Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reading books thing is ridiculous. Im doing a summer reading list for my kid and how dafu6 is that not a thing anymore? I remember getting a 2 page list and being told to read minimum 10 books.
I read most of the Nancy Drew series over 2-3 summers because I was with my grandparents and had very few friends to play with except my brother and whatever kids were visiting that week at the beach houses around us. I averaged a book a day, sometimes more. Also, my grandparents used to get the Reader's Digest hardcover books and there were lots of short stories in them.
I read 2-3 hours a day.

Right. Then you go back to school in a classroom with some kids who haven't touched a book all summer. What is a single classroom teacher to do with you, or with them?

WE SHOULDNT BE IN THE SAME CLASS!!!!!!!!!!!

Right. Agree. I wish more people did. Our school doesn't even test for gifted support until the end of second grade, so if your kid is ahead, they literally learn nothing for the first three years of elementary school unless (1) you supplement at home or (2) your kid's teacher uses technology to differentiate. Even just boring IXL or Amira is better than learning phonics when they can already read Harry Potter.

Reciprocally our school system tests in 1st and my kid did not do well on the test and was not selected for TAG, but he also completed the entire Chromebook reading program before the end of 2nd grade 1st quarter. He wont have an opportunity to retest until 4th sooo 2nd-4th will be a toss up depending on how it goes with teachers and his cohort.

Maybe annual testing is part of the solution. Can you appeal based on other test scores? If he's in the upper 95% you have a solid leg to stand on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem isn't students tuning into tech it's too many parents tuning out on their kid's education and expecting the schools to teach their kid everything, including manners. Too many parents are MIA. You deal with it all, teacher. I'm too busy doing me.

My kid's K teacher wouldn't even read actual books to the class. Instead she would show animated YouTube videos about books. The massive screen in every classroom is a problem. My kid's behavior dramatically improved after we took away her iPad at home. Teachers should experiment with doing the same in their classrooms to the extent possible. Daily screen time in kindergarten is not necessary.

It's the only way some of teachers believe they can offer differential learning. It's hard to teach reaching when you kindergartners who don't know their letters and kindergartners reading chapter books, so they have the advanced readers read to Amira on their ipads and focus on the struggling readers. I hate to say it's a good idea to create cohorts that young, but unless you default to technology for some kids, how else can you teach a class of 20+ kids who are at very different places entering kindergarten depending on parental involvement and quality of preschool?

I call BS. Schools have never tracked kids in kindergarten. By their nature kindergarteners are always going to have different reading abilities. We used to be able to have kindergarten without screens and we still can.

Why shouldn't advanced readers learn something in kindergarten? Just because we failed them in the past, doesn't mean who shouldn't do better. Why should they sit in a classroom and be bored because the teacher has to teach to the bottom? I favor testing at the beginning of the year and splitting classrooms by ability level, but everyone else around here seems to hate that idea. So if not that, then maybe teachers can use technology to at least teach them something.

The problem is you believe:
- Technology in the classroom is a net good; and
- Technology at home destroys children's brains

That is psychotic

I think technology in limited doses and on a closed system that is closely monitored is a net good. I don't mind if my kid does 45 minutes of math on the ipad a day if it's a high quality program and it's in between an outdoor recess and something like an art or music class and they don't have access to anything on their ipad other than the math program.

Tech in schools is not monitored, stop putting your head in the sand. Neither teachers nor students are monitored in how they use tech in schools. Kids are watching porn in schools on school-issued devices.

My head is not in the sand. I'm not defending tech in schools in the status quo. I believe the answer is to use tech better in schools, not eliminate it.

Well that's like saying teachers will provide math acceleration to one of three groups in a mixed class of 4th graders. It's not going to happen. It will always be abused because it is designed to be abused.

That's cynical. I'm sure we can design a closed system that only allows access to specific digital tools and blocks everything else. It just takes some work.

How long do you want kids to be exposed to pornography in schools while somebody figures this out and how long will that last before kids find workarounds?

Maybe you should join the Amish?

Obviously, no one wants their kids exposed to pornography. No one on here is defending the status quo. Everyone agrees that things need to change.

Most of us believe that there is a place for some technology in schools. There is some very high quality ed tech (I'm not talking about things horrible products like Prodigy), and it's especially good for differential learning. Programs that do frequent assessments and give tailored work based on student results are quite good if administered properly and safely.

What do you mean "most of us"? I have met zero parents in our elementary school who want anywhere near the level of technology use there is now. Most would be happier with zero tech use in early elementary school.

It is simply not okay for kids to have access to distracting and potentially dangerous content on school issued devices. It sounds like you are labeling that perspective as "Amish" (whatever tf that means). That is psychotic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reading books thing is ridiculous. Im doing a summer reading list for my kid and how dafu6 is that not a thing anymore? I remember getting a 2 page list and being told to read minimum 10 books.
I read most of the Nancy Drew series over 2-3 summers because I was with my grandparents and had very few friends to play with except my brother and whatever kids were visiting that week at the beach houses around us. I averaged a book a day, sometimes more. Also, my grandparents used to get the Reader's Digest hardcover books and there were lots of short stories in them.
I read 2-3 hours a day.

Right. Then you go back to school in a classroom with some kids who haven't touched a book all summer. What is a single classroom teacher to do with you, or with them?

WE SHOULDNT BE IN THE SAME CLASS!!!!!!!!!!!

Right. Agree. I wish more people did. Our school doesn't even test for gifted support until the end of second grade, so if your kid is ahead, they literally learn nothing for the first three years of elementary school unless (1) you supplement at home or (2) your kid's teacher uses technology to differentiate. Even just boring IXL or Amira is better than learning phonics when they can already read Harry Potter.

Reciprocally our school system tests in 1st and my kid did not do well on the test and was not selected for TAG, but he also completed the entire Chromebook reading program before the end of 2nd grade 1st quarter. He wont have an opportunity to retest until 4th sooo 2nd-4th will be a toss up depending on how it goes with teachers and his cohort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem isn't students tuning into tech it's too many parents tuning out on their kid's education and expecting the schools to teach their kid everything, including manners. Too many parents are MIA. You deal with it all, teacher. I'm too busy doing me.

My kid's K teacher wouldn't even read actual books to the class. Instead she would show animated YouTube videos about books. The massive screen in every classroom is a problem. My kid's behavior dramatically improved after we took away her iPad at home. Teachers should experiment with doing the same in their classrooms to the extent possible. Daily screen time in kindergarten is not necessary.

It's the only way some of teachers believe they can offer differential learning. It's hard to teach reaching when you kindergartners who don't know their letters and kindergartners reading chapter books, so they have the advanced readers read to Amira on their ipads and focus on the struggling readers. I hate to say it's a good idea to create cohorts that young, but unless you default to technology for some kids, how else can you teach a class of 20+ kids who are at very different places entering kindergarten depending on parental involvement and quality of preschool?

I call BS. Schools have never tracked kids in kindergarten. By their nature kindergarteners are always going to have different reading abilities. We used to be able to have kindergarten without screens and we still can.

Why shouldn't advanced readers learn something in kindergarten? Just because we failed them in the past, doesn't mean who shouldn't do better. Why should they sit in a classroom and be bored because the teacher has to teach to the bottom? I favor testing at the beginning of the year and splitting classrooms by ability level, but everyone else around here seems to hate that idea. So if not that, then maybe teachers can use technology to at least teach them something.

The problem is you believe:
- Technology in the classroom is a net good; and
- Technology at home destroys children's brains

That is psychotic

I think technology in limited doses and on a closed system that is closely monitored is a net good. I don't mind if my kid does 45 minutes of math on the ipad a day if it's a high quality program and it's in between an outdoor recess and something like an art or music class and they don't have access to anything on their ipad other than the math program.

Tech in schools is not monitored, stop putting your head in the sand. Neither teachers nor students are monitored in how they use tech in schools. Kids are watching porn in schools on school-issued devices.

My head is not in the sand. I'm not defending tech in schools in the status quo. I believe the answer is to use tech better in schools, not eliminate it.

Well that's like saying teachers will provide math acceleration to one of three groups in a mixed class of 4th graders. It's not going to happen. It will always be abused because it is designed to be abused.

That's cynical. I'm sure we can design a closed system that only allows access to specific digital tools and blocks everything else. It just takes some work.

How long do you want kids to be exposed to pornography in schools while somebody figures this out and how long will that last before kids find workarounds?

Maybe you should join the Amish?

Obviously, no one wants their kids exposed to pornography. No one on here is defending the status quo. Everyone agrees that things need to change.

Most of us believe that there is a place for some technology in schools. There is some very high quality ed tech (I'm not talking about things horrible products like Prodigy), and it's especially good for differential learning. Programs that do frequent assessments and give tailored work based on student results are quite good if administered properly and safely.

Anonymous wrote:The problem is not failure to differentiate in K and a lack of bespoke accelerated educations for children of strivers; that has never been a part of public school. For decades, reading wasn't even taught in K - it began in 1st. Even the "good" parents were not supplementing outside of doing some bedtime reading.

As for rigor in the curriculum - many of the grade level standards for math, reading, writing, etc. have been pushed downwards even though they are not appropriate (for kids as a whole), and standards have only become more rigorous over time. But that leaves many to fall behind early in elementary school, and there are never opportunities to catch up.

The proliferation of devices at home and in school has been such a disaster.

The old studies about Head Start -comparing results for poor children who got into Head Start vs those who didn't attend preschool - also make me wonder if increasingly "rigorous" preschools are countereffective down the road, since children lose out on so much other developmentally appropriate activity (social skills, motor skills, problem solving, etc.)

Are you stating the differentiation never happened in early ES? It absolutely did. One of the problems that proponents against tracking use is equity and also that there is no transparency. All schools run things a bit different, within a system, within a state, and state compared to other states.
Our current school has moved to having teachers only teach 1 subject starting in 3rd grade and the kids move between the teachers. Is that county approved? Have no idea because I was just informed about it. Do they have testing that shows it improved outcomes? Are kids also grouped by tracking scores to ensure that if a teacher is only teaching math to one group that are reasonably on the same level? Do test scores have more weight or do previous teachers get a say in where your kid goes next?
I think part of the reason we all have such different experiences is because there is a lot of teacher and administrative autonomy which is great because you want to be able to modulate your environment to the group of kids you have. But it doesnt seem like students are given the same benefits to being in classrooms modulated to where they are and I think it causes a lot of boredom (not the good kind).

Anonymous wrote:It's not just smart phones and social media. A lot of these losses are happening among elementary age kids who don't have access to either. But the reliance on Ed Tech to teach math and reading is a big problem. Blaming screens at home doesn't make sense because kids have been watching screens at home for decades, that's not something that started in 2015.

What shifted for kids is they went from mostly using books, paper, and pencil in the classroom to using 1:1 devices and ed tech software. That's true for kids who were get zero screen time at home, and it's true for kids who get hours of screen time at home every day.

Go back to physical books, handwriting, and working out math problems with pencil and paper. Studies show that children retain information better and longer when they learn it from physical media instead of digitally.

It is this! I have had a front row seat to watching and requiring paper work products.

Also, why do you not care that kids are being exposed to pornography in schools? Why are edtech profits more important than student safety? This should be a five alarm fire. Every school admin who is not actively trying to stop this needs to be fired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem isn't students tuning into tech it's too many parents tuning out on their kid's education and expecting the schools to teach their kid everything, including manners. Too many parents are MIA. You deal with it all, teacher. I'm too busy doing me.

My kid's K teacher wouldn't even read actual books to the class. Instead she would show animated YouTube videos about books. The massive screen in every classroom is a problem. My kid's behavior dramatically improved after we took away her iPad at home. Teachers should experiment with doing the same in their classrooms to the extent possible. Daily screen time in kindergarten is not necessary.

It's the only way some of teachers believe they can offer differential learning. It's hard to teach reaching when you kindergartners who don't know their letters and kindergartners reading chapter books, so they have the advanced readers read to Amira on their ipads and focus on the struggling readers. I hate to say it's a good idea to create cohorts that young, but unless you default to technology for some kids, how else can you teach a class of 20+ kids who are at very different places entering kindergarten depending on parental involvement and quality of preschool?

I call BS. Schools have never tracked kids in kindergarten. By their nature kindergarteners are always going to have different reading abilities. We used to be able to have kindergarten without screens and we still can.

Why shouldn't advanced readers learn something in kindergarten? Just because we failed them in the past, doesn't mean who shouldn't do better. Why should they sit in a classroom and be bored because the teacher has to teach to the bottom? I favor testing at the beginning of the year and splitting classrooms by ability level, but everyone else around here seems to hate that idea. So if not that, then maybe teachers can use technology to at least teach them something.

The problem is you believe:
- Technology in the classroom is a net good; and
- Technology at home destroys children's brains

That is psychotic

I think technology in limited doses and on a closed system that is closely monitored is a net good. I don't mind if my kid does 45 minutes of math on the ipad a day if it's a high quality program and it's in between an outdoor recess and something like an art or music class and they don't have access to anything on their ipad other than the math program.

Tech in schools is not monitored, stop putting your head in the sand. Neither teachers nor students are monitored in how they use tech in schools. Kids are watching porn in schools on school-issued devices.

My head is not in the sand. I'm not defending tech in schools in the status quo. I believe the answer is to use tech better in schools, not eliminate it.

Well that's like saying teachers will provide math acceleration to one of three groups in a mixed class of 4th graders. It's not going to happen. It will always be abused because it is designed to be abused.

That's cynical. I'm sure we can design a closed system that only allows access to specific digital tools and blocks everything else. It just takes some work.

How long do you want kids to be exposed to pornography in schools while somebody figures this out and how long will that last before kids find workarounds?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem isn't students tuning into tech it's too many parents tuning out on their kid's education and expecting the schools to teach their kid everything, including manners. Too many parents are MIA. You deal with it all, teacher. I'm too busy doing me.

My kid's K teacher wouldn't even read actual books to the class. Instead she would show animated YouTube videos about books. The massive screen in every classroom is a problem. My kid's behavior dramatically improved after we took away her iPad at home. Teachers should experiment with doing the same in their classrooms to the extent possible. Daily screen time in kindergarten is not necessary.

It's the only way some of teachers believe they can offer differential learning. It's hard to teach reaching when you kindergartners who don't know their letters and kindergartners reading chapter books, so they have the advanced readers read to Amira on their ipads and focus on the struggling readers. I hate to say it's a good idea to create cohorts that young, but unless you default to technology for some kids, how else can you teach a class of 20+ kids who are at very different places entering kindergarten depending on parental involvement and quality of preschool?

I call BS. Schools have never tracked kids in kindergarten. By their nature kindergarteners are always going to have different reading abilities. We used to be able to have kindergarten without screens and we still can.

Why shouldn't advanced readers learn something in kindergarten? Just because we failed them in the past, doesn't mean who shouldn't do better. Why should they sit in a classroom and be bored because the teacher has to teach to the bottom? I favor testing at the beginning of the year and splitting classrooms by ability level, but everyone else around here seems to hate that idea. So if not that, then maybe teachers can use technology to at least teach them something.

The problem is you believe:
- Technology in the classroom is a net good; and
- Technology at home destroys children's brains

That is psychotic

I think technology in limited doses and on a closed system that is closely monitored is a net good. I don't mind if my kid does 45 minutes of math on the ipad a day if it's a high quality program and it's in between an outdoor recess and something like an art or music class and they don't have access to anything on their ipad other than the math program.

Tech in schools is not monitored, stop putting your head in the sand. Neither teachers nor students are monitored in how they use tech in schools. Kids are watching porn in schools on school-issued devices.

My head is not in the sand. I'm not defending tech in schools in the status quo. I believe the answer is to use tech better in schools, not eliminate it.

Well that's like saying teachers will provide math acceleration to one of three groups in a mixed class of 4th graders. It's not going to happen. It will always be abused because it is designed to be abused.

That's cynical. I'm sure we can design a closed system that only allows access to specific digital tools and blocks everything else. It just takes some work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem isn't students tuning into tech it's too many parents tuning out on their kid's education and expecting the schools to teach their kid everything, including manners. Too many parents are MIA. You deal with it all, teacher. I'm too busy doing me.

My kid's K teacher wouldn't even read actual books to the class. Instead she would show animated YouTube videos about books. The massive screen in every classroom is a problem. My kid's behavior dramatically improved after we took away her iPad at home. Teachers should experiment with doing the same in their classrooms to the extent possible. Daily screen time in kindergarten is not necessary.

It's the only way some of teachers believe they can offer differential learning. It's hard to teach reaching when you kindergartners who don't know their letters and kindergartners reading chapter books, so they have the advanced readers read to Amira on their ipads and focus on the struggling readers. I hate to say it's a good idea to create cohorts that young, but unless you default to technology for some kids, how else can you teach a class of 20+ kids who are at very different places entering kindergarten depending on parental involvement and quality of preschool?

I call BS. Schools have never tracked kids in kindergarten. By their nature kindergarteners are always going to have different reading abilities. We used to be able to have kindergarten without screens and we still can.

Why shouldn't advanced readers learn something in kindergarten? Just because we failed them in the past, doesn't mean who shouldn't do better. Why should they sit in a classroom and be bored because the teacher has to teach to the bottom? I favor testing at the beginning of the year and splitting classrooms by ability level, but everyone else around here seems to hate that idea. So if not that, then maybe teachers can use technology to at least teach them something.

The problem is you believe:
- Technology in the classroom is a net good; and
- Technology at home destroys children's brains

That is psychotic

I think technology in limited doses and on a closed system that is closely monitored is a net good. I don't mind if my kid does 45 minutes of math on the ipad a day if it's a high quality program and it's in between an outdoor recess and something like an art or music class and they don't have access to anything on their ipad other than the math program.

Tech in schools is not monitored, stop putting your head in the sand. Neither teachers nor students are monitored in how they use tech in schools. Kids are watching porn in schools on school-issued devices.

My head is not in the sand. I'm not defending tech in schools in the status quo. I believe the answer is to use tech better in schools, not eliminate it.

Well that's like saying teachers will provide math acceleration to one of three groups in a mixed class of 4th graders. It's not going to happen. It will always be abused because it is designed to be abused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is not failure to differentiate in K and a lack of bespoke accelerated educations for children of strivers; that has never been a part of public school. For decades, reading wasn't even taught in K - it began in 1st. Even the "good" parents were not supplementing outside of doing some bedtime reading.

As for rigor in the curriculum - many of the grade level standards for math, reading, writing, etc. have been pushed downwards even though they are not appropriate (for kids as a whole), and standards have only become more rigorous over time. But that leaves many to fall behind early in elementary school, and there are never opportunities to catch up.

The proliferation of devices at home and in school has been such a disaster.

The old studies about Head Start -comparing results for poor children who got into Head Start vs those who didn't attend preschool - also make me wonder if increasingly "rigorous" preschools are countereffective down the road, since children lose out on so much other developmentally appropriate activity (social skills, motor skills, problem solving, etc.)

But preschool and kindergarten - second grade are pretty different learning windows. And kindergarteners are sitting in a classroom for hours everyday. Why shouldn't kids be placed in groups so that everyone learns something from instruction time? What is the value in making kids who can already read sit in a kindergarten class and listen to a teacher teach the alphabet or basic phonics?

My kid was ready to sit in a K class and listen to a teacher. She wasn't ready to read. The lesson she learned from K was that she couldn't read and her friends could.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is not failure to differentiate in K and a lack of bespoke accelerated educations for children of strivers; that has never been a part of public school. For decades, reading wasn't even taught in K - it began in 1st. Even the "good" parents were not supplementing outside of doing some bedtime reading.

As for rigor in the curriculum - many of the grade level standards for math, reading, writing, etc. have been pushed downwards even though they are not appropriate (for kids as a whole), and standards have only become more rigorous over time. But that leaves many to fall behind early in elementary school, and there are never opportunities to catch up.

The proliferation of devices at home and in school has been such a disaster.

The old studies about Head Start -comparing results for poor children who got into Head Start vs those who didn't attend preschool - also make me wonder if increasingly "rigorous" preschools are countereffective down the road, since children lose out on so much other developmentally appropriate activity (social skills, motor skills, problem solving, etc.)

But preschool and kindergarten - second grade are pretty different learning windows. And kindergarteners are sitting in a classroom for hours everyday. Why shouldn't kids be placed in groups so that everyone learns something from instruction time? What is the value in making kids who can already read sit in a kindergarten class and listen to a teacher teach the alphabet or basic phonics?

Yes, I mean that would be great. Many of us on this board have academically inclined kids. But that is not what has caused this nationwide (and worldwide) decline.

Anonymous wrote:The problem is not failure to differentiate in K and a lack of bespoke accelerated educations for children of strivers; that has never been a part of public school. For decades, reading wasn't even taught in K - it began in 1st. Even the "good" parents were not supplementing outside of doing some bedtime reading.

As for rigor in the curriculum - many of the grade level standards for math, reading, writing, etc. have been pushed downwards even though they are not appropriate (for kids as a whole), and standards have only become more rigorous over time. But that leaves many to fall behind early in elementary school, and there are never opportunities to catch up.

The proliferation of devices at home and in school has been such a disaster.

The old studies about Head Start -comparing results for poor children who got into Head Start vs those who didn't attend preschool - also make me wonder if increasingly "rigorous" preschools are countereffective down the road, since children lose out on so much other developmentally appropriate activity (social skills, motor skills, problem solving, etc.)

But preschool and kindergarten - second grade are pretty different learning windows. And kindergarteners are sitting in a classroom for hours everyday. Why shouldn't kids be placed in groups so that everyone learns something from instruction time? What is the value in making kids who can already read sit in a kindergarten class and listen to a teacher teach the alphabet or basic phonics?

The problem is not failure to differentiate in K and a lack of bespoke accelerated educations for children of strivers; that has never been a part of public school. For decades, reading wasn't even taught in K - it began in 1st. Even the "good" parents were not supplementing outside of doing some bedtime reading.

As for rigor in the curriculum - many of the grade level standards for math, reading, writing, etc. have been pushed downwards even though they are not appropriate (for kids as a whole), and standards have only become more rigorous over time. But that leaves many to fall behind early in elementary school, and there are never opportunities to catch up.

The proliferation of devices at home and in school has been such a disaster.

The old studies about Head Start -comparing results for poor children who got into Head Start vs those who didn't attend preschool - also make me wonder if increasingly "rigorous" preschools are countereffective down the road, since children lose out on so much other developmentally appropriate activity (social skills, motor skills, problem solving, etc.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem isn't students tuning into tech it's too many parents tuning out on their kid's education and expecting the schools to teach their kid everything, including manners. Too many parents are MIA. You deal with it all, teacher. I'm too busy doing me.

My kid's K teacher wouldn't even read actual books to the class. Instead she would show animated YouTube videos about books. The massive screen in every classroom is a problem. My kid's behavior dramatically improved after we took away her iPad at home. Teachers should experiment with doing the same in their classrooms to the extent possible. Daily screen time in kindergarten is not necessary.

It's the only way some of teachers believe they can offer differential learning. It's hard to teach reaching when you kindergartners who don't know their letters and kindergartners reading chapter books, so they have the advanced readers read to Amira on their ipads and focus on the struggling readers. I hate to say it's a good idea to create cohorts that young, but unless you default to technology for some kids, how else can you teach a class of 20+ kids who are at very different places entering kindergarten depending on parental involvement and quality of preschool?

I call BS. Schools have never tracked kids in kindergarten. By their nature kindergarteners are always going to have different reading abilities. We used to be able to have kindergarten without screens and we still can.

Why shouldn't advanced readers learn something in kindergarten? Just because we failed them in the past, doesn't mean who shouldn't do better. Why should they sit in a classroom and be bored because the teacher has to teach to the bottom? I favor testing at the beginning of the year and splitting classrooms by ability level, but everyone else around here seems to hate that idea. So if not that, then maybe teachers can use technology to at least teach them something.

The problem is you believe:
- Technology in the classroom is a net good; and
- Technology at home destroys children's brains

That is psychotic

I think technology in limited doses and on a closed system that is closely monitored is a net good. I don't mind if my kid does 45 minutes of math on the ipad a day if it's a high quality program and it's in between an outdoor recess and something like an art or music class and they don't have access to anything on their ipad other than the math program.

+1

Technology can be beneficial in classrooms if not abused.

Sure but thats not whats happening.