Technology Trends in Secondary Ed

bubblegum

Goinghightechunderhighsurvelliance.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Technology Trends in Secondary Ed

NUMBER 90 • RADICAL TEACHER 15

G IG

I G

R A

Going High Tech Under High Surveillance: Technology Integration,

Zero Tolerance, and Implications for Access and Equity

By Tricia Kress

Freedom and peace, for which we are all yearning. May they endure. O, NYC High!1 O, NYC High, our sacred alma mater! Within your walls dwell friendliness and charm.

-N YC High’s First Alma Mater2

Technology Integration in Urban Schools: A Matter of

Access and Equity

In 1985, when computers first began to make a significant entrance into schools, the average student to com- puter ratio was 63:1, and the Internet was not even a figment of most people’s imaginations (Kafer, 2002). Now, twen-

RADICAL TEACHER • NUMBER 9016

ty-five years later, the state of technol- ogy integration in U.S. schools has made great strides. Ninety-nine percent of the nation’s schools have Internet access, and the student-to-computer ratio has steadily decreased to approximately 4:1. Even in urban schools the ratio has decreased to just over 5:1 (Parsad, 2005). These posi- tive trends in technology availability are often taken as a sign that the digital divide is indeed closing as technology is becom- ing increasingly affordable and available. Yet, technology has not entered into the lives of all U.S. students to the same extent and in the same manner (Kvasny & Keil, 2006). As Gándara and Contreras (2009) point out, “students from different backgrounds use technology differently outside of school . . . [lower-income stu- dents, for example] are more likely to use technology for games and entertainment than for information seeking. Middle- income students are more likely to have parents who can guide them in their use of the computer as an information-seeking tool”(96). This results in what Jenkins (2006) refers to as “the participation gap,” where some youth learn to use technol- ogy for creating knowledge and shaping society whereas other youth learn to use technology as consumers of knowledge created by others. For many urban youth, these differences in technology exposure and dispositions toward technology use could mean entering colleges and careers at a disadvantage and being faced with long-term academic and employment challenges (Farrell, 2005).

While there have been countless school reform efforts designed to integrate tech- nology into our nation’s schools (see, for example, Cuban, 2001 and Oppenheimer, 2003), in many urban schools technol- ogy integration initiatives rarely impact

teachers’ and students’ daily practice. Despite what the above ratios indicate, in practice, technology access and use in urban schools may in fact be drastically limited or non-existent, thus contribut- ing to the perpetuation of inequitable education for urban learners. Insufficient facilities and financial resources continue to be common impediments to tech- nology integration. Computers are more likely to be housed in computer labs as opposed to the classroom. Hardware and software are often in disrepair and/or outdated. Technology integration initia- tives are often trumped by other press- ing issues such as overcrowding, teacher and administrator turnover, insufficient Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), contend- ing with high drop-out rates, complying with mandated curriculum reforms, and school safety. These “at-risk” markers, typically present in underfunded urban schools that serve predominantly lower- income and minority students, are not found in schools in whiter and wealthier (often suburban) districts. They can and do have direct effects on whether and how technology is incorporated into teaching and learning, which continues to perpetu- ate a disparity between the educational experiences of urban students and their suburban peers.

This paper offers an illustration of how technology integration happened in one urban public high school that contended with all of the “at-risk” markers above. Specifically, I focus on the ways in which zero tolerance policies shaped the culture of New York City High School (NYC HS), a “failing” school in New York City, and how these policies impacted technol- ogy integration for teaching and learning. I tell this story through the perspective of Carol3, a high school literacy teacher at

NUMBER 90 • RADICAL TEACHER 17

NYC HS, as she attempted to integrate technology into her English literacy cur- riculum. Carol’s experiences illustrate the contradictions of an urban school culture in which technology was used less to enhance teaching and learning and more to extensively police students and enforce zero tolerance policies. This contradiction led Carol to attempt to strategically carve out opportunities for technology integra- tion while being mindful (and fearful) of surveillance and zero tolerance policies in her school. Carol’s story illuminates the ways in which NYC HS’s school culture, marked by surveillance, scrutiny, and fear, inhibited technology integration in the classroom. Moreover, her experi- ence raises concerns about school culture and equity, and calls for educators and researchers to reframe the questions that are being asked about technology integra- tion. We must begin to formulate a clearer understanding of technology use (or non- use) in urban schools and the impact of inequitable technology integration on the education of urban students.

New York City High School: A Culture of Surveillance-Spectacle

New York City High School, the site of this research, was a large comprehen- sive school in a working class neighbor- hood in New York City (NYC). In the 2004-05 school year, it was one of only sixteen high schools labeled as an “Impact school.”4 The student body consisted pri- marily of African American and Latino students with small populations of Asian and White students. Nearly one fourth of all students were Limited English Proficient, and approximately 80% of stu- dents were eligible for free or reduced lunch. The school had a 39.5% graduation

rate, met only 2 out of 7 of its AYP cat- egory goals, and was on its 8th principal in 12 years. In addition to the numerous “at risk” markers which made the school as a whole the subject of pervasive scrutiny from the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE), the school was marked by unfortunate race-related violence between two ethnic groups of students that, in 2003, earned the school a catchy and disparaging nickname in the local media. This press coverage drew the attention of a local Congressman who bolstered his law-and-order re-election using NYC HS as an example of the need for safe schools5.

The culture of NYC HS could be accu- rately described by the term “surveillance- spectacle” (Vinson & Ross, 2003). In NYC HS the students were observed by security guards and police officers via security technologies in the hallways. The school as a whole was a media spec- tacle for the general public via published reports of students’ test scores and media coverage of school violence. In practice, the culture of surveillance-spectacle led to the stationing of an additional fourteen armed police officers in the school, and the entire school building was wired with live-feed security cameras. Students were subjected to bag searches, X-rays, I.D. card scanning, and daily walks through metal detectors. Printed signs on hallway walls announced that students must dis-

despite [an] enormous investment in surveillance

technologies, technology for

teaching and learning was largely

unavailable.

RADICAL TEACHER • NUMBER 9018

play their I.D. cards whenever requested by security personnel. Even though teach- ers were afforded a higher level of author- ity than students, they, too, were subjects of surveillance. When clocking in and out in the mornings and afternoons, teachers were required to place their hands on a biometric time clock. This time clock scanned their fingerprints, document- ing when they entered and exited the building. Teachers were also routinely subjected to unannounced observations of their classrooms. Technology was seam- lessly integrated into the school’s surveil- lance and security procedures. Students and teachers felt constantly monitored while in the school’s hallways. Despite this enormous investment in surveillance technologies, technology for teaching and learning was largely unavailable.

Carol’s Story: Integrating Technology Amidst a Culture of Fear

Carol is a native of Brooklyn, New York, who first began working for the NYC DOE as an ELL (English Language Learner) teacher in the 1980s during the New York City teacher’s shortage. At that time, the city filled empty faculty positions with people who had college degrees, but not necessarily teacher’s cer- tification. Once the shortage was over, the city began “excessing” (laying off) unlicensed teachers. Carol lost her teach- ing position and began working for a company owned by her brother, special- izing in moving services for businesses and corporations. While her job was primarily in sales, she also sometimes served as the immediate supervisor to the movers who worked for her brother. After the September 11th tragedy, her brother’s business, which relied heavily on moving

furniture into and out of offices in and around the World Trade Center, began to decline. In response to the shifting eco- nomic landscape, Carol decided to get her teaching certification and begin working for the NYC DOE once again.

In the Spring of 2003, Carol was assigned to a position at NYC HS. Carol’s experiences working in the moving busi- ness and re-entering the DOE played a role in her goals as an educator, and in her desire to use computers with her students. For Carol, traditional literacy was not the only skill students should be acquir- ing in her class. She was very conscious of the need to prepare students for the economic realities beyond high school. In her words, “Real world application, that’s something that I keep up front for my students, and a lot of that comes from having worked so closely with the movers, who I know didn’t function well in high school.” Since many of the movers Carol worked with were high school dropouts or had diplomas but did not go on to college, Carol saw a potential correlation between her literacy students and the movers in the moving business. In NYC HS, liter- acy students (as compared to their higher achieving peers) had a greater risk of not finishing high school, of not going on to college, or, if they did attend college, of being poorly prepared. To Carol, a good literacy teacher was someone who had aspirations for all her students to go on to college, but who also prepared them for entering the job market. As she explained, “[by] integrating the literature with the technology, then I can really feel like I’m working to my maximum capacity as an English teacher. ‘Cause I can see how we can use technology for the business world, and now [I want] to find a way to put them together—English with the

NUMBER 90 • RADICAL TEACHER 19

business world.” However, in Carol’s school, while tech-

nology was consistently used for surveil- lance, it was not often used for teaching and learning. This stood in contrast to the ways in which technology is used in the business world, where technological know-how regarding email, laptops, and handheld devices is essential for quickly and clearly processing and disseminat- ing information in a professional man- ner. Students with high school diplomas who decide to enter into the workforce without first going to college would ben- efit from learning computing skills that Carol sought to teach them, like word processing, creating PowerPoint presenta- tions, and creating web pages. Acquiring these skills could provide students with opportunities for entry-level office work for which Carol’s movers would not have been qualified. Students who decided to enter the job market right after high school without needing additional train- ing in technology use might have a com- petitive advantage over peers who did not have these types of skills.

In NYC HS, technology integration for teaching and learning was almost non- existent. Students were not permitted to bring any electronic devices into the school, and X-rays and metal detectors were seamlessly integrated to enforce this policy. In daily practice, technology use was separated from regular classwork. Even though every classroom had been wired for Internet access under Project Connect (Carless, 2008), most classrooms did not have a single computer, let alone enough to use with all students during instruction. The school had three mobile laptop carts, one for each floor of the building, with 20 computers on each cart. However, these were often unavailable for

use on a daily basis because one cart was shared by ten teachers. Most computers available for daily use were housed in the computer lab. For Carol, this meant travelling with her students to and from the lab each time she wanted the students to use the computers. Relocating the learning environment was time consum- ing. It also meant Carol had to contend with the surveillance technology and zero tolerance policies in the school’s hallways. Contrary to what computer to student ratios and Internet availability statistics indicated, technology was not integrated into NYC HS in the same way that it would be in a more affluent school. In fact, the one way that technology was seamlessly integrated—as a means of sur- veillance—had a negative impact on the use of technologies for learning because it served as a deterrent from relocating the learning environment.

Many of Carol’s literacy students had a history of chronic lateness and exces- sive absence. Several had previously been suspended or arrested, and many were repeating this course for the second or third time. Carol’s students were stigma- tized and closely scrutinized by school administration and security personnel. Going to the computer lab meant moving her students outside the safety of her class- room and into the hallways where surveil- lance was a pressing concern. Carol was always mindful of the students’ behavior and consistently fearful that they would end up in confrontations with school authorities that could result in severe consequences. As she explained, “if they were to run into a security guard, I hate to think of what could happen.” There was always a chance that students would wind up being suspended or arrested if they had a run-in with security or school police.

RADICAL TEACHER • NUMBER 9020

Consequently, technology became an “add-on” in which students were brought to the lab to type papers or cre- ate end-of-term projects like slideshows or web pages. Occasionally, they used the lab for Internet research. Despite Carol’s desire to integrate technology, the class’s computer use was infrequent. During the 2004-05 school year when I worked most closely with Carol, she took the students to the lab 1-2 times per week (4-8 times per month) for 40 minutes each time. During a follow-up interview with her in the winter of 2005, she told me that her class was only visiting the lab once or twice a month.

Carol was acutely aware of the con- stant surveillance in the hallways (human and technology-assisted) as she endeav- ored to bring her students to the lab to work on the computers. Since Carol’s class spanned two periods, she had the advantage of extra time that she and the students could use for computer work. During the first half of the class, she and her students would follow their scripted curriculum in her classroom, and during the second half of the class, she would allow the students to use the computers. What struck me on the first day that I observed Carol’s class was the routine that she had devised to counter the surveil- lance culture of the school and corral the students safely to the computer lab. When the bell rang for the rest of the school to change classes, Carol’s class stayed put. Once the hallways had cleared, Carol asked the paraprofessional assigned to assist a special needs student in the class to go down the hall and unlock the computer lab. Next, Carol served as a gatekeeper by having the students line up as she stood at the doorway. She handed each student a floppy disc before he or she

left the room to go to the lab. She did this slowly, and she called the students not in the order the discs were in, but in her own not-quite-random order. Once the last of the students had left, Carol and I followed them down to the lab.

While floppy discs were beginning to phase out in 2004, Carol’s use of the antiquated technology is notable because it indicates her ingenuity in a) responding to her students’ need for private storage for their work in an affordable manner, and b) utilizing these items to structure students’ activity in the high-surveillance hallway between the classroom and the computer lab. Students were not provided with any form of private or portable stor- age by the school, and most could not afford to purchase their own materials. Yet, private and portable space in the computer lab was essential because, as Carol had learned the hard way, students’ work would often be lost or corrupted when saved on the computers’ hard drives. Because there were only 3 computer labs, which housed approximately 35 machines each, the computers were shared by many students in the school. Many of the machines were older, temperamental, and in various states of disrepair. Machines often had viruses or corrupted hard drives, and there was always the risk that students from other classes might delete or tamper with Carol’s students’ files if

on paper, carol’s school was fully wired for

internet access in every classroom, and there was a 5:1 student to computer ratio...yet, when examined

ethnographically, in nyc hs technology was not often

integrated into learning

NUMBER 90 • RADICAL TEACHER 21

they were saved onto the computers’ hard drives. Ultimately, without private porta- ble storage there were no guarantees that Carol’s students’ work would be waiting for them the next time they went to the lab, which could be several days later. So Carol supplied her students with portable storage at her own expense. Given that it would have cost more than $200 to provide USB drives6 for the 22 students in the class, floppy discs, while limited because of the much smaller amount of memory, were the most affordable way to meet the students’ needs.

Yet, the students’ floppy discs were not merely used for saving the students’ work. Carol also decided to use the discs as a means of structuring the activity that took place as students were moving through the halls from her room to the computer lab. When Carol called each student’s name and handed him or her the floppy disc, she was in effect giving the student permission to proceed down the hall to the computer lab. Carol controlled the order in which the students left, and in doing so she ensured that certain stu- dents would not converge in the hallway and talk to each other. This was purpose- ful because she did not want the students to make too much noise and draw the attention of school personnel. Using one student as an example, she explained, “The last thing I want is for a security guard to ask Akeem why he’s in the hall, because I know him. He would tell the guard to f *** off, and that would be the end of Akeem. He wouldn’t even make it into the lab.” Carol’s fear of surveil- lance and confrontation predisposed her to being a gatekeeper and rule enforcer while simultaneously being a student pro- tector. In Carol’s view, the potential costs (run-ins with security and/or judgmental

gazes from other school staff) of moving the class to the computer lab could out- weigh the benefits the class would receive from using the computers in their learn- ing. Carol was fearful of how her students might be treated by other faculty or secu- rity personnel if her students were rowdy in the hall. Furthermore, as a literacy teacher who was exposed to frequent sur- veillance and scrutiny herself within the school, Carol was also concerned about how her students’ behavior in the hallway would reflect upon her as a teacher. As she explained, “it could make me look like I’m not doing my job. Like, ‘Oh there goes Ms. Ameno’s class again; they’re always out of control.’”

In Carol’s school, where teachers (and particularly literacy teachers) were often watched and reprimanded, this fear of scrutiny was very real. As a new teacher, Carol felt particularly vulnerable. “Just recently,” she explained, “I was teaching a class, and in walk these people from the Department of Ed to do an observation, and it was only October! . . . You know, sometimes I’m happy if I can just get [the students] all in their seats at the same time. And so I felt like this was the worst lesson I’d ever taught.” Rules concerning silence and orderly conduct were part of the culture of zero-tolerance in Carol’s school. This was reinforced with unan- nounced classroom observations, surveil- lance technologies, and security personnel in the hallways. On several occasions, Carol told me of her concerns about pro- viding her students with a “safe” learning environment where they could express themselves. In her words, “they don’t have to get any great epiphany from the learning, but [I want them to understand] that [this room] is a kind and gentle place within the building.” Carol’s thoughts

RADICAL TEACHER • NUMBER 9022

about safety are striking: students didn’t need to have an epiphany from learning as long as they understood that her class- room was a “safe” and “gentle” place. Her words and actions illustrate her awareness that feelings of being unsafe in school impact what happens in the classroom. Ironically, Carol’s concern about safety stemmed from a fear of surveillance and zero tolerance policies that were supposed to ensure a safe school. The unfortunate byproduct was a feeling of being unsafe, which often trumped meaningful learn- ing with technology.

Implications: Access and Inequity in Context

Decreasing national student-to-com- puter ratios and apparently prolific tech- nology use in society masks the realities of technology availability, access, and inte- gration in urban schools like NYC HS. On paper, Carol’s school was fully wired for Internet access in every classroom, and there was a 5:1 student to computer ratio. The principal at the time proudly told me about the technology initiatives at the school and made a point of inviting me to the Project Fair, a school-wide event fund- ed by Project Connect which showcased students’ project-based learning across all subject areas. Yet, when examined ethno- graphically, in NYC HS technology was not often integrated into learning except in instances when PowerPoint was used as a lecture tool or on occasions when teach- ers like Carol made special trips to the computer lab with their classes. Even the Project Fair, which was devised for the purpose of showcasing technology inte- gration, featured student work that was done almost exclusively without technolo- gy. For example, one class project featured

a large paper patchwork quilt comprised of short essays written and illustrated by students. For another class, students wrote and illustrated stories and then wrapped them around cardboard cereal boxes. Other classes used traditional tri- fold poster boards and decorated them by using markers and construction paper. Aside from Carol, whose students created PowerPoint presentations about the Civil Rights movement, one other teacher used technology to create a short video. The ways in which NYC HS students were learning with computers (if at all) was likely quite different from those of more advantaged peers in Whiter and wealthier schools. The ways in which technology was used for “safety” and surveillance was also likely quite different than in Whiter and wealthier schools.

Carol’s story took place in 2004-05, but in my continued work with urban teachers and students, I see similar stories even as I write this in 2010. For example, in Urban High School, a small school in Boston, MA where I am currently doing research, there are three computer labs, each housing about 30 outdated and run-down machines. Only one lab is available for the entire school to use; the other two are assigned to the Business teachers (Kress, forthcoming). The lab does not have enough paper for students to print their work. The Business teach- ers share a toner cartridge for both of the lab’s printers; a student runs the cartridge down the hallway when the other class needs to print out work. In this school, like in NYC HS, technology availability and access continue to be insufficient and inequitable. Insufficient funding is a com- mon excuse for not integrating technology into urban schools; however, Carol’s story illustrates that the shortage of technology

NUMBER 90 • RADICAL TEACHER 23

for teaching and learning in NYC HS, whether we are referring to computers in classrooms or USB drives, was not simply a matter of funding. There was ample funding for integrating surveillance tech- nology in order to police students and monitor faculty, yet by the time of my last communication with Carol in 2006, the school still had not provided her with a single computer in her classroom. This contradiction illustrates a willing- ness to fund certain types of technology integration in this school and for these students. Namely, funding was available when technology was integrated as a means of control, but it was not available for teaching and learning.

If we truly wish to bring about equity in education and technology integration, we need to begin by changing the questions we ask about what comprises equitable education and technology access. For instance, we might begin by asking, “what lengths must urban teachers and students go to in order to access and use technol- ogy?” Or, “what is it like to try to integrate technology in a school that feels unsafe because of pervasive ‘gazing’ practices of administration and school security?” And, furthermore, “what does it mean when technology for learning in urban schools is unavailable or antiquated, but technology for policing is plentiful and cutting edge?” Carol’s story teaches us that rather than asking availability ques- tions about student-to-computer ratios and Internet connections, we need to redirect our inquiries toward the actual lived experiences of students and teachers and reveal how school culture and policies impact, for better or worse, teaching and learning with and without technology.

References Carless, J. (2008). 21st Century Teaching Tools Engage Students and Expand the Boundaries of Learning. News @ Cisco. Retrieved from http://newsroom.cisco. com/dlls/2008/ts_011408b.html.

Carvin, A. (2006). The Gap. School Library Journal, 52(3), 70-72.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Farrell, E. (2005). “Among Freshmen, a Growing Digital Divide.” Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(22), A32.

Gándara, P. & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed Social Policies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the Chal- lenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound. org/site/c.enJ LKQN lFiG/ b. 210 8773/ a p p s / n l / c o n t e n t 2 . a s p ? c o n t e n t _ i d = { C D 9 1 1 5 7 1 - 0 2 4 0 - 4 7 1 4 - A 9 3 B - 1D0C07C7B6C1}&notoc=1.

Kafer, K. (2002). Education Sta- tistics. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from ht tp://w w w.her i- t a g e . o r g /r e s e a r c h /r e p o r t s / 2 0 0 2 / 0 8 / education-statistics#13.

Kress, T. (forthcoming). “Singing a Differ- ent Tune: An Auto/ethnographic Journey Into and Out of the Land of Educational Technology.” In Tobin, K. & Shady, A. (Eds.) Transforming Urban Education: Collaborating to Produce Success in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Kvasny, L. and Keil, M. (2006). “The Challenges of Redressing the Digi- tal Divide: A Tale of Two U.S. Cities.”

RADICAL TEACHER • NUMBER 9024

Information Systems Journal, Vol.16. No. 1, 23-53. Retrieved from http://ist.psu.edu/ f a c u lt y_ p a g e s / l k v a s ny/publ ic at ions . html.

Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom. New York: Random House.

Parsad, B., & Jones, J. (2005). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Class- rooms: 1994–2003 (NCES 2005–015). U.S. Department of Education. Washing- ton, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/ pubs2007/2007020.pdf.

Vinson, K. D. & Ross, E. W. (2003). “Controlling Images.” In Saltman, K. J. & Gabbard, D. A. (Eds.) Education As Enforcement: The Militarization and Corpo- ratization of Schools. New York: Routledge Falmer. 241-257.

Notes 1 All names have been fictionalized to preserve confidentiality.

2 NYC High School is no longer in operation. Due to chronic underper-

formance and underenrollment, it was restructured several years before the pub- lication of this article.

3 The first and last names of all par- ticipants as well as the name of the school have been fictionalized to preserve confidentiality.

4 Impact schools were identified by Mayor Michael Bloomberg for their higher number of criminal incidents and suspen- sions and lower attendance rates. These schools also happened to have higher rates of poverty, greater numbers of students of color, and lower graduation rates. Impact schools were provided additional school security, armed police officers, and security technology including metal detectors, I.D. scanners, X-ray machines, and live-feed video surveillance cameras in the hallways.

5 Media coverage and citations with- held to preserve confidentiality of the school site and research participants.

6 In 2004 USB drives were just begin- ning to become popular, but they were still not very affordable, ranging from $10 to $20 for 256M of storage.

G IG

I G

R A

to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,

users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.