My principal told me last week I needed to create a formal technology skills checklist (including formal typing instruction) of specific skills to be accomplished by every student in each grade K-6. Now, this of course won’t be a problem: I can find numerous examples online and modify them to meet the need. What I wanted to know from him was what (or who), all of sudden, is driving that need. His answer: clarity. But who is unclear? That he wouldn’t say.

Get out the calendar and let’s set up the assessment schedule. Ouch. My job just went from helping kids move from their Point A to their point B (shout out to The Innovator’s Mindset) to needing to make sure all kids are at the same Point A and moving toward the same Point B at the same time. There’s clarity in that, true enough. And my current approach can be construed as a bit messy: I believe that basic skills can and will be learned honed through meaningful integrated opportunities in the classroom as students choose which tools they want to use to present authentic learning projects. In this approach, all students do learn how to construct a slideshow in Google…but not everyone does it second trimester in first grade.

Turns out, someone or something else wants those Google presentations created by all first graders second trimester in first grade. All kids typing 15 words per minute by the end of third grade. All kindergarteners dragging and dropping by mid-year. Or something like that. And proof that they can do it.

In times like these I’m reminded of how important it is for me to be both tech cheerleader and tech skeptic at my school. So my introduction this week to Audrey Waters and Larry Cuban couldn’t have come at a better time. Yes, “rah-rah” let’s have a list of grade-specific skills. But, “hmmm”, why are we doing it? Yes, “rah-rah” conformity to standards and checklists can provide consistency. But, “hmmm”, isn’t technology a place where student voice and choice can shine through, so should we allow this skill building to be a little messy?

Audrey Waters’ lists of tech trends sets the bar for what I think technology discussions in schools should revolve around: “ideologies and implications.” Is it really about Google Slides versus Keynote versus Powerpoint, or is it really about why we are using them? Can our technology program be better? Absolutely! But in my mind “better” is more about big picture connection and collaboration than keyboarding.

Sure, it can be about basic skills, too. But some “higher order than basic” questions need to be asked at the same time.