The Boston Globe article, “In Reversal, Kids Nag Parents to Step Away from Their Phones, Laptops” by Beth Yeitell (March 8, 2012, available here) once again blames parents for doing it wrong.  They are spending too much time with technology and screens instead of spending time with their children.

I am not saying that parents aren’t spending too much time on screens, but it would be helpful instead of blaming parents to ask, “Why are parents spending so much time with screens and what can we do about it, instead of just blaming them?”  The fact is that parents are victims of many of the same forces in society that their children are—including being lured to screens.

The parents of today grew up when media and technology were becoming a much bigger force in their lives than it had been for their parents—computers, video games, cell phones, became regular and accepted forces in their families during their childhoods.  I began studying this increase in the middle 1980s because of concerns that teachers were voicing about the changes they were seeing in children’s play, behavior and skills.  It was this work that led me to write my book, Remote Control Childhood:  Combating the Hazards of Media Culture,[1] in 1998.  Screen use has been steadily on the rise in the lives of children and adults every year since I began studying it.

We know from research that screens can be addictive.  They replace active engagement with real things in the real world.   As children, today’s parents learned to be “remote controlled.”  Screens lured them into following someone else’s “program” instead of their learning how to come up with own.  They became used to being bombarded with a continuing onslaught of action, excitement that filled their time making real world activities often seem boring.  They interacted with other people less, thereby learning less about how to have caring and connected relationships.  More and more of their lives became dependent on using screens to meet their needs, to get things done.

Why should parents suddenly know how to turn their screens off and actively engage in the world and with their own children when they become parents?  Why should they know how to turn off all the ways their lives have become dependent on getting things done using screens?  Why should they know how to resist all the marketing that tells them if you just had this or that new screen or screen product your life would be better, you would be happier?

Many parents do not know how to disconnect from their screens and reconnect with the real world and with their own children.  Let’s help them learn to turn off their screens and engage with their children in big and little ways.  For example:  they can choose a regular time everyday when the whole family has no screens and does something together.  But then we need to help them figure out engaging activities that they can do together when the screens are turned off.

It’s time to stop blaming parents for not knowing how to resist the hazards created by modern day society.   It’s time to deal directly and thoughtfully with all the ways media and technology are changing childhood, parenthood and the wider society.

1.  In the Mayor’s Footsteps: Peru

2. In the Mayor’s Footsteps: Brazil

I was asked to preview the 2 films.  Here is the endorsement I gladly wrote.  See them if you can.

“These powerful films focus on the all too often ignored fact that growing up in poverty, with the high levels of domestic and community violence that often accompany it, can profoundly impact early development. Inspirational Mayor Amilcare Huancahuari of Peru takes us on a heartfelt journey looking at how violence affects young children in his country. Then, he explores groundbreaking programs designed to counteract the harm caused by the violence in the lives of poor children in Brazil that he hopes to bring back to Peru. Anyone who sees these deeply moving films will be more highly motivated and better equipped to promote political, economic and social justice for children, in their own communities and around the world.”

More than 15 years ago, I was a founder of TRUCE (Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment) with other early childhood educations in the Boston Area.  Since the beginning, we worked to prepare materials to help parents and others who care about the wellbeing of young children promote healthy play and media use.  We felt that there was much going on with media and marketing of toys that was undermining play and development and very little out there counteract the harm

In keeping with what has become our annual tradition, TRUCE has released its annual “TRUCE 2011-12 Annual Toy Selection Guide” to help parents and others, who will be buying toys as gifts for young children during the December Holiday Season and beyond, make good gift choices. Our Guide will help you choose toys for healthy and creative play and avoid toys that undermine play and can teach harmful lessons. You can download this Guide at the TRUCE website:  www.truceteachers.org.

At our website you will find other TRUCE Action Guides—including the TRUCE Toys, Play and Young Children Action Guide, which contains information about why play is important and the role of toys in promoting positive play. The guide includes suggestions for “Shoe Box Gifts,” an alternative gift idea that promotes play themes with common objects often found in the house.

You can help TRUCE accomplish its mission by getting word out about the Toy Selection Guide.  For instance, you can copy and distribute it as widely as you like—to parents, teachers, community groups, in newsletters and to the news media. Thank you for any help you can provide.

Remember: TRUCE Guides are not copyrighted, so you have our permission to copy and use them as you like.

FROM LISA MURPHY:

To whom it may concern:

Discussions around the topic of technology use with children often turn into debates between the camps of “pro” and “con.”   I recently wrote an article that offered a modified definition of technology that stretched beyond consumer based electronics (TVs, computers, iPhones, etc.) attempting to show educators and parents that technology is not limited to things that get plugged in or need to be charged up.  The new NAEYC position statement, however, is not so broad.  By limiting the definition of technology to electronic and screen-based tools the divide between the camps of pro and con will continue to grow.  It has also encouraged many of us in the con camp to find our collective voice.

This being said, I am thankful for the opportunity to provide feedback on the (draft) position statement regarding technology use in early childhood programs:

• I appreciate that in the new position statement NAEYC calls on teachers to have a solid understanding of child development and DAP which would allow them to “make good choices” when it comes to technology use, but the reality is that too many states allow 18 year olds with only a high school diploma to be responsible for the daily care and development of our children; as sad as it is to admit, NAEYC cannot assume that all early childhood educators ARE grounded in solid theories of child development or DAP.

• This position statement relies heavily on the importance of the role of the teacher in choosing DAP tech materials when the reality is that many materials are purchased by someone else and teachers are simply told to use them.  We cannot assume that ece teachers will “know better” because the embarrassing reality is that due to inconsistent (often substandard) initial employment qualifications and (lack of) ongoing training requirements, in many instances, they unfortunately don’t.

• This position statement appears disconnected from the reality of how technology IS being used in many ece environments.  It often IS being used in such a way that decreases the prevalence of real, hands-on experiences.   Touch screens DO replace crayons and markers; in some places because they are “cleaner” and not as messy.

• More of a question than a comment, I would like to ask what prompted the decision for a revision to the original position statement?  I remain curious as to the potential influence of the “Rationale Statement” authored by Donohue and Schomberg, which was included in the references.

• Additionally, when a “Center for Children’s Media” is co-authoring a position statement on technology use it can be perceived as being a bit biased.  I was left wondering as to the nature of the relationship between NAEYC, the Fred Rogers Center and the various authors of the document (who all appear to be affiliated with tech-based institutions).

• It is rather unsettling that the appropriate age for  “technology use” has been expanded to include infants and toddlers; flying smack in the face of the recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

• The position statement indicates that children without early exposure to tech will be at a disadvantage and their ability to compete in a 21^st century workplace will be impeded.  This argument is completely asinine.  The tech tools currently being used by three year olds will be obsolete by the time they are old enough to be hunting for a job and “competing in the workforce.”  Additionally, the jobs they will be hunting for have not even been invented yet.  The “at a disadvantage myth” preys on consumer guilt, is not grounded in any research and does nothing but increase sales of tech driven products.

• This position statement grants permission to tech manufacturers and sales staff to ramp up their already relentless and aggressive marketing techniques.  The vendor halls at most conferences already border on inappropriate, it is only going to get worse with the ability to now pitch products as being, “In line with NAEYC’s position statement.”

• In true developmentally appropriate early childhood programs you will witness children busy creating, moving their bodies, running, climbing, singing, problem solving, discussing, using their hands, observing, reading and playing; and quite frankly, we don’t have the time, desire or need for flat, solitary, sterile, passive, tech-based media experiences that keep children sitting still and getting fat.

• I will remind all who are involved with the creation of this document that no screen can replace the feel of water dripping down your arm as you pour it and measure it in the sensory table, no program or app can capture the tickle of a caterpillar crawling across your hand, no software can transmit the coldness of the ice and snow as you work with peers to make a winter shelter and nothing you plug in can replicate the experience of molding and squeezing clay with your fingers.

“If you want it in their head, it must first be in their hands.”  Why we would ever take a position that states otherwise, thus appearing to undermine the importance of children touching and manipulating real objects in the crucial years of early childhood, is beyond me.

Respectfully,

Lisa Murphy, B.S.

CEO, Founder Ooey Gooey, Inc.

1115 East Main St. Box 48, Rochester, NY 14609

www.ooeygooey.com

Author, lecturer, and current NAEYC, New York AEYC and Rochester (NY) AEYC member, former student member of Chicago Metro (student) AEYC, and former member of both California and San Diego AEYC

“How ‘Corporate Ed Reform’ is Harming Young Children.”

PLEASE COME & HELP SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT THE MOBILIZATION TOO.  Thanks.

For more information, go to:  SOS DC Mobilization Information

Diane

Below is the letter Julie Olsen Edwards, former NAEYC Board Member and NAEYC author, sent to NAEYC voicing her concerns about the current draft.  She gave me permission to post her letter on my blog.  Thank you, Julie.

To: NAEYC Position Statement Editors

From: Julie Olsen Edwards (Life-time NAEYC member, Past NAEYC Board Member, NAEYC author: Anti-bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves)

Re: Technology in Early Childhood Programs Position Statement

I have just finished reading the Draft Technology Position Statement. I am struck by the careful attention to weaving together the issues of developmental appropriateness and potential effective uses of technology in early childhood practice. I have, however, several serious concerns I hope you can still address.

1. I appreciate your statements that technology is a tool “not the focus of learning”. But no media is content neutral. Nowhere in the draft do you even mention, much less address, the significant social content of much digital media. Sadly, many of the interactive programs marketed to early childhood audiences still carry damaging overt messages regarding gender roles and family structures and most carry covert messages about racial identity and economic class. At the minimum, educators need to be cautioned to be alert to these hurtful messages and to actively mediate their impacts.
2. The main argument you make for the conclusion that children “should” be given technology tools in ECE programs is “Lack of intentional integration and use of technology is early childhood classrooms can place children without technology exposure at disadvantage and imped their ability to compete in the 21^st century workforce”. Well yes – and no. Yes, these skills are essential. And no – they don’t begin with infants. We expect citizens to be able to vote. But we know that understanding group decision making comes from playing and child-centered problem solving – not by having two year olds vote on who gets the red ball. We want our children to grow up able to have satisfying sexual lives – but we don’t introduce sexuality concerns in early childhood classrooms. We know mathematical competence is crucial for all children – but we begin with blocks and toys and cooking – not with equations.
   The argument that we must use technology with very young children – particularly children from poor families – mirrors the idea that we should drill such children on phonics so they “catch up” to their middle class peers. In reality, the more at-risk children are, the greater the need for hands on, play based, experience and language rich environments – all in the context of human relationships.
3. There is no research that I know of, nor that you cite, that indicate the safety of using screen technologies with infants and toddler and pre-schoolers. The addictive quality of screen time, the impact on eye development, flashing light impacts on brain development, etc., are all commonly seen impacts of screen time on young school age children. Unless there is overwhelming evidence of the value of exposing even younger children to such stresses, it seems reckless to take a stand that we should be doing this.*
4. On page two you open a section with the statement, “There are conflicting views about whether young children should have access to screen-based media”. This statement would be more accurately rewritten: “There is general agreement that young children should have only limited access to screen-based media”. This would be much closer to supporting the on-going caution in the Position Statement regarding development and learning.

I am fully in support of the segments of the Position Statement related to the adult use of technology and those related to the need for significant professional development in those uses. This is essential and timely. The arena of concern is in the use of technologies directly with children.

The Position Statement includes many carefully stated caveats “Early childhood educators must continually monitor…”; “developmentally appropriate experiences with technology requires an understanding … viewed through the lens of known child development theories…”; mediate “the potential for misuse and overuse of screen media  even as these devices offer new interfaces that increase their appeal…”, etc.. Throughout the document it becomes clear that there are serious concerns and questions about the uses of the technologies with children.  Despite those cautions the Statement concludes “Early Childhood programs have an obligation to use technology to bridge the digital divide”. This seems to me to be a serious overstatement – and one at odds with our knowledge and leadership regarding developmentally appropriate learning. I sincerely hope there will be another revision before this is finally approved.

*   In a follow up message to NAEYC I provided this link to the NY Times article “Fixated by Screens and Little Else” on potential relationships between screen time and ADHD.

YOUNG CHILDREN AND I NEED YOUR HELP.

I am deeply concerned about the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Draft Position Statement on Technology and Young Children—Ages 3 to 8 and its recommendations for technology use in early childhood programs. You can see the current draft here.

Meg Merrill, a social worker and producer of the film, “Play Again”, has written a powerful editorial about her concerns with the current draft.  She has given me permission to share it with you.  It will give you salient examples of why many of us are sooooooooo concerned about the current Draft.

I hope we can all work with NAEYC to help create a recommendations on technology that truly help early childhood professionals:

• Use research to understand the strengths and weaknesses of technology in children’s lives
• Better understand all the ways technology influences young children’s development and learning
• Learn techniques for counteracting the negative and promoting the positive..

PLEASE ACT NOW.  WRITE TO NAEYC with your FEEDBACK.  Address comment to: TechandYC@naeyc.org before May 31st.

Thank you very much, Diane

***

Editorial:

Concerns about the NAEYC Draft Position Statement on Technology and Young Children—Ages 3 to 8

Meg Merrill, MSW, Producer of “Play Again”

I am a social worker, filmmaker, and the mother of two kids who use technology responsibly (on most days) at our local public school and at home. I rely on various types of technology for work and like most of us, I struggle to find a healthy balance. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), which accredits pre-schools in our country, is revising its standards on technology and inviting feedback from the public on a draft Position Statement document called “Technology in Early Childhood Education Programs.” I respect NAEYC for tackling this important issue, but in order for this document to support the health and education of young children significant revisions are needed.

When the average American child spends over 6 hours a day in front of TV, computer and mobile screens, do we really believe “Early childhood programs have an obligation to use technology to bridge the digital divide”? I am not against technology, but there is a huge difference between offering best practices for those teachers who choose to integrate technology in their classrooms and obligating teachers to do so.  Although the draft statement does address important issues such as the negative impacts of passive screen time, the overall position taken by the NAEYC is more relevant for middle school and high school students than for children ages 0-8 years old.   Here are some of my main concerns:

• Research does not support the assertion that “Lack of intentional integration and use of technology in early childhood classrooms can place children without technology exposure at a disadvantage and impede their ability to compete in the 21st century workforce.” As my 13 year old responded, “Three-year-olds need job skills?” Technology changes rapidly and most basic technology skills can be taught in a matter of hours or days, unlike the skills we gain through interaction with the real world, nature and each other, which build slowly over time. Young children are becoming more and more removed from the real world and this is going to have a far greater negative impact on their eventual job skills than a lack of technology in their early childhood classrooms. The world of tomorrow and the skills our kids are going to need to create it go far beyond what is technologically in front of us now and teaching them how to use a mouse or make an e-book at age 4 will likely be irrelevant when they join the job market.

• It uses poverty and inequity as an excuse for why technology must be used in early childhood classrooms. Inequity and poverty are critical issues in education. The above argument that young children from age 0-8 who are not exposed to the newest technology at home need technology in classrooms or they will be at a disadvantage in the job market is unfounded.  The inequity issue for technology use comes into play for high school students, but not young ones.

• It disregards current research about what is and is not good for young children. I applaud the NAEYC for at least skimming some of the research on the downsides of technology for young children, but the results of this research are disregarded in the recommendations and in the overall position taken by NAEYC.  There is little or no research to support the recommendations of the position statement.  We are in the midst of an experiment with regards to the long-term impact of screen technology on young children’s brains and development. What incentive do we have to jump the gun on this, besides someone’s financial gain? “Concerns have been raised about the lack of empirical research that demonstrates positive benefits from technology use.” Yes, this is true, and there is some research showing downsides, so let’s wait awhile before “obligating” teachers to use “technology” in their classrooms and instead support them in doing it responsibly when they choose to.

• “Obligating” the use of technology invalidates thousands of highly skilled early childhood educators who choose not to use technology in their classrooms. Many of these educators do an amazing job of preparing children for life and yes, eventually the job market. In fact, many of them actively work to counteract the negative impact they see screens having on young children such as the difficulty they have initiating creative play and self regulating.
• It acknowledges different technologies but does not discern between them in recommendations. “In this position statement, the word “technology” is used broadly, referring to interactive digital and electronic devices, software, multi-touch tablets, technology-based toys, apps, video games and interactive (nonlinear) screen-based media.” Teaching students how to use a camera for a class project and encouraging them to play Internet games on a computer are not equal in terms of the impact on children – it is comparing apples and oranges.  To acknowledge these differences and then make sweeping generalizations about the benefits of “technology” is irresponsible.

• Some of it makes the NAEYC look kind of silly and is perfect fodder for Seth Meyers and John Stewart. They recommend that infants and toddlers from age 0-2 play with toy cell phones and computers.  I am not saying this is harmful but as experts, do we really need to recommend this?  War, although more controversial in its potential benefits than technology, is a reality but do we put gun replicas in our classrooms so kids can work though their issues with war and violence? Of course not.  They make guns out of sticks that turn into lasers that turn into fairy wands and they explore the issues through real world play that comes from their own experiences. Without any recommendations from us, kids make cell phones out of cardboard and computers out of construction paper and this is exactly what they should be doing.

• It uses the outdated “parents are puzzled by technology” argument to put those who are not on board with their position in their place. The reality is, parents are no longer puzzled. Great-grandparents maybe, but not parents. We are iphone addicts and Facebook fanatics.  In fact, the average age of video game addicts is 35.
• It mentions but does not adequately address issues such as childhood obesity and screen time. Mentioning obesity in one place does not validate the importance of this issue, which is linked to sedentary lifestyles and screen media. The actual amount of time that is healthy for kids to spend with screens should be included in any recommendations about technology use for young kids. Both content and time are critical factors and both should be addressed in this discussion. Time alone is a huge issue regardless of content, and we need to consider what we are missing as technology uses up more of our time. The human blobs in Wall-e made us laugh but they are not based in as much fantasy as we want to believe.

• It recommends that teachers use their “professional judgment” and “verifiable criteria” in making “developmentally appropriate” choices about technology but it offers no meaningful guidelines.  I appreciate that these statements show an honest respect for teachers and their ability to make decisions in the best interests of their students.  But what do those words mean?  How are they defined in the context of technology use in early childhood classrooms?

Meaningful best practices based on solid research and expert advice could actually be beneficial to early childhood educators who choose to use technology in their classrooms, but this document does not achieve that purpose.  I appreciate the NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center, organizations with considerable influence on early childhood educators, parents and young children, for starting this conversation.  I hope they will take this opportunity to lead us in the right direction. I believe they have an ethical responsibility to not recommend anything related to technology that cannot be supported by research.

If you have children, teach children, or see children at the park when you walk your dog, whether you work in the woods or sit behind a computer all day like I do, I encourage you to read the draft document and email your feedback to TechandYC@naeyc.org before May 31^st.

I am writing to voice my concerns about the deeply misguided route down which you are taking early childhood education in the United States.

I feel this more strongly now than ever having just returned from Belfast, Northern Ireland, where I took Wheelock College students on a service learning program looking at the reconciliation efforts currently underway in schools.

My students, all of whom will be working with children and families when they graduate, were amazed to learn that the new curriculum for Northern Ireland, which aims to promote tolerance and decrease violence, has an increased focus on play in the early grades. The teachers there are eagerly embracing this shift because they see the positive effects of this new curriculum in their classrooms—children are better problem solvers and are more engaged with educational activities and each other.

Over and over again, my students commented on how self-regulated, engaged, and competent the children they observed were, beginning as young as 3-years-old. This was especially striking when they saw 75 children ages 5-6 happily playing for 30 minutes on an asphalt playground with no equipment or play materials—and not one obvious instance of adult intervention was needed.  In contrast to the one-size-fits-all model so often used in the U.S., they saw classes busy with diverse activities like writing and drawing.  And, as the teacher circled the room to work with individuals, they witnessed how the children helped and shared with each other.  The teachers said they believed that the emphasis on play nurtured these vital life skills, a conclusion which is supported by a growing body of research that focuses on the educational value of play.

Mr. Duncan, my students voiced distress that your proposed Common Core Educational Standards for children as young as kindergarten in the United States is going in the opposite direction from the model they experienced in Northern Ireland. They are worried that these new standards will undermine play and put more focus on testing, which will ironically doom your admirable goal for introducing the standards—reducing the achievement gap between the black and white, rich and poor children.

My students began trying to answer an important question.  Why do the Northern Irish educational policymakers understand young children’s needs so well, while you and your policymakers here in the U.S. refuse to understand and promote young children’s optimal learning and wellbeing?  One key factor at the heart of your current misguided effort seems to be that policymakers in Northern Ireland listen to early childhood educators, the experts in the learning and development of young children, when determining educational policy. You, Mr. Duncan, do not seem to be doing so.  Only one member of the group creating the new U.S. standards has any clearly identified early childhood experience.

Now, more than ever, I believe that U.S. children are doomed to miseducation and worse if you do not heed the voices of those best trained to foster the wellbeing and education of young children—early childhood educators. It is not too late.*  Listening to the advice of leading early childhood educators in the U.S. is your best hope for creating policies that will reverse the disastrous course on which you are currently taking our young children and their teachers.

*Please see the Official Position Statement of the Alliance for Childhood voicing grave concerns about the new standards.  This statement has been signed by leading early childhood educators from around the country.

I’m sure you know that marketing junk food to children is big business.  A 2008 Federal Trade Commission Report estimated that up to $10 billion was spent annually on advertising food and beverages to children.  A 2007 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that food is the top product advertised to children.  Half of all ads shown during children’s programming are for food.  And 34% of all food ads are for candy.  Is it any surprise that marketing junk food to children has risen dramatically since the Federal Trade Commission lost its power to regulate marketing to children, making the U.S. unique among industrialized countries in giving free-reign to marketers?

Marketers would not go to all this trouble and expense if they didn’t know what an impact their marketing has on children’s consuming and eating habits.  In 2006, an Institute of Medicine review of research found strong evidence that food advertising on TV influences children’s food preferences and diets.

Mrs. Obama, please don’t ignore what we know to be one of the greatest reasons why childhood obesity has rapidly increased in the past decade—just as the time children spend in front of a screen viewing ads has soared, as has the amount of money spent marketing junk food to them.  Right now, the burden of solving childhood obesity is on parents and schools while the single biggest factor that would help them promote children’s health is ignored.

If you really want have an impact on the epidemic of children obesity, it is time to give the Federal Trade Commission back its powers to regulate marketing to children. It is time to put protecting the interests of children and families above the greed of marketers.