Technology in the classroom

Thank you for an engaging and civil discussion we are having so far. I will move straight to rebuttals. 1) My opponent says that this debate is on the levels and types of technology. He (I use He to simplify the use of gender pronouns) however, has failed to actually propose or define what exactly the level or types of technology he is willing for classrooms to use. The final paragraph of his last argument was: "Technology can definitely enhance learning, and like any tool, can be used properly or grossly misused. I maintain that the effort to monitor and control misuse often outweighs the small benefit for the current usage in classrooms." This paragraph definitely suggests that he will block all forms of technology in the classroom, which mostly includes phones, tablets and the internet (yes, no doubt chairs and chalks are also a form of technology but I think we can all agree we are not talking about those tools. We are talking about the tools of the 21st century. Arguing on the exact meaning of technology is not very helpful in this debate). Thus, my opponent has only managed to create a lot of confusion regarding what exactly his stance is. On what hand, he is willing to consider some forms of technology, and on the other hand he maintains that it is better if we don't open the opportunity for misuse and that we should remove it in its entirety. 2) My opponent then says that the main purpose for these gadgets is social media and entertainment. Fair enough. However, I will remind him that distractions are always going to exist, not only in the classroom, but anywhere else. Bear in mind, that we are talking about secondary school students here. These are students who have a reasonable understanding of how they should behave in the classroom. We should therefore be able to put a decent amount of trust in them that they will use these tools in the best way possible. Even if there are no gadgets in class, this does not guarantee students are concentrating all the time anyway. There will be those who will daydream, fidget with their pencils and pens, drawing stuff totally unrelated to what the teacher is teaching, you get my point. If indeed your concern is on students' attention, rest assured even the top scorers will not give 100% of their attention all the time. Their minds are in all sorts of places like the gym, what's on TV, food, etc. You have to understand that allowing students to use gadgets in class is not simply just allowing them free time to use their phones. Just like a normal class, often the teacher will have a quiz, an interactive tour, etc. The teacher will be asking questions and opinions from the students on a fairly consistent basis, just like a normal class. 3) My opponents' next argument was on the cost of tablets. Normally, a school which has decided to integrate technology into their curriculum will have the necessary budget beforehand. It's not like that suddenly decided "Hey, let's buy gadgets for the students tomorrow." No, no. It's all already organised before the school year actually rolls in. In fact, my opponent has already agreed that most students already have gadgets anyway. The school just gives permission for the students to actually bring the gadgets they already have. 4) My opponents' final argument was pretty much a repetition on the subject of monitoring student activity. I am afraid however that under his logic, we might as well ban school computer labs, or the television room most schools have simply because some students can abuse it. Why stop there? If possible, we should all the government to censor each and every television programme, website, games and every thing else that children are consuming. With all the programmes on the media which can be interpreted as pornography, violence and basically a time-waste and distraction to our children, we should also put our efforts into these things as well. After all, students only spend a fraction of their lives in the classroom, after which they go home, they go to the cinemas, hang out at the playground, etc. I wonder how many other things are draining their attention? As you can see, this seems ridiculous but under my opponent's logic, this is what he should agree to. It is just not possible to be 100% thorough on what students are up to. But removing a vital tool to boost the understanding and interaction of students in potentially very boring subjects just because they are going to do something else (which they already are anyway) is just not the way I think we should deal with this issue. Thank you.