Too Much or Not Enough High-Tech in Classrooms

NOTE: I use the term "high technology" to recognize the many non-digital forms of technology, e.g., the printed word, ball-point pens, etc.

This raging debate has been pretty much overshadowed by Common Core and high-stakes testing, but I believe we should revisit it periodically rather than just going with the flow which appears to be the status quo. Lacking definitive research we still forge ahead spending big bucks. "Just what if technology really does enhance learning?" "Do I, the teacher, the administrator, the board member, want to be responsible for denying students opportunities to achieve, gain a college degree, get a good job, succeed in the future digital world?" The answer: "We can't take the chance, we must spend the money." Or as is in many one-to-one schools, "We will dictate a BYOD policy and let the parents/guardians spend the money." Maybe we don't need to speed up, slow or stop the momentum, maybe we need allow the direction of the technology momentum to be guided by the practitioners, the teachers.

SmithSystem.com does a fairly good job of capturing the more common valid reasons behind too much or too little (http://smithsystem.com/smithfiles/2014/10/20/classroom-technology-much-enough/). Reasoning for more: eBooks, post-school tech use, gaming develops spatial skills and inductive reasoning, collaboration/communication, deeper engagement/broader learning, teacher tools, and support for PLEs. Reasoning for less: meaningful engagement comes from people, too much too soon, distracting, cost and obsolescence, taxes teachers' expertise, and classroom management. I can agree with both sides.

So my answer (too much, too little?) is both. We are all aware of the technology resource "gap" between wealthy and poor community schools. (A short aside: this gap also exists within Catholic schools systems, particularly in urban areas where many schools are dependent on donors for the majority of their technology resources.) This is without doubt a too little situation. I don't pretend to have an answer regarding how to close this gap without spreading the wealth which would mean lowering the amount of technology available to wealthier schools in order to raise the amount of technology available to poorer schools. Or without increasing taxes. Either solution requires more big government involvement, ala Common Core and high-stakes testing and I'm a firm believer in locally controlled schools, among most other things.

We are also aware, although we seldom admit, that gaps exist among teachers within even the better-resourced schools. Recent research points out that the teacher gap is not so much due to age and the digital native/digital immigrant thing but more to the pedagogical maturity and content adeptness of teachers. And that the gap is not so much regarding how much technology is in play but more so about how successful it is employed whatever the level of integration. In short, well-grounded teachers, if allowed, do their homework, select and implement the technology that works best for them. That's not an easy chore. There are many hardware choices and tens of thousands of educational apps and applications. Each teacher can't vet them all and obviously a certain amount of standardization is necessary. The standardization should occur at the lowest possible economically viable level but no higher than school level. Full collaboration among all stakeholders is essential. Technology budgets should be built from the bottom up beginning with individual teachers. Teachers should have full reign over the software applied within their classrooms. Again, not easy decisions, however, help is available through PLCs; individualized, non-workshop-based PD (please!); the Internet; mentorship; and the technology department.

Millennials--What Have We Created?

Didn't Get the Job

What made the difference? I was afraid to ask. Was I afraid of the answer? Of the two finalists for a K8 school district technology director position, I was the one notified today that the other candidate was selected. "It was an extremely difficult decision to make, as both candidates possess..." blah, blah, blah. Never able to accept rejection well, I didn't hear anything after "possess."

Having been laid off as of the end of last July from a director of information technology position (eight years) for a upscale independent school, I wasn't just looking forward to employment, I was getting (am) desperate. I need the money! Why was I laid off? A department reorganization and job description redesign left me in philosophical opposition to the reigning administration. Really though, I was being asked to accept more responsibility for less money.

So, again, why wasn't I the chosen one? Age? Possibly. The demands of the online application make it impossible to avoid indirectly admitting age. I'm 67 now and that, coupled with my 20+ years of technology executive and manager experience, would surely have given the search team reason to expect that I would accept the position only if compensated at the upper end of the range or beyond. Should I have made it clear during the interviews that I would be satisfied at the mid-range?

Could it be because I am white? Maybe, but probably not. Although, the district is 60% Hispanic and 25% African American with the rest being white and a small percentage of Asians, the four members of the search team were white so.... I wonder if the other candidate was Hispanic. I would feel better if he/she were.

Ah ha, it was because I am a male. Right? After all, three of the four members of the search team were female. Could be but I don't know that other candidate was female.

I would like to think that any of the aforementioned reasons, or combinations thereof, would be beneath the search team members. So, I've come to the elevated conclusion that I was overqualified for the position. My resume cover letter reads, in part, "I believe that the key to enhancing student achievement lies in the confluence of curricular content, construtivist pedagogies, and technology integration--that the interoperability of these three elements will foster engaged learning, encourage students to accept accountability and responsibility for their own education, and consequently prepare them for success in the 21st Century." Was that too much education jargon for a technology director? Yea, I'm competent in the technical aspects of being a managing technologist, but, as most of us have come to realize over the past two decades, infrastructure, hardware and software, no matter how abundant, will do little to promote enhanced anything, much less, learning. And during the interviews I repeatedly emphasized my interest in technology integration, developing new and supporting curricular content, technology professional development, advanced pedagogies, eLearning, acceptance and promotion of Web 2.0 and the need for schools to revisit post-industrial place, space and time constraints to teacher and student collaboration and communication. Could I have gone so far as to suggest that students might be allowed to use certain personal collaboration tools--in school? I suspect that I should not have strayed so far from my technology roots. Hell, I even mentioned multi-discipline, vertical and horizontal co-learning, co-teaching, mentoring and broader external community learning environments.

Of course, this last may not have been the reason I wasn't selected, but I don't want to hear it. I do not want to believe that the other candidate was simply more qualified than I or even that she/he was a "better fit." Don't you love that phrase--don't rock the boat!

I'm changing my cover letter and my resume and if I ever get another interview opportunity I will stick to topologies, servers, help desks, database management, E-rate, hardware and software installations and troubleshooting/fixing, telephony, operating systems, web design/development, and other stuff like that.