In the past, schools had not adapted technology whereas now, it is stated that schools should integrate as much technology as possible in the classroom. AGREE DISAGREE
In the past, schools relied very little on technology, but today it is often argued that classrooms should be equipped with as much technology as possible. Although some digital tools are useful, I strongly disagree with this view, because large-scale spending on devices diverts money from teachers, facilities and student safety, which matter far more to learning.
Admittedly, technology can support learning. Computers give pupils access to online resources, and well-designed software can help teachers track progress. However, buying devices on a large scale absorbs a substantial share of education budgets. Indonesia, for example, has spent trillions of rupiah on laptops for schools, yet many teachers still lack the training to use them effectively and remain poorly paid. Without skilled and motivated teachers, devices alone are unlikely to improve learning outcomes.
The same money could achieve far more if it were spent on basic needs. Better classrooms, laboratories and sanitation would create a healthier learning environment, and higher salaries would allow teachers to concentrate on their work instead of taking second jobs to make ends meet. In some remote areas, teachers and pupils also face dangerous journeys to reach school, travelling on damaged roads or crossing rivers without proper bridges. Investing in safe transport and infrastructure would protect lives and ensure that lessons can take place at all, which no tablet can guarantee.
In conclusion, while technology has a place in the classroom, I strongly disagree that schools should adopt as much of it as possible. Governments should first invest in teachers, facilities and safety, and introduce technology only where it clearly supports learning.