Greetings, fellow improv enthusiasts and educators! Scott Pacitti here, ready to dive into a topic that’s sparking quite the debate in our schools: the role of technology in education. As we embrace the digital age, we must also grapple with the complexities that come with it. James Farrell’s insightful article sheds light on the growing backlash against tech tools like i-Ready in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. It seems that while technology promises personalized learning, many are questioning whether it truly enhances the educational experience or simply replaces vital face-to-face interactions. Join me as we explore the intricacies of this discussion, where the stakes are high and the voices of students and parents are louder than ever.

The growing backlash to tech in schools

By James Farrell

This week, I reported on a growing backlash to technology in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. Particularly, the use of an educational software called i-Ready, which provides personalized instruction to CMS students based on an assessment they take to find their strengths and weaknesses. CMS students use i-Ready around 90 minutes per week.

The software’s owners, Curriculum Associates, argue rigorous research shows their program increases test scores. One study in North Carolina found higher state test scores among students who used the program with fidelity.

“At Curriculum Associates, we welcome thoughtful conversations about responsible technology use in schools,” said Ty Holmes, Curriculum Associates chief impact officer. “We design our tools to support student learning, not replace classroom instruction, by helping educators identify learning gaps earlier, personalize instruction, and improve student outcomes. In North Carolina, the results have been overwhelmingly positive, with students using i-Ready Personalized Instruction consistently showing stronger reading and math outcomes and higher proficiency rates on state tests than their peers who do not. We are immensely proud of these success stories and the millions of students, teachers, and educators we work with across the country.”

But parents and students are skeptical. They say much of the research Curriculum Associates has conducted was conducted by Curriculum Associates. And they worry it’s replacing real instructional time with screen time.

“They’re in a school, they’re in a classroom with a teacher and materials, and I don’t understand why you would put a child on a tablet in that context,” Sedgefield Montessori School parent Lorna Burns told me.

CMS parents aren’t the only ones voicing concerns. NBC reported earlier this month on parents’ increasing skepticism toward i-Ready, which is used in classrooms around the country. Some students called it boring and monotonous, which echoed the sentiments I heard from Anastasia Bates, a sixth-grader at Sedgefield Montessori who has started a student petition calling on CMS to get rid of the program.

“Some people say it’s too challenging or too easy,” Bates told me. “There’s a lot of extra steps that we have to do sometimes, and the narration’s annoying because you can’t skip it.”

Other parents across the country are voicing concerns about the role of tech in schools in a post-pandemic world where more and more school districts provide 1-to-1 devices to students. Pointing to a growing host of research on the negatives of screen time, especially for younger children, parents are pushing some states to claw tech back from classrooms – and they’re getting some wins. Vermont is weighing a law that would give parents the ability to opt their kids out of using devices in their education. Utah passed a law banning screen time in grades K-3.

Parents here have launched a petition calling on CMS to allow for a tech opt-out.

I’ve noticed some other rumblings of conversation here, too: Back in February, the state Board of Education passed its legislative agenda, which included pushing for funds to help fund device refreshes for school districts. But there was some debate among board members about whether the investment would be worthwhile. Here in Mecklenburg County, Commissioner Leigh Altman expressed similar skepticism when CMS pitched its budget and funding for new devices.

Then there’s what happened at CMS last week. End-of-year testing was hampered by technical glitches for two straight days. The Department of Public Instruction and CMS were working to address the issues ahead of continued testing this week. It’s a reality of testing that’s done on a statewide online system. And many of the parents who wrote to me during this episode expressed frustration about tech’s role in the crash.

“For critical graduation and growth benchmarks like the EOGs and EOCs, the state and district must seriously consider returning to a paper-and-pencil format,” one parent wrote. “A paper booklet cannot crash, it cannot erase a student’s hard work, and it ensures an equitable baseline for all students. Can anyone really consider the results of today’s test valid?”

All that to say that there’s a growing skepticism around tech in classrooms – and i-Ready might just be one of the more visible parts of that conversation.

As Krista Glazewski, executive director of the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at N.C. State, told me for my story this week, the reality is complicated. She urged against drawing any simple conclusions, such as “technology is good” or “technology is bad.” Technology has enabled students to do more than ever before — conducting quick, up-to-date research that can’t be found in textbooks, for instance.

The short answer is — it depends.

“I think the evidence points to a really complicated reality,” Glazewski said. “It points to context, pedagogy, design, developmental stage, adults in the room, the nature of what’s being asked — all of that matters enormously.”

# # #

As we wrap up this exploration of technology in education, let’s remember that the conversation is far from over. The concerns raised by parents, students, and educators highlight the delicate balance we must strike between embracing innovation and ensuring genuine learning. Just like in improv, where we adapt and respond to our scene partners, we must adapt our approach to education to ensure it meets the diverse needs of all students. So, let’s keep the dialogue going — what are your thoughts on the role of technology in the classroom? Are we moving too fast, or is it time to leap forward? As we navigate this landscape together, let’s aim for a future where technology enhances, rather than detracts from, the joy of learning.