U.S. presidents, philanthropists, parents, and researchers all say, no they swear, that teachers are the most important in-school factor in getting children and youth to learn (see here, here, and here). Yet those very same teachers, lauded for their effectiveness, as experienced professionals with advanced degrees, have little to say in determining access to or use of hardware and software in their classrooms. In buying and deploying new technologies for classroom use, district policymakers. more often than not, decide, not teachers.

School boards buy iPads for kindergarten teachers. Superintendents contract with companies to supply every classroom with interactive whiteboards. Sure, maybe a few teachers serve on a district-wide committee that advises the school board and superintendent but key decisions to spend and distribute machines are seldom made by teachers.

Teachers–most of whom already use an array of electronic devices at home–are expected to use new technologies in classroom lessons but have little to no say in determining which devices and software they will use and under what conditions. That is the paradox that champions of technology–including philanthropists, software engineers, programmers, and CEOs–fail to understand or if they do understand, choose to ignore.

Yet that is not the case in other professions. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, and accountants working either as solo practitioners or in small groups decide which new technologies they will buy and use. In most public and private organizations that hire professionals, such as hospitals, top decision-makers often meet and confer with doctors. Ditto for engineers and architects in big companies, and senior lawyers in firms. But seldom in school districts.

Non-involvement does not mean, of course, non-use. In school districts, for example, once major investments in high-tech are made, there are many teachers who choose to use the new equipment and software in their lessons. And there are teachers who ingeniously weave learning and machines together in imaginative ways that spur students to learn even more than they would from conventional lessons. There are such teachers and they show up in articles in Edutopia, on technology advocacy websites, and in software testimonials. They comprise a small fraction of a district’s teacher corps, however.

So what? What’s the big deal about teachers not being part of the decisions to buy and deploy new technologies?

Here’s my two answers to this “So What” question.

1. Such policy and administrative decisions ignoring teachers’ ideas, concerns, and issues of implementation send the message that those who teach are mere technicians who hammer the nail and turn the screw. They are not decision-makers capable of making judgments about identifying, buying, and using new technologies.

2. Without serious teacher involvement in decisions to purchase and use new technologies (more than a token teacher or two on a district-wide committee), avoidable, even foolish, decisions will occur in buying new equipment and software. There are, for example, new hardware and applications hidden in school closets for years testifying to rash decisions made without teacher involvement.

Anyone who has been in schools when spanking new devices were rolled out at the beginning of a school year knows all the “Oops,” “Sorry about that,” and “we had not considered that possibility” that get said in subsequent months. Much, but not all, of that could have been avoided had teachers participated fully in piloting new devices and discussions prior to purchase and use.

Were teachers to become part of the district and school decision-making processes determining access to and use of new technologies, would they eventually integrate these new technologies into classroom lessons? A higher percentage would, I believe.

Why? Because those teachers who piloted the hardware and software would have thought through and learned connections between curriculum knowledge and skills, which lessons could be taught that use the new devices and software, and expertise would have emerged among those teachers and their peers that could be shared. Treating teachers as undeserving to be at the table when decisions are made about buying and deploying of machines and applications reflect the low opinion that too many policymakers have for teachers.

Would decisions on access and use to high-tech devices in classrooms be better-informed? You bet. Would teachers use the software both differently and more creatively?

Perhaps. It would be worth finding out.