During my studying in the public school system, I saw major implementations of technology come into the classrooms. Many schools brought in Ipads and mobile computer labs, but the most obvious was the introduction of smartboards. Nearly every classroom had smartboards, from strings class to gym class. Smartboards are interactive "whiteboards" that were supposed to help teachers present their material. However the smartboards and the other forms of technology caused more problems than they were worth.  Between technical issues and teachers not knowing how to operate them, the technology ended up being useless for most of the instruction time. This becomes a major problem when you realize how much money is spent by the school for this technology. Schools spends millions of dollars to put technology in the classroom and in student's hands. However if the technology is not being used effectively, is it worth it? Another issue brought on by the introduction is how it will affect the stratification between wealthy and impoverished schools in terms of technology known as the "digital divide".  There is already an issue with technology distribution in our schools system and by continuing to advance the technology in some schools, we are only leaving the impoverished further behind. Many people argue that technology is the answer to all of the education system's problems. However I argue that we should not fully integrate technology in classrooms because of the immense funding required, the limited testing of the effectiveness and the impacts, and the effect it could have on the digital divide. 

The Digital Divide 

The digital divide is often described as the fact that, "Economically disadvantaged children face tremendous challenges in accessing technology."(Celano). It is a proven statistic that impoverished kids have a much harder time trying to get on the internet than their wealthier counterparts. In her article, Celano describes the hurdles that impoverished kids have to go through to simply access computers. One example Celano provides is a Philadelphian girl who live in a poverty stricken part of the city.  The girl must wait with 75 other children for access to one of the six computers her library offers. When she finally is able to get on the computer, she is only allowed thirty minutes per session before she must get off. Her teachers plan for this truth by assigning homework that does not require the use of computers of the internet. Compared to her wealthier and more computer savvy counterpart, the impoverished girl is less likely to have the knowledge to navigate a computer or the web. This difference of education methods and professional outcomes are what symbolize the digital divide in the educational world.

Many people argue that the widespread use of technology would help close the gap that is the digital divide. By having all the students across the country have equal access to technology then the digital divide will be non-existent and the problem will be solve. However the question is why advancing technology in the classroom would fix this? Why can the technology we have now be spread so unequally compared to the new technology? The technology is not the problem of the digital divide, the problem lies in the funding of the schools. It is obvious that a school with better funds will have better and more advanced technology and the kids who go there will also have better access to the technology. The richer schools will always have access to better technology than the impoverished schools. The impoverished schools are forced to buy into the technology bandwagon, however they do not know which technology will be the most effective. By making the schools spend their money on technology as opposed to better facilities or better teachers is unfair to the schools. If the schools were allowed to use the funds to provide better teachers then the issue would not be problem. Also if teaching was better widespread than the technology difference would not matter. If teachers across the country were all able to get the knowledge to the students, then there would not be a need for all of the technology.

The Financial Burden

How a school gets its money and how it spends it is always an issue faced by the country.  Some people argue that the state and city fund the schools, and others argue that the government fund it. Whatever the choice is, the education system could always use more money. A known issue in the country is called the "corridor of shame". The corridor of shame, covered by Bud Ferrillo in his documentary "The Corridor of Shame", is about a group of counties in South Carolina with horrible school conditions. Examples are schools with roofs completely gone and terrible water damage. The schools are in improvised counties that do not have the tax revenue to fix the issues. Instead of making the government and schools find a way to pay for the new technology, we should make our schools at least safe for the students to go to. Schools should not be forced to invest in technology, especially if the place that is housing the technology is crumbling. 

When it comes to supporting the technology, people tend to avoid the topic of money. However when they do talk about money, they just assume that the government will pay for it. However as I previously explained, the government is allowing schools to deteriorate around the country. If the government is allowing this to happen, why would the government worry if schools have iPads or laptops? The government should absolutely support the school system. It is their future citizens that are suffering from the problems. However government should fund projects that actually show improvement in students. The government should not feel like they are wasting money on the school system by funding projects that may or may not help students. Technology in classrooms have not shown as much improvement as they would need to support the government. The government could help schools by making teaching a valuable profession and bringing in the best teachers possible. If we can show the government that by just creating more teaching incentives they could save money, then the government would be more likely to help. However if they see the school system just wasting money on technology then they will be hesitant and less likely to help.

The Lack of Testing

People put in countless hours of research when they are looking to buy something. If it is a new car people want to make sure the car is going to be safe and reliable. Why would people not want the same amount of research to be done for educational tools?  Many school districts are investing into the technology without first finding out the impacts they would have. There also should be a limit on what type of classes can get the technology. A class like woodshop does not need an interactive smartboard. The school districts are falling for the claim that the technology will fix every issue. Schools need to do more research before investing the money that they do have into technologies that will actually help students and will benefit their education. While it is fine to invest in some technology and implement it, schools need to make sure it is the right technology. Another thing about technology is the main cause against, distraction. In the article "Smartphones Do Not Benefit Classroom Learning" the authors mention a study that show that students who send texts during class. The study found that the students who were sending the messages did poor in tasks compared to their tech-free counterparts. Another study in the same article was about the use of PowerPoints used for lectures. While students found the presentations more enjoyable, they did not show improvement on their test scores.  If you look around a classroom with iPads or laptops, you will find a plethora of examples of this. Students are veering away from their school work and steering towards other websites or activities. There needs to be a way to prevent the students from doing this and keep them focused on their studies but, the student will still need adequate resources for research that may contradict a filtering system. 

Supporters of technology integration in the classroom argue that any amount of technology is better than none. However this claim is unrealistic due to restraints like funds. We should make sure the technology that does make it into our classrooms are going to be effective tools. Also we should not give up on the tools we have today and start working on something that might not work. In her article "The Four Negative Sides of Technology" author Pamela DeLoatch provides a list of how we can use technology as an effective tool. One of the ways was for teachers to use technology as a tool for learning and to make sure the teachers do not let the technology teach for them. We should teach teachers effective teaching skills based on the technology we have today. If the teachers were better at using teaching to the kids then we would not need to bring in new technologies that the teachers do not know how to work. While I agree that technology should be in the classroom, I believe it should be used a tool for learning and not a replacement for a teacher. The authors of "Smartphones Do Not Benefit Classroom Learning" agree by writing, " ...  technology will never replace the timeless need for skilled teachers ... " We should also make sure that the technology is up-to date and reliable. If it is constantly breaking down and being unable to operate, then what good is it to the students and teachers?

Position on Technology

Throughout the paper, it may seem that I have an affinity towards technology. It may sound like I want to revert back to one room school houses with a blackboard. This is completely false. As a person with a pursuit for the teaching field, I want nothing more than to have kids get the most out of their education. I do not want any student's question unanswered due to the lack of technology or not being able to research it. The only thing I worry is that the technology would have a negative impact on teaching and education. I do not want teachers to lose their ability to teach because some machine made their job too easy. I fear that in the future teachers would use technology as a crutch for lazy teaching. I also do not want kids to miss out on learning something because the technology is broken. A sour taste was left in mouth during my public school years. Many lessons were lost due to technical difficulties. However, I did have teachers who used technology in the best way possible, as a tool. Technology should be a tool for learning put not take away from what the teacher is trying to teach. I look back to the time of my parents where teachers only had a whiteboard and an overhead projection. While learning may not have been fun, the students back then still were able to learn. Using technology as a tool would require teachers to become more inventive with their teaching and lessons. Another benefit of using technology as a tool is how it would affect the digital divide. With the technology use being put on the back burner, then the real learning would come from the teachers. If teaching was to become a more scholarly profession then students would get more out of learning anyways. It would not matter if a wealthy school had more technology if all the students had well educated teachers. 

Conclusion

My main argument is that as a society, we should not jump onto educational technology until we know the effect it could have on the digital divide, how we are going to pay for the technology, and side effects that accompany it. In terms of funding, we should make sure schools are at least habitable and safe for students. After we achieve this then we can worry about the technology in the student's hands. The technology that we give them however needs to be the right kind, we need to make sure that the technology will encourage and support learning and also hinder distractions. When it comes to the digital divide, we need to fix this problem regardless of the technology aspect. However in terms of the technology, as a society, we must make sure that the wealthier schools begin to eclipse the impoverished schools and increase the already enormous gap. Supporters of technology claim that technology is the answer to all of the education system's problems. The supports also argue that the teachers need to allow the technology into their classroom and be open to the change. However it should not be the teacher's responsibility to change for technology. The technology should mold to the teacher. In the end the argument should boil down to what is best for the students. Whether it is a teacher and a white board, or an iPad for every student, we should do what is best for the students.

