No More Sunday School: How Religious Doctrine Damages our Children

by Drew Williams 

On June 28th, members of an East Texas Revivalist Christian church called the Church of Wells were escorted from Lakewood Ministries, the Church of TV evangelist Joel Osteen. The six members of the Church of Wells were charged with criminal trespass after disrupting the Sunday service of some 43,000 fellow Christians. 

Both the Church of Wells and Lakewood are Christian, Protestant, Evangelical, American, Texan congregations. What could possibly be the conflict between their teachings which would motivate six young men to acquire criminal records in order to briefly disrupt the service to a deity in which they themselves believe? 

It bears mentioning that this was far and away the least-criminal criminal act committed in the name of religion during a week which saw an absolute minimum of 207 people killed by religiously-motivated violence. 

The origins of religion are long lost to history. The cave paintings of Lascaux and the Venus of Willendorf demonstrate that spiritual, symbolic thought has been part of the human experience for tens of thousands of years. Anthropologist Barbara J. King goes even further back and points to social and emotional behaviour in gorillas and chimpanzees as being evidence of a pre-human evolutionary origin of religion and spirituality. Whenever and wherever it began, some form of religion, be it a belief in received truth, animistic spirits, ancestor worship, or the fascinating cargo-cults of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, religion has come to be present in every single human culture. 

While there is ample evidence to indicate the benefits that the strong communities and— in many cases—the values imparted by religion have on the development of children, the time has come for us to recognize that raising children with direct instruction of religious doctrine must come to an end.
There are a number of different theories about the ways children develop. Piaget enumerated a set of stages children progress through as they grow, developing their cognitive skills through active exploration and experimentation with the world. Vygotsky viewed cognitive development as being intrinsically social, with expert peers and adults helping lead children through a series of cognitively enriching experiences. Bronfenbrenner sees each of us as the centre of an ecological bullseye, where the various systems in our lives exert influence on each other and on ourselves. 

Whichever model you chose to accept, it is clear that children under the age of twelve are simply not prepared to understand the implications for their lives, their thinking, and their worldview, of religious doctrines. 

Sunday school is a common phenomenon in Christian communities. After services, children are given what is thought to be age-appropriate instruction in the beliefs of the individual sect. Pity the poor 8-year-old Catholic child expected to wrestle with the concept of transubstantiation: that the tasteless bread and poor wine she chokes down every Sunday are, in actual fact, the flesh and blood of the tortured, bleeding, sad-faced man on the cross. A child at this age would be right in the middle of Piaget’s Concrete-Operational stage, a stage characterized by an ability to think logically, but also having difficulty with abstract or hypothetical thought. Little wonder when she, in profound confusion, asks the nun why Jesus was made of crackers. 

Doctrines are ideas with which some of the greatest minds of history have grappled over thousands of years. Is it not painfully obvious that exposing unprepared children to these ideas can only serve to confuse, frustrate, upset, and ultimately alienate these children? 

My critics will contend that I, a secular person, desire the extinction of Faith. This is nonsense: it is not Faith which causes families to fracture when a child announces they are homo or transsexual. It is not Faith which drives young disillusioned men to strap explosives to themselves and step into Mosques. What drives these depressing, devastating acts is rigid acceptance of doctrine, almost invariably instilled in childhood. 

Similarly I am not opposed to Religion as a whole. Indeed, I believe that choosing not to teach children doctrine at a young age could be beneficial to religious bodies. Recent surveys show religious affiliation shrinking rapidly. A Pew survey released in May of 2015 shows every single Christian community in America is shrinking, while the number of “unaffiliated” Americans has jumped from 16.1 to 22.8 percent since just 2007. This is an additional twenty million non-religiously affiliated Americans in just seven years. Early-exposure to profoundly confusing doctrinal ideas can only contribute to children choosing to step away from the religions in which they were raised. Delaying the age at which these ideas are introduced could help to reverse the trend of secularization.

It is also important to explain that it is not religious values or morality which I oppose, but very specifically, doctrine. Doctrine is the specific teachings about rules of conduct, or descriptions of events in the history of a religion, or explanations of particular points of theology. Being kind to one another is a value; that Jesus specifically said “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” in Jerusalem, on Tuesday, March 31st, in the year 33, is doctrine. 

Children are eminently prepared to accept the teaching of values. At eighteen months, children are capable of understanding that individuals have preferences which are different from their own and they can act on this information, providing researchers with broccoli instead of crackers when the researchers have indicated that preference. Older children have a sharp sense of fairness, even if they aren’t necessarily able to tell that there is the same amount of juice in the short glass as in the tall glass, they are acutely aware that two people should receive the same amount of juice.
It is entirely possible to impart values without attaching them to specific doctrines. A classic story, shared by the three Abrahamic faiths, is the tale of Job, who remained faithful to his God, even though everything was slowly taken from him. Teaching children this story in order to impart the value of faith is not a lesson which they are prepared to accept. It is not rooted in authentic experience, there is little opportunity for them to construct their own meaning out of the story (and where there is this opportunity it may be exactly the opposite meaning than the teacher wishes to impart: that God is capricious and willing to gamble with people’s lives). 

The religious value of faith, a worthwhile value for children to learn, is much better taught outside the confines of the church or mosque, and inside the home, school, or on the playground. Children should be given the opportunity to put their faith in people in their lives and have their faith rewarded with reciprocity. These experiences will better allow children the opportunity to understand how one could have faith in a deity, or philosophy.


Religion is considered, by its practitioners, as indispensable for the social, emotional, and moral development of a human being. I argue that religious doctrine actually serves exactly the opposite purpose, hampering the development of children at very nearly every stage.
According to Erik Erikson, the process of social and emotional development goes through a series of stages which can be understood as ‘crises’ where two potential outcomes are the result of external stimuli on the developing child. 

The second conflict into which humans enter is the battle between Autonomy and Shame. Here, young children seek to assert themselves as individuals: they want to button their own coats regardless of how long it takes. There is no better example of the utter failure of religious doctrine to impart either value or sound psycho-social development lessons than to compare this crises against the story of Adam and Eve. Children themselves in so many ways, incapable of knowing the difference between good and evil, looked after in their bubble-wrapped, death-and- pain-free nursery of Eden, Adam and Eve seek, as all children do, some form of Autonomy from their parent: they disobey. God, their loving Father, responds thusly:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
And unto Adam he said, ... cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
(Genesis 3:16-19, KJV)

Has ever a parent failed so utterly to shepherd their children through one of life’s crises?
Is this not a terrifying thing to teach to children? There is no productive social or moral lesson to be taken from the doctrine of this story. The understandably necessary lesson of how to accept and live within rules of conduct would be better taught through a game of Monopoly, rather than a close reading of the book of Genesis. 

The specific teaching Lakewood espoused to which the members of the Church of Wells were so opposed has not been revealed by the six twenty-something men who were arrested. Clues exist on the Church’s website, under the heading Doctrine where they post their Manifesto, in which they “...declare that the church for whom Christ died is bound to be of one heart, one

spirit, one soul, one mind and of one accord.” Whether it was I Corinthians 1:10 or II Corinthians 13:11 which they felt Lakewood was violating I cannot deduce. 

I hold no delusions: as religion may well have its roots in the millions of years of pre- human evolution, it is likely that it will be here for a long, long time to come. The complete elimination of religion is a titanic windmill against which I have no desire to tilt. Nor would I presuppose to assume my cultural values are superior to the values of any other group of people. Unless, of course, your values include causing physical harm to any other group of people; values unto which religious adherents—despite in many cases very clear doctrinal instructions against exactly such—often cleave. Strong, supportive communities and values demonstrated by caring, loving parents and peers are indispensable for the cognitive, social, and emotional development of children. It is when those values are stripped from real-life experiences and married to byzantine, complex, doctrinal abstractions and practices that the effective cognitive, social, and moral development of children is retarded. 

It must end, and end quickly, for all our sakes.

Don’t Stop to Saying “Good Job”

by Lulu Wang

What if your students did something impressive or make a progress on their learning process, what will you say? There have people argue that teachers and parents should stop saying good job to children, which I don’t agree with.

As teachers we need to say good job when there is evidence of progress or a job well done. For instance, when I was school aged and saw some money on the street, I would pick it up and give it to my parents or teachers. They will say good job because we are taught to find the owners of missing items. According to Piaget, children will understand this world through what they already know and what they learn from the environment. This tell us, we need tell children when they do something good so they can remember it, internalize it, and know the value of the act they did right.

Saying “good job” to kids is very important when they lack of confidence. Think about if a kid is struggling with the math subject, he or she will try really hard to figure it out, but still they are having trouble getting it. They might be upset and think they are not capable of improving. Then they might lose confidence and feel defeated in math class. This I the time we need to say good job and affirm their hard work and make them feel they still capable of moving forward. For example, I was that kid who was super bad at math; I had no confidence. However, I wanted to make progress and improve. But there was no evidence of my efforts because my score remained very low. My parents noticed I was working hard and they would say that I was doing a good job. They told me they were satisfied that I was giving it my all. Instead of pushing me down, they told me “good job.”

Saying “good job” to children when they engage in their hard work. What will you do when your own child working hard at school, behave well at home, and be interest in what they are doing. This is the time that we need say “good job” to them. Vygotsky addressed with the guidance and encouragement children can achieve more. For example, when I was a child I was helping my family work on the farm during holiday. It was hard and physically painful for a child of my age. But my parents will tell me that I did a good job, I feel like good because I knew they really appreciated it I felt accomplished, I felt like the work I contributed mattered. It also taught me that making money and growing our own food did not come easy. These experiences really help me realize the value of praise when it comes to a working hard to achieve goals.

People might think when we say “good job” to a child, that this might cause the children to become over confident in the task they complete, lost interest really fast, and avoid challenges because of fear of failure. The most important thing is that children will do their best, when they are encouraged. Since children have lack of understanding, when you say “good job” to them, it affirms them, and lets them know they are on the right track. Also, you say ‘good job” to kids, it can enhance their confidence and increase their engagement.

In the future, when I become a teacher, I know I will have to be conscious of the praise I give to my students. Just giving praise to make a student feel better could be the wrong the wrong choice. Most importantly, I realize it is best to honor hard work and progress.

Helicopter Parenting: A Hovering Child-Smothering Epidemic

by Matt Smith

            “I have a confession to make. I have gone to one of my sons' dorms and done his laundry. I have scraped every dirty sock and jersey off of his bedroom floor, carefully separating his debris from that of his two roommates, which was all commingled in one large, reeking mass. I then carried these teeming piles, along with every sheet and towel I could lay my hands on, to his basement and ran six loads of laundry.”

            These are the words of a mother whose 20-year-old son was living far from home while attending university. I was flabbergasted as I read this mother’s account of her hyper-parenting escapades. I could never imagine my mother driving across the state, sneaking into my university dorm room, and doing my laundry. I would have been mortified. Did this parent really think she was helping her son? Are today’s washing machines too sophisticated for 20-year-olds to operate? My mother taught me how to use a washing machine when I was in elementary school. During my young adult years, relying on my mother to do my laundry never crossed my mind. I always thought university-aged students were capable of washing their own clothes or at least taking them to the drycleaner. I guess I was wrong.

            Welcome to the world of helicopter parents. Helicopter parenting, also known as hyper-parenting or over-parenting, is a style of parenting that is afflicting the development of people from infancy all the way into adulthood. Helicopter parents rarely let their children out of sight. They constantly hover above their children in an attempt to prevent any challenges or obstacles in their child's life that they can foresee, therefore "preserving" their childhood, and in many cases, stunting their adulthood. Essentially, they distrust their children's ability to take care of themselves and they are afraid that if they don't keep a tight control over every aspect of their life, harm will come to their children. These children are experiencing an expansion of childhood or adolescence and when they reach adulthood, they often do not know how to fend for themselves. As a teacher, I witness young children of hovering parents who have not developed an age-appropriate level of independence and are not developmentally on par with their peers. 

A recent survey revealed that about ten percent of university freshman have helicopter parents. This epidemic is quickly swallowing our youth and is alarmingly crippling the development of the next generation. Children need to be challenged instead of being coddled if we are going to reverse this child-rearing trend. Dr. Haim Ginott, who coined the term “helicopter parent” in his book Parents & Teenagers, explains, "Failure and challenges teach kids new skills, and, most important, teach kids that they can handle failure and challenges." The consequences of these missed challenges and failures result in decreased confidence and self-esteem, increased anxiety, and underdeveloped life skills. I believe action needs to be taken to inform overprotective parents of the damage they are unintentionally inflicting on their children.

Decreased confidence and self-esteem.

The problem with helicopter parenting is that it backfires. Parents’ over-involvement in their children’s lives sends a message that parents do not trust their children to successfully complete tasks on their own, resulting in a lack of confidence. This often comes in the form of empty praise. Kids on losing sports teams receive "participation trophies," and young students who bring home average grades are simply told they'll do better next time. But that sort of empty praise has been shown to breed poor performance and unhealthy personality traits in children as they get older because they lack self-assurance and are afraid to fail.

A 2007 study from Columbia University found that kids who are continually told they are smart tend to avoid activities where they do not excel, essentially selling themselves short for fear of failure. For example, consider eight-year-old Tommy who is struggling with reading and writing but is usually bailed out by his parents because they want him to succeed. Instead of writing Tommy’s book report for him, his parents need to make sure he makes an concerted effort to read a book and encourage him to do his best to write his report (with parental help if necessary). If he chooses not to complete the task, he needs to feel the consequences of failure instead of being told he did a wonderful job and next time will do better because he is smart. Parents who constantly instill in their children a false sense of intelligence are setting them up for failure.  Experiencing failure, learning from our mistakes, and making a concerted effort to succeed is how we build confidence and instill self-esteem.

Increased anxiety.

A study from the University of Mary Washington has shown that over-parenting is associated with higher levels of child anxiety and depression. The results deduced that helicopter parenting decreased children’s feelings of autonomy, competence and connection, which according to the “self-determination theory” are three basic needs in order to feel happy. In turn, feelings of incompetency lead to increased feelings of depression and dissatisfaction.

Helicopter parents are constantly full of fear and anxiety that harm will come to their children. As a result, this over-protective behavior can transfer to the child so that they then begin to inherit their parent’s concerns and fears. A parent who is obsessed with hand washing might end up accidentally creating a child who is a hypochondriac or displays obsessive compulsive behavior to wash their hands. Many parents are fearful of their children getting injured while playing with other kids. Some parents might condition their children to shy away from competitive sports activities to avoid feelings of inferiority and defeat. Other parents simply do not trust others and therefore do not allow their children many opportunities to make many friends due to concerns of being out alone or meeting new people. Parents need to allow their kids to make social connections with others and stop transmitting their fears to their children. It is frightening to think that our youth are experiencing higher levels of depression and anxiety than ever before.

Underdeveloped life skills.

Parents, who always pick out outfits, tie shoes, make the bed, and closely monitor academic progress in school, even after children are mentally and physically capable of doing so, prevent their children from mastering these skills. Tying your four-year-old's shoe is not hovering, but tying your 13-year-old's shoe is. On many occasions, my 5^th and 6^th grade students have asked me to tie their shoes, and I am not joking. When I asked them who usually ties their shoes, they told me their mother did. I find this completely ridiculous that children on the verge of entering middle school are not able to tie their shoes or university students do not know how to wash their clothes. These individuals are mentally and physically capable of performing these basic everyday tasks but are incapable of doing so due to coddling parents. How are they going to survive on their own and contribute to society as adults?

Parents are forcing their children to be dependent on them long after what is widely accepted as age-appropriate. Quite simply, they have no sense of independence. Independence should be instilled in children and developed, not stifled, during the different stages of childhood. The American Academy of Pediatrics notes that toddlers become more aware of the fact that they are separate from other people as they grow and mature, leading to a sense of independence. Likewise, older children and teens also experience new levels of independence in each stage of development. A helicopter parent's constant hovering can run the risk of suppressing this growth and unknowingly deny their children opportunities to figure things out for themselves. As a result, these children are often lost when they are forced to venture out into the world.

Today we live in a dangerous, unpredictable world. We witness stories of kidnappings, child abuse, abandonment, and violence every day on the news and in stories we hear from others. Helicopter parents have pure intentions and want the very best for their children. They love their children and truly want them to succeed. They strive to form close relationships with them and provide them with positive consistency. They create safe and stable environments for them. They want to help them through challenging and difficult times. If I was a parent, I would want all of these things for my children and probably more. I do worry about the world my children will someday grow up in; survival often seems challenging. As paternal and maternal caregivers, helicopter parents make great efforts to provide their children with all the love and support they feel their children need to survive and mature into adults. I believe they have the best of intentions.

But parents should not live the lives of their children. They need to build confidence and self-esteem by being realistic, which often entails experiencing challenges and separation. They need to let their children fail; failure is how we learn and progress as human beings. They can create happiness by encouraging autonomy, competence and connection with others. Allowing children to learn and develop the skills they need to succeed in life, even though it means they will need to experience and overcome obstacles on their own, will mold them into responsible human beings. They do not need to be monitored every minute of the day for the rest of their lives. Someday, in your older age, you might need them to monitor you, care for you, and provide for you. Stop hovering and let them spread their wings; they are more capable than you realize. Let them go and they will come back.

Into screens in the name of progress

 by Nate Ovelar

In our current age, there is a growing dependence on electronic devices. We use them to record life, stay in contact, do research, entertain, organize thoughts, and so on. The list of benefits is enormous when considering convenience. However, the use of electronic devices by young children, especially in the school environment, can do more harm than good. Not only are they widely owned by the students but, they are often treated as a right. Although there is still lack of substantial research on this topic, due to its relatively brief presence in modern society, there are certain issues which stand out for educators today. Through discussion with other teachers and through first-hand knowledge I can see a trend of negative effects on child development both cognitively and socially/morally. They lead the students to be disconnected from reality, unable to process things into long term memory, and given freedom that’s unmanageable by adults.

DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY: Smart phones allow students a constant link to peers and parents. By doing this they don’t allow for development of self-regulation. There is an assumption that social support and help will always be available and students stay disconnected from their own mind. They don’t embrace pauses in the daily schedule to work through personal thoughts. In moments of downtime at school, children rush to engage with their smart phones and this leaves them distracted enough to never work through deeper trains of thought. At the same time they stay disconnected from what’s going on around them.  They may be communicating but they are substituting face to face conversations in favor of emoticons and screens. So much of human language is based in the nuance of tone, body language, and gestures and students who have smart phones readily available will prefer to maintain many conversations while they play games. Though this may seem productive, they aren’t properly developing the social cues and rhythm required of prolonged conversation. Human language, though able to communicate extensively through the written word, is complex and requires a certain set of skills to properly convey your thoughts and opinions. I find students are having more difficulties in conveying their ideas through academic discourse and often haven’t developed the social rules of proper conversation. Lack of eye contact, curt answers, and smaller vocabularies are beginning to become commonplace.

DON’T RETAIN LONG TERM KNOWLEDGE: Students don’t bother as much to retain knowledge long term because they have an easily-accessible record of information to peck from when needed. The old task of taking notes and having to pass them on to an absent student is gone. It was an opportunity for the student to reassert the knowledge and the absent student to take it in as they wrote it down. Now they pass pictures or the teacher uploads all the notes from the lesson and the student catalogues it in their phone. They also have search engines at the tip of the fingers tips to find quick answers to almost any question. They also have the ability to look up other peoples work and re-write it for their homework, which causes them to bypass gaining critical thinking skills. The problem that is coming up is that students are lacking qualitative analysis of information. Information is ordered by facts and anecdotes, so students begin to struggle when having to expand on the knowledge because they haven’t properly processed the content into their long term memory. This greatly affects math and science because the conclusions and answers can come instantly and covertly. Teachers are finding ways to combat this by forcing students to explain their formulas and paths to find the answers. Sadly, students are adept at finding this information way quicker than teachers realize; which leads us to the concern of students having a new level of freedom that was previously non-existent in the school environment.

FREE OF ADULT CONTROL: The anonymous nature of the internet, the lack of regulation of content access, and superior youth expertise on technological devices cause issues with educational control. Students are adept at social maneuvering online and cyberbullying is a big problem. Educators still haven’t found the best way to stay informed of social media issues and they are struggling to instill ethics at this early stage of smart phone use. When they use their phones in class, they have the ability to look at any screen and easily hide the content when a teacher glances at them. Many students know how to use proxies and software to bypass restrictions on school issued smart phones as well. The students have a steady stream of new information that is digested before adults even hear of it. They have a higher knowledge on technology and learn new shortcuts all the time; this makes it harder for educators and adults to stay in control over the learning domain; the students own the knowledge, not the teacher.  This is a part of the argument that has largely been ignored in the debate over smart phones in school. There seems to be a bit of disconnect as schools implement device use in class. Teachers assume that they have covered all the bases to keep the content and lesson within the controlled aspect of the class. However, students are rarely overwhelmed by the perceived challenges proposed by the teachers. The gap between the young and old with regards to technological know-how is immense. The youth nowadays are ahead of the educators and that makes the use of smart phones in school largely counterproductive. When students know they can manipulate the system, they are less likely to take the lessons seriously.  I’ve noticed students pretending to be overwhelmed by tasks that they are well aware are easy for them to accomplish. They have found a loophole in the system, and because smart phones are beginning to be incorporated into more and more subjects, students are coasting through entire courses with little motivation to try hard.  

While most of the public argument on smart phone usage in school is anti-use in the classroom, I did manage to find some sources that were adamant that smart phones be used extensively in the lessons. Their argument is that the answers are readily available, they learn more comfortably, they learn in a more engaged entertaining way, and they can learn socially. Though I do see the perspective of these pro-smart phone advocates, it simply is focusing on the micro level of education and ignoring the macro level. There are short term benefits, but the long term disadvantages have more negative value on the human experience.  It alters the priorities of cognitive development and pivots their perspective on morality and ethics.

We still don’t know the total affects that smart phone use in school has on the students. It will take another decade to know for sure. As an educator, this issue can completely change the course of the curriculum and classroom management, and it seems that schools haven’t found an answer yet for how to properly handle this.  Teachers around the world are complaining about seeing their students typing on their phones in the middle of class and it’s become tolerated not controlled.  I urge the education community to reassess their approach to this new policy, and focus on a way to counter the negative psychological affects that technology already presents in everyday life. School should offer a way to foster a mind that can detach from technology when needing to face difficult life tasks. I don’t believe that incorporating tools based on the idea of convenience alone is wise.  Cognitive and social development needs a base in schools and it’s an injustice to this generation of children if we let them disconnect into screens in the name of progress.

Technology Integration in the Classrooms: Need of this Century and the Next!

by Rahila Mukaddam

Technology is everywhere and touching every facet of our life, whether we agree with certain aspects of it or not. It has left no corner of the world untouched; in fact, it has become the need of the day. Offices, hospitals, construction companies have all become digitized. So why should schools be left behind in this tech race? Trends are changing in this ever-evolving world and to face the challenges of tomorrow, we as teachers need to be as much technology advanced as our students.  The adoption of technology in classrooms across the world has increased and will continue to do so. Educators should be observant and knowledgeable about the content to which they expose their learners.

                                            Framework for Technology Integration:

                                            

There are those traditionalists who will be against this movement arguing their point that schools should maintain their sanctity and continue the way they are. However, what they fail to understand is that technology is like any other tool. That being said technology integration holds different meanings to different individuals. Some might use a computer in their class as a reinforcement to teach the lessons. For some it might be the use of PowerPoint and students’ presentations. But, is that really technology integration at its best? The question these educators and schools should ask themselves is, whether or not the use of technology enhances the learning process for their students? Students using different fonts and colors for their slides instead of researching, planning and writing is not a good example. Finland is a prime example of technology integration in their schools. The country took a huge step towards reimagining schools and did away with most traditional subjects and brought in interdisciplinary classes that reflect real-world. Educators are now critically questioning how schools typically work and the way success is measured. This is opening up new opportunities for technology to play an even bigger role in education.

The following are some reasons to consider why and how integrating technology in classrooms helps the physical, cognitive and social-emotional development of children.

Deeper Understanding and Learning:

Constructivism is a theory of learning that describes how our minds create knowledge or how a student’s knowledge structures and “…deeper conceptual understanding” come about (Fosnot, 1996, p.30).

When students are actively engaged in making connections and make meaning of this knowledge by analyzing and collaborating these facts and skills, that is the true essence of technology integration. “Deeper learning” happens when students are thinking critically and using those skills and knowledge that prepares them for real life. Using technology in the classrooms teaches skills like critical thinking and effective communication along with academic content. The popularity of Inquiry-based, Game-based and Project-based learning speaks volumes for the usage of technology in schools. Students are developing the four C’s of critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and communication. This is becoming more and more possible as students have the aid of technology at hand with their cell phones, iPads/ tablets, laptops and computers. There is a vast world of knowledge out there. Our students should be prepared to dive into this vast ocean and retrieve the specific knowledge for themselves. The reason “deeper learning” is so important because when these students step out in their professional lives they will be required to tackle situations and solve problems critically. The Common Core State Standards in the US are a step in this direction by making sure that the students are trained in the four C’s and applying their skills in a technological environment. Although I am against standard based tests but it seems that these skills help the students to approximate their results.  

Collaboration-a 21^st Century skill

Experts see global collaborative learning as a big move for students. It is already happening with the use of Twitter, Skype classrooms, Google Education and various other platforms. Many more are jumping onto the bandwagon as well. Learning has always been a social process as humans learn better by doing rather than listening. In this day and age, teachers and students are coming together to make new meanings of the knowledge available. Teachers are no longer providers of knowledge; rather they are facilitators, mentors and moderators in this fast changing world. The New Media Consortium is an organization devoted to exploring the use of media for teaching, learning and creative inquiry. They conducted a study and published a K-12 report that highlights collaboration by stating, “Placing the learner at the center emphasizing interaction and doing, working in groups and developing solutions to real-world problems.” Working collaboratively pushes the students to create solutions rather than just passively sit back during traditional lectures and retain information thus handed out by teachers. Different corners of the world are coming together to acquire knowledge making it more personal for the students. Skype classrooms enable students from a country in Africa for example to share their learning experiences with any country across the globe. Google Classroom is playing a big role in saving time while collaborating between teachers and students. It provides different platforms for information and learning management. Schools are able to synchronize rosters directly with just a few clicks thus saving time and hassle. These platforms are also interactive and mobile, enabling the students easy access.

As a teacher, with the use of technology, I have been able to concentrate more on planning learning activities based around the content, rather than planning the content expansively. It also allows my students to be inquirers and makes them more creative. I myself have been a risk-taker by learning new technology before applying it effectively in my class and the results have been tremendous. There has been more student engagement and conceptual understanding as compared to before. I have got my first graders to use iMovie to show how they can express themselves, used Kidblog with Grade 2, Skype Classrooms across Tanzania and collaborated on Skype for lessons with other teachers. I now use Twitter effectively and collaboratively as a learning platform instead of posting random things.

Blended Learning

One of the most favored technology aspects of today’s youth are the games readily available. The reason being, that games teach them to solve problems by giving instant feedback. Learning and assessment are closely related in the technological gaming world. If the player does not do well, the game asks them to “Try again!”, thus sustaining their interest for longer periods of time. The use of technology also benefits the STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Math) programs, which benefits the Common Core State Standards in the US. That does not mean that blended learning is not beneficial in other parts of the world where CCSS are not used. Blended learning through the use of technology, gaming and digital learning provides an effective and conceptual understanding. The teachers at our school have started using Minecraft for Literacy, Humanities and Math and the interest in these subject areas has risen considerably. Similarly simple games like Cut the Rope are being used to teach the laws of Physics. Robotics is another important factor playing a huge role in students’ level of engagement and understanding in lessons.

Authentic Learning with Technology:

Integrating technology in schools creates authentic learning opportunities for students as well as teachers.  Students take ownership of their work as it is driven by their own interests and are, rather than the teacher or another individual, and hence are more responsible. This results in personalized learning opportunities. The emergence of Makerspaces has made a huge impact and continues to grow. Makerspaces, as the name suggests are creative spaces where the users can collaborate to create, invent and learn with the use of technology, 3D printers, crafts and supplies. Technology helps the students to be authentic and autonomous. Here it needs to be mentioned, that the use of technology has been found to be most beneficial in recognizing students’ individual and specific needs. Adaptive learning is an educational method that uses technology according to the specific needs of each student. The BYOD trend in schools certainly promoted adaptive learning as students work on laptops, computers, phones and tablets in classrooms. Experts have been studying the impact of technology on disabled students as well and there is reason to believe that it makes a particular impact on their learning abilities and skills.

Globaloria allows middle and high school students to design their own video games around STEAM. Through this program the students learn about the concepts while designing it, not to forget that they are also learning the importance of teamwork.

According to Marilyn M. Lombardi in her paper “Authentic Learning for the 21^st Century: An Overview” authentic learning experience has the following 10 domain specific essences.

1.     Real-world relevance: Authentic activities match the real-world task of professionals. Learning happens when students are asked to work with abstract concepts, facts and formulae inside a realistic and highly social context.

2.     Ill-defined problems: Challenges in real-world cannot be solved easily by the application of formulae. Instead, students are required to set themselves tasks and subtasks to complete and solve the problem.

3.     Sustained investigation: Authentic activities sustain the students’ interest over a period of time.

4.     Multiples sources and perspectives: In an authentic learning environment, students are not given a list of resources to complete the task. Instead, they have to inquire into the appropriate resources required for that particular task.

5.     Collaboration: An individual cannot survive like an island on his or her own. Authentic activities require the students engage each other for the completion of the task, just like in real-world.

6.     Reflection: Students reflect and learn from the choices they made.

7.     Interdisciplinary perspective: Reflection thus helps them to think about consequences and think beyond their own roles and the given task.

8.     Integrated assessment: Just like in the real world, the students are evaluated for their process of understanding.

9.     Polished products: Authentic activities result in a product valuable on its own.

10.  Multiple interpretations and outcomes: Authentic activities result in diverse solutions and interpretations.

Challenges:

As with any other industry, the challenge is not just how to incorporate technology but also how to train teachers to use it effectively so that technology enhances the learning process. It has been my experience that teachers mostly do not like to use technology because they themselves are not comfortable using it. Digital literacy is an important skill for students as well as teachers. The NMC Horizon Report 2015 states that “This challenge is exacerbated by the fact That digital literacy is less about tools and more about thinking, and thus skills and standards based on tools and platforms have proven to be somewhat ephemeral.” We come to the conclusion that learning for teachers should be just as much authentic and autonomous. Thus, the role of teachers and schools need to rethought and reimagined. New teachers in training should be mandatorily trained for the effectively use of technology integration in their classrooms. Yes, new teachers are told or taught about some technologies, but that only focuses on organizing rather than student engagement. As such, teacher-training institutes need to revamp their strategies as well. Schools as well need to revamp their policies to make this transition. I firmly believe that with careful planning all schools can reach their goal of successful technology integration.

                                        

Reconsidering “No Touch Policies”

I am a rarity, being a male teacher that works in early elementary education. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the staff photos in your children’s yearbooks. High school and middle school teachers tend to be a mixed bunch, but when you get to the grade 1 teachers, chances are they are mostly female.
Teaching kindergarten and early elementary students requires a sense of nurturing and caregiving - not often associated with males. Needless to say, males entering into the industry may be under more scrutiny for how they go about giving this care. Particularly, concerning the issue of touch.
With growing concerns over well-publicized cases of child abuse in out-of-home settings and increased concerns regarding liability, some schools are now enforcing strict “No Touch Policies”. This is an understandable reaction by parents, teachers, and administration. As a teacher, my students safety and well-being is a top concern and I understand it. However, implementing such a policy has significant negative consequences regarding physical, cognitive, and social development, especially in the kindergarten and early elementary settings.
Anyone with children of their own, or who have been around children of this age group for any significant amount of time knows that these children touch everything around them, including teachers and other students. In fact, they often seek out touch and hugs. So why do they do this?

Many studies indicate that touch is a basic life sustaining need, necessary for healthy development. Frances Carlson, author of Essential Touch: Meeting the Needs of Young Children, believes touch is as necessary as food or water for young children to thrive and grow physically, cognitively, socially, and emotionally. Tiffany Field, director of the Touch Research Institute at the University of Miami School of Medicine, believes physical contact is important throughout our lifetime. Her research indicates positive touch stimulates pressure receptors under the skin, lowering the heart rate, slowing the breath, decreasing stress hormones and boosting the immune system. Similarly, In The Connected Child, written by two research psychologists specializing in adoption and attachment, the authors describe the positive effects of a loving and firm hug. They report that a hug slows down the heart rate and the blood pressure, which causes a relaxed state. In addition, the hug even curbs stress hormones such as cortisol, facilitates food absorption and the digestion process, and stimulates the release of serotonin, which counteracts pain.
Considering these studies, is it any wonder that kindergarten and elementary children occasionally feel a natural need to seek out positive touch or hugs?
Also, by implementing a strict “No Touch Policy” in schools, children will be missing out on developing important social and emotional cues. For instance, some “No Touch Policy” schools have banned children from touching each other during recess. Many students, particularly boys, can learn a lot from this type of rough-and-tumble play. When children participate in rough-and-tumble play such as play fighting, climbing over each other, or rolling around they are actually learning. Rough play helps children understand the limits of their strength, explore their changing position in space, and find out what other children will and

won’t let them do. Rough play also helps children work out social relationships as they play roles, take turns, and sort out personal boundaries.
This reminds me of a story I once heard from a parent. This parent had one biological son and one adopted son, both around the same age. The biological son had been participating in rough play for as long as she could remember. She had reason to believe her adopted son had not been exposed to rough and tumble play before joining the family. The result was that when the two boys got together to play, the adopted son often went from “appropriate play” to “way too rough play” very quickly. He had not had the experience of rough play to help him determine what was and wasn’t acceptable play. Alternatively, her biological son was well aware of the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable play. He about been allowed to develop self- regulation skills through touch.
I feel sympathy for teachers in schools that have enforced strict “No Touch Policies”. It must lead to great confusion in dealing with situations that just a few years ago would have been considered as everyday ways in which adults care for young children. Perhaps looking at a common occurrence that happens regularly in schools will help clarify my point.
A kindergarten student forgets to go to the bathroom before the long bus ride to school and for some reason felt nervous in class and did not ask to be excused. He wets his pants. Traditionally, a teacher could quickly and discreetly take the student to the bathroom and help the student with changing into his extra set of clothes (Not by physically taking off his clothes for him, but rather offering some encouraging verbal support and perhaps helping with a button or zipper), much to the gratitude and relief of the student. A teacher dealing with the same situation in a “No Touch Policy” school would have a much bigger problem to deal with. Depending on

the policy, the teacher may have to flat out refuse to help the child, quite likely causing confusion to the student. The teacher may have to find another adult “to supervise” him while he helps the child, adding to the embarrassment and shame of the child. The teacher may even have to call the parent of the child to come and help with the problem, causing the student to have to deal with wet pants for an unknown amount of time. I’m no expert, but in my understanding of child development, the less of a big deal we make out of this situation, the better. I’m not so sure involving more people and creating more shame and embarrassment would be beneficial for the student in this case.
As I mentioned before, I understand that these policies have been put in place in order to curb cases of child abuse in schools and that’s commendable. But I can’t help but feel that by enforcing “No Touch Policies” all we are really doing is reinforcing a generalized sense of mistrust amongst adults. Is it necessary for all teachers to feel like potential abusers in need of round the clock surveillance? The National Association for the Education of Young Children doesn’t seem to think so. In a position statement they advise, “ No-touch policies are misguided efforts that fail to recognize the importance of touch to children’s healthy development.”
So then, if we recognize the importance of touch for children’s healthy development, but also want to curb cases of child abuse what should be done? You may notice that I didn’t mention any teaching strategies regarding touch. I feel that these techniques feel forced and contrived, and might, rightly so, weird children out. I do however think that if I child in elementary or kindergarten seeks out touch, such as a hug, that they should not be shunned away. We need to remember that this is quite healthy and natural for young children. Parents and teachers should also talk with children about healthy touch vs. unhealthy touch. Parents and

teachers should be informed about the positive effects of rough-and-tumble play, and teachers should still supervise carefully to insure things don’t get out of hand. Also, parents, teachers, and administration should all maintain a clear and continuing dialogue concerning when touch is appropriate. Of course, schools should still take all precautionary measures when hiring teachers, such as performing a criminal background check. Finally, having professional adults learn to trust one another again, instead of working in an environment of suspicion and fear, would create an overall more positive and nurturing school environment for all.

Discussing Homework

by Francis Atemo Maloba

An explanation of the topic

Homework is one of the issues that have been greatly debated over the years. There are many schools that give homework currently. That said, there is a new trend being observed where some schools are no longer giving homework. My focus for this Op Ed will be homework in elementary schools. Homework tends to increase when schools are under pressure. In 1883 for example, there was an introduction of payment by results for teachers. This led to the time being spent on homework to greatly increase. It was so much that parents and social workers campaigned for a reduction. It is obvious that homework was negatively affecting the lives of the students and definitely of the teachers and parents as well. The amount of time spent doing homework varies from two hours to twelve hours a week. But does homework really add value to the students’ lives?

A discussion of why the topic is interesting and important.

This issue is interesting and important because parents and schools are no longer geared toward child development. Their main focus is towards academic achievement. Some people feel that where homework is treated seriously, it has the potential to raise standards. This could mean better financial status in the future, better jobs and relating with people with high socio economic status. This is not particularly true. I have heard accounts from my fellow colleagues working in other schools of times when parents have come to their schools to meet with their principals. These parents felt that their students were not being given “enough” homework. Some teachers have even been labeled as “not an effective teacher” on the sole grounds that they do not give homework. There are so many disadvantages to homework. I feel that students, at least elementary age students should be given little or no homework at all.

Why I feel students should not be given homework

Homework can lead to children having negative attitudes towards school and motivation. School starts to feel like a burden that they cannot bear. However, they are still expected to go to school everyday and perform well. This makes the children come up with ways of coping like cheating and copying from each other. Homework thus fails to accomplish the purpose it was originally intended for namely, making students perform better in schools. When students start to copy from each other, there is division that is created between students from different backgrounds.

When teachers assign homework, many times it is because they want to involve the parents in the children’s learning. Parents therefore want to help their students with their homework. However, homework can create tension in the family because as the parents help the children, they start to compare them with their other children. They may give the impression that they feel one or two of their children are “better” than the others. Children do pick up on these impressions as developmentally they may be in the point of their lives where they are doing a lot of peer comparisons. Recent studies suggest that parents who spend hours helping their children with homework may be misguided. One found mothers' help had no effect on children's achievement. When homework is used as a learning tool, it often fails to impress because parents and other family members overstep their boundaries and end up completing any task assigned by the school at the expense of their children’s learning.

In elementary school, students are still developing physically. They therefore need time to be out playing. Already they are spending about eight hours in school working on school related stuff. Although they have lessons such as physical education and recess to move around, they need to move more and engage in more physical activities. They also need time to stop thinking about school and just relax so that they are ready for the next day in school. If children are given homework, homework significantly reduces the amount of time that a child can spend doing other activities like playing with their friends, spending time with their family and other enjoyable yet beneficial activities. Homework therefore makes the children to stress out. As they still want to do these other activities mentioned above and still have to do their homework, this can lead to anxiety and depression and other negative psychological effects can result. We know the importance of sleep for example. Sleep helps the protein in the brain to fold nicely and the neurotransmitters are therefore more effective in transmitting messages through the brain. When there is lack of sleep, the proteins in the brain do not fold as neatly and this may result to students not being able to process their thoughts faster or as effectively. Students lose their sleep time when they stay up late trying to finish their homework so as not to be in trouble the following day.

When we give the children homework, it may cause them to believe that learning and homework have a direct connection. The child may therefore avoid true and natural learning opportunities. The child would essentially limit curiosity. A true personal and intellectual passion towards a particular field from the child may be in jeopardy. A lack of curiosity towards learning may, in the future, result in the child exhibiting less enthusiasm in general as the individual would have shut the door of learning and exploring fascinating concepts as result of a negative primary educational experience.

As we know, not all students develop cognitively at the same time. Depending on the nature of the task and the students’ prior experiences, some students may find homework very difficult. Although they are still young, they judge themselves based on how they perceive others to be judging them. Many times, they end up believing that they are dumb and not capable of performing. When students feel this way about themselves, other issues come up such as loss of self-confidence and also these children start to engage in inappropriate activities just because they feel they are incompetent of being successful in academic based skills. Teachers may start to see behavior issues in these students as they try to find their place in the classroom. Children usually believe in ways that are consistent with what they believe about themselves and behaviors confirm self-perceptions. We also know that children seek out information that confirms what they already believe and seldom put themselves in situations where they believe they won’t succeed. Homework therefore becomes a negative thing in this sense.

The typical school day is filled with a lot of learning activities for the children. These activities already take up a lot of time and the energy from the students. When teachers then add homework to what is already a busy day for the children, this becomes overwhelming to the students and what is likely to happen is that they may lose interest in the assignment. This is likely to happen especially when the homework assigned is devoid of any value to the overall learning of the students. If a student has demonstrated that they understood the concepts taught in class through activities done in class, having them do more task to prove the same understanding is a waste of time. What is basically happening is that students are being asked to do one more item to show what they already know.

Of course, some people will say that homework is a good thing because it makes the students to take responsibility for their own learning. They argue that homework gives the students the opportunity to spend more time on a task therefore making them reflective beings. They also think that students have more time for independent study and they will learn how to manage their time. Sometimes, it is based on cultural grounds or the way the parents were brought up where the presence of homework was seen as an extension of school and an indicator of future success as it afforded the students the multiple opportunities to “practice” the areas where they needed help. Based on this, I am aware that many parents and other members of the community will argue that homework is important and schools should consider it more. However, I hope that my points above help you to understand why students should not be given homework.

In conclusion, I would like to state that considering all the advantages and disadvantages of homework is a good start to help many people to decide which way to go. It takes time to let go of beliefs that have been held for a long time, beliefs that may not be true and the belief that homework is critically important is one that has been held for a long time. As you all consider which way to go, one thing to do would be to have the teachers give homework that is of reasonable amount and that will actually add value to the students’ learning. If the students have already understood a concept, there is no need to give more tasks of what they already know. Piaget’s explains that no learning takes place if the tasks given are at the students level (zone of proximal development). They should be challenging to the students for them to be meaningful. Moreover, instead of written homework, teachers should give tasks or activities that would lead students to revise their day-old learning or to apply what they already know in real life contexts. This is because to the students, homework is one of the least interesting tasks. They tend to avoid written homework because it is repetitive and boring. Studies even show that exams are less stressful than homework because the students know that they are occasional and they will soon be over. If the idea is to teach the students how to manage their time and to be responsible for their own learning, finding other ways to achieve this will be more beneficial to the students.  Homework is not the only way to achieve this. It is therefore my hope that in the not so distant future, parents and schools will stop to focus on the academic achievement as the priority and focus on the children’s development. After all, if these young creatures do not develop well, whether physically, cognitively or socio emotionally, they will not be as productive in the future in the professions they end up getting into.