eTIPS Reader Response

My reference point for the degree to which schools are successfully integrating technology into curriculum tends to be my children's own educational experience. Currently, I have a 7th grader in public middle school (in a fairly affluent town) and a 10th grader in a Catholic (diocesan) high school. These two environments couldn't be more different, both in their access to funding and in their general philosophical approach to education. Easton, although a small town with a limited tax base, generally throws money indiscriminately at the educational system, all the while pressuring parents to participate in endless fundraisers. On the other hand, diocesan schools are subject to a very tight budget which is controlled by the Catholic Diocese and influenced by the desire to control tuition. Philosophically, public schools tend to be more open to experimental methods, whereas Catholic schools have long had the reputation of being "old school" in their approach to education.

Despite their differences, both of my children's school systems seem to have "gotten the memo" on the importance of technological advancement, and both seem to be adhering to the principle that the school environment should support teachers by providing adequate technology, support, and training. Unfortunately, technology seems to have become a badge of honor for school systems, complete with bragging rights. Oddly, as a result of massive fundraising campaigns in both cases, my children's (completely unrelated) school systems now both boast proudly of "a smart board in every classroom." Neither school system eased into this very expensive technology, testing the waters to assess applicability or the risk of obsolescence. Both schools provided training and seem to have adequate ongoing support.

The integration of this very fancy piece of equipment into classroom instruction is showing that perhaps the set of eTIPS principles pertaining to implementation was inadequately addressed. This is evidenced by the uneven usage and application of the smart boards across content areas. Those teachers (generally younger) who are predisposed to favor technology have embraced the smart boards, using them to make class notes available to absent students and animate scientific principles to make them come alive for the students. Others, however, are using the smart board as an expensive overhead projector or television.

Dexter's comment, "Educational technology does not possess inherent instructional value" is key here. School systems should not assume that all teachers can "make the leap" on their own and find the value that technology can add to their instructional environment. It should be generally acknowledged that this, too, is an area where support is needed. My mother, a retired high school and college chemistry professor, assures me that textbook publishers make resources available which support the content of the text with appropriate technology. Perhaps this would be a good jumping-off point for teachers looking for that value-added. No need to reinvent the wheel.