Spot on re: social media. Regarding schools being expected to do more than they can, I believe that many of those complaining about curricula want schools to do only what they should - reading, writing, arithmetic - and to stop devoting energy to things that schools should not be burdened with (or, as some see it, empowered to do) such as sex education, gender issues, activism, and moralism beyond those aspects inextricably entwined with the teaching process such as respect and social etiquette. Those many view the current state of education as including too many non-essential (and often usurping) tasks. They want schools to do less - but do it better. The sad numbers on student competence in core subjects lend credence to those views. Also, sad to say, there is no "the" problem with public education. You and Mr. Pondiscio can both be right.
Jill Lepore's recent essay on school wars/choice in the New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/03/21/why-the-school-wars-still-rage) contains a compelling sentence, which she quotes from Tracy Steffes: “Public schooling was not just one more progressive reform among many but a major—perhaps the major—public response to tensions between democracy and capitalism.” To me, this explains in a nutshell why we often turn to school to solve all of our problems. What other American institution has attempted to do something so obviously good for the vast majority of individuals and for all of society? Without complimentary public systems of healthcare, social service, etc., public school is expected to do it all. Social media, the current tip of the sword of capitalism, conceals its ill-effects under a veneer of "choice" and "personal expression." But, like so many other capitalist projects, limits the scope of what is possible so that we are left fighting amongst ourselves in a suffocatingly small space of our "choosing."
In 2012 I was running a school that was working nicely. I read about Instagram being sold for 2 1/2 billion or something, muttered “morons,“ and skipped past the headline. A few weeks later the sixth grade boys were holding beauty contests using Instagram: posting pictures of their female classmates without permission and asking everyone to vote. And the ramped up colonization of kids minds, along with the disintegration of their bodies <see “ Pentagon and Army: Gen Z bodies are 'too weak and break more easily' than previous generations>, had begun. We did not allow phones on campus, but I saw parents who were formerly pretty strict at home say well, they really really wanted to go on Instagram so I thought what harm could do? And it went downhill from there: screen time increasing more and more every year. But we fought back. Mandatory cybersafety meetings for 4th to 8th grade, then all the way down to second grade (parents couldn’t believe what goes on in Minecraft chat rooms – the solution is set up a private server). Fact is parents are overwhelmed, they don’t realize what’s happening in the chat rooms and so forth and they have no plan. You have to get them to work together (all fourth grade parents pledge open “no phones“ for instance) and to start as early as possible laying down the rules – e.g., “in our house the Internet goes off at 8 o’clock“ (we taught them how to set up two networks one for adults one for kids, and use physical timers on a separate plug that you could put in your pocket when you left the house so the Internet was off physically. The internet providers should’ve done this for parents but they didn’t, although I noticed some of them are starting to… 10 years too late). One thing Pondisco (he seems fair-minded enough, his analysis of the success for all schools was not one-sided) might get right is the unwillingness of some public schools to take a stand. Many teachers love gaming and social media and many school districts wait until they have suicides until they start to do anything. But I’d say they’re doing far too little to help parents fight the advertisers (because all these social media companies are just advertising companies) who don’t give a damn about kids and whose CEOs keep their own kids away from social media. I just noticed _today_ that common sense media has decided to stop talking about “screen time”— why? what is that all about? It reminds me of when the American pediatricians changed their very reasonable recommendation of “no TV until age 5” (to let children develop an inner voice and use their bodies to explore the world) to no TV for the “first two years of life.” Who got to both of them?!
Banning social media will only work if that also addresses the underlying issue(s) that drive kids to social media in the first place--it's where all the social activity *happens.* With rigorously structured schedules and often distant parents, social media is where today's youth learn how to talk to peers. Parents need to be on the same page as educators in that *kids simply need more opportunities for unstructured interaction* and *good role models* (like parents are kind of supposed to be? or maybe that was just mine).
Well adjusted young adults don't need social media because they can create socialization and catch-up opportunities themselves. Those younger than me don't have that option because their peers are all on social media--the other kinds of socialization have never been an option because social media cornered their marketplace on communication and they were never shown alternatives.
Great article, but I do not understand the snide aside: "After that, if you talk at all about parenting or values or working hard you may as well be Phyllis Schlafly." Is she a boogeyman figure now? How did "parenting or values or working hard" become bad things?
Spot on re: social media. Regarding schools being expected to do more than they can, I believe that many of those complaining about curricula want schools to do only what they should - reading, writing, arithmetic - and to stop devoting energy to things that schools should not be burdened with (or, as some see it, empowered to do) such as sex education, gender issues, activism, and moralism beyond those aspects inextricably entwined with the teaching process such as respect and social etiquette. Those many view the current state of education as including too many non-essential (and often usurping) tasks. They want schools to do less - but do it better. The sad numbers on student competence in core subjects lend credence to those views. Also, sad to say, there is no "the" problem with public education. You and Mr. Pondiscio can both be right.
Phenomenal read.
This is so incredibly good. Thank you.
Jill Lepore's recent essay on school wars/choice in the New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/03/21/why-the-school-wars-still-rage) contains a compelling sentence, which she quotes from Tracy Steffes: “Public schooling was not just one more progressive reform among many but a major—perhaps the major—public response to tensions between democracy and capitalism.” To me, this explains in a nutshell why we often turn to school to solve all of our problems. What other American institution has attempted to do something so obviously good for the vast majority of individuals and for all of society? Without complimentary public systems of healthcare, social service, etc., public school is expected to do it all. Social media, the current tip of the sword of capitalism, conceals its ill-effects under a veneer of "choice" and "personal expression." But, like so many other capitalist projects, limits the scope of what is possible so that we are left fighting amongst ourselves in a suffocatingly small space of our "choosing."
In 2012 I was running a school that was working nicely. I read about Instagram being sold for 2 1/2 billion or something, muttered “morons,“ and skipped past the headline. A few weeks later the sixth grade boys were holding beauty contests using Instagram: posting pictures of their female classmates without permission and asking everyone to vote. And the ramped up colonization of kids minds, along with the disintegration of their bodies <see “ Pentagon and Army: Gen Z bodies are 'too weak and break more easily' than previous generations>, had begun. We did not allow phones on campus, but I saw parents who were formerly pretty strict at home say well, they really really wanted to go on Instagram so I thought what harm could do? And it went downhill from there: screen time increasing more and more every year. But we fought back. Mandatory cybersafety meetings for 4th to 8th grade, then all the way down to second grade (parents couldn’t believe what goes on in Minecraft chat rooms – the solution is set up a private server). Fact is parents are overwhelmed, they don’t realize what’s happening in the chat rooms and so forth and they have no plan. You have to get them to work together (all fourth grade parents pledge open “no phones“ for instance) and to start as early as possible laying down the rules – e.g., “in our house the Internet goes off at 8 o’clock“ (we taught them how to set up two networks one for adults one for kids, and use physical timers on a separate plug that you could put in your pocket when you left the house so the Internet was off physically. The internet providers should’ve done this for parents but they didn’t, although I noticed some of them are starting to… 10 years too late). One thing Pondisco (he seems fair-minded enough, his analysis of the success for all schools was not one-sided) might get right is the unwillingness of some public schools to take a stand. Many teachers love gaming and social media and many school districts wait until they have suicides until they start to do anything. But I’d say they’re doing far too little to help parents fight the advertisers (because all these social media companies are just advertising companies) who don’t give a damn about kids and whose CEOs keep their own kids away from social media. I just noticed _today_ that common sense media has decided to stop talking about “screen time”— why? what is that all about? It reminds me of when the American pediatricians changed their very reasonable recommendation of “no TV until age 5” (to let children develop an inner voice and use their bodies to explore the world) to no TV for the “first two years of life.” Who got to both of them?!
Banning social media will only work if that also addresses the underlying issue(s) that drive kids to social media in the first place--it's where all the social activity *happens.* With rigorously structured schedules and often distant parents, social media is where today's youth learn how to talk to peers. Parents need to be on the same page as educators in that *kids simply need more opportunities for unstructured interaction* and *good role models* (like parents are kind of supposed to be? or maybe that was just mine).
Well adjusted young adults don't need social media because they can create socialization and catch-up opportunities themselves. Those younger than me don't have that option because their peers are all on social media--the other kinds of socialization have never been an option because social media cornered their marketplace on communication and they were never shown alternatives.
Great article, but I do not understand the snide aside: "After that, if you talk at all about parenting or values or working hard you may as well be Phyllis Schlafly." Is she a boogeyman figure now? How did "parenting or values or working hard" become bad things?