonald's recently? You almost CAN'T order without tech interface. Additionally, I'd argue that just bc a kid can navigate a program - that doesn't translate into accumulation of any real knowledge. Kids use tech and have enough exposure that the only thing they ARE lacking in exposure to is... you guessed it! Books and actual learning and content knowledge.

I've learned through first-hand experience (especially with my boys over girls) there is a window that we get to control what they do / don't do. That window closes by 8th grade so for many kids (mostly boys I'd wager) that aren't that into school - cajoling them into reading anything like a book goes out the window. K-8 no tech maximized your opportunity to impart actual knowledge reading/ writing skills. Math also! We adults that didn't "benefit" from ed tech actually KNOW our times tables. I can't say that for my kids that have been "blessed" by the benefit of tech and app-based learning. What an utter tragedy that we have done such an injustice to our children. My youngest are now in tech free school.

This is a very balanced and realistic view:

https://www.waldorftoday.com/2012/05/high-tech-vs-no-tech-d-c-area-schools-take-opposite-approaches-to-education/