There was a fascinating article in the October 22nd New York Times that really called into question the role of technology in education. It focussed on very high-tech Silicon Valley executives who have chosen to give their children a very low-tech - no-tech, actually - education.
These are intelligent, affluent people who could send their children anywhere and who have made a very deliberate decision. Their children attend Waldorf schools where traditional educational principles and practices and hand-on learning are the emphasis. Classrooms are filled with books not computers. Children do music and arts and crafts, baking and knitting. Tech use is not introduced until the eighth grade; even television and movie watching is discouraged.
And the success rate is amazing. These are students who will be filling Ivy League universities in the next decade. These are kids who can read and write and calculate, who are focussed and creative, who are sociable and who can think outside the box. (And these traits seem to be characteristic of most Waldorf schools - not just the rich, Silicon Valley ones. From what I've read, lower class students attending these type of schools are also significantly more likely to end up in the Ivy League ... and on full scholarship too.)
Now I suppose you do want to take the article with a grain of salt. These are children, for the most part, from well-to-do families who can get their daily dose of tech at home. Their parents are obviously committed to, and involved with, their education to an admirable extent. They could quite likely succeed in a variety of milieus. But the fact their parents specifically opted for this type of educational experience does say something. It says that the type of human being they want to raise is far more than someone who can text hundreds of words a minute or download the newest app. They want kids who can think and be creative and, moreover, believe those are the types of people future employers will want too.
I agree. Particularly at the primary level, there is so much that needs to be learned. I would much rather schools focus on producing kids who are literate and numerate at or above grade level. I want students who, when they are taught to research online can actually focus on and read the articles they find, and who can think about what they're reading instead of mindlessly accepting it, kids who can draw their own conclusions and generate original ideas. They can easily acquire tech skills in middle and high school and, by then, will have enough of a background of ideas and knowledge that they can use technology that much more effectively and productively.
I'm not saying to necessarily ban all tech either. It can be a godsend for students with certain educational challenges. For underprivileged students who don't have access to technology at home it might be a great motivator too. But it can way too easily become a time-waster and distractor - not the productivity enhancer or key to getting ahead so many parents mistakenly believe it to be. There's such a short time to be a kid and so much to learn; let's leave the technology until they've become well-rounded enough people to use it to its best advantage.