- Equated technology with bad teaching
- Described computers as a luxury and complained about the expense
- Waxed nostalgic about drill and practice in the old days, and how much more was learned back then (by the 30% of people who completed high school.)
K-12 is the last industry which makes a big deal out of using technology. Every other industry has switched to using it. The world uses technology to do real work today, so of course we need it to teach those things.
$250 per year per student is not much money compared to the $12,000 or so we spend on each student every year. Kids will buy their own computers soon. Most already do.
Learning does require practice and hard work, and wherever this is not present, learning suffers. (It's an old problem. Unfortunately, you can do bad teaching with or without a computer.)
Education is lighting a fire, not filling a bucket. Many old-fashioned school practices actually taught kids to hate learning (writing as a punishment, for instance.) School does not have to be like it was.
Printed textbooks will not survive this economy. E-Reader copies can be updated much more cheaply, contain video, etc. E-Readers cost no more than one or two textbooks now, and can hold thousands of books. You can read them in daylight and they don't make your eyes sore. There will always be wonderful books, including paper ones, but for traditional classroom textbooks, It's over. People complain about filtering the Internet. There is no more egregious filter than a history textbook approved in Texas and California.
Technology does not drive good teaching; it is simply necessary, as a practical matter, for good teaching in today's world for most subjects.