The key argument in this post can be found somewhere near the middle: "The uncritical buy-in from administration to the idea of technology and games as a cure-all for all things that need to be cured distracts from questions of basic economic, social, and emotional inequity that plague public education." Well, I agree, which is why I take pains to argue for greater social equity (real reforms that improve public services and address income inequality, among other things) alongside educational technology. But attacking the "uncritical buy-in from administration" is to pick an easy target. There are many more subtle, critical and effective arguments for educational technology, arguments that take into account providing support to under-served populations. And honestly, I don't know why critics such as the author defend the old way of doing things when the old way is so demonstrably ineffective, as evidenced by the very poverty the author rails against.