RALEIGH — Over the years, North Carolina governors have introduced a number of sweeping, expensive, and somewhat ineffectual educational reforms. Jim Hunt championed National Board Certification for public school teachers. Mike Easley was a proponent of the Learn and Earn/Early College high school initiative. Both promoted multimillion-dollar pre-kindergarten education programs.
Following in the footsteps of her Democratic predecessors, Gov. Bev Perdue has her own vision for statewide educational reform. She is leading an effort to stock public school classrooms with the latest whiz-bang gadgetry, also known as instructional technology.
Perdue’s 2010-11 budget set approximately $40 million for “handheld diagnostic devices,” personal digital assistant devices with special reading software. She claims that the handheld devices will give elementary reading teachers “immediate student-specific feedback regarding student skills mastery” and allow teachers to “immediately address areas of need for individual students.”
North Carolina’s billion-dollar budget deficit notwithstanding, Perdue implored the State Board of Education to join what she called a “dog and pony show.” This is an effort to convince skeptical legislators and other lukewarm supporters that North Carolina teachers desperately need handheld devices. Bill Harrison, chairman of the state board, is a key partner in Perdue’s “dog and pony show.” Perdue appointed Harrison to the post because he shares her blind faith in technology and remains one of her strongest supporters.
Democratic budget writers do not share fully Perdue’s and Harrison’s enthusiasm for instructional technology. The Senate budget slashed much of the funding from Perdue’s proposal. It recommended a $15 million appropriation designed to add one year to the existing diagnostic pilot program and expand it beyond the 40 pilot schools currently participating. It remains to be seen whether the line item will survive in the General Assembly’s final budget. Yet, it appears that at least some influential lawmakers are on the bandwagon.
Throughout this debate, Perdue and her supporters have failed to ask some critical questions about the use of technology in the classroom. Will spending millions of dollars on instructional technology increase student achievement?
Both the state and the nation have made massive investments of tax dollars in instructional technology. A recent study by the National Center for Education Statistics revealed that nearly every public school student in America has an Internet-connected computer in their classroom. The national average is one computer for every 5.3 students.
According to state data, North Carolina boasts an average of one computer for every 2.72 students and one Internet-connected computer for every 2.74 students. North Carolina’s public schools spent over $150 million on instructional technology and technology support services last year.
Evidence suggests that the costs outweigh the benefits. Former Stanford University professor Larry Cuban, author of Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom, agrees. Cuban concluded that the introduction of computer technology has not transformed teaching and learning or resulted in any substantial productivity gains.
North Carolina’s elected officials and education leaders have ignored the fact that enormous expenditures in technology have failed to improve test scores or raise the graduation rate in any significant way.
Moreover, do teachers even want or need handheld devices? According to the 2010 Teacher Working Conditions survey, 80 percent of respondents agreed that they have sufficient access to instructional technology.
As a starting point, we should ask teachers what kinds of technology, if any, would be most useful to them. Once we take care of those basic needs, then we can move on to more sophisticated computer systems and devices.
But they should be careful what they wish for. As technology continues to advance, perhaps we will eliminate the need for teachers altogether.
Terry Stoops is director of education policy studies at the John Locke Foundation.