One of the issues on the ballot Tuesday
in New York will be a bond issue for $2 billion for technology for the schools.
I am all in favor of technology for the schools, but it should not be paid for by a bond issue, which will be repaid over many years, long after the technology has become obsolete. As we saw in Los Angeles, where the superintendent proposed to use construction bonds to buy iPads, this is a very bad idea.
The main purpose of this bond issue is to provide technology for Common Core testing. Some parents are already calling it the “PARCC bond issue,” with reference to the name of the Common Core test that will be delivered online.
Our schools–especially in urban districts–need more funding. They need smaller class sizes for children who are struggling. They need funding for arts teachers, social workers, and librarians. They need renovations.
If the Legislature wants to buy new technology–and they should–they should pay for it, not float a bond issue.
Bond issues should be used for construction and renovation, for costs that will last over many years, even decades, not for technology, which is fast-changing and must be replaced and serviced.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I am 100% in agreement. Our children need conversation and human interaction far more than they require more technology obsession.
Technology is needed in state offices like the Department of Labor. Any unemployed person who has had to go the NY DOL offices feels like the entered 1983. It’ shameful on so many levels. Then again this is what happens when you make a failed Bronx Assembly Member who couldn’t get his own constituents a job and make them Commissioner of Department of Labor.
Worse — Cuomo’s balanced budgets have all come with hefty use of accounting tricks to cheat school districts out of aid. That’s come to billions over his first term in school aid alone — then with the property tax cap, districts cannot decide to make up the difference.
All so Cuomo can brag that he’s not raised taxes.
But we have to go in hoc to bond holders for technology which ought to be in the capital budget?
No way.
Agree with the reasoning, even if not in NY. New Republic article on the Growth Paradox says businesses spend $ 9.00 on software, trainings, and reorganization for every $1.00 in hardware, and it takes 5 to 7 years to see benefits. By then the stuff is obsolete. The economist whose research is cited in the article is Erick Brynjolfsson,, also on TED I believe…speaks of the tech revolution that is not making the economy grow, not lifting up the middle class, not like other “general purpose technologies” of the past, such as electricity. The expected “value-added” is not there. Colleague of Brynjolfsson is Andrew McAfee. Hot new book is The Second Machine Age: Work, Progrss, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies.
Interesting that PARCC “strongly recommends” that schools use computers that are “no more than five years old”. How many NY schools have technology that meet these criteria. This sets up an “We told you so” scenario for PARRC when computer glitches abound.
Using bonds to buy devices is like using a home equity loan to buy a new Mac while your house falls apart.
Education has more pressing needs than the race for more technology, which we know, has a high rate of depreciation and limited shelf life. If we want to model responsible consumerism to our youth, we shouldn’t buy things that aren’t essential with money we don’t have. Some schools don’t have toilet paper, copy paper for student handouts, and a roof free of leaks. Let’s address these issues first. If you have money to spend, I’m with Krashen, buy books for the library.
Thank you! None of my fellow teachers, once they understood the underlying reason for the bond issue, said they could or would support the bond issue.
I fear too many voters in NY will support it simply because they see it as “supporting the schools”.
Is this bond to wire all schools equitably across NY state just a euphemism for “PARCC”? . . . . . . .
The elimination of, as we say in French, “la fossé technologique” or the massive barrage of online testing in the name of pure efficiency and profit making for those providing the goods and services? Should we have our very young children taking assessments online?
Kindergartners who are just starting to learn how to write? Grapho-motor and fine motor skills? Remember those?
I’m a tech guy – computer science teacher and I’m very much against this bond issue for all the reasons already stated.
Bottom line — if I was given a choice of a piece of chalk and a good knowledgeable teacher or all the tech, give me the chalk and teacher.
Are you in Silicone Valley?
NYC
Reblogged this on HTA News & Views and commented:
Diane Ravitch gives more reasons why people should vote NO on he boondoggle that is the Smart Schools Bond.
I’m wary because they’re pushing it so hard. What about just providing the infrastructure equally for connectivity and letting schools adopt this gradually and organically, without the big sales job?
It has the feel of creating demand to me. I understand the equity claim, but why so reckless? It’s a huge investment and the devices depreciate and the arena changes so fast.
I went to a local meeting on it here for our public schools and this is anecdotal but the biggest boosters were older people in town. The younger people were much less impressed and much more cautious on overselling the benefits. It isn’t even true that every business has the latest devices or constantly upgrades. Lots and lots of businesses use what they have and gradually upgrade as the stuff becomes genuinely useful and adds value to whatever it is they do, so the idea that kids have to shoot out of school and immediately know the latest isn’t true in real life.
Yes, as with CCSS and RttT changes, it raises a huge red flag when there is a sense of urgency by leadership where most people had not noticed there was even a real need.
And, Diane, I don’t know if you saw this but Chile is now attempting to re-nationalize their privatized school system:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/21/us-chile-education-reform-idUSKCN0IA2QH20141021
It’s so funny. They call REVERSING privatization “education reform” there now.
Good luck getting all that money out of private hands and back into public hands, is all I can say. I bet that will meet FIERCE resistance from the folks making the money. I’m pulling for the young people there who want their schools back, but I’m not optimistic they’ll get them back.
Interesting.
Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ’till it’s gone.
Bonds to finance tech is a terrible policy–b/c the tech will be way obsolete before the bond debt is paid and b/c the tech buy is to make PARCC possible in a hurry in the public schools. In addition, bonds are debt instruments which keep banks and financiers collecting public tax levies indefinitely. Lawmakers turn to bond b/c they refuse to tax the 1%; instead of raising taxes on the super-rich, they pay for public needs with bonds which keep the public permanently indebted to the banks. If we want social justice, we have to vote against bonds, demand higher taxes on the rich and the banks who are drowning now in cash, and raise hell against stupid tech buys that make Pearson/Amplify richer but our kinds no smarter and our bondage to finance no lighter.
Great point Laura H. Chapman. Investing in tablets for delivering PARCC tests is nothing like the investment to spread the technology of electricity throughout the U.S.
The widespread use of electricity encouraged creative innovations and tremendous productivity whereas the zeal to put a tablet with “adaptive software” in every child’s hands is designed to decrease innovation and productivity and ensure that any creative impulse a child may bring to kindergarten will be squashed by 3rd grade.
John Taylor Gatto has done extensive research on modern schooling which he reveals in his book, The Underground History of American Education. He discovered that the oligarch families that run this country, like the Rockefellers, funded specific initiatives in public education for the purpose of eliminating any competition from the masses.
They wanted people to buy and use the products their families owned stock in but not invent anything new which would disrupt their monopolies. The best way to do that is to make people think you are a great philanthropist and give lots of money to education, meanwhile make sure what is going on there will be sure to decrease literacy and creativity and confidence and increase the willingness to obey, which is tested by implementing nonsensical rules. Anyone can follow a reasonable direction. Only people who have been successfully brainwashed will follow nonsense without question. The Prussian system was brought over for exactly that purpose.
I know it sounds too crazy to think that oligarchs like Rockefeller really wanted to wreck the literacy rate and decrease creativity. But it was true then and it is true now. Do you think Bill Gates wants a bunch of kids inventing systems to compete with Microsoft?
Unfortunately I have observed that many teachers (at least on the elementary level) seem to like being told what to do and what to pass down the line. They are very compliant.
Good? I don’t know.
Dr. Ravitch, once again you are sooooo right!
No to Smart Schools Bond Act!
NYSUT asks us to support the $2 billion Smart School Band Act- Proposal #3. The bond would (supposedly) go toward purchasing educational technology equipment and facilities, such as interactive whiteboards, computer servers, desktop and laptop computers, tablets, and high speed broadband or wireless Internet. We know what happened in Calif. Supt. Deasy purchased $1.3 billion iPads in an effort to provide every student, teacher , and campus administrator with an iPad. Immediately high school students figured out how to delete the security filter and browse the Internet. Officials immediately took back the devices and some schools made little use of them for the remainder of the year. What a waste of money!!!!!
– “Constructing and modernizing facilities to accommodate pre-k.”
-“Installing high-tech security features in school building.”
We need teachers; all those teachers that were laid off/terminated because of a lack of funds. We need smaller classes. We don’t want more technology that is going to rob children of interactive learning experiences. Learning is social – children have been harmed enough by too much technology – technology which Bill Gates hopes will replace the teacher in the classroom. We need age appropriate standards throughout the grades. We don’t need technology which will force the students to use the tech mode to take the the high stakes testing. There should be no achievement testing before third grade. The achievement tests don’t inform the teachers and are not a valid evaluation tool. As said so many times before, the purpose of high stakes testing is to line the pockets of the testing companies and a political tool to whip in line political goals. Let assessment up to the teachers. Don’t squeeze more money out of the taxpayer which is not in the best interest of our children.
Comuo and other politicians haven’t a clue what is best for our children. We do not need a pre-school that is going to try and force standards on our babies that are not age appropriate and rob them of their imagination, creativity, and the sense of self-worth. Day Care, yes- a Day Care that doesn’t force our babies to memorize the alphabet names and sounds, sight words, math problems and paper and pencil activities, yes. Precious time is wasted memorizing instead of discovering and satisfying their sense of wonder and imagination.
I completely agree.
NCLB was the devil’s seed that began this descent into dysfunction that has destroyed public education in the US and children in the process.
It is a mystery why someone with Diane Ravitch’s educational background could not have realized the potential for damage from the start, rather than helping Bush implement this destructive experiment onto America’s children. Is guilt the motivation behind Ms Ravitch’s obsession with trying to undo the damage now? It is obviously too late, and no amount of squawking is going to stop the dark forces that were unleashed in the Bush administration and then continued into the Obama administration. It will take a real scholar with expertise and courage like Elizabeth Warren to turn this tsuanmi now.
I wouldn’t pin any hopes on Elizabeth Warren. She’s on record supporting vouchers.
Stop wasting time pointing fingers and looking for a savior. Figure out what you can do now.
I’m sure that you, Barb, have never changed your mind, thoughts, being when shown to have been wrong. Oh to be so steadfast in one’s belief. Are you a god?
Changing your mind in the face of mounting evidence that you were initially wrong is the sign that you are taking a scientific approach.
It’s too bad that more people don’t take it. Few people do .In fact, even many scientists cling to ideas long after they have been shown to be wrong.
In his book on Rocketship, Richard Whitmire writes that Rocketship founder and Silicon Valley guru John Danner got into technology because his parents bought him an Apple II back when those were all the rage. Rather than using “adaptive software” or taking computerized tests on it, he took it apart to see how it worked. I wonder how all these tech gurus would react if students today took apart their computers/tablets to see how they work?
By voiding the warranty.
It’s a perpetual motion machine for the banks, the tech industry and the so-called reformers.
The banks get upfront fees for underwriting the bonds, and then interest payments on the back end.
Tech gets its skim from selling the hardware, software, training and service contracts.
The so-called reformers get platforms for their endless tests, surrounded by the halo of “technology.”
It’s win-win for everyone, except students, teachers and taxpayers.
Well said.
“Technocracy”
Techy’s run our schools
And even sell our bonds
They turn us into fools
With magic techy wands
I understand why we want everyone to become comfortable with technology. My issue with Ms. Ravitch’s unequivocal “I’m in favor” is that people can become familiar with technology at many ages, in middle school, in high school even. Heck, many of us picked it up later in life. Just as so much of school “reform” is untested and unproven, it’s the same with technology. Several new studies have shown that retention of knowledge coming from a computer screen is very different than retention coming from “obsolete” and “luddite” old print matter. So, we can’t assume unequivocally that classrooms with tech are a good thing, or should be for every student in public education. At some point, you need it for acculturation, but we need learning patterns established prior to that.
One problem with tech and schools is that by the time a district can afford to set up a specific tech plan, it has become obsolete. Tech “advancements” and programs are always changing and often not compatible with what is currently in place. There have always been problems with Apple computers needing updates that weren’t compatible with their own products. They were less prone to viruses, but tgey were expensive to update. Where does it end?
I am on a substitute teacher employment service. It isn’t completely compatible with all browsers. You have to check pay stubs on a different browser than the job assignment browser. It is all kind of cumbersome.
I can just see the insanity ensuing when everyone is taking PARCC tests at the same time.
A “no” vote will probably hurt NYC . BDB’s relied on these bonds, so presumably a no vote would have the immediate effect of blowing a of a few-hundred-million dollar hole in the DOE budget right budget. And a large portion, probably the majority, of the proceeds will go toward B&B’s pre-k expansion and the replacement of trailers with permanent structures. And the cost of these loans would be amortized using a weighted average based on the length of the notes, which in turn would be based on the type of spending the proceeds are used for. 30 years for construction, 8 years for technology, etc.
But the restrictions on what the bonds may be used for are utterly absent from the referendum language, and may not even exist at all at this point. And even 8 years is a long time to amortize a tablet or even a PC. So I’m leaning toward voting no, too. Maybe BDB will robocall me tonight and change my mind.
Just another feel-good move that will only enrich the tech companies.
Vote a resounding “NO” unless you want your child’s essays graded based upon an algorhythm developed by Gates, et al. After having $9.5 Billion pulled out of school district budgets by Gap Elimination Adjustments–conveniently just enough for Il Duce to balance NY’s budget–too many people are likely to be uninformed on the real intent of this borrowing. Those people will vote yes just like those adrift at sea will dring salt water. PARCC is driving this–and PARCC is not where New Yorkers want to go!
Here’s an argument for a yes vote.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/opinions/5416-why-im-voting-yes-on-the-smart-schools-bond-act-proposition-3-haimson
Reblogged this on 21st Century Theater.
Why I oppose the $2billion bond issue – the “Smart Schools BondAct” – Proposal #3
As I put the pieces of the puzzle together, the picture that begins to form is that of bankruptcy- bankrupting of our middle class.
#1 Common Core and its high stakes testing is draining the tax payers of their money to pay for all hinder fees.
# 2 The govt. is allowing/encouraging illegals to cross the board in throngs. My niece’s 6 ft. pus husky son who helps patrol the northern boarder was given just a few days to report to duty on the southern boarder. When he arrived he was assigned desk work – no active patrolling!!! What was that all about?
#3 Hempstead school district was turning immigrants away because there wasn’t enough space in their school; now they are building to make room.
Is that where the bond money will really go – to accommodate illegals? All parishes on the island are pleading to parishioners to donated food and paper products to their pantries – supplies are all so low. Our streets are filled with illegals standing waiting for work. Neb. recently received a bus load of illegals. Neb. doesn’t have money to take care of their roads- farmers have to plow their own roads in the winter. The governor of Iowa chartered a plane when a group of illegals were brought to his state. He had them flown back to their country.
I am being inhumane? Many countries have the same problems as the Central American countries but they take care of their problems. My brother has been working in a barrio of Venezuela where conditions are horrendous. Through the years friends, relatives, and a sister diocese in Minn. have sent him money to purchase buildings to provide safety for the community: a community center for seniors to gather and have a hot meal each day; a day care center and a place for the children roaming the streets who can not go to school because they don’t have shoes and needed papers; a place for teenagers to gather… I visited my brother and the first night, there was a gun battle outside the room I was sleeping in – no windows. My heart was pounding for fear a bullet would pierce the wall. The next day I was informed it was a common occurrence.
There is a large threatening gang on Long Island from Central America. Gangs, drug mules, and adults cross along with children. If the president wants the middle class to empty their pockets to provide for these people then he should give an example and stop using his plane for vacations and campaigns. You won’t believe the cost to fly his plane Air Force One
“State Department plans to bring foreign Ebola patients to U.S.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/28/state-department-plans-to-bring-foreign-ebola-pati/?page=all
“Bill for Ebola Adds Up as Care Costs $1,000 an Hour”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-07/bill-for-ebola-adds-up-as-care-costs-1-000-an-hour.html
What happens when we are bankrupt ? We become dependent on the state; the oligarchy are in charge.
No to Proposal #3
Ms. Ravitch, may I ask do you ever counsel M. Mulgrew the UFT President – because he asked the delegates at the last assembly to vote for the proporsition (even though to many of us it sounded shady). I wish you could meet with him on a regular basis to give him guidance.
No, I do not meet or talk with Michael Mulgrew–last saw him in April. Before that, maybe two years.
As a group Ravitch and most of you commenters should be ashamed of yourselves. Did you people even read the proposal, much less do any research into how the money was actually likely to be spent? Doesn’t sound like it. This is not a “give every kid an i-pad” proposal and is actually about starting to bring the infrastructure in many state schools, particularly in districts with a lot of poor students into the 21st century. It’s insane to say that it’s ok to have poor kids attending classes in trailers with no technology/internet access. Here is a description of the proposal. Thank god it looks like it is going to pass.
– Purchasing educational technology equipment and facilities, such as interactive whiteboards, computer servers, desktop and laptop computers, tablets and high-speed broadband or wireless internet.
– Constructing and modernizing facilities to accommodate pre-kindergarten programs and replacing classroom trailers with permanent instructional space.
– Installing high-tech security features in school buildings.
Calling people insane when we question the value of technology in the classroom is the sort of badgering rhetoric we hear all the time. We’re inured to it. Studies have shown that technology is not good for retention and hinders learning. To automatically assume technology will enable better learning while ignoring recent studies is the kind of fly-by-night assumption so prevalent in the “reform” community. But hey, the measure past. new York kids are guinea pigs now.
I did not call anybody insane. One of the definitions of insane is “very foolish; absurd” and by that definition I maintain that my comment ” It’s insane to say that it’s ok to have poor kids attending classes in trailers with no technology/internet access.” is truthful and is not “badgering”. In fact your comment is badgering and mine is not. There are numerous studies showing that technology properly used is an excellent learning tool and aids in retention. Many technological innovations for the classrooms are really nothing more than more efficient and versatile extensions of older means of teaching. For example according to studies replacing a blackboard with a whiteboard can pay for itself within a very short period of time, and using e-books or the equivalent saves an enormous amount of money as continuously buying new old fashion textbooks. In any case you really have almost completely ignored the main points of my comments.
“using e-books or the equivalent saves an enormous amount of money as continuously buying new old fashion textbooks.” If retention from e-books is minimal as compared to print books, then you’ve lost money, not saved money.
Retention from ebooks is as good or better(when optimally used) than from hard cover books.
What study are you citing? This one shows that retention is degraded significantly when the same material is read from an electronic screen versus print matter: http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/article.cgi?issn=08830355&issue=v58inone_c&article=61_rltopvcseorc
There are many studies just like this.
Socrates- your name alone tells us you have a direct line to wisdom.
Purchasing more technology and classrooms for pre k puts the tax payers into more unnecessary debt; we can live without it. We are on a fast track to falling off the financial cliff. Where is the money coming from?! Plus, more technology in the classroom just gives the govt.
more control over our education. Let’s not be so quick to give up are beautiful hard bound books you can hold in lieu of print you have to squint at.
Mary, the money part of you argument is a legitimate argument, but that’s not the thrust of the blog article nor most of the arguments here. The Bonds will be used primarily for other things like replacing trailers with real classrooms. I’d also like to point out that school districts ARE government, and in fact are the most genuinely monopolistic and socialistic form of government there is in the U.S.This wouldn’t be all that bad if all school districts everywhere acted in and were treated in an efficient, fair, and uncorrupted fashion, but the fact of the matter is that many, probably most, school districts in NYS that have a lot of poor and minority students end up with those students being shortchanged. Many of these students are provided with books of any kind – hard cover, soft cover, or digital. This has got to stop.
whoops – “…aren’t provided with books…”
Thank you for voting NO! All the reasons mentioned above plus the WIFI and increased screen time in our schools with damaging EMF and microwave radiation on young children will increase dramatically.
http://www.electricsense.com/8512/children-absorb-microwave-rf-radiation-adults-consequences/
Have you noticed the increased health issues and cancer in children?
The State Board of Regents asked for just $1 million dollars for new computers for school children in it’s most recent state aid request, late last year, and is staying neutral over whether New Yorkers should approve the bond act.
Teachers and school administrators did not ask for the funds. They are supportive of the bond act, but they have some reservations.
http://wxxinews.org/post/cuomo-makes-case-education-bond-act-skeptics-remain
Since this $2 billion Bond Act was proposed by Cuomo, not teachers and administrators, it is hard to believe that it will be anything other than a boondoggle for Andy’s tech friends. It comes down to a matter of trust. If we thought the money would actually go to replacing trailers with brick and mortar…..that would be another story. The money can be spent on building new classrooms and reducing class size. Since when has that ever happened? Every teacher in NY would support smaller class sizes and that is the one thing that has been proven to work to improve educational outcomes.
Well, the bond passed. So now we shall see who actually ends up getting this money and what benefit if any the children of our state will actually experience.
By the way, the people who live and work in silicon valley, the people who invent technology, are not that keen on letting their own children be exposed to it at a young age. “I fundamentally reject the notion you need technology aids in grammar school,” said Alan Eagle, 50, whose daughter, Andie, is one of the 196 children at the Waldorf elementary school; his son William, 13, is at the nearby middle school. “The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic, that’s ridiculous.”
Mr. Eagle knows a bit about technology. He holds a computer science degree from Dartmouth and works in executive communications at Google, where he has written speeches for the chairman, Eric E. Schmidt. He uses an iPad and a smartphone. But he says his daughter, a fifth grader, “doesn’t know how to use Google,” and his son is just learning.
Socrates, can’t separate education from money. Approval for Proposition #3 may be a mute point but I still maintain that we can live without the added technology which all too often is hindering learning in lieu of encouraging it. I am apposed to building more schools to accommodate the illegals. What do we have immigration laws for? What happens to the classrooms/ schools once they are built? We loan them out to Charter schools and private companies so they can make money with our money? Stop the all this standardized testing and use that money to supply and build but no more bonds!
As for “Many of these students are provided with books of any kind – hard cover, soft cover, or digital. This has got to stop.”
That’s my line – students having no books. But I also say that where there is a will there is a way. Our public libraries are chucked full of books, technology, and much more. For every excuse you have I have an answer when its about getting books into the hands of students. A little creativity and ingenuity will go a long way without having to spend $2 billion on technology and buildings.
If there was any “creativity and ingenuity” in the k-12 establishment to “go a long way” it would have gone there already. Where is it? I must have missed it.
My dear Socartes, you stated, “If there was any “creativity and ingenuity” in the k-12 establishment to “go a long way” it would have gone there already. Where is it? I must have missed it.”
You missed it.
Through the years there have always been creative and ingenious teachers. I love the story of Mary Ruth Dieter-delivering books via horseback to children in remote areas. “Mary Ruth Dieter of Arkansas Dedication” http://abilene.mykansaslibrary.org/library-information/remarkable-people-you-should-know/mary-ruth-dieter/
In the County of San Diego/Books-by-Mail Program
http://www.sdcl.org/booksbymail.html
The next sample is a teacher in the making
“Boy, 9, creates library in his front yard. City, stupid, shuts it down.” 6/9/14
http://boingboing.net/2014/06/19/boy-9-creates-library-in-his.html
Middle Country Public Library provides for all ages.
http://www.mcpl.lib.ny.us
I know two teachers who wrote a grant to place books into the primary schools with the purpose of sending them home for parents/caregivers to read to their child. Each week a new book is sent home in a special bag along with a reading chart to record the title of the book and comments. After a week the book is returned and a new book is placed in the bag. The goal is to send home the book the students studied in class.
Some teachers put books in backpacks to send home. One teacher had 150 thematic back packs with as many as 14 books – paper backs- in a back pack to be kept home for the week. Some books were for the parents to read to the children, other books are for the children to read to the parents and then there was a read-along or two for the child to listen to serving as a surrogate parent when necessary. There are sufficient books to provide a choice.
One grandson in kindergarten was the student of the week and was given the classroom back pack to take home for the week.
When some parents can’t make it to school for their conference, some teachers take the classroom to the parents/ caregiver via the digital movie.
In some localities local churches provide a meeting place for young mothers to bring their toddlers such as MOPS.
St. Mark’s mother’s group in Centereach collected books and placed them in strategic places for children to take home and read.
Some organizations have people going into the hospitals to give new mothers books to read to their babies.
Traveling Book Sites: A school library or the public library make stops in the community where children can’t get to the library. A bus serves as a library on wheels.
Then there are Story Festivals. Besides workshops for parents, the faculty provides story festivals for the entire family. During the summer months and holiday breaks, some malls are set up with a “Story Teller” center. Local high school or college students volunteer to take turns reading or telling stories.
One district in Alabama set up an entertaining booth at the Country Fair. Readers dressed up in character costumes while they told/read the story. Each night a different school managed the booth. Readers were teachers, school board members, high school football players, and community volunteers. And the list goes on.
Every community has their generous givers be it time or monetary support. A little creativity and ingenuity goes a long way, Socartes.
Dawn, I am as apprehensive as you where the bond money will go but when we speak of technology in the classroom I am on a different wave length. There is a very wide spectrum of possible usages.
You quoted Alan Eagle as saying, “I fundamentally reject the notion you need technology aids in grammar school…The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic, that’s ridiculous.”
Apparently he has no background in technology and learning, to oppose the utilization of technology for learning in “grammar” school; he is what we call a luddite. We don’t need a phone; we could just write letters or use smoke signals. If technology is not used properly of course it can be harmful just like any other tool.
I am concerned about the misuse of technology. I believe it would be harmful to put the students on the computer to replace guided reading sessions. Just today my five year old grandson came home with a note giving an Internet link to tap into the Raz Reading Program. Another five-year-old grandson in another district also is expected to tap in to the Raz Reading Program for homework. The children are expected to challenge themselves to read with the motivation of moving on to the next level to see how far they can progress on their own instead of zeroing in on the story. That is very problematic for me; we miss the purpose of reading. The evening is the time for parents to read delightfully illustrated books to their children and then talk about them.
The test based mode of the Raz Program will not develop the love of reading. That method is teaching reading via the testing mode. There is no guidance in relating the topic/ story to the child’s background, developing of strategies and skills, or developing higher order thinking skills. Reinforcing decoding skills and regurgitation are the objectives. If students are expected to follow a computer reading program so many skills and strategies will be undeveloped. Learning is social; we learn from one another. Every story used as a teaching tool needs a strategic approach to develop needed skills and strategies. To begin with, students need to connect with the topic/ the story. Skills and strategies need to be applied under the teacher’s guidance as students read silently to themselves. After the story, the knowledge gained needs to be applied. The computer /iPad does not develop those skills.
The computer/ iPad is a phenomenal tool in the hands of the teacher. Some of the countless usages: developing background knowledge; exemplify the meaning of new and difficult vocabulary; to quickly record students’ daily progress and needs; to retrieve graphic organizers filled with the info of students for following reading sessions related to a particular story; samples of phonetic elements can easily be flashed on to a white board or flashing a related poem which in turn has countless usages to reinforce everything from story structure, new vocabulary, a similar theme…
The computer/iPad is great tool to support social studies, science and math via Power Point or Key Note. The iPad is a needed tool on a field trip, bus duty, and conferences. The usage of technology on all levels is endless but that doesn’t mean every student should have one to take home.
At home the iPad serves as a walking encyclopedia for all ages; a message carrier; and entertain but everything in moderation under the watch eye of adults. Students don’t have to have an iPad or computer at home. They can use computers at the public library. There is a difference between wants and needs. Nothing can replace the beautiful hard bound books.
Mary, You did not carefully read my post. My point is that the very people who invent the technology do not want their own children using it until they are out of elementary school. Mr. Eagle works at Google. He is not a luddite.
“Mr. Eagle knows a bit about technology. He holds a computer science degree from Dartmouth and works in executive communications at Google, where he has written speeches for the chairman, Eric E. Schmidt. He uses an iPad and a smartphone. But he says his daughter, a fifth grader, “doesn’t know how to use Google,” and his son is just learning.”
@Dawn,
One person, Alan Eagle, does not represent even a small fraction of the “people who invent the technology”. In fact I have never heard of him and he’s not in Wikipedia. Exactly the opposite is true. Most of those people are appalled by the general techno-phobia and ignorance of the k-12 educational establishment and their failure to make effective use of the technology as an aide in their professional activities. These people, if they have children, get those children using technology at a very young age.
However, one of the biggest problems I haven’t seen addressed is what to do with teachers who can’t or won’t make use of the technology when it becomes available. It’ll be interesting to see how that pans out. I taught elementary level modern math in my early years. In the hands of a teacher who understood the math and how to teach it, it worked miracles. We had fifth and sixth graders from economically disadvantaged families doing 9th grade algebra. In the hands of a teacher who didn’t understand the math and/or was opposed to it, however, it was a disaster. Unfortunately the way that played out was that the teachers who understood the math and could teach it were assigned to the classes with middle class kids and that’s pretty much what they taught, and the teachers who wanted to stick with the inferior old way were assigned the poor kids. What a mess.
Socrates, have a little empathy for those teachers who have not taken to the computer and other technology. A few courses the district provides or even a computer course isn’t sufficient support for some to launch out on their own. Many a time I wanted to throw the computer out the window! Many a time I had to call to my son in total frustration, “Help!” My son, at the age of seven, and his father together took the computer by the horns and tamed it while plowing through many manuals. Neither my son nor husband had a course in computers – they taught themselves because they love challenges. My son taught himself to program with the help of Internet buddies. ( A lesson for teachers: interest and a challenge that can be met are critical to advance learners.)
I was shamed into using the computer. I didn’t need the challenge and had no interest in the computer until my son sat me down and told me that he would not have a computer-illiterate for a mom. From then on he was at my beckon call. He is now married with a family but still will drop everything and come to my aid if I have a computer problem which my husband can’t fix. Not everyone is as fortunate to have two savvy computer people at their side. Through the years they kept updating my machines, putting on new programs, attaching exterior hard drives… Have empathy – better yet offer to help them learn to use the computer and other technology.
@Mary,
The people I’m the most empathetic with are the children who are students of teachers who can’t use the new technology and can’t or won’t learn, I’m also empathetic with their families particularly if they are poor. How would you like it if you really wanted the best for your children, did the very best you could for them, but had to work 60+ hours a week just to put food on the table, then saw your children start to fall behind because their teachers just could not or would not do their very best (including learning and correctly using current technology.) We as a society can’t just ignore this problem. Kids coming out of school who aren’t ready for employment or college are everybody’s problem. It doesn’t really matter whose fault it is, but blaming poor families and insulting them is not going to fix anything (that’s what many anti-reformers do) whereas getting the k-12 establishment, particularly teachers, to do what their being paid to do can only have positive results.
Dawn, I am sure that Mr. Eagle is an expert in the use and development of technology but not in applying it to academics. If he added to his resume a background in cognitive psychology, he would no doubt see the value of technology in schools. His daughter is missing out on a great tool. My five year old grandson often asks his grandfather to Google for answers to questions. He knows how to tap into signals, find his programs, and illustrate via the iPad. His time on the iPad always has to be limited. Both of my 5 year old grandsons have been using the iPad since they were two. Its a good surrogate teacher. Everything in moderation.
Socrates, you are placing too much importance on the teachers’ use of technology.
You stated, “…families…had to work 60+ hours a week just to put food on the table, then saw your children start to fall behind because their teachers just could not or would not do their very best (including learning and correctly using current technology…”
I maintain that those children didn’t fall behind; they were behind before they began formal education. Parents can not put all the responsibility on the teachers. Parents have to do their part to develop a disposition of respecting education and developing a desire to learn. One important activity is reading to their children every night from day one. If they are too busy then they are to blame for their children not progressing –
besides the testing program.
As I always say, where there is a will there is a way. If parents are too busy to help their child at home, find a way they can get to the public library. Public libraries provide a wealth of support – every thing from tutors to computers. Parents have to be willing to organize and solve their problems together. Tap into the senior citizen’s time. Just as we have pantries for the needy, academic centers could be set up to help the needy.
If you want to throw the blame on anyone for students not being sufficiently progressing blame it on the high stakes testing which robs learning time with those prep tests -drilling and memorizing facts and then the test itself. Those tests rob students’ of their self-worth. They put the students in the state of fear, a defeatist attitude, poor self-image, and destroy the drive to conquer – all clouding the students’ thinking ability.
“A good teacher models, instructs, encourages, assists, practices, and praises until the children learn.” Teachers can do an outstanding job of teaching without the computer but not visa versa. The computer can not support students via positive attitude and encouragement. Computers are an eye catcher; cut teachers’ preparation time; a great organizer but that is not the heart of teaching. The computer is a tool – not a teacher. You can’t interact with the computer like a teacher. It doesn’t develop the imagination -the most important higher order thinking skill- which the teacher develops daily in many ways such as in using of the “Socratic” method. After all, education is learning to think not memorizing a lot of facts.