At the last Pottsgrove School Board meeting, the administration allowed two teachers who support the proposed One-to-one computer plan to speak to the board.
But as one person following my live Tweeting of that meeting pointed out, no staff who are opposed were given the same opportunity.
As long-time readers of this blog may recall, I have mixed feelings about anonymous publications.
Although the letter which appears below is unsigned, I have confirmed the identity and employment of the author as legitimate and as the anonymity is not being used as a way to make a personal attack, but to make a point while protecting a person's employment, I decided it was worth publishing.
Here is that person's opinion:
I am a Pottsgrove School District employee opposed to the One-to-One proposal featured in the June 3rd article "A computer for every student: How to pay for it?"
My objections are threefold: it distracts from more critical priorities for improving STEM education; it is a solution in search of a problem for students misusing technology in class; and its implementation is hampered by a blind commitment to Apple over cheaper, more manageable options.
I endorse the pro-STEM platform of the new school board, but the most critical priority for STEM should be addressing curricular content, namely the elementary schools' lack of rote learning of math facts.
I endorse the pro-STEM platform of the new school board, but the most critical priority for STEM should be addressing curricular content, namely the elementary schools' lack of rote learning of math facts.
The district, ever-eager to pursue the latest pedagogical theories, has taught students a dozen different "strategies" through an inconsistent, constantly changing curriculum, the result being high school algebra classes which rely upon calculators for basic arithmetic. If we wish to prepare students for the jobs of the future, the budget would be better spent on a back-to-basics math program.
Contrary to Technology Director Michael Wagman's characterization of faculty as "on the fence," most with whom I have spoken are opposed. Step into middle or high school classrooms, and you will see no lack of technology.
Contrary to Technology Director Michael Wagman's characterization of faculty as "on the fence," most with whom I have spoken are opposed. Step into middle or high school classrooms, and you will see no lack of technology.
Many students spend class on their smartphones and school computers to virtually "pass notes" or watch YouTube videos. With an administration unwilling to ban personal electronics, teachers already feel disempowered by technology.
Unless strictly managed, a One-to-One will exacerbate this already endemic problem.
Even if this program is necessary, Wagman's "Apple-or-Nothing" line spells a budgetary and IT maintenance nightmare. Apple makes excellent products, but iPad touchscreens are for media consumption, not typing book reports. While MacBooks at least have a keyboard, the brand and ultrathin form factor carries costs.
Even if this program is necessary, Wagman's "Apple-or-Nothing" line spells a budgetary and IT maintenance nightmare. Apple makes excellent products, but iPad touchscreens are for media consumption, not typing book reports. While MacBooks at least have a keyboard, the brand and ultrathin form factor carries costs.
Almost all software students use is web-based, leaving no reason besides personal taste for a commitment to this ecosystem. Cheap Windows or even Linux devices could handle these universal apps at a fraction of the cost. Thin-client solutions such as Chromebooks would save money with fewer IT problems. With everything in the cloud, there would be no erroneous saves to local storage on shared devices, nor "I left my laptop at home" excuses for missing homework. It would also enable easier control and monitoring of user activity, which is needed to combat in-class misuse and the district's recent internet-related scandals and fights.
The idea of enticing cyberschoolers (many of whom have compelling reasons for not attending regular school) with electronic bells and whistles, leaves me questioning not only proponents' sense of reason but their motives.
The idea of enticing cyberschoolers (many of whom have compelling reasons for not attending regular school) with electronic bells and whistles, leaves me questioning not only proponents' sense of reason but their motives.
Based on my personal experiences, I have grave doubts this proposal will benefit teachers, students, or taxpayers.
I encourage those teachers grumbling behind closed doors but resigned to this decision as a fait accompli to publicly speak out.