I still remember my family’s first computer—a lead-heavy $2,000 single-unit Mac. I had the honor of installing it in my bedroom. I was the oldest child, so I had priority access to it for senior-year papers. But the computer turned out to be more than an overgrown word processor. It helped our family get with the times, allowed us to surf the primitive web, and long outlasted its effective shelf life, finally winding up at a yard sale.

Oh, how far we’ve come. The tablet PCs that people carry on the bus have more power than that old Powermac did. So, too, do the iPads that students are using in our schools. We use and rely on technology more than ever.

As drawn-out bargaining sessions between the Valley teacher’s association and Snoqualmie Valley School District near their climax, some educators have questioned local priorities. One question is whether we’re valuing tech more than people. After all, teachers and volunteers had to scrabble last spring to find enough school supplies, yet there is funding to pay for two days of technology training last week, and the gadgets to implement it.

It’s true that technology is special here. Tech funding comes from its own special bucket. In 2010, voters in the Valley gave a 61 percent approval (when only a 50-percent-plus majority was needed) to a four-year, $9.9 million technology levy meant to maintain strong local standards. These funds can only be used for tech-related purposes, which includes pay for training but not base salaries.

It’s understandable, in these times of bone-jarring cuts and high-stakes negotiations, for people to wonder what constitutes an educational need, and what is just a want. You can make an argument that technology, and indeed supplies of every variety, only go so far—that the true force in education is the connection between teacher and student. After all, the original educator, Socrates, used little more than a stick and some sand to instill a questioning spirit in his pupils. For most of history, the world’s greatest thinkers and educators honed their minds with little more than chalk and slate or pen and paper.

But the Valley’s tech advocates make a sound point about competitiveness. In Washington, we live in one of the world’s technology centers. If our schools can’t keep pace with neighboring districts in terms of teacher pay and property values, at least our voters have blessed us with an emphasis on new tech and training, helping enliven classrooms and engage students.

This leads me back to the negotiations. I recognize the arguments on both sides of the negotiating table, and believe the district is sincere when it says that cuts are beginning to hit the bone. At the same time, I recognize the frustration that educators feel when they face smaller paychecks as a result of the state economy, while looking at a district with what might best be described as a cautiously healthy reserve. It’s painful, and probably unrealistic, to be asked to do more with less.

I hope both parties can find common ground, then return to their true business without feeling ground down. But that’s hard when your expectations are eroding.

I also recognize the district’s frustrating position as one of the least-funded school systems, 287th out of 295, in the state. It seems the Valley is too affluent to qualify for a lot of low-income federal offests, yet not wealthy enough to pass a middle school bond. Local voters can vote in all the new technology they want, but that’s got to be offset by ways to get teachers, the one who implement it, feeling like they’re as valued. We all have a share in making this happen.

If there are ideas out there, let’s use them. Until we address these discrepancies as a community, we’re going to have to keep going through the same bargaining waiting game every few years. Back-to-school time is a season of promise. I’d rather see these energies spent in the classroom, not the negotiating room.