A Quick Synopsis and Reaction to "In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores"

In the New York Times article "In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores" from September, 2011, Matt Richtel discusses how many classrooms with increased access to technologies have, despite our hopes and expectations, reflected no significant increase in student test scores. I was surprised and skeptical. Upon reading the title, I made immediate note of the publication date and searched for more recent articles on the same topic. Surprisingly, I found another article from 2015 that concluded similar findings. Then, of course, there are other articles claiming the exact opposite. Wary of the debate, I pressed onward with my original article and found some items worthy of consideration.

The first item I had not considered fully is that technology is a significant investment. More specifically, technology is an investment that can drain from all the other investments schools need to make for their students. In his article, Richtel refers mainly to the Kyrene School District in Arizona. Despite purchasing a significant technological upgrade, Kyrene saw no improvement in test scores while neighboring districts, who did not receive these upgrades, saw noticeable improvements. From his research, Richtel suggests that one of the main contributors to this discrepancy in scores may be that Kyrene was no longer investing in many important things it once had. With the tech requirements draining the budget, the district had not given their teachers raises in three years, had not hired new teachers despite an increase in classroom size, and had slashed their budgets for subjects like art, physical education, and music. As class sizes increased, students had lessened accessibility to teachers. Also, many teachers reported being in need of basic supplies like Kleenex and pencils.

Another proposed contributor to the stagnating scores, according to Richtel, is that many teachers allow the technologies in their classrooms to become distractions rather than instructional tools. He contends that many students, although assigned a task, end up just playing around. As an example, Richtel discusses a student he finds playing an alien math game. To do well in the game, math is required. If you perform your addition correctly, then you shoot the spaceship. However, the student Richtel observed was selecting answers at random just to take shots at the ship.

A few other interesting points Richtel made: tech supporters prescribe to the idea of "upgrade first and ask questions later," many students reported no preference between doing a class activity on paper or online, there was no significant research on the efficacy of online courses, and the tech companies profit more than any other group.

In the article's defense of technology, Richtel appeals to technology's capacity to inspire and engage students and its value in providing students with skills outside of the main core subjects. Unfortunately, neither of these values are easily quantifiable. Evidence that students are engaged requires behavioral observations, and we have yet to develop a standardized test that shows student mastery over skills like: internet resource literacy, organization, confidence with professional writing tools, and collaboration. I would agree that all these skills are important.

After reading this article, my hugest concern is that school districts are not investing in technology at appropriate times. I would hope that more school districts are realizing that technology can only be an effective tool when all the other needs of the students and teachers are met first. Then, I would be really curious to see the progress of this district after six years. After introducing a significant learning curve, as technology could be considered, I would expect little to no improvement in other educational areas. If students are busy learning to navigate all their teachers' new technological requirements, focusing on core subjects may be a challenge. Thus, I would be curious if they now show improvement.

However, even if students' core subjects reflect no sign of improvement over six years of intensive technological implementation, I do not think it really matters to the question of what we as teachers need to do. Students have to learn how to navigate responsibly through all the technology that develops, so teachers must teach with it. As an English teacher, I can probably wait to make it the center of my own classroom, but I need to show my students how someone using my discipline uses computers and devices and internet to learn and contribute.