Oh, I think I roughly understand. This kind of public comment period is too democratic for schools (doge). But regarding the backup, it’s true, hjy has already sent out a notice saying that most applications will be reopened, it’s just that we don’t know when it will take effect.
4 Likes
分班、成绩之类没一个公示的（
不过我印象中这个制度其实是提早就发出来了（似乎早一两天），但是没写具体时间，大家看平板没变也没管。其实算是有公示，但是你校施行一半被冲没了的制度实在太多了，导致没人真信）
2 Likes
其实感觉现在hjy挺难办的，技术问题（修bug）他只能催，这个可能确实需要时间（易控的技术水平。。。别指望），回退版本、加应用这种按理说应该相对容易实现的他看起来又没法自己做主，需要什么“校领导开会审批”
7 Likes
It’s indeed difficult.
1 Like
The school is stuck in a dilemma.
1 Like
This “Tablet Smart Learning Device Management Plan (Trial)” aims to establish a standardized system for students’ use of electronic devices, reflecting the school’s proactive efforts in managing smart terminal usage and ensuring learning focus. However, in its practical implementation and conceptual design, the plan presents several key issues across the following levels, warranting in-depth analysis and reflection:
One, Issues at the Conceptual Level: Imbalance between Over-control and Rational Freedom
- “Whoever applies, takes responsibility” vs. Conflict with the Trust Logic of Education
- The application system, based on “whoever applies, takes responsibility,” was originally intended to allow for personalization, but in practice, it implicitly contains a logic of distrust, “presuming students will misuse it.” This management culture weakens students’ sense of autonomy and cultivation of responsibility, easily provoking resistance.
- True education should be “learning responsibility through trust,” not “instilling obedience through restrictions.”
- Passive Narrowing of Knowledge Acquisition Channels
- While the whitelist system ensures “basic learning needs,” modern learning has shifted from “textbook-centric” to “problem-centric,” often requiring students to temporarily search for multi-source materials and cross-platform tools.
- A closed whitelist mechanism reduces the immediacy and diversity of students’ “problem-solving,” which is not conducive to cultivating their critical thinking and information literacy.
Two, Main Issues in System Design
- Rigid Whitelist Mechanism, Lagging Update Efficiency
- Although the announcement mentions “gradual addition” and “progressive opening,” system updates have cyclical delays, and frequent software crashes and compatibility issues may directly affect students’ learning efficiency.
- The update process lacks a clear and transparent timetable, review mechanism, and responsible person tracking mechanism, causing students anxiety due to the platform’s “unpredictability.”
- Arbitrary and Inflexible Time Management System Settings
- Uniformly setting that PADs cannot be used outside of 6:30-23:30 daily lacks consideration for early risers who study and those who practice problems late at night.
- WeChat Work (Enterprise WeChat) limiting usage periods may affect “night-time team project collaboration” or “urgent learning needs,” conflicting with the actual pace of senior year (fragmented time, intensive rhythm).
- Anti-Disengagement Mechanism Too Rigid, Lacking Humanized Adjustment
- The rule that treats “disengagement” as “no longer needing to use” and directly reclaims the device ignores reasonable causes such as technical malfunctions, human error, or network anomalies. It has a “one-size-fits-all” tendency, lacking flexibility and remedy mechanisms.
- Banning “Non-School Devices” May Cause Unintended Harm
- Some students have legitimate needs (e.g., e-readers, translation pens). Prohibiting all non-official devices may cause them to lose necessary auxiliary learning tools, ignoring the individualized needs of special learning groups.
Three, Practical Challenges in Technical Implementation
- System Technology Not Yet Stable, Frequent Negative Feedback
- Technical issues such as frequent app crashes and unsmooth system switching cannot guarantee stability in the short term, actually affecting student experience.
- Implementing strict restrictions at this time, on the contrary, exposes insufficient technical capabilities, easily causing students to distrust the school’s level of informatization.
- Blurred Boundaries Between Management and Teaching
- When students need to apply for software themselves, wait for review, and wait for it to go online, it actually increases “administrative burden” and “teaching resistance,” separating the original intention of integrating technology with teaching.
- Do teachers have the authority to add tools instantly? Who leads the review mechanism? None of this is clear. The long process chain and slow information feedback may ultimately lead to “unanswered needs.”
Four, Psychological Feedback and Behavioral Expectations from a Student Perspective
- Student Role is “Instrumentalized” Rather Than “Collaborative”
- Although the preparatory department advocates “rational expression” and “participation in campus management,” the plan does not establish channels for students to participate in co-building whitelists or system rules. It lacks an actual “student co-governance mechanism.”
- Students often feel their “expression is ineffective,” leading to “rebellious participation” or “silent coping.”
- Insufficient Incentives, More Punishments
- The entire plan is primarily built on a “control-prevention-prohibition” logic, lacking a positive governance mechanism of “incentive-guidance-collaboration.” For example:
- Successful applications are recorded, encouraging self-disciplined students to co-build a recommendation library;
- Providing a self-discipline points system, etc., are not mentioned.
Summary of Improvement Suggestions (Combined with Issues)
| Issue Category | Specific Issue | Improvement Suggestion |
|---|---|---|
| Conceptual Level | Over-management | Introduce a “Student Digital Literacy Self-Governance Group” to participate in rule-making |
| Technical Implementation | System Instability | Establish a temporary “Technical Backup Mode” allowing temporary relaxation of the whitelist |
| System Design | Whitelist Lag | Clarify software review time cycles and transparent application success rate mechanism |
| Time Restrictions | Fixed periods are impractical | Set “Teacher Adjustment Authority” to temporarily relax time periods |
| Anti-Disengagement Handling | Lack of Appeal Mechanism | Establish a “Temporary Appeal Channel,” technical issues may not result in immediate device reclamation |
| Individual Needs | One-size-fits-all ban on non-school devices | Introduce a “Special Application Process,” allowing exemption with proof of study use |
Conclusion
This plan reflects the school’s good intention to move towards “order and standardization” in smart device management. However, because the concept is not aligned with the core goals of student growth, and the implementation logic is “closed and rigid,” it can easily lead to teaching stagnation, student anxiety, and widening gaps between teachers and students.
For this plan to move from “trial” to “exemplary,” the key lies in:
- Truly treating students as collaborators, not as potential subjects of control;
- Shifting from a prevention and control logic to a co-construction logic, and from device management to learning support.
If you would like me to also draft an “Optimized Suggestion Plan” or a “Student Feedback Letter Template,” please let me know, and I can continue to refine it for you.
1 Like
Okay, this is a very detailed management plan and subsequent response. We can analyze it in depth from multiple perspectives to identify potential issues.
The core objective of this “Management Plan for Smart Learning Tablets (Trial)” is to help students focus on their studies and prevent interference from entertainment apps and irrelevant websites. Its original intention is understandable, but at the execution and philosophical levels, there are several major problems:
Core Problem Analysis: Conflict Between Management Philosophy and Educational Goals
The biggest problem with this plan is that it attempts to solve students’ self-discipline and concentration issues through technical blocking. This is a typical “treating the symptoms, not the root cause” management approach, which reveals a lack of trust in students and runs counter to modern education’s goal of “cultivating students’ autonomous learning and self-management abilities.”
For preparatory students who are about to enter university (equivalent to senior high school students), what they most need to cultivate is the ability to independently, autonomously, and responsibly face future university life and even society. This plan, however, uses a “nanny-style” strong control system, depriving them of the opportunity to make mistakes, reflect, and learn self-management in a guided environment. This could lead to a “digital cliff” effect where students are “overly controlled in school and lose control once they enter university.”
Detailed Analysis of Specific Clauses
(I) Whitelist System: Stifling Exploratory Learning and Efficiency
- Rigid and Lagging: A “whitelist” fundamentally means “what is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.” Learning needs are dynamic and personalized, and the whitelist approval process is inherently lagging. When students need to look up an urgent academic concept, access a new academic resource website, or use a niche but highly effective learning tool, they will be blocked by this “wall.” This greatly stifles students’ learning autonomy and exploratory spirit.
- “One-Size-Fits-All” Tool Selection: The plan pre-supposes the “best” learning tools (such as Baicizhan, WPS, etc.). However, different students have different learning habits. Some students might find an app not on the list (such as Anki, Notion, MarginNote) more effective for their mind map creation or spaced repetition. Forcibly unifying tools actually reduces the learning efficiency of some students.
- Lack of Search Engines (though later mentioned, the problem persists): The initial whitelist did not even include general search engines, which are the most basic tools for learning and research. The subsequent response mentioned that a “web whitelist system will be adopted to ensure” search functionality. This means that among search results, only websites on the whitelist can be opened, which will severely compromise and limit the value of search, making it incomplete and fragmented.
(II) Application Responsibility System: Cumbersome Procedures, Vague Responsibilities
- Deterrent Effect of Application Process: The principle of “whoever applies is responsible” sounds like a tying of responsibility, which might deter students from applying due to fear of unknown liabilities. What does “responsible” mean? If an applied app has vulnerabilities or is misused by other students, will the applicant be penalized? This ambiguity will suppress students’ legitimate needs.
- Low Approval Efficiency: Administrative approval processes in educational institutions are usually inefficient. By the time an application or website is “carefully screened and strictly reviewed,” students’ learning enthusiasm and needs may have already passed. The subsequent response mentioned “a dedicated application channel will be opened after school starts,” meaning that during the “adaptive learning period” when tools are most needed for adaptation and exploration, students’ personalized needs cannot be met.
(III) Time-Segmented and Time-Limited Access: Micromanagement, Against Learning Principles
- Rigid Learning Rhythm: Learning is not a 9-to-5 clock-in. Students might need to conduct group discussions outside of designated times (WeChat Work restrictions), might have a burst of inspiration late at night requiring data lookup, or might want to finish homework from the previous night in the morning. This “micromanagement” is not only unrealistic but also disrupts students’ flow state, reducing their immersion and efficiency in learning.
- Communication Obstacles: Strict time-segment restrictions on communication tools like WeChat Work severely hinder instant communication between teachers and students, and among students. For example, a project group cannot conduct online discussions during morning free time, and teachers cannot issue urgent notices outside of designated periods. Asking students to “contact nearby teachers” to solve problems is a regressive management approach that increases unnecessary communication costs.
(IV) Anti-Disengagement Mechanism: Overly Harsh Punitive Measures
“If disengaged from control, it will be considered unnecessary for use, and the school reserves the right to reclaim the PAD.” — This is an extremely strict and inflexible clause.
- Attribution of Responsibility for Technical Issues: Tablet “disengagement” could entirely be caused by system bugs, network problems, or accidental software conflicts. In such cases, directly attributing responsibility to students and imposing the punishment of “reclaiming the PAD” is unfair.
- Stifling Technical Exploration: Some students with programming skills might try to perform harmless optimizations or personalized settings on the device, which could be misjudged as “disengagement” under this clause. This discourages students’ normal curiosity and desire for technical exploration.
(V) Personal Device Management: Infringement of Student Rights, Hindering Diverse Development
The rule prohibiting personal electronic devices (except for approved mobile phones) is overly strict for preparatory students who are nearing adulthood.
- Restriction of Specialized Learning Tools: A student aspiring to study design might need their own digital drawing tablet, and a student studying programming might need their own laptop. The school’s unified tablet cannot meet all specialized, personalized learning needs.
- Disconnected from University Life: This rule prevents students from learning how to manage their multiple electronic devices in advance, which is an essential skill for university life.
Contradictions and Shortcomings in the Plan and Subsequent Responses
- Contradiction Between Slogans and Actual Actions: The subsequent response praises students’ “sense of ownership” and encourages “rational expression,” but the entire plan is based on “distrust” and “strong control.” This makes the verbal encouragement seem somewhat hollow.
- “Gentle Firmness”: Although the tone of the response is sincere and gentle, the core problems have not been resolved. For example, the essence of the whitelist has not changed, only a promise to “expand” it; the channel for personalized applications has been “postponed.” Essentially, it conveys, “we heard your opinions, but we will still proceed our way, please adapt first.”
- Addressing Symptoms, Not Root Causes, Promise: The promise to “ensure that students who reasonably use tablets for learning will have a user experience similar to before” is a paradox. Under the double shackles of the “whitelist” and “time limits,” the user experience cannot be similar to before (which might have been a more free blacklist system or unlimited access).
Summary and Recommendations
Overall, the starting point of this plan is good (preventing addiction), but the methods are too crude and idealistic, neglecting the fundamental goal of education — cultivating well-rounded individuals. It attempts to create a sterile “digital utopia” but may stifle students’ autonomy, creativity, and ability to cope with the complexities of the real world.
Suggestions for Improvement:
- Shift in Philosophy: Shift from “blocking” to “guiding.” Move the focus from technical restrictions to digital literacy education, offering courses or lectures to teach students how to manage time, filter information, and effectively use digital tools.
- Model Optimization: Consider a “greylist” or “tiered management” model. Specifically:
- Whitelist: Core learning apps, fully open.
- Greylist: Potentially controversial but potentially valuable learning apps/websites (such as Bilibili’s knowledge section, Zhihu, etc.), which can have daily usage time limits set, rather than being completely prohibited or time-restricted.
- Blacklist: Clearly defined games and entertainment apps, prohibited.
- Process Transparency and Student Participation: Establish a review committee composed of teachers, student representatives, and technical personnel to quickly respond to and review new application/website requests, and make the review criteria and process public.
- Granting Flexibility: Abolish rigid time-segment restrictions and replace them with “total duration” control. For example, allow students a total communication time of 2 hours per day, to be allocated by the students themselves.
- Trust and Empowerment: For preparatory students, more trust should be given. A “Tablet Reasonable Use Commitment Letter” can be signed, supplemented by educational guidance, and specific actions taken for violations, rather than a “presumption of guilt” for everyone.
Ultimately, the school should believe that the students it cultivates should be self-disciplined individuals who can resist temptation, not “digital infants” who can only learn in a “sterile” environment.
1 Like
@DeepSeek
以上是GPT o3和Gemini 2.5pro的分析。
你來分析如下方案：
分析一個方案存在的問題：平板智能学习机管理方案（试行）
2026届预科部（学生及家长）
07-21 21:12
通知中的链接长期可填写，不用着急。大家可以先看计划上线的APP/网站是否包含了你的需求~
（一）白名单制
学校统一部署基础教育教学软件，以全面保障同学们基本的学习需求。新的管理制度中，全面采用白名单制度，只有通过学科组和学校精心筛选、严格审核的教育教学专用网站、学科工具及教育智能体才能部署在智能终端上。
原有的黑名单制度，不再延用，未经审核的网站和APP，在智能终端上不能打开使用。
【目前计划上线的绿色应用：希悦校园、语雀、新能源系统、ClassIn、企业微信、星立方（阅卷）、学科网（菁优网、智学网）、E听说（天学网）、百词斩、SubQuiz、学习强国、WPS、office软件】
（二）申请负责制
考虑到学生的多元发展，智能终端支持个性化学习。遵循“谁申请、谁负责”的原则，如在教和学过程中，确有需求，允许教师和学生提出申请，在智能终端上按照分组的原则，开放经过审核、验证的网站地址和APP应用。
（三）分时段限时长
考虑到学生的学业负担及专注力，智能终端将会按照分组、分应用的原则，限制学生使用平板的总时长。对于通讯、交流类工具，例如企业微信，将分时段进行开放，例如：早上、中午和晚上。在校学习期间，学生如有问题，可以通过学生成长中心和学业管理办公室解决临时问题。
PAD总体控制时间：6:30-23:30，此外的时间段，不允许使用
（1）学校发布信息通知时间
每天12:30、18:30
（2）教师发布作业时间
建议是每天中午或晚上发布。
（3）发布成绩时间
学校层面统一设置为聚合发布，每天17:00
（4）企业微信
每天6:30-7:30、12:00-13:20、17:30-22:00
非企微使用时间遇到任何问题，联系附近的教师。
（5）支付工具，待定
（四）防脱管机制，若学生PAD脱离管控，则视为不需要使用，学校有权收回PAD。
（五）个人设备管理。适应性学习期间，不允许携带平板和申请通过的手机以外的电子产品。平板丢失或交回的学生需按规定重新申领平板。如发现携带个人电子设备，按违反校规处理。
大家可以继续在评论区理性发表你的意见和建议，批评不自由则赞美无意义。
学校会及时收集展开研讨。在这段时间大家先把精力放在适应高三节奏上，不要过度分心。
亲爱的同学们：
最近试行新的智能设备管理方案以来，我们收到了很多同学通过各种渠道发来的建议。大家理性表达想法、积极参与校园管理的样子，让我们真切感受到了北大附中学子的责任感，这份主人翁精神特别值得点赞！
经过预科部与学业办的认真讨论，现在把大家关心的问题回复如下：
1.关于平板软件闪退、新能源登录困难、系统切换不畅等问题。同学们别急，平板系统更新正在按步骤推进，技术老师会尽快解决这些麻烦，保证不影响大家的学习节奏。
2.白名单范围一直是大家关注的重点，我们坚持 “应开尽开” 的原则 —— 只要是对学习有帮助的应用和网址，都会陆续加入白名单。针对大家急需的搜索功能，我们也会采用网页白名单制度来保障。
【好消息！经过同学们的提议，以下软件 / 网址已计划纳入白名单，会在这几天逐步上线使用（系统更新需要时间）。如果使用中出现不可控因素，会考虑进行微调，同学们可以及时与学业办沟通反馈
平板白名单(1).xlsx 】
如果还有其他学习必需的软件或网址，欢迎大家在适应性学习期间，根据自己的实际需求在指定文档中填写，记得注明使用理由哦。我们的目标很简单：让合理使用平板学习的同学，最终使用体验和以前差不多，不会有太多陌生感。
问卷链接：https://kdocs.cn/l/chNuhEVuYEMP
3.关于个性化软件需求，我们计划在开学后专门开通申请渠道。之所以希望大家在适应性学习期间暂时不在希悦上申请或携带自己的电子设备，是因为这段时间正是调整状态、适应预科节奏的关键期，不想让大家为这些事分心。请相信我们会尽力让白名单覆盖绝大多数学习需求。
同学们，学校一直特别鼓励大家用理性的方式参与校园生活，你们的每一条建议都是让校园变得更好的动力。我们始终在努力平衡自主探索与学习规范，希望既能给大家足够的空间，又能帮助大家更专注地成长。
这段时间大家正处在适应高三节奏的重要阶段，先把精力集中在调整学习状态上。遇到任何问题都可以随时找老师，学校和老师永远是你们最坚实的后盾，会一直陪着大家往前冲！
预科部
学业管理中心
2025.7.21
1 Like
Okay, let’s analyze the potential issues with this “Tablet Smart Learning Device Management Plan (Trial)”. While this plan aims to strengthen management and ensure learning, there are some debatable and potential problems in its specific implementation and design philosophy:
Main Problem Analysis
-
Issues with the “Whitelist” System’s Coverage, Flexibility, and Technical Feasibility:
- Insufficient Coverage: Even with the promise to “enable all necessary features,” the establishment and review of a whitelist will inevitably involve delays. Students’ personalized, niche, but legitimate learning needs (such as specific programming tools, professional design software, academic databases, specific language learning platforms, certain open-source learning resource sites) are difficult to be covered promptly and comprehensively by a centralized review process. Whether the initial list and update speed can keep pace with teaching needs and student exploration is a challenge.
- Cumbersome Application Process: Relying on students/teachers to actively fill out application documents is inefficient. In cases of urgent or temporary needs (e.g., needing to use a specific online tool during class), the process may not meet timeliness requirements. Document management can also easily become chaotic.
- Ambiguity and Limitations of the “Webpage Whitelist”: Although it mentions opening a “webpage whitelist” for search functions, how it specifically operates (is the entire search engine open, or only specific result links?) is unclear. This greatly restricts students’ ability to use the internet for extensive information retrieval and exploratory learning, essentially creating a highly restricted “information cocoon.”
- Technical Implementation Difficulty and Stability: Issues mentioned in the plan such as app crashes, login difficulties, and poor system switching indicate insufficient stability of the current technical platform. Large-scale deployment of strict whitelist management and time-slot/application-specific control places extremely high demands on the stability and compatibility of the backend management system and terminal devices, and technical failures may lead to learning interruptions or management ineffectiveness.
- Vague Definition of “Uncontrollable Factors”: Applications already included in the plan may be fine-tuned or removed due to “uncontrollable factors,” but the criteria are unclear, which can easily cause student doubts and distrust.
-
Feasibility and Vague Definition of Responsibilities in the “Application Accountability System”:
- Practical Difficulties of “Whoever Applies, Takes Responsibility”: Student applications usually require teachers (especially homeroom teachers or specific administrators) to process. If teachers passively handle applications due to heavy workload, unfamiliarity with the application, or fear of taking responsibility, this mechanism will exist in name only.
- Unclear Meaning of “Responsibility”: What specific responsibilities do students or teachers bear for the applied software/websites? Is it content review responsibility? Usage behavior supervision responsibility? Or the security responsibility of the software itself? Unclear responsibility definition will dampen application enthusiasm and easily lead to mutual buck-passing when problems arise.
- Delayed Fulfillment: Opening application channels only after the start of the semester means that during the crucial “adaptive learning period” (e.g., during the lead-up to the final year of high school), students’ personalized learning needs are suppressed or delayed, contradicting the plan’s stated goal of “supporting personalized learning.”
-
Rigidity and Potential Impact of “Time-slot and Duration Limits”:
- Communication Barriers Due to WeChat Work Time Restrictions: Strictly limiting a core communication tool (WeChat Work) to specific time slots, where outside of these hours one can only “find a nearby teacher,” is extremely inconvenient in practice. Students may not be able to contact classmates or teachers promptly via WeChat Work to discuss learning problems after school (e.g., before 17:30) or after 22:00 (especially during the final sprint phase of senior year), reducing communication efficiency and timeliness of problem-solving.
- Stacked Restrictions of “Overall Control Time” and “Application-Specific Duration Limits”: Within the total allowed time (6:30-23:30), there are also application-specific duration limits. This double restriction is overly strict and may interfere with tasks requiring long periods of concentration (e.g., completing complex assignments, conducting project research, creating content). A uniform time limit does not consider the differentiated needs of various subjects and learning tasks.
- Mandatory Uniformity of Release Times: Forcibly stipulating specific times for information notifications, homework assignments, and grade releases is too rigid, ignoring the differences in schedules and actual work rhythms of various teachers and courses. For example, requiring homework to be released only at noon or in the evening may not be suitable for the teaching arrangements of certain courses.
- Absence of Payment Tools: The “to be determined” status affects possible legitimate electronic payment scenarios on campus (e.g., cafeteria, printing), causing inconvenience.
-
Absolutism and Potential Injustice of the “Anti-Circumvention Mechanism”:
- “Immediate Confiscation Upon Loss of Control” Is Too Harsh: Equating any form of “loss of control” (which could be due to network fluctuations, software bugs, student misoperation, or even management platform failures) with “no longer needing to use” and immediately confiscating the device is an overly severe penalty that lacks a buffer and investigation mechanism. This can easily lead to accidental harm and learning interruptions.
- Unclear Re-application Process: Is the process for re-applying after confiscation complicated? Are there time costs involved? These ambiguities will exacerbate student anxiety.
-
Absolute Ban on “Personal Device Management” and Practical Considerations:
- Blanket Ban on All Other Electronic Devices: While the goal is to reduce distractions, a complete ban may overlook some students’ special legitimate needs (e.g., students with disabilities using specific assistive learning tools, students with special learning habits). Treating the carrying of personal devices as a violation of school rules and imposing penalties is overly simplistic and crude.
- Ambiguity of “Approved Mobile Phones”: What kind of mobile phones can be approved? What are the criteria? This leaves room for subjectivity and potential injustice in implementation.
-
Communication, Transparency, and Trust Issues:
- Plan Development Process: The plan appears to have been unilaterally formulated and trialed by the school. Although feedback is collected afterward, there was a lack of sufficient prior discussion with teachers and students, which may lead to the plan being detached from actual needs.
- Timeliness of Feedback Handling: Despite encouraging feedback, the processing cycle (e.g., application channels only opening after the start of the semester) is long, making it impossible to address students’ immediate pain points promptly.
- Contradiction Between “Not Affecting Learning Pace” Promise and Reality: Technical issues and whitelist restrictions themselves interfere with the learning pace. There is a gap between the promise and reality, which may erode trust.
- Contradiction Between “Rational Expression” and “Praise Is Meaningless Without Freedom”: The notice begins by emphasizing freedom of criticism, but the plan itself and the responses reflect a strong control logic. There seems to be no open discussion space regarding the reasonableness of core control methods (such as whitelists, time restrictions); instead, it focuses more on minor adjustments within the existing framework.
-
Core Contradiction: Strict Control vs. Personalized Learning/Self-Management
- The core logic of the plan is top-down strong control (whitelist, time slots, permissions, device bans), which creates tension with Peking University High School’s (北大附中) previously advocated philosophy of student self-management and personalized learning. Overly strict control may inhibit students’ spirit of exploration, independent learning ability, and the development of time management skills, potentially running counter to the goal of cultivating innovative talents.
Summary
The main problems with this management plan are:
- Over-reliance on centralized, rigid technical control (whitelist + time restrictions), sacrificing flexibility and personalized learning space.
- Key mechanisms (application system, accountability system, anti-circumvention) are ambiguously designed, difficult to implement, and potentially unfair.
- Time restrictions on communication tools (WeChat Work) severely hinder necessary learning communication.
- Insufficient stability of the technical platform affects plan implementation and user experience.
- Teacher and student participation and the timeliness of responding to feedback during the plan’s formulation and implementation need improvement.
- The most fundamental conflict lies in the inherent contradiction between a strict control logic and students’ needs for self-management and personalized development.
Suggested Directions for Improvement
- Optimize the Whitelist Mechanism: Establish a faster, more transparent review process; consider introducing “tiered whitelists” (e.g., core learning applications, extended learning resources, restricted general tools); significantly relax or restructure the “webpage whitelist” strategy to allow for more open searching within a secure framework.
- Restructure the Application Accountability System: Clearly define responsibility boundaries (e.g., applicants only need to state legitimate use, security responsibility lies with the school); simplify the process, provide more convenient application channels (e.g., quick in-app applications); authorize teachers to instantly approve common learning applications within their permissions.
- Adjust Time Restrictions: Significantly relax or remove time restrictions on core communication tools like WeChat Work to ensure basic communication needs; make “application-specific duration limits” a guideline or optional feature, rather than a mandatory one-size-fits-all rule; remove mandatory regulations on homework and grade release times.
- Soften the Anti-Circumvention Mechanism: Establish a tiered response mechanism (e.g., warning for first instance of disengagement, investigation of cause, punishment only for repeated intentional disengagement); clarify the re-application process.
- Prudently Handle Personal Devices: Clearly define the criteria for “approved mobile phones”; consider allowing applications for carrying other learning devices in very special, well-justified cases, under strict management.
- Improve Technical Stability: Invest resources to prioritize ensuring the stable operation of the underlying platform.
- Enhance Communication and Co-governance: Establish a regular mechanism for teacher and student representatives to participate in jointly reviewing management rules; respond to feedback more quickly; find a more reasonable balance between control and autonomy, trusting students and fostering their self-discipline.
This plan reflects the school’s good intentions to strengthen management and ensure learning, but its specific measures lean too heavily towards strong control, which may lead to numerous implementation difficulties and potentially inhibit students’ autonomy and creativity. In the crucial senior year, finding a way to balance efficiency and focus with necessary flexibility, communication convenience, and personalized learning space is a key area for optimizing the plan.
2 Likes
I heard some classmates have already flashed the school tablets. Waiting to see what happens.
2 Likes
This system forces students to use their personal tablets, it’s hilarious.
10 Likes
Here’s the thing. If it weren’t for this stupid rule, I would really use the school’s junk electronics.
8 Likes
I didn’t ask you to shut down Easy Control. I’m not an internet addict.
But what does “Easy Control is unresponsive” mean? What’s wrong with your program? You’ve only been on for two minutes, right? If this keeps up, you’ll restart four times in four minutes, eight times in eight minutes, and eventually turn into Yae Miko.
As Raiden Shogun, I might have to defeat you. Seriously.
13 Likes
Great, a tribute to every hero who has striven.
3 Likes
所以怎么样了，按照标准流程杳无音讯了？
不管怎么说，你这个感觉高中部也会需要一份
5 Likes
少一句
学术不端
1 Like
在文件的层层上递过程中，被压下去或者丢掉的可能性不小
3 Likes
1 Like