A reader who calls himself “Gitapik” shares his experience with the introduction of new technology into the special education programs for which he was responsible in New York City public schools.
He wrote:
As a former tech guy for our five District 75 special education sites in Brooklyn, I had quite a ride on this tech roller coaster. I was in on it from the beginning.
I applied for and received multiple very large state grants in technology. Once the money was received, I would choose, order, and facilitate installation of what technology went where in all the sites. From classroom computers, iPads, laptops, Attainment Stations, and Smartboards to full scale labs. It was a very big undertaking.
This also included conducting professional development classes and individual training session sessions…very often to an unappreciative audience.
My sales pitch was always the same: this is a wonderful tool for you to incorporate into your standard every day teaching methods. You can turn it on and off in order to create interest and spur on new ideas. I would even give examples of how I, a teacher, would do a class, using the different devices.
This would’ve been all well and good if it hadn’t been so naïve on my part. I witnessed firsthand how the technology went from being a tool for the teacher to the teacher being the tool of the technology. Might sound like a catchy phrase, but looking back on it I can’t help but see it for what it was. A planned takeover of the school systems.
I could go into specifics, but this is getting pretty lengthy as it is.
Michael Mulgrew, the president of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City recently endorsed the use of AI in the classroom. He said he had met with top officials who had assured him that teachers and administrators would have a voice in how the technology would be applied. I would like to have his ear, knowing what I know. It’s the same sales pitch as was given to me. They just want to get their foot in the door
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Technology stopped being tools for teachers once administrators started mandating its use in ways that good teachers knew were faulty. They took away our texts, our novels, our science labs, our creativity. They mandated computer generated timed assessments, while at the same time destroyed creative writing opportunities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I notice that he never mentions graphing calculators and other related techology. Since 1990, their introduction has been the greatest improvement in teaching and learning math. But it’s not a good idea just to throw the tech at the teachers and paras; there has to be LOTS of staff development opportunities.
From 1994-2000, I obtained grants from Texas Instruments for two 1-week institutes in each of those summers. They supplied expert classroom teachers and all the class materials.
Neither do I recall this fellow’s name and don’t recall that he ever attended a workshop or other session sponsored by the UFT Math Teachers Committee, one of dozens of professional committees under the UFT umbrella. Many subject matter professional committees are also affiliated groups of their national organizations.
I will write to you at greater length about this topic when I have more time. (Right now, it’s almost 11:30, but I haven’t yet had time for breakfast.)
Bobbi Roberta M. Eisenberg Committee Leader UFT Math Teachers Committee
>
LikeLike
Hi. Please see my comments, below.
LikeLike
Mulgrew is not someone New York City teachers should trust. He is the same person that sold out the healthcare of retirees. Big Tech always paints a rosy picture to assure teachers that they will enhance education, and AI is not that much different from already failed cyber instruction. which, by the way, my grandson has been subjected to for years in Texas. He is a bright young man, but his education has been impeded by an over reliance on technology in the Texas public schools. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have been better off in a school district where qualified humans drove the instruction. Instead, the teachers in his school district have been subjugated by it. Technology is a useful tool when it is deployed by qualified teachers based on curricular needs. It cannot replace human engagement and interaction despite what Big Tech claims, and they should ignore the idyllic picture that Big Tech will paint to get in the door to launch a hostile takeover. “Come into my house,” said the spider to the fly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Today Melania Trump introduced a robot and announced that we need robots to educate our children.
No doubt a Trump family member has invested in an edu-bot company
LikeLike
Barron went to fancy private schools with small classes. He was not taught by a robot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Likewise for Trump, yet he wears his ignorance on his sleeve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would think that if people wanted to sell their children, they would, at the very least, want to make a little bit of money off the dastardly act.
The age of people being centaurs is coming to a close. (I can’t take credit for the analogy; I read it in The Guardian.) It will soon be the case that humans no longer have human heads and bodies as fast and strong as horses. Soon, if not already, people will be robot heads with human bodies.
LikeLike
This is in response to the second reply from nightslowly, but I figured I’d say it to all:
Hi. I’m not sure if you’re referencing me (the writer of the piece Diane is quoting), regarding not mentioning graphing calculators or attending the math workshop…but I will chime in:
The graphing calculator technology and it’s practical functionality/method of rollout that you’re citing is a perfect example of what’s right about tech and it’s incorporation into the teachers’ classroom routine. It’s a specific and isolated piece of tech that can be used effectively as a teaching tool by the teacher in the classroom and the students at home.
I attended many professional developments in the area of technology. The early ones were specific to one or two areas of study. Similar to the graphing calculator. Very effective and easily incorporated into the teacher/classroom setting. I used most of what I learned in those sessions in the subsequent PDs that I facilitated.
In my view, things started to really change when the internet became more sophisticated and available in the schools. Subject matter that was originally available on DVDs (which could last for decades) became subscription based on a yearly basis. This eventually morphed into subscriptions that would include initial assessment, assignment of lessons, interim assessment, etc. Then it expanded into multi-subject, cross course platforms. Basically, the role of the classroom teacher was diminished in favor of that of the programmers who had developed the software.
Much of what we’re seeing from EdTech, now, has changed the role of the teacher to that of a facilitator who monitors student engagement on the screen presentations. This allows for less experienced teachers who will require lower salaries. EdTech is less expensive than a teacher driven model. It sells.
I told all the unwilling teachers that I was dealing with that they didn’t have to worry about losing their autonomy to technology. I was wrong. I can’t imagine AI as being any different.
I was listening to a show today where they were saying that K-12 kids are being given digital passes to go to the bathroom in NYC public schools. The time they spend out of class is logged in their file and used as part of their grading process. Parents are outraged. There’s no way to opt out, either.
Add to the educational and personal issues the tremendous environmental impact that AI is already having on our ecosystems, and there should be more room for discussion, here. It’s all being rammed down our throats and we should have a voice.
LikeLike
Part 2, lol:
The diminished teachers’ role didn’t actually start with tech.
I used to attend curriculum fairs where we would check out books, work books, and teacher copies offerings from the different companies. We’d relay our findings to the other teachers and admins at our schools.
These fairs were replaced by PDs in which scripted course programs were presented. The catch phrase was, “And the best thing is that YOU, the teacher, don’t have to do a thing. Just follow the script and the program and you’re good to go!”
When I asked, “What if we WANT to do something?”, I was told to refer to the purple shaded boxes for “differentiated instruction”.
EdTech is the turbo charged outcome of corporate control of our education system, imo.
LikeLike
RE: Robots. Within (I think that’s the time frame) the last two weeks, 2 delivery robots in Chicago crashed into bus shelters (the robots’ owners {2 different companies} are paying for the damages/replacement).
Speaks volumes…
LikeLike
Retired,
I would never trust a self-driven vehicle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My 2025 Honda has an auto drive feature. You can choose to use it or not. It relies on sensing the painted lines on the road and the driver has to have both hands on the wheel.
I always try something that I initially dislike three times. Ya never know. I’ve found serious benefit in newer things by giving them more of a chance.
The auto drive feature in my Honda did not pass this test, though. I really (really) didn’t like it. And there’s no way I’m going to get into a self driven car, either as a driver or passenger. We shouldn’t be put into the position of subordinate to technology. Especially in such a life or death situation.
LikeLike
Gitapik,
I don’t even like cruise control.
LikeLike