Education and technology are becoming increasingly intertwined. The theory is that the more adept students are at using technology, the more prepared they will be for finding 21st Century jobs. In education there are people--often called Instructional Technology Consultants or Educational Technology Consultants--who consistently advocate for increasing the use of technology in the classroom. We should not fail to note, however, that an increase in the use of technology in schools necessarily increases the demand for the services these people provide--how nicely that works out for them!
Anyway, it seems to me that schools often blindly follow the advice of these people and embrace technology before understanding what it would take to make that technology educationally relevant for students. Case in point from the NY Times--a recent article about schools and school systems that had issued laptops to all students. These schools are now finding that 1) students are using the laptops for non-educational purposes (online gaming, pornography, hacking into school networks) more than for educational purposes, and 2) these programs are incredibly expensive because of the maintenance required of laptops. Surprise, surprise...
Apparently another use of technology in education is to bribe students to perform well on standardized tests: At Northern High School in Durham, NC, school administrators are offering free iPods to students who score a top score of "4" on the North Carolina State Writing Assessment. Why are they doing this? Apparently many students do not show up for school on the day of this test. Many other students do not try to do their best on this test. Why not? Perhaps because this test doesn't count for a grade. Perhaps because they are tired of all of the standardized testing in North Carolina.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Wow. One one level, it definitely hurts the "purity" of education to offer a reward for students who perform...but if the students' performance generates more benefit for the school (both monetary and in other spheres of influence) than the cost of the iPods, then it seems to be a defensible position, right? (At least in a purely capitalistic sense - I understand it breaks down at some level.) I don't particularly care for the precedent, but if the school is making money on the students academic performance, it should do what is required (although this tack is curious at best) to maintain such performance and the revenue streams it provides. I posit that you've attended an educational institution that made millions of dollars on the (albeit non-academic) performance of twelve individuals who were not compensated for outstanding performance even if that performance garnered additional funding for the institution. This lack of additional compensation may have resulted in said institution losing otherwise eligible performers for other "arenas" where they might be compensated based on their performance.
If the school believes it can't change the system, this sounds like a savvy way to deal with it.
As for information technologists, they're just taking advantage of a system that cannot hold them accountable to making marginal improvements in the skill sets of your students.
Figure out how the educational system best manages itself for performance in a capitalist society and you're a genius. I have no ideas
Post a Comment