All “tools” are technology.

Let’s say we’re talking about a third world country. Mostly a culture still based in agriculture. I can say that the OLPC will inject the interest in building high tech into that country. We’ve enjoyed high tech in the US for ages. But now, all of a sudden, some places leapfrog us with the injection of new technology (I am thinking of cell phone and internet, specifically, in Asia).

So - teaching these kids today how to teach themselves using technology that connects them with the outside world… will likely be what separates the haves from the havenots in their country.

Some of our own kids who have computers at home may benefit less from the laptop carts in our schools, but what about those who live in a home without one? How will they compete in a world that where new expectations are held in every job sector to “train yourself” and “research” answers?

I question whether or not we can prepare kids for the future today without technology (specifically, here, digital technologies).

We struggle with this ourselves. When you’re small, you can custom fit the technology to the user. I have no problem giving laptops, for instance, to a teacher who will use them each and every day with their students.

But sometimes you want to roll out large initiatives, and it is sad, that that $2K computer is appreciated more of the heat it puts off in the winter, than its capabilities to transform instruction.

For as much as I’m in the camp of encouraging teachers to squeeze the tech sponge for as much water it puts out, there’s another way of thinking that wouldn’t impose the wrong tool for that teacher’s way of teaching. IOW (in other words), there’s no magic iMac bullet that will automagically change a teacher’s teaching habits.

The conundrum then changes to… “What do we do with the teacher(s) who don’t believe that the use of technology in the classroom isn’t vital to preparing kids for their own futures?”