In 2002, Maine became the first state to implement a statewide laptop program to some grade levels. Then-governor Angus King saw the program as a way to put the internet at the fingertips of more children, who would be able to immerse themselves in information.
By that fall, the Maine Learning Technology Initiative had distributed 17,000 Apple laptops to seventh graders across 243 middle schools. By 2016, those numbers had multiplied to 66,000 laptops and tablets distributed to Maine students.
King’s initial efforts have been mirrored across the country. In 2024, the U.S. spent more than $30 billion putting laptops and tablets in schools. But more than a quarter-century and numerous evolving models of technology later, psychologists and learning experts see a different outcome than the one King intended. Rather than empowering the generation with access to more knowledge, the technology had the opposite effect.
Drafting a kid out of high school and putting them on a 12-month tour of duty absolutely interfered with their education. Even if they never see a day of combat, they’re still doing some menial work that allows their accrued educational experience to atrophy. Same as what happened during COVID.
They are specifying interpersonal communications through text.
How is this “passive”? None of it involves “swiping”.
That public reporting on learning difficulties only became interesting when students were educated to the level at which the difficulty was relevant? It goes directly against the notion that the current generation is in a unique situation.
It is extremely relevant.
They never drafted anyone out of highschool. Less than 2k people either illegally volunteered to deploy or deployed with their parents permission. Which means they were choosing to end their education. It’s not great either way great, but it wasn’t event that happened to them, nor does it match with any sort of scale we’ve been discussing.
I was talking about the study I linked, not yours.
During the transition from agriculture to industry of course there weren’t any interest in studies about learning difficulties, there weren’t even studies… I never claimed that idea of cognitive imparments is new, just that it was a new event that caused imparments.
Care to extrapolate?
Plenty of 18-year-olds were drafted during both Korea and Vietnam. Since deferment expired once you were no longer enrolled, this meant anyone who couldn’t get into college was fair game.
And I rebutted it with my own.
So it would not be interfering with their education…as you would be out of highschool and not in college.
That had nothing to do with my claim… Do you understand how arguments work? Or is your reading comprehension just that bad?
My claim was based on screen time with passive engagement was bad for children. Your rebuttal was a source concluding active engagement was beneficial. Those two statements do not conflict with each other.
Education doesn’t end the moment you step out of school. Anyone who has held a job knows this
Childhood education does… Which is what this conversation was about.