Technology has become a part of the daily routines of teens today. The real question is should we allow these controversial and revolutionary tools become entwined with education? The original thinking was that impoverished children whose math and reading scores were low would be given a laptop for educational purposes only. Researchers who provided the equipment were positive that the program would become a success and reading and math scores would sky-rocket. However, instead of being a huge success, the program was a huge failure.

In 2006, a program called “One Laptop Per Child” began donating a laptop to poverty-stricken children. The program initially believed that if (and when) students that did not have access to internet were given that privilege, they would show improvement in their studies. With this “legendary” theory in mind, researchers went to work handing out laptops to children. This is when the first problem began: the researchers would simply hand out the laptops and the recipients were free to go home. As a result, very few students actually used the laptops for the given purpose; most used them “to play games, troll social media and download entertainment” according to Susan Pickner.

Not only was the technology used for majority of the wrong purposes, the technology commonly broke down. Randy Yerrick, a professor at the University of Buffalo, disagreed with the now virtually proven idea, that technology does not improve learning: “It is worth the investment only when it’s perfectly suited to the task, in science simulations, for example, or to teach students with learning disabilities.” Additionally, the investment of thousands of dollars could have so many other purposes, since finances and budgets are not the most lenient in some school districts.

Overall, technology does not improve learning because there is insufficient evidence that this theory works, improper use of the technology, and a financial burden that it may put on some schools. This leads us back to the original theoretical question of whether or not this technology should be gifted to students of today’s society. Giving children technology with such a strong opposing argument would be similar to comparing communism to a dog toy; it makes absolutely NO SENSE.