For decades, there has been a vision of an education system transformed by technology. Many have believed, or at least hoped, that the combined power of hardware, software and the Internet would vastly improve student performance. 

This vision has many facets, including schools with a level playing field for rich and poor; a vibrant connected global community of students and teachers; and vast resources including not only books, images, music and videos, but also bold, compelling and effective ideas.  

These notions are now being seriously questioned. A new report, “Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection,” from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development studied the impact of technology on education in 31 countries.  

One quote from the executive summary captures the report’s two major findings. “The results show no appreciable improvements in student achievement in reading, math or science in those countries that invested heavily in ICT (information and communication technology) for education. And perhaps the most disappointing finding in the report is that technology is of little help in bridging the skills divide between advantaged and disadvantaged students.”

(Lest anyone think that our students technologically out-perform their peers from other countries, the United States ranked 13th on “how well students are able to read, navigate and understand online texts” despite having a higher student to computer ratio than almost all of the countries surveyed.)  

There are some in the education community who will not be surprised by these findings. 

Two years ago, the Center for American Progress issued a white paper that stated, “In short, there is little indication that technology has revolutionized our nation’s school system.”  

Earlier this year, Larry Cuban, professor emeritus of education at Stanford University, wrote, “The fact is that no substantial basis in research findings or existing data on the academic effectiveness of classroom technology warrant the boom-town spread of classroom devices.”

And we do spend money on classroom technology. It is estimated that K-12 technology expenditures in 2015 will be $4.7 billion. (Add another $6.6. billion in 2015 for higher education.)

Those cautious about the impact of technology are not saying that it is of little import. What they are saying is that there has been a rush to implement technology with few guidelines, little analyses of its impact on student learning, and skimpy teacher training. The result is that it is frequently used as added support for antiquated and ineffective classroom activities.

But the significance of the new report goes beyond technology. It is another compelling reminder that too often easy solutions are provided to complicated problems.  Education has certainly been guilty of this. At various times over the last few decades, in addition to technology, other simplistic responses such as testing or common standards or teacher evaluations have been put forward to drive school reform.      

Improving student outcomes will require a multi-faceted approach. It must be built around better teaching (primarily more support for our teachers) but will also require family and community involvement, social services, broader curricula and more extracurricular activities.   

When classroom technology is bundled with a set of well thought out and tested interventions, then, and only then, will it fulfill its potential.    

— Gene A. Budig is past president of three major state universities, including Kansas University and of Major League Baseball’s American League.  Alan Heaps is a former vice president of the College Board.