I like the fantasy this article puts in place for the richer school districts. Unfortunately, reality needs to be put back on the table. Most low income communities are lucky to have the computers that work, Wi-Fi is a luxury, and differentiated instruction is only successful if a combined effort from the parents, teachers, administrators and political figures work together. Not!

I sat on the school board for a very small rural county in Virginia with a budget so small you would wonder how we did it! If your school districts budget is smaller than $12 million, then maybe you are correct. But if your district has more money, and the population really cares about educating their young people, then it can be done. We got grants that supplied the whole system for almost no cost. GRANTS! Tell your board to use them!

Lol, you must just have problems with GOP morons: "oh yes, let's just simultaneously lower funds available for the most promising of all industries (education), and increase funds available for the least (war), so we can line our pockets in the incredibly small long term. Oh, and while we're at it, don't bother even trying to reduce human generated waste or the rapid depletion of essential resources that our very lives depend on, why would anyone want to do that?" What a joke... I'd like to see how the "cost-benefit analysis" that those clowns like to throw around all the time would account for the invisible, and single most significant benefit in any society - that of the compounding effects of a good education (or a bad one in this case) and the resulting hurricane of innovation that comes with it.

Actually it was quite the opposite. Its a fairly Republican leaning county and most are highly in favor of public school education. However, they feel that alot of the way school is managed could be more efficient,and turns out they are correct. We outsourced our nutrition program for something cheaper and more nutritious that still allows our large free and reduced lunch population to continue receiving those services. We outsourced our custodial and the schools are cleaner with less cost. We mainstreamed our central office with computer programs that allow people to work on other projects and more face-to-face items that are more necessary than deciding which transportation routes are more efficient or which data do you actually want me to gather. This has all been streamlined and computerized. Our community is big on being green. All food waste is collected and composted. There are no throwaway dishes. We have a large agriculture program at both the middle and high school. A huge greenhouse in the back is used to grow mostly organic fruits and veggies which are sold to the community to support the programs. Paper is collected in all the classrooms as part of the recycling clubs and returned to the greenboxes for recycling. All water systems have been reduced to low flow and we are currently working on a grey water recovery system for landscaping. We also work cooperatively with neighboring school districts to provide more services at a lower cost. We afford our students the choice of 2 governor school programs, a vocational center, a credit recovery program, 2 alternative schools (one for behavior, the other that is open from 7 am to 10pm allowing students whose life choices have kept them from attending "regular" school programs), dual enrollment that allows some graduating seniors to graduate with both a high school diploma and an associate's degree, an autism program, and a well-respected special education program. We partner with our library system to offer high end databases for research. We partner with our sheriff's office on the SRO program which costs us absolutely nothing and we have an SRO in EVERY school. So as you can see, alot of problems can be resolved with greater efficiency, not necessarily more money.

That doesn't speak to priorities or incentives, it simply speaks to your school's actions in a very particular case. You don't incentivise the actions your county took by dropping the amount of total funds available. This principle is generally true in economics. When the economy is experiencing a contraction, you inject funds, you don't pull them out. When you want higher quality workers, you offer more to them in both benefits and pay, the same is true for schools. Efficiency is something that will occur more generally, and more naturally, as smarter minds are incented to join in on the industry. This not would be a defective form of efficiency that is forced in order to make an invalid point about a faulty policy. Another thing that is generally a plain misconception is that outsourcing provides more for less, when in fact that is usually in a minority of the cases as many studies show. In fact, by and large, efficiency usually drops, as does quality. The fact is, education in our country is crap, and due, in large part, to a republican agenda that follows misguided psuedo-economic arguments that put our military budget at a ludicrously high level, and our education system at the lowest rung of developing nations in terms of quality. Also, I would suggest to your republican leaning friends that they spend the time they put into scrutinizing the public school system into scrutinizing their beloved military budget, they might encounter a lot of "inefficiencies". So although your anecdotal case may somehow (although this still seems doubtful) confirm your own biases, it is not generally the case. But it does confirm one thing for sure - that my hypothesis was correct - the GOP is responsible for your lack of funding.

I don't know why you feel the need to place blame to a certain subgroup of society. Educational funding is a local issue. Since being on the board, we have received less funding from the National government. The president is responsible for creating that budget. The Senate has been Democratically controlled since his first election. The House was controlled by Democrats for the first 3 years, and Republicans the last 3 years. This hardly represents an oppressive GOP majority. Funding actually received from the National government has dropped since 2009. The state government provides a large chunk as well. Funding from the state has been relatively stagnant since 2009. Where we are hurting is on the local level. This is not necessarily driven by politics, but by the citizenry. Our county has a large unemployment rate due to the current economy. Those that do work (75%), often commute 40 miles or more to their jobs. They are the tax base in our county as we have very few industries and very little businesses that hire more than 50 people. Asking the citizens to fork out more money is not really an option, unless you suggest the local government take from the poor to give to the poor. So improving efficiency is a necessary step. I never said to anyone that this would be a solution for their school division, but it has worked for us. As far as injecting funds into the system, that has been through the grants that I suggested in the first response. No need to ask the citizens for money when you can find grants that are willingly giving it to you. The areas we outsourced have been working with greater efficiency that what we provided locally. I forgot to mention that none of our local staff was replaced but rather absorbed by those companies that we outsourced too (a requirement for our division). Our teachers have received an 8-9% raise over the past four years and their insurance plans all come with savings accounts to be used. $2500 in savings account with a $2500 deductible. So in essence, they have a zero deductible and the insurance pays for everything else. We even offer all retirees the same benefits, some who retired over ten years ago. So I think those benefits are excellent compared to other districts around us (I can't speak nationally). Instead of blaming one group or another, I still feel it is necessary to open up a dialogue with all groups since education is the foundation of our society. As far as incentives go, there is only one: the children. No one prides themselves on how much money is saved, or how much is spend per pupil, etc. Rather, we pride ourselves on how well our students perform, their happiness values, and their ability to find college, work, or military upon graduation. What greater incentive do we need? We are constantly trying to find ways to have more programs to support our students, and finding ways to save money helps move funds directly to the students. By the way, even though our citizenry lean Republican in national and state voting, 3 of the 5 local Board of Supervisor members are Democrats. The school board is not allowed to run by party, but I know that 4 of the 5 supported the Democrats in both the last national and state elections. So, rather than placing blame on one party (in your case the GOP), we are working together to come up with creative solutions to our economic woes. And quite honestly, I think it is working quite well. And speaking of defense budgets, Obama's budgets have called for an increase in spending up until 2013. Check the data, its all in there. It 2013, the Republicans gained control of the House and that is when defense spending actually started decreasing. If you have different data, please share, as I am going by those published by the white house budget office and may have overlooked some contingencies.

Wasting your time. Too busy bashing the GOP

Your comments about education spending dropping since 2009 would make sense, since the 2009 budget included an abnormally large boost for education arising from the stimulus. This was signed in by Obama but probably was not maintained at such a high level because it was for stimulus purposes only, so of course it would drop somewhat. Your unemployment and financial hardship is probably due to a staggering degree of inequality of income and taxation between the rich and the poor, to which you can most likely thank the Bush Tax Cuts and his complete lack of regulation of the banks that eventually lead to the meltdown of the entire economy. The temporary increase in spending on military was, in large part, due to the fact that Obama had to deal with the failed wars that Bush began, not to mention the resentment that was created overseas by Bush with his foreign policy failures. This assumes I'm Democratically leaning, however, simply because I criticize Republicans which is simply not the case. It is the case that most Republicans run on a platform that seeks to reduce funding to education while simultaneously increasing funding for a military death machine based on the another outdated concept - that military spending produces economic prosperity in the form of a multiplier. This, however, is most untrue, and reading into more modern economic literature, you'll find that investing into safety nets, innovation and education provide, by far, higher overall, and longer sustained multipliers. This is why there is some element of doubt I still have with regard to your school's narrative because at some point most, if not all, of our major economic and social problems tie indirectly or directly to a faulty belief system held by Republicans. Either way I applaud your progress, but I seriously doubt that there is no GOP policy to blame here for a lack of funding, especially since it just so happens that your state and county are fairly Republican leaning. What I'm saying is not that schools should not focus on efficiency, but that a lack of funding is not going to solve that problem and in fact will most likely exacerbate it.

Wait...you just said you revolitionized you schools buy funding with grants....but then your money dropped from the government. lol

Your bias against the GOP is obvious, which leads to a very basic question: The Democrats and this administration have been in charge going on six years and you're blaming the GOP?

How anyone can not have a bias against the GOP is my question. Having a bias against the GOP is simply having a bias against idiotic policy. What is the GOP's platform anyways? So far all I can gather is that a) they believe in Supply Side Economics (which is a joke in and of itself especially considering the principles it espouses became outdated and obsolete hundreds of years ago) and b) that they want some sort of "traditional values" to be returned to America. This last one, for all I can tell, is basically code for turning the entirety of the US into some giant gun toting hick town complete with racial, ethnic, gender and religious based discrimination. At least the Democrats are working on things that are pressing, such as reducing the ridiculous costs of healthcare, cutting military spending, promoting sustainability and innovation, and promoting STEM education rather than trying to devolve back into a state of science deniers (read Decline and Fall by NewScientist and see how many times they specifically blame republicans for the majority of science denial in the US). If you read my comments above you can clearly see that most of the problems we are dealing with currently arose during Bush's presidency and continue because of GOP fabricated fiction.

The "Bush did it" argument is weak at best. Again, going on six years and this administration has failed miserably to correct any of the problems they could have a positive effect on - like jobs! But, hey, you have all the answers! You should run for public office and "serve" your fellow citizens. And resorting to name-calling is ineffective and rude.

The "Bush did it" argument is one that is a consensus across the globe except for in the bubbles that are conservative mindsets. It's only reiterated so often because no one on that side of things understands the depth of how much of a joke he was. That it took this long to finally see progress in the economy is only a testament to the havoc his administration wrought through pure ignorance. There's also the slightly more cautious and plodding pace that Obama takes, but at least things are actually headed the right way now. Name calling has it's uses, and I'm definitely not ashamed of using it in those situations. As for running for an office, I really don't see the point seeing as how this faith rather than fact based conservative community we have in the US wouldn't listen to reason anyways. Not to mention the fact that most of these things are just common sense. You want results at the administrative level of schools, I'll tell you one thing you don't do - cut funding.

It's not a consensus and you know it. Can you cite any empirical evidence that supports your assertion? You call Bush II a joke and have the audacity to imply that the present POTUS is better. BTW, name calling is petty and an immature approach to true debate of ideas. For you to say it has "it's uses" is simply ridiculous.

http://www.pewglobal.org/20...

Also, for some personal evidence that is anecdotal in a way, but, as you'll see, holds some validity, I myself lived overseas for a period of about 8 years (2002 to 2010), in Dubai UAE. Not one person I met there didn't have something negative to say about Bush and America for his entire term. This included every member of my high school there, an international school (with more nationalities represented in my very classroom than most universities have at all) and many teachers. This also includes major business leaders there with whom I was acquainted being that my family is also quite prominent in the business world there.

As for name calling in debate, I agree, it has no place in true debate of ideas as you say. If you're referring to the comments I received below, however, then those were not an attempt at debate of ideas in the first place. It was simply some sad attempt to name call me, to which I responded in kind. This is where its uses lie.

As for the current president, his economic policies have been, thus far, enough to drag us back from an economic slump not seen since the Great Depression. We're even seeing enough growth for the Fed to begin tapering. We're also seeing policies that are attempting to fix the GAPING income inequalities in the US including increasing taxes for wealthy individuals who have thus far managed to evade their fair dues and have stagnated the productivity of our economy. Economics will back me up in saying that taxing the rich to a higher degree than the poor makes sense based on the concept of declining marginal utility, as well in that poverty is a trap. There's also recent evidence that a social safety net encourages more risk-taking, and as you should know, the flip side of this is more societal return. In line with this we're seeing an attempt at healthcare reform (or as much of one as we can see without being muted by misguided economics once again, mostly on the side of the GOP). We're seeing more open support of STEM field education and undeniable scientific evidence regarding the deleterious effects of climate change. Want me to go on? I can go into more depth on any one of these.

You're in a Bizzaro World. Typical of you nutters. Meanwhile, for the last forty years American public education has been in steep decline and is now a laughing stock - and you will tell us its due to all those conservative teachers and administrators, those Republican controlled teachers' unions, the uber-conservative text book publishers revising our history, the Right Wing's obsession with teaching kids to feel good about themselves by praising and celebrating mediocre work and convincing children they are super special, though it's you liberals who know that self esteem is earned by reaching high standards and by achievement and performance. The list goes on. Your side is to blame, Numbnuts. You and your ilk and your warped and ignorant view of the world and life.

While you're away, maybe you could find that evidence that supports your claims that liberals are at fault for text book scams, badly managed schools, "rewriting history" (hah, that was a real good one), the self-esteem movement and the myriad of others you made here.

Let's start with this:

http://godfatherpolitics.co...

And of course you will refute the entire thing, so I'll keep them coming until you cannot avoid seeing a pattern and you finally squirm your weaselly ass back over to that hate site Salon with your nutter buddies whose IQs and shameless partisanship preclude them from any rational or critical thought .

Yet you point me to some low-tech flash-choked shitfest of a conspiracy website and accuse me of getting points from this "Salon.com". I'm actually willing to bet you're some kind of 60 year old know-nothing who can barely operate the computer he's using right now. My partisanship doesn't exist, I don't support democratic parties either, as I mentioned before, but clearly you don't actually read before posting inane comments. I simply support them more than I support the idiotic crap that comes from Republicans. Try standing on two legs with your trickle down economics now that Piketty has officially blown that argument to smithereens. Try arguing that climate change isn't largely a factor created by humans now that a majority of the scientific community has officially voiced evidence to support that. Your party doesn't run on reason which is why all you can do is sit here and make weak arguments and sling insults, if I can even call them that. Go crawl back into the uneducated hole you came from and degenerate back up into the trees where you belong.

Climate change now? Where did that come from? Get off the drugs, Dicksnot. You've got more problems than I'm qualified to deal with here.

Hmm... let's think about this, even though I know thinking is a pretty big challenge for you as a Repub. Let's analyze the logical flow here. You're a conservative, conservatives have been opposed to the highly evidenced claim that humans have caused climate change since the 90's despite this already having been established everywhere outside of their own ignorant circles (source: http://www.climateaccess.or... , http://en.wikipedia.org/wik.... Thus I'm attacking the irrationality of your party that disqualifies it from having a legitimate position based on the most important of human faculties - reason. This also leaves those who follow its illogical policies in the same boat - irrational, ignorant. Thus you are irrational and ignorant... This really is hopeless, but yet so fun, almost like training an animal. Say something dumb again so I can provoke you even more :D.

Ecologist here- very entertained by all of this. I saw the climate change comment. Had to speak up- we make models on a regular basis that "support" both claims. While we can't help but assume our actions have an effect on climate change (they must right?- and I believe they do), there are too many variables to conclusively say one way or the other. Feel free to respond to this but I will most likely never be back on here- just happened upon the discussion. With that said, I also know this has little to do with the discussion, just my area so I felt compelled.

That's great and all, except that there are often too many variables to say "conclusively" one way or another about anything that doesn't offer a precise control or counterfactual. That's the way statistics works. You gauge it with a level of confidence which is very high in this case among a very wide range of reputable sources, so high as to be irrational to assume the opposite to be even a remote possibility. That said, I'd really like to know what sources you identify with an opinion to the contrary, because there are very very few. http://climate.nasa.gov/sci....

Just curios. How old are you? Sixteen? Seventeen?

24, and definitely able to pick out sources that don't have blatant spelling errors and misinformation. Unfortunately I can't say the same for your little website above.

Teachers wouldn't need unions if they received competitive pay, imbecile. That's the point I was making if you could actually understand it. You attract talent by paying well and incentivising, pick up a book for once. And I suppose what you'll tell ME next is that publicly funded schooling is a waste of taxpayer money and more reach being imposed by a fascist government... pshhh, please, we don't all shop at Walmart and go visit the creation museum for our history lessons. And please, don't start with that liberals = bleeding hearts BS just because you can't formulate a real argument you anti-intellectual scumbag.

You're repeating yourself. Back to Salon.com for some different nutter talking points, Goofball.

I'm actually waiting for you to say something relevant to the discussion since you've added precisely nothing thus far, but that's quite obviously a waste of time so thanks for reiterating that. If you're trying to somehow argue that budget cuts solve administrative inefficiencies then that point has already been countered. They do nothing but hurt teacher incentives and sequester much needed programs. Silly hick.

I am just amazed at how blinded you are by hate and discrimination for others! You are offering only finger pointing and excuses instead of solutions. I am also curious if you have ever taken any economics or government accounting courses recently, if not, you should probably look online (there are quite a few for free). A basic understanding of how these things work will help explain why the current budget and other things are not working. Before you start name calling and pointing fingers, educate yourself!

I actually have, I'm majoring in Business Economics as we speak with a 3.6 GPA in a program that is ranked 22nd in the nation. Discrimination doesn't mean I'm wrong. In the area of policy decisions I discriminate with full force, and it is because policy decisions affect everyone, not just those that support them. When they are faulty, like GOP policies, they add problems to everyone's lives. If it were the case that the GOP could carry out their policies in isolation and only screw themselves, I wouldn't need to "discriminate" against their policies as you call it.

So American public education was fine back in the 1960s when segregated schools were the norm and students who wanted to drop out and work did so freely? Are you saying that our schools would be doing just fine again if we still had segregated schools and no longer tried to educate everyone under the age of 18? Wow. That's a bizarre point of view for 2014.

Apples and oranges, Genius. Like saying the 1927 Yankees sucked because they didn't have any Black players because of segregation. And kind of like the fool sajawah above trying to change the subject, read my mind, and judge me from his mind reading. It's what your side does way too often, and it's only one reason why reasonable people rarely take anything far left fools like you say seriously. It is what has become of you guys, and I can guess the current education system has something to do with it. Sajwanih is 24 and a recent product of it. He's one of millions of examples.

Your reading comprehension and inference indicates you have recently come out of the American public school system.

Also, your arguments are completely irrelevant to the conversation, I was speaking to funding, not management of the education system. Clearly I agree with a reform of the way it's run or I wouldn't have visited this page.

Prop up the strawman and knock it out of the park. The caricature of the GOP platform was interesting (and by "interesting" I mean completely ridiculous). Having worked in a public school, international schools and a charter school, there are a lot of factors that go into education. No amount of money can replace parents that take a part in their child's education. I agree with a lot of what was said in the article, but most of the things in here had nothing to do with money. Funding is not the biggest problem that we have. Funding and management go together. The public school that I worked at had a ludicrous number of office workers, many who sat around and did little. The charter school had only a few who worked very hard. The $40,000 per person can do a lot.
It's interesting that the person who wrote the article wanted to go away from the assembly line way of educating kids and yet liberals are the ones who try to stymie innovation by keeping old teachers in classrooms who stick to "what has always worked." Conservatives have generally been in favor of school choice which has created new innovations in education such as differentiated school like STEM schools, medical schools (in Raleigh/Durham), etc.
Get in a classroom, talk to conservative teachers (they do exist) and don't take all your info from MSNBC.

Also, if you want to talk commitment to STEM fields, you can't get much more committed than the platform of this presidency, albeit with the caveat that Obama is slower to create the changes he proposes, but at least he commits to the right ones.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/a...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/i...

A far cry from the current Republican track record of attempting to pit personal and religious views against scientific advancement (Stem Cell Research, Energy Research, Climate Change... *runs out of breath*...)

So, I'd really like to see your empirical evidence that points to Liberals being the supposed cause of the management issues in these schools. I'd also like to see your economic evidence that points to lowered funding equating to better managed systems. Also, let me restate what exactly was going on above in my arguments since clearly you don't really know what's going on (in regards to your straw man claim). I made a sarcastic supposition that the funding problems Mike Reid was facing in his school were probably due, in some way, to Republican ignorance on the matter, fully expecting a retort on this end because of the way Mike had phrased his previous post. He had mentioned that his school had done some things to become more efficient at managing with a lower budget, and I could tell that the slant was leaning Republican because they are always trying to prove their fallacious and illogical arguments with conjecture and anecdotal evidence. This particular post stemmed from the belief that Republicans have that cutting funding to schools will somehow magically improve their efficiency. Mike Reid attempted to provide, impliedly, anecdotal evidence for this ridiculous concept. Receiving the reply I expected, that of a defensive one, I replied with my reasoning supporting my belief that Republicans are most likely to blame for lowered funding in public schools. I also provided evidence for my claims that this lowered funding does not provide the ends Republicans seek - that of better managed schools. It's a simple economic argument that is generally true. I then received a few angry and nonsensical posts and Republican propaganda which I responded to in kind with the same BS that was thrown at me. Not one of these was a straw man argument as you claim, but if you do have evidence to the contrary, again, please provide and paraphrase it.

"If you read my comments above you can clearly see ..." that you're a partisan hack and a gullible moron.

I am not sure I want to live in your real world...as there are the next leaders and entrepreneurs that are sitting in the very schools that you feel are so inaccessible. The cost of computers and Wi-Fi are comparable to the purchase of the traditional textbooks and I am hoping that teachers are looking at their students and understanding their needs as opposed to talking at them all day. There is a wonderful world that is the lives that these children will really live...and providing a paper and a pencil and ignoring what is really making things tick is limiting their possibilities...and btw...aren't you reading online and commenting to a blog...hmmmm... sounds like part of your real world!

I agree. The 14 recommendations listed here may not be "quick fixes" but that doesn't diminish their essential nature. If you can't agree that these are (among) the changes that need to be made then progress will be slow, very slow. Or else, you'll be caught up in the next wave---it is coming, it will come---and swept right out the door!

By the way, if the cost of wi-fi is too much, and the cost of traditional textbooks is as well...what does that say about the cost of traditional textbooks?

You know that list of student names in the front of a textbook that shows to whom it has been issued each school year? When I was in Spanish class (at my small school that you'll read about in my other comment, if you haven't already), I found the names of people whom I knew--because their children were friends of my siblings! Small schools don't buy the "wi-fi is affordable because we get textbooks and they're just as cheap" argument--they don't get textbooks every year, either! Plus, when you're in a small, rural, low-income community, many kids don't have devices to use wi-fi anyway--a number don't even have internet in their homes (or if they do, it's dial-up)!

It is! It's also another part of his real world (speaking from experience as the son--and former attendee--of a public high school that is like Mr. Reid's, only moreso) that schools are funded on a per-student basis. Small schools get "extra money" in one way or another (not sure how it works in VA--I'm from OR) because they can have outlandishly-low student counts (by the standards of larger municipalities). For example, the high school I attended for part of my educational years had only 65 students in it--counting grades 7-12!

I think that sometimes people from larger schools don't realize the very different set of advantages and disadvantages faced by small schools. They see the disadvantages (far from the services provided by the Educational Services District, no money for things like wi-fi and cafeteria--everyone had to bring sack lunches at my high school as there was no caf--and teachers that teach more than one subject, rather than specializing in just one), but cannot fully appreciate the advantages that can only be felt by those who have lived in the community and actually had the experience of going to the school.

We had such a small student-to-faculty ratio that every teacher knew every student personally, and understood what their strengths and struggles were, and could provide individualized help to each student (even though they couldn't provide an individualized program of classes, as there weren't enough teachers to really put Suggestion 12 on this list into action).

One reality of small schools that teachers have to deal with is that they're absolutely hog-wild about their sports programs. I don't just mean the students, but also their families (frequently, in a small-town culture, including extended families who live locally), and the community at large. Because 80% of the students participate in sports at a school that is small enough for everyone to make the team, the group of students that make up the sports teams is representative of the student body as a whole. Anyone not on the team is a huge fan, because the athletes are their friends (and frequently siblings and cousins). The after-school video-editing program would be a great idea in a school where not everyone's on the team, but out here no student would have time for that, with practices and all--same with any band program!

This is a problem with a society that spends so much on war and entertainment, rather than putting more towards education. A society that thinks "those who can't, teach." Is a society that will never truly value education. To improve society the people that make up that society need to be educated. It is too bad that most societies don't value education as much as developing killing devices, playing games, or being entertained.

There are federal E-rate refunds that reimburse up to 90% for tech communication infrastructure for title 1 schools. Title 1 schools are our poor schools with high free and reduced lunch rates based on parent/guardian income. Get yourself a good consultant because the process is complicated. We found our district was leaving $3 million on the table every year...$30 million over the last 10 years. We found that we can't afford not to have wi-fi, bandwith and digital learning. The traditional way is far more expensive.

We are up to date with everything in our homeschool.

If cell phones would be used like you described, it would be learning at the highest level. Unfortunately, reality strikes. Students today are very interested what else is happening and it is so easy to find out -- not necessaily educational. Distraction from reality is at an all-time high. The use of technology many times adds to that delimma. I had a presenter at a tech seminar once say, "The cell phone brings us all together." WHAT?? Talk about a device that separates us from everyone around, the cell phone is that device.

I see all of these devices adding to education, but teacher education must be constant (If districts are willing to pay). But then again, you don't need a computer to fill in a bubble sheet.

Students aren't more interested in their cell phones when what is happening at school, in the classroom, what's being asked of them, what they're being asked to imagine, question and contribute, is interesting, enjoyable, engaging, authentic, worthwhile, validating, important . . . . Ever been bored out of your skull in a meeting? What's the first thing you do? You reach for your smartphone. "Calgon, take me away!" Students (cell phones) aren't the problem. At least, don't jump to that conclusion so easily. Look in the mirror, assess your own school culture and teaching practice, figure out where YOU'RE going wrong, and then proceed. Smacks of the fundamental attribution error (Google it as I did last weekend). It's always someone else's (read: "the students'", or "cell phones" or . . . .)

You're underestimating the lure of technology and the power of the illusion of multi-tasking. I teach a college course in which all the sections (taught by different professors) meet once a week to attend a presentation by a guest speaker. The presentations are mostly excellent -- engaging, often with a multi-media component, interactive (not just a lecture).

Yet sitting near the back, I see students with lap-tops that have four windows open: one to take notes, a browser, an online game, and an instant messaging window. And they've got all those open before the presenter has even begun.

Don't talk to me about being "boring." The operative phrase is "to take an interest" -- active verb. Yes, we all find some meetings boring, but no serious learning environment can compete with "Clash of Clans" in terms of stimuli and instant gratification.

Thank you for the lecture. You responded only to the portions of my reply that pushed your buttons. You ignored most of it. Really, there's no such thing as boring? You say the/your presentations are engaging and interactive yet students are disengaged. Perhaps we define "engaging and interactive" differently. I work with elementary students and can attest (I won't lecture you about what you've underestimated, though) that not everyone is looking for (over) stimulation and instant gratification, not 24/7 anyway. Our young students willingly trade their recess time (the only time in the schedule this particular year) for the chance, just yesterday, to learn how to hammer a nail. I sense a state of affairs among even this young generation (the one that is so enamored of their digital devices) in which students feel "apped out." Many/most gladly put down their iPads to learn to code in a very analog way (plastic cups), or skip another game of soccer or football to work with their hands.

Sorry if you perceived it as a lecture. I was sharing my observations, which I thought was the point.

I said *some students* are disengaged, and the ones who are generally are the ones who have their laptops open. When sixty students burst out laughing because a presenter made a good point in a funny way, and the twenty who don't are staring at computer screens and then look up with a confused expression of "Hey, what just happened? Why did people laugh?" I think it's fair to suggest the technology is not helping them learn.

Your experience with elementary students sounds encouraging. And that kind of hands-on learning with materials is wonderfully engaging. My wife is a Montessori teacher, so I know that well.

But while materials are great in early education for teaching concepts, the higher up you go, the more students need to be able to be engaged by ideas and words as well.