You mean I can’t ask “Define okay. Because, really, gosh, if you think that way, obviously you’re not.” Lack of tact strikes again. Hangs head in shame.

Dan, I interact with parents and board members all the time who espouse the very view you think I’m making up (for some unknown reason). Most don’t have a URL to which I can point you (which is what you asked me, if you recall) but the sentiment is very real. If I had a dollar for every parent or community member who said to me that they got along fine in school without laptops so kids don’t really need ’em, I’d have a fair chunk of change. Judging by many of the comments I’ve gotten on my post, others are interacting with these types of folks too. So I’m not alone…

I’m not fabricating cretins and idiots (nor did I call them ‘cretins and idiots;’ that’s your language, not mine). I’m speaking from regular experience interacting with real people. And, as an ed tech advocate, I can wish those people don’t get into policy-making positions.

Since you asked, here are a couple to get you started:

http://goo.gl/3l92A
http://goo.gl/Xx01I (see comments)

They’re real, they’re out there, and they’re obstructing needed progress.

I can’t think of one parent, governor, or community member at my school who thinks we need fewer computers. In fact, we get quite the opposite. Our Maths department doesn’t have a dedicated computer lab (though there are many throughout the school that we can book at any time) and many parents look down their noses at us as if we’re living in the Stone Age. But then, I do work in the UK!

I don’t have enough good ICT activities to justify a computer lab in the Maths department yet, but I do use one when the time is right.

This reminds of of Greg Easterbook’s very interesting book “The progress paradox”

http://www.amazon.com/Progress-Paradox-Better-While-People/product-reviews/0812973038/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

It didn’t surprise me there are 13 negative reviews (some worth reading.) “Those people” are out there as Scott points out; I meet them as well though they are (I hope) slowly dwindling as technology influences us more and more. The one I hear most often from my age group math educators is “in my day (the 1950s) we had wonderful schools in New York City. Rather than share the ugly reality of most NYC schools at that time I just jokingly say “the only good thing about the 1950s (if you were there) that was better was that you were younger.”

Some do argue that we don’t need computers in the schools. But others argue that the computers provide a false sense of progress.

A bunch of colleges and universities started using the “electronic clicker” to allow a lecturer to ask questions and get feedback on what students thought during the lecture. Progress? MIT (yes, MIT) had students hold up some cardboard numbers that provided a less expensive way to provide the same feedback. Are clickers progress or gimmick?

Complaints of “fact regurgitation” run rampant and computers are brought in with the notion that they’ll lead to more critical thinking. Yet, most schools have dumped Euclid and proof for textbook geometric theorems and computations. We don’t read Plato (totally relevant) or Adam Smith (eminently readable) but we ask kids to read dull-as-can-be textbooks on history or economics.

Whether someone reads Euclid or Plato on the iPad or paper isn’t the issue. But to assert that computers are the key to improving schools is not based on fact. Blog postings, Facebook and Twitter aren’t evil, but they do tend to perpetuate the notion that careful, detailed and in-depth reading and writing isn’t important. Wikipedia is great, but knowing some things without having to turn the power on is still important for many, many reasons.

NOW this conversation’s getting interesting! ;)

When I work with folks – and when I write on my blog – I don’t think I ever feel resentful or annoyed or bitter or frustrated. I think that if you asked educators or parents with whom I’ve worked, they’d tell you that I’m actually pretty upbeat and cheery.

I DO push, however. I DO feel a sense of urgency that some others obviously do not. I DO feel – since it’s a digital world out there – that most schools should be moving that direction faster and better than they are currently.

Don, did electric lights have to ‘prove’ themselves before we deigned to adopt them? Did automobiles and written text and indoor plumbing have to ‘prove’ themselves too? Well, sure, in the sense that some folks were quicker adopters of those tools than others. But at some point all you had to do was look around and see that this was the way the world was going. You could deny it but it was happening whether you wanted it to or not.

Personal computers now have been around for 3 decades. The Internet has been available to the general public for at least a dozen years in most developed countries. Both are spreading incredibly fast in our personal lives and in many (most?) societal sectors outside of school. I think it’s obvious that they’re here to stay. We’re also increasingly understanding the tremendous learning power that these tools can have. Accordingly, how much lag time do we give school systems before we start pushing harder for them to catch up? The differentials between how adults do knowledge work and how kids do knowledge work outside of school are large compared to how kids do knowledge work in school. In my mind, it’s time to push schools a bit harder. [NOTE: that doesn’t necessarily mean pushing teachers harder (although sometimes I do); it definitely means pushing leaders and policymakers harder]

The truth is that I’m not making stuff up about resistance to change or nostalgia for older ways of doing things or some folks’ inability to see the benefits of what already is and will continue to be. The comments at my blog and yours show that my sentiments are resonating with others (if not you, perhaps). Here are a couple of other confirmations as well:

http://goo.gl/rzRZJ
http://goo.gl/wrbJ1

Your essential assertion here was that I was fabricating things. I’m comfortable standing by my assertion that I’m not.

The impacts of digital technologies on us as individuals, citizens, learners, school systems, and societies IS complex. But it’s also fairly clear: the world is getting more digital every day. Most knowledge workers use digital technologies most of the time to do their knowledge work. Schools are supposed to be about knowledge work, no? As such, it seems to me that we thus need to quit putting technology at the margins of what we do and instead better integrate it into core day-to-day practices. And at most schools, that’s not happening right now.

So I’m unapologetic for wishing that folks not serve in leadership and policymaking roles if they don’t see the value of digital technologies in student learning environments. And for those that happen to be in those positions, I’ll also try and persuade them that we need to move in certain, what I believe to be inevitable, directions.

On other fronts…

Dan, I don’t know if I’m speaking to the powerful or the powerless when I blog. Probably some of both. I know that mix is true when I get a chance to speak to folks face-to-face. Also, thanks for reminding me of what is arguably my stupidest post ever (or at least the one for which I got the most pushback). Good stuff, that one! :)

Thanks for the conversation. I always enjoy learning from you.

They are quite useful, Dan. That’s why so many people use them! And I didn’t say they were uncomplicated. What I said was that they were inevitable and ubiquitous and that schools should start acting like it.

You disagree with me that schools should be better integrating tech into what they do? You’re satisfied with what they’re doing now when it comes to computers? You think that primarily-analog schools are fine in a digital world?

Don, did electric lights have to ‘prove’ themselves before we deigned to adopt them? Did automobiles and written text and indoor plumbing have to ‘prove’ themselves too?

Holy cow, I ABSOLUTELY believe they had to do that! You really don’t?

As Dan points out, you’re picking this really low hanging fruit here. But even in doing so you’re either continuing to refuse to address the underlying issue or are completely missing the point here.

There is not a second of doubt in my mind that someone once had a conversation about the costs involved in bringing power to a school and using electric lights rather than oil lamps. There was a period of time when electricity didn’t have a deployed infrastructure, safety was a larger concern, costs were higher, and maintenance concerns greater.

The more I type this the more I am convinced this is a FANTASTIC parallel to technology use in the classroom.

You made an assertion that saying something like the following in that time should have been prohibited from public office.

“Look, this electric light thing is nice but it’s expensive. We have an existing setup with a combination of oil and gas lamps that are getting the job done. The teachers and students are familiar with them, we’ve got people in place who bring in the oil and service the lamps. The gas lines are already built-into the building and everything is set up around this system. Your electricity solution means we need to contract with either Edison or Tesla and pick a standard, spend a bunch of money on wiring up the building and keeping it maintained. There’s concern about the safety of this stuff too! Why mess with this when we have stuff now what works?”

Now, what they might have really said was “No, electrical lights are expensive and a big commitment. We’d rather buy books.”

I don’t think it’s inappropriate for the person advocating for the electrical lights to have been called upon to say “We’ll reduce our risk of fire, the light is better and the rooms will be less smoky.” Nor do I think it’s inappropriate for them to have had to address what was going to have to change in building layout or present some thoughts on how they were going to address the issues as power matured and the AC vs DC war shook out.

Sometimes that answer is a simple “look, there’s always going to be costs” but condemning the question is unreasonable and makes you look like some combination of a zealot who thinks their position is beyond questioning or a huckster who dodges providing justification because you don’t have one.

And for what it’s worth, this is coming to you from a software engineer who has been involved in instructional technology since working in an IBM ITTC in 1992. I’m no luddite who is opposed to technology in instruction, I just want to see it used intelligently.

Folks, here’s a rather timely piece: http://bit.ly/umO2GU

Of course, technology can fail and become a pain in the butt if you don’t prepare for the possibility of resources you counted on (electronic or otherwise) being “down.” I asked the question of several candidates for a teaching fellowship I interviewed in Muncie, IN on Saturday: What do you do when you’ve planned a computer/’Net-based lesson and there’s no way to get to the resources you expected. The guy who was most clearly prepared to deal with the question (though all did decently with it) was the guy with the 4.0 in computer science from Purdue and six+ years experience working in the c.s. industry.

No one said, however, “Let’s not use technology.”

I have to agree with Ms. Eldon that there are a lot of promises made by the sales and marketing people in ed tech that don’t hold water or which are clearly highly exaggerated under even modest scrutiny. But there’s nothing unique about the ed software/tech industry in that regard. If you’re simple-minded enough to assume that any resource is going to be a miracle-cure, you’re going to be disappointed and feel ripped-off time and time again. If you believe the promises of salespeople without getting a binding guarantee of no questions asked return and refund policies (with a track-record to support the guarantee), you are asking to become repeatedly embittered. The “jilted lover” metaphor Ms. Eldon uses works, but it cuts both ways.

I like all of you for giving me something infinitely better to read than celebrity gossip, sports scandal or modern politics.

<3

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here, Andy. My center and I work with school leaders all the time on exactly the issues you are raising here when it comes to ed tech. But first they (and their communities) have to see a need to have it in the first place. Then we can talk about how to best implement. I’m not sure we’re far apart on this…

I get to hear moms talk about how their three year old kids hold a “real book” and tap the pages expecting them to talk, characters move, and flip to a new picture. Is that education? vs. the increasing trend of a Waldorf education. My son today put a quilt on his shoulders, extended his arms and flew. His friend near by asked “what are we playing?”. The response, “be whatever you want to be”. The friend then sat down in front of a plastic game with defined rules…. As one Google parent said….we are making applications so easy, anyone can use them. More harm will come to my child’s education by letting them use computers before college than not.

Until computers can give you the sense of what a lily smells like, what it feels like to have a butterfly flutter by… Get the kids outside.

Sorry louise. I didn’t mean to give the impression that engineering students shouldn’t use autocad. They probably should. (I don’t have personal experience with it, so I don’t want to say definitely) They definitely should at least learn it, or an equivalent computer drafting program; they’re definitely going to need to know it in the workplace. On the other hand, I don’t see any reason why high school students need to learn to use specialized engineering software…

My point in bringing up CAD, was simply that it is a technology which was very disruptive, was not uniformly beneficial (e.g. you did say that 15 people lost their jobs), and still has significant usability issues to this day, many of which resulted from a lack of attention to how CAD programs had to “inter-operate” with existing practices, such as drawing on paper.

CAD software is not a passive tool. It places demands and conditions on its users that they must meet to make use of it. All software does this to different degrees, including Ed-tech. Simultaneously ignoring what demands ed-tech makes of students and teachers while pushing for adoption is a recipe for trouble.

But why would you want to teach high school students to use any of that stuff?

Gilbert, our district has a specialty small school of design and construction, so they are teaching students these specialty skills.
Just as Geometry was, only a couple of hundred years ago, a university discipline for a few clever people, and has become a requirement for 16-year-olds, now we have subjects that were post-high-school vocational subjects coming down for high school students.
I think this is one of those cycles coming back. The vocational ed studies (plumbing, electrical, machine shop, carpentry, sewing, cooking) all went away. Now we are bringing back specialties as long as they are office based, white collar work.
I think this is why I like Dan’s ideas so much – they are accessible to the doers. Students can themselves run up and down steps and elevators, climb up hills and look at rolls of paper. The next time they do those things, the math springs up in their heads. It’s not white collar, confined to the office/school. It’s there all the time, hands on, in their brains. At least that’s what students complain to me about (“help, help, I’m thinking in math!!”)

Ah. @Zeno got to it first.