Denver, Colo., Jan 31, 2018 / 05:00 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Not long ago, introducing more technology into the classroom meant allowing third graders to play 15 minutes of Oregon Trail during recess time.
In recent years, particularly after the emergence of smartphones and other mobile devices circa 2012, for many schools it has meant an iPad for every student, laptops in every classroom.
However, new research has begun highlighting the detrimental impacts of excessive screen time, particularly on developing brains and on education, sparking concerns among educators and parents. Even tech industry giants are starting to speak openly about the dangers of internet addiction and the need to monitor children’s screen time.
For Catholic schools, the issue is especially pressing, some school leaders say, because Catholic schools are concerned with the human and spiritual formation of their students.
Michael Edghill, principal of Notre Dame Catholic School in Wichita Falls, Texas, told CNA that his biggest concern is a tendency to let technology become the main driving force of education, rather than a tool of support for teachers and students.
“For a Catholic school, that is a bad paradigm to fall into because it takes a rightly formed person to undertake the task of human formation, which is the mission of Catholic education,” he said. “No machine or technological tool can appropriately engage in the formation of the soul.”
Jean Twenge is a psychologist and the author of “iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy–and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood.”
Twenge told CNA that her research found the “sweet spot” for screen time for teenagers should be about 2 hours per day “for mental health, happiness, and adequate sleep. Beyond that, the risks increase, topping out at the highest levels of use.”
Notably, but perhaps not unsurprisingly, most US teens report average daily screen times well over the recommended two hours.
In 2015, research group Common Sense Media reported that more half of US teenagers spend at least four hours a day on a screen, while 25 percent of teens reported even higher uses – more than eight hours daily – with the potential of detrimental effects.
“For example, teens who use electronic devices 5 or more hours a day are 71% more likely to have a risk factor for suicide than those using devices less than an hour a day,” Twenge said. “They are also 51% more likely to not sleep enough. Teens who are online 5 or more hours a day are twice as likely to be unhappy as those online less than an hour a day.”
As for educational impacts, research has also found that smartphones can impact a person’s ability to think simply by being within reach – even if they are turned off. Another study found that students taught in computer-less classrooms performed significantly better on tests than their counterparts taught in classrooms with iPads and computers.
The human, relational and educational concerns are why some Catholics schools are taking steps to limit, if not completely ban, the use of smartphones and iPads in the classroom.
St. Benedict Elementary in Natick, Mass. is one Catholic school that has taken the approach of not using electronic technology in the classroom at all, except for very limited ways in the higher grades.
Jay Boren, headmaster of St. Benedict, told CNA that this is because the classical academy was founded by parents who had a desire for their school to be different.
“There are studies that show that (student) memory retention is better when they have written the information as opposed to having typed it. There are also benefits to learning cursive,” Boren said.
“In addition, an environment that is not inundated with fast-paced technology…allows students to cultivate the ability to sustain attention, develop concentration, and appreciate silence, which are the necessary dispositions to ponder truth, beauty, and goodness, We feel that those skills, are more important at this age level than mastering a screen that they will certainly be exposed to throughout their life at other times.”
On the other hand, Fr. Nicholas Rokitka, OFM Conv., teaches at Archbishop Curley High School in Buffalo, New York, which implemented a 1-to-1 iPad to student program four years ago.
“My major concern about technology in the classroom is the inability of the students to focus on the topic at hand and listen to the teacher,” Rokitka told CNA. “It certainly has changed the way teachers and students interact.”
Rokitka said that games and entertainment are always a potential distraction with the iPads in the classroom. While he has his room set up in a way that allows him to monitor his students’ iPad use closely, such monitoring “takes up a lot of my energy.”
There have been some positive impacts, Rokitka noted – the school has saved a lot of paper using digital homework and tests, and performance trends can be more quickly and easily recognized and addressed.
However, he added that without intentionality behind its use, technology negatively change the way students relate to one another and the world.
“On a very fundamental level, technology changes how people interact with each other. If technology is accepted wholesale without and intention, it will do more harm than good. When digital communication and social media replace face-to-face interaction, the students lose their ability to communicate,” he said. “This problem is way larger than just schools, but ultimately teachers and schools can have a dramatic input on how children learn how to use technology.”
Twenge said that she recommends schools ban the use of cellphones not only in the classroom, but during lunch as well, in order to give students a chance to interact with each other without a screen.
In interviews with students for her research, Twenge discovered students who would feel depressed and left out while their fellow students ignored them at lunch, favoring their phones instead, she wrote in the New York Daily News. “A no-phones-at-school rule would also help teens develop invaluable social skills. More and more managers tell me that young job applicants don’t look them in the eye and seem to be uncomfortable talking to people face-to-face. If our students are going to succeed in the workplace, they need more practice interacting with people in person,” she wrote. “They can get that right there at school – if they aren’t constantly on their phones.”
Edghill said that his biggest guiding principle in the use of technology in school has been intentionality – which is exactly why the school banned cell phone use in school during the school day.
“It was an intentional decision based on the fact that there was little to no educational benefit and a whole slew of potential and real problems,” he said.
“The unplanned side effect is that the students actually talk to one another before school in the mornings now instead of just staring at their individual screens.”
A father to four children between 14 and 3, Edghill noted that he and his wife try to implement the same intentionality with technology use at home, by enforcing limits and being consistent with them, though he admitted there has been a learning curve.
“I do think that the more time that they watch screens, the less creative and the less curious they are. But it is a constant battle. It may be one of the most counter-cultural things that we can do for our kids,” he said. “And that is saying something as a Catholic.”
It’s also important to note that technology is simply a tool, and “not an evil,” he said.
“The pope is active on social media. My bishop is active on Twitter. But it is for the greater good of reaching out to people in order to create the opportunity for an authentic encounter with Christ,” he said.
“If the technology is replacing humanity as opposed to being used as a tool to advance humanity, that is the problem…If we miss the human element of the teacher, of person-to-person dialogue and debate, of human experience, then we can’t fully do our part to cooperate in the formation of the human person.”
[…]
$246,000,000 in one diocese alone — all because some bishops “didn’t want to create a scandal.” They succeeded admirably. Do they wonder why many think twice before placing further trust in them?
And the abuse of the laity by the clergy goes on. It’s just that not all abuse is sexual. Let’s remember one oft-stated truth – all abuse is abuse of power. The abuse of power is happening most recently in the Archdiocese of Detroit. Pope Leo is watching that abuse happen and does nothing.
On the matter of financial payments to laypersons who have been abused by clergy, the abuse is compounded. How? Because the money paid out to victims comes directly and indirectly (insurance) FROM THE LAITY. Remember, the clergy produce no revenue of their own. What money the Church has that goes towards penalties assessed for clerical abuse COMES FROM THE LAITY. The laity are paying for their own remuneration.
“AND THEY WERE LIKE SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD.”
We are told that insurance will cover the bulk of these settlements. Unfortunately, this is often not true, because the Diocese acted in bad faith in dealing with abusers. Often, the abuse was covered up and abusers were protected. This gives the insurance companies an out on paying for settlements. And of course, the parishes get “assessed” some sort of “fee” to pay for the settlements.
$246 million is a lot of money. That money could have been used for Catholic Education, help for the poor,etc. What are we supposed to think? We, the laity, have no voice in this. We are expected to just “pay, pray and obey.” Many of us are disgusted and will no longer obey.
I hope our dioceses have learned the lesson that these types of allegations need to be immediately turned over to law enforcement to investigate.
A criminal conviction of a sexual predator doesn’t completely shield a diocese from further civil law suits but I think it would go a long way to show they are serious about the issue.
We read: “$246 million is a lot of money.”
Yes, but it’s still less than one-third as much as the federal government has been paying EACH YEAR to Planned Parenthood ($800 million). And now we hear the head of PP complaining that unless the Fed continues to abuse the tax-paying public, this is a violation of PP’s Constitutional right to assembly.
The pain of the abused speaks to a profound theological crisis. The monetary settlements, while a form of earthly justice, are ultimately an inadequate response to the spiritual harm inflicted. The abuse by a priest, a man ordained to represent Christ to the faithful, is not merely a personal transgression; it is a desecration of the sacred office and a wound upon the Body of Christ itself. The very foundation of the priestly vocation is to stand in persona Christi capitis, acting in the person of Christ the head. When this sacred trust is betrayed, the resulting agony is not only psychological but also deeply theological, shaking the very faith of the victim.
A genuine repentance points to a crucial aspect of Christian ethics. True repentance, as the Church Fathers have taught, requires metanoia—a fundamental change of heart and mind that leads to a turning away from sin. It is a process that must be followed by a forsaking of the sinful action itself and the establishment of safeguards to prevent its recurrence. The question of whether the Church has truly embraced this metanoia in its response to clerical sexual abuse is a matter of both internal integrity and external witness. The Church is called to be a sign of holiness to the world. When its actions, or lack thereof, appear to tolerate such deviance, it not only fails to live up to this calling but also undermines its credibility and its mission to evangelize. The integrity of the Church’s witness depends on its unwavering commitment to justice and the absolute intolerance of abuse.
The reading of St. Peter Damian’s “Book if Gomorrah” (A.D. 1051) should be required every one thousand years, whether it’s needed or not. Maybe we can look forward to metanoia millennial celebration in 2051 after all the abusers and implicated bishops have died off.
Another disgraceful diocesan bankruptcy settlement. All because men leading a gay lifestyle were admitted to seminaries and later ordained to the priesthood. Sometimes this happened unknowingly but other times, indisputably, knowingly by those in leadership positions.
Certainly insurers have wised up and now have exclusions in their diocesan insurance policies (that is, insurers still willing to provide any coverage to dioceses). I believe there should be a way for the laity in the pews to have similar exclusions in their parish support offerings.
St. Peter Damian, pray for us.
Tom: and let’s remember that gay priests grow up to be gay bishops.
Notes on the whiteboard.
It is not credible that society will legalize deviance including for children but hold the Church accountable for unchecked deviance including forced settlement payouts through insurance; and trying to attack the Church as to discredit mercy. I am not presenting a “stark contrast”, I am trying to show the the parts and the whole are not working as they are supposed to.
In such a context as what should be, the recent moves by Weisenburger and his demonstration of focus amount to the ridiculous. A bishop is required to address what is truly amiss and stand the consequences; and get in there with true pluck.