Productivity suites are producing more than you think

The purpose of education that is discussed in the New York Times article is an age-old question; is school a place to create educated and engaged citizens, or is it a place to create workers. If you were to ask the education philosopher John Bobbitt, he would tell you that schools create workers. According to Bobbitt, public school students should focus on skills that they would use in the “real world”. He goes on to state that a rich curriculum that includes sciences, math, language and art is a waste of time. Granted, he is a philosopher from the 19th Century, but his arguments are as poignant as they were then. The discussions surrounding the use of technology and productivity suites in the classroom revolve around the question “What skill sets are necessary for the future?” While the discussions surrounding digital literacy do include critical literacy, it is continuously overshadowed by the discussion of technology’s role in the workplaces of the future.

As many people tend to focus on the future, the underlying theory proposed by Bobbitt remains the same. In a world where education is continuously being underfunded and told to find efficiencies, education becomes more efficient and streamlined. The skill sets that the traditional curriculum focuses on begin to become less of a focus and more “practical” skills are focused on. The questions we ask as teachers become more synonymous with the idea of “How do we prepare these students for the workforce?” or “What skills will they need to be functional members of society (or citizens)?” As if to allude to the concept that function and productivity are the imperative indicators of a “good” citizen. In education today, the argument about the importance of including Shakespeare vs Coding is mainstream. Some believe that Shakespeare teaches nothing, while coding and digital literacy allow for a 21st-century skill growth set. Others believe there are numerous benefits (Literary appreciation; intellectual growth by tackling complex, moral, and philosophical questions; Cultural influence, etc.) for including classical literature in schools. Granted, literacy is ever-evolving, but who dictates which is more important?

If we consider the profit which can be made from education, we begin to see the evolution of what is dictated as important. With the introduction of technology in classrooms, the future margins of the information processing powerhouses are astronomical. The battle for domination between Microsoft and Google focuses on the lifespan of the student. With each productivity suite, students will create accounts which are directly tied to the use of their services. The hope is that students will become so ingrained with these companies that they will continue to use their services for the duration of their lifetime. Furthermore, this influence can potentially boil over into the families these students will create later on in life. For example, I was a part of the initial launch of Gmail. I now use this platform and have created a Gmail account for my one-year-old son (for online booking profiles). While my employer uses Microsoft, I continue to use whatever aspects I can from Google. My students also prefer Google to Microsoft. Many of these students already have accounts with Google and consistently voice their displeasure with the programs we must use at school.

Unfortunately, these educational technology policies create disparate situations for students. Increased inclusion and emphasis on technology have highlighted the economic differences between students in a way that no other technology has. While students from affluent households will have access to and knowledge regarding technology, the students from the poorer demographic do not have the same skill set or exposure. Furthermore, the increasing use of technology ignores students’ accessibility to technology. For some, the only technology they have access to is at school. This privileged oversight was highlighted during the virtual learning which took place during the pandemic. Many students were not able to take part due to the lack of technology or internet service at home.