When I began my college educational experience, the move toward advanced instructional technology was still in its birth stages. I remember walking to the library and physically checking out books at the University of Memphis. I remember having only dial-up access in the dorm room with which to complete assignments. The first time I learned to use online databases for research were during my graduate school days amidst the hills of the University of Tennessee. Those in charge of editing Modern Language Association (MLA) style struggled to keep abreast of new technological changes more than I did climbing up and down those hills going to my classes. Everything was new, and it evolved every single day, it seemed. New kinds of electronic sources were constantly available, warranting a new way to cite them.

               

Much, however, has changed since then. I couldn’t have imagined upon my entry into academe the sort of environment in which I would be teaching and learning now, a realm where students use laptops daily and the landscape is more often dominated by “cloud computing”: the ability to save and share documents between devices because the storage space for the information resides in that nebulous world of cyberspace. It is a era where I can stroll around the classroom with a tablet computer, known as an iPad (RIP, Steve Jobs, and many thanks), which is thinner than most books and allows me to interact with my students while they are blogging or posting responses to a given instructional prompt on a social learning site. Boy, these are days, and I’m elated to live in such an information-rich, connected era.

Why is it important to have technology in a classroom these days? Well, first, as any good educator will tell you, the technology should never be the focal point. It is only a vehicle—albeit a rather powerful one when coupled with an educator who is either savvy in using it to deliver instruction or is very willing to learn. The importance can be stated in a few choice words: digital literacy, collaboration, creativity, problem-solving, and real-world applicability. These ideals cannot be attained in the same way with standard paper, pencil, and textbook as they can with the appropriate technological tools.

Ultimately, I have been privileged throughout my teaching career to have access to technology in the classroom. Initially, my move to teaching secondary education in a small rural district after having taught for several years in a large, anonymous university environment where technology was readily available was a little disconcerting. It has taken me over three years to bring my classroom into the 21^st century. Some of it I have done through district funding, some through grants, and a good deal through my own personal funds.

In the spring of 2010, my English classroom was selected as a recipient of the 1:1 Laptop Initiative, meaning that each student would receive a laptop for daily classroom use. Managing such an environment is not an easy task. Weaving the technology into the instruction takes much training and planning. It is not a setup appropriate for the proverbial faint of heart. In addition to organization, the second most daunting aspect of efficiently managing a technology-oriented classroom is the on-the-spot troubleshooting that such technology requires. However, in the end, establishing a technology-based classroom does eliminate several hours of valuable future planning time once necessary materials are created and saved.

I now run a mostly paperless classroom. We still must rely on paper for some of our assignments because not all of my students have Internet access at home. My students use Edmodo.com, Writeboard.com, and Evernote.com as collaboration tools, submit assignments—which will be graded and returned electronically—on the course management site Rcampus.com, and complete work using various other sites that encourage higher order thinking skills.

I have not yet had the chance to witness an impact on test scores, since our End of Course examination was piloted last year during a semester I was teaching another course, but I am looking forward at the end of this semester to seeing how my students’ scores match up to other students in the school and statewide—and to gauge what factor I believe technology may or may not have played in that role. I have seen significantly more engagement in student learning since I moved from the traditional paper-pencil-textbook format to technology-based learning, and I saw positive results on last year’s writing examination after incorporating technology to teach students how to write persuasively.

As mentioned, technology is not the sole answer to education woes; of course, it takes a qualified teacher with adequate content knowledge and delivery skills, but with those factors in place, technology is crucial to students’ success in the 21st century. The ability to collaborate and to readily access valuable information, along with access to tools that allow for differentiated learning, have the potential, in the right hands, to revolutionize learning as we may have known it. It will most certainly be the new modus operandi of instruction, and we must, as a society, be ready for it.

When I go to Wal-Mart, I like using the self-checkout. I like the autonomy of scanning the items myself and paying, without relying on anyone else to do the job for me.

However, when it comes to education, I prefer a more traditional route. Self-service education holds some advantages, especially for college-level students, but it has several flaws. If I am a student, I prefer to have that one-on-one interaction with instructor and classmates. I have taken one graduate-level online class in education, but I am a purist when it comes to pedagogy. A student, especially one at the K-12 level, does not acquire as much learning in an online class as a class taken in solitary mode, absent of stimulating class discussion and probing questions.

For one thing, a younger student, who is still learning communication skills, lacks the opportunity to interact verbally with peers in a completely online educational setting. In high school English courses in the state of Tennessee, communication is one of the eight required standards. One of the course-level expectations requires that students know how to “gain the floor in orderly, respectful ways and listen to and respond with civility to the ideas of others.”

Apparently, Tennessee legislators and those in other states fail to see some of the great disadvantages of online classes, a new methodology of learning, known as “virtual public school,” that is quickly threatening the public education system.

This new structure of online free public education raises several questions and concerns: Who pays for this “free” education? What is the source of the funding? Who profits from this system? How does virtual public education compare with the structured classroom environment?

Here is the way the virtual public school system works: a local school district signs up with a company who offers such a service. The company supplies the laptop, textbook, lab supplies, and any other materials the student may need to learn the required subjects. The company receives a generous portion of the district’s funding, which means taxpayers foot the bill, and the outside company profits. 

To start, there is the significant expenditure. In Union County, Tenn., where the district has contracted with K-12, a virtual public school corporation out of Herndon, Virg., the cost per pupil is $5,367. The school retains a small portion, usually around 5 percent.

Consider one school in one district with 900 students. The cost for the state would be over $4 million for a single school at this size. Tennessee has already funneled over $13 million into virtual public schools after the legislation allowing them passed earlier this year. Of course, K-12, the chosen company, chaired by former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett and backed by infamous junk-bond trading king / convicted felon Michael Milken, earned a profit of over $21 million in 2010 and projects a profit of $500 million in revenue in 2011. See how lucrative education is becoming?

At that rate, “virtual public education” has the great potential to bankrupt state coffers. How can such a costly endeavor amount to “cutting back” when, according to news reports, states are dealing with shortfalls? Any fiscal conservative who voted in the majority Republican Tennessee legislators, expecting them to make wise choices with the state’s money, ought to be up in arms. I’m rather liberal when it comes to some pecuniary measures, but even I know this one is way over the top.

Let’s not even consider the cost. What about the validity of the method? In essence, the setup works very much like homeschooling. The parent is dubbed the “parental coach.”  Is every parent in the public school system qualified to be a “parental coach”? I am not sure I would want that role if I had no background in education.

Some may argue that some students do better in paying attention in a virtual public school, in an environment where they are isolated from distraction and potential bullying. And K-12 says its students are making “impressive gains” in academics. (I would say the same, mind you, if I were the CEO of a corporation with $500 million at stake and no scruples about the education of our youth.) However, there is no empirical research that bears out the long-term success of this model because it hasn’t been around long enough to conduct research.

And, again, there is the lack of socialization. Diane Ravitch, an education scholar and former assistant U.S. Education Secretary, said of virtual public schools in an article for Bloomburg Business Week, "This isn't going to turn out to be good for education or good for kids. When you think about people in isolation, sitting in their basements at home, not having to learn how to deal with people, how to cope with cliques, how to work out problems with other children, how to function in a group, it strikes me this is a hugely dangerous direction for our society."

Every citizen of every state should hold their representatives accountable when it comes to public education and its funding. This money is coming out of our pockets as an investment in our youth. And while public education may not be perfect, this model is not the solution to its ills. If we do not take precautions against such an infeasible model, we will witness the demise of public education in America. We might as well go ahead and dig the hole.