Texte éditorial du commentateur David Sirota dans le magazine Salon. En réaction à la vague d’enthousiasme suscitée par l’annonce de l’arrivée d’Apple dans le marché des manuels scolaires numériques, Sirota s’interroge sur les raisons qui amène le monde de l’éducation à adopter des solutions technologiques alors même que des coupes importante sont effectuées et que les premiers résultats des écoles technos ne semblent pas au rendez-vous :
« Here in Colorado, for instance, the nonprofit I-News Network recently reported that students attending the state’s “full-time online education programs have typically lagged their peers on virtually every academic indicator, from state test scores to student growth measures to high school graduation rates.” Stanford University researchers found similar results in their separate study of online schools in Pennsylvania. And after its exhaustive national investigation of the trend, the New York Times concluded that “schools are spending billions on technology, even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning.” »
Et les éléments de réponse de Sirota :
« For one thing, there’s the allure of a quick fix, as gadgets seem to hold out the possibility that school districts can sustain huge budget cuts without sacrificing quality tutelage. The idea is that teachers can be replaced by cheaper computers, at once saving schools money, preventing tax increases for school resources, and preserving educational services. Even if data prove that’s a pipe dream, the desire for a cure-all has convinced many desperate schools to chase the fantasy. »
Plus troublant, Sirota suggère une filière politique où les compagnies technologiques réinvestissent les profits des partenariats avec le monde scolaire dans du lobbying auprès des gouvernements des différents états :
« …[T]hese firms use some of the loot they’re generating to finance state-based political front groups, hire lobbyists, and employ has-beens like Gov. Jeb Bush as their public representatives. The result is a powerful political infrastructure that pushes state legislatures and local school boards to divert money away from proven education tools (teaching staff, textbooks, etc.) and into risky technology procurement. »
Si de telles stratagèmes n’ont pas été rapportées au Québec, l’article de Sirota rappelle que la prudence est de mise avant d’investir massivement dans des solutions technologiques.
Source : Sirota, David, « Are high-tech classrooms better classrooms? », Salon – Education, 3 février 2012
