How Do We Make School Relevant Again?
If technology is changing what we’re learning, why we’re learning it, and also how we’re learning it, then how do we make school relevant again?
What schools are doing in relation to technology varies considerably by location. Some schools and school divisions are embracing technology, while others, including some here in Manitoba, are shunning it in favor of traditional systems and approaches to learning. Even within those two extremes, there is considerable variation in how technology is being approached and implemented.
What stands out to me is the contrast between how schools are approaching technology and how the workforce is approaching technology. Computers are on most desks now. Many offices have some form of chat or messaging capability between employees. AI is increasingly being used to help automate tasks and simplify processes.
Then we go into a school.
The classroom may have few, if any, computers in it. The computer lab is still down the hall and treated the same as the library, an optional, extra activity that comes after schoolwork is complete. Or, if technology is in the classroom, it does nothing more than turn a paper-based activity into a computer-based one.
Computer skills are a necessary part of many jobs now. Without them, many employers won't even consider you, while some teachers in divisions where technology is not widely accepted or used still haven't learned how to turn on a laptop without help. That's a stark contrast.
There is a general belief that when students go home, they are using technology enough that they don't need more of it in school. But there's a problem with that logic. Texting your friends and playing video games does not teach you critical thinking, spreadsheets, workplace email etiquette, general computer use, typing with more than two thumbs, or responsible AI usage. It doesn't teach you how to work with a mouse, navigate Windows or Mac OS, have a video call, use Word to type a document, and so on.
Exposure to technology at home is not the same as learning to use technology effectively in the workplace.
If the purpose of education is to give students the knowledge and skills they need to determine how they want to live, then we are doing our students a disservice by not actually preparing them to use the technology that surrounds them in the outside world. Shunning technology at school or not adequately teaching it undermines that purpose, reducing education to little more than dispensing knowledge we hope will be useful someday.
There are digital literacy skills that can be taught from kindergarten to Grade 8. Early, age-appropriate introductions to technology help to set expectations, provide foundational skills that can be built upon in later grades, and offer additional teaching methods that aren't available using traditional pen-and-paper approaches.
I am not suggesting that we put laptops on every desk starting in kindergarten and move school exclusively to the digital world. I am suggesting that we need to prioritize teaching appropriate usage and critical thinking. To teach appropriate usage, access has to be available more of the time, not just when the teacher decides to take their class to the computer lab.
I understand that devices can be a distraction, forcing teachers to spend considerable time getting students to pay attention to their lessons. That's actually a two-fold problem. First, lessons need to be engaging to keep students' attention. Simply managing the environment by banning devices doesn't guarantee they'll pay attention. Second, learning to manage those distractions is part of appropriate usage, and it should be taught directly in the classroom.
If schools establish appropriate usage policies from kindergarten, and all teachers enforce and model those same policies themselves, over time the school can create a natural, technology-friendly environment.
How do policies around not running in the hall get established and enforced? It's because all teachers enforce the same rules. Those same strategies apply to technology.
Schools don't ban walking because students sometimes run. They teach students when and how to move appropriately. The same thing can be created with technology.
Technology has to change what we teach, which means age-appropriate, responsible usage and critical thinking need to be included in the curriculum, not just in theoretical discussions at the high school level, but starting in kindergarten.
Critical thinking needs to be taught as a transferable skill, practised across subjects, and applied to the kinds of information students actually encounter, including AI-generated responses.
Critical thinking is not just spotting incorrect information, although that's part of it. It includes examining evidence, reasoning, context, and whether conclusions are justified. It's also about learning to critically evaluate information by challenging the assumptions being made.
Students need to do this not just with printed articles in the classroom, but also online, in real time, while engaging with AI output or other material they come across.
In order for that to happen, teachers need to be trained as well. Teacher education does not generally prepare teachers to teach technology unless they specialize in the subject area. Teachers need to understand how to use technology effectively and appropriately themselves, which means they need opportunities to develop and practise the same competencies they're expected to teach. That will require substantial professional development throughout the profession.
Teaching students to use technology prepares them for the world as it exists. Rethinking what we teach prepares them for the world as it's changing.
We can't keep pretending that students are not surrounded by technology when they leave school every day, or that computers aren't an integral part of the modern workforce, or that AI isn't becoming increasingly prevalent in workplaces.
In some ways, this brings us back to a more fundamental question about what the role of education actually is.
Is job readiness still a foundational part of school?
High schools continue to prepare students for college or university by asking them to choose between university entrance courses and non-university entrance courses. We continue to ask teenagers to make critical life choices about their futures.
If job readiness is no longer part of the K–12 education system, then why are we asking teenagers to make educational pathway decisions that can affect their future opportunities? Perhaps there should be one academic track for everybody that focuses on foundational life skills and a more general education.
If job readiness is going to continue to play a role in high school education, then we need to make sure schools are teaching current technology with an eye towards what might come next.
We can't continue to pretend that the world hasn't changed.
We don't have 20 years to conduct research before writing new curricula, training teachers, and bringing education into the 21st century. Research is important, but it doesn't mean we have to postpone teaching the technology skills students already need while we investigate what comes next.
How many more students need to graduate without an appropriate technology education before we fix the problem?