EdPsych 490TER: Dr. Sandy Levin Marty Sierra-Perry Week Four: Technology and Education Reform Two

Home

Means, Chapter 8- Tomorrow's Schools: Technology & Reform

Finally, three real schools are profiled. I found reading this chapter the most rewarding. The chapter addressed both the positive and negative aspects of technology and educational reform.

Also, this article was the first to demonstrate a connection between the words "transform" and "reform" that had been introduced in Chapter 7. During our group discussion this week, Jamyce brought this word into the discussion so that we began to think reform was more of the same, and transform implied a more systemic attempt to change what schools do. The three case studies certainly had moved from reform to transform.

The positives include reconfiguring the use of time in the school day, providing professional development in technology, outside influences creating a disequilibrium that served as a catalyst for change. The outside influences in these scenarios did not seem to belittle what teachers were doing. These corporations worked with the schools to transform them into classrooms much like the workrooms of Saturn. It was interesting that the teacher union's president sparked the superintendent into action. The resulting collaboration of the teacher union, school district administrators and corporate sponsors, modeled the partnership that is necessary for major reform in a district to occur.

The major negative in my mind was the discussion of the professionalization of the teachers. My first teaching experience was teaching in a district that had a "differentiated" teaching scale at the high school. As in the article, the titles were similar to "generalist," "associate," and "lead" teachers. As I recall the differentiation was more about years of experience and degrees. Associate and lead teachers had to have masters degrees. The designations were dropped in the late 70's when the economy shifted in this soon to be "rust bowl." In the article, the flaws of human nature (?) that created divisiveness and exclusion sabotaged this experiment in shared leadership. We had the situation arise this spring when a department was in search of a department chair. Apparently, there were no applicants and a second year teacher was encouraged to apply to fill the position. Now, here was an opportunity for a department to experiment with a new form of governance. A department of talented teachers of varying years of experience, six men and eight women, and at least six masters among them. What if the department transformed the model of one person in charge of the department to all having responsibility for the duties of the department. Each teacher individually is at a different point of their professional career. Some might want to take on the duties which require sitting on the principal's department chair meetings. This would allow them to determine if the political aspects of education appeal to them and courses in administration a logical next step. Others in the department are excellent with the details of materials inventory. Centralizing the procedure for tracking textbooks and supplementary materials with a committee of two in charge would help reign in the cost of each person keeping track of materials in lots of different ways, and in the end laying the responsibility on the desk of the department chair. Some staff enjoy events planning and organizing field trips--let them have at it! While each teacher would continue to handle their own parental complaints, when necessary those staff interested in policy could sit in on parent meetings to demonstrate that regardless of the teacher the department has expectations and show support of colleagues. I'm sure that there would be glitches, but since the department chair does not evaluate teachers such a model would not run afoul of legalities of teacher evaluation.

This article provides a great springboard into the complex issues of technology and educational reform.

Top