Do computers negatively affect student growth?

The issue on whether computers negatively affect student growth is a common issue with pros and cons to each side. The first article I read was written by Lowell Monke. The name of his article was The Human Touche and he expressed how computers do have a negative impact on student growth.  He speaks of first hand experiences and confrontations. A computer can only give you so much information but without an actual experience to relate it too, there will be no true understanding of the information. What a computer gives you is a two dimensional screen with statistics.  None of this allows for any type of experience. One paragraph in particular stuck out in my head as I was reading the passage, the statement about the computer game that had to due with survival.  Going through all the necessary procedures to survive in the wilderness through a video game on the computer. A computer cannot express enjoyment, excitement as well as thrill, and the accomplishment and doing something physically and overcoming it. What happened to going outside and playing? Is that something of the past or is it all about computers and televisions?  Playing outside at such a young age is a crucial impact on a child's life. This is where they learn what real life is meaning making friends, having responsibility, and making rational decisions. Communication with friends is where relationships start, not on a computer screen. Another negative impact is the fact that using a computer takes away all the necessary tools that a child was taught in school at a young age such as reading, writing, and grammar.  Computers have programs that allow for all these accommodations. This just makes it much harder for a child or student to get a real job when it comes that time in their life. After being hand-fed all their information and when it comes time to do a presentation or an essay the individual in going to suffer.

The second passage Technical Difficulties was written by Frederick M. Hess. Frederick believes that computers will better are children and society as a whole. Computers allow for a much faster and more proficient work ethic.  It also calls for less workers when it comes to jobs. This saves money for the owner of the business. Classrooms only have 16 children as oppose to 30 children like they did years ago. Computers allow for this because of all the necessary work it takes for a teacher to get together and present to their children to allow for a more beneficial learning process. Computers allow for many different types of jobs to work faster in all aspects of the job.  A computer can hold up to infinite amount of information where as paper can only hold so much. The time put into finding the information alone would be huge.

I believe that computers have a negative impact on student growth. It affects  there chances to develop relations ships with friends as well and negativity impacting there writing and reading skills. As said in the first passage computer skills is a skill that can be learned later on in school after developing all the necessary skills to succeed. Student have done it and still can, why make the change and affect are younger population in a negative way which result in our over all population!

Can Failing Schools be Turned Around

Issue 9
Analysis Brief
Can Failing Schools Be turned Around?

Can Failing Schools Be Turned Around is an article that was written by two different writers both depicting their own ideas on whether schools can be turned around. The first article, Its being Done, and Heres How was written by Karin Chenoweth. The article explains how schools can be turned around and what needs to be done to be successful. The second article is The Turnaround Fallacy which is written by Andy Smarick. The Turnaround Fallacy explains how schools cannot be turned around.  Both articles have there pros and cons to back up their opinions. Karin's article was focused allot more with the surroundings of the students and the organization of the faculty where as Andy's article was based on the facts and statistics of previous schools and money based schools. Karin's article proposed a plan with implementing a new principal. The principal came in and had the entire staff rehired so that the staff and student's where all on the same page. Karin's article focused on learning and creating structures that support learning. One of the main issues in Karin's article that she mentions is that most teachers believe that kids should already have experienced and an understanding of certain things. Teaching poverty students, does not begin with any assumptions of things they don't have to explain. Starting from the simple things to the most advance things, always have an explanation and do  not assume the student knows anything. Karin's article had some main points that made me believe that change can definitely be made.  All teachers meet on a weekly basis and discuss and help teachers achieve ways of understanding themselves as well as making the children understand. In low income and low poverty schools teachers may have to put in more time for the students.
Andy's article believes that schools cannot be turned around. Many of the beliefs that Andy explains comes from past statistics and facts. All of these statistics are well and good, but how accurately can they be when the writer has no idea on what changes were made and how well they were implemented and followed out. One of the things that stuck in my head reading this article was "no one has the answer, its like finding the cure to cancer". That right there said it all for me. That no one wants to put in the effort and dedication, imagine someone dieing and hearing another person say I give up. Never give up! That sentence helped me believe in the turnaround for schools.