There are approximately 98,817 public schools and 3.6 million high school teachers in America. That is too many different curriculums and teaching strategies to ultimately prepare students for standardized tests to further their education. Furthermore, some schools have limited access to technology and the internet, which creates a barrier in education. The lack of technology also limits effective teaching. Though cell phone use in classrooms can be a problem, regulating cell phone use in classrooms can positively impact effective teaching. All public schools, especially schools and districts which pride themselves on progressive educational paradigms, should allow their students the freedom to learn the way that is best for them, so that they are able to contribute to their own education.

It is expected that most schools have technology, especially since there is a law in place to help kids have access to technology. The No Children Left Behind Act forces the federal government to allow school districts to be flexible with how they use federal education funds to enhance and improve student achievement. In fact, “...districts that don't believe in the power of technology to aid learning and achievement usually choose to buy more textbooks and raise teacher salaries, rather than consider technology improvements in the classroom” (Zielinski 4). This traditional teaching method is hindering students from upgraded teaching, however at the same time, paying teachers more for being lethargic and neglecting a more modern teaching method. Technology is something that will transform and evolve whether people like it or not. Whatever career the textbook-taught students pursue, they will most likely have to deal with technology. Unfortunately, these students could have a huge disadvantage in college or in the workforce because they are unfamiliar with how to use various programs and applications. However, as current high school student’s grandparents might argue, “When I was your age I didn’t grow up with a SmartBoard, these fancy gadgets or the internet,” implying that technology is not crucial to student’s education. Some might even say that, “We would do well to remember that the ultimate goal of our educational system is to teach our children how to think for themselves. Technology can be a wonderful tool, but a high-speed modem will never replace a quick mind” (LeFevre 1).  Moreover, many assert that tools such as graphing calculators and Google are kidnapping the intellectual integrity of students, because when students learn the easy way by looking things up or plugging them into calculators, it takes away their ability to learn and apply information. Even with the possible truth to that, and although “Technology will not turn a poor teacher into an educational superstar or propel a poor student to the honor roll” (LeFevre 1), it has also came to the point where educators would convey that what they are teaching is not realistically going to show up again in the real world, thus making it less imperative to actually learn the content. 

Compounding the problem is the fact that technology is advancing at an exponential rate, and also has been highly incorporated into the life and education of others. This change has a lot of pros, “But just as television is no substitute for parental involvement at home, computers and the Internet will not make up for lack of teaching skills at school” (LeFevre 3). Some teachers use technology to motivate and excite their students so they can reach higher levels of achievement. On the other hand, teachers that are not able to maintain the focus of their students turn to technology to increase their insufficient teaching skills. In all honesty, students are able to stay home and Google information all day. If the information is not applied or explained in the classroom, whenever the assignment or test is over, the content is forgotten and nothing has been actually learned. Even if schools are financially capable of providing every student with a computer or technological device, it is still pertinent that teachers are able to be in a classroom and explain content to the extent that students can learn and apply the information given. However, with schools that are unable to afford technology, there was “...only 27 percent of the classrooms were wired...” perhaps due to “...the staggering dollar figure necessary to allow every student equal access to a computer and the Internet while at school. And while the federal government, along with many of the state governments, is proposing programs to help schools pay for the necessary equipment, the majority of the cost is still paid at the local level by parents and businesses” (LeFevre 4). Moreover, “Many school districts located in less affluent having a generously sufficient and typically increasing supply of material possessions areas of our country will not be able to afford providing the same level of technology as their richer neighbors, even with federal and state help” (LeFerve 4). Most public schools with a high technology percentage rate is credited to parents and businesses, and since high paying jobs and successful local businesses aren’t available near every public school, some of them don’t have the efficient technology as other schools do, which is creating a barrier in education.

Cellular devices in classrooms are another example of barriers in education, but they do not have to be. Some students have reasonable explanations to have to take notes on their phone or to use it during the lesson. The article “Incorporating Smartphones into the Classroom” stated, “Because so many students already own smartphones, bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies offer a cost-effective way for schools to ensure that every student has access to an Internet-enabled device, with the limited number of devices purchased by a school going to those students who need them” (1).  This article also acknowledges that, “In addition, smartphones feature a wide variety of educational applications that teachers can use to engage technology-oriented students and enhance the classroom experience” (“Incorporating Smart Phones into the Classroom” 1). For schools that don’t have the financial stability to provide all of their students with technology, the students could use their smartphones. 

Also, with the responsibility of having cellphones in the classroom, it helps students manage self control, especially if they plan on going to college with professors who won’t beg them to put away their cellular devices and pay attention. On the contrary, “Teacher-directed use of smartphones in the classroom can help students learn to manage ever-present technology and use it in a productive manner” (“Incorporating Smartphones into the Classroom” 3). Smartphone applications such as notes, e-mail, calendars, and messaging can help them keep track of assignments, communicate with classmates, and contact teachers. 

To be fair, cellphones are also problems with students in classrooms. The management of cell phones could be a struggle. More traditional teachers would say: “The effects of the smartphone revolution have presented significant challenges for middle and high schools in the United States, as many teachers have reported that they struggle to control the use of phones in the classroom on a daily basis. Digital distractions prevent many students from paying attention to lessons, engaging in discussions, concentrating on assignments, and interacting face-to-face with classmates” (“Incorporating Smartphones into the Classroom” 1). The use of phones in classrooms is doing more harm than good, by distracting students and making it nearly impossible for them to collaborate with other students. Cellphones also allows students to be dishonest because “...some students misuse smartphone technology to cheat on tests or engage in cyberbullying” (“Incorporating Smartphones into the Classroom” 1). However, these problems could be avoided. Phones can be taken during tests and book bags can be put at the front of room. To handle cyberbullying and other problems, “One popular strategy is to have students sign an acceptable use policy (AUP) or customizable device contract that sets guidelines for responsible use as well as consequences for inappropriate use of cell phones” (“Incorporating Smartphones into the Classroom” 3). To really incorporate this into classrooms, “Teachers who adopt the stoplight approach, for example, may use a green light to indicate that devices can be used for educational purposes, a yellow light to indicate that devices can be in “sleep” mode on students’ desks, and a red light to indicate that devices should be turned off and stored out of sight. (Incorporating Smartphones into the Classroom 3). Teachers also collect phones or make their students put it in a location that is out of reach when they do not need it for class activities. Therefore, it is definitely possible to have a regulated cell phone use in classrooms. This benefits both the students by managing their screen addiction, and teachers by being able to incorporate things like Kahoots and Quizlets in the classroom. 

With the lack of technology in public schools, along with student cell phone use and the incorporation of technology mixed with teaching, efficacious and productive teaching methods are greatly affected. The type of education students receive in high school essentially preps them for the important next steps they attempt to peruse in life. What stands behind those next steps should be a school system that allows their students to bestow upon their own education and learning. Without this, students are never really in charge of their future. 

Work Cited 

Barker, Bruce O. "The Internet Can Improve Education." The Internet, edited by Helen Cothran, Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.

"Incorporating Smartphones into the Classroom." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2018. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.

Kushner, David. "The Internet Has Not Improved Education." The Internet, edited by Helen Cothran, Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.

LeFevre, Andrew T. "Technology Alone Has Not Improved Education." The Information Revolution, edited by Laura K. Egendorf, Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. 

"Master the foundations, and rule a universe." Australian [National, Australia], 18 July 2018, p. 29. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.