The Gilroy school district’s recent
”
state of technology in the schools
”
presentation to the school board revealed the difficulty the
district is having establishing reliable, Web-based communications
between students, parents, teachers and administrators.
The Gilroy school district’s recent “state of technology in the schools” presentation to the school board revealed the difficulty the district is having establishing reliable, Web-based communications between students, parents, teachers and administrators. The presentation, and the school board’s response, also hint at some fundamental flaws and misconceptions in the district’s overall technology goals.
In an effort to utilize existing technology more fully, the board is reported to be considering a policy that would mandate e-mail usage by teachers. The board would also like to see homework assignments for all classrooms uploaded to the district’s Web site, and it wants consistent usage of the school messenger attendance program by administrative staff and parents.
“I guess I don’t understand what it is that stops us from using these tools fully,” said Trustee Bob Kraemer. What he really doesn’t understand is that the value of technology lies not in its existence but in its successful application. In other words, installation and configuration do not guarantee usage.
Let’s look at this again. Why aren’t teachers consistently using the district’s e-mail system? Technologically unsavvy teachers are resisting because they feel they communicate just fine without e-mail, thank you, and besides they haven’t had the necessary training. Technologically savvy teachers are resisting because they already have a primary Internet e-mail account that is most convenient for them to use. They may already be using their private e-mail accounts to effectively communicate with parents. These tech savvy teachers might be enticed to use the district’s e-mail system primarily, but only if they are convinced that district e-mail is going to be reliable and available.
The school board can mandate all the software usage they want; it doesn’t change the fact that enterprise-wide acceptance brings with it a recurring training and support cost. Until the late adopters have been trained, until support is readily available for everyone, and until there is a compelling reason to use the system, usage patterns won’t improve.
Lack of training and support is also the reason why most classrooms aren’t posting homework assignments to the district’s Web site, according to school district volunteer Rob van Herk, and probably the cause for inconsistent usage of the School Messenger attendance tracking program by parents and administrative staff. Mr. van Herk ought to know. The GUSD Web site’s very existence is dependent on his volunteer efforts. Last summer, van Herk took it upon himself to transform the derelict site, and continues to donate many hours to keeping it useful, reliable, and timely. Which raises the question, what happens if van Herk is hit by the proverbial bus? What happens is the district’s Web site quickly returns to its previous, obsolete state.
Perhaps the district ought to reconsider any money it is spending on public relations publications and re-direct that into technology communication with parents?
A district that makes absolutely no provision for maintaining its own Web site outside of volunteer staffing is in no position to mandate acceptance of technology systems for which it is ill prepared to provide ongoing training and support. The district needs to become more realistic about the true cost of information system ownership, avoid ad hoc endorsements of technology initiatives that can’t be realistically supported and most of all keep it’s fingers crossed that van Herk isn’t hit by a bus.
After that, it should pursue the noble goals of mandating that teachers respond to e-mail from parents and post homework assignments on the Internet.
