As I sat down to write this month’s editor letter, in which I planned to slag on the tired edtech coverage in the New York Times, an old phrase kept repeating itself in my head: “the proof is in the pudding.”
It didn’t sound quite right. So of course I Googled it, found what I considered to be a reliable source (Cambridge Dictionaries Online), and discovered the actual phrase is “the proof of the pudding is in the eating,” which makes much more sense. A few more clicks and I learned the etymology. Some linguists credit a 17th century English translation of Don Quixote. As I typed, Microsoft Word then auto-corrected my misspelling of Quixote. This entire “learning exercise” took about 90 seconds. And it would never have happened without “technology.”
Now, back to the Times. A recent article claimed that there is “little proof” that technology improves the education experience in US school. This premise—questioning the merits of “computers in the classroom”—is so old that it has become nonsensical. Does anyone argue the merits of electricity in the classroom? How about indoor plumbing? To not educate students on how to use the tools (Google) and techniques (understanding proper sources) they need to use in order to succeed is almost criminal.
Go to our “100 District Project” page and give us some more ammunition as we prove to the Times that technology works (http://bit.ly/plHT9i). As I write, we’re about one quarter of the way there. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.