Technologically Delusional

I want to point something out, before I get to my own thoughts on Todd Oppenheimer's piece, "The Computer Delusion". He writes this:

Crane didn't mention that after a decade of effort and the donation of equipment worth more than $25 million to thirteen schools, there is scant evidence of greater student achievement.

This is in reference to Apple donating $25 milion in computers and equipment, as part to enhance technology in schools (and, no doubt, as Oppenheimer is quick to point out, enhance their own cache to the schools' families). I point this out because I want to know what kind of lessons were given in the tech bestowed upon these schools. There are many other factors, like previous achievement levels of the school, the environment, how the tech was used, etc...but, in a vacuum, the author is able to frame his argument however he wants. He should just realize that it's a flawed argument.

Now, onto his larger point, that tech in schools being the great equalizer is really the great white whale of performance...in a lot of ways, I agree with him. Smartboards are already outdated? We're moving to interactive textbooks on Kindles and iPads? Isn't the iPad 3 due out later this y...oh, sorry, no, that's just the iPad 2 HD. But there will be another iPad out next year, and the year after that, and every year until the next big thing comes along.

The issue with technology isn't that it's always moving. Many people have long been familiar with the notion of Moore's Law, which states that technological capabilities would double every 18 months, in strength and capacity. Fine. I look around the technological landscape now, see more efficient processors, faster hard drives, and with many computers having the ability to surf the internet very capably. And I ask, "Have we reached the plateau?"

The answer to that is a resounding "Hell, no."

First, it seems as though the quality of our machines has fallen; this is understandable, albeit frustrating. Who is going to be a new machine if it's running effectively? Where are sales created? Our machines are more susceptible to breaking down now.

Add to that the notion of the Web 2.0, and the idea that the classroom can become totally immersive. So let's add a giant white board that is somewhat clunky, will be outdated technology before long (if it isn't already), and let's get schools to look at this as the great equalizer in the classroom.

How long before the Smart(er) Board comes out...one that's malleable, can be moved around the classroom, and is more efficient? And how much of a discount do you think schools that already have those old outdated Smart Boards will get? After all, it's the newest technology. It's much better than the crap they bought two years ago.

I'm in the wrong business, apparently.

Look, I'm a hypocrite. I'm an early adopter. I bought an iPad, without fully understanding my reasons behind it. But I'm a hypocrite within my own walls. I'm spending my own money. When I look at the school I used to teach middle school English, Science and Math, at, and I see a room full of computers that are more prohibitive than accessible...and then I find out the Archdiocese got a Smart Board for the school, I smack my head. What is this nonsense, really?

It isn't just the technology...it's poor choices made by school boards on how to spend the money that is burning in their pockets. It is not adhering to the ideas of their own IT people...you know, those who have been trained in this field.

I guess my problem is that it isn't a good use of money, and most school districts are already facing budget issues. But, we live in a capitalist society. I sure don't fault companies like Dell and Apple; it's a beautiful example of smart business planning. If I were a business teacher, I would definitely look at their business model, and make sure my students knew just how effective they were at bilking money from the school they attended.

In the end, there seems to be a giant disconnect between what teachers really need, what they can and can't live with, and what administrators perceive in all three categories. I won't get up on a soapbox and start preaching about where the money needs to go, because obviously, every school district is vastly different. What is needed in Westport and Fairfield is totally different than Bridgeport and Waterbury. But there is a definite need, of the majority of school districts, to embrace technology in a utilitarian sense. Schools do not need to be early adopters; the ramifications of being one are obvious, I would hope. Smart boards are a perfect example.

It is like Oppenheimer writes: The solution is not to ban computers from classrooms altogether. But it may be to ban federal spending on what is fast becoming an overheated campaign. The money can be used more efficiently; if we are supposedly a country that is trying to become more efficient and utilitarian, why are we continuing down this path of never-ending spending, never-ending expectations, and never-ending disappointment?