technology transformation versus Luddites

As I began to read the Postman article, I could not help but nod my head in agreement to a lot of the things Postman says starting with the statement “[technologies] have nothing to do with the fundamental problems we have to solve in schooling our young.” He and I were on the same wave length as he goes on to talk about the principal function of schools being to teach children how to behave in groups and that “the great problems of education are of a social and moral nature and have nothing to do with dazzling new technologies.” Our next wave length came together over technologies diverting “the intelligence and energy of talented people from addressing the issues we need most to confront.” Students today seem more interested in the newest video game than what is going on in the real world. A lot of them do not seem capable of distinguishing between fantasy and real life. As for his statement, “[Technology giveth and it taketh away,” I have experienced this first hand where students can not complete simple mathematical processes with out a calculator, or the cashiers who have worked for me over the years that could not count change back correctly if they punched the amount tendered into the cash register incorrectly. However, we all know nothing is ever completely black and white.

Then I read the Reigeluth & Joseph article and found myself agreeing with most of what they said and thinking what a wonderful thing technology transformation would be if it were accomplished. Although there have been some changes in our educational system since Reigeluth completed his synthesis of the key markers of the industrial age and the information age, I feel that it still reflects most of the industrial age markers. The No Child Left Behind law has been instrumental in stopping the change needed. NCLB promotes standardization, compliance, conformity, bureaucratic organization, centralized control, autocratic decision-making, and boss (EOGs) as king. Our current paradigm of education is still not designed for learning, just testing. I agree that “we should hold achievement constant at a mastery level,” which seems to have been the original purpose of NCLB; however, this same law does not allow “children as much time as they need to reach those standards.” Having a “learning-focused education system” that offers “customization rather than standardization” is contradictory to NCLB and let’s all laugh together at the policy-makers investing more resources! I work for a charter school whose vision is to accomplish the entire list of principles Reigeluth & Joseph give for a learning-focused paradigm of education. Our greatest challenge is the question they pose, “how can a teacher help 30 children to all learn different things at different rates and in different ways utilizing authentic tasks?” Of course the answer is technology. No, we should not dismiss all of the other agents needed such as parents, community, organizations, and our natural resources but technology will play a “large role.” This is the very thing I want out of my Masters degree.

I desire to teach my students how to master key concepts with out using technology such as calculators and cash registers, but I also want to teach my students to live, function, and be productive participates in the new information age. To do this is like living life – a balancing act.