When I see articles such as this, I’m dismayed (that it’s gone this far) and humbled (for the gift of being able to home-school our three children). So, thank you for the mixed emotions.

I agree. Nice list of protests. I especially like fodder for John Stewart. Nice to see the kind of (appropriate) power he has.

Hello Diane:First, I just want to applaud you for your amazing work on behalf of children and your efforts to protect them from media saturation, violence, over exposure, and commercialism as they relate to visual media. I’ve been a fan of your work for a long time. I also believe interactive technology tools have a place in the early childhood classroom alongside crayons, blocks, manipulatives, and all of the important accoutrements of early childhood classrooms. I do take exception to your post and Susan’s post. Here are my thoughts:I believe your positions muddle the waters with arguments that do not apply, and inaccurate insinuations. While the posts include some meaningful points to consider, they are obscured within some “the sky is falling” scenarios that simply don’t apply. Don’t get me wrong, I think a little refinement might be in order, but so many of the statements in this post are so off-target, I had to respond.My counter-perspective is as follows:1) The draft does not “mandate screen time.” I do not read that anywhere. It is clear that NAEYC does not plan to “mandate” anything.2) In general, position statements from membership organizations are not standards. They simply outline their position from a very high level. They:- do not include in-depth summaries of research, but do include citations upon which the statement was built.-do not include a lot of direct guidance. They outline the position of the organization, which sets the stage for books, articles, policies, and procedures that will provide more guidance.-cannot encompass detailed discussions of every possible negative consequence, but should provide high level guidance about the possible consequences and problems, as this draft does.3) The authors were careful to carve out a specific path to discuss interactive technologies in the classroom, in order to set the position statement apart from discussions about violent and otherwise harmful media and commercialism. This is not about TV or video. It’s about interactive technology. Perhaps this distinction should be strengthened.4) It is important to realize that NAEYC MUST provide the field with SOME guidance. The current position statement is sorely out of date.Given your concerns about TV and commercialism, perhaps your legitimate concerns should be addressed inn a different position statement. I think it’s important to keep the Technology Position Statement as focused as it is in its current state.Fran Simon, M.Ed.