I applaud the Iola-USD 257 school board for their willingness to rethink its laptop policy at the high school. Change is easy to criticize; as an elected official, it’s often easier to just leave things alone and hope for the best.
But if there’s one thing that’s broken in today’s world, it’s our relationship with technology. I don’t know anyone who’s happy with the role social media behemoths, AI companies, and tech start-ups play in our lives.
The same is true in education. A fascinating (and troubling) article in the New York Times reports how companies like Google, Meta and Snapchat purposely targeted teens during school hours.
They sent enticing notifications, pushed reminders to post, recommended off-topic videos, all in an attempt to get kids hooked on their products as early as possible. “Teachers are going to hate it,” engineers said. And then they did it anyway.
Meta paid “teen ambassadors,” and TikTok wrote millions of dollars in checks to PTAs. Parents and administrators sounded the alarm. The companies ignored them.
SO I WAS interested in what Iola High School principal Scott Carson told USD 257 board members Monday: more access to technology doesn’t always mean more learning.
Carson said IHS administrators believe Chromebooks can be just as distracting as cell phones. What’s more, teachers often find students arrive with dead batteries, damaged devices or forget their laptops at home. Some students also have to pay for lost or damaged machines, another roadblock to learning.
The new policy, providing classroom laptop carts instead of assigning individual Chromebooks, is a huge about-face from a decade ago, when education experts were incredibly optimistic about the possibilities widespread internet access could offer students. Chromebooks were billed as portals to the world, unlimited learning machines, the great equalizers in education.
I don’t think all those arguments are wrong. When used correctly, technology in the classroom can be a powerful tool. It can erase barriers between rich and poor students. It can help.
But we’ve learned constant access to technology can hurt, too. A “device alone” approach steps in, where teachers take a back seat to machines. Companies tied to profits, shareholders, and a competitive marketplace will always view children as future customers, not learners.
(Another interesting article I read recently reports on a school that’s welcomed AI in the classroom. Interestingly enough, what makes the school successful is how students are abandoning AI in favor of hands-on, creative projects.)
MOST NOTABLE, perhaps, is how the national mood has soured on cellphones in classrooms. As a young teacher, I remember the message loud and clear: embrace cell phones as tools for learning.
We know how that movie ends. Kansas recently banned the use of cellphones in K-12 classrooms, joining more than 20 states in doing so.
According to Harvard Kennedy School, another 19 states allow districts to ban phones but don’t mandate a statewide ban. The graduate school reports 81% of middle and high school principals support cellphone bans. It’s not hard to imagine all 50 states soon implementing cell restrictions in the classroom.
Australia made headlines last year when it banned social media for children under 16, but a host of other countries are also moving in that direction. In Germany, kids ages 13-16 need parental consent to use social media. The same goes for Italy for children under 14.
The issue is just as salient here at home. Kansas Insurance Commissioners and Republican governor candidate Vicki Wright said Monday her administration would work to require social media companies obtain parental consent for children 16 and under.
