Honestly that wouldn't be a bad idea. Even if few people ever code themselves, learning a little logic is good for anyone.
The problem is the tech companies didn't actually deliver on the promise. We didn't hand kids devices that encouraged tinkering and discovery. We handed them locked-down iPads suitable only for content consumption, not knowledge creation.
It often is the technology itself though. Or at least "the technology" defined in any way that's relevant here.
No one is proposing that we remove every computer from school buildings. The mistake appears to be the "one laptop per child" policies that made laptops and tablets essential to school instruction. Crucially, these devices could ever be justified because they also took the place of the students' books. Their books are on these devices. They don't have physical books anymore.
I am explaining how the law works and the assumptions behind it. The law assumes that if you were embarrassed about your dick pics, that you would delete those before the officer is right about to search you.
The law isn't that stupid.
Your country's leaders are almost certainly just as enthusiastic about AI. The wealthy and powerful are the only international class.
It's a slimy business tactic that applies the anchoring effect.
You're shopping internet plans. You see a plan that seems like a good deal to you and meets your needs. The price listed in bold text on the website is $50/month. If you look closely, there's a little asterisk referencing tiny text at the bottom of the page that simply says something like "plus additional fees."
So you feel it's a good deal, so you move forward. You enter all your personal info, everything needed to set things up. Then you get to checkout...and the price has increased to $70/month, inflated by a bunch of bogus fees.
You would think this wouldn't make a difference in your decision-making, but it does. It actually changes what the average person is willing to pay. Among the reasons:
Anchoring: When you're shopping, you've already subconsciously decided the plan is a good deal at $50. Then you put in the time investment to set up the account. When they spring the fees on you, your mind is in a state where it really doesn't want to reconsider things. You've already finished the price comparison portion of the task! So even though you can see the price increase, the plan still subconsciously feels like it's $50/month.
Anti-Competitive Behavior: these fees make cost comparisons much more difficult. The only way to see all the fees that your account will be charged is to go through most of the account sign-up process. You can't just quickly pull up the websites of various ISPS and quickly compare their plans/rates.
Let's be honest though. This policy was a chicken-shitted rule only a liberal could love. Should we ban ISPs from tacking on extra fees and simply charging the sticker price? No, instead let's just require them to disclose it in the fine print!
The wealthy want you to vote with your wallet, as there is nothing they fear more than "one man, one vote."
One of the creepiest things about LLMs is they respond better when you're polite to them, and worse if you're rude. Of course, this isn't because they actually get offended. They're simply trained on as much text as possible and trained to imitate it. And real human beings, if you ask them a question while calling them names and insulting them, are very unlikely to give you a good answer. If you're polite with people, they're more likely to be helpful. ChatGPT can't feel the feelings a human would when a user calls it a bastard or asks "please," but it can imitate the reactions a human would demonstrate to such a prompt.
That's why if you want to support artists, you can buy the shit locked down files so they get the artist gets paid, and then just never use them. Pay for them but get your actual files from piracy.
I have a background in education. I've had a unique career that's gone back and forth between engineering and education. I hold graduate degrees in both. I say this only as prologue.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, this part sticks out to me. I think the missing piece in your analysis is the human element, human neurology. The literature that's been coming out in the years since devices were widely deployed has been pretty damning. It's not just that the devices are distraction machines, though they certainly are that. It is that they are fundamentally, neurologically inferior methods of educating a student. It is not simply that computers are distraction engines. You can put two learners in completely distraction free environments, and ask one to learn on a tablet, and one with pencil and paper. Even with no distractions at all, the paper will be far superior.
We are physical embodied beings. A lot of tech folks like to think of themselves as some sort of disembodied soul piloting a meat robot, but that isn't remotely how humans actually work. The body is just as much part of learning as the mind. Your mind is part of your body; and your body heavily influences your mind. Even your gut bacteria have an immense impact on your thought processes. Learning is not a passive process of absorbing information like a sponge. It requires active practice and synthesis, and the more modalities that experience occurs in, the better.
Here is how a traditional lecture works:
Here is how an electronic lecture works:
This is a fundamental problem with the technology. Again, we're embodied creatures. Writing with a pen and paper is more of a full body experience than using a touch screen can ever be. Tech loves to "remove friction," but friction is the only way you ever actually learn anything.
We need to get the computers out of regular classroom instruction entirely. I'm perfectly fine with computers in a lab or library where students take computer-intensive courses (like programming or CAD), but there should be zero electronic devices employed in the lessons of core academic subjects such as mathematics, language, the sciences, and social sciences.