What is a Technology Policy Framework and Why Is It Necessary? A technology policy framework is a technology plan that provides “coherence and alignment across [an] education system, including classrooms, schools, school authorities, government, education partners, teacher preparation programs and professional organizations (Andrews, Dach, & Lemke, 2013). It is very important for a technology policy to involve all stakeholders and to constantly tie back to the mission of the school and district (Andrews, et al., 2013; Winske, 2014). A written technology plan helps to articulate needs and goals of a school, and therefore helps to communicate and “sell” what the school is doing to the community (Thirteen Ed Online, n.d.). In summary, a technology plan is a way to communicate consistence policies that further a school’s mission to all stakeholders: students, teachers, administration, and community. Technology plans are needed for a number of reasons. According to Hess, Saxberg, and Hochleitner (2013), “technology cannot drive meaningful change by itself—it must be coupled with a commitment by school leaders to reinvent teaching and learning.” Mark Edwards, Superintendent of Mooresville schools, echoes this statement when he says, “It’s about changing the culture of instruction” (Hess et al., 2013). Just like teacher units need to be carefully planned and organized, with goals and outcomes in order for instruction to be effective, so does a district’s use of technology. However, “[m]any educators have had the unfortunate experience of investing in technology only to discover later on that it is either incompatible with equipment the school already owns, that teachers are not trained to use it, or that maintenance costs were higher than expected” (Thirteen Ed Online, n.d.) and “[d]ecade after decade, disappointing initiatives have soaked up time, energy, and money while showing little evidence that new tools actually deliver on their promise to make a difference for learning (Hess et al., 2013). Furthermore, this kind of foresight and planning can also save a district money, especially since “[w]e spend a lot of money backing things up that simply do not need to be backed up (Winske, 2014), among multiple other ways schools waste money on technology that is not properly integrated. Technology plans can also make money, as they are necessary for many types of government assistance like ERate and vouchers (Belleau, 2015). Technology plans save money and create a clear vision for technology use in our schools. Components of a Technology Policy The template of the Alberta Policy Framework follows the following format: a policy, clearly tied to the mission and vision of the schools, followed by definitions, rationale, research, outcomes for teachers, and actions to be taken by the administration and the government (Andrews, et al., 2013). An American model follows a similar pattern, with an introduction that includes the overview and mission statement; goals, objectives, and outcomes of the use of technology; a list of existing resources and how they will support these objectives; a list of new resources to be purchased to support the objectives; a plan for training students in the use of these technologies; a maintenance plan that includes how, who, cost, insurance, and warranties; a description of how much it will cost and where the funding will come from; and finally, an assessment plan that describes how the effectiveness of the technology will be measured (Thirteen Ed Online, n.d.). The state of California provides another template for its districts to follow, that includes the plan background (dates, locations, demographics of school, stakeholder participation in planning, and research), curriculum (teacher and student current access and technology use, and goals and implementation plans for how tech will improve teaching and learning aligned to curricular goals, how and when students will get skills, and how internet safety and appropriate use will be taught and upheld), professional development (summary of teacher and admin current tech proficiency, a summary of professional development needs, and a plan to provide those), infrastructure, and assessment (Belleau, 2015). Obviously the components are similar, and just like writing a lesson plan, there are multiple formats in which to present the information. The basic components seem to be describing what we have (materials, skills), what we need (materials, training), how we will get and maintain it, and how we will assess its effectiveness. What Specific Policies do We Need? In my reading, I encountered a few different areas that I feel need special focus in my school’s/district’s technology policy. The first is that it will create a safe learning environment for all students, especially by creating clear guidelines around cyber bullying on social media and by talking to kids about appropriate use (Winske, 2014). The second is that it ensures the availability of electronic materials to teachers and students, and doesn’t start interfering with curriculum by blocking resources that they need (Winske, 2014); for me, that is YouTube. A third area I had never considered was a specific teacher evaluation policy. According to Hess, et al. (2013), now that a lot of instruction and classroom activities are happening on technology, it is increasingly harder to evaluate teachers using the old observation model; “[p]olicymakers would do well to ensure that teacher evaluation systems do not assume that most teachers will teach in schools that abide by the rhythms of the 19th-century Horace Mann schoolhouse (Hess et al., 2013). I will also summarize the policies in the Alberta Policy Framework, as it is incredibly thoughtful and well-organized. Policy Direction 1 is “Student-Centred Learning,” and seeks to ensure that tech is used to support “personalized, authentic learning for all students” by ensuring coherence across initiatives, programs and policies of the provincial government regarding technology for learning, teaching, administration and management.” Basically, it is important that the policy is consistent and that everyone is on the same page in order to ensure student learning. Policy Direction 2 requires teachers stay on top of current research involving technology in order to remain innovative, and that administration will support their efforts. The emphasis in this plan on what admin can do to support teachers is worth recognizing. Policy Direction 3 is a plan to provide professional learning to teachers, admin, and “other education professionals” so that they can “develop, maintain and apply the knowledge, skills and attributes that enable them to use technology effectively, efficiently and innovatively in support of learning and teaching.” They continue that “[c]hanges of the magnitude envisioned will require a high-quality system of teacher preparation and ongoing professional learning for teachers.” Policy Direction 4 centers on leadership and their responsibility to establish policy, govern, and cultivate innovation through collaboration with “distributive leadership… supported through professional learning communities” made up of community, business, non-profit, first nations, etc. Note the emphasis here on including community in this plan, something that would be very important in Alaskan schools as well. Finally, Policy Direction 5 ensures equitable access for students, teachers, administrators, and other educational professionals to devices, infrastructure, and networks, with shared responsibility and accountability (Andrews et al., 2013). The Alberta Policy Framework is truly innovative, and would be valuable in any school district. How Can I Help? I guess I can help by asking how can I help. As someone who has used technology a lot in my classroom, and in both 1-1 schools and BYOD schools, I can bring my experience into the conversation to describe what worked well and to help preemptively eliminate what didn’t. I am also organized and love to write, so I could just help document the process. I am in a precarious position for this portion of the class though because I just left a school with a very progressive tech policy, and am starting at ASD in fall but don’t know anything about it yet. I have tried to do some research on their website, but the only tech plan I can find is from 2008. There was another made in 2014, but it has been taken off their website and someone from IT is trying to find it for me. However, my research has suggested a few areas where districts need specific help. First of all, it is important to communicate with students when building policies like these, because they know how they use tech. Winske (2014) claims, “What we have to do is open these things up and talk to them about what is appropriate and what’s not. That’s the key for me. If we block, block, block we have no opportunities to raise these kinds of issues.” She continues, “You have to let go of control. You can’t know everything and you have to be willing to have difficulty conversations” (Winske, 2014). I think I could be useful in leading this conversation with students, as well as contributing to the conversation with all other community stakeholders. References:
Andrews, K., Dach, E., & Lemke, C. (2013). (Alberta, Alberta Education, School Technology Branch). Retrieved July 28, 2016, from http://www.education.alberta.ca/LTPF Belleau, G. (2015, November 3). California K-12 Education Technology Plan Template, Criteria, and Guiding Questions [DOC]. Sacramento: California Department of Education. Hess, F. M., Saxberg, B., & Hochleitner, T. (2013, October). E-Rate, Education Technology, and School Reform. Educational Outlook, 7, 1-7. Retrieved July 27, 2016, from https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/-erate-education-technology-and-school -reform_163836868111.pdf Thirteen Ed Online - Creating a Technology Plan. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2016, from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/primer/techplan.html Winske, C. (2014, February 17). Tips for Creating Technology Policies for K-12. Retrieved July 27, 2016, from http://www.k-12techdecisions.com/article/creating_an_acceptable_use_ policy_for_mobile_learning_initiatives#
1 Comment
7/30/2016 10:47:51 pm
That's great that you have experience with 1:1 and BYOD. And yeah, every district is different and has different perspectives on technology in the class. Anchorage should be relatively up to date, so to speak. I know that they have a great professional development system that is computerized, and it's relatively simple to learn new things. Weird the latest tech plan was 2008! True that teachers need to really research before investing in new tech. I know that when I first wanted to incorporate new software in math class many years ago, I found out that the computers I was using were not up to specifications, so I had to purchase upgrades for the new software to work! Frustrating to say the least. Good luck in your new school...
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
EDET678Emerging Technologies Archives
August 2016
Categories |