Apparently the Apple iPad stands to become the replacement for those bulky printed textbooks that kids have to lug around. This New York Times article has some particularly interesting and illuminating quotes on the benefits of the iPad as a textbook replacement.

For example:

“The iPads cost $750 apiece, and they are to be used in class and at home during the school year to replace textbooks, allow students to correspond with teachers and turn in papers and homework assignments, and preserve a record of student work in digital portfolios. ‘It allows us to extend the classroom beyond these four walls,’ said Larry Reiff, an English teacher at Roslyn who now posts all his course materials online.”

This sort of quote is designed to excite educators who are constantly looking for more informal learning opportunities, as it’s increasingly clear that informal learning is potentially more powerful than formal learning (to paraphrase a massive discussion on the subject).  This quote also raises a host of questions about ergonomics and access, given that the keyboard on the iPad screen is not a suitable long-term input device if you want to help kids avoid repetitive stress injuries.

Another interesting quote:

“Educators also laud the iPad’s physical attributes, including its large touch screen (about 9.7 inches) and flat design, which allows students to maintain eye contact with their teachers. And students like its light weight, which offers a relief from the heavy books that weigh down their backpacks.”

First of all, how does an iPad help students maintain eye contact with their teachers?  From a student’s perspective, the entire point of grade school is to avoid eye contact with their teachers so they can make mischief, right?

Second, I am tired of the same silly argument that the iPad relieves the burden of carrying books around.  You could give every child a go-kart with a trunk on the back and make the same argument.  This is the sort of misguided argument that leads to literally millions of dollars invested in technology without a deeper understanding of how the transition from one technology to another will impact the students’ learning practices.  Clearly there are other ways to solve the “heavy textbook” issue.

At least one researcher summarizes this situation clearly and effectively:

“‘There is very little evidence that kids learn more, faster or better by using these machines,’ said Larry Cuban, a professor emeritus of education at Stanford University, who believes that the money would be better spent to recruit, train and retain teachers. ‘IPads are marvelous tools to engage kids, but then the novelty wears off and you get into hard-core issues of teaching and learning.'”

Exactly! Why not train teachers with that money? Better yet, why not use that money to bring back art or music or other programs that are increasingly being dropped from public school curricula? I’d rather have my daughter take art at school and have her textbooks in a locker than watch the school buy her an iPad so she can spend three hours a day on math problems in order to help the school’s overall test scores meet some silly federally-mandated level.

Here is what I think is the most revealing comment of all:

“Daniel Brenner, the Roslyn superintendent, said the iPads would also save money in the long run by reducing printing and textbook costs; the estimated savings in the two iPad classes are $7,200 a year. ‘It’s not about a cool application,’ Dr. Brenner said. ‘We are talking about changing the way we do business in the classroom.'”

Children are not employees! They don’t go to work, they go to school. Changing “the way we do business in the classroom” sounds like the CEO approach to running a school district, and I find that worrisome because the “profit margins” of a school are defined by its test scores, graduation rate, and other related metrics. If this superintendent can demonstrate for me that iPads increase all of these metrics while maintaining the student experience instead of making them all feel like knowledge workers, I’ll be all ears.

Finally, I am not opposed to technology in schools. I learned how to use computers partly because my elementary school had a few Apple iie computers in the library. But I also spent a huge amount of time screwing around on computers at school because I was bored with the curriculum, and that’s the essential problem here: Improve the content of the lessons first before jumping ship from paper texts to iPads, and consider how the US can meet its dire need for more technologically-savvy teachers.