BYOD - an ethical dilemma indeed

Long before the term BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) became popular, our district permitted personally owned student devices on our wireless networks to give students Internet access. We've never had a district-level policy banning phones, laptops or other student technologies. And while our buildings and individual teachers certainly have rules guiding their use, students can use their own equipment on all our campuses.

So an interesting thing happened on Tuesday that was at least a partially enabled by this open-access policy. Our student information system, Infinite Campus, released an iOS app so students and parents could get to their information using their iPhones, iPads or iPod Touchs. We put the link and instructions on our portal's website at 11:00AM and by noon, students were already using it to track assignments, grades, attendance, and schedules - and enabling notifications when new data was added by teachers.

I was feeling pretty good about that until reading Gary Stager's post: BYOD – Worst Idea of the 21st Century? in which he laments:

The only way to guarantee equitable educational experiences is for each student to have access to the same materials and learning opportunities. BYOD leaves this to chance with more affluent students continuing to have an unfair advantage over their classmates. This is particularly problematic in a society with growing economic disparity.

and that

Information access, note-taking and communication (presenting, sharing, publishing) are the low-hanging fruit of education and represent the tiniest fraction of what it means to learn. Looking up the answers to someone else’s questions online in order to write an essay or make a PowerPoint presentation reinforces the status quo at best while failing to unlock for children the wondrous opportunities provided by computational thinking.

Stager makes some interesting argument why schools, not families, should be providing computing devices for students. Read the post ...

Can these problems of inequity and "lowest common denominator" of technology use be ameliorated by an actual BYOD plan*? Here's what we've been working on:

1. Determining just how great the digital divide is among families in the district by conducting surveys and then formulating means of providing access to those students without technology access outside of school. Providing ready access to technology in school via computers in open labs, libraries, classrooms and circulating netbooks.
2. Defining the capabilities of a student-owned device based on basic tasks it needs to perform - see Specs for Student Devices. (I hope we can honor individual preferences of students in type of device. Some may prefer a laptop; others a smartphone.)
3. Using these capabilities as a selection criteria when adopting textbooks with online supplementary materials, other curricular online materials, and classroom activities .

Stager makes some compelling ethical arguments against BYOD. But there are also ethical questions raised when we do not provide all the learning opportunities possible to as many students as possible - realizing some students will not be able to take advantage of them. If the cure rate of a vaccine is 9o%, do we not treat anyone since it would be unfair to the incurable 10%? Do more powerful computers equal more powerful uses of technology in schools, as Stager suggests? When does education become "fair" - when all students in a classroom, a grade level, a school, a district, a state, a nation or the world have equal access to equal technologies?

If we wait for the perfect conditions to begin anything (100% if students all having access to a powerful portable computer, for example), many of us will be waiting for a very, very long time. Let's work with what we have and continue to work for better access to technologies and more powerful ways of using them. Stager's assertion that BYOD is The Worst Idea of the 21st Century may indeed be just that.

* I have never quite decided if BYOD is a project, plan, philosophy, policy or just a buzzword.

Open market teachers

Caption as printed in the New York Times, March 7, 2011: A statistical model the New York City school system uses in calculating the effectiveness of teachers. http://tinyurl.com/4ssvkbz
(via Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice)

Here is a modest proposal - let the market evaluate teachers. It would work something like this ...

Every school would hire a few more teachers than it needs. Each spring/summer parents would rank preferences for the teacher(s) they want their children to have. (There would be a drawing if a teacher was overly popular.) The teachers with the lowest number of parents choosing them would be released. 

Teachers would need to figure out how to market themselves. Citing test scores/graduation rates/college performance of past students, perhaps? Promising special teaching philosophies or techniques such a constructivism, collaborative learning, or cultural literacy, maybe? Including testimonies from former students and parents, advisable? Eventually reputation in the community would help continuously effective teachers and quickly drive out of the profession those not performing. 

Teachers could get so many points per student enrolled. These could either be kept and redeemed for extra salary or be spent on support services -  library and technology access; music, art and PE specialists; additional custodial or administrative services; better physical facilities such as AC or square footage. (If library, tech and specials were optional for teachers to choose and salaries were based on number of teachers taking advantage of such services, a more customer-driven attitude may result.)

Just thinking aloud here. But this seems to make more sense than "school" choice or the Calvin-ball type proposal of the New York City school system shown above. And aren't other professionals such as accountants, doctors, lawyers, etc. evaluated in a similar fashion?

I'd be willing to continuously improve my skills in order to compete in such a system.

OK, have at me. 

Image source

Instructional video

Don't you kind of wonder if these news stories do more to instruct kids than to warn parents? I suppose it would be totally paranoid to think this feature was sponsored by Smirnoffs.

How Teens Smuggle Booze Under Your Nose
See how teens are fooling parents, teachers -- even cops! And it's so potent they're getting drunk, sick and worse! The Defenders reveal the secret!

http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/29384556/index.html

This was sent to our high school staff by a police liaison (well-intentioned, I'm sure).

If I start seeing gummy worms in the teachers' lounge, now I'll know why.