Important Note About This Post!
I must acknowledge that I made a mistake with this post. I misinterpreted it to mean more funding of computers and it is instead about funding computer science.
This changes the nature of the post dramatically. I think most of us recognize the value of computer science for students in a high-tech world.
Because once a post is out there it is difficult to remove, I can only say I am sorry.
And of course I wish that the President and others would still address the problem of dilapidated buildings.
My thanks to Steve for bringing my mistake to my attention.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
President Obama is calling for four billion more in funding for computers, while the public school infrastructure in Detroit and around the country remain in terrible condition. The administration also wants an additional $100 million to fund a competitive grant program to reach students who are underrepresented in computer science classes.
The initiative includes partnerships with Apple, the Cartoon Network, Microsoft and others who will push for more computer science, which most likely means more Competency-Based Education.
Yet, our schools are crumbling and technology doesn’t seem to be working well. A lot of money, including tax dollars, has also been wasted on computers.
I’d like to hear about an initiative to improve public school facilities and institute more oversight on the computers already in place.
When the President first took office, he seemed to understand that school buildings needed help. He had visited Ty’sheoma Bethea’s rundown school in South Carolina’s Corridor of Shame—even invited her to his first State of the Union Address. Eventually, after a very long time, after Ty’sheoma had grown up and moved away, her school was renovated.
So where is the President now when it comes to Detroit’s schools? What has he said about the public school conditions in Detroit?
One would think there would be concern that buildings with leaky roofs could damage the new technology!
Also, while technology in the classroom is important, there is much concern about Competency-Based Education taking over the jobs of real teachers.
Yet, it is hard to find any research showing that technology is lifting test scores. It certainly isn’t helping the poor.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that students who worked for a longer period of time online had worse PISA results than students who spent less time online.
Students who use computers very frequently at school did not do well.
Students also copy stuff off the Internet. This can be problematic teaching high school students especially. It is easy for students to pull information off websites for reports and cut and paste.
And you don’t have to go far to find stories of wasted funding when it comes to the purchase of technology.
In 2014, $2.7 million worth of computer equipment and technology purchased by the Fort Worth school district was either “unnecessary” or was still sitting idle after seven years, an internal audit showed.
In Hoboken, New Jersey, the purchase of laptops was wasted! The system could not sustain the technology and some computers were stolen. They packed the machines up in boxes and stored them in closets.
In Kyrene, Arizona they spent $33 million on technology and scores were flat.
In the U.K. concerns are that money is being wasted on “useless gadgets.”
The National Education Policy Center indicates that technology works best when paired with traditional teaching. Heavy use of technology alone resulted in little to no improvement in student achievement.
Shouldn’t current funding be geared toward other factors that affect instruction—like crumbling school infrastructure?
Why not put that money into poor schools to address building inadequacies and what teachers really need in order to teach?
Where are the local needs assessments and parents and teachers working together to decide what their schools require to serve students best?
Thanks, Nancy. It’s a pure funneling of tax dollars right back to the tech/telecommunications industries, which already comprise the .0000001%. We need to file a claim with the Office of the Inspector General that these expenses are an improper use of tax dollars, especially if/when the tech devices are being mandated in ways that are deemed a health risk to children. Very interested in your perspectives on this. Be sure to check out the related research at the end. Thank you.
Scientists Raise Concerns about Health Risks with EdTech. How Will the U.S. Department of Education Respond? http://eduresearcher.com/2016/01/22/essa/
Hi Roxana,
I certainly don’t think so much tech is good, as you can tell, and I am especially troubled about putting young children on tech devices. They need play and to be active.
I know about the physical problems of eyestrain and musculoskeletal problems in young children who sit at the computer too long. (Adults too!)
Jane M. Healy’s Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds–and What We Can Do About It. has been around, but I think it still outlines computer problems well.
So I think too much online instruction, including test taking is harmful!
But as much as I am against full-time online schooling, I am just not sure about WiFi dangers. I find a lot of controversy on this topic.
I used to worry about high tension power lines but learned some of those early studies were bogus.
But if a parent has concerns I understand if they error on the side of caution. I still wouldn’t move into a house directly under power lines, I am just not convinced any longer they are dangerous..
And there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about too much tech aside from EMF health risks.
That’s where I am in my thinking, though I am open to being convinced otherwise. .
Thank you, Roxana. I’d be curious as to what you hear.
Thanks, Nancy. Not sure if you had a chance to check out this link but it provides more of the science and why there is so much concern among public health and child advocates: http://bit.ly/wifi_research. I wasn’t inclined at first to take the wifi risks seriously either until I sat down to read the research and analyze the scientists’ statements. The “safety” testing on many of the devices only accounts for thermal effects (heating of tissue) based on a military standard model from 20 years, not for children’s systems nor biologic changes which are clearly documented as present and harmful, (especially over extended exposures). Check out Dr. Davis’, Dr. Dunckley’s, or Dr. Moskowitz’ talks on that page for more. The telecomm industry-funded studies versus independently conducted research also yield vastly different findings (which should come as no surprise to any of us:/). I’m still reading and learning and will continue to share more if you’re interested. Thanks for considering and look forward to future posts.
Yes. I did look through them all and they make excellent points. But there are other researchers on this issue that argue against there being a problem.
Since I am not a scientist, I am just not sure what to believe.
But as I said, I would error on the side of caution.
And I don’t think so much tech, especially for young children, is right for many other reasons.
But please keep sharing what you find. It is interesting and important!
It is actually for teaching & learning Computer Science (computer programming). The money would be used for teacher training, etc. Edtech does NOT equal Computer Science.
I totally agree that there needs to be money for building and facilities in many many areas.
Having said that, this initiative to increase knowledge of Computer Science is definitely needed in the US. Many countries require it in their schools — UK, Australia, China, etc. In today’s world, it is just as important to understand Computer Science as we do with other sciences. — as evident with the linked article. Had this author understood what Computer Science actually is, they would know the difference between it and mere “teaching computers.”
Learning Computer Science is a GREAT way for poor kids to break the cycle of poverty. The beauty of computer programming is that all you need is a computer (and probably internet). You do not need a factory of expensive machines to make your product. If anything, poor schools should see this as a positive thing.
Thank you, Steve. You are absolutely correct! I am so keyed into the problems surrounding Competency-Based Education that I misinterpreted what I was reading. I actually do see the value of computer science classes and I even wrote a post a long time ago about the value of coding.
In today’s world you are right too that computer science is important. I shall write something at the top of this post to acknowledge my error and write a retraction.
Just read this comment thread too. It seems I also may have misunderstood the way the funds would be used although it would seem that if computer science and/or coding would be either mandated or taught, that there would also be infrastructure requirements (again, that would funnel funds back to the tech). I’ll need to look into the proposal more closely.
Here’s another interesting perspective, just published on Computer World:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3028022/it-careers/white-house-education-plan-leaves-visa-critics-flabbergasted.html
Well this is certainly a whole other troubling issue about the $4 billion. I think I need to get off my own computer for awhile!
But thanks again, Roxana. I always value your comments.
I jusr commented something simiar when I saw this post on efucation nation. I was wondering why more money isn’t going into infrastracture. I could use a classroom that won’t send me to an urgent clinic with a major asthma attack from mold and musty air, like mine did yesterday.
The health concerns surrounding mold in school buildings is quite serious. Neither teachers or students should be subjected to it. Thank you and I hope your health improves, Miguelina and they fix your school!