Three hundred miles. That is the distance that separates two school districts I recently had the opportunity to visit. Yes, one is in a blue state and the other in a red state, but they are close enough to each other than I could drive to visit them both. They are also in what we call the Midwest. But, they have such contrasting differences of opinions with respect to technology and the role it plays in education that I was really surprised.
The first technology director I visited, I’ll call him Mr. X, was very much an open communication supporter. Me: Do you provide email accounts to all your students? Mr. X: “Yes, and we are probably going to give them all gmail and google doc access next year”. Me: Do you block access to Instant Messaging? Mr. X: “No. We don’t block anything. But, we monitor the usage of our workstations in terms of time and the network bandwidth utilized. We have the ability to traffic shape to lessen the impact of certain sites like YouTube, etc.”. Me: Are you at all worried about liability for what kids write or publish? Mr X.: “Not really. Kids are going to do bad things at times. We have to deal with it if it happens in a classroom, on a playground, or on an Internet bulletin board”.
The second technology director I visited, I’ll call him Mr. Y, was an old school (pardon the pun) kind of guy. But, he had all the latest and greatest technology available for use in his schools. Me: Do you provide email accounts to all your students? Mr. Y: “No, we currently do not. We are concerned about the liability for the district”. Me: Do you block access to Instant Messaging? Mr. Y: “Yes, we block most all sites like that.”
What is curious to me is that the facts of the matter are exactly the same for both districts. There are no laws in one state that are more or less of an issue than in the other state. Access to the technology is exactly the same. So, this must not be a logical difference of opinion, right? Many people I know would say something to the effect that “This is a political issue. It does not have to make sense.” That is probably true. I wonder what cultural elements are at work that push two seemingly similar districts to take dramatically different views of an issue like this. Politicians, in general, seem to embrace the use of the Internet in schools so it couldn’t be them, could it? I browsed the web sites of a couple of so called red states departments of education.
In South Dakota (not one of the states Mr. X & Y live in), Governor Mike Rounds has published his 2010 State Education Initiative (here). In his plan, The Governor includes among its goals:
Objective 2C: Increase 21st century skills using advanced technology to enhance learning.
Initiatives:
- Create a statewide virtual high school program
- Implement a one-to-one laptop initiative for high school students
- Implement an e-mentoring program
Both a statewide virtual high school program and a one to one laptop initiative will require each and every school in the state to embrace the use of the Internet, and, I might add, social networking (see the article on Social Networking vs. social networking).
In Iowa, Governor Chet Culver issued a press release on March 25th, 2008 that stated among other things:
“(Des Moines, Iowa)- Today, Iowa Governor Culver announced a joint initiative with the
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, the nation’s leading advocacy organization focused on infusing
21st century skills into education, to bring globally competitive 21st centurskills to schools, educators and students throughout Iowa.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (here) publishes this as its mission:
MISSION STATEMENT
Serve as a catalyst to position 21st century skills at the center of US K-12 education by building collaborative partnerships among education, business, community and government leaders
TWENTY FIRST CENTURY CHILDREN
Every child in American needs 21st century knowledge and skills to succeed as effective citizens, workers and leaders in the 21st century.
There is a profound gap between the knowledge and skills most students learn in school and the knowledge and skills they need in typical 21st century communities and workplaces.
To successfully face rigorous higher education coursework, career challenges and a globally competitive workforce, U.S. schools must align classroom environments with real world environments by infusing 21st century skills.
This skills set includes:
- Information and communication skills (information and media literacy skills; communication skills)
- Thinking and problem-solving (critical thinking and systems thinking; problem identification, formulation and solution; creativity and intellectual curiosity)
- Interpersonal and self-direction skills (interpersonal and collaborative skills; self-direction; accountability and adaptability; social responsibility)
- Global awareness
- Financial, economic and business literacy, and developing entrepreneurial skills to enhance workplace productivity and career options
- Civic literacy
Go to any state department of education website and the themes are pretty much all the same. My conclusion is that the politicians are in favor of greater access to technology, even in blue states where supporting President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” would be seen as a negative. At the national and state levels then, the message is pretty clear. What can explain the difference in these situations?
I then looked at the make up of the school boards at the two school districts, thinking that maybe the policies were locally based. I looked at age of the members, occupations, gender, and race, which was all I could glean from the web sites. In both cases, there was not an appreciable difference in the makeup of the school boards, at least nothing that could explain it. Then, I looked at the Superintendents of the districts. Mr. X’s superintendent is a young man in his 30’s while Mr. Y’s is an older gentleman in his 60s. This is the only appreciable difference I can find in the two districts.
The conclusion I came to is that this is really a situation which will resolve itself as the “old guard” of education retires or leaves the profession. The new wave of people coming up are much more likely to see these technologies as being important or at the very minimum “just what needs to be done”.
More later…
