Teachers Resist High-tech Push In Idaho Schools

First time accepted submitter Jack W writes "This morning's NY Times highlights the issue of learning in our public schools and the proper role of technology. The Idaho governor and his state school superintendent are advocating a legislative bill for a massive infusion of computers and on-line technology in schools and is meeting resistance from state teachers, particularly the part of the bill that requires high school students to take online courses for two of their 47 graduation credits. Superintendent Luna is quoted as saying, the computer 'becomes the textbook for every class, the research device, the advanced math calculator, the word processor and the portal to a world of information.' The article notes that the governor had received campaign contributions from technology companies and that Apple and Intel had played a part in drafting the bill."

Comments

Onerous Regulation to Enrich Private Interests

[mathmathrevolution]

Some students and some classes could and should be taught online. However, these decisions need to be made by school districts, parents, and students. The governor shouldn't be placing a huge unfunded mandate on local schools just because Apple cut him a check.

Tech for the sake of tech.

[digsbo]

The quality of education is not a result of the amount spent on technology. It is almost pointless to fight it, though, because these decisions are made for political reasons in a vacuum of real debate, metrics, or general considerations about what gets the best results. On some level the teachers have a right to resist this, as it's a further encroachment on their autonomy and freedom to teach as they prefer. On the other hand, if teacher unions did not fight every attempt to rationally measure student success, they might get a seat at the table discussing how to handle certain kinds of problems.

And the same questions as always.

[khasim]

1. Lost/Stolen devices. Who pays for replacements? Why?

2. Damaged systems that need replacement. Who pays? Why?

3. Virus infections and such. What's the turn-around time on support for those? Will the school have extras to loan while they "clean" the students' machines?

4. Upgrade policy. Will the freshman class have better equipment than the senior class?

And so forth.

Throwing tech at a non-tech problem is stupid. And tech gets old really fast. And tech needs expensive support.

Re:And the same questions as always.

[digsbo]

You left out the big question that most school districts also forget: How will they go about buying technology to get the results they want? Most, if not all, of the school system officials making purchasing decisions have near zero experience purchasing technology solutions. They fall for a sales pitch, a low bid, and/or a bribe, and then blame the people below them when things don't work out.

needs a non-crappy ecosystem

[Trepidity]

The first major push for computers in schools had more than just some computers. In addition to putting the Apple IIs (usually) into school computer labs, there were also initiatives like MECC to produce useful software for them, research from educators like Seymour Papert on how to use them to teach technical skills, etc.

By the late 80s this had mostly withered away, so that when my own high school in the 1990s replaced its Apple IIs with Macintosh LCs, the main thing they were used for besides word processing was... running the old Apple II software on the IIe attachment card.

Not if it doesn't work!

[__aaltlg1547]

In Colorado, on-line schools have been shown to be less effective than face time with the teacher -- dramatically so.

There's no reason to think that doesn't scale, and if it scales that means that those on-line courses would be ineffective.