4pm+Techno-skeptics

In today's society of fast paced technology, few actually question the validity of a push towards increase funding and programing of technology in our students education. Everyone unquestionable "jumped on the band wagon" towards a techno-savy youth version of america inspit of the history of the lucrative repetative cycle of technology. If we look into the history of "new technologies" in the classroom, one can see a continuation of failures and lost fundings all for the thrill of lastest and greatest gizmo (I mean come on, how many cell phones have you aquired just to pitch in 6 months in the past few years?). In the 1920's Tom Edison predicted that "the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system." A few decades later it was the radio, followed shortly by "teaching machines" in the 50's and 60's. "New technologies" do not usually last that long, because they are typically a new fad that is pursued without much thought or skepticism to the actual future and are eventually dropped for the newest technology to follow. The cyclical nature of new technologies in the school system follows this pattern: implimencation, over-funding, dropping of new technology for the "next generation of technology."

If we are constantly following the "new," we are bound to fall behind and lose intrical parts of our history, and skills that are pushed to the side, or completely done away with for technology. Are "new technologies" worth lossing Plato, Van Gogh, Hemingway, and Steinbeck? Are technology standards more important then these other programs that we are lossing?


 * Arguments Against**
 * funding allocations
 * inconsistency & unreliability
 * teacher practices


 * Funding Allocations**

With the increase funding towards technology, there is a huge loss in fundings for other programs. According to the //The Computer Delusion// article by Todd Oppenheimer, the Clinton administration allocated 7 billion dollars towardsfor technology infrastructure, without prof that it actually helped student achievemnet. This funding is being stripped away from programs like art, music, and vocational studies, when there is prof that these programs create nodal "growth in a child's brain" and achievment in all academic areas including "math, science, language, and engineering."


 * Inconsistencies & Unreliability**

What a lot of technology advocates forget to incorporate into their discussions for the advancement of new technologies is the up keep and updateing of these technologies. It more of a here and now then a future thought when incorporating technology.

More time fixing technology during classroom implementation then actual teaching with the software and hardware.


 * Teacher Practices**

One of the affected areas of the schooling process is teaching practices. Not only does the curriculum change through the allocations of funding, but also the teachers have to change the way that they teach to implement these "new technologies." When programs change, teachers are expected to change with them fluidly, although this is a lot harder then it seams. Teachers are expected to adopt new teaching styles, new standards, and whenever the district incorporates new programs and they are also expected to be able to utilize these new programs affectively as well with little to no training. Moving towards an assumed project -based learning style for students rather then a teacher-centered instructional model. Although computers as a "new technology" has had a greater "self-life" then previous technologies, it is still difficult to incorporate this project-oriented method of teaching when most teachers are unfamiliar with this style. "New" teachers are now being trained in credential and master programs to utalize technology within the classroom, but training is not explicit, and "older" teachers are left in the dark.

This is not truly project-based learning because you can't just put a student in front of a computer and they will learn all on their own, there needs to be extensive teacher training for the teachers to facilitate learning that happens on the computer.

Lots of funding for techer training.

//By: Cassie Hauseur, Nancy, Cindy Orr//