I dislike admitting that my first reaction to this article was that of disgust, as I felt the
writer, Nancye Blair was creating a one-sided argument in support of placing a computer or
web-enabled device into every student’s hand in order to bring their level of learning up to date
in the 21st Century. Because the writer did not provide a SWOT, or at least an
advantage/disadvantage analysis, nor did she demonstrate having any appreciation for the value
teachers have on children beyond a facilitator and project manager. Nancye Blair’s tone and
content was almost actually condescending towards our nation’s current public educators,
practically accusing teachers entirely for failing to keep students engaged in the curriculum and
of hoarding access to technology and therefore, limiting their students’ educational potential –
I have long held the position that technology should be integrated into education for
practical use by both teachers and students; however, I do know that teachers can only work with
what they have and how they are able to use it. I live in, and hope to teach within the Tracy
Unified School District, where elementary students do not have any device of their own, or even
access to laptops or devices within their classroom: they still share one computer lab. I am also
aware of ridiculously tight budget constraints and meager teacher allowances/access to basic
supplies that will indeed challenge me to keep my students’ engaged. So I took a closer look at
and innovative teachers of progressive schools, I also followed some of the links she embedded
within this article that validated my strong belief that every student needs regular and frequent
access to current information and technology with use of a laptop, tablet, webbook, chrome
book, etc.; however, I disagree with the Nancye Blair’s assertive argument for a one-to-one
initiative for the issuance of a ‘device to every student’ as a singular solution. This initiative is
meant to permit students to work on a given project outside of the classroom, but fails to address
motivation and responsibility outside of the classroom; focus and interest within the class.
Furthermore, I strongly oppose devices going home with any student below grade 3. (The
exception may be home study or prolonged illness). Children at age 8 have a very short attention
span (of 10-15 minutes); are very self-focused and likely not so conscientious of where they may
place the device to keep it safe and accessible. Although these students would be eager to engage
in playing educational games, the trade-off is that these very early learners should be active
outside of class, and strengthening social skills. Chances are, these children already play games
on gaming devices and are certainly aware when others members of his family are. This
familiarity with computer games at this age is both appropriate and necessary for platforming
with ICT. Therefore, ICT should be introduced step-by-step with the teacher, and teacher-guided
device will, without fail, complete their projects collaboratively or self-guided, out of their own
self-sustaining interest. In her illustrations focusing on the students, she reduced teachers to
simple facilitators and project managers. As I read on, I continued to seek ideas on how teachers
may keep students motivated -once they leave the classroom- to keep their contribution to a
collaborative project on target and not using their issued device or of their own to play unrelated
recreational games or view ‘adult’ sites, or engage in unproductive (and possibly harmful) social
media. These activities are a component of Information, Technology & Communication “ITC” of
this a one-to-one initiative. Other criticisms of her article is as follows: (1) It appears to be
written to motivate school administrators of k-12 educational institutions in the U.S.; however, it
fails to motivate any U.S. school, as those schools that can integrate ITC do or will; (2) Nancye
Blair’s article is not ‘news’ (it has been considered and debated for years) and does not even
It is my thought that the only measurable result of her article is: (1) Garner support from
those who would adamantly criticize public schools form the position that every student is
entitled to a device (however, would these same people help find a solution for schools of very
poorly performing students whom are more likely to misuse such a device? I think not); (2) Seek
a market (schools/community) that protagonist organizations can fulfill their own agenda (one is
a feasibility test. So far, I am only aware of studies in developing nations and in the U.S. and; (3)
Create a market for a full menu of online classes with international standards).
In sum, Nancye Blair’s article is a call to action: however, it is not likely to have any
positive impact for Students in the U.S., partly because she fails to assist her readers to determine
practical solutions for the integration of ICT in education (that best suits their schools).