The Board of Education Has Fun With Technology

New Trier High School has recently begun a “Mobile Learning Initiative” which basically means that many New Trier students are in courses that require that they use an Ipad to replace the vast majority of ways in which they used to learn. I happen to be one of  New Trier’s students testing out the new program and I have had three of their classes taken over by this supposedly beneficial technology. If you haven’t figured it out already, I’m not very fond of the situation one bit.

According to the "Mobile Learning Initiative"page on the New Trier website the Board of Education approved the plan for 2,300 New Trier students to be placed in Ipad courses in the 2013-2014 school year and all New Trier students for the following year. The basis for this came from a pilot program of 700 students with school mandated Ipads. They say that "students reported it changed the way in which they collaborated and learned". I found it odd that they didn't specify how many students said this but what stood out to me the most was that they said it "changed" the way they learned, but not that it helped them learn.

Another reason why New Trier says that Ipads are beneficial to learning is because they make classes "paperless". They say that since students can complete and submit every worksheet, lab, or quiz using an Ipad that this will be more benificial than just turning in a hard copy. I would argue that this is not the case. For example, when I turn in a lab for physics I don't get a graded hard copy back that I can put in my binder to review for a test down the road, I get an email giving me "feedback". This is next to useless because you can't pull up both the email and the lab at the same time. This is just one of the many ways I have found that it has hindered rather than helped my education.

This blind leap to technology by schools (and everyone else) seems to be a trend throughout America right now. An article by the New York Times addresses this very topic. Two great points were illustrated in an interview with Tom Vander Ark, the former executive director for education at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and an investor in educational technology companies. Referring to technology in the classroom Tom says, “It’s one of the three or four biggest things happening in the world today”. He goes on to state, “The data is pretty weak. It’s very difficult when we’re pressed to come up with convincing data”. Not only is this movement massive in scale but there is really not enough solid evidence to prove that it will be a success. With so many New Trier students' educations on the line I think it would have been better until there was more substantial evidence of the benefit of technology in education.

I think this topic brings up a lot of issues. One of which is the rights of students. Personally, I feel like I had very little say in all of this and think that since a school’s goal is to teach it’s students, then there should be a greater effort to ask them how the learn. Also, I think we really need to take a step back and consider the technology in our lives and if the benefits really outweigh the cons. The New York Times wrote an article in 2009 that states that the average American spends 8 hours a day staring at a screen. Is it really a good idea to try and increase this number? Is America (specifically the educational system) moving towards technology to fast? If you go to New Trier, and happen to be enrolled in an Ipad course(s), has your learning benefited because of these devices? Additionally, do you feel like the school has given you enough of a say in the issue?

The Cost of Healthy Eating

A new grocery store called "Artisanal" recently opened just down the street from my house. After stopping in and learning a little bit more about it I was thoroughly impressed by the quality of the food. All organic and local whenever possible, I could tell the owners really cared about giving you humanely raised and responsibly grown food. Being as excited as I was, I asked my mom if we could do all our shopping there and she explained that she tries to shop there as much as she can but that it is very expensive there. This response was a bit of a surprise to me and it got me thinking. If my family is hesitant to sacrifice some extra cash for organic food then how can low income families even consider eating organic food? I stopped by Artisanal today to check out the prices of their food for myself. A gallon of their organic milk costs $6.79 while a regular gallon of milk at Walgreens is $2.99. With such a difference in price it seems impossible that family's just trying to put food on the table could ever afford to spend the extra cash to buy organic food. The idea that people don't even have the choice to eat food that was ethically raised is simply unfair. Say someone really cares about animal rights, or the environment but simply can't afford to purchase the food that supports these values. I think that everyone should have the ability to be able to support the causes they believe in and I think the idea of standing up for your values is a very American concept.

Along with not being able to eat organic, low income families also have difficulty eating healthy. Dr. Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University and an outspoken critic of the fast food industry, told CBS News. “People are hugely influenced by the price of food. If you don’t have any money and go into the store to buy some fresh fruits, you might decide that it’s cheaper to have a couple of fast food hamburgers.” I think this is a very good point especially when there are things like the McDonald's dollar menu specifically marketed to low income people. An add on their website reads, "Your stomach is empty – and so is your wallet. Good thing there's the Dollar Menu... a tasty way to fill up for less". Advertising is everywhere these days and when you see fast food ads that are just begging you to purchase their affordable and tasty food it’s hard for anyone to resist. In addition, many Americans simply don't have the time to prepare a healthy meal. A recent article by the Washington Post quoted a study by the Center for American Progress, “In 2010, among families with children nearly half (44.8 percent) were headed by two working parents and another one in four (26.1 percent) were headed by a single parent". When both parents are forced to work, the convenience and affordability of fast food and junk food make them appealing options.

Lastly, I’d like to briefly address the government’s role in all this. A study released this year from the U.S. Public Research Interest Group called “Apples to Twinkies” states that, “Since 1995, the government has spent $292.5 billion on agricultural subsidies, $19.2 billion of which have subsidized corn- and soy-derived junk food ingredients”. It goes on to say that, “Apples, the only fruit or vegetable to receive significant federal subsidies, garnered only $689 million over the same period”. Clearly, the government could be doing more to support affordable healthy food.

So I know this is a lot of information but what do you guys think about all this? Do you think it’s wrong that it’s so difficult for lower-income people to eat organically and healthy? What does this say about what our government values? Should the government subsidize healthy food to lower the prices? Does the government have a responsibility to support small organic farmers as well as the big corporations? Those are just some questions to think about. My main question would be do you think that anything discussed in this blog is unfair or contradicts American values, and if so what can be done about it?