I have been using computers since I'm 7-8, and I used it to play games, take notes, study, etc.

Yes, teaching computer skills is important, but crippling their writing and adding a tool into the classroom which can steal their focus faster than anything else is not a productive way to do it.

Have classes which needs computers, and classes which ban them during class hours. Being able to focus on a piece of paper with a pen or pencil is equally important.

Writing improves cognitive skills, thinking, retention, and more. I still design software on paper prior to implementing it, and I can see the whole thing much clearer and better.

Every person should have computer skills and access to a computer, yes, but they should be able to work without them, too.

Otherwise, we'll also realize The Foundation series from Asimov. We'll lose the essence which allows us to create and understand these things in the first place.

>I still design software on paper prior to implementing it, and I can see the whole thing much clearer and better.

I do the same thing.

Developmentally, a 16-18 year old is very different than a child.

I don’t know whether laptops in school are bad for children, but you can’t really make that comparison.

Personally, my belief is that children should learn to use computers (I did as a child, and it was massively beneficial) but that computers should not be central to their foundational education.

Kids shouldn’t learn basic arithmetic on a computer. They should learn it with their hands, with things they can hold, and by writing.

Computers can come later when the math is far more advanced.

You say that as if learning maths by hand/on paper is generally effective. Tell me that your peers aren't innumerate.

Most people have the world's knowledge in their pocket, including a calculator, and still can't tell you the original price of a $25.00 item that's 15% off. You're describing a general education problem.

I'm not saying you can't teach kids math on a computer, I'm saying I believe it's better not to.

One thought: if the computer is locked down into a mode where it's acting as a fancy typewriter to fill form-fields (i.e. if you're kiosked into the Blackboard worksheet "app" during the lesson), then what's the difference between learning by typing vs. "by writing"?

Another thought: "learning with their hands, with things they can hold" is nice to say, but counting blocks/geometry boards/etc are actually rather expensive (hard to have as many sets as there are kids, for several reasons), so often kids will only get a short amount of time to experience such things, rather than being able to use them as a thinking aid whenever they want until they grow out of the need for them. On the other hand, presuming each child has a computer, "learning by interactive example" — i.e. having interactive touch-enabled simulations of these same learning toys — is almost as good, and freely scalable to the entire student population, such that each child gets as much time to experiment with the simulation — and really learn the lesson of it — as they want. Including taking it home with them!

A third thought, perhaps less persuasive because I'm an outlier, but personally meaningful to me: back in the 90s, I learned PEDMAS before parentheses were even taught to us in school. I had grabbed "C for Dummies" from a grocery-store shelf — asking my mum to purchase it for me — because I knew that C was how you made video games. Instead, I ended up reading about "operator precedence" / "operator binding affinity" as a general concept. Yes, I was 9; yes, most of what I read flew right over my head. But that part stuck! And when I later — at the age of 11 — learned PHP and then Ruby, I already understood how to translate math on a page into syntax for a REPL, because I had seen the C example of how to write binding-precedence parsing. And then I did start creating (simple) game demos — and more interestingly, from-scratch game engines to power them (because toolkits like Unity weren't a thing back then), which involved more than a little bit of maths to make even the simplest physics integration steps work. (Yes, this means I understood how acceleration translates to velocity and then displacement — and so had an intuitive grasp of integrals, despite never having been exposed to them — when I was 12. I came into my pre-calc and physics classes prepared!)

> One thought: if the computer is locked down into a mode where it's acting as a fancy typewriter to fill form-fields (i.e. if you're kiosked into the Blackboard worksheet "app" during the lesson), then what's the difference between learning by typing vs. "by writing"?

There is some evidence to suggest that writing does help retain information, as multiple functions of the brain are being engaged with the same information. Whether that extends to typing and using a computer I do not know.

> Another thought: "learning with their hands, with things they can hold" is nice to say, but counting blocks/geometry boards/etc are actually rather expensive (hard to have as many sets as there are kids, for several reasons), so often kids will only get a short amount of time to experience such things, rather than being able to use them as a thinking aid whenever they want until they grow out of the need for them.

That's a failure of the education system, not an argument in favor of computers in the classroom. That problem is solvable without computers.

Lastly, kids learning how to use computers is a good thing, I do believe. I do not, however, believe that learning on computers should replace other forms of learning, especially for foundational skills.

> One thought: if the computer is locked down into a mode where it's acting as a fancy typewriter to fill form-fields (i.e. if you're kiosked into the Blackboard worksheet "app" during the lesson), then what's the difference between learning by typing vs. "by writing"?

There's a good amount of evidence for a difference. Example study (of which there are many): https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210319080820.h...

"A study of university students and recent graduates has revealed that writing on physical paper can lead to more brain activity when remembering the information an hour later. Researchers say that the unique, complex, spatial and tactile information associated with writing by hand on physical paper is likely what leads to improved memory."

I agree that developmentally children are different at that age, which is why I suggested different reasons why it may still be appropriate.

I think basic computer access at home and for homework is a pretty convincing reason. And I do agree that kids should learn to write with a pen and do maths without a calculator (/computer).

I don't think everyone agrees.

So, what, you think that children should have to figure out computers for themselves? That only the geeky ones (who are likely to poke at stuff and learn that way) should actually have a clue how to use computers?

Or is it that you think parents should be teaching this—which guarantees it's only going to be taught to the children of the reasonably well-off?

Welcome to the 21st century, where it's widely beneficial for everyone to know how to use computers at least at a basic level, and skills like "how to use simple Excel formulas" are often enough on their own to get people decent-paying office jobs. Because the people already working there were never taught how to use computers in any systematic way beyond, maybe, "keyboarding classes".

Where many governments require forms of various types to be submitted online, and only put out many kinds of information on their websites.

Where it's nearly a guarantee that people are going to be using social media, no matter how much you try to restrict them, so it's a damn good idea to teach them how to recognize misinformation and other kinds of manipulation (not strictly a computer skill, but definitely related).

I certainly wouldn't argue with how anyone else raises their children, but I think it has been hugely beneficial to restrict access to technology early in my kids' lives. It can be introduced as they get older without worrying about them falling behind

I don't know. The family I've seen that don't give their kids unrestricted access to the internet have no problem keeping them off of social media.

I want to be very clear here:

I'm not talking about kids. I'm saying those kids will grow up, and once they grow up, they will almost certainly be on social media.

If they are not taught about critical thinking, media literacy, and how to recognize manipulations and misinformation while they are still in school, they will be easy prey for all the various kinds of sharks out there.

That they know of. I did a lot of things my parents didn't approve of or know of.

Most people that disagree (at least the ones that I talked with) assume that the computer will REPLACE traditional teaching: Books, drawing, pencil, paper.

Nevertheless promoters don't generally want to get rid of traditional teaching tools. Just add digital tools as part of the learning experience.

And contrary to most popular believe, kids don't want to be all the time with the computers.

Learned that the hard way with my kids. Google Family Link is awesome. Apple Screen Time is adequate.

The answer is to obviously use both. Anyone advocating for paper only or computer only are dumb ideologues at best.