A Silicon Valley School That Doesn't Use Computers

Hugh Pickens writes "Matt Richtel writes that many employees of Silicon Valley giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard send their children to the Waldorf School in Los Altos where the school's chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found. No screens at all. Computers are not allowed in the classroom, and the school even frowns on their use at home. 'I fundamentally reject the notion you need technology aids in grammar school,' says Alan Eagle whose daughter, Andie, attends a Waldorf school, an independent school movement that boasts an 86 year history in North America. 'The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic, that's ridiculous.' Advocates for equipping schools with technology say computers can hold students' attention and, in fact, that young people who have been weaned on electronic devices will not tune in without them."

Comments

Not all schools are equal

[penguinbroker]

A computer/tablet can't teach as well as a good or great teacher (as the students at Waldorf likely have access to), but in a large percentage of cases around the country, where the teachers are in fact poor, computers and tablets can make a tremendous difference.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

A computer/tablet can't teach as well as a good or great teacher (as the students at Waldorf likely have access to), but in a large percentage of cases around the country, where the teachers are in fact poor, computers and tablets can make a tremendous difference.

[citation needed]

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Citing personal experience, perhaps.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[kervin]

I was just about to make this exact point.

Access to money or resources in general changes the problem. Poorer schools often have terrible teacher to student ratios, constant budget cuts ( everyone hates taxes right? ), and lots of social and environmental ( not talking about the weather here ) problems to deal with. Teachers become a lot more things than just 'educators'. In fact, having a computer assist in the education while the teacher plays counselor/discipline enforcer/confidant/role mole/etc, etc. is a lucky break for these poor overworked saps.

What we need is smarter Education software. Software that knows the material needed for ever level. Software that adapts to the students special needs. Software that alerts the teacher when the student seems to have a problem ( eg. dyslexia, attention span issues ). Software that may help keep inexperienced Educators themselves at a particular teaching pace or to a particular teaching standard.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[JoeRandomHacker]

[...], but in a large percentage of cases around the country, where the teachers are in fact poor, [...]

[citation needed]

Citing personal experience, perhaps.

Few people have personal experience with "a large percentage of cases around the country", and those who do should generally have something they can cite to back up their claims.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

"...in a large percentage of cases around the country, where the teachers are in fact poor.." - *citation needed*

Certainly there exist poor teachers, but a "large percentage?" I doubt it. I have had one or two teachers in my day that I didn't care for, but I wouldn't rate even them as "poor." I have used computer tutorials also, in have more often than not found them bad to awful in quality.

Assuming for the sake of argument that there are a large number of poor teachers in "poor schools," these are also the schools least likely to be able to afford computers, or to afford to keep them running.

What we really need to do is follow the example of countries where schools and teaching are much better: Pay the teachers more, and require better trained teachers. Most especially, we need to counter the right-wing canard that teachers are "overpaid" when in fact they are more typically overworked and underpaid.

Fair disclosure: I was married to a teacher, and she was one of the hardest working, most dedicated people I know. The same was true of most of the other teachers she worked with.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[tomhudson]

We don't need "smarter education software." We need to remove computers from the classrooms. It's been going onto 30 years now and there hasn't been a SINGLE study showing computers help, and plenty showing they don't.

And to fire teachers who cannot teach.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Ethanol-fueled]

And to fire teachers who cannot teach.

As a gifted troublemaker born into a family of educators, I find that the problem is not bad teachers. The problem is parents who never said no to their little Johnny when he screamed and cried for his fifth Twinkie of the day. The problem is parents too caught up in their own careers or reliving their youth to actually do any damn parenting. You parents insist that your rotten spawn be allowed to use cell phones in class for "safety" reasons, you insist on suing the schools whenever a teacher tries to discipline your shithead kid and then bitch and moan all day that teachers aren't doing their jobs ( "my little Johnny is an angel, he would never do a thing like that!"). Of course the rich Right is all over it, saying that the teachers are bad and that the only solution is more budget cuts for public schools. What?!

Hey, bub, news flash - Teachers can't do their jobs because of assholes like you!

Your shithead kids are unmotivated and undisciplined because you have failed in your responsibility as parents, spoiling rotten your fat little narcissistic shitheads who grow up with gadgetry and unrealistic expectations and ADD medication as their only parents. You, are out at the bar looking for a new wife, or out driving your ridiculously expensive sports car, or working unnecessary 16-hour days collecting pig disgusting amounts of money and power to stroke your own ego.

It is you, the parents, who have failed in your responsibility, not the teachers. Back the fuck off. Goddamn yuppies.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget software that helps parents teach. Software that could help create a custom curriculum with lesson plans would be a godsend for parents. Many know they should be working with their children, but need a method, plan, or constant stream of ideas to keep a dynamic home environment.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[jc42]

Few people have personal experience with "a large percentage of cases around the country", and those who do should generally have something they can cite to back up their claims.

Yeah, and it doesn't require large numbers to show that some teachers are competent and others are incompetent. Two example will suffice for an "existence proof".

A personal example: Back in grade school, I remember when "long division" was introduced. Note that I didn't say "taught", because by the end of the Spring term, none of the students in my (5th-grade?) class got it at all. I'd been fairly good at math before that, but this was taught as a pure rote memorization exercise, with no clues as to how it worked or why anyone would ever want to do something so bizarre and incomprehensible and (apparently) useless.

But next Fall, the teacher I had quickly made a comment that went over the heads of most of the kids, but I and several others instantly picked up on it. She said that to really do it right, you should write in all the zeroes at the ends of the column of numbers, since what you were really doing was multiplying the "tens" digits at the top by the remainder of subtraction at the bottom, and all those numbers really do have zeroes to the right. But people usually leave out the zeroes, because you know they're there, and it saves a bit of time. When she explained this, what was going on instantly made sense to me (and to a few others), and I was able to do it correctly from then on. In particular, I understood why you need to be careful to keep things aligned vertically, which was the main thing that tripped up most of the kids (and is also a problem with software whose results are displayed in the variable-width fonts that the artsy "designer" crowd prefer. ;-)

So right there, we have an example each of an incompetent teacher and a competent teacher for the same subject matter. A computerized lesson would (presumably) be done in the competent manner, and would make the explanation available to students who bother to read it, and would thus be better than the incompetent teacher.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, the teachers of technical subject in the lower schools are almost always incompetent. The explanation is well-known: If you're competent in math, why would you voluntarily spend your time in a low-paid job like grade-school teacher, when you could be making much better money elsewhere?

I'd suggest that computerized education might not be as good as good teachers. But until we're willing to pay what it takes to find those good teachers and attract them to teaching, we're probably stuck with the computerized stuff. And it does have the advantage that it sits there patiently waiting for the students to come along, while living teachers have lives and can't be put to sleep until a student needs them.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[sourcerror]

"where the teachers are in fact poor, computers and tablets can make a tremendous difference."

I think computers can make a difference in study, when they're used at home. However using it in the classroom makes creating lesson plans much more complicated, and usually children find a way to get through the walled garden (when there's one) and just browse the web or play games, so maintaining discipline gets harder as well.
I've never seen a teacher that taught more effectively with a computer.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[bunratty]

Yes, a teacher is best. There are ways computer can help, by giving individualized instruction that a teacher may not have time to give, or may not have the training to give. I once worked for a literacy company that sold software that gave students personalized help to assist them in learning to read and write. From the results I saw, using the computer program for fifteen minutes a day really helped. In the writing samples I saw, the students often went from making unintelligible scribbles to writing coherent paragraphs within a year. Of course, the teachers still had to have some training, and the work at the computer was reinforced by giving the children cheap "books" printed on thin paper to take home, but using the program was an essential part of the instruction.

I've heard that JUMP Math may be a similar system for teaching math.

You can't just plop a student in front of a computer and expect that the student will learn better, or even learn anything at all. The curriculum needs to be in place, and the computer needs to do what a computer is best at -- interacting with a student repetitively without making a mistake or judging the student. And computers can even help in the U.S., especially in classrooms crowded with poor children who need far more attention that one teacher can give.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so sick of hearing this broken record. While not all schools get treated equally the fact of the matter is that we, until recently, spent more per student than any other time in history by any nation on the planet. We've seen nothing but a decline in the ROI from the system for decades. Do you really mean to tell me it's a money or technology problem? Bullshit. It's a social problem. We've got to get out of this "money solves all problems" way of thinking. It sure as hell doesn't in this case. The proof is out there for anyone to investigate and they'd come to the same conclusions pretty damn fast.
 
We live in a lazy society. We have wealth but we use this wealth to buy time away from the concerns of mundane life instead of investing in our futures. Since nearly everyone is taking less time to be better people we feel that we can throw a few dollars at problems and someone else will do the heavy lifting. Instead we have people seeing the cash flow and taking advantage of it in the worst of ways. The education system is no different. Those of you who think that money is a solution haven't been watching the game let alone keeping your eye on the ball. Parents need to be more involved for starters. We have parents going to their school boards to bitch that their brats actually have to do homework? WTF? Are you believing this bullshit?
 
Money doesn't buy much of anything if you're not willing to invest in yourself at the same time.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[jaweekes]

My wife is an English teacher for High School, and I'm an IT Manager, so we have debated this a lot.

I think you are almost right. My wife and I do not see where computers would help in, say, an English Lit classroom. This might be different with Math and Sciences but we can't speak for that. We both think that it removes hands-on learning and frees the teacher from actually teaching anything (not a good thing). If this improves teaching, then yes, just as in business these teachers should be replaced by robots.

But I think that all the money that is being spent on computers and tests would be better spent on helping teachers to improve. A group of experienced teachers going around and sitting in on classes for a week or so and providing positive feedback would work wonders on some of the "bad" teachers, who might just be new and overwhelmed, or lacking in support or something else.

I've also noticed that computers in classrooms are implemented in a crap way. My wife's last school just gave every single teacher and student IPad's without increasing the amount of IT support in the school, or even increasing the amount of power outlets in the classroom. I think this set up will cause more problems, more wasted time in classes, and a downturn in education. There is also a severe lack of training and a lack of time to create lessons that will use the technology well, so it really makes it useless to give them these tools.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[TheRaven64]

I don't have a study, but I found my essay marks went from a C to B average to A to A* average when I was allowed to type essays instead of writing them by hand. I was able to think about the content and the structure of the language, rather than about the mechanics of moving a pen across paper. I'm now about to have my fourth book published. I learned to program when I was seven by having a teacher show us how to write some simple programs on a computer in the classroom. I now do a fair amount of contract programming.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[TheLink]

In the traditional classroom a teacher gives a long lecture on stuff with minimal interaction. But nowadays it's actually a waste of time for teachers to do what can be already done with videos: http://www.khanacademy.org/

So teachers should focus on doing what the videos can't. Seems In some schools, the students watch the lectures/videos at home, then come to school, do stuff and get help from the teacher.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[nedlohs]

The claim wasn't that some teachers are competent and some icompetent it was:

"but in a large percentage of cases around the country, where the teachers are in fact poor"

Which is a direct claim that a large percentage of teachers are poor. Not just that poor teachers exist.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

In the traditional classroom a teacher gives a long lecture on stuff with minimal interaction.

In the traditional family your mother is at home. She drills you on spelling, multiplication tables, etc. I think things like that comprised at least half my education grades pre-K through 3 inclusive. My mother worked outside the home after grade 4. Many say the educational foundation is layed by then. She didn't know that--she wanted extra money for a variety of reasons, one of which was to send me to private school because I didn't get along in the public one. Not only did I continue learning in private school, I learned about the advantages and disadvanteges of the two systems through a child's eyes.

The private school had better classroom discipline. It was great if you wanted to be a man of "letters". It was a poor choice for sciences, drama, music. It also taught some unusual religious ideas. After 3 years of that I had to go public again. I went from saying prayers and the pledge of allegiance every morning, to sitting next to guys who were dealing pills under the cafeteria table. It was quite an education indeed!

Oh, We had no computers anywhere. I didn't get a computer until I was a freshman in highschool. The kids that came up before me, if they had any dealing with a computer at all it was teletype. Very few had even that. They sent men to the moon with sliderules and they built the early computers.

Anyway, it's a complex issue.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but in the US at least, a great teacher is still dictated what to teach and to a large extent how to teach it. We need to get the federal government out of education.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[bcrowell]

Poorer schools often have terrible teacher to student ratios[...]

The school they're describing is in California. My kids go to public schools in California, and I don't think what you're saying is accurate. In the late 90's/early 2000's, California went through a period where the economy was good, and we got class size reduction. It was state-mandated, e.g., they decided that in K-2 or whatever they would have a maximum student-to-teacher ratio of x. Then the economy turned sour, and they started laying off teachers and increasing class sizes again. Our school district is affluent, and it has some very highly ranked schools. However, my kids are experiencing the same extremely large class sizes as everyone else in California.

IIRC, research also shows that class size does not have any empirically measurable effect on learning until you get it down to about 10 -- which isn't going to happen in any public school.

It's true that in the US, when schools draw from a population with low socioeconomic status, those schools are almost always horrible by all the available objective measures. However, I'm really not convinced that that has all that much to do with funding and class size. I think it's overwhelmingly a "network effect," similar to the network effect that makes Windows so popular. The parents have low levels of education, don't have books in the house, don't subscribe to a newspaper, and don't have high educational expectations for their kids. Many of them may be immigrants, and their kids may come into school with low English skills. The teachers are there because they couldn't get a job in a better school district. Incompetent teachers probably won't be fired (because of teachers' unions), and even if they were, there is no particular reason to believe that the school would be able to attract a replacement candidate who was any better. Families that have enough money to have a choice will choose to live in a better school district. Kids model their behavior on their peers'. They see that 60% of their peers don't do their homework. There isn't enough critical mass of kids to do geekly things like a chess club or a model rocket club. None of this changes if you just put more money, computers, etc., into the school.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree, if it is economically viable, having access to tablets with educational software may infact help students become better..

BUT.

The students who leave highschool with good knowledge and capability arent those who have been TAUGHT well.. it's the ones who LEARNED well..
You can still learn alot even without a teacher, and the teacher is merely there as a guide to the material you need to consume.
Some people seem to think that the teacher is there to somehow spoonfeed information into the students brains.

What i'm trying to say, if the schools that has "bad teachers" as you say gets tablets and academic software, still, the teacher needs to guide the students into using them, and if they are bad, well.. you see where im going i guess. Angry Birds 24/7

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Sigma 7]

And to fire teachers who cannot teach.

Just this is sufficient.

If you think computers are bad for teaching, that's perfectly fine. However, students have a wide variety of learning styles that don't work in a one-size-fits-all method; you can see those that need instruction, while others are best handled by reading from a textbook. Some of the students get their best results if they use a computer, while others prefer pen and paper.

In my case, I prefer computer-based learning, since it gets rid of the bad teachers. As long as the computer system isn't too bad, I'll learn something.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[StarChamber]

Access to money or resources in general changes the problem.

Apparently you are not familiar with the definitive research in this area. The Coleman Report (Equality of Educational Opportunity, 1966) contradicts your assertions and found:

"Using data from over 600,000 students and teachers across the country, the researchers found that academic achievement was less related to the quality of a student's school, and more related to the social composition of the school, the student's sense of control of his environment and future, the verbal skills of teachers, and the student's family background."

If you want to fix the slide in educational outcomes in the US, you need to stop spending on all the frills (no more monuments to technology and sports) and signifacntly raise the bar on educational expectations. Then we need to engage the parents and begin to educate them on their role in their child's education. Finally, we need to get rid of half of the administration staff in school districts. The upside to this approach is that we will free up a siginificant amount of money that can be used to hire more teachers and shrink classroom size.

Our problem is not the quality of our teachers, it is the low level of expectations that we have placed upon our students, their peer groups, and their parents.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right about the teachers. You're only half-right about technology. There are plenty of studies showing that, when you introduce computers into classrooms, they don't make a difference one way or another as reflected in students academic achievement. However, there are other studies that show when you alter the approach to education entirely and play to the strengths of technology (as opposed to just augmenting existing scenarios), the results can be dramatic.

The other point is that when you say "don't help" - most of the studies demonstrating this use standard achievement scores as a bar of measure. In principle, learning your multiplication tables can be achieved on a piece of paper or a screen, and so it's hard to deduce much of anything about the "benefit" to doing it on screen. However the ability to cognitively parse "webs" of information as opposed to "tables-of-contents" can only be achieved on a screen.

Everything you can achieve on paper you can achieve on a screen. The inverse however is not true, and that's why technology demands a place in our classrooms.

I think this article was interesting and compelling. It's hard to draw any objective conclusions. My opinion in general, however, is that extreme principles such as a flat ban against technology in any way or form in a classroom is ill advised. Look at the strengths of teaching with objects. Teach with objects where appropriate. Look at the strengths that technology brings. Teach with those strengths as appropriate. It's really simple.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[nomadic]

"In my (admittedly limited) experience, the teachers of technical subject in the lower schools are almost always incompetent. The explanation is well-known: If you're competent in math, why would you voluntarily spend your time in a low-paid job like grade-school teacher, when you could be making much better money elsewhere?" High skill in math is not needed to teach math to lower school students; what's more important is ability to teach.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[oldunixgeek]

I somehow doubt you have any experimental evidence for this. From what I have seen, computers do a reasonable job of "training" which is not "education". Spending even more time with screens rather than people can only be harmful to the development of critically important social skills. If you just read many of the posts in this thread, I think you may get an idea of just how much our school system has been failing as of late at developing social skills.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[nomadic]

Curriculum is designed at the state level.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[kenh]

while the teacher plays counselor/discipline enforcer/confidant/role mole/etc, etc

My education was, to be honest, privileged - I attended mostly private schools from K-12 - and nearly every teacher I ever had assumed each of those roles you implied were outside the scope of the teacher's job (my impression of what you wrote)... I would argue that those seemingly optional roles are at the heart of education.

Computers, tablets, smart boards, movies, videos are all, in my opinion novacaine we give our children to help them tolerate teachers that are challenged to perform their most basic task - teach children.

Can the tools/technology help a good teacher? Certainly, but the time required to prepare the animated smart board presentation teaching children fractions could be better spent using cakes, a pizza, etc. in the classroom to teach the same material, and instead of 25 students watching a canned PowerPoint presentation on fractions, the children could interact, see real-world examples in front of them, etc.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[sizzzzlerz]

And to fire teachers who cannot teach.

And provide a decent, living wage to those who can teach and provide the resources and books to support them in their effort.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[kenh]

From the results I saw, using the computer program for fifteen minutes a day really helped. In the writing samples I saw, the students often went from making unintelligible scribbles to writing coherent paragraphs within a year.

Imagine what those same students could have accomplished with the same 15 minutes with a real teacher...

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they're working 16-hour days because that's the only way they can afford to feed their kids. Maybe the kids really do have ADD, or an autism spectrum disorder, or something else that a cheapo clinic wouldn't pick up, but that's all the healthcare the parents can afford. It's not just yuppies.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

(( citation needed ))

Re:Not all schools are equal

[selven]

> We both think that it removes hands-on learning and frees the teacher from actually teaching anything (not a good thing).

Depends on what "teaching" is. If it's a teacher encouraging class discussion and collectively coming up with an answer to a problem, then yes, technology can't help that. But if it's someone just delivering a one-way lecture, then there's no reason why it can't be one person recording a speech and drawing stuff on camera and having the video copied a hundred million times and shown to every class that needs to see that material all across the world and reused again and again until the information ceases to be accurate.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[kenh]

Tenure is designed to protect poor teachers at the expense of the good ones.

Merit pay would go a long way towards attracting better teachers, but since that would 'punish' bad teachers, it can not be offered.

Private schools by and large pay LESS than public schools do, and offer no tenure, yet teachers choose to leave the public school system to teach in private schools... The motivation can't be money or job security...

Re:Not all schools are equal

[catmistake]

A computer/tablet can't teach as well as a good or great teacher (as the students at Waldorf likely have access to), but in a large percentage of cases around the country, where the teachers are in fact poor, computers and tablets can make a tremendous difference.

Yeah, I disagree completely. I think the Waldorf ideals are completely incorrect... however, they are teaching more than the academic findamentals, and a computer can't teach that. The computer, paired with a curious child with a reasonable attention span, with even 15 yr old software, IMO, competes fairly with most teachers, regarding teaching things like vocabulary, grammer, reading, math tables... pretty much anything that is specifically taught in education. But a computer won't teach a child what behavior is acceptable, neither by example nor instruction, nor be able to interpret specific ordinary needs any child might have, nor make the accustom to other children or adults. So Waldorf-style education will be superior because an average child that learns early how to socialize will succeed over the genius child that can't every single day of the week.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[KhazadDum]

...The motivation can't be money or job security...

Maybe not having to teach little shite monsters is more valuable than people initially figure. I know I was a royal career ruining hell up until I managed to get placed into AP classes and actually DOING something instead of spending my days being bored, dreaming up ways to make the teacher cry, lose their temper or reconsider their life. And I was one of the smart ones, so after I had my needs met, I was less of a trouble. The same cannot be said of all the bored morons in class. They really were dumb as stumps. Unfortunately not dumb enough to be oblivious to their own stupidity though. :S

Re:Not all schools are equal

[KhazadDum]

That's a lot of words for saying "Hire people of quality, not gimmicks, technological or sociological." ;) But I agree with you nonetheless.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[thehodapp]

I am a current Computer Science student and even with my major, I must agree that most classes tended to waste time when we would use computers in high school. Most of the softer science teachers have kids use computers to make "Powerpoints" and "Videos" and waste a great deal of time doing fun, but generally useless stuff when we could have been learning actual history or English in a class discussion or lecture. I found the teachers that mostly avoided computers (besides the computer science teachers) were the teachers I tended to learn the most from.

However, I still think computers are needed in schools especially in a society where nearly every white collar job requires the ability to use a computer. Also, computer classes, and similar computer-centric classes obviously are going to require a computer lab (at least). I also cannot even imagine how horrific it would be to have to use a typewriter to write all my papers...it's a shuddering thought. Perhaps an emphasis on learning the necessary skills for using a computer in a real life job, rather than an emphasis on integrating computers with existing teaching techniques would create a much more efficient system, while still preparing students for the job world.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[shilly]

You have the solution arse-over-tit: the challenge is to recruit and retain a large cohort of very teachers. Pay peanuts and treat people like shit, get unmotivated monkeys

Re:Not all schools are equal

[JoeMerchant]

The kids in Silicon Valley are going to have plenty of tech exposure at home, they'll get engaged by it and pick it up for themselves without being taught how to do it. Learning without it in grammar school is going to broaden their skillset and their ability to pay attention to things that don't flash and beep.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[kramulous]

Did you ever have to be taught by your parents? That brought a swift end to the troublemaking. Particularly when my mum marched me down to the deputy principle for a caning cause I smirked.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[JoeMerchant]

A computerized lesson would (presumably) be done in the competent manner.

Big presumption, I have seen plenty of crappy teaching software, and assuming that it is selected by the same time honored system that textbooks are chosen, we can assume that quality will have nothing to do with what is put on the school systems computers.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[jc42]

Well, yeah, but the message I replied to was saying that even a "large percentage" is essentially meaningless. The message seems to be "We don't need things like computer-aided education as long as there are a few good teachers here and there." That's an anti-education claim that's worth arguing against. And one way to do so is to counter that even if there are only a few poor teachers, it's still worthwhile (for the childrens' sake ;-) to help students overcome the poor teaching somehow.

In reality, the situation is a whole lot more complex than any of this, though. As someone else just suggested, computerized lessons are useful even with good teachers, as are books, since it lets (some of) the students learn the basics on their own, and the teacher can then concentrate on dealing with questions and problems.

And yeah, I know; how often is that approach permitted? Sometimes, but not a "large percentage" of the time.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[jc42]

... assuming that it is selected by the same time honored system that textbooks are chosen, we can assume that quality will have nothing to do with what is put on the school systems computers.

Yeah; you're probably right. Depressing, isn't it?

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

It is you, the parents, who have failed in your responsibility, not the teachers. Back the fuck off. Goddamn yuppies.

Don't forget the academics, the bureaucrats, the textbook publishers who are all running the system for their own benefit. How can a good teacher do a good job teaching when there's standardized tests and policies and petty administrators to deal with? Kids hate school because there's lots about factory-style modern mass schooling to hate. What about being shoved in a group of 30 people born the same year as you under the control of a single authority figure that grades you like a piece of meat and forces you to switch tasks when the bell rings every hour has anything to do with the real world?

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Because most companies will have you supervised by a line manager, and you'll find yourself switched tasks because you are either the "brightest graduate", or somehow high up has decided a new corporate direction.

Standardized test aren't that bad - in my high-school days, the new top teacher was responsible for the development of the questions in the mock exams. She flipped the standard order of topics round so that her class covered all the mock exam questions, while every other class had only covered two-thirds of those topics.
Taught me not to rely on a single source for information.

Having a standardized exam syllabus with a preset list of topics, past exam papers, study books, and exam papers marked externally and anonymously, means there is very little chance of somebody playing jiggery-pokery games with favored or disfavored students.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[tomhudson]

Most real-life "computer jobs" don't need "computer learning". The workflow is predetermined, the range of inputs limited, etc.

Most kids learn more than enough at home - they don't need labs at school, and whatever they learn will be obsolete multiple times before they graduate.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[RobbieThe1st]

I definitely agree. Personally, I was allowed a computer most places, and when writing essays it's invaluable for several reasons including being faster(by far) than writing, as well as the whole edit/copy/paste stuff.

If I had a choice, I would never force anyone to hand-write more than a few sentences, it's just causing the student unneeded pain and annoyance.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Ocker3]

Cost for a real computer: less than a thousand dollars Cost for good learning software (per machine): a few hundred dollars Teacher's Salary: tens of thousands of dollars A good teacher is a very valuable resource, a good computer with good software is a priceless multiplier.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[jaweekes]

That would be true if the pupils were capable of sitting in a class and doing the work; unfortunately this is not the case for 99% of classes. Children (and adults for that matter) like to goof off and avoid work at all costs, so most of a teachers job is to figure out how to keep the pupils engaged so that they learn. They use several techniques for this and is one of the main differences between the "bad" teachers and the "good" ones.

I have yet to see an IPad or other computer that can mirror this ability, as it would entail true AI. The setup you talk about might be good for college, when it has actually been implemented to some success (see Open University for an example or any online course) but it requires pupils that are motivated enough to want to do the work. This method isn't any good for public school systems as most of the pupils don't want to be there.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was in high school, we've used computers for science lab to do graphs and regressions. In reality, this is utterly stupid way to do labs. It doesn't teach how to actually do a lab but how to enter data in a "black box".

Later on, I took physics at university. And guess what? No one used computers for any work in physics lab in early years. And this is university, well ahead in sophistication over any high school. Things like regression fits can be done graphically on a piece of paper anyway.

There are actually 3 areas that computers are useful in physics/math/lab work.

1. image analysis for astronomy
2. computational physics/math
3. algebraic math software is useful in later years of math classes (this is at level where things like int(x**n+log(x), dx) is considered arithmetic)

There is really no reason for computers in elementary / high school. Really none, unless someone does extracurricular activities like learning how to write software.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[bunratty]

Yes, a teacher who was trained in the technique that the program used would be better. But that would cost far more money. It would require an additional dedicated teacher for more than six hours per day for a classroom of 25 students. Computers give personalized, individualized instruction for far less money than people, so it can be economically feasible to use them. As long as the computer uses a good curriculum, some time on the computer can do wonders.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Cosigned. And if you don't believe me, go to China -- they're called "Little Emperors" for a very, very good reason.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if it evolved to the adaptive level seen in Ender's Game and the psychological game most of the students played. Instead of checking for psychological aptitude you'd be checking for cognitive aptitudes while at the same time achieving an environment where students could be taught without necessarily knowing that they're being taught (Yet to meet a 10 year old who wouldn't rather play a video game than do homework, and there is nothing wrong with that so use it).

Besides to all the technology naysayers, the definition of an educated human being is no longer ones ability to speak latin, greek and at least one other romance language while having a practical understanding of calculus, chemistry and a few other science disciplines and being learned in the arcane arts of philosophy. It now is about being able to sift through large volumes of information to find relevant data in all the noise. Unless there is a technological apocalypse, this won't be changing soon ... shouldn't we be creating education that enables young people to succeed for this reality?

And while we're at, stop cutting the bloody arts education budgets!
Ok sorry, no more soapbox tonight!

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. No teacher can offer the same wealth of knowledge that an internet connected computer does.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[UBfusion]

After so many decades of commercial software engineering, one might have have expected that the ideal "smart education software" to teach spelling, multiplication or indefinite integrals surely would already have been designed and now used in schools. However, somehow we seem to not be there yet. One has to wonder why.

Lack of proof i.e. measuring the effectiveness of computed-aided instruction is still the biggest problem. The other (bigger) problem is that like any commercial product, software is never finished. Ideal razor blades are not here yet, this is why you see new models every few months. The same applies to toothbrushes, chewing gum, netbooks, cars, even weapons. No one is willing to challenge our carefully programmed by the industry (any industry, including education) habit of planned obsolescence (except perhaps the big players who can claim version 8.0 is two times as good as version 7.0 just because we can and will swallow it).

Finally, a school using this presumably ideal software (if it ever existed) will have to compete with the neighboring school that uses the latest bling. In the same way, Waldorf schools have to compete with computer intensive schools. The debate will never end. However, the variety of existing options is the only way to achieve the much needed variability to survive and evolve in the feature.

It never ceases to amaze me that the intensive "teaching to the test" as realized in the US somehow has not led to a monopoly "operating system" in education and armies of graduate clones. Somehow, and in the tradition of good ole science fiction, seeing some of the parents still not trusting machines (TVs, game consoles and computers including smartphones) messing with their children's brains always fills me with hope for a better future.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Meski]

Us kids from before computers in highschool were amazed by the early micros and built our own - it didn't have conventional keyboards, or screens, being able to insert extra opcodes was a luxury. Oh yeah, and get off my lawn! :^)

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Lemmy Caution]

Yes. Most college graduates - even with art history or literature degrees - could teach math up to junior high level without any problems at all.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Lemmy Caution]

The big correlate for academic success is time spent at home helping study. Kids with a stay-at-home parent do much better: even if the stay-at-home parent is a single parent. As the recession (excuse me, "recovery with extraordinarily high unemployment" continues and formerly two-income homes go back to being one- or zero-income homes, you may, oddly enough, see some benefits to children who have more access to a non-working parent. Unless, of course, the drop in income creates serious instability and stress in the family system...

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you're right... It's the parents fault, of course. The "rich right", as you put it.

Now, what about the remaining 99%? How do you explain what's wrong there?

Bad teachers exist too, you know! And bad parenting isnt limited to the rich.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I,m glad you were not my 4th grade teacher. I can see it now ........ "OK you shitheads, line up, grab your ankles, and I'll give you a big surprise, something your mom or dad never did... where's my paddle"

I agree that it is a shame that teachers have been turned into babysitters. My son became a well know troublemaker, because he was tired of siting in class bored to tears, and getting nothing accomplished because he had been put in the "bad kids" class, where the teacher ran around just trying to keep the chaos to a minimum. Thankfully, the following year, he got in with the 'good" kids, had a wonderful teacher . The kids had so much reswpect for this guy, because he made the rules clear, enforced them fairly, AND loved the kids and teaching. My son is now 19, in a Junior College for a couple years, still tryinvg to decide what he wants to do- go on to a four year college or work on his music. I am encouraging him to major in Music, because he played the cello for 4 years in elementary school, taught himself how to play one of those electronic keyboards, and is now rapidly mastering the guitar. He does not think he can make a living from his music, so he is alos looking at a business degree ( which I know he will hate every day he goes to work, should he go that way. Ahh well - you can only try to advise them.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[mwvdlee]

You might not need a computer to teach reading/writing/math, but how about using a computer to teach about computers?
Totally rejecting using computers in school is as stupid as trying to use computers for everything in school.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. When I was in college, Texas Instruments brought out a scientific calculator for 24.95 (in 1974 or 75), and my Grandmother bought it for me as a birthday gift. It had those tiny red numbers, but the amount of work it saved in Statistics, math, and science classe was amazing, and the professors.rapidly adoptred them into the curriculum. Back then, I had to type all my papers - not home computers with printers yet. There was one large computer on campus, and for one biology class we all had to go in and run 3 generations of rabbits(? as I recall)., you had to schedule your terminal time in 15 minute intervals, and the Mendelian crosses took about 10 minutes to run and print out. And there was some nasty looking upperclassman always looking over your shoulder, and triyng to help, so he could get on the machine.. Now I can write a similar program in under an hour, and get the results almost instantly. I'd love to know the technical specs on that old computer the college had back then !!

Re:Not all schools are equal

[AtomicJake]

Wrong conclusion. Better would be to get more teachers and better educated teachers - and yes, you would need to pay them. And no, private schools are not the solution.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's compare notes. I find the problem to be the teachers and administration.

The first example is my daughter was made to miss recess for about three monthes due to "a missing library book." I heard my daughter mention having to miss recess, but when I asked if she wanted me to interven she said no. Finally I was asked to pay for the book; since it was only $8 I told my daughter I would gladly pay it. She asked me not to, as she felt it wasn't fair and that the school would eventually listen to her. Two weeks later, I got tired of hearing about my daughter missing school, so I contacted them.

The principal had the librarian call me and she said my daughter had never been punished for a missing library book, that families are NEVER asked to pay for library books, and that no child is ever threatened with any punishment and especially not missing recess. When I asked why I had a paper in hand asking me to pay, they requested a copy. When I sent a copy, the principal started refusing to talk to me. At the end of the year, a paper was sent home saying students would miss recess if they did not turn in their library books the next day.

For the past two weeks, we've had what they've deemed a battle. My daughter's teacher sent home notification of a parent teacher conference the day of the conference. I had other children and I couldn't arrange care and my daughter's mom lives four hours away, so I called to say we wouldn't make it and to express my disappointment at the last minute notification. The next day, my daughter is crying and when my wife asks why she says because children are being puished if they're parents do not attend parent teacher conferences. The teacher wouldn't respond to our inqueries, the principal said children are never punished like that without even asking the teacher, and the district asked the teacher and she said children were not punished. My big question, why was my daughter crying? If children do not know why they are being punished, it can't serve as a deterant. If students see other students being punished and don't know why and that's a regular occurance, it make them afraid to be at school.

The day I said their response of "it didn't happen" wasn't acceptable, the teacher punished my daughter because a group project didn't meet her expectations (and no one else in the group). During the verbal dress down she twice threw a book. Obviously I made a complaint, the district "investigated". The investigation was asking the teacher if she threw a book. When I said that wasn't satisfactory they said, but she looked us in the eye.

Blame parents all you want. Last Wednesday when I thought we were finally going to have a parent teacher conference. My daughter's mom was even driving the 8 hours (4 here; 4 back) so she could be there. At 2:10 they canceled as the principal "remembered" she was going out of town to visit her son at colllege, a scheduled trip that included airplane tickets. Why a principal had to be at a parent teacher conference was left unexplained. Why they waited until less then 2 hours before the conference to cancel it when they knew her mom was driving in from out of town was again left unanswered. Finally, when I asked my daughter if she wanted to attend, she said no because she knew her teacher would only have bad things to say about her; that she knew she needed to hear some of them to improve, but she'd rather just ask me later, so I asked the school how that was creating an environment conducive to learning and yet I am still waiting on an answer. Yes, let's blame the parents.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that many kids are shitheads, I've found that as far as being able to handle the students on the right tail of the bell curve, very few teachers can cut it. The problem is that the field of K12 education does not attract the best and brightest to become teachers. In fact, K12 educators are often the lowest academic performers. Further, we have the concept of education degrees where the only body of knowledge required for a teacher is just the concepts of teaching rather than any credentials in the areas they will be teaching.

It's really insulting to hear a teacher teach something but not be able to explain it because their knowledge of the subject is strictly limited to the teacher's edition of the class text.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[ResidentSourcerer]

It's been going on for 30 years, but it's been going on BADLY for 30 years with totally lame software.

Example: A few years ago I looked at education software for teaching algebra.

The best software I could find, after downloading and examining some 10 packages:

1. Only used a single example to teach a given concept.

2. In the teaching mode the only option was 'Next'

3. In the practice mode only presented 2-3 problems.

4. Had NO provision for showing work. Kid had to do work on scrap paper, then pick one multiple choice answer.

5. The correct answer didn't vary. (Psst, is C the answer to #2? No, it's D"

6. If you guessed 3 times, it told you the answer.

7. It's record keeping consisted solely of recording which kid had completed which module.

I wrote to ALL of the publishers

I told them that an algebra instruction system had to have:

1. Provision to type math as rapidly as you can write it. (Yes, this can take time to practice and learn. You didn't learn to use a pencil overnight, did you?)(FrameMaker for Linux (Beta 5.56?) was good enough that I could type a quiz almost as fast as writing it out by hand, and far more neatly. Not TeX in it's quality, but still pretty good.)
2. Requirement that the teacher can set the number of practice problems.
3. The teacher can set the difficulty of the problems for mastery.
4. The package adjusts difficult to fit the needs of the student.
5. The package records the mistakes of the student for the teacher to examine later looking for patterns. (Lots of kids will have 'bugs' in the algorithms they use. E.g. in subtraction they will subtract the smaller digit from the larger, instead of borrowing)
6. Every instruction module has multiple paths through it.
7. The package is good enough at symbolic manipulaion internally to identify when a kid has made a mistake. (Mathematica as part of the back end?)
8. Constant review. E.g. You don't just practice today's problems, but you also do a few of yesterdays, and a couple from last week.
9. No multiple choice answers.
10. Variable in how much work that needed to be shown, with more steps required for students who were not consistently right, or too slow.

I heard back from ONE of the publishers who said, "Sorry we don't have any plans to offer anything like that."

Re:Not all schools are equal

[pburghdoom]

Videos.... The new books.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[gfxguy]

What's a decent living wage and what public school teachers don't make it?

Re:Not all schools are equal

[nedlohs]

The entirety of the post was: "Few people have personal experience with "a large percentage of cases around the country", and those who do should generally have something they can cite to back up their claims." (ignoring contextual quotations from what it was replying to).

That says nothing about whether computer-aided education is good or bad, or whether teachers are good or bad.

It simply says that personal experience does not cover determining something regarding "a large percentage of cases around the country", unless that personal experience is way out of the ordinary in which case there should be something to cite anyway (the person making the statement just finished a national of that thing, for example).

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Pumpkin Tuna]

THIS!

I work in education and this is the problem. It's all test, test, test, test, test, test, test. Set in a factory where creativity, collaboration and outside-the-box thinking are tossed over the side in the race to increase fairly meaningless test scores.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Your shithead kids are unmotivated and undisciplined because you have failed in your responsibility as parents, spoiling rotten your fat little narcissistic shitheads who grow up with gadgetry and unrealistic expectations and ADD medication as their only parents. You, are out at the bar looking for a new wife, or out driving your ridiculously expensive sports car, or working unnecessary 16-hour days collecting pig disgusting amounts of money and power to stroke your own ego.

The fact you are the spawn of 2 public schoolteachers is obvious.

Teachers' union members are not fit to be parents, let alone fit to be around other people's children.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Pumpkin Tuna]

Good point. I've taught and worked outside the classroom teaching other teachers how to integrate technology. The tech is a tool, a multiplier, not the teacher. When done right, it can help a good teacher work wonders. It can't do squat about a bad teacher. for example. I had a class of high school creative writing students. About half of them liked to write and the other half were there because there weren't any other open electives. I set them all up on Google Docs and we started writing, collaborating and editing. They could write at school, they could write at home. I could go into their stories as they wrote and make comments and suggestions. Their friends could and would do the same. In November, we took part in National Novel Writing Month and the students tracked their progress online and communicated with other students around the country who were writing their own novels. At the end of the month, we used a spreadsheet to calculate that they had written 226,691 words in one month. One student who had failed English the previous year wrote a 9,700 word story. Just about every student in the class came out a much better writer than before.

Of course we could have used paper and pen, writing multiple long hand drafts we me scribbling on the margins of each draft in red pen. Or we could have used clay tablets and cuneiform. I doubt those methods would have had the same outcome.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[tehcyder]

In my (admittedly limited) experience, the teachers of technical subject in the lower schools are almost always incompetent. The explanation is well-known: If you're competent in math, why would you voluntarily spend your time in a low-paid job like grade-school teacher, when you could be making much better money elsewhere?

Being competent in math doesn't guarantee you a well paying job, and anyway some people don't measure the benefits of a job purely by its salary. Otherwise, everyone would be working as fucking stockbrokers.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[drsquare]

What exactly is the relevance of that report, after half a century of economic and demographic changes?

If resources don't make much difference, it's a wonder why private schools spend so much money on fancy buildings and small class sizes.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[LanMan04]

Are you fucking kidding?

Physical abuse is NOT the solution.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an education technologist. Your post sounds good, but it doesn't reflect reality (in American public schools). Your parable is the typical oversimplification of larger societal problems that runs so rampant. This is slashdot, not Facebook. Your readership is likely to be far more skeptical here, and we'll require more evidence than your anecdote.

Sure there are some parents like you describe, but the overwhelming majority are honestly doing their best and trying to work with the schools and administration. This made up adversarial climate you describe barely registers on the grand scheme of problems facing our education system.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

And to fire teachers who cannot teach.

We're doing that. Unfortunately, we're also firing the teachers that can teach. We call them layoffs. Meanwhile, all the smart teachers who can teach are getting jobs as corporate trainers, because why would smart people put up with that?

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you determine which teachers "cannot teach?"

Re:Not all schools are equal

[juan2074]

Many of them may be immigrants, and their kids may come into school with low English skills.

It's not like the children of native-born parents can speak, read, or write English very well either.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[kramulous]

I would agree ... it is borderline abuse. But my brother and I are pretty resilient. Grew up in country Australia ... falling off animals, putting nails through feet, bitten by snakes (spiders, centipedes, catfish, leeches, wasps, bees, [insert anything that bites here]), dropping wood on feet, etc. Too be honest, caning was a bit of a joke.

Caning has been banned in Australian public schools for many years now.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Just fire the bad ones and allow merit-based salaries (verses seniority-based, union-lobbied salaries). The "living wage" will form from market forces. Paying more without fixing the core issues will not lead to better teaching.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[billy3]

Ah, they outraged cry of contemporary wussdom... With regards to discipline neither the carrot nor the stick are the problem. The problem is the lack of discipline, measure and wisdom in their application. People are wary of corporal punishment today because of some idiots' overzealous application of the stick.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[billy3]

I've seen schools that now have smartboards and smartprojectors. They're being used to teach everything from basic language and math to Kindergarteners to group presentations over the web. I saw them in action and was impressed at how innovatively they're being used to supplement, not replace, elementary education.

By no means do I believe kids should be given their own cellphones or laptops, that's just stupid (and yes, most parents are stupid nowadays), but there is a huge difference between that and using technology to enhance learning in creative ways.

Teachers at these schools have been given IPads as well. Apparently they've been trained to use them, but I have yet to see how they're been used to enhance teaching. This is something where I believe being a "good" or a "bad" teacher would really show.

Re:Not all schools are equal

[billy3]

Well that was rather defensive...

I'm also from a family of educators. However, I can`t up and say the problem is solely with the parents.

I count myself lucky to have had mostly amazing teachers (and I mean, but I've had my share of shitty teachers as well... and by shitty I mean various combinations of incompetent, lazy, discriminating, inciteful and unqualified. What's more, complaints (made by wellrounded, focused and "good" students, not troublesome students) about such teachers always fell on deaf ears (thank you Teacher's Union!).

Yes, parents need to do their part to keep their kids in line and that especially includes restricting unsupervised use of technologies - i.e. kids do not need their own cellphones and laptops. I'm also in favour of giving a little more teachers more disciplinary power, albeit with proper trainning, controls, checks, balances and tracking/logging.

However, I've seen some kids with great parents, who gave them all their time and held a sense of very measured discipline at home, and by all means did very "good" parenting, yet some of the kids just went bad... and the two biggest factors in these kids who went bad were bad friends and bad teachers. Bad friends are a terrible influence, but it's even harder for parents to do something when their efforts are stunted by bad teachers and teaching.

On the other hand, I've also seen wonderful teachers who've partnered with parents to help troubled students become exceptional.

So parents, suck it up and do your part; and School Board members fix up your curriculum and policies, and weed ut and fire teachers who cannot teach. There, no one should have a problem with that, unless of course one's defending someone incompetent :)

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]
Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard send their children to the Waldorf School in Los Altos where the school's chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found.
[/quite]

Aren't these the same technology companies that constantly complain about the skills shortage which necessitates importation of foreign workers to work at these very companies? The emperor truly has no clothes.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

you're dumb

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't these the same technology companies that constantly complain about the skills shortage which necessitates importation of foreign workers to work at these very companies? The emperor truly has no clothes.

Computers are great when they're not just chucked in to a job for the sake of it, and their use has to be very carefully managed; the same is true for adults. I've delivered training in corporate environments in which I've repeatedly had to ask ask adults to stop pressing keys and clicking mouse buttons. Because of this I would generally have people face away from their computers, or put them to sleep, when I need them to be listening to me.

The same things happens in meetings. Some time back a senior manager pulled me aside at the end of a meeting because she thought I'd been writing email and otherwise messing around with the computer during our meeting. In that case I could show her the very detailed and structured notes I'd written for the attendees. I understand her misconception, as would anyone else who's look around in a meeting at the people around them, checking email and doing anything but paying attention. It's difficult to have computers present without people fiddling around. In those cases, when I run a meeting, I'll ask people to close the lids on their machines unless they can give a good reason for sitting in my room with their eyes and hands occupied by their little box of light.

It makes sense in schools that the use of computers is very tightly controlled. Buying computers without forming a cohesive strategy for integrating them in to the curriculum is like a school district placing an order for "a big box of really good books".

On thing I liked about the way I studied statistics was that before touching computers we'd learn to do things manually, with graph paper. I wouldn't need to do this now, yet having learnt this way I have a better understand of what underlies the figures. It's not uncommon in the corporate world to be handed a set of figures and charts, produced by the Excel whiz who'll return a blank look if asked about standard deviation, percentiles, or heaven forbid if anyone should ask about averages beyond the mean. This is why we really shouldn't be too eager to get kids straight on to computers or even calculators. Computers are the learning tool, too easily becoming the lesson if not properly planned for.

Mmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I know half a dozen people who went to a Waldorf school as kids, they are all a bit ...off, eccentric, it's difficult to lay a finger on it though.

Re:Mmmm

[nedlohs]

Not confirmist brainwashed drones?

Imagine that.

[pro151]

The very people that make and tell us we can't live without their technology keep their children away from it. Who would have ever thought that? :-)

Re:Imagine that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the folks who make vaccines vaccinate their kids, or the people who make aspartane ( nutri sweet ) drink diet anything ???

Re:Imagine that.

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's one thing to use hardware and software to make your life easier and better managed; they are, however, no substitute for good old fashioned wetware when it comes to learning critical thinking.

Re:Imagine that.

[IANAAC]

The very people that make and tell us we can't live without their technology keep their children away from it. Who would have ever thought that? :-)

What makes you think that those "very people" make and tell us we can't live without technology? Just because it's near Silicon Valley?

I don't know the statistics, but I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people in the region that don't work in technology at all.

Re:Imagine that.

[pro151]

Did you read the original post? did you read the article? I base my statement on what I read.

Re:Imagine that.

[fafaforza]

Good thing that we have parents to see past the marketing.

Oh wait, we have parents that don't even know the basics of food feeding their kids Sprite for breakfast. But it's still the fault of big business.

No Computers? No Computers!

[morari]

Good. Computers aren't needed outside of performing some research, actually typing out that essay, or putting together that presentation. You don't need fancy buildings and whizzbang gadgets to teach, you simply need inspiring people. Sadly, those type of people are at a premium nowadays. Even when you do find and employ them, the system generally does everything it can to get in their way and make their presence all but useless. This is a private school. so perhaps the rules are different. Maybe they can teach students how to do something other than fill in test bubbles.

Re:No Computers? No Computers!

[hedwards]

They're not lacking, it's just that they aren't being paid well, so rather than going into education, they go into other fields where they probably aren't known much outside the field. You do still have individuals who go into teaching anyways, where many of them burn out before making it even 5 years and go back and contribute where they're appreciated.

Computers may not be necessary outside of performing research and typing out an essay, but you'd be surprised how many occupations require computer literacy. At this point it's not unusual for people hiring for firms that do private security to require basic computer skills. And most of those jobs pay basically minimum wage with a crappy work place environment.

Re:No Computers? No Computers!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need fancy buildings and whizzbang gadgets to teach, you simply need inspiring people..

True. But fancy buildings do help. Growing up, it was easy to see what society valued when we were being taught in crappy old, not well built new schools or portables. It definitely demotivates when everything that you look and smell at school screams at you that the adults don't care. Yea, I still learned one hell of a lot from my inspiring teaches, but even just the good ones tended to have less impact while in a portable or a room with leaks everywhere. You can't totally tune out the environment.

Re:No Computers? No Computers!

[Anonymous Coward]

But the fact that basic computer literacy is required doesn't mean that computers should be used during every lesson!

Re:No Computers? No Computers!

[NJRoadfan]

I wonder if Clifford Stoll had something to do with this...

Re:No Computers? No Computers!

[hedwards]

You clearly didn't read TFS, they're not using it at all during the school day and suggesting to parents that the kids not use them at all at home either.

Re:No Computers? No Computers!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not lacking, it's just that they aren't being paid well

I think having a teacher that's doing it just for the money wouuld be about as good as having software written by somebody who got a CS degree because he heard it pays well.

Yes, teachers should not have to worry about feeding themselves. They certainly should not be on food stamps. Once you get past that, throwing more money at them doesn't increase the quality of the teacher. It's like music. Some damn good musicians stay dirt poor, and some really crappy ones make a lot of money because they know how to work the system, or they laid the right producer.

Re:No Computers? No Computers!

[crossmr]

Good. Computers aren't needed outside of performing some research, actually typing out that essay, or putting together that presentation.

And who at a school would ever want to do those things?
Or say take a typing class
or a programming class

the school even frowns on their use at home.

Yes in today's age this really makes sense. Where would a lot of us be if we didn't start tinkering at an early age with programming or hardware?

Re:No Computers? No Computers!

[DarwinSurvivor]

Yes in today's age this really makes sense. Where would a lot of us be if we didn't start tinkering at an early age with programming or hardware?

Probably CEO of a software company.

Re:No Computers? No Computers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Even when you do find and employ them, the system generally does everything it can to get in their way and make their presence all but useless.

This.

Re:No Computers? No Computers!

[eepok]

I was one of those "inspiring people". I got involved with higher educational outreach in 2001 (end of second year of undergrad). I kept my academic focus, but knew I was destined to be in education. I was one of the few people I knew that could/would remember what it was like to be in middle school and found it very easy to connect with the students I was helping. My abilities to adapt to people were perfect for the classroom. And I love learning and watching people learn. It was a perfect fit.

After graduation, I started working professionally in higher education outreach. I was on a federal grant... which was mismanaged and I was laid off. Ok-- a stumble. Then I went with another program. And it was mismanaged. Ok-- another stumble and a bit of anger. (This is when I figured out that incompetent people who know the right words to use in front of others will often work their way into the education industry as "easy money".)

So I took a temp job, staying in education so I don't lose that "spark" and applied to Education MA/Credential programs to actually become a teacher-- someone I had planned on doing after working at the higher ed level for a while, anyway. Acceptance letters and financial aid proposals come in, everything's looking great, and the economy tanks. Teacher education funding is slashed and teachers are being laid off. I get a new financial aid statement with massive cuts and it's not enough to pick up shop and move up-state and start over. I have to decline admission.

Now, education is under direct attack by corporations who want to lower everyone's standard of living. I, having a decade of experience in education, had zero expectation of great wages, but "knew" that when I was no longer able to teach, I would be able to retire safely without worry. I expected to work with $35,000 for my first 5 years (a portion of which I would spend on my own classes) and maybe hit $50,000 before I retire. I couldn't expect that anymore. I couldn't put my partner through the risk. Like many others, I couldn't risk following my passion to teach.

Oh... and I'm a techy, but an education-luddite. I hate computers in the class room except for the teacher's computer. They have no place in my opinion.

Take a good thing too far...

[Manip]

While I agree that Computers are a distraction and do not aid learning in many subjects, I think this takes a good idea too far. Kids today do need to understand how to use computers - it is a needed skill for almost any and all jobs, from a Lawyer, to a Doctor, to an Engineer. While I agree that computers should be kept in the computer lab, let's not keep them out of schools entirely.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[jschen]

I think people who are sending their children to this school will be able to teach their children the necessary computer skills just fine without the help of the school.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[demonlapin]

It's grammar school, aka elementary.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[LinuxIsGarbage]

While I agree that Computers are a distraction and do not aid learning in many subjects, I think this takes a good idea too far. Kids today do need to understand how to use computers - it is a needed skill for almost any and all jobs, from a Lawyer, to a Doctor, to an Engineer. While I agree that computers should be kept in the computer lab, let's not keep them out of schools entirely.

While computers are important, and used in many jobs, I don't agree necessarily that the earlier the better. For one thing in lower grade levels, rote training of applications will be obsolete by the time students enter the workforce. My elementary school had Apple II's. Lot of good that did. The only thing the same is the qwerty keyboard, which people successfully learn at any stage of life. A lot of people here would argue that if they didn’t play with Apple BASIC in grade 3 they’d never have gone into CS, and they think it’s so great and want to share it with everyone. Whatever. Most people don’t enter CS.

I think that the basics should be mastered at a low level, then start integrating technology as appropriate. Calculators are a good example. Calculators (and computer computation software) are a tremendous help to solving complicated problems, but only if you understand the basics. That means you understand the concepts the calculator is using to solve the problem, and that you can solve basic problems or do estimates when there’s no calculator around. All my calculus courses in university were done without a calculator (and appropriately simple coefficients). I understand the concepts, so in a complex calculation I may use a calculator, but at least I understand what the calculator is doing. But these days calculators are introduced so early that basic mental math such as multiplication tables is lost on the current generation. Likewise spellcheck has lost the art of proper spelling. I think it’d at least be a step in the right direction if spell check forced you to type in the correct spelling.

There’s a force to push as much technology as possible, whether or not it’s effective. Tremendous amounts of education dollars are spent on technology, whether or not it’s even used effectively. Look at school boards that buy fleets of laptops or tablets, only to have them sit idle most of the time. This has been happening for decades. Tablets, computers, TVs, videos. All the while showing no real improvement. Is that the best use of those education dollars? Sometimes technology simply isn’t appropriate for the application. Look at the automobile. Certainly an important technology used in society today, but we don’t insist that it be integrated into grade 2 curriculum.

Look at OLPC. Big rush to deploy the hardware, then “hey the content will follow”. Guess what? No content or deployment plans, so many of these machines sit idle.

While I don’t agree with the complete Luddite approach, I think technology should be integrated in education where appropriate, and effective. Rather than buy large fleets of tablets or laptops hoping the content will follow, develop the complete system (preferably based around free content), prove it, then deploy it.

I say free content because the last thing cash strapped school boards need is constant fighting with DRM and licensing. Obviously place to start is textbooks. Basic math hasn’t changed in decades (centuries). Pay someone to develop the book, then the ownership lies with the school board. They can print copies as needed, or deploy it for e-readers or whatever.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[crow_t_robot]

With the proper foundational knowledge, computers are incredibly easy to learn. If you have an excellent grasp of mathematics, language skills, reading comprehension and critical thinking skills you can learn how to use MS Word or hexadecimal math in an hour.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[werepants]

Read the article (I know, I must be new here) and one of the parents has a pretty good rebuttal to this kind of thinking: computers are dead easy to learn anymore. It isn't a benefit to anyone if a student can learn to use an iPad - an illiterate 3 year old can do that. I messed around with computers in elementary school, and the only things I remember are Apple LOGO, MS Paint, and a whole lot of Oregon Trail. None of which were useful to me. Learning Word, Excel, and the like is scarcely better - I didn't learn any of those well until I had to use them for college or a job. Most of our tech education, in its current form, is a waste of time.

There are a handful of areas that work well. Teaching programming, research skills, typing, and computer usage in a way that involves some actual challenge and rigor would make a huge difference. Trying to sex up normal lessons with computers, or acting like any time on a computer is giving kids "21st Century Skills" is shortsighted and likely to backfire.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's grammar school, aka elementary.

So? The college students who are best with computers are almost universally the ones who started in elementary school, or before, in my vast experience. I started using a computer before I knew how to add, and started programming at the age of 8 when my mom handed me a stack of BASIC books and told me to have fun exploring them. By middle school I was hitting the library to learn about C++ and Turing machines, and by the time I got to college, the first half of the CS curriculum was too basic for me. Others I've met have similar stories. I know many people who waited until high school to begin using computers and still to this day struggle with them, even for basic tasks.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[antdude]

Not even LOGO, BASIC, Oregon Trail, etc.? :)

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in grammar school when I began computer programming. By the 4th grade I new I wanted to be a computer programmer. Grammar school should be about introducing kids to all sorts of things so they can find interests that stick with them their entire lives. It shouldn't be all about computers, but completely eliminating them seems short sighted...

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[kenh]

Children won't be entering the workforce in any meaningful way before their 16th birthday, by which time the child will likely be 'exposed' to computers- this compulsion to inflict a child with an 'exposure' to computers is a bit silly, IMHO.

A senior in high school would have been exposed to Windows 95 or 98, 2000, XP, Vista, and now Windows 7 - why did they have to learn to superficially use each OS while in school? How did that better prepare them for going to college, where they will use Windows 8?

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[datavirtue]

Millions of people are graduating with AAS and BS degrees who are completely useless with basic office productivity software. Ask them to do something like create labels for all the customers and they literally spend all day trying to get it done--improperly of course. Your chances of finding an office manager who doesn't bone up your whole operation is slim. I have found that having a basic level of competence is enough for people to treat you like a god. If you excel above average (big mistake) people become nervous and your co-workers will usually avoid you or try to shut you out--the boss then has to jump thru all kinds of office politic hoops to keep the whole crew from defecting in your presence ultimately stifling your growth and limiting your effectiveness. I want to work from home.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[DarwinSurvivor]

THIS is why bot-nets are so easy to make. The same could be said about cars. You have a steering wheel, a go peddle, a stop peddle and a shifter, an illiterate 3-year old can do that. Yet most people need to know that oil needs to be changed, tires rotated, fluids topped up, brakes replaced, etc. Yes you can pay people to do this, but you need to KNOW they need done first and few computer users get regular maintenance, they just replace the #$@( thing when it gets too many viruses.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[DarwinSurvivor]

Because most businesses don't have the "latest and greatest" os or office suite. I know PLENTY of workplaces from family-owned sign shops to large hot-tub maintenance companies (water testing, etc) that still use windows 98/95 for software that simply doesn't exist for newer versions.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[Anonymous Coward]

i had computers in labs in elementary school and was a typical videogame addict by my teens they meant more to me than social life. and here i am trying to recover from massive mental illness alone never quite succeeded with girls and have no desire for boys. typical slashdot stereotype, living in my parents basement... but at least i'm on disability, so i have money without having to steal anything and yes i paid in, my mental illness is real, and even if i got a job i'd be scared as hell of losing my benefits.

Re:Take a good thing too far...

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably didn't learn how to insert footnotes into a word document, us a spreadsheet to calculate a budget, or how to write professional looking email by having a personal computer at home.

The value of having computers involved in education is that students learn the skills they need to use a computer for a job, because those skills are needed to complete their assignments at school.

By having the English papers composed on a computer, they learn how to format written documents. By requiring their oral presentation to include a power point slideshow, they learn how to make a slideshow and incorporate it into a presentation, etc.

Where computer learning fails is when the plan is just: buy every student a laptop. Or where the plan is to have some piece of software replace a teacher. Both of those are idiotic. But keeping the technology students use in classrooms in step with the technology used in the real world for the same sort of clerical work (most of school is just paperwork) is essential to not producing generations of people who can;t use a computer for anything but games and facebook.

Computers Are Mostly Distractions

[crow_t_robot]

Computers tend to get in the way. Children should have the minimum amount of things between them and the idea they are attempting to learn. Computers also make procrastination and time-wasting one click away.

Re:Computers Are Mostly Distractions

[hedwards]

Yes, but part of growing up to be a responsible and productive adult is knowing how to manage distractions. Which isn't something they're likely to teach in college, assuming that you go, it's something that has to be instilled by somebody up until that point typically.

Re:Computers Are Mostly Distractions

[crow_t_robot]

This is elementary school. That's like saying that every soldier needs to learn combat medicine and then shooting them each in the gut. Sink or swim, right?

Re:Computers Are Mostly Distractions

[Anonymous Coward]

If something is present in your life permanently when you are young you don't learn how to live without it. Not having computers under your fingertips part of the day may be an excellent way to learn not to be distracted by it all the time and how to concentrate on a single subject.

Re:Computers Are Mostly Distractions

[Anonymous Coward]

You and the others who don't think computers can facilitate learning are examples of a failed education. Go back to your command prompt and don't worry about other people's kids.

Feedback

[Aladrin]

I have yet to meet the piece of paper that gives immediate feedback, so it's not possible for pen and paper to teach as well as a computer... If the computer if programmed properly.

Re:Feedback

[jschen]

I also have yet to meet a piece of paper that gives immediate feedback. However, I have met teachers who can give better targeted and more useful feedback than any computer program. Learning tools are great, but perhaps a bit more emphasis should be given to inspiring and training more good teachers.

Re:Feedback

[the eric conspiracy]

Oh pooh. Real life problems don't come with pre-programmed immediate answers. Immediate feedback encourages trail and error problem solving rather than thinking through the answers, and is very harmful.

Re:Feedback

[ceoyoyo]

Have you met the teacher who can give instant feedback to an entire class at the same time?

If you can afford a personal teacher that's obviously the best solution. If you can't afford a teacher at all, you have to make do with a computer. If you're in the middle somewhere, you'll probably find the best approach is a BALANCED one with both.

Re:Feedback

[hedwards]

Perhaps, but if the entire class needs instant feed back on every step in the process the teacher is doing something wrong.

The other day I spent some time helping a student trying to enter an answer into a computer program. She knew the correct answer, but neither her nor I could figure out how to input the answer in a way that the computer program would accept. A teacher, or even a tutor, would be able to instantly recognize that the answer was correct without having to do any real thinking.

Re:Feedback

[hedwards]

I've tried that and it only works if you're in a position to identify the correct answer. I've seen students who were basically there spend a lot of time trying to get there and ultimately have no clue as to what the correct answer looks like.

Thomas Edison was renowned for trying thousands of different ways of creating a light bulb before succeeding, had he not had a way of identifying a functioning lightbulb he would likely have continued it until his death.

Re:Feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

...neither she nor I...

FTFY

Re:Feedback

[locketine]

Immediate feedback only encourages trial and error if the feedback is a pass/fail. I used a program in college for learning chemistry and if you got the answer wrong it told you why you were wrong, explained the underlying concept and then asked you a different question that tested the same principles as the first one. This type of feedback is impossible without a computer or a personal tutor and far superior to anything a teacher can provide for a class with more than a couple students.

Re:Feedback

[LynnwoodRooster]

Maybe you have heard of this new invention called "textbooks" with these things called "sample problems" and "answer keys" included therein...

Re:Feedback

[TWX]

If the computer if programmed properly.

You haven't seen the state of computer software for elementary school, have you?

I've worked in IT for education for ten years. The wrong people are writing computer software for students. The wrong people are buying educational software. The wrong people are buying security software. The wrong people are implementing images and choices for things in the OS and for user-level security. And, a lot of the wrong people are maintaining the equipment.

I believe that computers for students as a concept is a total failure. Kids don't use computers for education, they use them to play. They stimulate the dopamine centers of the brain with them, and when they don't get their fix they get whiny and crabby and they act out in class. Take away the computers from the room except for a teacher's workstation that's unobtrusive and I think that many of the problems in the modern classroom will go away.

Re:Feedback

[the eric conspiracy]

Your Edison example is complete hogwash. His success with the light bulb included careful engineering of a complete system to enable production, delivery and the components to supply electrical illumination. Many other people where try all sorts of random components to build light bulbs. Edison was successful because of his systematic approach to the total problem.

Re:Feedback

[Tacvek]

Considering that we are talking about primary school students, I'm not sure the concept of a textbook is particularly applicable.

Even when talking about post-primary education though, textbooks have a limited set of problems, while a computer program can have a set of parametrized problems supporting step by step solutions. thus if you are having difficulty figuring an answer out, you can request the steps and solution, and do not lose out on being able to try a similar problem now that this original one has been spoiled. Obviously that mostly applies to math, science, and engineering courses, since computers cannot easily generate say reasonable reading comprehension questions.

Re:Feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of the article is that maybe the instant feedback IS the problem when teaching reading and writing.

Re:Feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't he identify a functioning lightbulb by copying what Joseph Swan had made?

Re:Feedback

[bcrowell]

GP post:

I have yet to meet the piece of paper that gives immediate feedback.

Here's an example. The following is written on a piece of paper:

Divide 7 by 11, expressing your result as a repeating decimal. Check your answer by multiplication.

Immediate feedback is provided by the part about checking your answer.

Parent post:

Oh pooh. Real life problems don't come with pre-programmed immediate answers. Immediate feedback encourages trail and error problem solving rather than thinking through the answers, and is very harmful.

Well, yes and no. It is certainly possible to construct tasks that can't be done by trial and error. As an example from the college level, I assign a physics homework problem where the answer is T=(1/2)Mg(1+(L/2h)^2)^(1/2). What do you think are the chances that someone is going to come up with that formula by chance? I use computer software that allows students to check the answer. One of the advantages of the software is that if they come up with some equivalent form, such as Mg/2sin(atan(h/L)), the software can immediately recognize it as being correct. (The software checks for equality by plugging in random numbers for M, g, L, and h, and seeing if it gets the same answer from both forms. This doesn't rigorously prove that the two forms are equivalent, but in the practical examples we do in my class, it turns out to be 100% accurate.)

I certainly do see students try to do problems by random guessing, and some of the problems I assign are doable by random guessing. Well, hey, there are lots of dopey things students do. All you can do is try to give them guidance and hope they accept it.

Computers are not inherently good or bad -- not in education, and not anywhere else. They're a tool. Tools can be used correctly or incorrectly.

Re:Feedback

[hedwards]

It's not complete hogwash, he had to try over 2,000 different ways before he reached the one that ultimately worked. It doesn't matter how systematic he was being, if he didn't know what the result should look like, or have an idea, then he'd never have found the correct solution.

Re:Feedback

[DarwinSurvivor]

So a decent teacher is better than a bad program. Did you know that a decent program is also better than a bad teacher?

Re:Feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

have you ever tried edubuntu? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZtANWP7Q0g

we didn't have it when i was a kid we just had oregon trail and math blaster and some sherlock holmes stuff

but i agree kids learn how play and get a rush from computers...

Re:Feedback

[kermidge]

Um. Re: "systematic approach..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison#Electric_light gives a concise if somewhat antiseptic account.

Not saying you're wrong, only that "systematic" in this instance [if memory of what I've read here and there over the years is right enough] was largely a humungous amount of frequently trial-and-error plodding drudgery sparked with occasional flashes of inspiration over many tedious, frustrating hours, days, weeks, months. A successful result was not a foregone thing but rather as much a hoped-for goal, via faith in himself and such of his methods, through dogged perseverance and uncommon ambition. He suffered bouts of self-doubt and loss of hope. His own accounts and those of people who knew him well can be [ahem] illuminating.

As for "careful engineering of a complete system" - well, yes, but. None of this sprang like Hera from the mind of Zeus (if I have my reference a-rightly), notwithstanding his vision as he went along (again, his own accounts). It was piece-work - true, original engineering in the sense of, for instance, "okay, I've got a lamp working well enough, now to power it (well enough to be going on with)... now, how to get a lamp shining in the next room, the next block, the next town... then to patent, license, promote, make, sell, etc.

Your statement is correct and textbook clean. Simple in hindsight: dynamo, generator, wire, lamp, (and a bunch of other stuff); _et voilà_, success, profit, fame, and an electrically-lit planet. My attempted understanding is of mind and flesh and the kind of genius and ambition and a willingness to plod as needed at work and at working that's perhaps not so widely comprehended nowadays.

Of course, your use of "included" make my post moot, eh? And I suspect that unlike me the smart people here understood the background right off the bat.

Sorry. "complete hogwash" kinda struck me sideways.

Re:Feedback

[Ocker3]

Yes, because students never mucked up in class before we put computers in them.

I'm part of a massive commonwealth-funded (I live in Australia) project to have one computer for every student in years 9-12. Teachers were given laptops 2 years ago, to upskill them and get them ready. Some teachers took to it like ducks to water, others hardly use them at all, some simply have a very basic level of computer competency (adding text to an image, printing it out and laminating it was a big step for them, but they're really good at teaching drama, so...).

Next year we're going to have 700+ laptops in student's hands, and that's a Huge thing to comprehend (it's even hard for my boss, who's the ICT Head of Department, the sheer scale is mind-boggling). But our country is going to Need to have workers with good computer skills, to compete against Singaporean students, students from Hong Kong, South Korea, and other Asian powerhouse nations. If students are going to muck up, they're going to muck up, whether it's playing games on a computer, reading a comic inside their textbook, or just looking out the window. It's the teacher's job to get students to learn, and it's the school's job to give the teacher the right resources so they can put their skills to best use, and help them upgrade their skills.

Re:Feedback

[Electricity Likes Me]

Although with reading comprehesion, a thorough digital curriculum project would be capable of building up an enormous database of problems and their solutions from across the globe for people to try.

The ideals behind the Khan Academy are more or less the direction computer-augmented education needs to go - the real problem is still that governments and voters have no patience for long-term planning or expensive development and restructuring and retraining. So instead we get "computers" thrown at education with no plan on how to use them.

The same goes for all other attendant issues such as actually funding school districts sensibly, or attacking root socioeconomic issues in areas which erode educational outcomes (poverty, crime, corruption).

Of course, I happily back trying to build better technology and software, because I've much less confidence we can do any of those other things.

Re:Feedback

[UBfusion]

I'd give you +1 insightful if you could provide some reasons why it's the wrong people doing the jobs. Somehow I get the feeling that you are not merely implying that all this wrongness is just the result of bureaucratic blunders or cutting the costs.

I can't help but make comparisons with another industry: "I've worked in the big pharma for 10 years. The right people are designing new drugs for people. The right people are buying them in hospital and private practices. The right people are designing the ads and optimal choices for the health system serving the feeling of public well-being. And, a lot of right doctors are making sure the dosages are maintained".

Re:Feedback

[Jonner]

I also have yet to meet a piece of paper that gives immediate feedback. However, I have met teachers who can give better targeted and more useful feedback than any computer program. Learning tools are great, but perhaps a bit more emphasis should be given to inspiring and training more good teachers.

It is certainly deeply flawed thinking to think computers can replace quality human teachers. It's just as misguided to think that because a good teacher doesn't need computers to teach reading and arithmetic that computers can't be effective tools in the classroom. Even if computers aren't particularly effective tools for teaching arithmetic and reading, they are pretty nice for posting things on the web and learning how to write programs. The web didn't exist when I was in elementary school, but I did learn to write programs from a young age and wrote school assignments using word processors at home. I didn't have access to computers in my classrooms, so I would have been at a disadvantage if I didn't have it at home.

Re:Feedback

[Jonner]

Oh pooh. Real life problems don't come with pre-programmed immediate answers. Immediate feedback encourages trail and error problem solving rather than thinking through the answers, and is very harmful.

Real life problems require planning, critical thinking and experimentation to solve. Immediate feedback is often extremely helpful. As a programmer, I rely on it all the time. I certainly don't miss the era when programs had to be submitted on stacks of punch cards and the result would come back hours later. Then, it was necessary to consider everything the computer was doing. Today, they're far too complex for that to be practical.

Re:Feedback

[TWX]

Okay, you want some specifics, I'll give them, to an extent.

The people buying educational software don't have the computer experience necessary to determine if the application will even run using a client/server model. This means that the kid has to get on to the same workstation each time to continue the same instructions in many instances. The most software that does run client/server isn't using a web browser. Pretty much all of the software that does use a web browser isn't standards-compliant and won't run on every browser. The only software that I encounter that will run cross-platform properly isn't education software, it's edutainment software and doesn't really provide much educational value.

Those who develop the images don't have any concept about security on the local machine and there's no interest in getting these people trained, either from the people themselves or from those above them.

Many of the people maintaining equipment are really no more knowledgeable than users. They don't even know how to pull up Microsoft's Event Viewer. They don't understand what makes things fail and how to fix those things, and half of them still misdiagnose HARDWARE problems.

That's what I mean by, "the wrong people". There are almost no actual computer geeks here at all. I guess management doesn't want to deal with the fact that most geeks aren't likely to do something incredibly stupid simply because they're told to, so instead they hire someone who'll try to do something regardless of how asinine it is.

Re:Feedback

[TWX]

Next year we're going to have 700+ laptops in student's hands,

Cool! 1400 workorders a year to fix the average two broken components a year! Job security!

Clearly can't teach english either...

[djsmiley]

'The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic, that's ridiculous.'

What?

I think you meant "Can teach my kids better than a human teacher", or something along these lines, but clearly all those digital aids mean you can't have sentences with more than 160 letters anymore ;)

Re:Clearly can't teach english either...

[demonlapin]

It's a perfectly grammatical sentence, akin to "I can better serve the cause by doing X rather than Y."

Re:Clearly can't teach english either...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's borderline. I certainly wouldn't write it like that.

Luddite School, yay.

[JRowe47]

Apparently this teacher hasn't encountered Khan Academy. The style of teaching used there is almost universally applicable. Determine whether a child is an auditory, kinetic, or visual learner, and tailor their education around their abilities, putting the teacher in the role of mentor, instead of babysitter or cop.

Make learning interesting, and kids won't be bored at school. Make school boring, and kids won't learn jack. There is no one-size fits all, and its the smartest kids who get tossed under the bus in favor of the dutiful.

Re:Luddite School, yay.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, boring stuff needs to be done, the sooner you learn the self discipline to finish the work regardless of whether it is boring or not, the better.

Re:Luddite School, yay.

[hedwards]

The multiple intelligences stuff really has run amok in recent years.

The reason to use a mixture isn't because some students prefer one over the other. As long as the students are comprehending the material, they'll learn it. The main reason for using a variety of styles is so that the brain can't adapt to the dominant type of input and has to figure out how to make sense from various types of lesson. Which happens to be a lot more authentic in that you don't generally get to control how information is provided to you.

It's very much like weight training, you'll ideally be varying the various variables regularly to prevent your muscles from adapting to the exercises, the brain does similar things to maintain efficiency.

Re:Luddite School, yay.

[JRowe47]

The sooner you teach a child discipline, the sooner he will learn. If he knows everything set out in your curriculum because it's all in a book that he read in the first week, you've now got a child who knows everything you planned on regurgitating. With no contingency for the smart ones, then not only will the teacher not teach discipline, but the kid will learn that teachers are blithering idiots like everyone else on the planet.

Most school teachers aren't worth as much as a well written book.

Re:Luddite School, yay.

[Electricity Likes Me]

I don't really follow what you're saying here.

It sounds like you're advocating trying to keep everyone learning at the same pace to prevent, what discipline problems?

Re:Luddite School, yay.

[JRowe47]

I'm advocating the khan academy style of teaching - for most subjects it is a compelling alternative to the standard one-size-fits all approach to public education. A set of videos and materials to teach a subject in a way that can be paced intuitively is better than an impatient live teacher - a student can pause and rewind if needed. The teacher's task becomes one of monitoring progress, filling in the gaps, and directing subjects. Everyone gets the same information, and progress is measurable and structured.

Re:Luddite School, yay.

[Electricity Likes Me]

Ah, much clearer.

And in fact, exactly what I myself advocate: it's as you say, as close to "one size fits all" as we're likely to get, since the worst-case scenario is essentially the current model of teaching (though with vastly reduced class sizes one would imagine).

Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[russotto]

So an app on the iPad can't present any number of arithmetic problems and give a child feedback on right and wrong answers right away?

You obviously don't need computers to teach, but to claim that can't be helpful is just Luddism.

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[maxwell demon]

So an app on the iPad can't present any number of arithmetic problems and give a child feedback on right and wrong answers right away?

Can't better. Now better than what (or more likely, who) is left open. Presumably better than a teacher. And I'm pretty sure that's right. The problem is that we cannot give every child his own teacher, and therefore the teacher will need to share his attention to many children. And with this situation, I'm not convinced that the combination of teacher and computer (it doesn't need to be an iPad) wouldn't work better than a teacher alone.

Now if you try to replace the teacher with the computer ...

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[Javagator]

You obviously don't need computers to teach, but to claim that can't be helpful is just Luddism.

I agree. It's obviously a question that could be decided by a few carefully designed experiments. To make a blanket assertion without any evidence is not what you would expect from an educator. Given the importance of the question, I'm surprise that someone hasn't done the research.

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[oldunixgeek]

It has been absolutely proven beyond a doubt that people learn faster and more deeply when taking methamphetamine.

I don't see anybody advocating for handing out the meth in schools.

Why not?

Because, along with the enhanced learning rate comes some rather unpleasant side effects.

It's pretty much the same thing with computer use.

The next time you see your older relatives using their iPhones notice how much time they spend ignoring people around them to stare at their phone screen during social functions.

Scary.

I'm singling out the older folks here because presumably they should know better but still they can't resist......

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[Anonymous Coward]

give a child feedback on right and wrong answers right away?

God forbid that they'd have to spend two seconds turning a page to the answers section.

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach? Absolutely not. Oh, maybe they can, but we don't know how to make that happen yet.

Reinforce what has already been taught? Yes, they can. The instant feedback is great for those who want to use it to learn. However, I suspect that most elementary kids won't use it properly. They are still learning the skills needed to work and learn on their own. I know my own daughter would try to find the laziest way to get the homework done. My college math course has an online component and a good many of my classmates have all A's on their homework (due to instant feedback and unlimited retries) but can't take a paper and pen test to save their lives. The reason is they aren't trying to learn. If adults who have managed to make it through highschool are going to use the system that way, why would elementary kids be any different?

But there are all kinds of negatives that come along with it that haven't even been addressed. In my experience, the people who are pushing these things in school aren't educated about what they are pushing. And the cost of the devices and software could almost certainly be spent in other ways that would better help the kids. That might change in the future, but as of this moment I think adding iPads to a school for the purpose of learning is just absurd.

I was born at just the right time for computers to be new in elementary school. We had Apple II's. We certainly used them for learning. But we used them for learning how computers work, how to use computers, how to type, and etc. I think we might have even written simple BASIC programs.

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[Fremandn]

How often do you have access to a teacher when you are running arithmetic drills? It is a waste of time and computers can assist the user in determining when they've made a mistake and perhaps offering useful feedback if a common mistake is detected.

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[Nyder]

So an app on the iPad can't present any number of arithmetic problems and give a child feedback on right and wrong answers right away?

You obviously don't need computers to teach, but to claim that can't be helpful is just Luddism.

I think people are more upset about the idea that computers will replace the teachers. Your example is all good and stuff, until the kid has a question, the iPad won't answer. That's when he/she needs a human, at least, for now.

but then, what exactly are you being taught in grammer school? Except English, most everything else is must memorizing crap. History is mostly memorizing dates, Math is all memorization. Same as Spelling. In fact, there is really very little a human needs to do in grammer school, cept keep the kids in line and hopefully figure out which ones need special attention, and then given it.

But no, I'm not for replacing humans with computers in any level of school, 'cept maybe College. Education is probably one of the most important things we can give kids, and what does it show them when we don't care enough to give them the best education we can?

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[Anonymous Coward]

So an app on the iPad can't present any number of arithmetic problems and give a child feedback on right and wrong answers right away?

Well sure, it can, but it's not doing anything a standard arithmetic textbook didn't do already. Problems in the exercises, answers at the back. Solve problem; compare answer; immediate feedback. This hypothetical iPad app as you present it doesn't bring anything new to the table (except perhaps the "get frustrated; play Angry Birds instead" steps).

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[russotto]

It has been absolutely proven beyond a doubt that people learn faster and more deeply when taking methamphetamine. I don't see anybody advocating for handing out the meth in schools. Why not?

Because Ritalin has the same effect and a more socially acceptable name.

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[Cant use a slash wtf]

Maths should not be about memorisation for most of your schooling. If it is, the teacher is doing it wrong.

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[Anonymous Coward]

So an app on the iPad can't present any number of arithmetic problems and give a child feedback on right and wrong answers right away?

You obviously don't need computers to teach, but to claim that can't be helpful is just Luddism.

Feedback, yes- useful feedback for a child, no. It cannot, for example, determine if a mistake was made because the child lacks understanding, or if it was because Johnny was sticking gum in her hair while she was trying to work the problem. There is a certain level of intuition involved in teaching which simply is not (currently) within the capabilities of software. A program can only supply approaches to the problem which have been pre-determined, where a teacher can think "outside the box" and find a way to specifically target an individual student.

Yes, computers can be somewhat helpful, especially for an underfunded, understaffed, or otherwise resource-poor facility. But they also offer a great deal of distraction. Failing to understand the drawbacks of technology in addition to the benefits is worse than being a Luddite.

And keep in mind we're talking about electronic computers here, there ARE other kinds of computers. For example, an abacus will do everything that a calculator can do with the exception of graphing. I firmly believe that a big part of the stereotype that "Asians are good at math" is because they STILL teach kids on an abacus to this day. That tool's use imparts a much deeper level of understanding of math than the "rote learning" model we tend to rely on in the West. Usually we combine our model with the "guess and check" approach to problem solving, which provides almost no level of understanding at all.

Re:Can't teach your kids arithmetic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Math is all memorization.

Well, no. Mathematics consist of so much more than memorizing things, even at the lower levels.

good subject

[eyenot]

I have a copy of a book on the same subject, "The Child and the Machine: Why computers may put our children's educations at risk". It's pretty interesting even if the author is obviously not a computer tech.

Not about attention

[Hentes]

Schools should realize that with the changing of times they should update their methods and also their subjects.
There are many advantages of computers in teaching:

• A single ebook or netbook can replace all the books needed. Many children develop scoliosis because they have to haul tons of books every day.
• Children are taught to write in cursive, wich is a torture to most, for years. Handwriting is an obsolete skill they will never use in their lives. This time would be much better spent by teaching them typing that they will need every day.
• The Internet is, among its other uses, a wonderful repository of the collective human knowledge. I learned most of what I know from there. Teaching the children how to use it might be the most important skill they will ever learn.
• With modern technology a lot of old skills are losing importance while new ones appear. Calculations can be made by algorithms, data can be looked up on the Internet. But learning to use digital devices is a very important skill in itself.

Re:Not about attention

[Tomato42]

Handwriting is an obsolete skill they will never use in their lives.

because no one is using whiteboards in business meetings, especially small ones.

Re:Not about attention

[Strider-]

Children are taught to write in cursive, wich is a torture to most, for years. Handwriting is an obsolete skill they will never use in their lives. This time would be much better spent by teaching them typing that they will need every day.

I don't know what planet you live on, but neat, legible handwriting is still absolutely required in nearly any industry. Case in point, a friend of mine ordered some copper walled cavity filters for VHF radio repeater. He specified that the cavities were to be made from 1.0mm wall thickness tubing. Unfortunately the guy who took the order couldn't write worth crap, and the machinist who built the unit read that as 10mm wall thickness.

As an Engineer myself, most of my work is done on computers, but my note taking and what not is still done in long-hand. Under our corporate rules, we have to do this, and sign/date the pages as we go. The whole point is that these notebooks can then be legally used as evidence should there be any patent dispute or the like. A signed, and dated page from an Engineer's notebook is much better evidence of prior art than some computer file you dug up.

Re:Not about attention

[hedwards]

Cursive is still useful, I find that it's a lot easier to use cursive to take notes than with block printing as it takes longer for my hand to cramp up with cursive. OTOH, it's not very useful for interpersonal communication, which is why it's been downgraded in importance. When all is said and done it would probably be more useful to teach short hand than it would be to teach cursive.

Re:Not about attention

[vlm]

Handwriting is an obsolete skill they will never use in their lives.

because no one is using whiteboards in business meetings, especially small ones.

I have never seen cursive handwriting used in two decades of business meetings. Neat block print, yes. Scribble block print, yes. Flowing artsy calligraphy cursive, never. It's right up there with "shorthand", which I had to learn the rudiments of when I was a teen "because you'll use this all the time"

Re:Not about attention

[futuresheep]

Scoliosis isn't caused by hauling around a ton of heavy books.

http://www.webmd.com/osteoarthritis/guide/arthritis-scoliosis

There are many types and causes of scoliosis, including:

Congenital scoliosis. Due to a bone abnormality present at birth. Neuromuscular scoliosis. A result of abnormal muscles or nerves. Frequently seen in people with spina bifida or cerebral palsy or in those with various conditions that are accompanied by, or result in, paralysis.
Degenerative scoliosis. This may result from traumatic (from an injury or illness) bone collapse, previous major back surgery, or osteoporosis (thining of the bones).
Idiopathic scoliosis. The most common type of scoliosis, idiopathic scoliosis, has no specific identifiable cause. There are many theories, but none have been found to be conclusive. There is, however, strong evidence that idiopathic scoliosis is inherited.

Cursive may be harder to learn, but once learned it much more efficient than block writing is. Most efficient is a combination of the two styles, but without learning cursive first students will never get there.

The internet IS a very useful source of information, but what you're describing isn't any different than learning to find the resources you need at your local library.

Could you be more specific about:

Which skills are being replaced? How the internet replaces a quality library and teacher?

Re:Not about attention

[Hentes]

I don't know what planet you live on, but neat, legible handwriting is still absolutely required in nearly any industry. Case in point, a friend of mine ordered some copper walled cavity filters for VHF radio repeater. He specified that the cavities were to be made from 1.0mm wall thickness tubing. Unfortunately the guy who took the order couldn't write worth crap, and the machinist who built the unit read that as 10mm wall thickness.

This just shows one of the disadvantages of using cursive.

As an Engineer myself, most of my work is done on computers, but my note taking and what not is still done in long-hand. Under our corporate rules, we have to do this, and sign/date the pages as we go. The whole point is that these notebooks can then be legally used as evidence should there be any patent dispute or the like. A signed, and dated page from an Engineer's notebook is much better evidence of prior art than some computer file you dug up.

You can write whatever you want in a notebook with your handwriting, sign it and date it back, it will be impossible to tell. This is just an example of a bad law that will hopefully get fixed by the time the kids of today finish school.

Re:Not about attention

[westlake]

I don't know what planet you live on, but neat, legible handwriting is still absolutely required in nearly any industry.

Elisha Gray's Telautograph [1888] was an early analog facsimile system that allowed handwritten messages and signatures to be exchanged in real time over a wire.

One of the great virtues of the system was its implied authenticity. It was as if you were looking over the shoulders of the writers.

Not many forgers would be up to that challenge.

Re:Not about attention

[Hognoxious]

Handwriting != cursive. Hentes (2461350) seems to think so, but he's an ass - don't encourage him.

Re:Not about attention

[Hentes]

I guess I've been wrong about scoliosis. There just seemed to be a trend that many of the people I know were diagnosed with it sooner or later while this ratio was much smaller in my parents' generation. I guess this is because of the development of diagnostic methods then. I guess all the adults were wrong telling me to sit straight back then :-)

However, carrying that much weight is still unhealthy, or at least very uncomfortable. Not to mention the nuisance of kids accidentally leaving a book at home.

Cursive may be harder to learn, but once learned it much more efficient than block writing is. Most efficient is a combination of the two styles, but without learning cursive first students will never get there.

Excuse me for my bad English. I meant teaching touch typing instead of writing by hand with pen and paper.

The internet will never replace a quality teacher, I didn't say that. But yes, libraries are made mostly obsolete by it, and comparing them to the internet is like comparing a wheelbarrow to a racecar. In a library you need to spend hours seaching for books related to what you are looking for, then spend more hours searching inside those books. And if you are lucky, you will find the information. However, the size of libraries is limited, and looking for something specific and less popular is a gamble. In contrast, you can access an unlimited amount of information on the Internet, search it and get the results in a matter of seconds. This fundamentally changes the way we access information.

I provided examples but I will try to be more specific. A physicist of today doesn't need to know calculus, he just punches the equations into Wolfram Alpha or a similar desktop program and gets the results. Likewise, an architect doesn't need to know how to draw blueprints, he uses some CAD software.

Re:Not about attention

[zippthorne]

Maybe, but typing is even more efficient than any of those. If you want to keep everything else the same, it makes more sense to drop cursive and teach typing. Further, touch typing is easier to learn than cursive, so you can use the remaining time to drill other kinds of typing as well.

Re:Not about attention

[russotto]

It's right up there with "shorthand", which I had to learn the rudiments of when I was a teen "because you'll use this all the time"

The difference between shorthand and cursive is that shorthand really might come in handy from time to time, if you have to take notes and can't, for whatever reason, use a computer to do it.

Re:Not about attention

[futuresheep]

Part of the learning process as you grow is simply learning that some things that may seam dull and dreary can lead to a skill that make learning other things easier. Math tables, spelling, and cursive all fall in this category. Besides, typing is easily learned simply by learning the basics of hand position and then typing a lot. I'll also go out on a limb and say that the prevalence of home computers gives kids ample time outside of school to hone their typing skills.

Re:Not about attention

[futuresheep]

There's a lot of value in going to the library, finding the books you need, and using them to take the notes you need for the research you're doing. On it's own there's a lot of value in the simple process of taking notes down on paper itself:

http://www.slideshare.net/luscher/optimising-the-use-of-notetaking-as-an-external-cognitive-aid-for-increasing-learning

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1636926/

A physicist doesn't need to know calculus? How does that physicist make it through basic college physics classes without understanding some of the math behind their chosen field? And CAD is still drawing out a blueprint, it's just a different medium. I guarantee you though, if you talked to any architect these days they'd tell you that their ideas all begin as rough sketches on paper. There are still architectural schools that require taking classes with a drafting board and a parallel rule.

These people that use Wolfram Alpha, or CAD for everything are your low level monkeys in their field. They're no different from a help desk tech that uses google to solve every problem.

Re:Not about attention

[Hentes]

Many have brought up notes, sorry I detailed my opinion there. In short, I don't think handwriting is necessary for taking notes.

The need to learn stuff because it is needed in school is a circular argument.

And Google CAN solve 99% of the arising problems if you know how to use it (or, more accurately, point you to the existing solutions).

Re:Not about attention

[Xugumad]

> A single ebook or netbook can replace all the books needed.

And cost more, before you pay for all of that content. Which is DRMed to avoid a second hand market (although this is improving, to be fair).

> The Internet is, among its other uses, a wonderful repository of the collective human knowledge. I learned most of what I know from there. Teaching the children how to use it might be the most important skill they will ever learn.

Research skills are something important and schools should teach. I find it difficult to accept that they're so complex that they require constant practice, though. Also, focusing children on learning from the Internet leaves them (and working at a university, this really is a big issue) stumbling when they're looking for something not on the Internet (and frequently, beyond the grasp anything beyond the grasp of Google).

If you've got an infinite budget, technology is very useful, yes. However, on a limited budget I find it challenging to accept that the money is generally better spent on technology instead of teachers. There are things that simply are much more effective on computer (anything that is described well by animation, for example), but we shouldn't be blindly throwing technology at education.

Re:Not about attention

[romiz]

Cursive is not easily legible, and clearly the wrong choice in a world where you are not going to write long texts with a quill. Like other antiquated handwriting scripts, it is obsolete and should be reserved to specific cases.

Just teach the kids to spell correctly, and write legibly with block letters. If they want to learn calligraphy, let them learn it during art lessons, instead of basic school training.

Re:Not about attention

[DragonWriter]

You can write whatever you want in a notebook with your handwriting, sign it and date it back, it will be impossible to tell. This is just an example of a bad law that will hopefully get fixed by the time the kids of today finish school.

Its not really a bad law; nothing makes signed, dated notebooks uncontrovertible evidence. They are admissible as evidence -- as are any records kept in the regular course of business. There's a lot more case law on the details of what matters in paper records because there are centuries more cases settling the rules, so lots of places are more comfortable relying on retaining paper records for the simple reason that the rules as to what is important with paper records are more firmly established.

Re:Not about attention

[Hentes]

The cost of a Kindle is 80$, that's about the cost of all books for a year. Given that ebooks tend to be cheaper, it might even cost less in the long run, provided the device survives that long.
 
I have been tought library searching and internet searching in school but those classes were pretty much useless. These skills can only develop with practice. As companies change searching algorithms constantly, you can't just learn it, you need to stay in touch. Knowing what to search for is more of an instinct than a science.

I still stumble when I encounter something that is not on the Internet (wich is very rare btw) unless it's a specific thing I already know of. There is no general method for finding things not on the internet.

If you've got an infinite budget, technology is very useful, yes. However, on a limited budget I find it challenging to accept that the money is generally better spent on technology instead of teachers. There are things that simply are much more effective on computer (anything that is described well by animation, for example), but we shouldn't be blindly throwing technology at education.

This is an American school. But in a general sense you are right, if you are short on money spend it on hiring good teachers (but in many countries teacher unions prevent differentiated payments).

Re:Not about attention

[Hentes]

Part of the learning process as you grow is simply learning that some things that may seam dull and dreary can lead to a skill that make learning other things easier. Math tables, spelling, and cursive all fall in this category.

These are three different things. Math do make learning other things easy as it's the foundation of all the sciences, and is also useful in real life. Spelling is useful for communication but doesn't make anything easier to learn. And handwriting was only useful when people still used letters and notebooks. I fail to see the similarity.

Besides, typing is easily learned simply by learning the basics of hand position and then typing a lot. I'll also go out on a limb and say that the prevalence of home computers gives kids ample time outside of school to hone their typing skills.

Exactly like handwriting. You learn how to draw the letters and then you exercise it a lot. Like 2-4 years. And while it's true that you can learn anything outside of school, that kinda takes away the whole purpose of it, as schools should be the place of learning.

Re:Not about attention

[hjf]

Man, you're a complete idiot.

Both My Kids GO To A Waldorf School

[szyzyg]

They're pretty tech Savvy (Skye is even e-famous for playing Eve Online) but we felt that the school environment worked well for them. They're learning knitting as part of the hand skills but it's not just picking up some needles and yarn, they started out making their own yarn and needles - it's like those crazy hacker types who want to build their own computer and operating system :)

Re:Both My Kids GO To A Waldorf School

[szyzyg]

Also, I feel the need to point out that this is a public charter school in Oakland, I don't pay any fees to send them there, but positions are limited. Most Waldorf schools are private. Truthfully I wasn't looking for specifically for a Waldorf school, we were just looking around for schools that were most likely to provide a good education.

Re:Both My Kids GO To A Waldorf School

[Jonner]

The school described in the article sounds excellent to me in general. I don't have any problem with the things they do do. It's the negative attitude that computers are harmful to learning that seems a little nutty. Perhaps it makes sense that kids of techy people go to such schools, since they have more exposure to computers outside of school than the average.

I was able to use computers at home from about the age of seven, even before I went to school. I played some games, educational and otherwise, as well as learned BASIC programming and wrote school assignments in a word processor. I suspect that kids who don't have much access to computers at home could benefit from learning how to write simple programs and make web pages at school. Eighth grade is very late for computer exposure to begin, today far more so than when I was in school.

An interesting idea

[werepants]

Technology is one of those cases where everybody assumes more is better, without really thinking about where it makes sense and where it doesn't. Now, I don't know that this school's results are all that impressive, especially considering the selection bias that comes with being an expensive private school. But, I have seen lots of money spent on technology at schools, and seen that technology used in a pointless or counterproductive way.

As with most things, I suspect the answer isn't yes or no, but that in some situations it is appropriate and useful and in others it isn't. And, we need the discretion of skilled educators to make that call.

Luddite High.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The problem isn't computers, the problem that other school districts face isn't the lack of great teachers.

The problem is socioeconomic. These kids are fucking upper crust yuppies. No shit they're going to turn out good results. It's easy to say that hitting a triple is easy when you were born on third base.

I wonder how their Computer Science curriculum is. I hope they don't have them break out pencil and paper and make them write down opcodes like Woz did in the fuckin' 70's optimizing disk drive routines.

Re:Luddite High.

[glodime]

I agree that socioeconomic effects are a real issue in education. However, I doubt that the "no computers" elementary school has a Computer Science curriculum.

Re:Luddite High.

[Anonymous Coward]

You either can't hit a triple if you're born on third or else you're going to end up on second, in which case, you're worse off than when you started. Think your metaphors through. Geez.

Re:Luddite High.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, it's not just 'upper crust yuppies' - there are even 'inner city' Waldorf programs that have to follow the same rules as public schools for student intake (they're charter schools funded by the same source as public schools) and they still produce students that are above average.

Re:Luddite High.

[Anonymous Coward]

>I hope they don't have them break out pencil and paper and make them write down opcodes like Woz did in the fuckin' 70's optimizing disk drive routines.

I rather hope they do. The people who know the computer to that level of detail are the people who are always assured of finding a job.

Re:Luddite High.

[oldunixgeek]

Their computer science curriculum starts in high school and they do damn well.

I didn't go to a Waldorf school but I never touched a computer until I was 14 and I do just fine thank you (outperforming even in my old age the vast majority of software developers and or systems designers born after computers were available to everyone in the US from birth).

How many surgeons started cutting up animals in 4th grade? Starting earlier is not necessarily helpful for every kind of skill.

People have some very important things to learn prior to HS and moving HS curriculum down into the lower grades displaces some of that important learning.

Re:Luddite High.

[kenh]

I wonder how their Computer Science curriculum is. I hope they don't have them break out pencil and paper and make them write down opcodes like Woz did in the fuckin' 70's optimizing disk drive routines.

First off, this is GRAMMER SCHOOL not high school - what computer science curriculum are they offering in your district? Brainpop? Homework Island?

Second, look at everything Woz was able to do WITHOUT learning 'computer science' in the 3rd grade.... (I learned to code COBOL & 370 assembler on paper, it was called a coding form, we submitted it to a keypunch operator, and our programs were run in batch mode, where we would pick up the results in a bin - you could spot a core dump from down the hall)

Finally, this school operates at a PROFIT at $17.5K/year, offering kids an excellent education - what is your local school district spending per child (including bonds & referendums to pay for facilities)?

Re:Luddite High.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think part of the reason why technology gets pushed into schools is teachers who can't rivet the pupils attention and teachers who don't like/have time to setup and evaluate challenging assignments. With this kinds of teachers the quality of output decreasing, the solution seems (to some) to be technology.

I would love a teacher who insists that all assignments be handwritten. This was Google + Wikipedia and copy paste won't cut it.

But then again may be the teachers and the school board is afraid of law suits from asshole parents who think their kids should be able to use MS word, powerpoint, Visio etc.

It's The Teachers

[shawnhcorey]

It's dedicated teachers that make the difference, not the technology (or lack of it). If the teachers are dedicated and free of micro-management, then their students consistently preform well. That's the lesson to be learned.

Re:It's The Teachers

[Anonymous Coward]

It's dedicated teachers that make the difference, not the technology (or lack of it). If the teachers are dedicated and free of micro-management, then their students consistently preform well. That's the lesson to be learned.

Very true. Unfortunately the conservatives and corporatists engage in the very kind of micro-management that causes good teachers to leave, which is pretty much what they really want. They don't want to improve the education system, they want to monetize it and privatize it. To do that, they can't allow success in education. To them, "inspiring" teachers = "bad teachers" because the students might be inspired to think for themselves and figure out when they're being lied to, while "teach to the test" types who bore their students to death are rewarded.

Imagine this: you walk into a job interview and you tell the interviewer "I don't believe in what this company does, in its values, or anything--but I want you to put me in charge of it." You'd get laughed out of the interview, but that is pretty much the behavior of conservatives wanting to be in charge of education.

Waldorf School and computers

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Waldorf philosophy is to only use tools you already understand. So they their philosophy would forbid them using computers in class anyway until all the pupils know how to build their own....

computers at home

[fermion]

If all students have full access to computers with parents knowledgable in the technology, then they are not really needed in school. Parents will teach the kids to use the computers and there is no issue with homework requiring computers getting completed. Reading can be online. School can focus on content exploration

The same is true if all parents are college educated. The parents likely have a knowledge of study skills and the basic taught at school. Therefore if the teachers are lacking, the parents can make up the slack. Teachers don't have start the SAT of AP work from scratch because parents already know.

However I would suggest that the public school has to be mindful of the 20% of the population that did not complete high school or the 80% that never took a college course. Or the majority that do not now know how to use a computer as a productive tool.

But deep-tissue massage in the classroom is OK...

[erac3rx]

Just a little background here. My wife, two boys and I recently relocated back to the bay area. My son (and wife and I) interviewed at the Waldorf school, and my son was admitted. We decided not to have him attend because 1) the cost was high (roughly $15K a year for 3 half-days a week for a pre-schooler) and 2) the people making decisions there are little bit... eccentric. They made it very clear that they are anti-computers and anti-video (TV or videos of any sort). That's fine, if a bit unrealistic. Next they let us know that the teachers provided deep-tissue massage to the kids during each day's nap time. And explained how cell phones and electromagnetic radiation are giving people cancer. And talked about how a montessori education (aka actual learning in the classroom versus solely focusing on play as they do for preschoolers at Waldorf) isn't effective at an early age. I'm fine with these folks taking whatever positions they like, but I don't need my son to go to a school that believes technology is evil and learning is inappropriate in a preschool classroom. We're paying roughly the same money for my son to attend a montessori school nearby (5 half-days a week) and are pretty happy with it. To each their own, but honestly the attitudes present there really didn't work for my family.

No parents? No parents!

[nido]

You don't need fancy buildings and whizzbang gadgets to teach, you simply need inspiring people.

You're referring to "parents", right?

I know the standardized system devalues the contributions parents make to their children's education, but for the first several years parents make an enormous contribution to the molding of their offspring.

The real success of the public system is in the systematic removal of parents from the process. Makes it much easier to mold people's thinking patterns...

John Taylor Gatto says to keep your kids out of school for as long as possible. Skipping Kindgergarten, first, and second grades are most important.

Re:No parents? No parents!

[TapeCutter]

Great plan if you want your kid to be socially inept.

Re:No parents? No parents!

[Anonymous Coward]

This old saw again. I invite you to take a look at some statistics on divorce rate, or drive around the Dallas metro area for a few hours, or lurk on the Yahoo! message boards to get an example of all the socially adept people who are a product of the public school system. You think that dragging children out of their homes during the formative years, and throwing them in a cell with a bunch of strangers their own age, so that they can "teach" themselves social skills is actually going to have a positive outcome? Think Columbine.

Re:No parents? No parents!

[Rakishi]

If you think public education has anything to do with that or that their parents (not that they'd have time to actually raise them) would do any better then you're delusional.

Re:No parents? No parents!

[morari]

You're referring to "parents", right?

Parents are certainly included! :)

All too often you find parents using school as little more than a tax-funded babysitter. They stick their kids out at the bus stop and don't bother to even think about them again until dinner (if the family even has dinner together). They don't help them study or balance the insane workload that homework presents for a modern child.

This general indifference seems to largely be a side effect of the "American Dream". Both parents work full time. The family is in debt up to their eyes because they just had to have those two brand new cars, the freshly built suburban home with the green-green lawn, and all of big screen televisions they could manage to cram into it. Hell, the parents probably only had children to begin with because it's what society expects of you... Go to college, pair up, get married, pop out two or three kids, and spend the rest of your life running from financial ruin.

That certainly doesn't leave a lot of time to have a real family. :(

That would be a Steiner/Waldorf School?

[Bazman]

Described as "Mystical Barmpottery" (a lovely english expression we should all use more):

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3528

and some wonderful racism in there too:

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3853

  The only Waldorf I'd want my kids taught by is the one who sits next to Statdler on The Muppet Show.

Re:That would be a Steiner/Waldorf School?

[JLavezzo]

How come more people don't know this school has a methodology based on, "yeah that feels right" and was founded by a guy who decided he was the Messiah? If you got a good education from a Steiner school it was an accident.

Re:That would be a Steiner/Waldorf School?

[JLavezzo]

Can we tag this article with "pseudoscience"?

Re:That would be a Steiner/Waldorf School?

[sharph]

I went to a Waldorf preschool as a kid. They are nutty. I was an early reader which was something the school wasn't too happy with. I also really liked technology at a young age, which was also discouraged. I remember going to friends houses and having computer games, electric guitar, etc, be a taboo, even though all the kids were doing those things.

And yeah, besides educational practices, there's a certain amount of psuedoscience and woo, for example the belief that the phase of the moon determines a good time to plant crops. (See biodynamic farming.)

Re:That would be a Steiner/Waldorf School?

[kenh]

There's no science claim in the article, it reflects the seeming contradiction between successful parents in the computer field and their CHOICE to not have their children taught using computers.

Do you want to tag this "pseudo-opinion"?

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree - young minds are not in a formative stage to use most computer software as it is,,,
There is an insane excess in video, instant msging and gaming in the very young now

The poverty of practice in the classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a trainer of teachers, I can tell you that teachers more often than not get in the way of learning. Teachers cling to the notion that learning is 'something they impart to students', when in fact the most effective learning is done when teachers guide the learning process with the students being responsible for their own learning. The majority of teachers have no idea how to integrate computers into their curriculum, so mostly they are used as a token 'technology lesson' where the students sit around learning keyboarding (not a bad thing, in itself) or are used for banal research, which is regurgitated back to the teacher. (with very little guidance on critical thinking and problem solving) Putting computers into a school does not mean teachers or students will use them well....or even open them. Last year I ran a workshop for teachers at a CA school where they had purchased 25 brand new iPods, and after 12 months they had not even been taken out of their boxes! They had the money to spend on technology, and someone had the bright idea to buy the latest shiny object, with no clue how they would be used. My small attempt to drag teachers into the 21st century has very often brought no change within the classroom. In many cases it would be more productive to bypass the teacher and give the students directly the skills they need to use technology critically in their learning. Technology is a tool that effective teachers should be using to raise the standards in schools. The poverty of teaching practice is pervasive, both in general classroom teaching and with the use of technology. The problem is not with the use of technology. The problem stems from the inability for schools and teachers to bring passion, engagement, and critical thinking skills to their students - with or without technology.

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

The "all students are genious" theory and they can reconstruct by themselves all past human knowledge. Your system only works if all your students are as smart as Ramnujan. Unfortunately, there's only a handful of people like him per century and they succeed no matter what.

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[Slashdot Assistant]

Similar issues arise in the corporate world, which is why we need courses in training development and delivery, and presentation skills. It's unfortunate that many people come in to the workforce with little knowledge of either - leading to those immensely forgettable presentations where the slides and notes (if any) are pretty much identical walls of text with little thought given to how they'll help attendees retain the important information.

From a corporate perspective I there'd be a lot of benefits found in critical thinking skills and in teaching people how to present their ideas and information in convincing and useful ways. I learnt the mechanics of Powerpoint in college, but little about how to professionally get my message across. With critical thinking people would learn how to evaluate proposals, others and their own, to arrive at something that's actually going to help the business.

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[glodime]

"teachers guide the learning process with the students being responsible for their own learning" != "'all students are genious' theory and they can reconstruct by themselves all past human knowledge"

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[colinrichardday]

critical thinking skills

But is critical thinking a matter of skills, or is it more like a character trait?

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[shilly]

Critical thinking is a combination of innate ability and learned skills. I work for a big consultancy. I was always pretty good at solving problems, but there's no doubt that the specific technique I've learned, plus intense feedback I've had, have made me a much stronger problem-solver.

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[colinrichardday]

But is problem solving the same as critical thinking?

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[shilly]

You don't need me to figure that out, right?
I like the wit!

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[shilly]

The deadpan answer, btw, is that I view critical thinking as a skill required for problem-solving, along with eg structuring, synthesising, hypothesis-testing etc

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[colinrichardday]

You believe that critical thinking is a skill. If I simply took your word for it, I wouldn't be much of a critical thinker, now would I?

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[colinrichardday]

Critical thinking may be a requirement for problem solving, but that doesn't make it a skill. Also, is problem solving the only purpose of critical thinking?

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[shilly]

Ah. You've unfortunately stepped over the line into twattery.

The first time around you were witty: you asked a question that showcased critical thinking.

The second time around, however, you simply demonstrated that you weren't really interested in what I thought ("if I simply took your word for it") but wanted to wave your willy. Your prerogative, but utterly pointless.

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[colinrichardday]

Nope, you have simply stepped into dogma. What evidence have you given that critical thinking is a skill that can be taught?

Re:The poverty of practice in the classroom

[shilly]

What evidence have you given that critical thinking isn't a skill that can be taught? Why do I have to give you evidence? Why don't you have to give me evidence? Who set you up as the person who gets to ask the questions while I run around trying to answer them?

I told you how I came to form my views in my very first post. I'm not going to repeat myself. How did you come to form your views?

That's just luddism.

[Lejade]

It's really not that hard to imagine how game-inspired software could tremendously help learning in every field.

The only problem is very few people are actually sitting down and doing it properly. There are precious little good exemples for the time being but it will come, eventually. One such good exemple is Chaim Gingold's upcoming interactive primer on geology. I also read that Khan's academy is developing a sort of leveling structure on top of its courses and I would not be surprised if that turned out to be tremendously effective.

I'm not arguing that computers will completely replace a teacher anytime soon (especially for good, one on one teaching) - but in many, many less than ideal cases it seems obvious good software would be very useful.

Re:That's just luddism.

[tguyton]

Agreed 100%! When I was in elementary school, some of my favourite computer games were the Magic School Bus series. I learned about geology, space, the human body, and all kinds of stuff all while having a blast. By no means should things like this be used to replace teachers and classrooms, but even with a good teacher, these can be great supplements to vary the types of experiences kids have in school.

Wot? no Faceblock or Twatter? Brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

As my University Pure Maths Prof used to say when we got into a mess proving a theorem,

"Go back to first principals."
That has held me in good stead for more than 40years at work.

I've looked at some of the School's philosiphies. The fact that those attending will learn the basics of problem solving is IMHO a big plus.
Frankly the young people coming out of the education system these days frankly don't have a clue about that essential life skill.

I only wish I'd taken up that job offer in Silicon Valey in 1977.... I would have sent my kids to this school in a flash.

Computer Assisted Education

[djl4570]

It isn't computers that are the problem in the classroom. It's how computers are used in the classroom. Computers should not be used to give students the answers; rather computers should be used to ask the questions and provide examples to help students find the answers. Textbooks are pathetically weak in this regard and teachers are constrained by time. A typical algebra textbook has few examples (I suspect the authors include more examples and the publishers delete them to cut printing costs.) Computer assisted education can provide examples by the dozen. The same computer could provide lots of examples of conjugating forms of the verb "to be" in any language the kids happen to be studying. The same could be done for tense and case and more complex grammar such as transitive and intransitive verbs. Without computers such schools run the risk of producing technologically illiterate graduates.

Re:Computer Assisted Education

[Anonymous Coward]

I think sites like khan academy have the right idea with gamified interfaces (read: practice material) for subjects like math but a lot of the use of computers isn't adding anything over and above normal instruction and can even be seen as a distraction aid. this goes all the way up to university

blackboards

[nerdyalien]

I am always surprised to see the heavy usage of blackboard at places like Stanford, MIT (check http://www.academicearth.org./ Even some of the later successes, like the Khan Academy or Paddy Hirsch's financial market mini-lectures, are primarily relying on blackboard centered teaching methods. One may disagree, but I still think analog-alike blackboard based teaching is still the best, compared to power-point based lectures.

Overall, I consider technology is merely "a tool" to get information faster and crunch numbers faster. Still, education or any other intellectual pursuit is down to heavy-use-of-brain, discipline, and hard work/perseverance. And yes, I do not deny, having good teachers is always a plus.

Question more largely public vs. private education

[Anonymous Coward]

The total enrollment at Waldorf in Los Altos is about 300 students, for kindergarten through 12th grade, so there are also many employees of Google, Apple, Yahoo, and HP who send their children to schools other than Waldorf. My son had generally good experiences in a public elementary school, but when it came to middle schools we found our local system sorely lacking for resources, with class sizes of 30 kids, many of whom were from households with less support for their education than I am able to provide my boy. The private schools we looked at included Waldorf, Nueva, Friends, and a few others, all of which provide healthier environments than cash-strapped public schools. I think the Waldorf choice involves an endorsement of the Rudolf Steiner philosophy which goes far beyond eschewing the use of computers in the classroom. I’d frame a discussion of high tech employees sending their kids to Waldorf in terms of private vs. public education, and look at the entire Waldorf picture, which includes a curriculum quite different from local public schools in areas apart from the use of computers.

Grammar schools do not have to have computers

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Do grammar schools need computers to be successful? Absolutely not. People 40+ did not have much in the way of computers in grammar school and many are wildly successful.
2) Can computers help a school be successful? Sure.
3) Can a school be successful with bad facilities? Some seem to do just fine.
Schools can do great while lacking many resources. But nearly all could afford knitting needles.

Schools and computers

[WindBourne]

Using computers in school as a tool is great. Using computers to hold a child's attention, is STUPID. The problem has been that software companies make software to do the later. What is needed is for applications to be ran by an adaptive AI. Children learn in different fashion. With the AI, it would automatically adjust to the child while moving things forward. Right now, I use gcompris at home for my 2 kids (5 and 7). They also go to cool-math, but I has issues with that. Otherwise, I spend loads more time with them then they do with computers or games.

Re:Schools and computers

[Anonymous Coward]

A good deal of elementary school has traditionally been used to teach kids how to use technology (paper and pencil, text, arithmetic as we know it, the alphabet, language itself - all technology). Even learning to cross the street is learning to deal with technology. We typically hold off on having kids deal with things like driving cars until they are older, but I am not sure that a computer or calculator should be regarded as technology best put off until later. And at some point we have to recognize that the technological solution for some kinds of problems have changed.

Won't someone think of the Children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are these people letting children use knitting needles? Don't they realise that they are regarded as dangerous weapons?

Eh? don't believe me?
Just you try to take a pair on a Plane?

You could put someone's eyes out with one. (Like pencils).
We must stop this rash behaviour immedieately!

{I'm only joking. I learned to sew & knit at school in the 1960's}

Depends on the subject: need balance

[Roger W Moore]

It's been going onto 30 years now and there hasn't been a SINGLE study showing computers help

I'd like to see how you successfully teach pupils to use and program computers without using any. I agree that there is a lot of ill-conceived use of technology in education at the moment - using a computer does not magically make things better. However to completely ban them from a school is an equal and opposite over-reaction. We all have to learn to deal with computers because on a day-to-day basis we all use them so it is just a irresponsible to exclude computers from a school education as it is to attempt to cram them into every possible subject.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[fikx]

"I'd like to see how you successfully teach pupils to use and program computers without using any."

If you can't think of how to do this, then you don't have much imagination. Most of the better programmers and users I know are ones that learned before computers were so common, and learned a lot "on paper" before getting to actually practice on the real computer.

And I'm curious if the school on the article is talking about putting computers in front of students, the teachers using computers or both...

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[Hognoxious]

I'd like to see how you successfully teach pupils to use and program computers without using any.

As others have pointed out, the fundamental principles of logic can be taught with paper. But in any case, that's one specific subject.

Bats, balls and mitts are good for playing baseball. Does that mean they should be an integral part of Spanish? Test tubes are darn useful in chemistry, but would you try to build an economics curriculum around them?

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[kenh]

The article if for a Waldorf School, which is, I believe either K-6 or K-8 - how much C++ programming are kids in 5th grade doing? How much Pascal? Smalltalk? BASIC? When kids in these grades are taught programming it is typically in a fantasy play environment designed to teach children abstract programming concepts.

There is plenty for a child to learn without cluttering up their day with 'programming classes' at the elementary level - very, very few elementary schools have wood, metal, or auto shops, are we neglecting those children with an aptitude for such classes by not offering them? No. Same for computers.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[bane2571]

Matlab for advance calculus - also useful for even basic algebra.
Google earth for geography
Babel fish or similar translator for languages (vocabulary only!)

There are so many uses a computer can be put to in the class room that save on text books and make learning much more efficitent

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[smart_ass]

I know nobody reads the article .. but at least read the summary.
They are talking about Grammar school.

Don't need to/ Shouldn't be teaching computer programming to a 10-12 year old.

If they want to pick that stuff up on their own ... great.

But that should hardly be part of the curriculum at that point. Teach math. Teach problem synthesis ... form these logic will be exercised to enable them to program if they show the interest and/or skill.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[ProfBooty]

You never had to write pseudo code? That was certainly a part of various CS and other related classes for my undergrad.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[gfxguy]

People don't really learn anything using those tools except how to use those tools, though.

I agree that computers aren't necessarily bad, especially for saving money on text books (although I often flipped around so much in my big texts that it would be painful using an e-reader, although they could probably mitigate that problem), but people learning calculus should be doing the work by hand.

I never had a computer inside the classroom in university... none of my computer classes used a computer in the class room. Even the systems programming course we'd have to write assembly by hand on tests and quizzes... no luxury of testing meant you really had to know it well. Computer use is left for homework/projects.

It's the same argument you can make about calculators in the classroom - my college calculus and lower level physics classes never allowed calculators at all, you had to know the theory behind what you were doing, and why and how to apply different types of problem solving.

I'm not arguing for or against computers in the classroom. I know my kids do quite well in school (which is more than I can say for myself), and my son does a lot of PPT presentations. I do think he's more interested in doing the work because doing a PPT is more fun for him than writing a plain old report, which makes him more engaged in it... he does waste a lot of time on the presentation part, but it also motivates him to get the right information for his projects, too. I'm still not convinced, though; when I had projects when I actually had to build something (like little volcanoes or adobe huts) I was just as engaged.

Ultimately, right now, I see nothing wrong with the approach described in the article. I think "traditional" learning is just fine (and perhaps better) when you have both motivated students and parents; computers in the classroom are a crutch in those instances where kids just aren't interested in learning otherwise, and they can be used to great benefit, or great detriment, just like any tool.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[gfxguy]

Some of us did read the article (and, as a parent, I was motivated enough to look up the Waldorf School near me and peruse the website). It's k-8, so it's elementary AND middle school. I agree to some extent with your post... I tried and failed to teach programming to very young kids when I was a high school student working at a summer day camp. I picked up programming on my own in middle school, though... not in the classroom, but we had some Commodore PETs in the library. No programming classes.

But we're getting off topic... the article isn't about programming, it's about computers as tools in the classroom. The problem is that, IMO, it's not a simple yes/no question. Motivated students with motivated parents, I think, would find computers in the classroom detrimental to learning (even most computer related subjects). In other cases it may be true that students are motivated to do their work because they get to use a computer to do it, which might make it more interesting for them. The computer's a tool, and it can be used for benefit or detriment depending on how it's used.

I guess, ultimately, the way I feel about it is that these are pricey private schools whose students are sent there by highly motivated parents. These kids are going to get a great education regardless of whether or not they use computers in the classroom, and in that situation I would see computers as detrimental; I do not believe the article suggest that every school should be run the same way, though.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[gfxguy]

Pseudo code... we used it for classes like algorithms and AI; we had to write actual code on paper for other classes, though. In both cases you learn a lot more than having a computer in front of you.

Computers were important at home and in labs for implementing what you learned as part of projects, and I often just sat there and experimented, but you don't want that in the classroom.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[Roger W Moore]

If you can't think of how to do this, then you don't have much imagination. Most of the better programmers and users I know are ones that learned before computers were so common, and learned a lot "on paper" before getting to actually practice on the real computer.

I don't think it's my imagination so much as your comprehension of english that is the problem: in your example the students still use computers! You can certainly start introductory teaching without the computer but eventually you are going to need to let your students loose with one if you want to successfully teach them to use it.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[Roger W Moore]

As others have pointed out, the fundamental principles of logic can be taught with paper.

Why use paper when you could teach it just by word of mouth? Why pollute your student's minds with inventions such as pens and paper? Computers are tools which students need to learn how to use because they WILL be using them throughout their lives - just as they will be using pen and paper.

Bats, balls and mitts are good for playing baseball. Does that mean they should be an integral part of Spanish?

Are you really suggesting that computers are as irrelevant to teaching Spanish as a baseball bat is? How about writing essays, recording and forwarding to the teacher for pronunciation help, looking up information about spanish culture, planning a trip to visit Spain, talking to someone in Spain in Spanish etc. Computers are a tool much like pen and paper: by themselves they do not magically improve learning but can be used in very effective ways and so are as relevant as pen and paper in today's society.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[Roger W Moore]

People don't really learn anything using those tools except how to use those tools, though.

This is not necessarily a bad thing: suppose you want to teach physics, particularly Quantum Mechanics, where difficult calculus problems frequently occur. Instead of having students spend a term or two taking courses in advanced calculus you can teach them how to use SAGE/Maple/Mathematica etc. in a few hours which removes the maths hurdle between them and the physics.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[Roger W Moore]

The article if for a Waldorf School, which is, I believe either K-6 or K-8 - how much C++ programming are kids in 5th grade doing?

Well my 5th grade daughter built and programmed a LEGO Mindstorms plotter over the summer with the help of a book but she then reprogrammed it herself to draw different pictures and even my 1st grade son managed to write some simple programs. Both have also written python programs to draw simple pictures too.

So I don't know how much programming they are teaching but I would argue that, especially if the school goes to 8th grade, the kids are certainly very capable of learning it. However that misses the point: we use computers throughout society. Hence it is important that they learn to use them even if they are not programming them - not to the exclusion of all else and certainly not all the time - but computers do have a place in education.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[gfxguy]

I don't want to sound like I'm disagreeing with you (because I'm not, really), but I still think it's important to understand the underlying math and why it works instead of just wantonly applying it. Once you understand it, IMO, then you use the software to help you solve problems faster with fewer mistakes, and you understand why you're doing what you're doing. I'm not saying at all the programs aren't useful.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[Hognoxious]

Are you really suggesting that computers are as irrelevant to teaching Spanish as a baseball bat is?

It's a pity computers can't teach reading comprehension.

You wrongly generalized the fact that because an object O is useful for subject S, then it's useful for all subjects. I provided what's called a counterexample.

How about writing essays, recording and forwarding to the teacher for pronunciation help, looking up information about spanish culture, planning a trip to visit Spain, talking to someone in Spain in Spanish etc.

You can always pluck an example out of your ass where you take something that already exists and do it with a computer; patent lawyers do it all the time.

Doesn't mean it's the only way to do it, or even a good way.

When I listen to people like you, I always wonder how people learned anything before computers existed. I mean, it seems like it should have been impossible for them to learn enough to invent computers in the first place...

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[fikx]

No problem with my comprehension...those people LEARNED about computers on paper before using them...yes, they used computers later, but my point was learning computers can happen without the computer being there in front of them, and may be better.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[Roger W Moore]

No problem with my comprehension...those people LEARNED about computers on paper before using them...yes, they used computers later...

So why did they use the computers later if they had already learnt all they needed to know to successfully use them? I agree that you can do some of the learning without the computers but you cannot possibly say that you know how to use a computer if you have never actually done so i.e. the learning process REQUIRES access to a computer at some point it cannot be entirely paper-based.

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[Roger W Moore]

...I still think it's important to understand the underlying math and why it works instead of just wantonly applying it.

I used to think that way but now I'm not so sure. As long as students understand what the maths means in terms of the physics then why do they need to know how to solve it? In fact this is how many real world problems are solved: you use numerical techniques to get a solution because nobody knows how to solve the problem analytically! I'm not sure that a detailed knowledge of many different methods to solve differential equations is really required any more (at least for physicists) just so long as the physical meaning of the equations are understood.

In many way this is similar to chemistry where they use electron energy states to explain reactions. They know that these energy states come from QM solutions for the bound electrons but (in general) they don't know how to write down the equations and solve them to get those states i.e. they understand the results but not the detailed physics and maths behind it (although I'm sure that they could look it up and understand it if they felt they needed to).

Re:Depends on the subject: need balance

[Roger W Moore]

It's a pity computers can't teach reading comprehension. You wrongly generalized the fact that because an object O is useful for subject S, then it's useful for all subjects. I provided what's called a counterexample.

Yes it is a shame. In the middle of a discussion about use of computers in education you gave an example that baseball bats are not useful for teaching spanish but useful for teaching baseball the obvious implication being that computers are limited to only certain subjects. Hence my counter point: computers are general tools and useful for Spanish as well as just about every other subject BUT in moderation.

When I listen to people like you, I always wonder how people learned anything before computers existed.

They learnt the same way they do now: reading information they look up, talking to others etc. The benefit of computers is that they amplify your ability to do this, not replace it. In the same way that reading and learning took off after the invention of the printing press the same thing is happening now with computers. However with any new technology there are the over-enthusiastic as well as the nay-sayers. I'm sure some people in the time of Gutenberg when around complaining that printed books would get in the way of learning because we'd all forget how to write!

how long does it take to learn how to use a mouse?

[protonbishop]

Note that in the "Silicon Valley Waldorf High School", which is in San Francisco, does use computers and other technologies. The philosophy is more geared towards appropriate technologies at appropriate stages of student development. The Waldorf high school kids don't seem to have problems learning how to use a mouse... (and xbox, and smartphones). So IMHO, having/not-having ipads by fourth grade isn't slowing the kids down: perhaps (perhaps...) they actually spend more time in meatspace.

Notes require little skill

[Anonymous Coward]

True, taking notes on paper can sometimes be more convenient but I wouldn't count that as writing. When you take notes, you use abbreviations in capital, and most of it are just arrows and other symbols. Nothing a 5 year old couldn't do. At least I only use paper when I don't need to write long continuus text.

Re:Notes require little skill

[Hognoxious]

When you take notes, you use abbreviations in capital, and most of it are just arrows and other symbols. Nothing a 5 year old couldn't do.

Monkey spunk. There's no way a 5 year old would have the processing capacity and domain understanding to meaningfully abbreviate words, convert concepts an relationships between verbal and visual (and back) in real time.

Re:Notes require little skill

[hedwards]

It is writing, sort of, but like I said it's probably more effective to have students learn short hand than it would be to learn cursive. I think the only time I use cursive on a regular basis is signing my name. For practical purposes you could just teach the students those characters in cursive as they don't need to read anybody else's signature, just identify that it matches.

You do raise a solid point though, if you're just taking notes there's a lot of words that you don't need to write, such as most prepositions and often times you don't need to write full words either.

Re:Notes require little skill

[Hentes]

If you haven't been taught handwriting you could still take notes, by using symbols or pictographs. I know people who do that.

Lol America

[Anonymous Coward]

While an 86 year history might be ancient for America, my school happened to have a 500+ year history. Certainly some of the masters dated from pre-columbian times. There's nothing quite like Europe to put you in perspective.

Re:But deep-tissue massage in the classroom is OK.

[glodime]

Thanks for your perspective. I would have literally walked out when they said, "the teachers provided deep-tissue massage to the kids during each day's nap time".

Young Lady's Illustrated Primer

[Anonymous Coward]

plus properly trained teachers equals interesting lives.

There are two great logic fails in technology

[mmmmbeer]

The first is assuming something must be better because it's newer.
The second is assuming something must be better because it's older.

Transhumanism

[TemperedAlchemist]

Yes, let's not teach them about computers. That'll prepare them for a word filled with electronics.

couldn't afford it if they would let us

[Anonymous Coward]

we took our son for an interview at a local waldorf school where we were informed that he could not attend since at the age of 4 he could already read, and since he had also seen television he was effectively tainted and could not be in the class room...

I know why computers are banned there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Alan feels threatened that iPad apps can actually do a better job of teaching his students than he can.

Every school should follow suit

[FyberOptic]

I completely agree with the notion, and have been saying so for years. As someone who is a huge technology nerd, having had my hands in everything from programming to electronics and hardware design since the time I was in high school, I still say computers should not be introduced as a tool until the student has long since been taught how to do everything without one. Only then can a computer become a useful tool, speeding up calculations or making papers easier to write, as opposed to them being a crutch for the student to do any of the work to begin with.

I also don't agree with unsupervised internet usage by children, and you know as well as I do that some of the more skilled young people will figure out the way around any of the useless filters out there on any kind of school devices given to them (like all these iPads and laptops they keep dumping on entire schools). There's simply way too much on the internet that they don't need to be exposed to, and porn is far from being the only one of those things. My high school had just begun integrating the internet into their network, and it was all a terrible insecure mess. I found that out just from sitting at a machine in the library glancing over my shoulder on occasion. Imagine if I'd had a school laptop and could access the network/internet from wherever I wanted? Seven years later when my brother went to that school I heard all the tales of how it was apparently just as bad if not worse, which was not good considering the internet was much more prominent by then, and full of way worse things for kids to be looking at than what I would have ever had available when I were there. School IT departments are not the people you want to depend on to ensure your children are safe with technology.

Unfortunately, a lot of this technology dumpage onto schools is far from politicians or local officials wanting to improve education, and more about them doing favors and putting lots of taxpayer dollars into some local overcharging company's pockets. You literally do not need brand new PCs every year/two years in order to teach Word. And the excuse of needing to keep the school's technology budget active to keep from losing it is equally unjustifiable, because you obviously don't need that big of a technology budget every year to begin with when you don't need that many new PCs all the time.

But oh well, the combination of misguided and/or greedy officials messing with the schools is certainly not a new tale. I guess some kid is going to have to end up abducted and murdered due to using Facebook at schools or something before there's any kind of outcry.

Waldorf Schools

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

That's the place where kids learn to Eurythmically dance their names.

Waldorf isn't anti-tech. It's pro-brain.

[Qbertino]

This is quite on par with what Clifford Stoll noticed: We don't need computers in the classroom. We need good teachers.
Although I do agree that access to knowledge in the hand of a smart kid can mean a difference if there are no good teachers available.

Real Waldorf education isn't opposed to technology. On the contrary. Their scientific curriculum is among the best - although it of course, always stands and falls with the individual teachers in the end. I visited quite a few schools whilst moving around in different countries and the last one I went to was a Waldorf School. We learned doing math not with a calculator but with logarithmic tables. "But it isn't accurate" a friend used to allways say. Well guess what? I doesn't need to be. What needs to happen is for us to understand log inside out, and tables are a way better at that then typing in signs on an electronic device. Anybody can learn that in a matter of minutes. And other than most other people our age the ones out of our math class actually understand what happens when you press the 'log' button.

My daughter goes to waldorfschool too. They learn about computers in the upper grades. From a science teacher who teaches them assembly, op-/bytecode and binary stuff on a C64 emulator running on PCs - because that's what he knows best that will teach them the very basics about computers. I don't know about you, folks, but that sounds to me like one of the best methods to learn computing. I know she won't grow up to be a dumb user who couldn't draw the connection between an Icon on the desktop and a file on a drive if her life depended on it.
Beyond that, I'll bug her about Python and the Unix command line as soon as she tells me that she wants to do computer stuff for a living. Allthoug I do trust that by then she will be well on her way in teaching herself the basics.

We all know very well, that once you know how a computer works and the principles by which it functions, it's a matter of hours in teaching yourself how to use Excel, Word or whatever. And good Waldorf teachers know that too. That's why a good waldorf teacher (any good teacher for that matter) will go out of his way to teach his pupils how to use a slide-ruler rather than having them punch keys on a calculator, right up to the point where they go into their final exams. Because it's not about what buttons you need to press, it's about understanding math and getting your brain thinking. ... Although I do understand that some people in education are interested in preventing exactly that.

My 2 cents.

Re:Waldorf isn't anti-tech. It's pro-brain.

[shilly]

I disagree. Learning problem-solving is important, of course, but we each only have a limited amount of time on this planet, and I don't think it ought to be expended learning specific knowledge that we will not make good use of in later lfe. People used to make the same arguments as you have to push the value of learning Latin--some still do. But there is so *much* to learn, that I'd far rather my children were learning things of more direct use, such as Spanish, while still learning the underlying principles that help them learn how to learn / problem solve

After work, I don't even want to use a cellphone.

[webgovernor]

Some days, after many hours putting out fires in our "data cloud" (whatever the fuck that means), I find myself wanting a rotary phone and magazine instead of anything that contains a CPU.

flid

[Hognoxious]

You have to consciously think about making the shapes of letters when handwriting? Seriously?

Please tell me you don't drive and only walk outside under adult supervision.

Re:flid

[Tubal-Cain]

There are other concerns, such as "can I fit the next word on the rest of this line, or should I start a new line?" And for me (being left-handed), I have to be careful not to smear the ink/lead.

Re:flid

[MorePower]

I sure as hell did when I was in primary and secondary school! Yeah I don't have to think about it NOW, after having done it for decades. But in my childhood 95% of the effort of writing was concentrating on making the letters actually look like letters. And that seriously bogged down the actual process of learning how to write well. I was pretty much saved by the introduction of widespread computers when I was in High School.

Re:flid

[zazzel]

Isn't the "fit the word on the rest of this line"-thing a some-what ri-di-cu-lous ar-gu-ment? I do see your other point, though. But I think there are various work-arounds, like good ball-point pens, felt-tip-pens or writing arabic language. Or teaching yourself Leonardo's mirror writing.

Re:flid

[Tubal-Cain]

I do see your other point, though. But I think there are various work-arounds, like good ball-point pens, felt-tip-pens or writing arabic language. Or teaching yourself Leonardo's mirror writing.

If there's a pen that won't smear from having your hand rest on the fresh ink, I haven't found it. And I don't think the teachers would appreciate Aramaic or mirror-writing.

Re:flid

[Vintermann]

Dyslectics were allowed to use computers when I was in school. Apparently, the idea was that focusing on spelling correctly, writing readably and thinking about what too write became too heavy a load for them when they had such problems with the first one

I knew at least one dyslectic who had gorgeous handwriting, so not sure if it always makes sense. He was Waldorf-educated, though. (I was, too, technically. My handwriting was OK, but steadily deteriorated due to having to write four pages every single day.)

Re:flid

[Hognoxious]

If you're spending too much time concentrating on making legible handwriting, you're not learning.

Comprehension fail, you moronic spaztarded cuntortionblot.

The point is that you shouldn't need to concentrate on making legible handwriting, at least if you're of an age where you're even remotely concerned with wanky buzzword flapspeak like "challenges related to the scope of the project".

86 years?

[Simon Rowe]

That'll be one of these new-fangled schools. Oh, it's in the US, I guess goes for old over there.

Some of the graduates

[brianwells]

Their mud skills came in handy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

I thoght some of the parents were lying

[peter303]

Same as "we never watch TV" B.S. Everyone of those children knows how to use google.

What is rather true is some of these families limit screen time. The child is doing manual education and physical play instead of sitting in front of a TV, video game, computer or cell phone most of the day.

The tools are not the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

.. it's how you apply them. Sure you could hammer a nail with a shoe, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with using a hammer.

Figuring out how and where computers are a benefit and using them in those situations is more beneficial than outright rejecting a tool. That said I think the people who are actually doing said teaching should have the final word on that.

Its so simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Learning is about brain exercise. It may not be a muscle but it is in fact similar. At some point people will start to put together well known facts about the brain like how somebody can suffer severe damage and retrain their brain to function differently in which would be impossible situations if it worked like how many people think it does.

Its all about HOW one trains the brain and each one is a little different... Passing a stupid test or learning to push buttons like some lab rat is on the lower level of training--- its what we give lab animals to do only slightly harder and at a faster pace. If you LEARN how to ride a bike it permanently alters your brain from that point on, it also takes more brain energy and brain power than any other task. Once you learn it, even if you forget, you'll pick it up again really quickly because that skill's impact gives you a talent-- that is, you are preconfigured to do well at it (and if you had your memory wiped the perception is you were talented at riding; however, in the case of this example people would just assume you've learned it before and think nothing of it or how this phenomenon applies to other areas of life. )

Critical thinking is a SKILL which has to be developed and worked at and maintained; its not natural no matter how much the person would like to believe they can think rationally.

I've talked with old timers who had none of the crap we have and do today to improve tests scores; they clearly are superior to the younger people in their understanding even if they can't use the modern tools-- which can take you a long way but can't give you their expertise.... sooner or later it comes back to get you. I don't think much of the Chinese made products we must buy; but the American made ones unless rigidly kept unchanged are not a whole lot better; their skills are no better (even though they may not try to cheat you with substandard materials.)

As an Allumni of Waldorf...

[i-Chaos]

.. I can say they are not just there to "educate." They educate the soul and raise human beings! I attended the highschool there from Grade 9 to Grade 12. At the Toronto Waldorf School, there'd never been a fistfight in the highschool in 25 years. The people (teachers & students) are genuinely nice, genuinely caring, and genuinely good people - it's all based on their philosophies.

No cliques, no popularity contests, no teenage pregnancies and other delinquent behaviours. If you want your kids to grow up wholesome, Waldorf is awesome for that!

In regards to computers, I don't know how it is in LA, but at the Toronto Waldorf School we had computer courses. We learned the history of computing, and even built mechanical gates by hand using wood, paper clips, wires, etc, and as a whole class project we put together all the gates and made a mechanical calculator! Throughout my high school years, in fact, I'd built so many things with my hands that I would never have the opportunity to build if my parents had never sent me to that school.

Re:As an Allumni of Waldorf...

[rueger]

No cliques, no popularity contests, no teenage pregnancies and other delinquent behaviours.

I call BS on that. If for no other reason than Robert Pickering, alleged to have sexually assaulted two students while working at the Toronto Waldorf School.

(Really long and bizarre page - CTRL F to find him)

Sergey Brin on Computerless Schools

[theodp]

Google co-founder Sergey Brin had this to say when a reporter told him about his son's computerless Waldorf-inspired school: 'I think it's kind of weird not to have computers. Would you deny paper and pencil, and carve into tablets only? It's a modern tool. It just needs to be managed correctly.'"

"Money changes the problem"

[DesScorp]

I was just about to make this exact point... Access to money or resources in general changes the problem.

There is zero evidence of this, and growing evidence that it's not true. The biggest spending on public education in the United States is in the Washington D.C. area. That area has some of the worst scores and graduation rates in the country. Utah, by contrast, is ranked near the bottom in states and territories... 51st... and has one of the better test score and graduation rates in the country.

You can pour all the money in the world into a school, with all the latest equipment, plentiful staff, and good facilities, and your kids are going to fail if two things aren't present: parents that give a damn, and a community culture that values education and achievement. No amount of funding is going to buy those things.

Re:"Money changes the problem"

[rueger]

Two data points do not prove anything. Show me a study of two or three communities with similar socio-economic levels, and where the only real difference is the per-capita spending on education.

The point is that all else being roughly equal money spent on education is well invested.

Perhaps this is why Germany is kicking US butt economically?

It's not about learning stuff, anyway.

[MarkvW]

It is about working with an individual person in a way that teaches that person how to individually learn and solve problems. It is also about teaching that individual how to work with other people to cooperatively learn and solve problems.

In my elementary school gym class there was a rope hung from the rafters and the gym teacher told the kids to try to climb it. Some kids could and they got verbal reward. Other kids couldn't, and they got negative feedback (especially from the other students). All that's okay and normal. But what pisses me off now--something I didn't realize until long after--is how that lazy shit gym teacher responded to that experience. What did that fuck do? Nothing! What should he have done? He should have worked with each individual kid to train that kid so that the kid could climb the rope--even a little bit. He should have trained the strong kids to climb the rope faster. He should have taught the kids how to train themselves to get stronger. At least he should have tried. But he was worthless.

When you've got great teachers, give them room. When you've got shit teachers, impose doctrine upon them from above.

Enough venting for now.

Re:But deep-tissue massage in the classroom is OK.

[guises]

The cancer bit is a little weird, but their view on playing during preschool may not be so far off. Planet Money did a story on this a little while back:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/06/13/137109349/the-friday-podcast-the-case-for-preschool

The child-child interactions that they talk about in the story would presumably happen more often in a play environment than in one where they have to sit and pay attention. Also, anecdotally, what I recall of the actual lessons that I had during preschool and kindergarten is that they weren't terribly valuable. "What sound does a 'K' make?" etc.

Waldorf = wacky. No computers for kids != wacky.

[Organic Brain Damage]

It's unfortunate that the merit of computer and television use by 5-12 yr olds is wrapped up with the Waldorf schools. A broken clock is right twice a day and limiting kids' exposure to computers and TV (screens in our household) is the two times Waldorf gets it right. If you want to raise your kids to be intellectuals relative to their peers, all you have to do is ban screen time in your household and provide plenty of engaging books and spend time reading to your kids. As for schools and quality, all I really see are generally high quality schools in Minnesota. Both public and private. The difference is almost 100% in the home, but criticising parenting is not in vogue, so we do not discuss this publicly.

"Silicon Snake Oil", by Clifford Stoll.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~stoll/silicon_snake_oil.html

http://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Snake-Oil-Thoughts-Information/dp/0385419945

A very good read. Stoll has been arguing against computers in schools for a long time now.

Advocates Shooting Themselves In The Foot

[StoneyMahoney]

"...young people who have been weaned on electronic devices will not tune in without them."

Does anyone else find that to be a disturbing idea?

DO HO HO HO Holy crap

[lolcutusofbong]

I lived through six months of a cult-camp run by people who fully believed in Waldorf schools, were high-ranking members of the Avatar cult (Scientology fork), and kept their son's placenta in a chest freezer in the garage - the same freezer where they stored food. I didn't think they could get any nuttier, but this just raised the bar by an order of magnitude. I smelled a rat when they talked about not teaching kids to read before 8 or so, but this is ridiculous.

No "technology aids" needed?

[DragonWriter]

'I fundamentally reject the notion you need technology aids in grammar school,' says Alan Eagle

"Need" is a funny word. Its obviously possible for a teacher to teach some material with nothing more than some students to teach and the natural faculties inherent in the teacher's body and those of the students, but I think its been clear for some centuries that various "technology aids" can, with proper usage, be of considerable benefit in teaching at all levels, whether or not they are strictly "needed".

'The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic, that's ridiculous.'

Yes, its a ridiculous strawman that you've set up; the actual idea is that an computing devices with appropriate features and software -- whether that's in the form of iPad apps or otherwise -- might be better (and/or additional) tools used in teaching, compared to (and/or combined with) the variety of "technology aids" that have been widely adopted for use in education over the course of history, from the original tablet and stylus of antiquity through the writing slates used a couple of centuries ago, and pens, pencils, notepads, textbooks, chalk & chalkboards, markers and whiteboards, etc., etc., etc.

Clifford Stoll

[Anonymous Coward]

"High Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom and Other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian"

www.amazon.com/High-Tech-Heretic-Reflections-Contrarian/dp/0385489757/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3

You guys are full of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! I work in an 80% minority, overcrowded district. Computer technology is not the problem I have to deal with. These kids live their whole lives through their cell phones. They have developed among themselves a communications network that is unreal. Within 2 hours of giving a test, they have networked all the correct answers to incoming students that haven't taken the test yet. As an experiment, I had a student feed an incorrect and implausible answer into their network with the explanation that it was a trick question. This incorrect answer showed up in 45% of my tests. After that point, I had to rethink the tests. It causes me a lot of extra work for accurate assessment of their learning. Try taking a cell away from a teenage student and you are likely taking your life in your hands. Also, any technology they can't play on, they will destroy. Over 4 years, I have had to replace nearly 3 classroom sets of calculators. A whole lot of well meaning people that have no practical knowledge of current classrooms say that putting talented and inspiring in classrooms will fix the problems. Guess what? If you replaced all the bad teachers with good ones, conditions would be exactly the same. Those fantastic teachers would spend all their time trying to keep violent and drug addled kids from burning down the school and have little time to teach the kids that give a crap. The only reason why I do as well as I do is that I become these kids surrogate parent. I'm not griping about the kids, I had a realistic idea what I was getting myself into. I am tired of people talking out their ass like they know all the answers. Lastly, the all the problems won't be fixed by the existence or absence of electronics. People need to start placing the blame for educational problems in the correct place, the kids.

computers are tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers don't teach. Teachers teach. Computers are tools just like chalkboards, pencils, typewriters, etc. If used unwisely, computers will be a distraction/time sink. If used wisely, they can be a useful tool to improve the efficiency of both teaching and learning. Also, computers are a fact of modern life. Failing to expose kids to computers and failing to show kids how to use computers safely and intelligently is bad educational policy IMO.

Keep computers in schools

[srnty]

As a child of the nineties, I grew up with computers (and the internet) deeply integrated with my life. As a result, I, and my peers, have an intuition for technology that our parents, and even those born only a few years before us, lack. To remove computers from elementary schools is an AWFUL idea. Technology becomes more important every day. If kids aren't using it during these formative years of their development, many of them simply won't "get it" when they're 12+. The US already has a hard enough time encouraging students to major in sciences, and bay area schools already don't teach CS. Removing computers will only exacerbate this problem.

10 Crack Commandments

[utkonos]

Do you think that crack dealers smoke their own crack? Do heroin dealers shoot heroin? The answer is the successful ones never do. Computers are a distraction. If you have a good teacher who can engage you and get you to learn, why distract from that? To quote The Notorious B.I.G.: "Number four: know you heard this before Never get high on your own supply Number five: never sell no crack where you rest at I don't care if they want a ounce, tell em bounce"

CS grad with kids at a Waldorf school

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a CS degree and am currently a Director over a development group and I've got one child at the Waldorf Sarasota school and had an older child there for 4 years. The Waldorf educational approach is one that resonated with my family and making the decission to limit our children's exposure to electronic media in order to foster some amazing creativity was a worth while trade off. My guess is that if my kids do go down the IT path later in life that their foundation in the Waldorf will allow them to think outside the box in creative ways that will allow them to be very competitive in the field.

Waldorf is not for everyone but, as others said here, a great teacher using this approach can result in some amazing outcomes. I would recommend it to others in the IT field looking for a program that integrates the arts into the day to day learning using a time tested methodology.

Re:But deep-tissue massage in the classroom is OK.

[Hero Zzyzzx]

My 11 year old daughter has attended a Waldorf school practically since birth and, while there are definitely uber-hippies and a few anti-vaxxers, her school is nothing like you describe. Waldorf schools reflect their leadership, and if nuts are in charge the school is nutty (like every organization, really). There is none of this deep tissue crap, none of this anti-wifi hysteria - please don't paint all Waldorf schools with the same brush because they aren't all the same. It's been a great education and my daughter does just fine with computers - and has even programmed a little python on an OLPC. For some reason - probably because they end up loving to learn and haven't had creativity beaten out of them - many Waldorf kids end up going into the sciences. They end up fine, because appropriate things are taught at appropriate times.

The play focus in preschool is totally appropriate - and IS learning. At that age, kids need to learn how to interact with each other and solve their own problems as peers, and play (and storytelling, another huge part of early Waldorf education) is one of the best ways of "teaching" that. It lays a foundation for kids that're able to interact in healthy ways and solve problems on their own. How many smart people have you met that're unable to deal with interpersonal problems or even minor conflicts?

Anyway - I am not a blinder wearing Waldorf fanboy. There are some wacky things (Eurythmy? hokay. . .), but the end results of a good Waldorf school are hard to argue with. They end up being well rounded, centered kids who by and large kick ass in high school and end up happy.

worst teacher best computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers and other devices with screens constitute passive entertainment, and there is no such thing as passive learning. So don't pretend like educational software fills minds that are not actively engaged.

Waldorf and Montessori got it right. There is no place for computers in a classroom.

"silicon snake oil" by cliff stoll

[Anonymous Coward]

some similar thoughts by cliff stoll in his book "silicon snake oil"

NOT EVEN AN APPLE II IN THE CLASSROOM?

[klm1974]

How else will the children learn how to survive on the Oregon Trail?

Matlab does not teach math!

[SoulNibbler]

Hmmm, When I started Undergrad my school had just started a mandatory laptop program for all freshmen so I had a fancy laptop that I felt should be used for class. I proceeded to sign up for the laptop sections of math where I took multivariable calculus and differential equations using Maple. I aced the course and got quite accomplished with the software but I did not LEARN diff. eq, or even really multivariable calc as I later found out during my 3rd year classical mechanics course. I still only know enough diff to realize how to recognize them most of the time. I also really don't think that it was the professor's fault. I think that math requires a certain amount of mechanical crunching in order to become a useful tool. I therefore really think that math should be performed naked, in PEN, if you are studying physics or engineering then by all means teach numerical methods and use simple software to automate the calculations if it makes sense. Otherwise keep in mind that math is a philosophical toolset, and you don't get better at philosophy or logic with wikipedia, you get better by arguing. Programming is a skill that should be taught in school, research is also another useful skill that these days requires internet, (though primary source essays are a better method IMHO), but school is not the place to train white collar workers how to use PWP.

Monoculture is dangerous

[Ant P.]

They're doing the right thing by not bringing up their kids reliant on computers, especially since the rich end of the industry is moving away from actual progress and toward litigious attacks on anyone who writes software or uses a computer.

Learning Styles

[stewbacca]

I'm an instructional designer and an education technologist. Slashdot is a pretty homogenous group of users, most of whom are berating the use of computers in school. To you, I simply say that there are several different preferred learning styles. Making a movie as a mechanism for learning about history is a valid instructional design for some students. It just happens that you lot here tend to prefer different learning mechanisms. Engaging a non-nerd, non-intellectual into learning about a subject he or she has no interest in is not accomplished by telling them they need to be motivated about learning and they should just go out and learn it, like you all do on here.

In other words, the problem is far bigger than your nerd-centric worldview. The world's problems are not solved by implementing the quasi-aspie, anti-social, hyper-intellectuals' policies.

Waldorf == Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to a Waldorf school for 1st grade (back in 1975). They didn't teach me even the very basics of math or reading. It was a total joke, a hippie experiment as far as I can tell.

When I transferred to SF public school for 2nd grade, I was way behind. My dad had to teach me how to read (so yes, my parents were involved).

Computer/technology usage is not the issue. Actually teaching kids is what must happen -- they don't just "pick it up" from a nurturing environment as some would have us believe.

I think computers are a great tool for all ages. And like most tools, they have an appropriate use but can also be over applied ("when holding a hammer, all problems look like a nail..." or however that goes).

Drinking the Waldorf Cool-aid

[emberc]

I have clearly been drinking the Waldorf cool-aid for close to 4 years now - since I first toured a school for my older son, and immediately knew it was the right place. One of the things I like is the pressure to be a better parent - to spend time with my kids rather than siting them in front of a TV or video game - and that the pressure from my sons' peers is not nearly as extreme to have the latest video games or consoles. Yes, I touched my first computer at age 4 - a Commodore Vic 20 - the predecessor to the Commodore 64. I had a computer at home from that time on, and they started formal classes in 3rd grade. I remember learning to use a mouse. Both my husband and I work in the IT field. My kids are limited to 2 hours a week of screen time, and only on weekends - many weeks they don't even get that. Instead, they help me in the kitchen, they make up games, they build forts, they draw so much I could paper my whole house with the results. My 6-year old can use a mouse - earlier than I learned it - and both of them can navigate my iPod or Droid. They sure are focused when they do get time with technology. I am constantly surprised and impressed by the Waldorf things that once seemed a little nutty to me and how they really work and are just food for my kids' souls. When we started, I couldn't imagine not having cable. Now we have only one tv in the house, and it has only a roku, and it's in our bedroom, which is mostly off-limits to the kids. You should see the pride in my son's eyes when he brings me something he wove or finger knitted or tells me about the umpteenth new game they played outside that day. His joy in cooperation and in creating something is incredible, and it's training him not to be just a 9-5 monkey pounding at a keyboard, but to be a fully engaged human being - even if what he chooses to do has him sitting at a keyboard. Knitting? That develops hand strength and coordination for writing and typing and more delicate hand work. It also teaches him a respect for things and where they come from. Sweaters don't just magically appear - someone spends time knitting them, and there is a difference between the ones bought cheaply at the store and the ones someone knits with love. Late reading? It's not late - he's learned true comprehension first. Public schools push early reading too much. He can tell me all of snow white from memory, and not just rote (and not the Disney version). Since age 4, he can follow the complex story lines of chapter books that we read before bedtime, and he can remind me what happened to Laura and Mary last night. Like many others, I still don't get Eurythmy, but I think it might become clear at some later time. In any case, it has him moving, and that surely is more healthy for a young boy than sitting still. The current thing that I just love about the school is how it truly is run by the teachers - I now believe that all schools should be, and that more and more relevant training should be required of our teachers - we should raise our teachers up and let them decide how things should be run and make it the lofty position it should be, not a backup for people who failed at some other career. Is it involved upper-middle class parents? Yes, it is. But the other demographic is people who are struggling day to day just to make the tuition, but like me would put it before paying the mortgage if it came down to that. I do think parents across the board should be more involved - including myself - it is very hard to do too much to support your child. I would prefer more socio-economic diversity, but it's more important to me to have my kids in an environment that I would want to be in if I were the one that had to go to school, and one that prepares them for the ivy league if that's what they choose, or to be happy in a simpler life if they choose that instead. Are Waldorf kids "Weird"? I sure hope so. I've always said I would hate to be normal. I was "Weird" without a Waldorf education. I don't believe achieving "normal" or "average" to be a laudable goal. All in all, Waldo

Re:Drinking the Waldorf Cool-aid

[oldunixgeek]

Where's the damn 'Like' button?

Not surprising

[muirnin]

Given that there are schools that have to be forced to teach Evolution, is it that surprising that there are technophobic schools as well? If you can't use a computer better than your parents by the time you're 10, there's something very wrong.

Waldorf = cult

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people don't know this, but Waldof schools are actually a wacky religious cult. My wife went to one when she was little, and has some horror stories.

As the linked site points out, "Many Waldorf children are not immunized, and those parents who support immunization may be harshly judged. Steiner believed that certain diseases help children work out problem areas left over from their past lives. Children may be placed in danger by vulnerable parents seeking to be good Waldorf parents, who may not seek necessary medical help in the case of a high fever or serious illness." Talk about anti-science!

Also:
"Question: It it true that Waldorf schools have a problem with left-handedness? Answer: Yes. It has to do with a child's previous life. Teachers must be made aware of this and "correct" it. "

http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/FAQ.html#Cult

In a word, yikes. Welcome to the 16th century.

Parents, the Key to Schools

[IF_Rock]

And, they make a great salad, but I wouldn't want my sister to marry one.

Get serious?

In my own experience, and in the scientific literature, the number one factor in performance of schools as measured by performance of children on standardized tests -- is parents. When we lived in Boulder, where the average educational level of both parents was above a Master's Degree, the public schools were outstanding.

Here, in New Hampshire even in a comparable community (if there were one), that would be mitigated by (a) low property taxes, and (b) an ethos of sending children to private schools (religious or otherwise), if affordable.

Why do better educated parents lead to better schools?:

• More reading to children during the pre-school period. Children that are read to value text, and reading more, and are better readers and thinkers, later on.
• Parents who have pursued higher education, value education more, and tend to:
  • Prepare their children for school, better, and teach their children that school is valuable, ergo they have better attitudes
  • These parent involve themselves in the school, guaranteeing that no matter how good or bad the school may be, their children get differentially better teachers and treatment.
  • Make efforts to ensure that taxes are passed and levied that support the schools.
  • Ensure that good and bad teachers are recognized as such
  • Are able to afford books, toys, and computers that reinforce all of the above.
• And, there is probably a genetic component that pales into insignificance against all of the above

Computers and Distraction

[jddimarco]

Computers can be very distracting. Kids often have trouble with distraction; focus is, for many children, a skill that needs to be learned and practised. Pencils and paper are generally much less interesting, and thus distracting, than computers, ipads and the like. So there can be real benefits to not allowing computers in the classroom.