[datsci_est_2015]

Your anecdata has a gigantic blind spot of you being a capable and engaged parent that monitors and guides your children’s screen time to be educationally productive. That time is a luxury, and your expertise is rare.

To take it back to the lunch analogy that you provided, it’s a bit like saying, “I don’t know why everyone’s kids are hungry at school, I pack a nutritious and filling lunch that I know my kids enjoy every morning.”

[apparent]

Logically speaking, this is incorrect. OP said that humans teach kids better than machines, full stop. To disprove this claim, I do not need to show that all kids learn better from machines, just that some do. I have shown this, and even admitted that it doesn't work for all kids.

Also, I didn't need to monitor/guide my kids so they could learn from AoPS or Khan Academy. Those platforms are self-guided. But regardless, my kid learned pretty much zero from school math, so the threshold for "better than the teacher" was very very low.

[datsci_est_2015]

I’m going to sidestep your pedantry and focus on why we’re actually having this conversation: it is obvious from data and observations at scale that children struggle to learn meaningfully in the presence of technology, i.e. screens, in the same way that children learned with educators of the quality that taught previous generations (higher salaries).

Techno-Utopianism is such a grating ideology, especially when thrown into the ring alongside all of the other garbage that education experts have to deal with when trying to enact meaningful change in the education system.

[apparent]

If basic logic is pedantry in your book, I think we're done here. Looks like you're new here, but perhaps won't last long if you're allergic to logic.