The Inevitable, Crucial Role of School Boards and Technology Integration
What School Boards can do, now, to push the inevitable integration of digital technology in classrooms and curriculum.
Welcome to the present: our visionary future in which digital technology is prevalent in society and now in a vast majority of American K-12 classrooms. Many times over, scholars and social scientists have agreed that technology integrated into varying school activities and curricula are benefiting students in the long run. This is not to be confused with social implications that often lean in the negative, rather they notice differing inclines in academic success across diverse student groups. Dr. Larry D. Rosen is a research psychologist and educator that has developed the term ‘iGeneration,’ describing the generation of students growing up with modern digital technology, and through extensive research has found technology integrated classrooms to have led to more engaged, confident, and creative students. The cost is, however, something of a barrier to ensuring technology integration happens effectively, or at all. Reaching those in charge — our representatives in Congress, or the leaders of our particular states — has also been somewhat problematic. For the most part we rely on those leaders by which we can readily communicate with: our locally elected School Boards, and district Superintendents; at the district level, some leeway can be had with maneuvering funds and leading issues as this forward. So, what can School Boards do to push progress of technology integration in K-12 classrooms? School Boards in the United States have taken much intent in the push for these technology integrated classrooms, but the access to technology is hindered by the lack of funding and the misappropriation of resources for Technology Leadership to use in transition processes. As elected leaders, School Boards should shift nonessential programs and monitor site budgets to pave the way for strategic integration and should use the power of advocacy to lobby their respective states for full and fair funding.
School Boards are more than often faced with a lack of internal funding, and subsequently the essential monies from state coffers that provide them a majority of resources in various areas of interest ranging from special education to facilities & operations. Dr. Larry D. Rosen notes in his book, Rewired, financial capability as being one of the inherent issues with technology integration and contributes to a “slack in progress” towards making it happen. In the 2015–16 school year, the State of California ranked 41st in the United States in per-pupil funding; By now, some sources have identified issues contributing to an increase in this ranking. If California funded its schools at the national average, per-pupil funding would be increased by $1,961 and thus for a classroom of 25 would add $49,025 for student support services, some of which may involve crucial student learning opportunities for educational technologies. Aside from integration, even, an increase of this magnitude would assist other substantial services. Per-pupil funding is at incredulously inadequate levels across the country, too. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calls this decade as a “punishing decade for school funding,” with a thorough analysis of 2015 census data showing that “29 states provided less overall state funding per students… than in the 2008 school year.” While 2008 was the year of the recession, local funding and budgetary changes in school districts didn’t redress for the difference of those state monies cut from education at the time. Moreover, the costs of services funded by states have risen and cause the problem for school districts to become much worse. Nevertheless, the finance problem is clear and present.
In order to address the financial side of technology integration, one of two or preferably both of the following things must happen. If not already a position in their districts, School Boards should seek to hire Grant Writers. Admittedly, grants are only a band aid with successful grant awards rarely reaching $20,000. State Farm, Valero Energy, Boeing, and the Educators of America are among some of the major multi-million-dollar corporations providing funding for individual classrooms and school districts specifically under the wing of technology integration. The positive on the side of corporations is their inevitable ultimatum — curriculum aligned, whether major or minor, with their area of expertise. However, the other positive is the image the public sees when corporations side with district leaders on integration and creates a level of buy-in that Boards may be unable to create individually. School Boards should also consider implementing financial accountability measures to ensure that not only technology integration is a priority, but that their other priorities and needs are met. The best example is California’s Local Control Accountability Plans; instead of sifting through what can be overwhelming and un-transparent 300 plus page long budgets, these plans essentially lead School Boards to lay out three-year strategic plans for goals, actions, services, and expenditures based on positive student impact. The thing is, accountability measures don’t need to come from the state — they can come straight from the Boards that approve and manipulate district budgets.
School Board advocacy is another major roadblock to technology integration, having implications on direct funding as well as legislative support for integration itself. The decision makers in the United States, our legislators are met with big-money and corporate lobbyists, but not the school board members themselves. With problems increasing and seeming as if they’re being ignored, the initiative for public school-friendly policies is dwindling. On one end of interpretation, not enough people are running for School Board seats in the first place. In Alameda County, California of a population just under 1.7 million people, 15 School Board seats went unopposed countywide during the 2016 election cycle and 13 in the most recent 2018 election. For a more intimate perspective, nearly every School Board seat for San Leandro Unified School District in Alameda County has gone unopposed since 2014 and are now dubbed by incumbents and other local officials as “historically unopposed.” On the other end of interpreting the advocacy argument, School Board members are not doing enough in their impactful positions to voice their concerns to the states and the federal government. Only recently have major discussions been conducted following the controversial appointment of Betsy DeVos as United States Secretary of Education by President Trump and charter schools becoming more active within political bodies and fundraising efforts. Partnerships with AFL-CIO and the National Teachers Association are among the most significant groups calling for major changes in policy and typically less interested in technology integration, rather more focused on funding or corporate labor issues.
The solution to technology integration’s advocacy problem is rather simple; School Board members need to establish a sense of urgency through their voices. California School Boards Association is one of the nation’s largest School Board support organizations, second to the National School Boards Association itself. CSBA has a membership of over 1,000 local educational agencies — school boards and charter school organizations — and thousands of School Board members registered as active members upon their election. Every year, CSBA seeks to organize its registered School Board members for a Legislative Action Day meant to schedule meetings between California’s local leaders with state representatives and staff. CSBA can be seen as the ‘union’ for School Board members, but only works if its members are activated and participate with these events directly. Disseminating these opportunities for advocacy is more or less the sub-issue, but still underscores the need for School Boards to activate themselves and explore other for their voices to be heard. In Dr. Larry D. Rosen’s Rewired, he makes it clear that districts will only reach successful technology integration through political advocacy for effective policies and fair funding. Dr. Rosen further explains that the simple nature derived from the issue is that they will be the ultimate decision makers, second to educators in the classroom and staff.
We often see a relatively complex process from the background of technology integration, from minimal tasks to strategic planning; one of technology integration’s largely behind the scenes issues bleeds down to educational leadership. The main role of School Boards is to establish a mission and vision for their own school district, setting the direction by which policy priorities are implemented and executed. However, too often School Boards either inadvertently or by direct fault see a lack of district leadership for effective, and concise strategic planning to carry them through. While this problem is relatively vague, and admittedly broad, it is equally apparent. School Boards, having only the legal ability to set direction cannot see through the full process but can make important decisions regarding staffing and administrative duties. In the Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, Rutgers University researcher David A. Bleakley discusses the direct impact that district leadership has on the process of implementing technology in K-12 classrooms, as well as the impact of effective planning during those processes. He lays out the importance of buy-in from all levels of educational leadership and stakeholders — ranging from the Superintendent to the individuals of each of the district’s school sites. Without a level of trust to push the issue forward, the process is delayed or even damaged. Moreover, Bleakley breaks down the process of strategically planning K-12 integration —
“leadership must have presented facts to proceed with data analysis, leadership should diagnose key problems that may occur before and after integration, and a clear and concise message should be written/established to pull financial and moral support educators, parents and/or guardians, and students.”
Over time, districts’ understanding around the process of integrating modern technology has changed. For instance, companies and districts alike were at one point only aware of the applications of Apple’s Macintosh, but now know the implications of the World Wide Web and more complex computing systems. School Boards have the opportunity to use this movement of time as a way of developing strategic planning for future and present integration. More recently, Hasan Gürfidan and Mustafa Koc of Süleyman Demirel University have articulated the dimensions by which technology integration is interpreted and applied to the larger concept of technology leadership. They delve into explaining the reality of having many definitions of technology integration due to the evolving concept, and notes technology integration as a “multi-dimensional and complex issue requiring the support of so many individuals including but not limited to School Board members and administrative staff.” Technology Leadership is crucial to the push towards technology integration, given the direct implications of emotional and financial motivation, support and management. In other words, pushing for successful integration is also emphasizing the key roles administrative and political leaders play in the process of building community/stakeholder buy-ins and financial strongholds.
The other statistically likely outcome of Technology Leadership is a “positive, open, and professional environment for students and staff.” In essence, it is the charge of School Boards to see these changes in leadership through.
With the charge for technology integrations, a number of issues succeed. School Boards can seek secondary resources for funding, become advocates for change in government policy, and ensure effective district leadership for the process itself. More or less, funding is the larger issue with technology integration as states and the federal government recover from cuts made during the 2008 recession. To re-prioritize education and herein technology integration as part of the funding problem, School Boards can use their voices as locally elected leaders to advocate and get the issue back on the docket. Finally, to plan district-specific technology integration and the process to the end, School Boards need to ensure effective staffing changes for strong technology and administrative leadership. This could include the creation of new positions, third part assistance, or even structural re-organization. Despite the efforts by School Boards themselves and various STEM organizations that have already been made to push for technology integration in a time of change in cultural, business and pedagogical practice, much work still needs to be done on everyone’s end. Technology integration may not be the priority of major politicians or some school districts, but it will always remain relevant and is ultimately inevitable.
This article was written for an undergraduate English course studying technology integration and digitally, published right here on Medium.
James Aguilar is a School Board Member in San Leandro Unified School District, San Leandro, CA and Liberal Arts student at San Francisco State University.
