Many technological improvements in the field of education are being made every day. There are constantly new and exciting ways to educate and teach students each and every year. However, behind all of that technology there must still be a competent teacher/instructor there in order to fully teach the material. The use of the Facial Action Coding System in classrooms is not valuable because it lets teachers not engage as much with students, is not necessary for a successful learning environment, and would be too complicated and powerful for most computers to be realistically implemented throughout the country.

While technology can definitely assist in giving students a worthwhile academic experience, there still must be a competent and engaged teacher past it in order for students to truly learn. With more and more advancements being made, it gives teachers and instructors less and less responsibility and obligation to teach properly and effectively. While some may argue that a human instructor is not necessary for students to learn, it is still more beneficial for a fellow human being to convey the lessons being taught alongside the technology than just the technology teaching. In the article, the doctor who helped develop the technology states "''...it could modify the lesson, like an effective human instructor.'" This quote shows that this technology could essentially take over a lot of aspects of a teacher's job, giving the teacher less of an obligation to teach their students. Human instructors are important for people to learn material effectively, so they must be given a certain amount of responsibility in order for there to be a good learning environment.

While this technology could theoretically be beneficial for students, it is not an essential aspect needed for a successful learning environment. The article talks about how this technology can assess people's emotions similarly to how people do in person everyday. In the article, the doctor who helped develop the software says "'A classroom computer could recognize when a student is becoming confused or bored.'" This could be a helpful tool in certain scenarios, but as the article mentions, humans do this process naturally throughout the day and while we cannot assess as accurately as a computer could, we can still sense the general emotion of someone. This makes the face analyzing technology a possibly beneficial tool, but an unnecessary and unrealistic tool as well.

Even if this technology were an absolutely essential part of every classroom, at this point in time it is not realistic to expect it to be implemented effectively. This software is relatively new and is powerful, so an expensive and powerful computer must be used in order to utilize it well. In the article, the author states that "Your home PC cant handle the complex algorithms used to decode Mona Lisas smile." This quote implies that most PC's currently available to people would not be capable of using the software. Even if most schools could acquire the powerful computers needed to run this software, it would take a serious and detrimental chunk of funding away from other more important school aspects such as lunches or libraries. Even though the techonology can be helpful in certain instances, it is not realistic to expect schools to be able to implement it anytime soon.

The Facial Action Coding System is a promising new technology, and as such has it's fair share of issues. While seemingly impressive and futuristic at first glace, once one begins to take into account other factors the system starts to become more of an interesting novelty than a breaking new education tool to be used in classrooms across the globe. New developments often bring improvement with them, but before being implemented must be tweaked and carefully considered in order to be successful. In around a decade, this facial reading software could be a typical sight in many classrooms. But as it stands now, it has too many flaws and issues in order to be taken seriously.