The Balance
of Power: Does it really matter?
Copyright 2001
Miguel
Guhlin
"We need to
use Windows NT for your desktop." the technician said to me, rocking
back and forth on his feet. I began to sense his impatience with
me.
"Why? The people
I work with use Windows 95, 98, 2000, and," I countered, "seldom
do they use Windows NT. Isn't it going to be obsolete soon? I even
did a survey of districts and most use Windows 98 or 2000."
"I can't support
your machine if you do install something other than Windows NT."
He sounded as if this were the final word.
"Thanks anyways,"
I replied, not wanting to push the issue anymore. After all, he
was just a network specialist. Or, did he represent something far
more sinister? Later, as I began to consider the issues involved,
I began to remember other occasions that my co-workers and I had
found ourselves in. In pushing the envelope to support instructional
initiatives--putting lesson plan databases on the web, publishing
teacher-created instructional resources--we had found that network
specialists had grown ever more protective of the network. The frightening
thing was that administrators who lacked classroom background supported
them, often blindly. But, does protecting the network mean that
the balance has shifted too far? Does it really matter that we use
Win 2000 or Win NT? This is the question I have grappled with over
time. In our eagerness to make administration of the network and
policy development simpler, have we virtually guaranteed that technology
will not be used in the classroom?
Is it that
the commitment I have as an educator to integrate technology into
curriculum development is not matched by an equal commitment to
support my efforts at integration, even when it might mean going
the extra mile to learn Windows 2000? Though we recognize the power
of technology, there are forces at work--whether you work at a regional
education service center, a school district, or business-that try
to contain the technology genie. The increased access to the World
Wide Web has meant that each of us can be a knowledge worker.
Goals of Each Group
1.Policy Administrators: Protect the organization
from embarrassment and threat using policy or social constraints.
2. Curriculum & Instruction: Share their work
and publish student projects on the web. They are focused
on the creation of knowledge products and facilitating product
creation.
3. Network Services: Protect the network and minimize
or lesson intrusions/disruptions of the network.
|
Irreverent
and unafraid, the knowledge worker in the midst of web publishing
technologies, encounters policy that seeks to protect the institutions
of school power. Despite the fact that organizations have the most
difficulty at learning when problems are embarrassing and threatening(Argryis,
), there does not seem to be a problem with people exerting pressure
on knowledge workers--people who want to realize the potential of
technology in education. In a time when teachers have been encouraged
to be more constructivist, more of a facilitator of knowledge construction,
the very organizations that should support them are becoming more
rule-bound. Is it that we just don't trust the end-user, the classroom
teacher in Texas schools?
In this article,
I hope that we can begin a dialogue of technology use in our schools--given
professional development, time, and access, are the very power systems
that encourage teachers to learn new instructional methods that
integrate technology, afraid to let go of the wheel?
The mighty triumvirate
in schools lies between policy administrators, curriculum and instruction,
and network services. I'd like to examine these three in more detail,
and, if you agree or disagree with these characterizations, please
write to me.
NETWORK SERVICES
The network
services component is the controller. They claim network security
to be important to the exclusion of all else, elevating network
integrity to the level of policy. Teachers are unable to produce
the knowledge product which is the fruit of constructivist problem-solving
approaches. Some suggestions for dealing with this approach include:
- Computer-based
technology can be easily reloaded using disk imaging programs.
- Provide training
for campus facilitators--not network staff-so that they can actually
fix the problems.
- Also, data
needs to be protected but not put on a pedastal. Do not separate
network staff from instructional staff--pair them up. As one education
service center network administrator suggested, "We farm
out our techs and assign them districts." In school districts,
assign technicians different campuses and encourage them to work
with faculty of that campus as a member of the staff, not a district
technician who shows up only in response to teachers' mistakes.
Technology is
a tool--if it cannot be used in ways that are fundamental to the
work of knowledge architects, it is simply not worth using. In school
districts and campuses, the network services group must recognize
that its function is subordinate--yet critical--to education. Failure
to understand this means that they will assume dictatorial, authoritarian
roles in the balance of power.
POLICY ADMINISTRATION
The role of
policy administration is also critical, yet it is too easy for administrators
to assume the top-down approach of many organizations in schools.
As their primary concern is the protection of the organization from
embarrassment and threats, we can see organizations that are afraid
of dying, of recreating themselves and enhancing their viability
as educating agencies. Policy administrators fall into 3 roles:
- They assume
they know nothing about technology or its implementation, and
allow network services to assume authoritative roles that are
really a function of network security. In these districts, desktop
computers are protected by security software that the teacher
cannot disable to install educational software (after checking
with the technology committee first and filing a copy of the software
license), or worse yet, disk drives are locked with a key.
- They are
frightened by technology, its swiftly changing nature and they
work to have technology in schools but do not allow it to be used
except in superficial ways. For example, technology is used primarily
in computer labs but training is not provided for teachers in
the integration of technology into the curriculum. Or, lip service
is given to integration but the network services group holds the
power as to what can be installed and used, all centering on the
question, "Will network administrators have to yield power
to the users, potentially setting up future network problems?"
- And, finally,
policy administrators fall back on their experiences as educators
and seek to develop policy that enhances the exploration and development
of knowledge products rather than holding back because they are
afraid a teacher might accidentally delete critical files on their
desktop computer.
As teachers
move their classrooms from teacher-centered to student-centered
organizations that support teachers must provide opportunities that
model how teachers need to be with their children. This does not
mean lessening centralized support; it does mean working together
to share expertise rather than mandates and policy. The use of policies
in school organizations can result in environments that are too
rule-bound. . .to the point that technology is no longer a worthwhile
tool to use.
The chart below
refers to the threats that each group faces and the ideal of how
to integrate technology into the curriculum:
Group
|
Threat
|
Ideal
|
Policy Administrators
|
Over-regulation and lengthy approval processes
that punish errors rather than support exploration and failure.
|
Flexible policy development and review that
supports teachers' efforts to create knowledge products.
|
Network Services
|
Constant fear that network integrity will
be compromised and requests from users must be denied because
they generate more work for the helpdesk.
|
Implement basic controls that are transparent
as possible, yet allow teachers/students to share knowledge
products.
|
Curriculum & Instruction
|
Irresponsible use of technology that is
not linked to specific standards and results in knowledge
products that reflect student grasp of the standards.
|
Develop activities that responsibly use
technology to produce standards-based (local and national)
knowledge products.
|
As we consider
the power of policy administrators, network administrators, the
classroom teacher also struggles beneath the weight of new policies,
fighting to make technology work in her classroom. New educator
competencies from the State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC)
place increasing pressure on teachers to use technology in their
classrooms.
The question
is, as more and more teachers receive the needed professional development
through TIE and TIF grants, what will the policy and network administrators
do? Will they allow students to publish on the web, teachers to
develop instructional resources and share them, work as professionals
to review emails, and focus on lessons that integrate technology?
I certainly hope so. As a professional developer, web designer,
I find that my workshop participants carry the torch back to their
campuses--only to have them extinguished. The balance of power matters--we
must trust our teachers to integrate technology, our administrators
to support the effort.
Are you ready?
|