If only the reporters would probe further they would find many school districts and reformers around the country, cannot resist focusing their discussion, and dollars, on experimenting with the coolest and newest technology and sidestepping investing in evaluation and training programs. With sincere good will but doe eyed fascination with the shiny technology, comes the desperate hope of superintendents facing budget shortfalls and despicable student outcomes that latest and greatest widget can be the miracle short cut solution they have been dreaming of. And so, thousands, in some cases millions, of dollars are sunk into tools, dashboards, databases, tables, boards and online curriculum and content with fingers crossed that it will all just work out and classes will be transported to the land of the Jetson’s where super cool technology makes everything possible. And the vendors and investors are praying on this desperation.

The allure and promise of the new, wiz bang educational technology platforms is, sadly, where deep-pocketed investors are flocking and where savvy marketers are driving the naive but eager and well-intended education consumer. Amid the hype around online, technology enabled and blended learning innovations, the NYT articles have overlooked that these efforts are ultimately new instructional methods for which teachers and administrators are gravely unprepared to launch, unsupported to fulfill and unaccountable for absent strong evaluation plans. Few traditional state teacher-licensing programs are required to teach deep data driven instructional practices and fewer still teach practitioners how to use technology in a meaningful way. You cannot buy a jet plane, put an untrained person in the pilot seat and expect great results. Just as shelling out the cash to put a jet plane on the runway (to say you have a cool new jet plane) will not ensure it will take flight, so too is the increasingly common practice of simply introducing an online math program or using iPads falling woefully short of impacting student outcomes.

Still, districts often invest far more in slick technology than they do in the critical teacher and administrator training, support and evaluation require to advance these new instructional methods. In too many cases, the technology adoptions, along with technology vendors and their investors, harbor the secret hope and belief that the technology will make up for all that under-qualified teachers are failing to accomplish. Smart foundations are starting to change this trend, but too few schools have access to the funds and guidance of philanthropy affords, leaving education consumers to navigate the vendor waters alone. When the quick tech fix does not work, in comes the NYT to report on the failing. Sadly, yes, they are missing the real story.

glad you agree that the idaho implementation is problematic … a pro-technology orthodoxy is to be avoided at all costs; we need voices smart and brave enough to say what works and what doesn’t.

I tend to find that the positive feedback edtech does get tends to be overrepresentative of a few players — Khan Academy comes to mind.

There’s extensive hype around KA when it’s really only one of the many various innovations to have come out in the education field.

Beyond depicting the successes of technology in education, I would also like to see more equity in the variety of successes covered.

If we want miracles, then we are going to have to pay for the necessary services and support systems necessary to allow students to be ready and able to learn. It is unfair to hold up an ideal of teachers who work extended hours without good pay or benefits and expect all teachers to be able to work like that. If we want professional teachers who go above and beyond, we must treat them with respect and pay them a professional wage.

Parents with children who have considered “choices” among public schools understand that the quality of a public school is directly related to the quality of life that students experience outside of school. This is not a surprise or an excuse. It is reality.

The idea that American public schools are failing is a myth. American students from low poverty schools outperform their competitors on the PISA. Low scores on the PISA are directly related to the economic status of the students taking the tests. Poverty explains levels of achievement and the quality of public schools. I have yet to see a failing school in places where parents are college-educated and affluent.

In my state, Arizona, the highly performing charter schools are full of capable and mostly affluent families who are able to choose a school and support their children’s education. These schools are able to exclude those that the traditional schools always serve no matter what. It is time to get real about school reform.

If we care about educating American children, then we must also consider reforms that will deal with the devastating effects of poverty and income inequality. Schools are forces for change among those in poverty, but it is unrealistic to expect them to be miracle workers on their own. There is no evidence or data that support the current efforts to hold teachers’ accountable for their students’ test scores or to privatize schools as a way to make them more effective. We do know that when families are able to take care of their needs that their children have a better chance at succeeding in school. Perhaps our time and resources would be spent more wisely making sure that children are protected from the devastating consequences of poverty and income inequality.