Education in the New Millennium: Careful - Tech Tools Are Sharp

The Eschoolnews article on sexting is quite alarming, and raises the dilemma we have as educators and planners.  We have to get our kids up to speed on technology so they can expand their world view and through their assessment of needs, spurn new farther reaching cyber tools. As we see in the article on sexting, there has to be some kind of control. All the Acceptable Use Policies I have ever read cover all the bases as far as unethical conduct is concerned, and forbids use of electronic gadgets during class. The school rules however allow students to carry the technology on their person throughout the day; it is going to be used!  The main culprit, of course, is the camera/video cell phone.  I feel that these are pretty well controlled in most classrooms, but no doubt, most of the sexting or other illegal and damaging items are set in motion outside of school and the classrooms, hallways and web postings are the exhibit and discussion rooms. These blatant threats are occurring while planning groups across the country are trying to remove some of the filters to allow students to access sites that can help provide a constructive educational process (You Tube etc.). The 2009 Michigan Educational Technology Plan is the kind of ambitious, progressive outlook we need to address the students’ dilemma as illustrated in the Joe’s Non-Net Book video. The young man’s reference to the book as a foreign tool speaks to the problem we have when school systems are mired in traditional book-based, non-exploratory teaching methods. This is the reality we must stay focused on, and the planners must stay their course. If the information technology gurus are doing their jobs correctly, students can have a cyber-based, safe, clean interactive learning experience. This will defeat some of the boredom that leads to unsanctioned use of technology.  Good supervision, proximity techniques and old-fashioned diligence are also priceless. It is not unusual for a secondary student to multi-task as in the photo above, without information overload. We must capture the energy and redistribute it in new, intellectually stimulating directions. At the same time we must add more character development to our programs to help counter the harassment, low-esteem and blatant misuse of technology that seems to be getting the greatest amount of publicity.

Comparison of the National, Michigan and Local Technology Education Plans

To compare the three plans I used two models from the National Technology Education Plan as the tool to gauge the main points of emphasis at the two levels of implementation.  Sorry I could not make a direct link to the pages by number.  The student model is found on pages 10-11; the Teacher model on page 40 (using the Acrobat page window). Ctrl/Click on the link above, sentence one.  Each plan lists and projects fulfillment of the Student and Teacher models, accenting the need for a community of learning.  The second focus was the continuing development of teachers in the technology arena so that they can facilitate a cyber learning environment.  The underlying premise seems to be the fact that if you are resistant to the new wave of technological instruction, you have no place.  Graphic illustrations like the two in the National plan would have aided my cursory understanding of the Michigan and PGCS documents, though I found the table format for Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) to be easy to follow.  The objectives begin on page 7 of the Google Docs link PGCPS Technology Plan 2008-2012.  PGCPS projected a plan from 2008-2012; a long term commitment to growth of the technology with reviews each year.  My last full-time teaching was in the PGCPS system and I can attest to the long strides the district made in the four years I was there; from a much simpler web grading and attendance system to online assessment data, for both in-school year and previous mandated assessment scores. It's probably just me, but I thought the National plan was more reflective of technology used to sell a technology plan.  The Michigan and PGCPS plans could have used some technological sharpening to make their dcocument reflect the shine of the future technological aspirations.  Each planning group seems to know its own goals, but these objectives have to be measured against dollars, meaning that each tier, national, state and local school will have to be ready to move at the same pace; or some child's computer will be left behind.