Respons to: In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores

In Sunday’s New York Times, Matt Richtel wrote an article entitled, In Classrooms of the Future, Stagnant Scores.  The article is comprised of various issues, in which have many educators highly concerned when it comes to evaluating the value of technology in the classroom.   While the utilization of technology within the classroom can be highly productive and conducive to learning, there is a fine line between excessive use of technology and necessary use of technology.  In some cases the excessive use of technology can take away from the traditional nature of the classroom setting and learning experience.  Shortly into the article Richtel mentions,

The digital push here aims to go far beyond gadgets to transform the very nature of the classroom, turning the teacher into a guide instead of a lecturer, wandering among students who learn at their own pace on Internet-connected devices.

Throughout the article, Richtel focuses upon one particular school district located in Arizona, the Kyrene School District. The school district consist of about 18,000 students, in which they are provided with various forms of technology, such as laptops, interactive whiteboards and software that essentially drill students in each subject area. 

 Over time many concerns have been brought forth about the vast use of technology in which this particular district seems to praise.  Many questions and concerns about the amount of technological use quite possibly began in 2005 when the approval of a costly investment of $33 million dollars in technology upgrades was passed for this district.

 One of many concerns in regards to this overwhelmingly large investment, brought to you by the pockets of taxpayers, is that little to no improvement has been evident in students test scores.  Failure to provide evidence that the integration of technology is beneficial in improving student’s test scores insinuates that the school district has made a costly mistake.  This mistake also raises questions about the real motives behind such a large investment. 

 While I am sure that the Kyrene School District has the best interest in their students, it is quite possible that the district has lost sight of what is really important; that is student learning and not student scoring, but people so quickly confuses standards with standardized test scores. 

Although, the large investment that the Kyrene School District decided to make showed little to no improvement in student test scores, this does not mean that technology is no longer beneficial within the classroom.  What is important in regards to the use of technology, besides how it helps students develop different ways of learning, is the way in which we use the technology and the role that it plays in the classroom. Richtel writes:

Advocates of high-tech classrooms say computers are not intended to replace teachers. But they do see a fundamental change in the teacher’s role. Their often-cited mantra is that teachers should go from being “a sage on the stage to a guide on the side.”  And they say that, technology issues aside, class sizes can in fact afford to grow without hurting student performance.

As a student and a future Art Teacher I am befuddled by this statement.  I am confused because I am working towards a specific goal, becoming an Art Teacher. I work hard while learning and paying for an education that will help to prepare me to become a teacher not to play any other role or “guide on the side”.  In the article it is said that the while Kyrene School District technology spending increased the rest of the district’s budget shrunk, leading to larger classes and fewer periods of music, art and physical education.  This alarms me because the elimination of these important subjects also brings forth the elimination of good quality teachers.  Technology is highly beneficial and incising, but placed alongside poor teachers and an ever changing curriculum, this will not change student learning in a positive way.