"Clearly, the desire to not deprive any child of a good, and equal, education is laudable, and represents the best of intentions. But in some cases, our good intentions can lead us to behaviors that are not in the best interests of all our students" (Prensky, 2009).
Let's look at a situation in reverse taken from Marc Persnky's (2009) article,
"29 of my students have a computer at home but one doesn't. So I don't assign computer homework, because it wouldn't be fair to that one student."
So 28 students suffer because 1 doesn't have. How is that fair to the 28 students? Can we not figure out a way to help that 1 student get access to a device so all could benefit from technology use?
Back to the example of the blind student, should we not allow the other students in the class to use the text book because the 1 student can't read from the traditional text?
"Clearly, the desire to not deprive any child of a good, and equal, education is laudable, and represents the best of intentions. But in some cases, our good intentions can lead us to behaviors that are not in the best interests of all our students" (Prensky, 2009).
Resource
Students are not made the same - we have differently personalities, strengths, weaknesses, likes, dislikes, family, backgrounds, ethnicity, finances, and many other attributes. These are the things that make us unique, who were are. When we see all these differences, why do we then discount that and expect everyone to learn the same thing, at the same time, in the same way, with the same materials?
The concept of equality has doesn't mean that everyone needs the exact same all the time. Teachers are to provide equal access to education. Equal access means different things to different people. If a student is blind, providing her with the same book that everyone else is using would not be providing equal access. This student is incapable of reading due to their blindness but providing the same book with braille or an text to speech device allows this student to gain access to the material to learn. This seems to be an obvious example but becomes more challenging to see with different circumstances like a student with ADHD or autism or who leans in a different modality,style or intelligence. Of course teachers can't possibly be expected to teach every student in their overpacked classroom to match their best learning modality, style or intelligence. This would require a tremendous amount of work on the teacher's part every year to evaluate each and every student to determine their learning style or modality or need. Then you take into account high-stakes testing, common core, No Child Left Behind, school-approved curriculums, the concept that all within this grade need to be learning the exact same thing, and a teacher feels overwhelmed and adding in trying to figure out each students learning style - there just isn't enough time. Teachers would need to be preparing 20 individualized plans for each lesson taught. This seems like an impossible task unless we look at teaching in a different light. If we see the teacher as a facilitator rather than dictator. Currently teachers are taught how to create lesson plans to be presented to the class as a whole but if we shifted from a teacher centered classroom to a student centered classroom, project based or Universal Design our options change and open up. These concepts allow for more individualized learning stemming from the learner, creating more intrinsic motivation to learn.
How does this apply to technology? Many schools are hampered in the technology field when they think of implementing technology tools, they look back to that one-size-fits-all situation from above. All students must have the exact same iPad or Chromebook or whatever technology they plan to use, otherwise it's not equal for all students. We need to look beyond that thinking, not everyone needs the same. Many schools are using a bring you own device (BYOD) scenario. This program means students bring what they have - their laptop, iPad, iPhone, droid phone, KindleFire or whatever device they have access too. There are many free Web 2.0 tools that all devices can use. If instead of looking at the specific device we look to the internet to Google and it's many apps, WebQuests, Edmodo, VoiceThread, wikis, blogs, social media and other free Web 2.0 tools out there, our options open up tremendously. If the majority of students have access to some sort of device then a school only needs to look towards providing for those students who don't have technology access. Then class time needs to be devoted for these students and others to work with their devices to complete assignments. Schools can be opened up before school, after school and weekend hours to allow those students who don't have access to the internet time use the internet and/or devices the school has available.
"29 of my students have a computer at home but one doesn't. So I don't assign computer homework, because it wouldn't be fair to that one student."
So 28 students suffer because 1 doesn't have. How is that fair to the 28 students? Can we not figure out a way to help that 1 student get access to a device so all could benefit from technology use?
Back to the example of the blind student, should we not allow the other students in the class to use the text book because the 1 student can't read from the traditional text?
"Clearly, the desire to not deprive any child of a good, and equal, education is laudable, and represents the best of intentions. But in some cases, our good intentions can lead us to behaviors that are not in the best interests of all our students" (Prensky, 2009).
Prensky, M. (2009, Jan.-Feb.). Let's Be "Digital Multipliers" Eliminating the Digital Divide is Something Educators Can Do. Educational Technology. Retrieved on Aug. 16, 2014 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-Lets_Be_Digital_Multipliers-ET-01-09.pdf
