Is experimentation ethical?

I honestly didn't expect the amount of reaction to last Wednesday's post, Becoming George, that I got. And little of it was sympathetic to my George-like tendencies. While all the responses are worth reading, I would like to dig a little deeper into one issue raised.

Sue, Miguel, Jeff and Mark all pretty much took me to task for not allowing teachers to experiment or to be creative with their computers. (Please take time to read their eloquent and compelling comments.)

Now one of the problems with being an administrator is that you start thinking like one after a while. The lure of the dark side (or as  Miguel would say "Gadget Gestapo, the Network Nazi") is formidable. Here are some questions that may get more at the heart of the control vs. creativity question. Questions I don't have a good answer to. Questions that come from the dark side of the force...

• Does technology management come down to a choice between reliability/security and creativity/experimentation? If it is not possible to have both, which best serves student interests?
  
• Why should a teacher be given any more latitude to be "creative" with a computer than an accountant? Why should a teacher not be required to use district adopted software, much as they are required to use district adopted reading series or textbooks?
  
• Should a teacher experiment rather using established best practices? (A medical doctor who "experiments" on his patients would be considered unethical - that job is for specially trained research scientists.)
  

I am especially interested in the last question. So much of what is being written about in the educational blogosphere (at least what I read) promotes the experimental use of technology with students. At what point do we need to ask ourselves is this healthy for students? Without studies showing that student blogging or writing in wikispace or the cool thing du jour increases student learning, am I acting like a true professional? What is the difference between untried methods and crackpot methods except one's point of view? (If I wear green socks and stand on my head as I deliver  lectures in Latin, I know student achievement will go up. But your ideas about using computers with kids are wacko!)

Answers? I'm looking for answers! 

Becoming George

In the early 90s when I was working as a high school librarian, my nemesis was the technology director, George. My job was to get as many teachers and students excited about using technology as possible; George's job was keeping everything running smoothly. And the best way to keep things in good order, he firmly believed, was to not let them be used.* George seemed to be continuosly removing software and features and installing controls to lock users out of as much of the computer as possible. (When I once asked him why he removed all but the system fonts on the computers in a lab, he explained that "kids just use the fancy fonts to write dirty words anyway.")

Until this morning, I alway viewed George as my evil twin. But now I think I have become George.

Next year we are giving teachers the option of a laptop computer instead of a desktop computer. My techs want to use DeepFreeze or a similar product on these teacher laptops for security purposes.  When this program is installed, a "clean" copy of the operating system and authorized software is created each time the computer is rebooted. Any teacher-made OS changes or teacher-installed software goes away - including, we anticipate, viruses, spyware and unlicensed/unathorized programs.

And I found myself liking the idea. What's changed?

Probably the main reason that I'm more sympathetic to locking down computers is that their reliabiliy has become so darned important. Attendance will not be taked, grades will not be recorded, bulletins will go unread, parent e-mail will not be received; presentations will not be made; digital films will not be shown; websites will not be shared if the teacher's computer doesn't work. And the list of mission-critical tasks that teachers are using these things gets longer each year.

Even a few years ago if a teacher's computer was unusable or unavailable for a few days, schooling did not end. (It hardly slowed down.) Such is not the case today.

I expect to get grief from teachers when they learn that 'their" new computers are not theirs to ding with at will. And what will be my reply?

1. Were you working at the bank, the insurance office, the law office or any other place of business, you would not have the freedom to install or modify your company computer to suit yourself. You would have access to the programs that help you get your work done. Period. Why should this not hold true in schools?
   
2. We need to stop the use of unlicensed software in the district.
3. We can only protect you (somewhat) from viruses, spyware and other nasties when you are inside our firewalled network. If you use your machine at home or in the coffeeshop, you might very well pick something up that once inside our network would wreak havoc.
4. Our tech staff has enought to do without fixing problems brought about when unathorized software causes system crashes, slow downs or other problems. 

I've always believed that technology policy decisions are best made by as large a group of stakeholders as possible. Our district advisory commitee meets in a couple weeks to discuss this plan. But if they nix the use of DeepFreeze, I may just override them.

I am becoming George. This must be what it feels like to be caught in quicksand - you are completely aware of the situation, but powerless to do anything about the relentless downward pull... 

* Plenty of librarians have a similar theory: the books stay in order on the shelves better if they aren't checked out.

Mandating Internet Safety Instruction

From the Washington Post - "Law Tells Schools to Teach Students About Online Safety." April 2, 2006.

The law, which takes effect July 1, is designed to ensure that tech-savvy children understand the dangers lurking in cyberspace. The measure's sponsor, Del. William H. Fralin Jr. (R-Roanoke), said he wrote the bill after his oldest son turned 10 and started competing with his parents for computer time.
"It raised a question in my mind," he said. "We teach our kids not to talk to strangers. We teach our kids not to take candy. But in today's world on the Internet, not only can you be talking to strangers without supervision, but you can be talking to someone you think is not a stranger, but who is one. There needs to be some sort of basic training on that."

I've been advocating for mandated Internet safety and ethics training for a very long time, so it is gratifying to see the action abovc - even if it isn't being taken in Minnesota.

My basic line of reasoning has always run thus: When a technology's use becomes potentially life-threatening, it's safe use needs to be mandated. In learning to scuba dive, use a firearm, or even drive, a higher percentage of training involves safe use as skill training itself. Does Internet use pose the same threat as other "dangerous" technologies?

 I'm hoping that Virginia's Internet safety training does not restrict itself to just online "stranger danger." It is, of course, the concern which has received the most hype and ought to be recognized, but other areas of genuine danger also need to be addressed. Failing to critically evaluate online medical information is potentially life-threatening. Finding and using pro-anorexia sites endangers the health of those who suffer from the disorder. Virtual bullying and harassment can cause emotional harm to children. One's financial health is certainly put at risk if one doesn't understand spamming, phishing, and other cons which have nicely ported from the physical to the virtual world.

Go, Virginia. I'm hoping you will be a model for other states, including Minnesota. What would you include in your Internet safety curriculum?