Technology Won't Fix America's Neediest Schools -- It Makes Bad Education Worse

theodp writes: In an adapted excerpt from Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology, Univ. of Michigan prof Kentaro Toyama begins: "'Technology is a game-changer in the field of education,'" Education Secretary Arne Duncan once said, and there was a time when I would have agreed. Over the last decade, I've built, used, and studied educational technology in countries around the world. As a computer scientist and former Microsoft employee, I wanted nothing more than to see innovation triumph in the classroom. But no matter how good the design, and despite rigorous tests of impact, I have never seen technology systematically overcome the socio-economic divides that exist in education. Children who are behind need high-quality adult guidance more than anything else. Many people believe that technology 'levels the playing field' of learning, but what I've discovered is that it does no such thing."

Comments

Shouldn't this be obvious?

[schklerg]

I've yet to see any technology that can overcome bad process, bad practice, and bad planning. Why should education be any different?

Marketing may try to sell a magic fix, but reality seems to always win.

Re:Shouldn't this be obvious?

[Vermonter]

It's like saying that handing out new hammers to a bunch of carpenters will make the bad ones good. A tool can only enhance quality, not create it.

Re:Shouldn't this be obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

More accurately the biggest determiner is how much the student invests in the education they are receiving.

So overcoming bad parents would require the student investing heavily on their own absent or contrary to parental guidance on the matter. That occasionally happens but is extremely hard for teachers to make happen.

Re:Shouldn't this be obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

In poorly run schools, there is also the problem of students being too disruptive. In some districts, they've even stopped punishing students for most infractions because it's racist in its results. Without enough order, classes can't be taught.

Home life is half the problem, but the worst school are broken where a good home life can't help.

Re:Shouldn't this be obvious?

[tnk1]

Back in the day, my own anecdotal experience was that disruption is a big deal. I sat in both honors classes and "regular" classes back in the day. There was a huge difference in how much you learned based on how disruptive the class was. When I was in a class filled with kids who were dedicated to getting good grades and learning things, you got shit done. I learned less, had less taught to me, and was less able to concentrate in the regular class. I still personally got good grades, but that was because the class was dumbed down so much, it was hard to understand how anyone could have done poorly, let alone failed those classes, even without being a nerd.

In the end, I realized that I worked to get in honors classes as much to simply not be in the regular classes as I did to excel. You literally could not learn even easier things very well in a disruptive class.

Personally, I think we need to pick out the disruptive cases, get them in smaller classes with more structure, and get them out of the way of people who want to learn. Then everyone, including the disruptive kids, will probably be more successful.

False early advantage

[Dareth]

From what I have seen, children with early access to technology treat them as just another toy. They may be more familiar with some interfaces and know how to do some basic tasks but do not have a great advantage over someone introduced to computers at a later age who is interested in learning about them. You need some basic skills to use a computer. You need to be able to read and write. Some basic math skills and typing are helpful. Once you have the basics you can add technology as a supplement. It is not a replacement for the basics of learning which can still be done with a simple piece of paper and a pencil.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Tools not crutches

[blueshift_1]

This is definitely obvious. Children that come from more privileged socioeconomic backgrounds tend get technological expose at a younger age - allowing them a shorter learning curve when things like this are implemented at young age. While these boundaries are certainly surmountable, we just have to consider it when implementing them. Technology has to be used as tool for further engagement & interactivity in the classroom. Too many use them as a crutch to - and nothing is worse for education than poorly executed PowerPoint presentations. Of course PP gets a bad rap because people don't generally understand how to use it as a tool for creating engaging & interactive content - but that's a whole different can of worms.

Re:Tools not crutches

[sinij]

Children that come from more privileged socioeconomic backgrounds tend to be more able than disadvantaged children. Why? One reason is that privileged background afford them better support system and more stimulating environment. Another reason, is that contrary to the prevailing social narrative, not everyone is born equal or could achieve anything. There are very practical limitations imposed by intelligence that cannot be overcome by motivation alone. Intelligence also happen to be highly heritable trait and it is strongly correlated with "privileged socioeconomic background". Unfortunately, we don't yet have technology capable to compensate for the lack of ability, motivation, and impulse control that are associated with intelligence.

In the light of the above, it is by no means certain that these boundaries are surmountable.

it's not bad process

[rsilvergun]

It's a lack of money. The class sizes are too large and they mix the special ed kids in with the other students so that they are constantly getting interrupted while an undertrained teach tries their best. Meanwhile the parents are broke so the kids game tons of problems at home.

I love the way everyone in America tries their best to ignore the disadvantages of poverty and the privilege that comes with money

Re:You mean parents?

[jeremiahstanley]

You cast the pot with the clay you have, not the clay you want.

Yes, parents are immensely important - and kids that have two (or more) good ones have an advantage. This doesn't mean that you can throw your hands up in the air and give up on marginalized kids. Teachers do a lot more in schools than just show off the pythagorean theorem or bloviate about what old dead white men did. They also teach social skills and fill in the gaps that parents can't always get to. This is another "social good" of public education.