I read an article in "The Principal Difference" that makes so much sense:
A few excerpts:
"As a principal, I didn’t drink the whiteboard kool-aid. First, I didn’t have enough money to equip our classrooms. Second, I wasn’t sure if they would help to raise student achievement. So, I did what I always did. I asked the experts. No, I didn’t ask the company reps, nor was I able to find any research on the effectiveness on interactive whiteboards. It was simply too early in the products life to find any quality studies. Instead, I asked the real experts, our teachers."
"This is not to say that our school had no interactive whiteboards. We did. However, we purchased them based on need and intended use, not on the fact that is was more convenient to have every classroom in every department exactly the same. We didn’t believe in the “one size fits all approach” or in trying to squeeze a round peg into a square hole—force teachers to adapt their instruction to the technology instead of the technology serving the teacher."
"Whiteboards are neither good nor bad. They are either useful or not useful in improving student achievement. Whiteboards are a tool not an end in and of themselves."
To read the whole article, CLICK HERE.
How about we learn something from this principal? Stop focusing on Promethean Boards as the be-all and end-all of instruction and dividing the county into the Haves and the Have Nots. Step back, take a breath, see if they really do improve instruction. Do a *gasp* pilot study examining achievement between classrooms using Promethean Boards and tablet computers. Do a survey of teachers within MCPS and get their frank opinions about their use in the classroom.
Otherwise, we are just spending more and more money with no documented student achievement to show for it.