On the contrary. As someone currently raising children, I can confidently say that historically, we have done a terrible job of teaching people how to have, be OK with, and process feelings in a healthy way. We may not have done this 70 years ago, but we certainly needed it then, just as much as we do now.
And that's setting aside the fact that, "We didn't need X back in the day, so why do we need it now?" is a generally terrible take.
The "normal" person holding down a C-level job providing for his family only to hurl plates at his wife whenever he's mad is "doing fine".
The "normal" person going to a therapist every week is "doing fine".
The otherwise friendly person who gets filled with road rage every time they're behind the wheel is "doing fine".
Your friend who kinda takes jokes too personally and gets cries whenever y'all crack wise is "doing fine".
The point is that while we may all figure out how to process emotions, we don't always nail it. "Normal people" are not always fine. Plenty of people have problems handling their emotions, and how you handle your emotions impacts you and those around you. Many people are raised under the impression that expressing certain emotions, or acting on them in certain ways, is wrong. This approach changes that.
Good for you, you figured it out. But you're displaying an incredible amount of ignorance by going, "Well, I turned out just fine, so why can't everyone else?". Nobody else has the exact same upbringing you had.
That said, I could do without all the “safe spaces” lingo, which is performative and alienating.
why not just let the autism research guys or whatever develop this stuff?
How do you know that resources were diverted? Are you suggesting that the same people responsible for Azure's capacity issues are the same people working on this? Because these are two wholly different things that require different subsets of skills.
>why not just let the autism research guys or whatever develop this stuff?
Why not just let the plumber fly the plane? Why not just let the cook captain the ship?
Autism researchers partner with people who can develop these tools. That's what's happening here.
If this makes more money than it cost, then what does it matter?
Yes, learning arithmetic on chalkboards worked fine, but should we stop improving our methods and tools because we've already met some arbitrary bar of what you think was once good enough? No, we should improve them by any measure whenever we have the chance.
yes, i have issues with companies investing in anything over profits. that's generally how companies operate. while i recognize there are those who disagree i think charity belongs separately.
and anyway character development is the purview of parents not schools. public education should teach specific academic material and nothing more.
Public education needs tools. This is a tool. The article literally calls it "a teacher's aid".
Universal free school meals will do far more to improve learning and social outcomes than more techno-gimmickry. I think blackboards are generally still better for most elementary school classrooms than hugely expensive digital displays because blackboards are something kids understand, there's no technology gap between seeing it and being able to use it.
When I started school a long time ago, we had little desks with a flip up lid that had a tiny blackboard in it, and bits of chalk to draw with. At a later stage teachers produced giant set-squares, protractors, and compasses designed to hold chalk instead of pencil lead. You don't need elaborate tools for a lot of foundational concepts.
Honestly, this country seems bend on turning education into fast food, with teachers being mere machine operators with more and more 'education product' experience and less and less knowledge of the subject they're supposed to be teaching. You can easily take what you learned working in a McDonalds and be productive in a KFC, but it doesn't mean you're a good cook.
Since they have the kids about 8 hours a day, about 5 days per week, about 9 months per year, during formative ages, 13 years in a row, schools can't help but teach character development, even if they don't try to.
We’ve learned nothing new about childhood development in the last 70 years, pretending otherwise is a waste of senior designer time.