The School Principal Considers Technology and Safety

     Lannie Davis

                                                                                                                          Dr. Shutkin ED 585

  11/28/11 

My school, Julie Billiart, does receive E-Rate funding. The funding is not a significant amount, but allows us to access a lower rate for the cost of our Internet provider and filtering system. We use LEECA (Lake Erie Educational Computer Association) as our Internet provider as well as our Internet filtering system. Since we have E-rate funding, the students and parents are required to sign an acceptable use policy every year before they can use school computers and/or Internet. The policy outlines our general use policy as well as the Internet rules and expectations when using school computers. In addition to granting permission to use school computers and Internet, the policy is stated in our Student/parent handbook for continued accountability for the parents and children of Julie Billiart School. The first part of the policy states, “All activities involving computer technology must be consistent with the mission of Julie Billiart School and in accordance with the philosophy of the school. Use of any and all technology is a privilege that requires all users to exercise responsible and ethical behavior.” The policy goes on to explain that “Although Julie Billiart School employs filtering software and reserves the right to directly monitor and supervise students’ use of the Julie Billiart School network, students may find ways to access inappropriate information. We believe that students gain many benefits from access to the Internet, in the form of information, resources, and opportunities for collaboration.” Overall, the policy states that we are not liable if the student chooses to make inappropriate choices involving the Internet because we have it for the sole purpose of academia.

To further accountability and proper computer and/or Internet etiquette, the diocese has put into place a technology curriculum with standards that outline and discuss acceptable use and proper Internet/computer conduct. We are required to teach our 7^th and 8^th grade students these skills and held accountable for the knowledge acquired by the students. In contrast, as much as I personally believe that the standards provide a framework for the content to be taught, it is vague in delivery and is not consistently interpreted by professionals. For example, teachers from different schools within the Diocese “teach” technology in a totally different way. They have a computer teacher that the students meet with once a week, but no assessments or grades are given in this class. This is different than how my school teaches the standards by having the teachers teach the technology curriculum and using rubrics and benchmarks to give the students a computer grade. In my educational journey thus far, working as a teacher in a variety of schools and now an administrator, I feel that the least amount of effort and time is given to the area of technology. Hence, much of the time, “computer class” is done at the end of the day or “fit in” where extra time is found. Therefore, proper etiquette and Internet behaviors are not given the priority they deserve in order to have students who are safe and self sufficient on the Internet. Art Wolinksky discusses Internet safety and the education that needs to occur in this area. The article states, “Internet Safety education has to focus on developing respectful online behavior. Children need to understand the impact on themselves and their peers when they post inappropriate content online. We have to have frank talks about how sexual predators work and how to handle unwanted or unexpected content and contacts” (Wolinsky, 5). I believe we have become the Internet “police” at school, focused on filtering and blocking sites, instead of educating students and empowering them to use the Internet in a way that expands their educational experiences. Hence, the previous statement needs to become action in order to alter the relationship that Internet and technology plays in education.

            LEECA decides what sites are inappropriate or inaccessible for the staff and students. However, the staff has a username and override code that virtually allows them to temporarily unblock any site. Our administrators have access to what sites have been overridden by what staff members, based on their username and passcode. However, it must be noted that the expectation is moral, appropriate behavior in the workplace from our staff. The expectation is high, but has never been questioned or the privilege abused. This being said, it is at the discretion of the teacher to “unblock” whatever sites they feel to be of positive educational impact. The kids can’t access many sites because of the possibility that they would be linked to other websites that may have questionable or inappropriate content.

            This topic is very current and quite controversial. I have realized in talking with a variety of people and positions at my school, that each has formed their opinion, whether negative or positive, based upon their personal experiences and interactions with the Internet. Our principal is young and very “techie.” Therefore, she is a major proponent of integrating the Internet to enhance students’ educational experiences. She feels, however, that it is truly sad that there has to be a line and that we have to block so much for our students. She expressed her concern for our current and future students in this area. If the students are never taught how to use something or given the chance to explore technology and make mistakes, how can we integrate technology into their learning experiences? Basically she stated that we, as the school, has often become solely responsible for teaching acceptable use policies and standards, which has in turn caused us to “police” our students, instead of explore technology with them. We had a great conversation regarding these issues and I feel like we, as the building administrators, are very much on the same page. Part of my job as Vice Principal is to be the technology “person” and tech representative for the school. This being said, I feel that my opinion and personal reflections throughout the paper give a sufficient indication of where I stand on these issues.

            I talked with a couple of teachers from different grades, levels, and subject areas. In doing so, it was evident how frustrated our teachers were overall with this issue. They expressed that even with the override code, they are not able to properly access some sites that they feel would be wonderful for our population of students with special learning needs. Many of the teachers talked about planning for lessons at home and not knowing what would be blocked at school. In their homes they are granted very different access and have found very student centered, innocent websites for kids that they plan to use for an entire lesson. However, when they get to school, it is blocked, and even with the override code, is formatted differently and difficult to navigate.

            Our students often complain about their lack of access to certain social networking sites. Goldmann’s article, “Reframing the Debate. Learning and Leading with Technology” talks about the E-Rate funding legislation about social networking sites. “DOPA would require schools that participate in the E-Rate program to bar access by minors to commercial social networking Web sites or chat rooms unless used for an educational purpose with adult supervision” (Goldmann, 1). This makes sense and requires accountability for schools allowing access to social networking sites. Everything must be brought back to the educational impact for students, which I agree with. Our junior high students at JB School have a peer that is very ill with cancer. They often want to use Skype, Facebook, G-chat, etc. to involve Jose in classroom activities. This frustrates them because they feel that these sites would help them communicate and share with others. As stated in the article called “Safety and Social Networking” Alec Couros talks about how students are “already there.” This article strongly aligns with the opinion of the JB students by explaining that “the kids are already there, connected, and teachers and parents need to accept this fact” (Couros, 1). On the other hand, the parents reach out to us, as educators, quite often because of their lack of control outside of school when it comes to their child’s technology use. Overall, they are concerned with how to “block” sites at home or deal with their students’ curiosity. The general consensus and fear of many of our parents is that the kids are more tech savvy than the parents and are being inappropriate and abusing their access to technology outside of school.

            In closing, it is obvious that these issues are controversial, pressing, and difficult to understand due to the abundance of information and research surrounding these topics. In my opinion, the more we “block” and control access to sites, software, and technology advances in general, the more of a monster we create. I believe in moderation and teaching how we, first and foremost, are moral and ethical people. We are (or should be) held accountable for how we communicate, in any fashion/form, treat one another and respect ourselves. That being said, I also believe in compromise and listening to our students who are crying out for help. In Prensky’s article, “Listen to the Natives,” this belief/concept is reiterated, “If we don't stop and listen to the kids we serve, value their opinions,

and make major changes on the basis of the valid suggestions they offer, we will be left in the 21st century with school buildings to administer—but with students who are physically or mentally somewhere else” (Prensky, 6). If they need technology to communicate more effectively with peers and adults, then yes, it should be used to assist them, not become the only way the communication occurs. It should not be a crutch, but instead, a bridge used to connect with people and places that we would not otherwise have contact with.  

References

Couros, A. (2008). Safety and Social Networking. Technology & Learning,

28(7), 20-22.

Goldmann, H. (2007). Reframing the Debate. Learning and Leading with Technology,

35(4), 46.

Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13.

Wolinsky, A. (2008). We Can Get There From Here: Realizing Educational

Technology's Potential in the Face of Internet Safety Issues. MultiMedia &

Internet @ Schools, 15(4), 26-30.

Data Driven decision making...

1.  At our school, we collect data on every child and family at Julie Billiart. Since we have a smaller population, we are able to collect and store a greater amount of data. Also, because of the nature of our school and the children that we service, we collect a variety of data based upon their special learning needs and disabilities. Currently, we collect data on student full name, Ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs and parish/church info, gender, donations/financial history, medical history, parent/guardian information, date of birth and birth city, IEP/MFE/SP expiration dates, qualifying disability, address DOR, grades, attendance, schools attended, graduation date and future school.
2. DASL and progress book, raisers edge software, iepanywhere, Excel spread sheets, student file folders.
3.  Administration- Principal, vice principal, president and school secretary. Principal keeps most of the school wide data and student driven data, VP keeps all scholarship and special education data, president keeps all historical and donation/donor/ school affiliations data, and secretary has access to databases and updating student information. 
4. No, not all sources "sync" or communicate with one another. The advancement aspect of our school always used Raisers Edge software, but it was not compatible with our software, so now we have begun to use and get trained in DASL, which will have the ability to sync all systems together. The data that is not compatible is basically useless because it is not able to be used in the way the people and school needs it. In the past, it has caused many obstacles and frustrations for our staff, administration and parents.
5. Data is collected yearly or once a semester. Basically, we collect at the beginning and the end of the year and we also change or alter information as needed throughout the year. Due to this fact, so much data is collected, and then it is rather overwhelming to upload it and update it into the system. It does take long periods of time, thus delaying important data usage needs from being met.
6.  I personally have access to all the data, because of my position within the school. The teachers have access to DASL, which is the software that will eventually store all and sync with all student information. It is a very large student information database, and eventually, everything that is uploaded into there, will be accessible to the teachers and staff. The data that I have access to does in fact help me do my work on a daily basis because so much in administration is having access to student information. However, I do not feel the information helps the teachers quite as much. They have made a couple comments that they would like to have easier access to student information as it pertains to how they learn and participate in the classroom. They also have said that it would help them to have the students pictures so they can know names and start to build rapport from day one. This feature is in DASL, but will not be up and running until it is all completed and school pictures are uploaded from Ohio School pictures. I feel that once DASL is updated to its full ability/capability, it will be a much more effective tool. Currently, I have to search for a lot of the information in many places that, when DALS is complete, will be in one place.
7. DASL- Currently the system is not acting up to par because it is not fully uploaded with all the data. I am confident that when and if used correctly, and to it's full capacity, DASL will have the ability to meet the needs of our entire school, plus more. The upkeep of the data, once full inputted, will be much easier to manage and update periodically. Right now it is simply getting all the information from the other systems into one neutral location.

* Technology Vision *

http://prezi.com/ap5eplku8lp3/technology-vision/

http://prezi.com/m_lbzhffq975/oct-3rd-professional-development/

Awesome presentation- CHANGE

http://prezi.com/m_lbzhffq975/edit/#3

Professional Development...

                                                                                                                  Lannie Davis                                                                                                                        October 3, 2011                                           

The articles I was assigned to read and reflect upon and relate to were How Teachers Learn Technology Best and Does Research-Based Professional Development Make a Difference? Both articles were well-written and brought new ideas and research-based knowledge to the table. I spent time comparing the ideas and thoughts in both articles to my specific school. In the areas of Educational Technology Professional Development I feel we exceed in the area of researching new practices and resources that are directly aligned with our students needs. For example, our school serves students with special learning needs. This being said, we are consistently considering what will help our students and provide the knowledge to “bridge the gaps” in their previously gained knowledge. We found a program called Read, Write, Gold that uses research of poor reading comprehension, dyslexia and other difficulties for students in the area of reading and incorporates strategies that are directly tied to those deficiencies. So, in the area of linking technology directly to our students needs, I feel our school excels.                                                                           Our school does seem to have a very “achieved” feel to it in the area of technology because of the mere fact that each classroom and resource room has an ACTIV board and wireless laptop linked to the board for teacher usage. Each teacher does use the ACTIV board as a teaching tool to present information to our students in a variety of ways. We feel it is highly important and proved effective to have a variety of ways that we “teach” using different modalities and always considering the different learning styles of our students. We also have student laptop carts with wireless access for each student and the teachers often use the student laptops to extend a lesson or enrich a learning experience. We use the laptops and update them annually so they stay current and appropriate for student learning.                                                                                                         I believe that we are “slumping” as a school in the area of professional development that is meaningful and effective for our teachers to use all the technology that our school has purchased. Our teachers are very much on overload. Every child in our school has special learning needs and is on a service plan or IEP and they have to write the plans. Also, we just went through the accreditation process and now we have to go through our new religion certification. Due to these facts and the natural burn out of teachers throughout the week and year, technology is just another area to provide a lot of stress and anxiety. They often feel like they don’t know how to use the technology to have because we do not have the time. Overall, since they are so often playing “catch-up,” the time they do have on professional development days, weekends and before and after school are not used for technology integration or discovery.                                  I do not think that any area of our school’s technology and professional development is failing. I think we, as any school, does have room to improve and will need to explore different ways to present information and change our focus. However, I am please to say that because we are aware of and using our technology and aware of the improvements we need, we are not failing in any area. We are dedicated to improving technology at our school and we are delegating time and effort to better understand our school’s needs.                                                                                                                                                                According to both articles I read, successful technology professional development has to be generative and actually bring about changes in practice. Teachers must see the need for importance in using the technology as an asset to their teaching and to provide greater learning experiences for their students. They must see the classroom connection and take ownership of the new knowledge. The McKenzie article states that, “the focus should be on teaching and learning strategies that make a difference in daily practice.” It should show effective by better student performance and greater self-efficacy of the teachers. Technology, in a perfect world, should empower teachers and assist them in creating lifelong learners. However, I think professional development is often presented in a way that does not truly understand or value the way in which adults learn. I think that best practice for adults needs to be considered. I believe giving teachers choice and providing them with the means to take the time to discover technology is highly important. For example, a dedicated day to EFFECTIVE discovery and trial and error in the area of technology may be very effective. Sometimes in education, we schedule meetings and professional development in order to fulfill a requirement, not to truly enhance teaching and the students learning experience. Professional development does require a sense of application and the teachers must feel like they can SIMPLY apply it to their teaching in order for them to feel assisted…not slighted. I think that teachers need to plan their own growth in this area and start to make reasonable goals for themselves. The articles both outlined the process and found that there was greater success when the teacher’s motivation became intrinsic and their technological discovery was on their own terms.                                                       In order to have effective technology integration and professional development, you must have a dynamic school administrator and/or technology coordinator. In both articles, they reference that teachers cannot solely be responsible for this aspect in the changing field of education. They must have leadership in this area that makes the knowledge meaningful, purposeful, and useful. The Mouza article refers to PCK as good teaching paired with technology. This, however, requires a dynamic understanding of the pedagogical strategies used in the area of technology. It is not simply a transfer of knowledge, so it is imperative that the technology coordinator and/or administrator knows and uses this understanding as well. They must exemplify best practice and be the leader that links technology to the classroom. The coordinator has a responsibility to bridge the gap that so many teachers experience. They do this by understanding the teacher, classroom and students. For example, I think much too often administrators are not present enough in the classrooms. If they are supposed to be the leader and “coach” in this area, then they really need to have an understanding of how that teacher currently teaches, how that teacher learns, and what could assist them in providing greater learning experiences for the students. The administrator and/or coordinator needs to also be able to provide opportunities and must have a background in facilitating change. Technology is always changing and it takes an understanding of change in order to keep this aspect in perspective. This technology coordinator/administrator must build a high rapport with staff and students in order to know what he/she can do to provide opportunities for technological growth. Administrators need to let the teachers be part of the change in schools and need to be on their team to help them choose what they would like to do with their time/effort. They are not simply providing knowledge; they are providing a means to access new knowledge in a way that makes sense to them and their classroom. The goal and hope is that these meaningful opportunities will lead to a greater accountability and willingness to learn and use technology in the classroom. 

Query 2: Zhao article

1. If teachers have had a negative experience with technology and feel as if it has not enhanced their teaching in a positive way, how can it be altered? I feel like this article confirmed the hardest aspect to truly implement technological innovations; resistance of teachers. On a daily basis, I am encountered with teachers who are frustrated and negative about the "new" technology and constantly opt out of innovations or using it in their lessons because of their past experiences. When you address it and try to understand and assist, it is still a very hesitant and resistant reaction. If these teachers feel they have the choice or option to use it, I find that they usually do not. How can we essentially help them to focus less on the past and more on the future? Is it time that we require and assist staff across all classes? How could we truly implement such a school wide change? As this article states, it would have to be a step by step process and a proper human infrastructure is imperative. The reluctant staff would need someone constantly assisting and supporting them. 
2. Is and/or should the protocol with integrating technology into special ed be different? By this I mean that you will find many special education teachers resist greater technological implementation because of the highly routine and structure needed for students to be successful. Also, with the paperwork and additional job requirements of special ed, some teachers are unwilling to learn because of the time constraints. Also, it must be noted that many of the students receiving special education services (at our school especially) do have a tendency to perseverate on certain aspects/areas of technology. Another point I would like to mention is the fact that often times our students are struggling to communicate with others and technology (in the eyes of many educators at my school) is perpetuating that cycle. Some of our kiddos relate more to technology than to others because of the nature of their disability. So, many of these "technological innovations" are challenged and seen as not needed in the special ed community. I too, occasionally struggle with how technology is often assisting our students to communicate and interact less with one another and adults. I think there is a crucial line that must be placed when using technology is schools and how it is used in society. Authentic communication, human to human communication, still needs to be taught and exemplified in our schools. 
3. Just as the article stated, a strong technological infrastructure with the extent of available technological resources is highly related to the success of technological innovations and advances in schools. So, how can we essentially level the playing field? Why should some districts and some schools with more support, funding and technology support, grow immensely and provide a more modern and seemingly quality education? How is this fair to the students and the teachers? Since it is a new area of study and a constantly changing field, many questions and debates arise. I believe this is one of them. It seems very dependent on what your school is able to provide, which in turn directly affects the kids. However, shouldn't all schools provide a quality education that is somewhat similar to their peers in other schools, districts and states? In the area of technology, it does not seem like that is happening. I believe the article actually supports this idea/concern. You have to have all the factors, people and resources in place in order to be truly "successful" in the area of technology. However, if every teacher and school has been trained and experienced such a drastic difference in technology, how can this truly be rectified? 
4. My next issue/idea/question, deals with the idea of state standards and district requirements for curriculum. If standards are not altered, eliminated or restructured, how can these technological advances truly take place? Currently, schools and education is very standards driven and technology unfortunately has had to take a back seat. I think that so much stress is put on student performance and assessments, the room for technology innovations is small. Some districts have implemented strategic plans that involve technology, but when it comes down to it, the state standards are more focused upon by the teachers and state officials. I often hear from current teachers that there is just too much and that the authentic, true basics of education are slowly being eliminated. In order to make these changes, do we need to look at what is currently focused upon that could be given up? If we focus on technological advances/innovations, what will it replace? Can we "do it all" without losing the quality and purpose of our education system? 
5. In my experience and per the Zhao article, technology innovations really do vary from building to building because of the role the administrator plays in facilitating these advances. So, are we, as future administrators, well versed in this area to be a strong leader of technological change? Should there be more strict "rules" and guidelines to support these advances? Do you feel that your schooling and experience with technology thus far in your career has prepped you for this inevitable change? Why or why not? What should be put in place so that we do feel prepared? On going schooling must also take place, but is that also too much for administrators to add to their plate? Is there a more logical and specialized position that needs to be created in schools for this role? I believe that with the trend we are seeing, we should consider more skilled and specialized technology positions within schools. I believe we need to require accountability for acquiring the new technology information, but can not rely solely on teachers and administrators. They need support, guidance and training in order to successfully learn and integrate technology into our schools.