There is a saying in education that if something new comes in and threatens the education system - the system will co-opt and neutralize it so that it does not

There is a saying in education that if something new comes in and threatens the education system - the system will co-opt and neutralize it so that it does not threaten the system. For example, when computers first started being used in classrooms, they were usually used by progressive teachers in a single classroom (they could usually only afford one). The school 'neutralized' it by moving them to a dedicated classroom and teaching the students secondary skills like typing, rather than using it to create with/explore with as part of the curriculum. This continues to present day - with app literacy (Powerpoint) substituted for typing (usually). iPads are an interesting case. They are not necessarily coming in from the grassroots (the teachers) but from the top-down. Teachers, in some cases, are the ones fighting the iPads. In fact, most of my educator friends, view the iPad 'magical device' moniker with disdain. It's not so much the walled garden as the hype. This co-opting is also happening with the Maker Movement in schools. As soon as the Maker Movement moves beyond the single classroom, questions start getting asked. Why do you need a dedicated space? What is this Maker thing? How does making things align to Common Core (no joke). One of the problems of using Khan Academy self-styled learning is that it is very hard to map Khan Academy lessons to traditional student learning objectives (as mapped out in 1.2.3.4 level detail by the school district or state). Without explicit mappings, it's a hard(er) sell.