Policies, Politicians, Polyphonies.

 A short discussion on two politicians who are a part of the same song, but are playing different melodies. 

Sue Errington

Sue Errington has previously served in the Indiana State Senate and is now serving in the Indiana State House of Representatives. She came to my Educational Technology Policy class to speak with us about what it's like to make policies at the state level and what policies are currently being set in place for education. Rep. Errington is a tenured politician, meaning she's been a politician for many years. In my opinion, politicians have their own dialect that is easily recognizable. It's like, someone who lives in New York speaks a certain way (which is likely different than the way you speak if you don't live in New York) and when you hear them speak you're like, "Hey! You're from New York!" Well, I think that politicians, especially ones who have been politicians for a while, have developed their own dialect.

Before I move on, I'd like to stress that having the "politician's dialect" is not a bad thing. It's a necessity for politicians and it's completely acceptable. Now, back to you're regularly scheduled blogging.

Rep. Errington definitely has the politician's dialect. Again, this is not a bad thing! One of the things that's jumped out at me while talking with her was how obvious it was that she is a politician. She has the dialect, she dresses like one, and she has a poised manner like you'd expect one to have.

One thing I learned from Sue, is the (long and arduous) process of policy making at the state level. There are at least twelve steps and seven votes for a bill to become a law in Indiana. This is assuming that all goes well and congress doesn't have to vote on the bill a hundred times before they agree on it. One other important thing that Sue mentioned was that legislators usually vote on the idea and then send it to the legal department to put it into "legalese." I guess I always assumed that the legislators wrote the "legalese" bills/laws out themselves. 

One question that Rep. Errington left me asking (which I should have asked her while she was there), is how often do EDTEC policies get brought up at the state level? Do they get much attention at all? This would be a great question to research or ask a politician about. I expect that it gets an attention level of about 3 on a 1-10 scale, 10 being that's all they talk about. This isn't because I think EDTEC policy is unimportant, it's because I know it works funny. From my research in class, I've noticed how EDTEC policy isn't really a separate entity, it's included in other policies, like budgets, state aid to schools, and within education policy as a whole.  

Sarah O'Brien (middle)

Sarah O'Brien currently serves on the Indiana State Board of Education (SBOE) and is an elementary teacher in Avon, Indiana. My class talked with her via Skype, which is a completely different experience than meeting face to face. One think that I noticed about her was how little she seemed like a politician. She is in the early stages of developing the politician's dialect and, because the meeting was on Skype, she didn't seem as poised as Rep. Errington. That being said, she definitely gave off the teacher-vibe. She was relaxed, very attentive, and ready to answer any questions that came her way. 

From Mrs. O'Brien, I learned that, apparently, some teachers like the common core standards. More importantly, I learned that the process of developing new standards includes a lot of revisions of the past 3 sets of standards and a few new inclusions. This is interesting, because a lot of people have the idea that the SBOE is just cutting and pasting from old standards, but that's not true.

One question Sarah left with me was, "What is it actually like to serve on the SBOE?" She explained their duties and some of the things they talk about, but I guess I'm interested in the interactions they have during sessions. I want to know if the members of the SBOE get along or if they ever go hang out after a session or something. Maybe it's not as important, but I find the way in which humans interact in certain circumstances (like serving on a perceivably divided SBOE) very interesting. 

Party lines

Oh wait.....

To explain my very first sentence, Sue and Sarah both give off the impression that they really want to improve Indiana's education system, but they have different ideas on how to get there. They both realize how terrible it is in comparison to other states. It's relieving, really, because as I talked with Sue and Sarah I got the impression that they were from different political parties. I know politicians, no matter the party, always say things like, "I want to improve education in this state," etc., but they both seemed to be able to explain their differing ideas for improving education well and they both seemed very invested in the topic. Like a Baroque piece of music that may be one piece, but has different melodies playing at once, they both want Indiana's education system to improve, but I'm not sure they want to get to that state of improvement the same way. 

Indiana's Loans and the Tablets of Doom.

"Throw me the idol, I'll throw you the whip."

In the past half decade, Indiana has taken some risks in the ways of educational technology. If you can think of "the old ways of education" as the idol, untested educational technology as the bag of sand Indiana Jones replaced the idol with, the Indiana school system as the temple itself, and the rolling stone (which gathers no moss) as the possible dangers the Indiana has to run away from, you can understand an extended metaphor regarding how Indiana has treated educational technology. Indiana has taken the idol from the temple and replaced it with the bag of sand. Indiana wanted to be the first to take idol safely, but because Indiana didn't test the bag of sand beforehand and there had been no real research on whether the bag of sand would be a safe alternative, Indiana has found itself in a load of trouble. 

If that metaphor makes sense to you (and major kudos if it does!), then you probably get the gist of what I'm trying to say here and can skip the part in brackets. If not, please, feel free to read on. 

[According to Indiana Public Media, in the last three years (as of Oct. 2011), Indiana has given out 22 grants for around $200,000 each. These grants were given to the 22 schools to integrate new technology and teaching methods that had not been well-researched. Indiana really just wanted to be in the forefront of this move to technology. I mean, that's pretty cool and innovative, but if you were a policy maker, would you vote to risk $4.3 million on untested methods? It seems a little crazy, if you ask me.] 

The previously linked articles give this whole situation a rather negative tone, and rightfully so! I agree with Indiana (and this article) in that it's great to be on the forefront of the technology wave. Get our students to use this godsend we call technology to their benefits. Let them learn more quickly and with more efficiency than we ever did so that they will be innovative thinkers. Let their education lead America and the world into a better world with new cures, technologies, methodologies, and thoughts. By all means, yes, do those thing, but do them with a sense of responsibility! 

The articles linked above mention that the policy makers were apprehensive. They didn't want to risk all that money, but more importantly, they didn't want to risk missing the opportunity to make a positive example out of Indiana. From my personally experience, I think they wasted a lot of money. I have spent time working with educators to use iPads effectively in the classroom, I have seen other educators attempt to use tablets without any outside help, and I have witnessed corporations who claim the technology is helping, but really have no idea what the students are doing with it. This doesn't mean all 22 grants were put to waste, it just means that what I've seen wasn't pretty. I'm sure there are some corporations who are using the technology they were given in the best possible way, but I haven't seen them. 

The important take-aways here are that: 

• Indiana is doing something to change the course of educational technology
• Indiana's methods of changing that course, are unstable at best
• Indiana seems to be wasting a lot of taxpayer money
• Perhaps, with a LOT of professional development, the money wasted can be redeemed by setting a standard for how technology is getting used in the classroom. 

Even the American Government Has the Capacity to Evolve!

In looking through a timeline provided by the Office of the Secretary of the United States Department of Education, it can be seen that the journey to incorporate technology into the classroom has been quite a long one. This timeline only shows important events that happened under President Clinton's administration (1993-2000). Just in those seven years, a major shift in governmental focus on technology is clearly evident. Originally, and logically, we focused on giving teachers and students access to technology. This included computers and connection to the internet. This initiative is still a work in progress, as some schools may not have full access for each student. The interesting thing to note here: in early 2000 this focus became much less important as the need for cyber safety found its way to the top.

As more students gained access to the internet, more policies had to be made to be sure that students were using that technology appropriately. I have noticed that since the beginning of internet safety policies, there has been an exponential growth in the focus this issue has received. I remember getting computers in the late 1990s at school and I remember being taught, very firmly, about what it meant to be a good cyber citizen. There were many workshops, convocations, and sessions that we, as students, got to sit through and I'm sure there were just as many for the teachers.

It is my hope that cyber safety doesn't end up on the back burner as new complications arise that fall into the narrow focus of the government. Looking back, I think the whole cyber safety thing was overly done. It seems that there was a "cyber safety scare" and that everyone jumped on the bandwagon to help bring awareness of what it means to be a responsible cyber citizen. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of the aforementioned methods of bringing this issue to students anymore. It seems like we got scared, then thought, "Oh, good. We did our job. Students know how to be good on the internet now." and we forgot to continue the efforts to keep students informed!

The name's Oliver, Dr. Brad Oliver. I'll have my SBOE stirred, not shaken.

After hearing Dr. Brad Oliver speak about his views on the current state of education in Indiana and the hot educational policies of the day, my faith in the Republican party has been restored. I had always wanted to side with the Conservatives, but the way recent ones have treated education in Indiana (Does Tony Bennett ring a bell?) have left me siding with the Democrats. Now, Dr. Brad Oliver is my kind of politician. He believes in things like faith, life, and smaller government, but also believes that the education system needs to be set up in such a way that our students actually benefit from it.

One of the most interesting things he mentioned was that there are so many people on the State Board of Education who have a strong background in education. I also found it quite interesting when he mentioned that the SBOE has never actually had "set meeting procedures" until very recently. I was shocked to find out that one of the major governing bodies involved with creating educational policies didn't even have a set way to run their meetings! Alas, it was good to find out that the new meeting procedures were actually enormously helpful and the SBOE tackled a cornucopia of issues after they approved the new procedures.

I find it amazing how the media portrays different things happening in the political world, in that it often portrays those things inaccurately. Dr. Oliver mentioned a example of this, when he was merely pointing at a document on Glenda Ritz's desk, but the press took a picture of that and took it out of context so that it seemed he was getting heated with her! Educational polices are important in today's world, but it seems that maybe we should focus on polices that deal with false journalism.