It’s hard not to be critical of an individual who thinks brining technology into the classroom is a no win situation, or a “Faustian bargain” as Neil Postman, author of The End of Education, calls it. True, in life there are always trade-offs. An individual loses weight, we call it a success. The trade-off is he or she needs a new wardrobe or experiences unwanted sexual advances. Most would agree winning the lottery is a winning experience. Is there a trade off? True enough. The individual then faces with a whole new life he or she might not be able to cope with. Do they continue work or do they retire? What do they do with their money, invest it themselves or hire a financial planner? What does the lottery winner do with all the family crawling out of the woodwork to get a piece of the financial fortune?
Education is no different. With the advent of technology, there are certain trade-offs, but these trade-offs do not mean that we need to eradicate everything electronic in the classroom or completely change our way educating. As Postman argues, technology doesn’t teach our children how to share or work in a group environment. Even if children never touched a computer, they still wouldn’t know how to work in a group environment unless a teacher modeled it for them. Postman also contends that technology does not teach collaboration and a sensitivity and responsibility to others. I don’t argue that. But does this make technology any less useful? No, just a multi-tasker.
Postman has even gone so far as to call for the eradication of textbooks in the classroom. What purpose does this serve? Textbooks, just like technology, are only tools, not fallen angels, as Postman reports. For those of us with open minds, we realize textbooks do not contain absolute knowledge. There is no such thing. Like technology, information and what we believed to be true is constantly changing, and textbooks react to those changes through newer editions with clearer and more current information. However, even if the most up to date textbook has an error, the teacher, as facilitator and guide, is capable of exposing the flaw. I will concede to Postman that it is a great idea for students to find flaws in the textbook. Students need to be taught critical thinking. I maintain, however, that an error in a textbook or an author’s inability to capture the phantom of absolute truth at the moment the book is sent to press doesn’t mean that textbooks should be excluded from the classroom.
I find it off-putting that Postman argues against the “Economic utility”, but then tries to mold every child through essentialism and his five narratives. Schools can have more than one purpose, especially since children from all backgrounds, races, socio-economic statuses are being taught. Referring to “Economic Utility”, what is criminal if the purpose of a school is to educate students to the tune of a getting a good job, making a great living, and being financially successful? I take issue with the essentialism he flagrantly promotes through his narratives. Do we really want all our children to be cookie cutters and mindless by-products of the school system?
The education system will never be perfect because those who run and belong in the system such as teachers, parents, administrators, and students aren’t perfect. But perfection isn’t a pre-requisite for effectiveness. Yes, there are flaws in the public school system. Being a radicalist isn’t going to solve them, and questioning aspects of education for the sole sake of controversy isn’t going to bring about the answers.
