should schools turn to a technology school or a normal school

1. "It may cost a lot of money but it will be worth it..."Yes, it will cost cost a lot. It will take money out of schools that the schools don't have currently. I support a measure to spend our funds and tax-payer money on proved methods of improving education. Smaller class sizes, for example. This is a website that shows both the benefits and disadvantages to smaller class sizes: http://www.publicschoolreview.com..."Several studies have shown that reducing class size increases overall student achievement, especially for younger, disadvantaged children. The following are some of the benefits of fewer students in a classroom. Students receive more individualized attention and interact more with the teacher. Teachers have more flexibility to use different instructional approaches. Fewer students are less distracting to each other than a large group of children. Teachers have more time to teach because there are fewer discipline problems. Students are more likely to participate in class and become more involved. Teachers have more time to cover additional material and use more supplementary texts and enrichment activities."This, as you can see, is a huge benefit to spending public funds wisely. Here are one of the disadvantages of this system - and, yet, it still proves my point. "Those who oppose making class reduction a priority generally acknowledge that there are benefits from smaller classes, especially for young children. They apply cost-benefit analyses, however, to conclude that the costs for reducing class sizes are too high for what they call the slight benefits."Even the side against this claim acknowledges that it is a good idea, but is too costly.My argument is that we can't afford to spend our money on policies that are proved to work; why would we spend so much more money and other resources on things that limit the amount of teachers within a school? Why would we want our classes to grow larger to afford things like IPads and other technology? The best one-on-one is with a real-life adult. Not some form of technology that can't answer your questions directly. I don't want to limit the budgets of schools anymore. That's the reason we have fallen behind in international rankings. Now, I know an argument that pro-technology in school people like to pull: well, students can bring in their own form of technology. I am against this. This basically undermines the point of public education, which is supposed to provide the same level of education for everybody. If one student has an IPad, and the other doesn't, than one has it easier than the other. I believe that we should offer the same level of education for everybody - no matter their economical situation, or whether or not their parents allow them to take it to school. http://sitemaker.umich.edu...This is an article written by the university of Michigan. It supports my claim that students should learn the same things and do the same things - meaning if one student has to take notes instead of typing notes, all should. It compares the US to Japan, and why the US is failing compared to Japan. One reason is because of the differences offered in education. In Japan, students learn from the same books. "The first, and most significant way, is that Japanese schools incorporate a national curriculum created by the Japanese Ministry of Education. Thus, unlike the educational system in the United States, in which each state determines its own curriculum, the federal government decides on what each school must teach, how to teach it, and even what books to teach it with." Students need to be learning from the same resources. You might say, "If everybody had an IPad, than we could all learn and benefit."Read the last paragraph of that article. "Finally, although the US spends a considerable amount of money on education relative to Japan, much of the funds that are appropriated are used for things other than academics. These include funds for transportation, food, athletics and custodians as well as money for programs such as D.A.R.E. In fact, as much as 40% of US curricula is devoted to nonacademic subjects (Abbeduto 380). In contrast, most Japanese students walk or ride their bikes to school and many traditional Japanese schools even have students clean the school at the end of each day. Furthermore, although students in Japan do participate in extra-curricular activities such as sports after school, most are only allowed o choose one club. Additionally, most students who are considering college perceive such activities as a hindrance to their chances of passing the entrance exams that will pave the way to their success (Johnson 1996)." The reason the US has fallen behind is because we spend too much money on things that we think help our students - not what we know. Japan, instead, devotes their funding strictly to education - meaning that they take a traditional path instead of a modern path. They don't even incorporate buses into their budget; why would they introduce IPads and other such forms technology? Japan - along with many other nations - is an example of a nation prospering in education because they stick to the book of traditional teaching. They stick to the book of proved methods and logical thinking. Meanwhile, the US is taking shortcuts to ensure that education is "fun". The fact is, though, that while it may be entertaining, students are not benefiting from it. The US just recently rated "average" among other world leaders in education. We need to stop taking shortcuts and ensure that our students are being taught with proved method. We need to stop harming our budgets further more and instead focus our finical interests in things that are proved to work. I am against technology in schools because it, so far, has proved unsuccessful in the US and is harming our budgets by laying off teachers.