By B.N. Frank
Almost 2 years ago, TIME magazine published an opinion piece by Dr. Nicholas Kardaras, author of Glow Kids: How Screen Addiction is Hijacking Our Kids—and How to Break the Trance.
Dr. Nicholas Kardaras didn’t mince words.
Tech in the classroom not only leads to worse educational outcomes for kids, which I will explain shortly, it can also clinically hurt them. I’ve worked with over a thousand teens in the past 15 years and have observed that students who have been raised on a high-tech diet not only appear to struggle more with attention and focus, but also seem to suffer from an adolescent malaise that appears to be a direct byproduct of their digital immersion. Indeed, over two hundred peer-reviewed studies point to screen time correlating to increased ADHD, screen addiction, increased aggression, depression, anxiety and even psychosis.
Most of us have been witnessing this firsthand in our families and everywhere else. Today’s young adults and children have more problems – and different problems – than those of us that didn’t grow up with technology 24/7. We are all suffering because of it.
Dr. Kardaras asked us to follow the money. You may want to follow up with a shower:
Education technology is estimated to become a $60 billion industry by 2018. With the advent of the Common Core in 2010, which nationalized curriculum and textbooks standards, the multi-billion-dollar textbook industry became very attractive for educational gunslingers looking to capitalize on the new Wild West of education technology. A tablet with educational software no longer needed state-by-state curricular customization. It could now be sold to the entire country.
This new Gold Rush attracted people like Rupert Murdoch, not otherwise known for his concern for American pedagogy, who would go on to invest over $1 billion into an ed-tech company called Amplify, with the stated mission of selling every student in America their proprietary tablet—for only $199—along with the software and annual licensing fees.
Amplify hired hundreds of videogame designers to build educational videogames—while they and other tech entrepreneurs attempted to sell the notion that American students no longer had the attention span for traditional education. Their solution: Educate them in a more stimulating and “engaging” manner.
More from Dr. Kardaras
But let’s look more closely at that claim. ADHD rates have indeed exploded by 50 percent over the past 10 years with the CDC indicating that rates continue to rise by five percent per year. Yet many researchers and neuroscientists believe that this ADHD epidemic is a direct result of children being hyper-stimulated. Using hyper-stimulating digital content to “engage” otherwise distracted students exacerbates the problem that it endeavors to solve. It creates a vicious and addictive ADHD cycle: The more a child is stimulated, the more that child needs to keep getting stimulated in order to hold their attention.
Dr. Kardaras includes more examples of what he describes as a “dubious ed-tech cash-grab.” Many were duped. Teachers were laid off. Tech companies, inventors, and investors profited handsomely.
Dr. Kardaras compared Finnish students’ current educational experience with Americans’:
We could look to Finland, whose school system routinely ranks toward the top globally and has chosen to skip the tech and standardized testing. Instead, Finnish students are given as many as four outdoor free-play breaks per day, regardless of the weather—while here, a sedentary American child sitting in front of a glowing screen playing edu-games while over-scheduled and stressed by standardized testing is seen as the Holy Grail.
Also referenced was Dr. Kentaro Toyama who was once a strong believer that tech “could solve the problems of modern urban education.” Not anymore.
Rather than finding a digital educational cure, he came to understand what he calls technology’s “Law of Amplification”: technology could help education where it’s already doing well, but it does little for mediocre educational systems. Worse, in dysfunctional schools, it “can cause outright harm.” He added: “Unfortunately, there is no technological fix…more technology only magnifies socioeconomic disparities, and the only way to avoid that is non-technological.”
The 2016 article includes a long list of supporting education experts and researchers. It also references research that proves kids prefer traditional learning over e-learning. Other sources continue reporting this as well.
Download Your Free Copy of Counter Markets
Not for nothing but tech inventors have been limiting their own kids’ exposure to technology and sending them to private “low tech” schools. Many of them are also planning for “Doomsday.”
Taxes have gone up everywhere for this hoax. $60 billion dollars. Dumb dumb dumb dumb.
Since 2016, many more doctors, scientists, parents and educators have also accused The Tech Industry of participating in this “dubious ed-tech cash-grab.” Every day more educators are trying to remedy this.
Additionally, doctors, scientists, educators, and parents are also addressing harm caused to kids by exposure to cell phone and wireless WiFi radiation and other electromagnetic fields from devices such as lap tops, WiFi routers, and infrastructure like cell towers and antennas on school property.
No “safe” level of cell phone or wireless WiFi radiation exposure has STILL been scientifically determined for children or pregnant women. There have been many warnings by many experts about this especially in regard to kids.
More warnings about exposure are being reported all the time – for kids and everyone else by a variety of sources. In fact, cell phone manufacturers have also issued warnings to shareholders – not customers – that they may eventually be held liable for the harm they have caused.
Of course, most kids and young people probably figure that all wireless products and infrastructure operate via magic. Why wouldn’t they? Marketing for technology is directed at all of us. Sesame Street even has a character that is a “Smart Phone.”
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) testing for digital and wireless devices was established in 1993. It’s based on a model of the human head taken from a 6 feet 2 and 220 pound male military recruit. It doesn’t protect from non-thermal effects caused by cumulative exposure over time.
In 2011, The World Health Organization classified all sources of cell phone and wireless WiFi radiation as a possible carcinogen in the same category as chloroform, engine exhaust, and led. Many experts insist it should be classified as a Carcinogen.
Research has also confirmed that wireless radiation exposure can
- Worsen pre-existing conditions even when it didn’t cause them
- Disrupt the blood-brain barrier which can cause it to leak
- Cause a cumulative toxic effect when combined with other toxins
- Harm pets, nature, and wildlife
While well-meaning people continue raising money for research to cure cancer and other health issues, U.S. legislation written in 1996 protects everyone making money from making and marketing technology.
Even if you aren’t concerned about harm from exposure, your tax dollars are still being used for this $60B hoax which is producing the world’s future leaders, teachers, health care providers, etc.
For more information, visit the following websites:
- Center For Safer Wireless
- Center For Electrosmog Prevention
- Citizens for Safe Technology
- Clear Light Ventures
- Dr. Sam Milham
- EMF Safety Network
- Environmental Health Trust
- Generation Zapped
- In Power Movement
- National Association for Children and Safe Technology
- Parents for Safe Technology
- Scientists for Wired Tech
- We Are The Evidence