Cutting the Wrong Wire

Maclay’s New Technology Policy Should Be Reworked

Photo by Blake Wisz on Unsplash

In recent years, human innovation has significantly advanced with new technological discoveries occurring daily. Devices like computers and phones are used everywhere: at home while watching T.V., when driving and using a phone for Google Maps and especially in schools like Maclay. Despite the usefulness and practicality of technology, Maclay has recently taken steps to limit student device use. Initially, Maclay focused on restricting phones during the school day, with the use of the Yondr pouch. However, the school recently shifted its attention to a new set of devices to restrict: computers and iPads.

Computers and iPads are both useful devices; they allow students to take notes in classes, create presentations, research any topic, send emails and check their grades with ease. Although these devices are useful, at the start of the second semester, Maclay implemented a new policy against them. 

“The goal of this new policy is to reduce daily reliance on personal technology in order to improve focus, face-to-face interaction and quality of learning, while still using technology when it clearly serves instruction, assessment, or student support,” Upper School Director Charles Beamer said. “This is not a ban on technology, it is a reset to make sure we use devices when they actually support learning.”

The new policy being enforced requests that note taking is done on paper. In addition, reading from physical texts must be done if feasible and activities should emphasize hands-on work. Students are expected to keep their devices away during class and must have teacher permission in order to use any laptops or iPads. The policy states devices can be used for research, essays or projects and for any assignments only found online.

Many students strongly oppose this change; these devices have been a staple in many classes. It may take some time to adjust, but the goal of this policy is to be permanent.

“This will be our ongoing expectation,” Beamer said. “We will review it as needed to make sure it’s working well for students and teachers. This is not a ban on technology. It is a reset to make sure we use devices when they actually support learning…”

Maclay’s removal of technology can be seen as a good thing: with fewer devices as a whole, students learn to operate on their own. When faced with a difficult problem, students can no longer resort to technology for a solution. 

“Students need to be able to think, apply, create and engage without a screen. They need to be able to rely on their own notes, reasoning and preparation and not always default to a digital shortcut," English teacher Lauren Fantle said. “When developing independence, accountability and confidence, students can and should be able to function in an educational setting without always defaulting to a screen.”

Not only does less technology allow students to learn real world skills, it also helps students to grow and develop their cognitive stamina. Students are able to work on paper and write out every concept, which is shown by research to improve memory. 

“Keeping students engaged via conversations, collaborations and being able to think without a screen are important skills all humans need,” Fantle said. “Students especially need to develop their focus and cognitive stamina and need that intellectual/mental endurance to be able to sustain attention.”

Although the technology policy may seem good on the surface, many students strongly disagree with the ideas behind it, and for good reason. The technology policy causes simple tasks that could be completed quickly online to take far more time. For example, if students need to complete a simple multiple choice quiz, the technology policy requires that it be on paper. This means the grading of the quiz takes longer, whereas if the quiz were taken online, the answers would immediately be scored and students would receive their results instantly.

“I get where they’re coming from, but it isn’t the right way,” an anonymous student said. “It’s not like we aren’t thinking when we’re on a computer.”

Most students firmly believe that they are just as engaged with a course when they are online as they are when learning offline. Being offline doesn’t change whether a student can think and apply, which can be seen with the move of standardized tests from paper tests to online exams. Previously, large tests like the ACT and SAT were on paper, but recently, they have moved to be online, showing the board behind these exams believed that students engage in a very similar manner whether they are online or offline. These exams are major tests that Maclay prepares students to take, yet they directly contradict the ideas behind the new policy.

Not only are the reasons the policy was made for being criticized, the real impact is also being questioned. Some students believe the policy goes directly against the school’s founding ideals, given that Maclay is meant to prepare students for a world outside of schooling.

“The new policy makes no sense. The goal of school is to prepare us for the real world, yet we aren’t going to use technology anymore,” an anonymous student said. “So many jobs depend on technology, we should be learning how to use it correctly, not just losing it.”

Incentivizing against a key part of the outside world does call the school’s core concepts into question. Technology is important, and giving students less experience with it seems counterintuitive. Less experience with technology could result in the inability to use certain programs, and risks Maclay students falling behind in the digital world. 

Though Maclay’s push against technology has some benefits, such as the improvement of face to face interaction and less dependence on a screen, the negatives outweigh the benefits. Many students feel the policy is not limiting technology, but rather banning it as a whole, an idea which goes against the school’s ideals, sparking a call for a better solution. Overall, Maclay does not need to abandon the policy, but it should be reworked so as to avoid doing harm to students’ education.