Schools are Choosing High Quality Curriculum Material… But is it Really High Quality?

"...Magnetic Resonance Imaging’ (MRI) and ‘functional MRI’ (fMRI), have provided evidence that correlates screen time with ‘structural changes’ in the brains of children aged 0-18 years”

Many state education departments are aligning their standards and choosing curriculum based on whether or not it is “High Quality Curriculum Material” or HQCM.  This is a big buzz phrase in the education field and many administrators and those choosing curriculum are using it.

So what makes curriculum materials high quality? According to the RI Department of Education website “High-quality curriculum materials are aligned to rigorous college- and career-ready standards. Since 2017, Rhode Island continues to partner with EdReports, a nationally recognized, independent non-profit organization, who provides expert reviews of instructional materials. EdReports provides free published reviews of K-12 instructional materials in English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science based on alignment to standards and usability.”

Districts in RI are required to choose a curriculum that is labeled as HQCM as identified by EdReports.  This sounds great, doesn’t it?  It is high quality and determined as such by a nationally recognized, independent non-profit organization after all! But is it really all those things?  I don’t know, but I am definitely a little skeptical…  

Sure, maybe the actual curriculum is strong and meets the standards but that is not my concern.  I am worried about the ease of which it is available in a digital format for all the 1:1 devices that were dispersed to all students grades K-12 during the pandemic. What I witness with my own eyes when I walk through the halls of schools and what I hear from teachers I talk with is that kids are increasingly using computers more and more throughout their school day.  Even students as young as kindergarten are now required to log onto a device for lessons in reading and math.  

I guess it makes sense for districts to continue to use these 1:1 devices, especially when the HQCM that the district is using comes in a digital format an it is cheaper than a printed version. Sure teachers can print out the materials if they need to but the reality of that is usually not so easy.  The teachers, administrators and parents I talk to all seem to recognize that kids are spending more time on screens, especially in school.  Yet, screen time limits or recommendations do not seem to be a part of determining whether the curriculum being used is high quality or not.  I find that alarming.

When you look at who is funding the EdReports organization, things become a little clearer in my mind.  In fact, many of the educational organizations that are committed to improving education such as The New Teacher Project (TNTP), Instruction Partners, and RAND American Instructional Resources Survey (AIRS) all receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others with ties to big tech.

A little further investigation reveals that the priorities of the Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation is “We envision math instruction that is tailored to student needs. The teacher uses digital tools to personalize learning and ensures that students get the help and practice they need to master key concepts.” So I am guessing they believe all this 1:1 technology and digital curriculum is a good thing.  I, on the other hand, do not feel that way.

We are humans and therefore we are social beings.  This means, we rely on face to face human connection to grow and thrive.  As an SLP with a focus on social skill development, I have witnessed  how social development is negatively impacted when kids have less opportunity to play and interact with each other.  Everywhere you look, you will find articles discussing the mental health crisis in children and teens, or the lonely epidemic that is inflicting young adults.  The more time kids spend in front of a screen, the less time they are spending creating those interpersonal connections which are so important to social emotional development and mental health.

No matter how you look at it, screen time is not good for developing brains.  Check out this research article that looks at how the brains of children are changing based on their exposure to screen time Setting Limits on Screen Time for Children (6-to-12 Years): The Integral Role of Parents and Educators. I find this line particularly disturbing

“Neuroimaging technologies, specifically ‘Magnetic Resonance Imaging’ (MRI) and ‘functional MRI’ (fMRI), have provided evidence that correlates screen time with ‘structural changes’ in the brains of children aged 0-18 years”. 

I do not hold a PhD and I am not a neurologist but I can’t imagine that structural changes to a child's brain based on screen time is good.

So how does this relate to edTech and is this HQCM really high quality?  Well it doesn’t seem like anyone from edReport is looking into the harms of screen time.  I also have to wonder if the fact that certain philanthropic organizations that fund them have an impact on their findings? Changes to brain development based on exposure to screen time should be sounding huge alarm bells!  Never mind all the other negative effects that these devices cause.  

Thankfully there are organizations trying to take on this cause.  If you are concerned about screen time use in children, I urge you to support the Screen Time Action Network at Fairplay or sharing information from www.everyschool.org. I can only hope that if we raise our voices on behalf of children, we can make a change!