https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/technology/silicon-valley-teachers-tech.html |
It's important for teachers to have access to the tools they need to teach well, and sometimes these ambassador programs provide that. Over my educational career, I have been branded by a few ed tech companies. For example, I was a Microsoft Innovative Educator and a Tech4Learning Innovative Educator. Both titles were earned based on evidence of higher level learning taking place with those tools in the classroom. I didn't have to keep using their tool to maintain my title, or prove that I was using the tool for a certain percentage of my day.
However, I was also a titled educator for another ed tech company, and in order to maintain my title and digital badge, I had to continue showing use of the tool through blogs and posts to their website. After a year, I elected to delete the digital badge from my signature and instead focus on what I knew to be the best for my students and the learning experiences they required. Their requirement of unfaltering brand loyalty was a red flag. Even though they sent me a tshirt, then a sweatshirt, and a coffee mug, and an Amazon gift card, none of those perks provided better learning for my students. And when the brand requires X amount of lessons or use over a period of time, that puts the product over the needs of students.
I taught in one of the first nationally-recognized 1:1 programs and there were many days when I felt the best tool was one that didn't require a battery. We were an English class. We needed to read, and discuss, and think, and process. But I got a lot of flak for that from the program director... a lot! Because the program and the publicity and the money being brought in to the district was more important than my understanding of student needs... that's a slippery slope. And one that we, as educators, need to keep in mind when we agree to become a brand ambassador.
Comments
Post a Comment