Gov. Herbert is right on this one.Speaker Lockhart is a good person
with lots of good ideas, but this is not one of them.Go with the
Governor's plans on this issue. Do it for the children.... and the
What I have yet to see is any solid data that tablet computers lead to increased
learning outcomes. Why spend $200 million on something that is a guess. It seems
fiscally irresponsible. This feels more like a desperation tactic to get
attention than a serious approach to improving education.
Lockhart's bill is way over the top. Technology does not automatically
guarantee a better education. Two hundred million is ridiculous in today's
economy. It would be much better to maintain the technology the schools already
have and to provide professional development for the teachers and aides to
assist in computer labs. Currently, elementary teachers are expected to keep 30
computers going with a classroom full of kids. It's pretty tough duty when
there are technology glitches and there is no help.
Siding with the Governor and Senate on this one. Speaker Lockhart's
posturing to run for Governor in two years is getting in the way of smart fiscal
policy. The house leadership has taken a wrong turn. Time to get back on the
right track Speaker Lockhart.
For once I agree with the Governor. 25 million seems right, then fund medicaid.
Utah has been known for decades as a state that under funds medical care for the
This proposal is such a bad waste of money. I love technology in the school,
and what a great thing it is to have so many computers available for students.
But tablets are a horrendous idea. They are more expensive than desktops,
easier to break, fall behind in tech quicker, are harder to find programs for,
and less useful overall. All of the benefits they have, portability,
stylishness, cutting edge, are all completely useless in the classroom.
To do this right we need to spend the cash. If you cheap out you get a crappy
initiative. I have been involved in these types of initiatives, when done
correctly they are amazing with significant outcomes. Done poorly and ..,,
If we are going to spend $200 million on anything why not use it on the
teachers? Hire more teachers and aides. Get the class sizes down and allow for
more individual attention for students with special needs and language
skills?To me, this just seems like a $200 million dollar handout to
Lockhart's friends/statement to the governor than an actual idea that would
I totally agree with the governor on this call. I am glad he's got the tax
payers back on this one. Lockhart really does need to rethink. Why fund schools
so kids can have what I call new tech "toys" in the classroom. My
son-in-law in a school teacher and I think if anything teachers need it more,
not spending it on new tech stuff. Good call Governor Herbert.
Part of the problem with tablets is that they are limited in usefulness for
academic work. Word processing is extremely difficult on them due to the lack of
a tactile keyboard. Thus, any writing assignments turn into a major chore for
students or they have to use other computers. My wife purchased Chromebooks for
her department, and they're far more practical as well as being less
costly. They're easy for the students to use, easy to maintain, and can be
easily reset as needed. The biggest problem with technology in the
classroom is rapid obsolescence. Today's cutting edge technology is
tomorrow's door stop. Students do need access to computers, however, and
there needs to be a solution somewhere. Part of it might lie in the use of
hardware which can be easily upgraded -- something impossible with tablets and
difficult with notebook computers.
I stand with the governor. Tablets are ineffective toys when it comes to
education, and their cost would put us along with California in buying things
that are too expensive for our budget. The teachers have waited years for
adequate compensation, if there is money to be distrubuted in the education
fund, I would say to give part to them and part to needed supplies for the
school so that the teachers don't have to purchase them out of their own
pockets. Let's also cut the state funding of the Medicade expansion as
Lockhart also has suggested and accept the federal help for the working poor.
Does she really want to cut off all federal help for the State of Utah? If Utah
is so flush that it can do everything on its own and buy expensive toys then
maybe I should put in to the legislature to buy me a flat screen TV that I
haven't been able to afford.
I encourage concerned citizens to read the bill before making your mind up.
Don't rely on what someone else has said. I have read it and am convinced
it is an excellent proposal to improve education in the state of Utah. Yes,
technology alone will not improve education. The bill is about much more than
putting a computer into students hands. The cost will be phased in over time. It
will make a real difference in the lives of our students.
It's good the governor can stand up on this bill. I just wonder if the
money is there like the Speaker says why it doesn't go to the WPU to let
districts spend on the programs they've had to cut when money was cut from
them because of the recession. Are they ever going to have the money to provide
basic services like so many other states are able to provide. Things like
smaller class sizes, counselors, nurses in each school, and even textbooks.
@ Instereo:"and even textbooks."Are you aware of
how expensive textbooks have become in recent years? One of the reasons for
increasing the use of technology is that it can replace conventional textbooks
with the electronic version for significantly less. K-12 texts aren't much
cheaper than the ones our college students have to buy for hundreds of dollars.
Additionally, the electronic texts have interactive features that are impossible
in printed texts and can be easily and quickly updated. The question
is not whether we need technology in the classrooms, but, rather, which
technology gives the biggest bang for the buck. And the answer is not tablets.
Technology is great. I have little doubt that a generation from now our students
will be using something like tablets. If we had unlimited funding I would say go
for it! In the short term, for the kind of money Lockhart wants to throw
around, there are many more pressing priorities in education funding that will
yield more bang for the buck in improving schools. I think this initiative is
more about attracting attention and furthering Lockhart's political
ambitions than about education. Maybe its time we found a Speaker who is more
interested truly helping the people of Utah and less interested in just using
Medicaid and Education as levers to play political power games and to satisfy
ambition. I become less and less impressed with Lockhart the more I listen to
Ah, the State of Utah, and it's inbuilt contradictions. On the
one hand, Utah is overwhelmingly Republican, guided by FOX "NEWS" and
Right Wing Radio Entertainment heroes. In that sense, it's
anti-education, because as all good Right Wingers know, the lefties control
education, and there's no sense exposing impressionable young minds to
that. And all that education makes it harder to inculcate a (ridiculous and
unworkable) Right Wing ideology in those young minds.On the other
hand, Utah is predominantly Mormon. Practicality, pragmatism, and education have
always been valued in Mormon culture.So we have Mormon practicality
and an appreciation for education on the one hand . . . And Right Wing
Extremism and willful ignorance on the other.It's a battle of
Good against Evil.I hope the good guys win.
$200 Million for short-lived technology? That cannot be a serious consideration.
It's flat-out laughable. Is she really holding up the entire
budget bill over this absurd proposal? That would be very arrogant of her and
would be detrimental to so many individuals in this state, directly and
indirectly. I won't be quite as nice as I think Lockhart has
plainly lost her marbles. She's way more than a half bubble off plumb.
She's not even in the ball park. She's lost any future
votes, if she ever runs again, as I have lost any confidence I once had in her.
I love the concept of a legacy bill,is this really about the
children's educationor is it about you Speaker Lockhart?Don't plan on my vote in 2016!
Having the highest class sizes in the United States and some of the lowest paid
teachers the Governor seems to have low expectations for his state's future
and some pretty mixed up priorities.
Data, data, data, data, data!I work for a billion dollar technology
company, and Lockhart's reasoning is laughable. Lockhart needs
to show DATA that going to tablets significantly increases education outcomes
above PCs, laptops, and plain old paper books in all key areas--language arts,
math, science, etc. Show. Us. The. Data.Getting
something because it's a shiny new technology ("it's time to take
us out of the 19th century") is one of the WORST reasons for making a
change. Because when it doesn't make a hill of beans worth of of
difference, we waste all the money AND time invested. Especially the time of
kids who could have had something better.
Tablets are a HORRIBLE idea. I teach high school and have never understood some
individuals' infatuation with the ipad. There is NO reliable data that
tablets help in ANY discipline. They are difficult to write essays on, they are
fragile and they don't have the apps we need at this time. Work on
maintaining and extending existing computer labs. Provide technological support
for educators. Increase teacher salaries so we can recruit tech-savvy
individuals into our profession. But this bill is extremely misguided.
"Teacher, Billy bumped me and broke my tablet/ipad."Call me
old-fashioned, but I like books and paper. Spend the $30 million on
teacher salaries and reducing class size.
Tablets are fantastic tools. Why would any sensible person be adverse to tablets
for students?A whole library at one's fingertips.I
guess some people just can't accept constructive change.Let's see now . . . What do they call those kinds of people who react
with outrage to good new ideas and who want to conserve the status quo ? Are they Reactionaries or just Conservatives?
@GaryO:"Tablets are fantastic tools. Why would any sensible person be
adverse to tablets for students?"Because while they are great
tools, they're not the right tool for the job. They lack keyboards, which
means type/data entry is going to be slow and tedious. They are limited in their
ability to handle educational software or productivity software. It's like
buying a Ferrari Enzo when what you need is something to transport your family
and carry two weeks worth of groceries home from the store. It's a great
car, but it's the wrong car for the job. Same thing here.
Ms Lockhart must not have children. The Schools Districts would have huge
replacement costs for tablets as children have a hard time keeping track of
anything, not to mention how suceptible tablets would be to theft. There is much
more wrong with public education and that needs fixing than every child having
their own personal table. Waste of money!!!
It's good to see the governor on top of this and to see many of those who
have added comments to the article seeing through Speaker Lockhart's clear
lack of perspective. Playing to a VERY conservative prospective base for her as
yet unannounced candidacy for the soon-to-be-open position of Governor of Utah,
Lockhart is gambling that Utah's voters don't know the depth and
breadth of Utah's underfunding of public education. She sees hope in the
base's fear of "what's going on in the schools."
Well, the facts coming in daily from states and other nations make Lockhart look
like a lightweight. Money into instruction and reducing class size first, then
tech gimmickry. PISA scores are not dependent upon wireless upgrading,
they're dependent upon great teachers in every class. Great teachers who
are treated as professionals and rewarded accordingly. Cost-cutting
shortcuts to K-12, so evident in Utah year after year, are a problem beyond
Lockhart's comprehension, sadly.
My kids all have smart phones. They use them for everything, school, social
media, to ask a question on Google about our conversations, face book, twitter,
like I said everything. Tablets, no don't do that. Computers for spread
sheets, power point design, graphics, science instruction, and other
educational instructions. They need the free software to allow them to do the
work, not the tablets. Tablets don't have the ability to work offline, save
projects, and work from anywhere give them the instruction to operate the
software and allow them to load on a computer so they can do it. They are
smarter than most educators. Most rural students don't have access to the
internet. We are a world of not knowing everything but knowing where to find it
and learn about it. Windows is the first tablet that will allow someone to
actually have a true operating system with HD space to load software.
Elyiahu - You say tablets are difficult to write with. I am using a tablet to
reply to you. It is slower, but if you are looking for a replacement for
textbooks, you are not supposed to write in textbooks anyway. And you can carry
a thousand books inside of it, highlight sentences, and make notations without
getting into trouble.DANL - A tablet can do everything you just said
it cannot do. But when it comes to typing, a laptop would be the way to go.
Although I am using a tablet right now, and it gets the job done.
Raise the gas tax? Wow, with oil and gas prices already very high, all we need
is to burden the people with more unnecessary taxes. We are serving a mission
for the LDS Church in a south American country with gas taxes so high that fuel
costs here are about $8.00 per gallon. Does that help their economy? No! It
makes it so that most people can't afford to drive cars period! Talk about
a backwards approach, let's see, if we price the gas so high that many
won't be able to drive, will the resulting increase in taxes offset the
lower overall revenue from fewer people being able to afford to drive? Ultra
liberal, Al Gore would be cheering that move.
Kudos to Gov. Herbert for standing up to Speaker Lockhart. Ms. Lockhart needs a
signature accomplishment to which she can attach her ambition. The concept of
transitioning to a better use of technology in our schools is laudable, but in
any other year but one in which the Speaker of the House is preparing to take on
a popular governor for the office he holds, the legislature would recognize the
merits of exploring the concept, would assign a task force to spend a year
studying various options and implications, and would then consider their
recommendations in the next session. Unfortunately, that approach doesn't
generate the kind of splash that the speaker needs right now. How convenient it
must be to wield the kind of power Ms. Lockhart has in order to generate content
for your campaign ads.
Hey, Gov, let Becky have some tribute. Let her play with the money you would
blow for insurance commissions with your ill-conceived plant to provide medical
benefits for the poor. She could then get i-pads for a few students with her
picture on them----and maybe they can be manufactured by the company which
employs her husband.