Overall, her view point, in my opinion, supports upper middle class and higher class school districts. That is, she states that design thinking is baseless and it offers no substance. On the contrary, design thinking and personalized learning may be the only option for school districts in the lower class school districts. Moreover, the Bill Gates Foundation highly supports lower class school districts. Thus, educational technology opens the door for design thinking and personalized learning in lower class school districts. My point is that lower order thinking, as an option, leads to higher order thinking and personalized learning in disadvantaged school districts.

The personalized learning using technology is the most likely way that the education system will have reform. We need to have learners prepare for the knowledge worker jobs of the future and that may be by personalized learning.

Again, I have to disagree with Megan, as such, mechanization or machinery had much to do with the classroom environment. That is, there was a big push for total quality management (TQM) in the turn of the 20th Century. TQM relates to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) curriculars. Also, TQM was very much related to the movement of establishing more STEM related programs in the K12 environment in the turn and ending of the 20th Century. In fact, back in 1985, Bill Gates warned us about the lack of STEM graduates in the US in comparison to China and India. To date, commenting on Bill Gate’s warning, the majority of the highly skilled technologists in the global workforce are from China or India, for example. So, I argue that machinery and mechanization was very much related to the classroom environment in the turn and ending of the 20th century, especially in terms of STEM.

Ms. Megan looks from a personal perspective instead of a time period perspective. We were in a industrial revolution time period when it was machines and assembly lines. You teach what you are as Dr, Mirsha said. The time period was to get people prepared for management and labor. Now it is time to get students prepared for knowledge worker jobs and technology is that road.

Megan argues that designed and personalized learning are no substitution for the traditional classroom environment. As a result, Megan fails to realize that the well off school districts possess the wherewithal to use educational technology and traditional classroom environments, at the same time, to explore and teach critical thinking skills. As such, without the support of philanthropists such as Bill Gates, and the INOVA founder, K12 students from poorer school districts are taught, for the most part, from only text books with minimal to no intervention of educational technology. Thus, in my opinion, it is a good cause that billionaires or philanthropists invest in educational technology across the board.

Charter Schools were designed as an alternative to public schools that were not able to educate students properly. As far as them being money making businesses, would put that in the same boat as school to prison pipelines. The art of making money off of students misfortune. Khan academy has been quite successful and Ms, Megan referred to it as a glorified text book. I am not sure that I can agree with that especially when it helps so many disadvantaged and undeserved students.

Current issues in education are surrounded by income and SES. For example, issues from family choice in education to financing education are, for the most part, based on income and SES. That said, educational technology leverages learning in the classroom environment. Educational technology, moreover, enables learning through multiple avenues of medium. In contrast, Megan argues that educational technology and medium do not cause deeper learning. She uses research to back up her claim. Thus, I disagree with her argument and premise. That is, educational technology does cause deeper learning when it accompanies pedagogy knowledge and content knowledge.

I can agree that schools teach to the test. That is a true statement. As for allowing technology to be 1×1 for students, the students know how to use the iPads better than most teachers. LA has one of the largest school districts and one of the overall poorest districts for tools and resources.

This is where we have to look at the ISTE’s again and teachers have to step up to the plate and include information technology in their pedagogy. You cannot blame the students for getting technology in their hands and the school not able to capitalize on the initiative.

In a hybrid formation, learning and collaborating skills are happening. From my understanding, Megan speaks about students staring at a computer screen and, at the same time, having no interaction or collaboration with the teacher or other students. If that is the case, then no learning is taking place. That sort of learning needs to be integrated with TPACK.

SO that is a design issue. Again I have to fallback on the ISTE standards. It is the responsibility of the teacher to incorporate curriculum based on the needs of the student. It indeed should be student-centered learning. Their should be asynchronous and synchronous chatting going on and the sharing of ideas.

I can conclude that Ms. Megan is completely against innovation in the classroom and wants to keep a jukebox in front of a class full of ipods. T His combination will never work. The philosophy must change and in this age of disruption, Ms. Megan will have to see this wave of technology that is here and transition for the good of the learner.

The last major change in education was the No Child Left Behind Act. This Act was not a paradigm shift, but it was a ways and means to make education affordable for all US children. The Act also ensured that all US children received a fair and equitable education. In terms of educational technology, it is a game changer that will change the way education is learned and taught in the future. It is a matter of time before we see major enforcement in using educational technology in the classroom environment.

Who is the reformer and where is the strength in numbers, If there is an opportunity to do whats right and make technology work. We need good teachers to except the fact that change is inevitable. Learners need the tools to move forward. I think Ms. Megan may need to look at the educational system from a societal perspective and not a monolithic lens to an audience of one.