A popular development in high school education is the indoctrination of more technological platforms, such as school apps and laptops issued to students, for students to use. Sure, young students are increasingly dependent on technology in social and private lives, but does that really mean that our education needs to be interfaced with computers, the internet, and even our phones?

Administrators and educators understandably see a benefit of incorporating the electronic world into the classroom setting, as students become more and more familiar with the electronic and online communities with each and every day. Smart phones are used by students on a daily basis, so why not connect smart phones with education to draw a mental connection between technology and education in the minds of students? Educators have decided that using programs such as Google Classroom, Edmodo or Canvas are beneficial to students due to the resemblance of social media configurations. Such a concept is easily understood and would appear to be a brilliant idea. Problem is, that's just the concept. The idea does not seem so bright when you take a look at what really happens when you hand students laptops and tell their instructors that they are required to use these platforms.

Other objections and complications aside for a moment, there is the inevitable delay of educational proceedings when students and teachers are first learning to use this technology and these programs. I just completed my second week of school, and I have yet to learn anything in a couple of my classes because the teachers are just doing what they are told: figuring out how to use an online education platform and interface it with the curriculum and syllabus for the year. Students who are passionate about their education are not appreciative of the breaks that technology is currently putting on our learning process.

Once setting up the platforms is completed, students and educators alike have to deal with using it on a daily basis. At least, that is what the school officials would like to happen. Many teachers have already announced to their students that they will not bother wasting their time with online interfacing. You see, for the concept to work, a familiarity with all of these programs is necessary for all parties — especially the teachers. Personally, I believe that an educator who has been teaching for a few years with successful passing rates should not be bothered with a demand to alter their entire method of educating their students.

Students at my school are not nearly as enthusiastic as the administration had anticipated. We now have to learn how to use something else to get information and submit assignments that we could have done just as easily otherwise. The officials say that this is similar to college life, and that may hold true. However, this is not college. The push of gearing high school education toward college focus is partially to blame in this ordeal, but that is a separate issue to be addressed at a different time.

All in all, neither students nor teachers appreciate being told a standardized way of learning. The standardizing of an entire school into a single program is honestly a good concept, but in reality forces a limitation upon some teachers and students. This limitation that occurs is due to adherence to the program given to the students and instructors, rather than the freedom and flexibility of using what is most suitable for each class or each student. I find it comedic that schools are placing an emphasis on allowing students to utilize methods of learning and classroom procedures that suit their needs rather than those of the teachers and administrators, yet they are concurrently requiring standardized use of technology and programs. I am most fond of a particular teacher, and I heard her say the other day that this indoctrination is "technology for technology's sake." She makes a simple, yet fantastic point. Just because something is available, does not mean you have to use it. You can even take this idea back to the ages-old common phrase of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."