Response to comment: low- vs. high-tech schools

I was not suggesting that it's not important for kids (and adults) to figure out technology--it's essential--but (1) the level of actual technical knowledge required to operate most technological devices these days is minimal and kids pick it up quickly, and (2) it’s even more essential that kids learn to do things without technology. Yes, I want my kids to know how to use a computer and to be able to use shortcuts and advanced applications. That stuff is not rocket science; I, too, picked it up as a computer lab assistant at Smith, without taking any classes beforehand or even having used the internet before I got there. For my first job out of Smith, I trained international high school students, some of whom had never seen a computer, basic computer literacy; they all picked it up immediately. A child of any age will learn how to use a computer, but how willingly and easily will a child who grew up turning to technology for everything learn arithmetic without a calculator, spelling without spell-check, legible writing on paper, and research without Google? I’d want my kids to learn the low-tech skills before they learn the high-tech shortcuts. Here’s one of my formative memories from my early days at Smith: I had been pretty good at math in high school and had taken some calculus. I came to Smith and calculus no longer made sense to me because it had been computerized (probably because of a sweet deal between the school, the software manufacturer, and the textbook). All of the sudden, instead of studying to understand the math, I wasted time trying to understand how to make the computer program run the way it was supposed to. Which would have been fine had I wanted to learn computer programming (and I’d taken Basic in high school, so it wasn’t completely beyond me), but I wanted to focus on the math. Here’s what else I will tell you: to this day, my work can be more efficient than that of some of my colleagues, because I get around MS Office programs more quickly (know how to make things happen in Word and Excel, for example). I doubt that that’s correlated in any way with how much or how little they and I were exposed to technology as children. *** Original: Ernessa T. Carter has left a new comment on your post "Sunday roundup": I'd be curious for you to do a post on why you'd prefer the low-tech schools. We live high-tech lifestyles and our daughter is in a no-tech pre-school. But I wouldn't want to send her to a no-tech high school. I'd worry about her being competitive in future job markets. Also, I'm a little concerned that most of the famous grads they listed from the no-tech school are in the arts, which can become a huge trap if you find it's not for you or that you're not whatever enough to make a living at it. Then what are your alternatives? One thing I love about knowing technology is that it gave me options from early on. I make my living as an artist, but I got paid more at my Smith work-study job because I was able to land a cushy job in the computer lab -- thanks to computer science classes I had taken during the summer in high school. It's much easier to make the transition from techie to artist than vice versa. And even in the arts, those people who can't intuitively handle tech drive you crazy. I'm trying hard to figure out how going to a no-tech high school doesn't put its students at a disadvantage and I'm having a hard time reconciling it.