Stephen Downes and Wesley Fryer both took aim at a news article that appeared today, Study eyes effect of tech on classroom. Wesley talked about the need for good teaching before any technology, including paper and pencils, can make a big difference. And I agree. Stephen hailed the power of technology in and of itself to foster learning. I’m inclined to agree there, too, if we don’t narrowly predefine the learning objectives.

But there’s another dimension to this story that I think we need to look at. The first line of the AP article said,

WASHINGTON — Going high-tech doesn’t lead to higher math and reading scores, according to a federal study.

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about learning. This story is all about technology and test scores related to NCLB. There’s a more detailed story in the Washington Post, Software’s Benefits On Tests In Doubt: Study Says Tools Don’t Raise Scores, which gives a little more information about this research. There we get to see a defense of the software programs, not from a software industry spokesman as you might expect, but from a representative of the Dept. of Education:

“We are concerned that the technology that we have today isn’t being utilized as effectively as it can be to raise student achievement,” said Katherine McLane, spokeswoman for the Department of Education.

To me, this is blatant promotion of these commercial products by the US DOE, every bit as outrageous as government officials favoring certain reading programs for Reading First grant money. Also note that

Industry officials played down the study and attributed most of the problems to poor training and execution of the programs in classrooms.

Blaming teachers for failed policies and poor program design is sport in the US these days. Everyone gets a shot, even the builders of mediocre e-learning products. And the news media do their part as publicity agents for this propaganda. The government funded this study, and when the results didn’t serve the industry’s need, they jumped to their own conclusions about teacher training, poor execution…it doesn’t matter. They don’t care. Who needs research?

This is such a farce.

It couldn’t be that the product is bogus. It couldn’t be that it does exactly the same thing as the paper and pencil worksheets that every teacher has in their file cabinet for a tiny fraction of the cost of the technology “solution.”

It could be that the whole thing is a massive scheme that begins with developing standards and tests, which in turn create a market for a range of products that schools wouldn’t otherwise want.

It seems like every education news story in the US is about NCLB nowadays. Read Teacherken’s post on the subject for a more detailed political analysis, and a bit of history on the study itself. Read through some of the 300+ comments.