Los Angeles Superintendent John Deasy and Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute wrote an article in which they seek to reassure teachers not to be afraid of technology. They patiently explain why the critics of Deasy’s decision to spend $1 billion for iPads and Pearson content are wrong, and why technology is good for students and teachers.
This is a classic example of what is known as “begging the question.”
No one is opposed to technology.
Teachers are not opposed to technology.
Parents are not opposed to technology.
Students are not opposed to technology.
What critics have asked is how Los Angeles can afford to spend $1 billion on iPads using money from a voter-approved school construction bond fund. When the money is used to buy iPads instead of repair buildings, where will the money be found to fix the buildings? Will voters be willing to support future bond issues if their wishes (to repair the schools) are blithely ignored? Deasy and Hess do not answer those questions.
What critics have asked is whether it is wise to spend $1 billion on iPads loaded with Pearson content when the iPads will be obsolete in 3-4 years and the lease on the Pearson content will expire in three years? Will the district spend $1 billion every 3-4 years to replace the obsolete tablets and to renew the lease on the Pearson content? Where will that money come from?
Why is Superintendent Deasy overriding the district’s Bond Oversight Committee, which is concerned about the cost and curricular content of the iPad purchase? Deasy and Hess don’t answer that question either.
In fact, none of the questions raised in Yasha Levine’s article about the iPad purchase (“The Unanswered Questions Behind L.A.’s iPad Fiasco”) were answered.
Here are some of those unanswered questions:
There were a lot of unanswered questions about the deal, but at least one thing was crystal clear: outfitting nearly a million people with top-of-the-line tablets was going to be insanely expensive. And that’s why just about everyone that wasn’t directly cashing in on LA’s “tablets was all” scheme was baffled and outraged by it. Parents and teachers couldn’t understand how LAUSD’s top brass could blow so much money on an expensive toy at a time when the district was laying off teachers and cutting physical education, art and music programs. Pointy headed academics scratched their chins at the news because there is no scientific evidence that shows tablets help kids learn or boost academic performance in any way. And others wondered why LAUSD planned to pay for iPads using bond money that was approved by voters solely for use in upgrading physical school infrastructure, especially when schools routinely lack the funds to make critical repairs.
Even the Los Angeles Times, which is normally very sympathetic to Deasy’s technocratic reform schemes, criticized the iPad deal. The paper noted with concern that Deasy not only owned Apple stock, but he had also appeared in an Apple promotional video boosting iPads as the best educational tools around.
Deasy and Hess should have answered at least a few of those questions, not just expressed praise for the joys of technology.
Seriously, citizens of LA. I am now begging you to read Deasy’s LA DAILY NEWS guest commentary. http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20131204/dont-let-fears-stop-necessary-technology-reform-in-la-schools-guest-commentary#comments
If you wanted to know everything about LAUSD Supt. John Deasy, it is ALL here in this article that is the template of WHO John Deasy really is.
What planet did this “commentary” drop in from?
For God’s sake, LAUSD School Board, will you PLEASE examine John Deasy’s bedfellows and see how their fleas have contaminated EVERYTHING in the LA Schools. My colleagues and kids have been scratching and getting sick since his arrival.
The mere fact that he is co-authoring this piece with Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org/scholar/frederick-m-hess/) shows beyond any shadow of a doubt Deasy’s far right wing leanings in regards to American Education.
Hess serves on the review boards for the Eli Broad Prize in Urban Education and the Broad Prize for Public Charter Schools. He also serves on the boards of directors of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, 4.0 SCHOOLS
To get support from this grotesque organization, one has to understand who AEI is. This from Wikipedia: More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government’s many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow; and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar.
So many of the people involved in the Iraq War have turned American education into their next disaster. This time the casualty is our kids and Deasy is the “face” of the movement. Everyone else exists in the shadows.
I consider Deasy’s kin and educational/political cheerleaders a nightmare VIP list of GOP misery, but that only tells you my political persuasion.
So back to the article itself…the very opening of it asserts as its MAIN argument for supporting his secretive iPad initiative is that “Skeptics fear that the district’s investment in education technology is ‘anti-teacher,’ that it represents some kind of insidious plot to replace teachers with machines.” Seriously, Mr. Deasy? Anyone who has been following the iPad debates can attest, that your ridiculous critics fear a “2001: A Space Odyssey Renegade Computer” argument is NOWHERE to be found in the howl of objections.
The rest of the pathetic straw man assertions about people being afraid of technology or that poor kids shouldn’t have access to the material richer kids have is nonsense. Please read Deasy and Hess’s article since they deliberately NEVER address the malfeasance that LAUSD has used in “selling” the iPads to the public, to teachers, to students and to taxpayers. This ridiculous obfuscation actually has Deasy purposely trying to divert attention from what kids and teachers have been MOST crying out for:
Decent, thoughtful, sophisticated, critical-thinking education in an academic setting that DIGNIFIES children of color who have almost no choice but to get the education that Deasy, Bill Gates and the Pearson Corporation think they deserve. Yes, I will call Deasy a racist and a classist of the Neo-liberal order. His kids and those of his ridiculously wealthy brethren deserve SMALL CLASSES, LOTS OF ELECTIVE CHOICES, FIELD TRIPS, ENRICHMENT OPPORTUNITES and STIMULATING EDUCATION while MY kids get an iPad. And by God, Deasy is championing their rights to that with over a billion dollars.
Time and time again he uses the version of the great American Civil Rights legacy to say that he and his pals are fighting against all of us who wish to IMPEDE the advancement of our kids. Deasy and these Far Right Educationalists tell us that if they were alive today Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and now Nelson Mandela would be on Deasy’s side in this argument. They would be leading the charge AGAINST these historical carpetbaggers who use the blood they shed to profit enormously by the technology and testing regiment that have become the DREARY REALITY for most students and teachers under Deasy.
Insufferably, Deasy and Hess conclude by saying, “With all that said, education technology will not magically improve test scores or make learning more ‘fun.'” Boy, that is going to make all us teachers and students THRILLED to implement his grand design. More importantly, (and LAUSD School Board take note!) what Deasy is actually preparing us for is that the results of his iPad venture can NOT be quantified. He is telling us right here and now that this maniac tyrant of “testing” and “measurement” for EVERYBODY else, he is injured and protected from. So in his mind, the only way we will know if the iPads are a success is to TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT!
Yet Deasy has spent his horrific reign closing schools, endorsing charters and parent triggers and destroying communities on ridiculously inaccurate and unsubstantiated “data” that again, he ALONE gets to pick and choose which to validate.
And for so long, the LAUSD School Board rubber stamps time and time again HIS edicts and directives to the enormous pain and detriment of my kids.
John Deasy has never once held himself accountable for ANYTHING he has done while he was Supt. here, Santa Monica or PG County, Maryland. Although it has been brought up time and time again, his magical PhD absurdity also gives a clue to his whole notion of education. That 9 credit PhD was BOUGHT AND PAID for. That has been his entire MO his whole career. My former LAUASD students who have sweated and scraped together the effort and stamina to get their PhD look at his and say that is how the world REALLY operates. The rich benefactors who have guided Deasy’s career from Moment One allow Deasy immunity. And when he actually BRAGS about that PhD and touts it as AUTHORITY it also tells you how much contempt he has for those fools in education who have not had the privilege and connections he enjoys.
Deasy has the nerve to say that “[The iPads] creates new opportunities for students to learn and grow; these opportunities should not be driven by community politics, grand promises or state procurement deadlines, but by helping students learn and teachers teach.” Since Deasy’s arrival, he has been driven not by community politics, but by the politics of national agendas like those of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and School Reformer Michelle Rhee and financial politics of Eli Broad, Bill Gates, Bill Walton and the gang at Pearson. That gratuitous parting shot of helping students “learn” and teachers “teach” is the final black joke of this entire piece.
Deasy can pal around with the American Enterprise folk all he wants. Does he and Paul Wolfowitz joke about the wreckage they have each caused in their respective areas of “expertise”? Okay. That’s his right and prerogative. But Deasy’s and Hess’s AEI’s policies, and those Republicans and mega rich Democrats who support them, have devastated the public school system in this country and have made life miserable for all the kids that DON’T have the connections that his friends have to NOT be in a system subject to his monstrous pedagogy.
Deasy, keep your iPads.
Give kids and teaching back its dignity and respect and offer the kids what they really need to be successful in their lives. This commentary you are offering them truly demonstrates whose side you are on.
I hope the LAUSD kids use the iPads to Google: Go to hell.
Most respected colleague, Geronimo,
You give us so much factual info today, and for Deasy to write with Hess of the Far Right group, American Enterprise Insitute, at this moment in the tale of horror that is LAUSD, shows his increased arrogance now that his new 3 year contract is secure.
For Deasy to choose Hess as his politically reactionary co-conspirator in this puff piece is telling. He is certainly thumbing his nose at us all who oppose him.
The public can clearly see that the extreme Right has joined openly with the billionaires, their powerful lawyers, and ALEC members, including his ‘self identified Dem’ benefactor Eli Broad, in their vast attempt to privatize American public education. All at the expense of we who pay the taxes for our public schools.
I still have hope that the LAUSD BoE will explain to the public which pays his big salary and perks, why they renewed his contract in light of his many failed and failing decisions, and despite that so many parents, teachers, and voters urged them to fire him.
In addition, with the death of Marguerite LaMotte yesterday, we lost a strong voice of reason and determination on the BoE. I urge our local readers from her district to rapidly join forces to choose a replacement we can all support, for definitely Deasy and his forces are in that district working to find clones for Garcia and Galatzan to try to once again skew the Board votes in Deasy’s favor.
I am Ellen Lubic who wrote today’s Ravitch post on Ben Austin.
Thanks Diane for posting this expose on the ‘con’ that was orchestated on Oct. 29 when the BoE extended Deasy’s contract for 3 more years, with no transparency on why and how that shocking vote occured.
It was a total failure of democratic process and the shadow of Eli Board hovered over it all.
Hi Ellen–
Thank you for your insightful take down of Ben Austin. It goes to show what kind of Alice in Wonderland universe we are forced to compete in when “the People” is defined by these mega-corporations who masquerade as the voice of the very disenfranchised whom they inflict the most damage upon.
They would have us all believe that Nelson Mandela spoke for the rights of Apple computer. That Cesar Chavez supported the efforts of InBloom to create a more just world. Medgar Evers gave his life so that Pearson could test the beneficiaries of his sacrifice.
John Deasy is not a stupid man. Neither is Ben Austin.
They know their way around power and money. In this country, that is a key skill to possess. My students will almost NEVER have the access they do. These individuals use their abilities to see to that my kids continue to suffer injustice and abuse of a system that they have no control over. Why do these people FIGHT SO HARD to have control and influence in this system?
Profit. Profit. Profit.
Deasy is a very rich man. He has very rich friends. He probably at this point in his career doesn’t care much about personal wealth anymore since he already is among the 1%. What he does care about is the same thing the soulless, evil (but charming) powerbroker Noah Cross told Detective Jake Gittes in the film CHINATOWN what more he can win: “The future, Mr. Gittes. The future.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppGd-2nEOVQ
And that’s what Their Side is fighting for.
And it is what OUR side must fight twice as hard for as well.
Each side knows precisely what the stakes are.
Keep up the good struggle.
–Geronimo
p.s. is there an email I can reach you at?
Please reach me at
joiningforces4ed@aol.com
Others are also welcome to email me at that address.
Ellen Lubic
That’s the thing about dishonest people.
When challenged they just double down on their dishonesty.
And there’s always another red herring in their kettle of rotting fish …
Nice!
These two paragraphs in the same piece are a problem:
“Skeptics fear that the district’s investment in education technology is “anti-teacher,” that it represents some kind of insidious plot to replace teachers with machines. This strikes us as bizarre.
Finally, skeptics worry that digital learning creates a slippery slope where students will not need to be physically present in school. The fear is that kids will be off on their own,
potentially unsupervised. There are grounds for sensible discussion here, but warehousing disengaged students in schools is not the answer. L.A. high schoolers can today enroll in a Stanford course while sitting at Starbucks. Our focus should be on helping students excel as thinkers and citizens — not on the where and when.”
The claim is they’re not going to online classes and then they promote online classes.
My concern is that ed reformers will use technology to replace schools for middle class and working class children with the for-profit, garbage “cybercharters” that have been sold hard by ed reformers in this state (Ohio). It isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a huge industry, and the schools are marketed to “disengaged kids” and the kids are given free gadgets to entice them into the “schools”. Can the conservative think tank employee who wrote the piece explain why ed reformers have promoted cheap, crappy cybercharters in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania?
More “progressive” ed reform policy, I guess, from AEI.
Deasy’s initiative is supported by the vehemently anti-public school think tank, AEI?
What a ringing endorsement! He couldn’t find anyone to support his position outside of a Right wing think tank employee? That speaks volumes all by itself.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
The corporate “reformer” twist implying that people are “afraid” of technology! This is similar to their rants about people objecting to the Common Core – it is the “special interest groups”, it is the “tea party”, it is the “white suburban mothers”! Tell that to Detroit, where they cut pensions yet had money to give corporate tax kick backs and build a new stadium.
I hope there are enough well informed people who will NOT listen to these twists and lies!
It’s amusing to me that the “adults” believe “the children” are as easily sold on computer programs for education as they are.
Someone should tell them “the digital natives” aren’t as easily duped as these dopes.
My 5th grader has a district-purchased math program he’s required to use. He and his friends were interested in it for about 20 minutes, and then they realized it’s just a series of math problems with a lot of added graphics and bells and whistles. They do the problems with paper and pencil and carefully enter the answers into what is a very expensive worksheet. Subtract the graphics and color and it’s exactly like the “shareware” programs parents use to pass back and forth 15 years ago, and those were free. I’m starting to think this is more about “the adults” than it is “the children”, specifically those adults who are selling this to other, more gullible “adults”.
I’d rather pay a math teacher.
Is there any fad or trend that ed reformers don’t embrace immediately and recklessly? Is there a single adult in that “movement” who has the ability to say “no”?
Not when there is a huge amount of money involved! Just follow the yellow brick wall!
Well said, Chiara! The information content of these online curriculum modules tends to be EXTREMELY low, and kids get bored with them VERY rapidly. A LOT of adults are being duped. See my note on Edward Tufte’s extremely relevant and important essay, “The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint,” below.
We need to avoid, at all costs, the Powerpointing of U.S. education.
Your fifth grader might be interested in the free online learning system created by the group Art of Problem Solving. Here is a link: http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/liz/Alcumus/index.php?
I would be the first to say that some online material is really great. I’ve looked at some of these Art of Problem Solving videos. They look WONDERFUL.
But most of what’s out there for online curricula is that Flash-based cartoon stuff, and most of that stuff (with some few exceptions) is REALLY DREADFUL. The student watches a 12-minute cartoon video, and the only thing he or she gets from it is that a fraction is a part of a whole. MOST of the video is some idiotic cartoon character singing the A Fraction is a Piece of the Pie rap song. That kind of thing is typical, and it’s just what Tufte is talking about in his “The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint” article.
Clearly, there are things that online curricula can do that are marvelous. One can hear the best lecture from the best teacher. One can read without cutting down trees. One can link to outside sources of further information for research. One can do immediate feedback formative assessment and remediation.
But people are making a big mistake if they automatically equate online with “of high quality.” I’ve looked at a lot of online tests and curricula that are just junk.
Speaking of conservative think tanks and their policy dominance in and complete capture of ed reform, The Thomas Fordham Institute is listed as a “new member” of ALEC in the documents that The Guardian released.
p. 38:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/841593-alec-docs.html#document/p1
Don’t know how reliable ALEC docs are, but that’s what it says.
There’s another ALEC education member I’m not familiar with listed- The Gleason Family Foundation. Are they a privatization lobby shop too?
Chiara…you do a great job of reporting here. This ALEC document is a gem and should be read by all.
Ellen
More and more people are realizing that this scheme could ultimately bankrupt the school district. There are many, many other costs associated with this level of technology. While the district may not have to spend another half billion on wi-fi once all the schools are equipped, there are still yearly costs for electricity, tech staff, ongoing professional development, new curriculum, etc., etc. All this on top of replacing the devices in three years. Also, there are so many unforeseen issues that may surface as the rollout continues that could cost millions. The fear is that, once you commit to this kind of a massive plan, there is no way to stop this runaway train and the district will be forced to keep feeding the beast to protect its huge financial investment.
None of this would have happened if Deasy had simply proposed a plan to upgrade ancient computer labs and provide more carts equipped with laptops to each school.
The bond has a provision to upgrade technology, so the oversight committee would have had no legal reason to veto this kind of purchase.
Deasy tries to use “Duncan’s” white suburban moms strategy by claiming that the white citizens of this city don’t want black and brown children to have technology. It worked when the board approved the plan last June. But now, with a committee dedicated to reviewing the plan and run by the amazing Monica Ratliff, the details of the plan have been exposed. Even as of today, Deasy and his team refuses to allow the board to review the Pearson curriculum. They also refuse to present a plan to cover the costs of financially sustaining such a program.
Jaime Aquino, second in command to Deasy, quit when Ratliff’s committee started to demand answers. As a parting shot, he wrote a letter to Ratliff claiming that:
“I am concerned that the purpose of requesting that the full Pearson Curriculum be made available to the Committee members is “to lay all the rumors to rest and reassure the public that the district chose a high-quality, complete program. This is a disrespect to the 30 professionals who spent countless hours reviewing all curricula to choose a high-quality program that best suits the needs of the District.”
I would instead ask why he won’t share this curriculum to put the whole question at rest? That would be the best way to prove Ratliff wrong.
At a forum on technology hosted by radio station KPCC, Bernadette Lucas, head of LAUSD’s Common Core Technology Project, feigned ignorance of bond issues instead of answering the tough questions. She claimed that “legal” had approved allowing kids to take the iPads home. Has anyone seen this decision in writing?????
It most certainly has not been made public.
When asked by the moderator to explain how LAUSD will pay for this down the road, her only answer was that LAUSD couldn’t afford not to. What kind of answer is that? When you are proposing a plan whose costs are so tremendous and then absolutely refuse to explain how you will be able to continue to pay for it, is nothing more than a blatant admission that you have no concern over the future financial health of LAUSD.
I see many, many parallels to the mortgage meltdown in which people were convinced that they needed to purchase homes that they could not afford. We all know the consequences. Sure, homeownership is one of the best investments anyone can make, and it should be encouraged. Technology in the classroom is also considered a necessity to most. But, if this kind of major financial investment is made without consideration of how to sustain it, well over 600,000 students will all be put at major risk.
Sadly, many feel that this is exactly the ultimate plan with the result that LAUSD may indeed become the first major district in the U.S. to be totally privatized, and, as Deasy states in the article, we could be looking at a huge expansion of online education as a result. Seems like this whole situation is a set-up to create this scenario.
If this is accurate, then it’s no wonder that Deasy is determined to see this iPad rollout happen, regardless of the consequences, and over the objections of the Bond Oversight Committee.
Educator: please allow me to highlight one of your many good points.
Remember the cliché phrase “the law of unintended consequences”? The iPad decision involved a host of “unintended”—in some cases, probably “intended”—consequences that are devastating. You buy iPads in great part for testing, then somebody brings up the uncomfortable fact that you need keyboards to input. $32 million more. Ka-ching!
Or you don’t thoughtfully and deeply consider whether the families of the students have to pay for lost, stolen or broken iPads—or if so, under what circumstances. And if the iPads are taken home and not stored in school, what if the parents of the poorest students don’t have/can’t afford WiFi at home? What about sending students home with expensive electronics in neighborhoods [I think back to parts of my childhood] where carrying such items is like putting a target on your back for the local bullies and gangs.
Or what if teaching and learning isn’t always synonymous with entertaining? Maybe professional educators might have had a thing or two to say about that. And what about that little thing called the “future” where in only a few short years your EduTechnoMarvels are so outdated, well, even the licenses on their EduProduct software need to be renewed! Ka-ching! What happened to the mind-numbing mantra of “fiscal conservatives” that “money doesn’t grow on trees”—except when you need to drop $1 billion on iPads or better yet, putting unnecessary military adventures on the nation’s credit card and then complaining that Social Security and Medicare can’t be funded because “there’s no money.”
From beginning to end, the iPad train wreck is a preplanned catastrophe that will be blamed—are y’all ready?—on
Teacher/student/parent Luddites who refuse to get with the cage busting achievement gap crushing twenty first century solutions proposed by the leaders of the “new civil rights movement of our time.”
The leading charterites/privatizers evade dealing with the actual questions raised re the iPad miasma because they are true believers.
“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true.” [Demosthenes]
And that old dead Greek guy didn’t even need an iPad to get to the heart of the matter.
Go figure…
😎
‘Right on’ Educator and TA…so many schools are in desperate need of repairs. And many have computer labs that could be upgraded with the use of the Construction Bond funding.
The Prop. 30 windfall should be used to hire actual teachers, not TFA kids, and also librarians (LAUSD shut down scores more of school libraries this past week), nurses (so that office staff is not giving out meds and injections), and TEACHERS who are the core to learning. Class sizes should be brought to managebale size.
The money is available, but where is the will, and the politcal savvy, of our LAUSD leadership?
For millennia, scholars have dreamed of a “universal library” accessible by anyone and containing the knowledge of the world. Now, for the first time in history, we actually have that–the thing that puts the Library of Alexandria and Diderot’s Encyclopedia to shame. It’s called the Internet. Any learner now has the unprecedented ability to look up almost anything. Want to know
what notes are in a flat diminished seventh chord?
what the title of Wilfred Owen’s poem “Dulce et decorum est” means and where it came from?
how to solve a system of linear equations?
who painted “Judith Beheading Holofernes” and who Judith and Holofernes were?
what a “noumenon” is?
how to glaze a pot or how to tie a bowline knot?
what Mary Shelley knew about electricity when she wrote Frankenstein?
The answer is a click away.
And now that we have this UNPRECEDENTED, REVOLUTIONARY LEARNING TOOL, there are those who want to disable the search capacities of that tool and to use the tool not for access to the knowledge of the world but to access some low-quality canned curriculum models.
Why? Because the former access is free. The latter can be charged for by one of the big education monopolies.
That’s the real tragedy of what is happening with the introduction of technology into our classrooms. It’s astonishing capabilities are not being used. A PULL MEDIUM that people have dreamed about having for untold centuries is finally available, and it is being turned into a PUSH medium–one for pushing proprietary products onto learners, and very low-quality products at that.
cx: modules, not models
And, “Its astonishing capabilities,” not “It’s,” of course. Sorry about the typos.
It would have been more accurate, of course, for me to say, “It’s called the World Wide Web.” Sorry, again, for the haste with which this was written, but the point I am making is very important, I think.
Access to that universal library of the world’s knowledge presents an unprecedented opportunity for teaching kids to be independent, intrinsically motivated learners–people who know how to formulate a plan for learning something and to carry it out because they want to do so, opportunities for true individualization of learning appropriate to a rapidly changing world and to the diverse natures of our students and diverse needs of our society for the particular abilities of individuals. Those are the kinds of learners that we need, for the kids entering our schools today are going to see more change in their lifetimes than humans have experienced in all of our history up to this point. Of course, that learning HAS TO BE GUIDED BY EXPERIENCED MENTORS–by teachers.
As a substitute for a textbook, the handheld device is not yet very good. The Flash-based online textbooks being promulgated today tend to be balky and less simple to access than a printed book is. (Have a look at one of the online literature anthologies if you doubt what I am saying.) And the canned learning modules being created by most of the K-12 companies are simply dreadful. Typical is the Flash-based cartoon lesson that is mostly edutainment of a kind that kids find repellant and that contains a very low content-to-presentation ratio. See Edward Tufte’s superb discussion of the comparative information content of text and Powerpoint slides in his very important essay “The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint.” What we are seeing in the online “curriculum modules” is a dramatic dumbing down of content in which, as Tufte points out, almost all of the significant content is replaced by what Tufte calls “chart junk.”
These computer tools are very powerful but only if they are used for the right sorts of purposes. If they are used to replace teachers and dumb down instruction, as they are in most of these “curriculum modules,” they are worse than useless because of their astonishing opportunity costs in time not spent in reading, debate, research, Socratic dialogue, etc.
Tufte’s essay is something EVERY educator should read. It is EXTRAORDINARILY REVEALING. He compares the information content of text to that of of Powerpoint slides (he might as well be comparing it to the content of the typical Flash modules being produced for online instruction today). The results are breathtaking. The material is dumbed down by orders of magnitude!!!
Tufte also points to a number of other problems with the slide-based approach to conveying information that are directly applicable to what is happening in these online “curriculum modules.”
The Tufte essay is an extremely important cautionary tale. Again, every educator should read it for the insights that it provides into the inadequacies of the typical current online curriculum approaches.
Thanks Robert for the many good points you make.
Tufte, and you, are so correct in terms of real text books producing real information, and the lack of value generally of power point. I no longer permit my students to use power point for I find that sitting in a darkened room listening to the droning voice of the presenter read a paper which is duplicated as a visual, often puts everyone to sleep. It is far from the ideal classroom teaching tool whereby a teacher can and should lead a freeforall discussion on material as it is generated, and not rely of the point by point screened material.
Yes…using the Socratic method of using open ended questions.
Power point may reinforce the material, but by and large, it only detracts from discussion which only a live teacher can direct.
I always welcome your informed comments.
Thanks, Woof! What I want people to understand is that MOST of these online curriculum modules have the same problems that Tufte identifies (and quantifies) in his study of and polemic on Powerpoint presentations–very low signal-to-noise ratios, very low information transfer, a tendency to distort the communication to make it fit on a screen, etc.
We really need to avoid the Powerpointing of American education. And MOST of these online curriculum modules are little more than that–slide shows with some animation and sound, but REALLY dumbed down. Again, I think that EVERY educator should read the Tufte article. It is really illuminating.
It is called “The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint.” It is by Edward Tufte. You can find it using a search engine.
I believe that every child should have access to that “universal library.” The MIT “One Laptop per Child” project has shown that the cost of providing such access COULD BE very, very low indeed–around a hundred dollars per kid. And, we somehow find the money to spent six trillion dollars on no-bid contracts for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ($16,666 for every man, woman, and child in the United States).
The bond issue stuff is a genuine issue, but we really do need to figure out how to get that access to the universal library into the hands of every child. AND we need to figure out how to keep educators from buying into locking those computers and from spending enormous amounts of money on extremely dumbed-down canned curriculum modules.
A few years ago Gates Foundation gave computers to African children, and published the cost as $100 each.
if we compare the monumental costs of our Defense Dept. to the amount alloted to education, we will all flee in despair.
We do spend well over a half a trillion on public education every year.
This was the One Laptop per Child project that I was talking about.
BTW, access to computers and to Internet connections–to the “universal library” is very low among poor students in the U.S. This is a glaring inequity.
Apple can well afford to donate IPads to the schools and Pearson is just a conservative front group with a conflict of interest by putting their materials in the schools. Disgusting
Robert, I agree with what you are saying BUT does that mean we should spend billions to send an I pad home? If a student doesn’t have a computer at home, they certainly don’t have internet service!
Absolutely not. This LA deal stinks to high heaven. I hope that I made it clear, in my comments above, why.
Tim, that may be their next scam, we will sell you an i-phone deluxe limited, it will give you access to the Pearson site by connecting to your i pad. Stranger things have happened, and thing of the graft, er, vast possibilities.
Yes and …
It’s true, as Diane wrote, that a LA Times columnist, Steve Lopez, raised concerns. Diane wrote, “Even the Los Angeles Times, which is normally very sympathetic to Deasy’s technocratic reform schemes, criticized the iPad deal. The paper noted with concern that Deasy not only owned Apple stock, but he had also appeared in an Apple promotional video boosting iPads as the best educational tools around.”
The link from her note goes to a column by Mr. Lopez.
However, he concluded as follows:
” But having said all that, what I saw at Valley Academy — the first of about a dozen schools to get iPads in a $50-million pilot program — was impressive. And the principal, Debra McIntyre-Sciarrino, had glowing reviews and noted that the iPads are great equalizers, because many students come from homes where electronic tablets are beyond the family budget.
The impact “was immediate and dramatic,” she said. The tablets helped create “a dynamic learning environment” in which students and teachers were prompting each other. And the distraction feared by some teachers can be mitigated with locks that prevent students from using anything other than the assigned program.
Let it be noted that the school’s Internet service crashed on the day of my visit and tech help had to be summoned. Still, I saw some impressive work. In a geometry class, students Jose Cruz and Brandon Zulueta showed me a project they had just completed. Using old-fashioned paper, they made geometric origami figures, then used an iPad program to produce a stop-animation video in which a harpoon chased a whale. The animation was used to illustrate a story they’d written about a drama on the high seas.
Their teacher, James Emley, told me that in his physics class, students used iPads to design rockets and test them in a virtual wind tunnel.
English teacher Jenn Wolfe said grades improved when students were allowed to take the iPads home rather than lug textbooks. But district officials determined that restrictions on the bond money that purchased the iPads required that they stay at school.
One of her students, Meagan Toumayn, showed me a multimedia project she did on cruelty to animals. Sarah Gonzalez showed me a digital index of her assignments, notes and reports on the classic novel “To Kill a Mockingbird.” When the honors class read “Romeo and Juliet,” they were able to hear audio pronunciations of British words they were unfamiliar with.
“This is not a teacher and it’s not a student, either. It’s a tool,” Wolfe said of the tablet.
“We can’t go backwards,” she said. “We’re preparing kids for jobs we don’t even know about yet.”
If for some of us the jury is still out on iPads, that’s not the case at Valley Academy. I asked Wolfe’s 36 students if anyone wanted to go back to doing things the old-fashioned way.
Not a single hand went up.”
Joe…Valley Academy of Arts and Science is a specialized, well funded, LAUSD middle and high school. Students of this age bracket, with many tech teachers, use iPads and other tools far more easily than K – 6 students. Particularly small children, K – 2, do not have the manual dexterity, small muscle control, nor developed brain paths, to make good use of this technology. Multiple studies also show the danger for brain cancer in young children using WiFi.
Educators nationwide are worried about the stress as well, put on these young children who will be forced under the Obama/Duncan CommonCore mandate, to study for,and take, the frequent standardized tests for this curriculum.
It is no surprise that the teen aged students at this specialized Academy are adept at, and enjoying, using iPads.
Steve Lopez is a great observer and reporter but he is not an educator. Though he might consider running for LAUSD School Board now that there is an open seat. Also, Sandy Banks, another fine LA Times reporter would be a likely candidate.
Thanks for sharing this. I am not defending the overall decision. But I think it’s important to share the overall column from Mr. Lopez, not just his criticism.
I’d like to know more about research on dangers of brain cancer for young people using wi-fi. Could you please share some references?
Joe Nathan et al…from Ellen Lubic
Below you can read endless info on WiFi and how radiation can affect the brain. This is thanks to research by Rene Diedrich.
WiFi radiation in schools:
Teachers and employers
1. WiFi radiation: a cancer agent
(a) WiFi radiation, like the radiation from iPads and mobile phones, was classified as
a 2B possible cancer agent by the World Health Organisation’s International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2011.
(b) Since 2011 the scientific evidence for radio frequency as a human carcinogen has
increased. Some leading scientists think that there is now sufficient evidence for
radio frequency to be classified as a 2A probable, or class 1 certain, cancer agent.
Some class 1 certain cancer agents started as 2B possible. The WHO’s IARC may
not review radio frequency again until 2021.
(c) There is a difference in length of exposure between WiFi and some other 2B
substances like DDT and coffee (urinary bladder cancer). There is no choice over
constant exposure from WiFi radiation in a school, whereas teachers are not
forced to use DDT or drink coffee constantly during all their time in school.
(d) An increasing number of teachers and others attribute their cancer to exposure to
WiFi radiation.
2. Unions against class 1, 2A and 2B cancer agents like WiFi radiation
Most unions in the UK and elsewhere ask that employers should not use class 1, 2A
or 2B cancer agents where an alternative is available. For internet and data access, it
is easy to provide wired or cable connections.
· “All occupational cancers are avoidable. Where possible that should mean
removing carcinogens from the workplace completely, by changing the
process or substituting the carcinogen with another material”
(TUC: Health and Safety: Time for Change, 2013, p.7)
· Carcinogens Categories 1 and 2 should be labelled with “Toxic” symbol and
R45 “may cause cancer”; safety representatives should “approach their
employers seeking a commitment to remove exposure to all known or
suspected carcinogens”; “the employer provides a written assurance that no
substances classified as IARC Group 1, Group 2a or Group 2b carcinogens are
used at the employer’s undertaking”; “where these substances are in use, the
employer will take all possible steps to eliminate the substance in question”
(Unite Guidance on Cancer at Work, Unite Health and Safety Unit, issue 1,
2009, p.3)
· “the installation of WiFi microwave transmitters … may present a potential
Health and Safety risk or hazard in the workplace”
(OECTA: A position regarding the use of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic
Radiation, including WiFi, in the workplace, 2012, p.7)
WiFi radiation in schools: Teachers and employers
________________________________________________________________________________________
2
3. WiFi radiation: other medical and neurological effects, especially for
pregnant women and people with intolerance and/or genetic variations
(a) Radio frequency radiation, as from WiFi, iPads and mobile phones, has
teratological effects. Studies show that pregnant women exposed to higher levels
of mobile phone radiation are more likely to have children with neurological
deficits like ADHD; no similar studies have yet been done for WiFi radiation,
although in a classroom WiFi radiation can be higher than for a mobile phone.
(b) Radio frequency radiation, as from WiFi, iPads and mobile phones, has immediate
cognitive effects for some people, according to scientific studies.
(c) Radio frequency radiation, as from WiFi, iPads and mobile phones, has adverse
effects on male fertility, according to 80% of relevant medical studies, although
the duration of these effects is not yet firmly established.
(d) Some 3-5% of the population is affected by an intolerance to radio frequency
radiation, according to studies, with a variety of conscious symptoms, such as
tiredness, sleep disturbance, heart effects, headaches, etc. (Nordic Council of
Ministers (2000): ICD (International Classification of Diseases)-10.R.68.8; or
Austrian Medical Council (2012): ICD-10.Z58.4). Professor Belpomme, a leading
researcher at ARTAC (Association Reserche Thérapeutique Anti-Cancéreuse) in
Paris, estimates that, depending on the rate of increase in man-made radio
frequency radiation, some 10-50% of the population will develop this intolerance
or electro-sensitivity by the years 2035-2060.
(e) Growing numbers of teachers and other workers in the UK and abroad have
developed this intolerance to WiFi radiation and thus have become unable to work
in an environment with WiFi or similar radiation. Nevertheless employers have a
duty of care towards employees disadvantaged by an environmental functional
disability under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of
2007 and the Equality Act of 2010.
Notes
(i) The UK government’s thermal limits protect against heating, not against
biological effects
The current (2012) advice from the Department of Health and PHE/HPA, that there is “no
consistent evidence” (“no evidence”, up to 2008) of harm to “the general population”,
depends on the claim that the only effect on humans from radio frequency radiation is
heating. Thus the UK government’s current safety levels protect only against a one
degree increase in body heat for a young healthy adult male averaged over six minutes.
These limits are not designed to protect teachers against non-thermal effects of lowlevel
and long-term exposure, nor do they apply to teachers with compromised immune
systems or genetic variations, nor to women teachers who are pregnant.
(ii) Most authorities now reject the UK government’s heating-only claim and
argue for adopting biological limits
The USSR adopted biological limits in 1958 and an increasing number of countries have
done so since, most recently India in 2013. Since 2008 the majority of involved
scientists have accepted non-thermal effects. In 2009 the EU parliament voted that
current heating-only limits were “obsolete” and new biological limits were needed. In
2011 the Council of Europe warned governments against WiFi in schools. The
international BioInitiative Report of 2012 by 29 experts proposed new biological limits
WiFi radiation in schools: Teachers and employers
________________________________________________________________________________________
3
(see table below), as did the Seletun panel in 2010. The UK government has not yet
accepted this majority scientific viewpoint based on the weight of established evidence.
(iii) ICNIRP advised governments to adopt non-thermal limits to protect
vulnerable people
In 2002 the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation) warned
governments that vulnerable people, such as the sick, elderly and children, would need
non-thermal limits below its heating-only limits. The UK government has not yet
complied with this advice. There are likely to be teachers with compromised immune
systems or genetic variations who are also more vulnerable to the current high levels of
radiation from WiFi and similar devices, and pregnant women teachers may be especially
vulnerable.
(iv) Scientific studies on ill health from WiFi radiation
WiFi standards were adopted in the year 2000. There have been no long-term studies on
the health of effects of WiFi, therefore, since brain tumours can apparently take up to
30-40 years to develop, and early-onset Alzheimer’s, another risk from electromagnetic
exposure, may become apparent only after several decades of exposure. It may also be
difficult in future to find sufficiently unexposed populations to use as controls. About
80% of short-term studies show negative health effects, mainly in the areas of fertility
and cognitive effects. The UK government at present still claims that all conscious ill
health from radiation is psychological, but this hypothesis fails to accept non-thermal
objective scientific markers such as cerebral blood perfusion. Leading international
experts have criticised this approach of the UK’s Department of Health, Public Health
England and its AGNIR as following “pseudo science” and failing to recognise idiopathic,
non-linear biological reactions to environmental electromagnetic exposure.
(v) Removal of WiFi radiation for acute health problems and medical protocols
WiFi has been removed from some places where employees have realised that the WiFi
radiation was the cause of their ill health. This happened, for instance, from 2008 in
Paris in public libraries and several university libraries. All doctors involved in treating
this condition emphasise the removal of the source of radiation as the key first step in
addressing acute health problems. Protocols and guidelines for diagnosis and treatment
are available from the Austrian Medical Association (2012) and the Centre for
Electromagnetic Safety in Russia (2010). Although military personnel use silvered
netting for protection against similar radiation in electronic warfare, it is usually
impractical for teachers and other school employees to wear such protective suits.
(vi) WiFi radiation and children
Children, like the elderly and those with weakened immune systems or genetic
variations, are especially vulnerable to bio-effects from radio frequency radiation at nonthermal
levels. Studies on the effects of radiation from mobile phones show that people
starting to use a mobile as teenagers are up to five times more likely to have brain
tumours than those starting later. Therefore authorities in countries like Belgium,
France, Germany, Israel and Russia warn against or ban the use of WiFi or mobile
phones in some schools or for children.
(vii) Legal implications
In recent years cases have been won in Australia, Italy and the UK where employees
have been harmed by, or lost their job because of, non-thermal radiation from WiFi,
WiFi radiation in schools: Teachers and employers
________________________________________________________________________________________
4
cordless phones and mobile phones and where these radiation devices have been used
at their place of work. Some insurers are now said to be refusing cover for
electromagnetic risks because of the known non-thermal harm, and the UK banks are
said to be strengthening their reserves for the time when class actions become common,
based on the financial impact on the Lloyds insurance market in the 1990s following
litigation over asbestos in the 1970s. Unlike mobile phone frequencies, WiFi frequencies
are deregulated and thus each school and school governor as employer should undertake
their own risk assessment since they appear liable for any harm caused.
(viii) Measurements of levels of WiFi radiation
Measuring WiFi radiation is difficult because it not only has the 2.45 GHz or 5 GHz carrier
frequency but it also uses a low 10 Hz pulse. In addition it has a much greater amplitude
than many mobile phone signals. The type of pulse and its amplitude seem to be
especially bio-active, according to some studies. See the table below for some current
non-thermal limits.
(ix) Table showing non-thermal limits (2013)
Safety limits (biological) for electro-magnetic exposure relevant to
Teachers’ exposure to WiFi radiation in schools †
Field Unit Limit Authority
power density microwatt/metre2 3* children, ill people BioInitiative 2012
6* healthy adults
electric (radio frequency) milliVolt/metre 194* BioInitiative 2007
Volt/metre 0.19*
electric (power frequency)
potential free
Volt/metre 1.5 ‘severe concern’, Building Biology Standard (7th
edition), SBM-2008 ‡
electric (power frequency)
ground potential
Volt/metre 5.0 ‘severe concern’, Building Biology Standard (7th
edition), SBM-2008 ‡
magnetic nanoTesla 100* BioInitiative 2007, Seletun 2010
† All these fields are class 2B possible cancer agents.
* Some people are adversely affected at levels below these biological limits.
‡ Supplement to Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods SBM-2008 (7th edition, 2008) for sleeping areas:
suited to schools with residential accommodation; ‘severe’ is unacceptable and requiring remediation.
References:
(a) Unions
TUC: Health and Safety: Time for Change, 2013:
https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/tucfiles/TUC_Health_and_Safety_Manif
esto_Time_for_Change.pdf
Unite Guidance on Cancer at Work, Unite Health and Safety Unit, issue 1, 2009:
http://www.unitetheunion.org/uploaded/documents/Cancer%20at%20Work%20(
Unite%20guidance)11-5327.pdf
Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association: “A position regarding the use of
Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation, including WiFi, in the workplace” (2012):
http://www.oecta.on.ca/wps/wcm/connect/6a665c0049fedbee85919db62552ca8
d/WiFipositionpaper2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
WiFi radiation in schools: Teachers and employers
________________________________________________________________________________________
5
(b) Bio-effects of WiFi radiation and biological limits
Scientific papers (WiFi in Schools, UK): http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html
(details in section (f))
Scientific evidence (WiFi in Schools, USA): http://wifiinschools.com/science.html
BioInitiative Report (2012): http://www.bioinitiative.org/
(pdf, 24 MB): http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wpcontent/
uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport2012.pdf
Building Biology Standards (2008): http://hbelc.org/pdf/standards/sbm2008.pdf
(c) Medical protocols for the diagnosis and treatment of illness from WiFi
and similar radiation
Austrian Medical Association: Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the
diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses (EMF
syndrome), (2012): http://freiburger-appell-
2012.info/media/EMF%20Guideline%20OAK-AG%20%202012%2003%2003.pdf
Dr O. Grigoriev, Centre for Electromagnetic Safety, Russia: Health and EMF
Exposure: Protocol for Diagnostic and Therapy (2010):
Click to access 20100111_grigoriev_presentation.pdf
(d) Videos on WiFi radiation effects (children and general)
Australia, “Safe & Smart 4 r kids”, 9 mins, 2013: http://www.wifi-in-schoolsaustralia.
org/ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJPTzaNkcUk
Australia, “WiFi in Schools – The Facts”, 18 mins, 2012:
Dr Magda Havas: “Wi-Fi in schools is safe. True or false?”, 14mins, 2011:
Canadian news report, 14 mins, 2010:
(e) Websites on WiFi radiation health effects in schools (mainly about
children)
Australia: http://www.wifi-in-schools-australia.org/
Australia: https://www.facebook.com/ParentsAgainstWiFiinSchool
Canada: http://www.schoolradiation.com/
Canada: http://www.safeschool.ca/Home.html_script_src__http_.html
UK: http://wifiinschools.org.uk/
UK: http://ssita.org.uk/
UK: http://www.cavisoc.org.uk/Health-Dangers-of-WiFi-in-schools.html
USA: http://www.wifiinschools.com/index.html
(f) Some studies on adverse health effects from WiFi radiation
From: WiFi in Schools, UK: http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html
First pages, for printing: http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/Wi-Fi+papers.pdf
Papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below. Someone using a WiFi-enabled tablet
computer can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m. Papers are in alphabetical order.
Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of
radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825
WiFi radiation in schools: Teachers and employers
________________________________________________________________________________________
6
Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm
motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647
Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human
spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine
66th Annual Meeting: O-249. http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf)
Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of
rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077
Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-
GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408
Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz
cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.
http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless
phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629
Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th
International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.
http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WIFI%
20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf
Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol
Med., Epub ahead of print. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130
Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-
induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic
Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2
and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785
Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless
(2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464
Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials
during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138
(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young adults: http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf)
Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or
Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843
Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz
radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060
WiFi radiation in schools: Teachers and employers
________________________________________________________________________________________
7
Some further studies at similar microwave frequencies and at low exposures (6V/m or below):
Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a
laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769
Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in
mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the
centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on
tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem.
Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl.
Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649
Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J.
Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418
Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed
field interference with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110: 46-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180806
Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation.
Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when
exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves
and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446
Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus
musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations.
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647
Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from
the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839
Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in
wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure
to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631
Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European
Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355.
http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM
mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486
Michael Bevington
25th October 2013
Please pass this on to your sources. Ellen Lubic
If wifi in schools is that dangerous, think what it is doing to all of us who have it in our homes!
Ouch! my brain hurts!
Thanks for this research. I look forward to reading the original research about this.