Here's a question. Do second graders or 6th graders at GDS or Sidwell or St. Anselm's use ipads in class?

Anonymous wrote:

I'm happy to think how many of my fellow teachers won't have to spend their time copying and reviewing worksheets, and can give kids math drills that provide either repetition or increased challenges, as appropriate.

But do you need to have a 1:1 program to do this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One has to wonder how so many great minds in the decades and centuries before us learned anything without Almighty Technology.

Total waste of money. So many adults who work in technology today didn't start learning it until high school or college.

Keep it out of the elementary grades. If you're so interested in what whiz-bang things can be had due to an IEP, do it at home.

Kids are not using iPads to learn how to use technology. They are using iPads to practice reading, math, science, geography, art, music….

Ok, clearly those things were never learned prior to iPads. *eyeroll*

As an elementary teacher (on maternity leave right now) I cringe to think how many of my fellow teachers shun hands-on motor-skill-building activities for more and more screentime, and manipulation of objects virtually vs in space.

I'm happy to think how many of my fellow teachers won't have to spend their time copying and reviewing worksheets, and can give kids math drills that provide either repetition or increased challenges, as appropriate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One has to wonder how so many great minds in the decades and centuries before us learned anything without Almighty Technology.

Total waste of money. So many adults who work in technology today didn't start learning it until high school or college.

Keep it out of the elementary grades. If you're so interested in what whiz-bang things can be had due to an IEP, do it at home.

Kids are not using iPads to learn how to use technology. They are using iPads to practice reading, math, science, geography, art, music….

Ok, clearly those things were never learned prior to iPads. *eyeroll*

As an elementary teacher (on maternity leave right now) I cringe to think how many of my fellow teachers shun hands-on motor-skill-building activities for more and more screentime, and manipulation of objects virtually vs in space.

Anonymous wrote:One has to wonder how so many great minds in the decades and centuries before us learned anything without Almighty Technology.

Total waste of money. So many adults who work in technology today didn't start learning it until high school or college.

Keep it out of the elementary grades. If you're so interested in what whiz-bang things can be had due to an IEP, do it at home.

Kids are not using iPads to learn how to use technology. They are using iPads to practice reading, math, science, geography, art, music….

Anonymous wrote:

Keep it out of the elementary grades.

If you're so interested in what whiz-bang things can be had due to an IEP, do it at home

.

11:22 here, and I don't agree with the above at all. Our kids happen not to need accommodations, but lots of their friends do, and I would be happy to see them get tools that will help them succeed. But when Murphy is spending $1 million+ on Macs for students (not teachers, who had their technology funds taken away so Coach Murphy could buy his shiny toys), there isn't going to be money for the things schools really need.

One has to wonder how so many great minds in the decades and centuries before us learned anything without Almighty Technology.

Total waste of money. So many adults who work in technology today didn't start learning it until high school or college.

Keep it out of the elementary grades. If you're so interested in what whiz-bang things can be had due to an IEP, do it at home.

Anonymous wrote:There are lots of reasons to want to limit your children's use of electronics, from dagnabbit-ness to familiarity with scientific literature on child development to granolatude. That's one debate.

But even if you want your kid to have a device and have it as early as possible, Murphy was told to put the brakes on 1:1 last spring. Then he got an early contract extension from the school board in early July, and he took his job security and bought the MacBooks and iPads.

Not only is that sleazy, but it was a terrible way to implement the program. You cannot just dump a load of devices on the teachers and pretend that you've got any sort of coherent technology program. The teachers should have been consulted about what would be helpful to them. The parents should have been included in discussions about what was coming (the FAQ still isn't available to us). And taxpayers should have some say in how high-end the devices purchased with their tax dollars are. All the apps the high school students will be using are in the cloud, and they're Google and Microsoft. No way do students need Macs for that.

All of this. The rushed and secret way this was implemented, against the earlier vote of the school board, does not instill trust.

Plus the fact that I believe the teachers had APS-provided Microsoft laptops up until now, so they're all going to have to learn to use Macs before they can be helpful to the kids using them. (With the iPads it may not be as much of an issue as many people are familiar with them, but with the Apple laptops it definitely will be an issue.)

And many families have laptops for their 9th graders already, and/or had planned to get them one for HS. And since many families can afford laptops for their kids, why should the county spend money buying them for those kids? If the issue is that all kids in HS should have a laptop, the county could have provided them to families that couldn't afford them, for a fraction of the cost of getting them for all kids. (And since this was done secretly, many parents may now have wasted money on a laptop for their 9th grader - we almost bought ours one in August, but the model we wanted happened to be out of stock or we would be in that boat.)

And parents of 2nd graders may have very valid reasons for not wanting the kids to have their own iPads - that's not "antiquated", it doesn't mean the kids don't know how to use technology, as parents may just have wanted to limit the amount of screen time for their young children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
WTH. As a taxpayer in Arlington with two kids, I find this plan really wasteful and short sighted. I do not think that my young kids need something that I or my husband have managed to live w/o. They could have easily purchased a much more cost effective device/computer but for some insane reason went w/ Apple.

We purposely have chosen not to expose our kids to these type of gadgets and now one person decides every kid in Arlington "needs" one.

The rest of us keeping up with the times should not have to suffer for your peculiar outlook on this. What kind of parent "purposefully chooses not to 'expose'" children to technology? You almost sound as if you think this is virtuous or something.

Exactly why is it peculiar? Because it's different from yours?
Kids today get plenty of exposure to technology; schools don't need to be teaching it to them in the early grades. If anything, schools should be focused more on traditional skills like reading and writing, which kids aren't doing as much of because they're so busy playing on various types of screens.

To me, this whole iPad thing sounds like someone's vanity project.

It's peculiar because it is antiquated, conservative, and change-averse. These will be very effective tools for learning and sharing of information.

You must vote Republican?

I am the one who posted the first message above. someone else wrote, "Exactly why is it peculiar..." I am not opposed to technology as I mentioned in another post, it's my husband's job. Just why does it have to be an Airbook? What's wrong with more affordable lab tops? It doesn't provide any educational advantage.

And, accusing someone of voting Republican? Is that supposed to be an insult? FWIW, I have never voted for a single Republican candidate, but if Arlington county starts wasting money on stupid things (like the trolley and expensive labtops), I may reconsider.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
WTH. As a taxpayer in Arlington with two kids, I find this plan really wasteful and short sighted. I do not think that my young kids need something that I or my husband have managed to live w/o. They could have easily purchased a much more cost effective device/computer but for some insane reason went w/ Apple.

We purposely have chosen not to expose our kids to these type of gadgets and now one person decides every kid in Arlington "needs" one.

The rest of us keeping up with the times should not have to suffer for your peculiar outlook on this. What kind of parent "purposefully chooses not to 'expose'" children to technology? You almost sound as if you think this is virtuous or something.

Exactly why is it peculiar? Because it's different from yours?
Kids today get plenty of exposure to technology; schools don't need to be teaching it to them in the early grades. If anything, schools should be focused more on traditional skills like reading and writing, which kids aren't doing as much of because they're so busy playing on various types of screens.

To me, this whole iPad thing sounds like someone's vanity project.

It's peculiar because it is antiquated, conservative, and change-averse. These will be very effective tools for learning and sharing of information.

You must vote Republican?

Not PP, but I agree with him/her completely. And I'm as far from "conservative" and "Republican" as it gets. Those technologies have a time and place, not in the early grades. I don't see kids learning to write well enough that I think they're ready to move on from that to Ipads. Learn to write, learn to read. There is PLENTY of educational research showing that too much exposure to screens is not good for developing brains. And that writing information helps one retain it in a way that typing does not. Surely, you're not so "antiquated" that you don't keep up on the research?

Anonymous wrote:Vote Murphy out if you don't like it.

LOL!

There are lots of reasons to want to limit your children's use of electronics, from dagnabbit-ness to familiarity with scientific literature on child development to granolatude. That's one debate.

But even if you want your kid to have a device and have it as early as possible, Murphy was told to put the brakes on 1:1 last spring. Then he got an early contract extension from the school board in early July, and he took his job security and bought the MacBooks and iPads.

Not only is that sleazy, but it was a terrible way to implement the program. You cannot just dump a load of devices on the teachers and pretend that you've got any sort of coherent technology program. The teachers should have been consulted about what would be helpful to them. The parents should have been included in discussions about what was coming (the FAQ still isn't available to us). And taxpayers should have some say in how high-end the devices purchased with their tax dollars are. All the apps the high school students will be using are in the cloud, and they're Google and Microsoft. No way do students need Macs for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
WTH. As a taxpayer in Arlington with two kids, I find this plan really wasteful and short sighted. I do not think that my young kids need something that I or my husband have managed to live w/o. They could have easily purchased a much more cost effective device/computer but for some insane reason went w/ Apple.

We purposely have chosen not to expose our kids to these type of gadgets and now one person decides every kid in Arlington "needs" one.

The rest of us keeping up with the times should not have to suffer for your peculiar outlook on this. What kind of parent "purposefully chooses not to 'expose'" children to technology? You almost sound as if you think this is virtuous or something.

Exactly why is it peculiar? Because it's different from yours?
Kids today get plenty of exposure to technology; schools don't need to be teaching it to them in the early grades. If anything, schools should be focused more on traditional skills like reading and writing, which kids aren't doing as much of because they're so busy playing on various types of screens.

To me, this whole iPad thing sounds like someone's vanity project.

It's peculiar because it is antiquated, conservative, and change-averse. These will be very effective tools for learning and sharing of information.

You must vote Republican?

Anonymous wrote:Vote Murphy out if you don't like it.

Um, you realize that Murphy is not an elected official? He is hired by the school board. Which just voted in an unannounced vote to extend his contract. No public comment because no one knew it was on the agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
WTH. As a taxpayer in Arlington with two kids, I find this plan really wasteful and short sighted. I do not think that my young kids need something that I or my husband have managed to live w/o. They could have easily purchased a much more cost effective device/computer but for some insane reason went w/ Apple.

We purposely have chosen not to expose our kids to these type of gadgets and now one person decides every kid in Arlington "needs" one.

The rest of us keeping up with the times should not have to suffer for your peculiar outlook on this. What kind of parent "purposefully chooses not to 'expose'" children to technology? You almost sound as if you think this is virtuous or something.

Exactly why is it peculiar? Because it's different from yours?
Kids today get plenty of exposure to technology; schools don't need to be teaching it to them in the early grades. If anything, schools should be focused more on traditional skills like reading and writing, which kids aren't doing as much of because they're so busy playing on various types of screens.

To me, this whole iPad thing sounds like someone's vanity project.

+1. Reading, writing, hands-on math and science, that's what 6th graders need. They do NOT need more time in front of a screen.