> Why are you opposed to using personal computers for education?
They'll have computers at home. And the evidence seems to point in one direction: the more exposure kids have to devices, the more stunted their development tends to be. Add to that the class division, where rich kids are increasingly raised with strictly-policed device exposure, while poor kids' classrooms are littered with iPads and Chrombooks, and I think we can start making blanket statements.
There's also the point that the rich executives at these companies that make computers for school use send their own children to schools which do not use computers for education.
If computers were that critical to education you'd think those same executives would be loading up their children with all the tech they can afford.
> Why are you opposed to using personal computers for education?
They'll have computers at home. And the evidence seems to point in one direction: the more exposure kids have to devices, the more stunted their development tends to be. Add to that the class division, where rich kids are increasingly raised with strictly-policed device exposure, while poor kids' classrooms are littered with iPads and Chrombooks, and I think we can start making blanket statements.
There's also the point that the rich executives at these companies that make computers for school use send their own children to schools which do not use computers for education.
If computers were that critical to education you'd think those same executives would be loading up their children with all the tech they can afford.
Because objectively it does not improve outcomes. Sweden has recently reversed course based on student outcome data.
Because the evidence is that it doesn't seem to work very well