אינני עוקב אחרי הבלוג של פישר באדיקות. לרוב אני מגיע אליו רק כאשר מישהו אחר שאני כן קורא מקשר אליו (מה לעשות, יש יותר מדי בלוגים מעניינים, ומעט מדי זמן). כך קרה לפני כמה ימים, כאשר הגעתי לבלוג שלו אחרי שסטיבן דאונס ציטט קטע מתוך מאמרון חדש של פישר. במאמרון הזה פישר דן במחיר – לא רק הכספי, אלא בעיקר המוסרי – של הכלים התקשוביים שאנחנו משתמשים בהם בחינוך.
פישר כותב שלאחרונה הוא התחיל להתעניין באילו יזמויות חינוכיות זוכות למימון מקרנות הון סיכון, והתוצאות של החיפוש שהוא ערך מאד מדאיגות אותו. הוא מצא שהפרויקטים שמקבלים כסף רב עוסקים בתחום מאד מצומצם של הלמידה:
Each of these companies creates a product (or products) which circle around helping students to learn basic skills. Now, before everyone jumps on me, I understand that basic skills are important. I believe that students need to read and write at higher levels at this point in history than they ever have in the past. What worries me is that the grand majority of new products and investment money in education is not going to companies looking at the “big picture” of education. Again, with the exception of Coursera, none of the companies in my small list are concerned with connecting students in new or better ways. None of them are helping students to become more engaged with the important problems that our society faces. None of them are helping students to become more passionate learners. None of them are focused on creativity. Instead, millions of dollars is being invested in companies who are offering products to help students learn old skills more efficiently.We talk about changes in education. We talk about a renewed, responsive and changing industry to meet the needs of a globalized, diverse society; but where are the millions of dollars headed in educational technology? To better A, B, Cs and 1, 2, 3s.
It is incredibly disingenuous and misleading (to choose tactful words) for Economist authors to portray NCLB and RTTT as supporting innovative uses of educational technology in U.S. classrooms, when they have done EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
Articles like these from the Economist are part and parcel of an ongoing campaign by many “corporate education reformers” in the United States whose true objective is NOT improving learning opportunities for students, but rather destroying our public schools and our system of public education which continues to be a critical part of our representative democracy.
The quality and breadth of the tools available in Google apps is undeniable. School districts save millions of dollars by signing up for this program. But what are the other costs of using this single suite of tools? What is the morality of enrolling our students in an advanced twenty first century surveillance program? By having our students sign up for a simple Google account, we enroll our students in the world’s most advanced surveillance – corporate ecosystem. This isn’t a possibility or a vague theory. It’s a proven fact.Is that worth it?