Sigh. Is it just me, or does the current hyper-focus on technology in the classroom leave anyone else just a little bit cold? Tech-hungry teachers and students are licking their chops.  Design fanatics are genuflecting at the feet of Steve Jobs. Do I risk professional suicide if I propose that there is an underbelly to the iPad2, and similar technology, that we should be thinking and talking about?

When Steve Jobs recently catapulted his latest Apple creation into the marketplace, even the buzz from former tech rival Bill Gates’ ill-informed pontification about the “benefits” of increasing class size was reduced to a dull roar. It seems that everyone who’s anyone has something to say about education these days, and that’s not a bad thing. Technology and the Internet allow all of us to have something to say about education, which broadens the stage for this very important and timeless discussion.

Equal Access for All?

At first my iPad2 cynicism was directed at yet another expensive piece of hardware that would require infrastructural tech supports that rarely exist in poor school districts. Here again was another shiny new toy that could potentially further widen—or, conversely, narrow—the digital divide. It took some deep digging to find the few articles that addressed this issue evenhandedly. It was as if the ubiquitous slogan that “education will be revolutionized” obscured the very real problem of equal technology access across the socioeconomic spectrum. Theoretically this new technology could be deployed in schools throughout the country to enhance (even revolutionize) student learning, but could it really? Did Apple, the tech pundits, the academic intelligentsia, and all of the people in the educational trenches really care one way or the other? The coming of the iPad2 seemed only slightly less momentous than the coming of…well, let’s leave religion out of this.

Can We Have it All?

Whenever something is added to this plate called Education, something else must be removed. Lest anyone think I am a technophobic dinosaur romanticizing the days of one-room schoolhouses and chalkboards, let me clarify that I love technology, use it every day, and have observed its benefits to teachers and students for many years. Used effectively, there is no doubt that technology provides many powerful learning tools with a permanent and well-deserved place in a teacher’s toolkit. Technology isn’t going away and it shouldn’t. It is in the classroom, the workplace, the home, and many other environments—to stay. My concern involves what it may be replacing. Do we want to examine this as seriously and critically as we do the benefits of the new technology, if for no other reason than to thoroughly understand the trade-off, if there is one? Perhaps new technology will allow teachers to gain more free time that can then be spent nurturing and guiding students in other important ways. I might soon drink the Kool-Aid, but for now I want to think about it a little longer.

I’d like to raise the issue of the appropriate balance between the role of technology in children’s education, and the role of human beings in their education. Putting aside questions about the iPad2 widening versus narrowing the digital divide, what will be the effect of increasing the time kids spend with computers, other technology-assisted classroom learning, and even full-blown online learning, while decreasing the time students spend forming personal relationships with teachers, knowing them and being known, and being academically, socially, and emotionally mentored by caring adults? How will upping the incidence of multi-tasking (and the resulting divided attention), increasing the role of information processing in learning, and boosting screen time affect students’ learning and developing brains? A recent study by the Kaiser Foundation found that today’s excessive media consumption via mobile technology among 8 – 18-year-olds is contributing to lower grades and decreased personal satisfaction. Can the new academic technology really fit seamlessly into the necessary human relationships, and harmlessly into child cognition and achievement?

Demographic and Socioeconomic Considerations

We are already seeing the effect of plugged-in kids (and plugged-in adults) on individual social functioning, one’s ability to focus and concentrate, and on family cohesion, to name but a few areas of concern. And is this analysis equally relevant to all students, families and schools, or does it differ along racial, socioeconomic, or cultural lines, just to mention a few demographic touchstones? For example, should we be concerned about the touted benefits of online instruction for disadvantaged students who arguably need less time in their home environments and neighborhoods, and more time in school in the presence of positive adult role models? Or, if these students populate large unruly classes in crumbling school buildings, should they spend more time learning remotely from satellite locations? It is not an easy question. Steve Jobs does not have the answer for that, but he would probably agree that no one wants kids falling through the net, pun intended.

Technology and the 3 R’s

Among the many enthusiastic articles, blogs, and discussion threads about our new educational technology revolution are a few, somewhat quiet, rather tentative voices asking, “But what about deep reading skills? What about writing?” What about them? The iPad2 and similar devices will surely save some trees, and that’s a good thing, but, assuming these mobile devices eventually cross the digital divide and get into the hands of every child in America, do we have anything to worry about as well as celebrate? I think we do. Reading on screens encourages skimming and undermines comprehension. Typing on touch pads is difficult. Math has become increasingly disconnected from computation by hand. Some educators feel the tail is wagging the dog, but opinions do vary.

Teachers Being “Screened” Off from Students

Technology is compelling, exciting, and empowering, but if not used thoughtfully, can also become an easy wall for teachers to hide behind when confronted with difficult or distractible students. We’ve all heard the comical stories about teachers catching their students on FaceBook or Twitter in class because, behind their laptops at their own desks, they, too, are on FaceBook or Twitter. Working on the front lines with kids can be really hard. Technology can be a lubricant in that process, or the grease that allows everyone to skid off the road.

Where Do We Go from Here?

While it has long been said that academic institutions change more slowly than any others, and for good reason, this is perhaps no longer the case. When I was a school administrator, the joke was always that the kids could keep ahead of the technology, while the adults were forever chasing both. I do believe that our children are growing up in an increasingly disconnected world—socially, emotionally, and geographically. Educational technology offers the opportunity for kids to be “connected” in many different ways, even socially, even globally. Is this sort of virtual connection a viable substitute for real connections among kids, and between kids and adults in their schools, families and communities? I think it is a question of emphasis, not of essential value.

Used strategically, educational technology has the power to change lives for the better. Used indiscriminately for the sheer awe of it, not so much.

By Lori Day. Lori is an educational psychologist and consultant with over 25 years experience in various positions within the educational field. You can learn more about Lori and her practice, Lori Day Consulting, by visiting her website, www.loridayconsulting.com, and by reading her blog, “It’s Your Day,” at http://loridayconsulting.com/wordpress/. Lori can be reached at lday@loridayconsulting.com.

Check out this interesting article by Karen Houppert in The Washington Post, “Separate but equal: More schools are dividing classes by gender.”

What a complicated issue. The author looks at a school in Washington, D.C. where students are separated by gender, a practice that has become increasingly popular in recent years. (In 2002, there were only a dozen public schools in the country allowing single-sex classes. This year, there are over 500 listed by the National Association for Single Sex Public Education.)

Boys are generally perceived as more competitive. Not surprisingly, the boys’ classroom observed for this article included lots of competitive games. The girls’ classroom was characterized by lots of collaborative activities, based on the belief that girls naturally prefer collaboration. Proponents suggest that this is nothing more than taking advantage of the preferred learning styles of boys and girls. Traditional classrooms tend to be organized in a way that favors the way girls typically learn, putting boys at a distinct disadvantage. Separating students by gender appears – at least on the surface – to provide a “win-win” by offering each group a learning environment that matches their natural tendency.

Like most things, however, it’s almost never that simple. How “naturally” different are boys and girls when it comes to learning? Lise Elliot, a professor at the Chicago Medical School says, “ If you put the research together, you are very underwhelmed by the difference” between boys’ brains and girls’ brains. “This whole Mars versus Venus idea that our minds are from different planets is really inaccurate.”

The issue becomes even more complicated – at least for me – when I ask some fundamental questions like, “What’s the purpose of education, anyway?” Is it exclusively about academic achievement? Let’s accept for the moment that boys are “naturally” more comfortable with competition? Won’t we all be better off if boys develop collaborative skills as well? If we provide them with a learning environment matched to their purported natural style, are we robbing them of the opportunity to expand their skill set and develop essential abilities like collaboration?

It’s the same for the girls. Even if we were to accept that they “naturally” prefer to collaborate, shouldn’t girls develop healthy competitive behaviors? There will be times when conflict arises and all of us are well served when we can advocate for ourselves, be assertive, and compete appropriately.

Collaboration and competition aren’t really opposites. They are two sides of one coin and we need both. I wonder if single-gender classrooms unwittingly promote academic achievement at the expense of social and emotional growth.

What’s the best course of action? Perhaps we should offer some single-gender experiences for kids if we think it serves them well. Maybe teachers should differentiate more effectively, providing learning opportunities for their students that are relevant and meaningful whether the student is male or female. Maybe placing kids in an environment that’s out of their comfort zone is ultimately a good thing. Maybe education isn’t just about higher test scores.

It’s clear that single-gender classrooms are becoming more common. Arguments can be made on both sides of the issue. At this point, I only know that I’m interested in what other educators think. Let’s get a lively discussion going!

By Bob Sullo. Bob has been an English teacher, school psychologist, school adjustment counselor, and school administrator. Now he is a full time consultant. Bob has written several books about internal control and motivation including, The Inspiring Teacher, Activating the Desire to Learn and The Motivated Student. You can read Bob’s full bio here. Learn more about Bob and his work by visiting his website, internalmotivation.net.

Bob can be reached directly by completing the below contact form. You can respond to this article by completing the comment box below the contact form. [contact-form]

[asa]0810629550[/asa][asa]1416608109[/asa]

In the not-too-distant past, teachers worked in relative isolation, staying behind closed doors in their rooms, hoarding their best ideas, and reluctant to share with their colleagues. I’m not sure if it was fear that their innovative ideas would be ridiculed or stolen, but it was not unusual for teachers to work side by side and never divulge their best practices. Thankfully, enlightened staff development initiatives convinced teachers to share their expertise. Teachers became more collaborative and enhanced their pedagogical skills.

Welcome back to the bad old days, brought to you by the Race to The Top. As states compete for limited funds, collaboration across state lines – even though it enhances student learning – is now a risky proposition. No right-thinking teacher in Illinois is going to tell her friend from Ohio something that might compromise their grant application. And teachers from Maryland who have some interesting, innovative ideas would be wise not to say anything about that to their cousins from Colorado. Wouldn’t want to lose that money, would we.

Race to the Top, the brainchild of President Obama and Secretary of Education Duncan, encourages competition rather than collaboration. We live in an increasingly interdependent world where collaboration is more important than ever. And what are we offered? A competition. One guaranteed to produce losers. Rather than moving together as a unified nation to address what really ails education, we have been duped into thinking a competition for funding will somehow fix the problem. Of course most states have gone along. Especially in bleak economic times, it is understandable that most have decided to play the game – however foolish, unenlightened, and counterproductive the game is.

Race to the Top emphasizes standardized test results. Here’s something interesting that doesn’t get mentioned too often. More and more of our elite colleges (think Ivy League and their cohort) have dropped SAT requirements in recent years because they understand standardized tests are a very poor predictor of academic success in college. I met a woman last week who works for a well-respected college in the northeast. Her school has made the submission of SAT scores optional when students apply. Why? “We found there was absolutely no correlation between SAT scores and how well these students did once they were accepted,” she told me. Not low correlation. None. The best colleges know that test scores are a poor predictor of success.

Both the president and the secretary of education routinely talk about challenging the status quo. Addressing the centennial convention of the National Urban League on July 29, the president said, “We get comfortable with the status quo even when the status quo isn’t good,” he said. “When you try to shake things up, sometimes people aren’t happy.” As much as he paints himself as the innovative agent of change, when it comes to education the president has done little more than tweak a failed system, one that uncritically accepts that high test scores reflects excellence in education and the best way to encourage excellence is to reward what we like and punish what we don’t.

Maybe that’s what Pete Townsend had in mind when he wrote, “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”

If you really want to challenge the status quo, move beyond the reward/punishment model, inspire kids, and create learning environments where teachers are genuinely encouraged to be creative and build active, engaging classrooms, I hope you’ll join me. I look forward to sharing ideas designed to help us educate our kids to be responsible, to become good decision-makers, and to build a strong internal locus of control.

By Bob Sullo. Bob has been an English teacher, school psychologist, school adjustment counselor, and school administrator. Now he is a full time consultant. Bob has written several books about internal control and motivation including, The Inspiring Teacher, Activating the Desire to Learn and The Motivated Student. You can read Bob’s full bio here. Learn more about Bob and his work by visiting his website, internalmotivation.net.

Contact Bob directly by completing the below contact form. You can respond to this article by completing the comment box below the contact form. [contact-form]