EDT 634 - Blog Post #3 - Digital Divide

• What problems have you witnessed in your own place of work with respect to technology, power, and a divide?
• In what ways, if any, do the items you covered in your tech plan or policy review address these (it may be that they don't simply because of the topic you chose)?
• Do you see yourself on the "have-not" side of any of the divides mentioned in the presentation (or one that was not)?  Can you think of any action on your part or the part of your supervisors to alleviate any issues this may have caused.

In this interview, Ken Barrons discusss the the many issues related to digital divide.  This is a topic that is always on the forefront of any technology planning iniative and one that is not always easily resolved.  As I listened to the interview I was able to reflect on what I have seen and experienced in my own school district.  

One thing that he mentioned was that digital divide doesn't always mean that it refers to socio-economic factors.  Digital divide can refer to gender and age.  In my school district I think the biggest disparity I see is a divide among age.  Specifically, between elementary and secondary.  Through the years, I have observed that new hardware is always given to middle and high school while the elementary received their hand-me-downs.  Additionally I notice that they have better access to IT/Tech support.  The IT department is house in the highs school.  And when the iPads were first rolled out, they started with the high school with the elmentary recieving their devices one year later.  When funds became available for a tech coach, they hired a coach who serviced the secondary teachers leaving the elementary teachers to fend for themselves.  

My tech plan proposal deals with providing digital tools to English language learners.  So in some respect, the notion of a "social" digital divide must be addressed in this plan.  It would be short-sighted to assume that all students who may be immigrants, refugees or transients have Internet access or devices to access the tools.  Therefore, an alternative plan for access to the tools must be considered.  

As stated before, as teacher at the elementary level, I often find that our students are often the second thought when new technology is rolled out.  Another thing is the limited amount of sharing privileges is limited at the elementary level.  realize that safety is an issue.  But sometimes, promoting a global and collaborative environment is difficult when there are so many sharing restrictions.  I have already petitioned my administration to ease up on the sharing privileges in Google Docs and Gmail for elementary students.  It seems counterproductive to provide them with these collaborative tools and but then not allow them to collaborate with them.  

ED 634 - Blog Post #2 - Funding: Response to Lynn W. , Lawrence University, Interview

Lynn, from Lawrence Tech University is extremely knowledgeable and spoke articulately about the different resources for funding, implementation and evaluation of technology in the educational setting.  Her experience in different capacities have given her unique insight to the obstacles as well as motives involved in getting funding for technology iniatives for school districts and universities.  

I have been on many technology planning committees and understand the process and challenges involved in first getting buy-in at the front end as well as continued support.  I have also been exposed to the reality of how much is costs to roll out a 1:1 initiative.  However, one thing she mentioned that was a bit of a shock to me was how much money districts spend on personnel costs.  She stated that 80-92% of a districts general fund go to funding personnel.  That doesn't leave a lot for other things, especially not technology.  This makes it even more crucial to have buy in from the community (tax payers) because if you ask for a technology bond, they need to understand that the funds available for technology are slim to none.  

I wasn't aware of E-rate until reading about it in this class and in her interview. I'm wondering if our technology director (who is no longer with the district) or director of finance knew about this.  I'm definitely going to follow up on this when school resumes.  This would probably be something I would look into as a funding source if I were to head up a technology bond proposal or other technology iniative.  

I also found some of the "hidden resoures" she mentioned to be valuable.  These are more "intangible" funds but do effective the bottom line in the end.  For example going to a BYOD and at the same time relaxing district policy and network settings to free up monies for other things is a creative and realistic way to achieve the goal of ubiquitous technology.  

Lynn also discussed how the level of priority technology has in K-12 vs higher education stating that at the university level, it is considered as an essential.  For K-12 she stated that it is more of a value added item.  I would have to agree with her on that and add that because you are dealing with mostly digital natives who have been using technology for most of their lives, they expect it.  And for the most part many already know how to use many of the digital tools that are available to demonstrate learning and to help them be more productive.  There is simply just a different mindset for this student population. However, in my experience, I would have to say that many university professors are slow to adopt and integrate technology tools effectively in their instruction. I think this is where universities need to work on buy in....at the faculty level.  

ED 634 - Blog Post #! - Response to Tavernier et. al. Interview

As I listened to this interview, I heard a common theme that resonated among the interviewees; that being that in order for change to occur, it requires a systemic approach.  As I reflect on the responses of each individual, I noted that each one spoke to specific interactions and experiences each of them had with various stakeholders within the district that were critical in the successful promotion of their initiative.  There was no "I did this" or "I did that" but rather "we tried this and this is what happened."  That sense of working together, gathering information and utilizing existing resources in order to initiate change illustrates a significant level of collaboration among the technology leaders, administrators, teaching staff and community. A perfect example of how they tapped into the systemic approach to gain stakeholder buy-in was through the  "Inspire You" initiative.  This initiative started at the top with the school board wanting to provide a creative and unique professional development opportunity that would provide teachers with strategies and best practices involving the use of technology.  It was based on a "teachers-teaching-teachers" model.   In order to "garner support before the launch"  They created a "promotional", informational video which featured the school board president, the superintendent and the teacher's union president.  By including all 3 of these influential stakeholders, a message of solidarity and support for the initiative was communicated to the teaching staff.  This video was shared to the staff by the principals of each building. The idea of using the teachers' union to "sell" or "dangle the carrot" in order for teachers to see the benefits was a wise strategy.  In the interview, Josh, the union president acknowledged the risk they were taking in becoming involved with this initiative, but sometimes you need to take risks in order for change to occur.  He also noted that they tried to be as open and honest as  possible and giving teachers the choice rather than mandating it.  They acknowledged that the mindsets and needs of teachers are different and that everyone embraces new ideas at different times and to varying degrees.  They were careful in getting the message out but not to overwhelm teachers.  With change comes a lot of unknowns.  As they moved forward, they had no idea how this would be received by the teachers.  It was difficult to gauge the interest level. It wasn't until the last minute when 20 teachers seized the opportunity to become "instructors" and a little over 200 teachers participating as "learners". As a technology leader in my district, I can echo many of the sentiments that John, David and Josh expressed in the interview.  When describing instances when things went bad, they acknowledged that sometimes it's not that bad decisions are made but rather  the best decision is made that meets the needs at that time.  Technology moves and changes so fast, and therefore it's difficult to see into the future and know whether or not the initiative you implemented was the best investment.  I also appreciated the quote shared by one of the interviewees that said "words frame our thinking".  I can support this in my own experience.  How an idea is marketed or labeled can make a big impact on the perceptions of the stakeholders. A simple redesign in semantics such as changing "buy-in" to "ownership"  can make all the difference in how it is received.  In my district we have tried some of the tactics and strategies this district has tried.  The iPad initiative was met with a lot of push back from parents and teachers.  Change and buy-in didn't happen over time. It took the perseverance, patience of a visionaries and pioneers to see it through. Other initiatives have failed failed due to lack of support or interest from either teachers or from administration.  Remember the State of Michigan TTI initiative?
Lastly, the simulation from week 2 as well as the Anderson article reflect many of the issues involved organizational change. In summary, change must be systemic. It starts with a clear vision that is effectively communicated to all stakeholders at all levels. The initiative buy-in builds momentum through exploration and research of different ideas. It transitions into implementation utilizing the resources of those who are willing to take risks and accept the outcomes of their efforts.  Full-scale change occurs once successful elements of the initiative become embraced and replicated throughout the organization.