digital fair use policy

The Digital Education Revolution comes to an end. Where now?

Gillard_Kolbe1.jpg

The final round of government funding is currently being distributed to schools all around Australia. So far over 967,000 computers have been bought, infrastructure built and (most) teachers up-skilled to benefit from the acquisition. But as the funds come to an end, many school principals are wondering if the process has been beneficial, and how can they continue to support and progress the Digital Education Revolution? Way back in 2008 the Labor Government initiated the National Secondary Schools Computer Fund (NSSCF). Over 2.4 billion dollars has been spent, year groups 9-12 were targeted and the focus, according to the 2007 Election Policy document "is aimed at ensuring one million Australian upper secondary students get an education with the latest technology, to prepare them for the jobs of the future".

My concern is that the focus was misdirected from the beginning. All efforts were seemingly made to provide each student with their own laptop, simply to prepare them for a technology based workforce or "jobs of the future". Teaching and learning somehow got lost in the planning to spend, the focus of preparing students for future jobs took precedent over preparing students to excel in literacy and numeracy.

It is easy to see how many have seen this whole process as nothing more than political spin. The figures are very impressive, and it is easy for Labor to claim the project a success. After all, they have met their targets. The Computer Fund has achieved a one computer per student (1:1 ratio) for students in Years 9 to 12. But measuring the true success of this "revolution" in terms of learning outcomes, is nigh on impossible.

Most schools are left with more questions then answers. Are we utilising the computers properly? Can we keep maintaining fast internet access and wireless coverage? Did we choose the right computers? And the most important question: can we afford to continue the 1 to 1 laptop program?

I manage an IT department in a part of Perth which has a low socio-economic background. Our parents are by no means wealthy and the school has welcomed the DER money with open arms. My predecessor made some excellent decisions and focused on upgrading our wireless network. We executed the integration of laptops so well that the school gained a reputation as being a digital "light house" school. Just a few weeks ago Julia Gillard herself visited to marvel at the presence of so much technology and so many happy students.

Julia Gillard visits Kolbe Catholic College, March 2013

But beneath the facade their was much more happening. A culture change was taking place which was trickling down from the management team and senior staff. We no longer wish to be known as a technology driven school. We wish to see our students excel in their chosen field. We want to provide students with diverse opportunities and see them become independent thinkers. This is what I believe will prepare them for "jobs of the future", not knowing how to use Powerpoint or organise their Home folders.

This sentiment appears to be echoed by Labor's National Plan for School Improvement. An initiative aimed squarely at raising achievement in reading, maths and science. With this is mind we must, like many other schools, decide how to proceed without the thousands of dollars from the government. Technology must be kept current, to simply use the existing computers that we have for another 4 years is not practical. To take on the expense ourselves as a school is simply not viable.

Bring Your Own? BYOD and BYOT are acronyms which have been discussed a lot recently. The reason for this is because schools are asking students to "Bring Your Own Device", or even "Bring Your Own Technology". The key difference is that the student can choose for themselves which computer to use with the latter. Where as a BYOD approach is one where a school requests a particular computer which the student must supply.

Each model has its own pros and cons, but what I find most interesting is the general acceptance by parents that now it is acceptable to place a $500 item on the school booklist.

The government led DER may take a lot of criticism, but it has had an enormous positive impact on education. I consider it to be a success, and it came at a very important transitional stage for personal computing. Even the most critical parent has the foresight to see that teaching is going through tremendous positive change as a direct result of personalised learning devices.

The home for many harbours plenty of high-end digital tools, mainly used for entertainment. And technology has been so ingrained into our lives that for a student to already own a tablet or be handed down a laptop computer from a parent is not unusual. So what has been started by the government can be easily continued by the parent.

Bring your own technology really does seem like a perfect solution. However questions must be addressed surrounding equity for all students. Although, this is no different to any other school apparatus not available for disadvantaged students and can be remedied. I also have grave concerns surrounding the teaching practice in the classroom. Many teachers struggle capitalising on a single device let alone multiple technologies being used in the classroom. However these hurdles can easily be overcome with effective leadership and support, and good PD for staff.

Tasks in the classroom need to be less technology driven, and more outcomes based. For example digital story telling can come in many forms. The creative use of video, stop animation with still pictures, even podcasting can be achieved on all modern computers and tablets. How the student creates these assignments is for them to discover and put into practice. What the content holds should be of interest to the teacher, not the technology or process used to make it. These are examples of developing young minds into critical thinkers who can problem solve and discover new applications for themselves.

Letting Go A big trend and strategy which I apply at my school is maximising on free services such as cloud storage, email and calendar solutions. In turn you are pushing responsibility of data back to your users (students and staff) and spending less money maintaining any server rooms which you have.

In order to do this though it is paramount that the school provide the most stable and efficient network possible, while increasing bandwidth to the internet. The NBN has been a long time coming, and upgrading your school to the fastest fibre connection available may be the best IT decision you make this year. This additional bandwidth will allow you to migrate more services out of your server room, but also provide fast access to learning resources, and enable real time collaboration.

As we begin to rely on services from providers such as Google, Apple, Dropbox, Evernote etc, we must also be prepared to let go of the device requirement which we impose. We must consider allowing students to bring which ever computing device they choose to school. The family home likely already has ample digital tools, and it is cost effective to support this. As the DER funding dries up we have little choice but to allow parents to manage their own child's technology.

Where the school must pay particular attention to is the internet gateway it provides, including the content available to students. It is imperative that while devices are in your school network, you know who they are and monitor activity as much as possible. But think for a moment that you will provide a constantly safe environment for students, and you will be proven wrong very quickly.

Such is the nature of modern technology many students can easily circumnavigate any internet proxy imposed. Mal Lee sums this up perfectly on his website www.byot.me:

"Even in class, many kids can use their 3G or similar service. Addressing sociological problems such as cyber safety with a technological solution is doomed to failure."

This is why a Digital Fair Use Policy is of equal if not greater importance than a content filtering web proxy, which simply builds walls made from tissue paper.

A Pandora's Box

512px-Opened_up_a_Pandoras_box.jpg

Developing a Digital Fair Use Policy for your home and school. Creating a Digital Fair Use Policy for your school which preserves authentic teaching while utilising the full potential of modern technology is a precarious task which carries large implications.

Many schools throughout W.A. are finding themselves in a position where students are armed with modern devices which empower students so much, that some teachers are feeling an overwhelming sense of despair. Parents find themselves navigating a type of teenage angst never known before. An awkward adolescents, made worse by an affiliation with new fangled technology resulting in a type of popularity contest conducted in an online world...a stage where one is judged by friends and peers.

It is this unknown space occupied by precarious social tools like Snapchat, Twitter and Facebook which have the potential to leave our students seriously exposed. As a school we go to great lengths to protect student records and personal details, in a blink of an eye of all this can come undone by a misguided student.

Schools are encouraged to utilise technology in a way that can transform education, and in every case there is overwhelming evidence that this is happening. But the task of effective Professional Development for both teacher and parent is often skimmed over, and “shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted” is a term which springs to mind a little too often.

Opened up a Pandora's box

It is easy to liken a tablet device to a Pandoras Box, holding both incredible curiosity, but also potential for catastrophic mischief. The Greek myth goes on to describe; at the bottom of Pandora’s box lies the Spirit of Hope called Elpis. This comparison does bear considerable verity. And as school management purchase new digital tools, they must prepare for undesirable outcomes. But the hope at the bottom of the box is there in plain sight; it lies in the preparation and upskilling of staff and parents. Some solutions are in the form of “Guided Access” and “Restrictions” which in the iPads case, are never more than 2 clicks away.

Students need stringent guidelines and boundaries. And my experience shows that most respond very well to the instruction they are given, some value the trust distilled into them and proceed to utilise an education full of diverse opportunities.

One implication of a digitally driven school (and a big concern of mine) is the sheer amount of time consumed by personal devices. Especially as computers reduce in size and connectivity options expand. I visited my hometown of London in December. I did some travel by train and was impressed to see “Quiet Carriage” sections marked clearly with signs and enforced by both ticket inspectors and fellow passengers. These Quiet Carriages clearly indicate that mobile phones, music players and other electronic devices are not to be used. In a similar way both libraries and museums practice similar restrictions.

FGW HST Standard Class coach A headrest cover 2005-06-09

What I find interesting is not the enforcement of such rules but what the rules imply. As I travelled through the carriages of this train into a non quiet carriage I was met with row upon row of passengers with headphones glued to their ears and others deep in conversation on their phones. Some were watching movies and others browsing the internet. It occurred to me that the default for our generation is to be constantly connected. Connected to the web, to media and to each other. We actually need to be instructed when to switch off!

This idea of constant connectivity is reinforced by research completed by an American company, the Kaiser Family Foundation. The KFF have been studying media use in the lives of eight- to 18-year-old Americans for 10 years. Over that time, three reports have been published. “Media use” was described as a combination of television, video games, listening to music, reading printed text and using a computer.

The results showed an increase of the “Average amount of time spent with media in a typical day” from 7 hours 29 minutes in 1999 to 10 hours 45 minutes in 2009. Just to re-cap, young people in 2009 were accessing digital media for over 10 hours per day. This does include multi-tasking (ie watching television while browsing Facebook), but it really does ring alarm bells for me as I develop a new Digital Fair Use Policy for my school.

The report (available at www.KFF.org) goes on to state: “Youth who spend more time with media report lower grades and lower levels of personal contentment”.

The implications of this saturation of young peoples lives is not yet known. But I am concerned that if we are to develop our students into authentic and critical thinkers, such intense immersion in a Google queried world may not be the right direction to head in. In order to create something original, without the fear of influence or criticism, we may need to ask our students to “disconnect”. It is important that the Quiet Carriage becomes the norm once again, especially in schools. Only when needed, or when instructed by the teacher/parent, should students be expected to reach for their devices.