Anonymous wrote:In addition to the Education Technology Review Committee, the Governance Committee is drafting language around a new technology policy. They are discussing it at tomorrow’s work session: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=DU3P8R636C59

FCPS Parents for Intentional Technology is pushing removal of devices in the younger grades and that seems to be in this draft.

It would certainly go a long way, but replacing things like "YouTube video of person reading storybook" with the teacher reading an actual physical book would be nice too. I understand there are many reasons why they do the video read aloud, or just look to BrainPop to teach certain concepts, but most kids deeply prefer actual in-person interaction to watching some stranger read or talk on a screen.

Anonymous wrote:Just wait until they fully get the kids using AI to complete their assignments, which is what Sandy Anderson is pushing. Because she says kids need to know how to use AI to succeed in the future.

There are people out there who believe that white collar workers should be trained in AI, and view it as similar to transitioning from using a typewriter to a word processor. So instead of writing out memos word for word, we should be writing outlines and feeding AI sources to be incorporated into paragraphs, and then editing through those paragraphs. It would be similar to a biglaw partner tasking an associate with writing the first draft of a memo, and then editing the associate's work. I tried it it once on the recommendation of a colleague, and really hated it. But maybe there is something to be said for it.

Even if the future of white collar work involves using AI to draft memos, students need to know how to do the entire drafting process. Lawyers don't start out as biglaw partners. They start out as associates doing first drafts, and to learn to edit drafts you need to learn how they're built.

Just wait until they fully get the kids using AI to complete their assignments, which is what Sandy Anderson is pushing. Because she says kids need to know how to use AI to succeed in the future.

That would be great if they removed iPads grades. I still don’t understand why third graders need their laptops in PE end music.

In addition to the Education Technology Review Committee, the Governance Committee is drafting language around a new technology policy. They are discussing it at tomorrow’s work session: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=DU3P8R636C59

FCPS Parents for Intentional Technology is pushing removal of devices in the younger grades and that seems to be in this draft.

Melanie Meren is looking for a representative in her district for this committee. maybe someone on this thread would be interested if they live in her district.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t be fooled, FCPS won’t get rid or or reduce tech. It makes the teachers job easier. Less hand grading, it’s easier to play a video than to write out the lesson on a board, and all the stats you can pull on everyone if it’s online. FCPS loves to run numbers about how “great” they are doing in whatever hot topic is trending. If they can’t find enough good teachers to actually teach now with tech doing a lot of the work for them, how do you think they will find more teachers when they reduce tech? Anyways, if they make a decision and reduce the tech, it will take as long as middle school start times. Oh yeah, all the data and consultants say school times need to change but they are still working on it.

+1

Anonymous wrote:In all fairness, look at the results from Alpha School (entirely based on edtech during the "normal" school day, which is about 2 hours long) and then they move into "project based life skills" for the remainder of the school day, where kids are learning about entrepreneurship, financial literacy, storytelling and public speaking, leadership, etc.. Their kids are scoring in the top 1% on all forms of standardized testing, between state exams like SOL/Regents to SATs/ACTs/APs. So, I don't think edtech itself that is the problem--it's the lack of truly good edtech curriculum and the wherewithal to know how to build an edtech-based school day where you the most bang for your buck.

I agree the results seem admirable! And I think it is a system that COULD work for SOME students. The current students are self-selecting with very invested parents. I know even for my own kids, only one of the four would have enough passion and drive to make the 2nd half of the day productive. But I agree there is something there that should also considered.... the 2 hrs of learning is probably real for kids in smaller settings. That is what the homeschool community with the younger sets typically claim is needed for classroom time.

Whatever is going on now is not working. Rushing through assignments so you can get back online and play video games with your friends or watch YouTube videos during the school day is not working. it’s insane that the only middle schoolers have to study for their science test is an online quiz; no textbooks at all. How the heck are they supposed to be preparing for a future career or college. My kids don’t even know what a textbook is.

In all fairness, look at the results from Alpha School (entirely based on edtech during the "normal" school day, which is about 2 hours long) and then they move into "project based life skills" for the remainder of the school day, where kids are learning about entrepreneurship, financial literacy, storytelling and public speaking, leadership, etc.. Their kids are scoring in the top 1% on all forms of standardized testing, between state exams like SOL/Regents to SATs/ACTs/APs. So, I don't think edtech itself that is the problem--it's the lack of truly good edtech curriculum and the wherewithal to know how to build an edtech-based school day where you the most bang for your buck.

Don’t be fooled, FCPS won’t get rid or or reduce tech. It makes the teachers job easier. Less hand grading, it’s easier to play a video than to write out the lesson on a board, and all the stats you can pull on everyone if it’s online. FCPS loves to run numbers about how “great” they are doing in whatever hot topic is trending. If they can’t find enough good teachers to actually teach now with tech doing a lot of the work for them, how do you think they will find more teachers when they reduce tech? Anyways, if they make a decision and reduce the tech, it will take as long as middle school start times. Oh yeah, all the data and consultants say school times need to change but they are still working on it.

Screen time has taken away focus, social time, communication, patience for writing. The school needs to find a balancing act.

The only people who can influence the school board members are the Democratic Party for Fairfax County. Fairfax County votes blue every time. (Republican endorsed candidates don't have a chance of being elected to school board, even if they endorse mainstream candidates.)

If the party tells FCPS school Board candidates that they will lose the endorsement unless they cut Ed Tech, then EdTech will be gone before the next election cycle.

DCUM leans blue overall, so likely a few people who matter are on DCUM.

If they don’t change then they will get the same lousy results as the past ten years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes! The Board recently voted to form an Educational Technology Review Committee to study device use, edtech programs, and AI policy.

Check out this parents group that pushed for it: FCPS Parents for Intentional Technology. https://www.fcps-intentionaltech.org/home

FCPS is playing you. Do not be fooled by their “committee.” FCPS has pulled this scam on parents before: they will stack the committee with people chosen for the result they want, or delay and delay. If the committee recommends reducing screens, FCPS will find a way to bury the recommendations or just form a new committee.

They do not have any intention of reducing their reliance on screens.

I cannot find any actual people names. It might just be the tech companies on this “committee.”