"These aren't jobs, they're symptoms"

Giving Feynman, Shannon and Freire my research data on Edtech efficacy

Feynman: "Wait, hold on. You're telling me it's been 8 years and nothing has changed? That's actually very interesting data! Most people would be discouraged, but I'm curious - what does 'nothing has changed' actually mean? Have you been measuring the right things?

Look at this list of job titles - it's like looking at the organizational chart of a bureaucracy that's grown to justify its own existence. 'Coordinator of District Technology,' 'Innovation Specialist,' 'Director of Innovation, Instructional Technology and Professional Learning' - these aren't jobs, they're symptoms.

Here's what I want to know: Can you show me one concrete example where a kid learned something better because of all this 'integration'? Not a report, not a survey result - show me the kid. Because if you can't, then maybe the problem isn't that you need better integration. Maybe the problem is that you're solving the wrong problem entirely."

Freire: "My friend, the fact that nothing has changed in 8 years is not a failure of your research - it's evidence of exactly what we should expect when we try to reform systems without challenging who holds power.

Look at these job titles: who do they serve? The students? Or the administrators who need to justify technology budgets to school boards? This 'integration' you speak of - integration into what? Into the same banking model of education that treats students as empty vessels to be filled?

The real question is: Who benefits from keeping technology integration as a technical problem rather than recognizing it as a political one? When you make it about 'leadership and integration,' you're avoiding the fundamental question - whose interests does the current system serve, and why would they want it to change?

Your research assumes the system wants to be fixed. But what if working exactly as intended - to maintain existing power structures while appearing to innovate?"

Shannon: "Eight years with no change tells me you're optimizing the wrong function. This isn't a technology integration problem - it's a signal processing problem in a noisy organizational system.

Look at this data differently. You have ~50+ distinct job titles that all seem to address the same core function. From an information theory perspective, that's massive redundancy without apparent error correction. Either there's enormous noise in the system requiring this redundancy, or these aren't actually performing the same function - they're performing organizational theater.

The key insight: if your signal (better learning outcomes through technology) isn't getting through after 8 years, the problem isn't the signal strength. It's that you're broadcasting on the wrong frequency or the channel capacity is being consumed by something else entirely.

What would happen if you modeled this as a communication system? What's the actual information that needs to be transmitted from teachers to students, and what's the minimum bandwidth required? I suspect most of these roles exist to process organizational noise, not educational signal."