I agree that it is essential to build capacity at the board level to develop and approve policies that support the core business of the district.  The need for such support is amplified as we look to move schools to 21st Century readiness.  There are tools that are available today that when used in the learning arena enhance the experience for many students like never before.  We have come to expect continual advancements in technology.  We know much of what we will see in our classrooms in the next 5 years may not even exist today.  We further expect that the work our teachers design for our students to produce is more complex, rigorous, and engaging.  Therefore policies set fourth must be fluid and flexible for this everchanging environment we call school. 

In our system we began having this conversation a few years back.  It led us to face the brutal facts as to where the barriers really were.  We often found that our barriers were deeply placed within our own thinking as a result of mental models of which we were aware.  At the faculty, staff, administrative level, we had to give voice to students for us to better understand their needs and desires.  It was then that we worked with our board to see what the future needed to be and the flexibility in policy to allow us to move forward.  They have supported us at every turn.

I have seen the real potential in students using their cell phones at school, especially because cell phones are basically handheld computers. However, timing is everything.  If we had moved forward with creating a policy to allow this without teacher buy-in a few years ago, this would not have been successful.  Recently, an English teacher from our high school emailed me and asked if we could change our Code of Conduct to encourage cell usage at school (we have always allowed students to have their cell phone with them, just not visible, and not used at school).  Over time, several teachers have given permission for students to use cell phones and they see value in using cell phones to positively impact learning, so now we are ready to update our policy.  

Facebook is another tool several teachers now use to communicate with students. They see the real power in using social networking tools.  We are also tinkering with an online component and have added a virtual class, with more to come.  I believe timing and ownership need to come before the policy development in many cases.  I think we need to cultivate pockets of innovation and success and then let the need to create policy bubble up (bottom up, more than top down).  

“The tools change
almost daily and the uses are consistently emerging and being tested in terms
of instructional and communication avenues.”

Excellent point. We are
often on the “bleeding edge” of technology at Orange. Sometimes that
works in our favor, sometimes it does not because there is a readiness factor
that must be considered. 

We must also consider that utilizing
any technology needs to be considered from three standpoints: content,
pedagogy, and technology. If these three areas intersect effectively, the
learning experience is meaningful and the use of technology engages but does
not overshadow content or force modification of teacher pedagogy.  (I’m referring here to the TPACK model of technology integration.)

Last evening, the Board of Education adopted the two policies referenced in my earlier post.  (I asked Catherine to post the policies and provide the link for your access)  The policies are worded to allow  for use of wireless communication devices during instructional time according to the design of the lesson and the enhancement that technology contributes to the learning.   When you review these policies, please note that we work with NEOLA, a nationally known company that works with schools to develop templates of policies to comply with the laws, state and federal mandates and other requirements.   These policies are the drafts that will turn into the polished policy statement.  These drafts contain both the original NEOLA language and the additional language added by the district.   The areas crossed out we will not use and the inserted red text is language we believe is necessary.   These drafts have been adopted and will, when put into the policy format, become the policy of the BoE. 

The policies do not, however, reflect all the issues we may be addressing as we incorporate technology tools into the classroom.  The District is, in a sense, breaking new ground here.  We do not have in place specifics as to how we will use the wireless communication devices (WCD) or how we will manage the current and constant texting of students.  One major issue is the accountability for appropriate use and the monitoring of the student use.   Students are currently “texting” from behind a book, under the desk, in the pocket (amazing how they are able to text without looking).   Though we are aware of the texting, we have not determined how to “manipulate” it into a learning process.  Yet, unless we recognized the current popular use of texting and figure out how to manage it in a learning setting, we will be missing out on using tools with which the students are very familiar and tools which really engage them in activities. 

Another issue we will be considering is the ephemeral nature of technology.  The tools change almost daily and the uses are consistently emerging and being tested in terms of instructional and communication avenues.  We do not know what is coming next and are constantly on the edge of exploration.   The policies allow us to experiment, transform, modify and/or apply the tools that exist now and in the future.

Please be clear, we are on the edge of understanding best practices in the use of technology.  These policies are only the beginning of our progress to using the tools and the skills of the 21st century.

Wireless Communications Devices Policy

The timeliness of this topic is perfect for the dialogue currently happening in our district.  The funding is not the focus as we have a responsive board and community willing to support the purchase and implementation of technology.  Our recent concerns have been on writing policies that allow both students and staff to use technology appropriately, specifically in the instructional setting, while still having accountability.   As we reviewed our current policy on wireless communication devices and electronic equipment, we found that the policies were extremely restrictive, did not provide for current and future uses of technology and did not allow for differentiation across the grades.   The policies limited cell phone use to before and after school and during lunch.  As we move into 21st century learning, multiple technologies are and will be used in various ways that we can not even imagine.   In a recent staff development session for instructional staff, kindergarten to 12th grade, teachers were asked to “get out your cell phone, dial this number and cast your vote for one of the three questions”.  As the calls came in, the survey gave a “live” bar graph of the response breakdown.   How exciting this could be in the classrooms as students use their cell phones and their texting abilities in an educational setting.  Another teacher uses the social network venue (ning) as a communication tool with students and parents.   Yet, our policies prohibited cell phone use or social networking during the instructional time.   A group of administrators and staff came together to determine how to write policy to allow us to move into the 21st century classroom without the “negative perspective” so often connected to new forms of communication and technology usage. 

The issues are much wider and deeper than I have described here and we are actually having fun talking about the future of instruction as we continue to embed the tools to enhance instruction and engage our students (and teachers).   I have invited several of the Orange staff to join this dialogue as the discussion continues both in district and across this venue.

Rationalizing IT spending and capitalizing on software solutions to build innovative, custom-tailored solutions that meet local needs is our next challenge. To get there we need to establish solid governance and architectural foundations in which interoperability will play a key role.

It is part of our mandate at the Ontario Ministry of Education to build capacity at the school board level. In my opinion, public policy should support local initiatives, particularly those developing open educational resources which can be shared with the community, and which could be featured as best practices once they demonstrate success.  I am a supporter of grassroot approaches that have the potential to energize the key players, in that case the teachers which are the adopters and users of the technology in the classroom (whether virtual or physical).

As a professional working on educational resources, I am strongly convinced that we must move as quickly as possible to digital and open resources. We have to build this culture of collaboration (team-work, expertise sharing, professional learning network, etc) that we have been fostering for years. Web2.0 technologies and digital resources finally give us the tools to make that happen.

The corresponding move in the software world is to rationalize spending. The U.S. public sector has spent 12 billion dollars in 2009 in software alone (without counting maintenance and upgrade cost), of which 63% has been spent in office productivity software (7.4 billion dollars). At the same time, there exist a Free/Libre Open Source Software, feature-rich and low-cost, alternative that is being successfully adopted by governments (e.g. France parliament, Brazil, the city of Munich) and businesses (e.g. Ford Europe): OpenOffice.org.  Source: Novell Senior VP and CMO, John Dragoon. Budget reduction has been identified by ABI as a priority for CIOs this year (not so surprisingly). Rationalizing IT spending and capitalizing on software solutions to build innovative, custom-tailored solutions that meet local needs is our next challenge. To get there we need to establish solid governance and architectural foundations in which interoperability will play a key role.

Finally, the locus of ownership of public data must be questioned, as well as its availability. The concept of ownership must be redefined to be less exclusive (which it often is by default). Governments must look at Open Data. For example, the cities of Vancouver and (very recently) Toronto publish data streams that can be exploited by citizens in mashups, or in plain value-added services.

In order to move schools toward 21st century readiness, policies must be put into place to fund the technologies needed to support technology-enabled classroom practices.  

What policies are already in place or must be put in place for this to happen in your region?  These policies might involve funding, standards, accountability, new acquisitions vs replacement, alliances with broadband initiatives, etc.