 From Chapter 1, Teaching Our Children Well, p. 42-3:
Putting a wire in every classroom, or even a copmuter on every desk, is merely the physical positioning of an already-existing technology, and in may cases, not even the latest iteration of that technology. The standard model is that the hardware technology changes every year and a half, on average, and those changes are of the "bigger, better, faster, more" variety. Is it reasonable to expect that schools, or the average parents for that matter, will be purchasing new computers every two years? Most schools probably don't even purchase new books with that frequency, and books require a lot less overhead in terms of maintenance, support and training in their use. This merely supports what most Mericans know already: unsupported statements about what we need "right now" should be viewed in a larger context.
At the same time, changes in the perception of the academic environment have allowed businesses, through their salespeople and advertising, greater access to (and perhaps influence in) schools that ever before. On the part of the schools themselves, public and private alike, competition for students, acclaim and funding all play a part in this feverish push to get wired. At worst, public school systems in the United States are treated as little more than another segment of the consumer economy. Have schools become just another marketing target group to have their buying power appealed to? Are these new technologies serving educators and enabling a better and broader education, or are they seen by the business world as a way to train a better "class" of worker?
How do you view the role of businesses and schools in providing current technology for students? What do you think is the most important priority in providing access: skills sets? program literacy? developing positive attitudes toward technology? access to state-of-the-art equipment?
More about the book... |
