I've waited to write about "interactive" whiteboards for some time, but today's news out of Pennsylvania brought the issue into focus. Philadelphia's Schools Get $5 Million Slots Win celebrates that the Pennsylvania legislature guarantees $5 million annually from slot machine revenue to be spent on modernizing classrooms, grades 6-12 in the Philadelphia public schools.

By modernizing, State Senator Fumo and Philly Supt. Paul Vallas mean laptops and interactive whiteboards. (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15897335.htm)

As one of the pioneers of laptops in the education, my advocacy for students enjoying unfettered access to this most powerful tool for intellectual and creative work is well documented. However, laptops - used to their best potential - are not a part of classrooms. They enable learning to occur anytime, anywhere across subject boundaries; at home and in the community; on nights and weekends. I applaud Supt. Vallas for his commitment to 1:1 computing. The portability, functionality and power of a modern laptop in the backpack of a student by definition challenges many of our notions of school.

This is not the case for "interactive" whiteboards. They're big, expensive, stationary and make excellent backdrops for political photo-ops. If your definition of school is four walls with a large writing area bolted to at least one of those walls, then whiteboards are for you. This should not in any way be confused with modernity or the future of education.

I continue to be amazed, but not surprised by the market success of "interactive" whiteboards. It seems like every few days I receive a press release announcing that every classroom on Uranus has purchased a whiteboard. Yet, in my visits to schools around the world I hardly ever see the devices in-use. One district-level educator revealed her desperate hope that whiteboards would turn out to be a "gateway drug" for getting teachers to use technology in anything resembling a constructive fashion. Aside from the unfortunate addiction reference, what makes anyone believe that a teacher who has ignored computers in the classroom for a quarter century will not only embrace the whiteboard, but make the improbable leap to project-based or constructivist practice with more creative software.

My greatest concern about conflating "interactive" whiteboards with modernity is that this new technology creates a fossil record of ancient pedagogical practices. The whiteboards represent a pre- Gutenberg technology that reinforce the dominance of the front of the room. The priest chants from the "interactive" whiteboard while the monks take dictation on their tablet PCs.

Surely, modern education is about more autonomy and collaboration.

I know that some teachers can create classroom wizardry on their "interactive" whiteboards. This is a greater reflection on the creativity of that specific teacher, than the technology. I would imagine such teachers could dazzle with a chainsaw. This argument does little to advance the hope that expensive whiteboards will transform teachers who have refused to use modern technology for a quarter century.

Here's an idea. Philadelphia slot machines can pay-out directly to technology companies and not bother schools with having to set their own educational priorities.