I just finished reading another post on how educators oppose technology, Teachers Resist High-Tech Push in Idaho Schools. The headline from the New York Times misleads somewhat from the content of the article, but it does support the seemingly anti-tech-in-education bias of the NYT. The focus of the article is on the resistance that educators and parents in Idaho are showing to legislation being moved forward in regard to mandating technology in education. As an ardent supporter of technology in education, one would think that I would wholeheartedly support this legislation. The problem with any legislation dealing with education however is the ignorance of the legislators in regard to education and learning.
The fact of the matter seems, in this case, to be that teachers are opposed, not to the technology, but rather, the intent of its use, as well as the lack of support for training and implementation of the technology. I addressed this same issue in my last post, Another Tarnished Silver Bullet. The purchasing of mass quantities of technology to throw at students, while cutting back on teachers and salaries is not a well-lit path of enlightenment. Many or even most legislators may know about technology without knowing technology. They don’t understand how it is used as an effective tool for learning. They see it as a magical phrase that can be used to sound knowledgeable about what education needs in order to be effective. It is a sound-bite that may be THE Answer for education. It sounds very “Reformy”, and legislators are all about reform. They don’t get the fact that putting the boxes in the rooms does not get the job done. You don’t put someone in the cockpit of an airliner and expect him/her to get passengers across the country. When that flight tragically fails, legislators will blame the person for refusing to learn how to fly, and the airplane for not being reliable, while bearing no responsibility for forcing everyone into this position to begin with. Sound familiar?
Teachers look to technology as a tool for learning. Legislators see it as a way to reduce cost. It is a way to deliver more content with fewer personnel. If legislators were serious about really putting tech in education on a large-scale for learning, then they would put the money up for proper professional development and implementation. Teachers cannot be replaced by technology. Exposure to more content through technology does not enable student learning. It is the teacher who sets the stage and guides kids to use, create, collaborate, and learn with the technology. We learned the lesson that the TV screen does not care for and raise children. It is a helpful tool when parents control, monitor and regulate its use. We now have to understand the computer screen is not an educator unless it is combined with a teacher to stimulate guide and provide feedback on its use.
Of course, when this latest attempt in Idaho to legislate education reform fails, there will be plenty of blame: The intransigent, bad teachers who refuse to change, the greedy teachers unions looking to get more money, administrators who are just putting in their time until retirement. There will be no mention of ill-conceived and poorly planned legislation pushed through by overzealous politicians looking to benefit by hyping their participation in education reform legislation. It will be business as usual.
When it comes to our Legislators on the subject of Education, they seem to believe that a little knowledge goes a long way. Unfortunately, for us, and our children the opposite is true. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Alexander Pope (1688 – 1744) an Essay on Criticism, 1709
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
Good post. I see the big problem as one where the leaders think they can bring in technology and end up with a big change in pedagogy. My dissertation addressed this issue. The district I studied brought in reliable Internet access (5/class) and gave teachers outstanding professional development on how to use basic application tools and the Internet browser. They then expected teachers to move away from knowledge-based instruction towards a more constructivist pedagogy. The problem was that they didn’t give staff development on what constructivist pedagogy was or how to implement it via the Internet. The result was more knowledge-based instruction with easier access to more, and in some cases, less reliable information.
One thing you didn’t mention about the NY Times article was Idaho’s requirement that all students take at least two credits of online learning. Since the requirement is so small, I don’t have any problem with it as experience with online learning will help students determine if they want more or less when they have choices in their near future. Keep up the good work.
This is definitely a topic that gets brought up in #EdChat quite a bit: the teachers are on the front lines, dealing with the students and grappling with the ever-changing technology. Meanwhile, the legislators make the rules and the administrators hand them out, often with little regard for the realities that make teaching so difficult and so important.
[…] Danger in a Little Knowledge « My Island View. Advertisement LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
[…] Danger in a Little Knowledge « My Island View–The fact of the matter seems, in this case, to be that teachers are opposed, not to the technology, but rather, the intent of its use, as well as the lack of support for training and implementation of the technology. […]
This really is the fourth blog, of your site I personally went
through. However , I actually like this particular 1, “Danger in a Little Knowledge My Island
View” the very best. Thanks -Mathew