Upload
brad-mitchell
View
172
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this qualitative research project is to understand how a rural high school in a high-poverty area develops educational technology policies. The researchers espouse a critical worldview in which they are interested in issues of power and marginalization related to the policy-planning process and, ultimately, access for students (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). In keeping with a political perspective, the researchers are using Cervero and Wilson's (1994) critical viewpoint on planning as the theoretical framework for this study.
Citation preview
Running head: CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 1
Dialogue, Democracy, Freedom, and Social Justice: Critical Planning in Educational Policy
Brad S. Mitchell, Teresa D. Nash, and Lisa A. Street
University of Missouri
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 2
The process of creating a policy is often seen as an established set of duties that result in
the development of a new program or set of curriculum. What is often overlooked, however, is
that planning requires developers to “define needs, use needs to set objectives, use objectives to
select content, select teaching strategies to meet the objectives and deliver the content, and
evaluate the results” (Wilson & Cervero, 2010, p. 81).
The purpose of this team's qualitative research project is to understand how a rural high
school in a high-poverty area develops educational technology policies. The researchers espouse
a critical worldview in which they are interested in issues of power and marginalization related
to the policy-planning process and, ultimately, access for students (Creswell, 2009; Merriam,
2009). In keeping with a political perspective, the researchers are using Cervero and Wilson's
(1994) critical viewpoint on planning as the theoretical framework for this study.
Primary data analyzed in this case study consists of two months of observations, focus
group and personal interviews, school site visits and various artifacts such as committee agendas
and minutes. This paper begins with a discussion of the theoretical framework and
accompanying literature that bounded the study. Following a detailed description of the study’s
methods, the findings show how this school’s planning work reflects the four principles of
critical planning in numerous ways. The discussion then assesses how the findings relate to
broader ideas about policy planning, including future implications for practice concerning
educational technology planning efforts.
Research Question
Using Cervero and Wilson’s (1994) critical viewpoint on planning, how does the
committee foster dialogue, promote democracy, further individual freedom, and advance social
justice during policy development?
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 3
Theoretical Framework
This study began with the intent to assist one of the researchers in her school’s policy
formation and rollout of a Bring Your Own Device (B.Y.O.D.) program. Once a research topic
was settled upon, the researchers realized that they needed a lens through which to view the
policy-planning stage of the B.Y.O.D. program. Cervero and Wilson’s (1994) critical viewpoint
on planning was the overarching framework through which this study was conducted.
Cervero and Wilson (1994) state that planning is “inherently a social, political, and
ethical activity” (p. 24). While this approach is slightly abstract, the research group has
identified four specific principles to the critical viewpoint on planning: (a) fostering dialogue, (b)
promoting democracy, (c) furthering individual freedom, and (d) advancing social justice
(Cervero & Wilson, 1994). Each of these principles also has a number of fundamental
characteristics that aid in their definitions, as seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Critical Viewpoint on Planning. This figure clarifies the four principles of the critical
viewpoint on planning, as well as the fundamental characteristics of each principle.
Fostering Dialogue • Ask ques3ons • Listen ac3vely • Seek/provide construc3ve feedback
Promo3ng Democracy • Share decision making • Represent all • Operate transparently
Furthering Individual Freedom • Grant equal rights • Respect basic liber3es • Offer equal opportuni3es
Advancing Social Jus3ce • Distribute resources equitably • Promote full and equal par3cipa3on • Provide safety and security
Cri3cal Viewpoint on Planning
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 4
Fostering Dialogue
Effectiveness in communication relies on a successful combination of factors among the
message sender, the message receiver, and the message itself (Levi, 2014). In the context of
planning, developers tend to make judgments regarding dialogue and the situational reality in
which any dialogue takes place upon “organizational politics, historical precedents, and the
conflicting intentions of all involved in the planning” (Cervero & Wilson, 1994, p. 25). This
means that the majority of dialogue happening during the planning process is intended to seek
feedback and solve problems (Levi, 2014; Rees, 2001).
Levi (2014) outlines four basic communication skills that should be present for all teams:
asking questions, listening actively, giving constructive feedback, and managing feelings. Open-
ended questions are important for dialogue concerning planning, as they encourage discussion,
which can then lead to further developments (Levi, 2014; Rees, 2001). Active listening
promotes further discussion through providing feedback to the sender, with an overall goal of
improving communication (Levi, 2014). Constructive feedback is also very important in the
planning process, as it allows for improvement among planners and can lead to furthering
democracy, social justice, and individual freedom (Levi, 2014; Wilson & Cervero, 2010).
Promoting Democracy
Education, like most professional settings, involves distinctive relationships among
various inter-organizations, stakeholders, and issues of power, and the negotiations among these
various interests (Wilson & Cervero, 2010). Wilson & Cervero (2010) believe that there are four
basic concepts that structure how the planning process takes place: “power, interests, negotiation,
and the ethical commitment to democratic principles” (p. 83). All participants in the planning
process are involved in some type of power compromise based upon their professional position
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 5
and how they interact with others, as well as the particular interests brought forward during
planning by everyone involved (Wilson & Cervero, 2010).
Because power and interests are key to any planning, it is especially important for
planners to commit to fundamental democratic participation of all members of an organization in
the decision-making process (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Levi, 2014; Wilson & Cervero, 2010). To
ensure the effective sharing of decision making, transparency and accountability must be present
during the planning process (Levi, 2014; Wilson & Cervero, 2010). The third component of
promoting democratic participation is the concept of cooperative planning, or ensuring that the
group planning a policy is representative of all participants; this is to ensure participation by all
members through the sharing of responsibility in making final decisions (Bolman & Deal, 2008;
Levi, 2014; Wilson & Cervero, 2010).
Furthering Individual Freedom
Individual freedom is based on the concept that all persons have an equal right to the
broadest system of basic liberties congruent with a similar system of liberties for others (Rawls,
1999). It is imperative that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are
both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and
offices open to all” (Rawls, 1999, p. 53). In relation to the planning process, developers must
ensure that their policies grant equal rights to all participants, respect basic liberties, and offer
equal opportunities to all (Rawls, 1999; Wilson & Cervero, 2010).
In the creation of educational policy relating to students, a reasonable definition of
differences in position or income must be addressed during the planning phase; this is to ensure
that any disadvantages of position do not infringe on any participants, or rather, if found to be
present, can be acted upon to create emancipation for those who are underprivileged (Cervero &
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 6
Wilson, 1994; Rawls, 1999). Rawls (1999) also states, “a distribution of goods … is inefficient
when there are ways of doing still better for some individuals without doing any worse for
others” (p. 58). Granting all participants who are utilizing goods, such as a group of students
using a piece of technology in class, will ensure equal rights and opportunities and increase the
satisfaction of the entire group (Rawls, 1999).
Advancing Social Justice
Cervero and Wilson (1994) stress that educators are not able to make ideal decisions
concerning planning until they understand that the process is closely tied to the inequalities in
our society. Bell (1997) states that social justice is:
Full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their
needs. Social justice includes a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is
equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure (p. 3).
Key elements identified as essential to the advancement of social justice include the distribution
of resources in an equitable manner, the promotion of full and equal participation, and providing
physical and psychological safety and security (Bell, 1997; Cervero & Wilson, 1994).
The advancement of social justice in policy planning is also associated with the other
principles of the critical viewpoint on planning, as the attainment of social justice, “should also
be democratic and participatory, inclusive and affirming of human agency and human capacities
for working collaboratively to create change" (Bell, 1997, p. 4). Individuals must be able to
advance their own competences independently from others, therefore, becoming self-determining
individuals who are also capable of cooperating with others in a democratic society (Bell, 1997).
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 7
Research Methods
The research team’s study focused on Cervero and Wilson’s (1994) critical viewpoint on
policy planning in determining how a committee fostered dialogue, promoted democracy,
furthered individual freedom, and advanced social justice in an educational environment. The
researchers conducted an instrumental case study (Merriam, 2009) of one high school's B.Y.O.D.
committee to gain insight and understanding about issues of policy planning for educational
technology through a critical research lens. In this section, the researchers introduce the case
study setting and review their research methods including the design, site selection, sampling,
reflexivity, data collection, and analysis.
Case Study Setting
Hashtag High School (a pseudonym) is a small, rural school district in southwest
Missouri with an enrollment of 430 students in grades 9-12. Within the last few years, budget
cuts and reduction in staff have been necessary. Additionally, Hashtag High School is a high-
poverty district with a 72% free/reduced lunch rate (I1). Within the last three years, students at
the district's middle school level increased access to technology through an eMints grant. This
grant provided student computers and a SmartBoard within each classroom; however, this grant
was not available at the high school level. As students entered high school, access to technology
decreased. Hashtag High School has looked for opportunities to increase technology, but cannot
fund the new trend of 1:1 ratio of students to computers. The Hashtag Board of Education
expressed a desire to increase technology through a B.Y.O.D. program that would allow students
to bring their personal devices to use in the classroom for educational purposes and challenged
Hashtag High School to design a B.Y.O.D. policy to begin the process. Given this directive, the
Hashtag High School principal addressed the school's leadership team, comprised of department
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 8
heads and professional learning community leaders, and assembled a subcommittee of volunteers
to serve on the B.Y.O.D. planning committee.
Design
This qualitative case study used grounded theory and ethnographic approaches through
the analysis of observations, interviews, and site visits to support these indicators. Creswell
(2014) defines grounded theory as a sociological inquiry in which a researcher derives an
abstract theory through process, action, and interaction grounded in participant perceptions.
Through this process, there are multiple sources of data that provide evidence to the findings
within a study. The overall purpose is to understand how people interpret their experiences,
construct their worlds, and attribute to their experiences (Merriam, 2009). Ethnography is a
sociological inquiry in which a researcher studies patterns of behavior, language, and actions
within a cultural group over a prolonged period of time (Creswell, 2014). Merriam (2009) noted
that ethnography focuses on beliefs, values, and attitudes that structure behavioral patterns within
a specific group. Data collection is derived from primarily observations and interviews.
Through componential analysis (Spradley, 1980) of this data, the research team created a
paradigm to identify categories within the indicators.
Site Selection
The case study's bounded system (Merriam, 2009) is delimited to the B.Y.O.D.
committee at Hashtag High School, the primary study setting. Researchers toured the site and
observed interactions among B.Y.O.D. committee members during meetings at Hashtag High
School. The B.Y.O.D. committee was researching policies from other districts and observing
teachers within other rural high school settings. The committee conducted two site visits at
other, comparable high schools; researchers accompanied the committee to observe their
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 9
interactions. The other site visit settings were observations of high school classrooms and
interviews of high school teachers at two different locations: Mashburn High School and
Pleasantville High School (also pseudonyms). During the site visits, various classrooms of
grades 9-12 were observed to gain knowledge and understanding of current practices regarding
technology policy planning and implementation. Interviews were conducted to gain teacher
perspectives on how marginalization was decreased or eliminated with student access to
technology.
This site and topic were selected based upon a current issue, funding educational
technology, which is affecting many school districts in low socioeconomic areas. Education
researchers have the professional and scientific responsibility to their communities and fields of
work to apply and share their scholarly knowledge for the public good (American Educational
Research Association, 2011). The findings and implications of practice in this area will assist
other school districts in policy planning.
Participant Sampling
Hashtag High School’s B.Y.O.D. committee consisted of seven teachers (two female
English teachers, one male math teacher, one female fine arts teacher, one female science
teacher, one male social studies teacher, and one female technology instructor), the building
principal, and the building assistant principal. Due to classroom space limitations at the site
visits, only five of those members were selected randomly and attended site visits and
observations: the building principal, two English teachers, one technology instructor, and one
math teacher. Because the researchers were planning to observe the site visits, this subgroup of
the B.Y.O.D. committee served as the participant sample for the study's interviews and focus
group by the research team (see Appendix A).
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 10
Reflexivity and Researcher Positioning
There were three researchers in this qualitative study. Two of the researchers were
considered as outside researchers. Both of these researchers had experience in the higher
education field with only one of them having an extensive background in technology. The other
researcher was an inside researcher and served as a complete participant. Within Merriam’s
(2009) definition of a complete participant role, there is an ethical question of not disclosing the
purpose of the researcher’s role. According to Creswell (2014), deception occurs when the
purpose of the study is not disclosed. Therefore, deception could be perceived if participants do
not fully understand the role of the researcher. All participants should be aware of the purpose of
the research, the role of the researcher, and any other pertinent information regarding the case
study. According to Merriam (2009), the researcher tries to participate, but also tries to stay
detached in order to observe and analyze. As the leader and facilitator of this subcommittee, it
was difficult at times for the researcher to separate these roles.
Data Collection
The research team developed a list of artifacts that would support findings within the case
study. Each artifact was delegated to a member of the research team. Artifacts were carefully
selected for the researcher who served in the role as participant observer, especially since this
researcher served as the participant sample's immediate supervisor. The research team used
participant observation field notes, interviews, focus group transcripts, and other artifacts to
support the case study (see Appendix B). The researchers developed an identification system to
categorize and organize their data sources and use these identifiers throughout the study's
findings to indicate sources of information (see Appendix C).
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 11
During observations, the research team maintained an observer role. The focus of the
observations was the content of the committee’s questions and how they responded to Hashtag
High School teachers (see Appendix D). Committee members’ participation and engagement
with other teachers were documented and analyzed within field notes. In an attempt to eliminate
bias and maintain focus, the research team members documented their own thoughts and feelings
within brackets on these documents. There were a total of six observations conducted in three
different settings and involved a focus group meeting, visits to other school districts, and a tour
of Hashtag High School.
Additionally, researchers conducted three interviews. The Hashtag High School principal
interview (see Appendix E) and the B.Y.O.D. committee focus group (see Appendix F) were
conducted by outside researchers. These interviews provided insights to the perceptions of the
participating principal and the committee regarding policy planning. The inside researcher did
not participate in or attend the focus group interview to help avoid influence and bias. The
technology director interview (see Appendix G) was conducted by the inside researcher and was
considered valid since the technology director did not perceive the researcher as his direct
supervisor. Participant consent forms are provided in Appendices H and I.
Data Analysis
Coding is the process of making notations next to important information that could be
relevant to answering research questions (Merriam, 2009). Within the case study, the researchers
identified four themes that support Cervero and Wilson’s (1994) critical viewpoint in policy
planning: (a) fostering dialogue, (b) promoting democracy, (c) furthering individual freedom, (d)
and advancing social justice. The researchers developed definitions for each of these areas using
key phrases that would indicate one of the themes (see Figure 1).
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 12
Within field notes, each researcher coded two sets of field notes and a transcription using
open coding. While reading through these documents, the researchers identified specific themes
and indicated those themes within the margins of the documents. These codes were merged into
a master list to support research questions. After looking over each document at least twice, the
researchers used focused coding to make connections to the four principles and to identify any
emerging subthemes. Discussion and collaboration among researchers assisted in triangulating
data and identifying the subthemes within supporting documents.
Findings
In this section, the researchers describe how the committee develops policy for
educational technology at Hashtag High School. To demonstrate the B.Y.O.D. committee's
policy-planning efforts, the researchers present examples that emerged during the case study
process to analyze patterns that reflect the four areas of critical planning: (a) fostering dialogue,
(b) promoting democracy, (c) furthering individual freedom, and (d) advancing social justice. As
these findings demonstrate, the committee's policy-planning process illustrates the four
principles of critical planning in various ways.
Fostering Dialogue
Seeking feedback and asking questions are tremendous strengths of the B.Y.O.D
committee. Members actively seek information about educational technology uses and policies
through multiple venues: through site visits at comparable school districts, professional
conferences, and peer-to-peer contacts. The committee conducted site visits at two comparable
high schools in their region to learn about other districts' technology programs and policies. To
prepare for the site visits, the committee developed a question guide (A1), itself demonstrating
the group's commitment to dialoguing with other educators. Crafted as open-ended queries, the
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 13
site visit questions elicit information such as numbers of technology classrooms, use of specific
devices, security measures, and teacher training. During the site visits, committee members'
communication, both verbal and nonverbal, demonstrate inquisitiveness that welcomes dialogue,
input, and feedback. In addition to the question guide, members posed both follow-up and
probing questions to their host faculty. Off-list questions included inquiry about classroom
alignment, ideal class sizes, and lessons learned, such as "If you had an ideal class size, what
would that be?" and "What are some of the biggest concerns that you have had starting this
program?" along with "What would you do differently?" (O1). Committee members were highly
engaged in the conversations, with all handwriting notes during the conversations (O1; O2b) and
showing signs of active listening such as nodding heads in assent and maintaining eye contact
(O1). All members posed questions, though in varying degrees of verbal participation.
Conducting site visits requires support for dialogue and openness to external ideas at an
administrative level as well, for it requires planning and entails expenses. Hashtag's High
School's principal, who leads the B.Y.O.D. committee, displays value for open dialogue when
she planned and coordinated the site visits and authorized use of resources for traveling (I1).
Committee member Sabrina, a business and technology teacher, describes conducting site visits
as "the best thing that we've done so far...We have gathered information from a lot of different
sources to create one [an educational technology policy] that will fit for Hashtag" (FG1b).
Additionally, committee members cite new learning through attendance at professional
conferences as important opportunities for gathering information about educational technology
uses and policies (FG1b). During the focus group, teachers Debbie, Katrina, and Sabrina
identify trainings and conferences as important opportunities for dialoging about educational
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 14
technology. Sabrina attended the South by Southwest Conference, the renowned music and film
festival and educational innovation conference held annually in Texas. She shares:
And so, just talking to those people [other educators] and listening to their panel
discussions about things that work for their school, things that don't, was a good way to
collect information because, I mean, in my mind, I think if they can do it at this scale, I'm
pretty sure that we can do it, you know, here at Hashtag. So, that conference was really
good to gather information. (FG1b)
Committee members demonstrate willingness to seek information from outside sources
and make connections with others to assist them in their policy-making efforts. Committee
members regularly ask peers at other districts for copies of their educational technology policies
and inquire about their colleagues' experiences using technology in the classroom (FG1b).
Members describe reaching out to not only the site visit faculty, but to other colleagues in peer-
to-peer interactions. Debbie shares examples of her contacts with colleagues outside the Hashtag
School District, "Well, tell me the good things, tell me the bad things [about your school's
technology program]. Can I have a copy of that [policy document]?" (FG1b). The basis of the
school's written B.Y.O.D. policy was born from such peer-to-peer connections. Katrina relates,
"Somebody sent us a policy, and then we shared it..." (FG1b).
The committee's strong associations with outside networks to gather policy information
signal the emergence of a new subtheme within the idea of fostering dialogue: connect with
outside systems. In their search for information and feedback, committee members are relying
and capitalizing upon both personal and professional connections outside their school district.
Sabrina attends a premier technology conference through her personal connections. Attendance
at this conference would ordinarily be cost prohibitive for the Hashtag school district; however,
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 15
the teacher's expenses are absorbed under her relative's attendance at the conference (FG1b).
Debbie describes gathering policy information through "...personal connections. You know, who
do you know that works at this school or who do you know that works at that other school?"
(FG1b). Hashtag's technology director, Jason, is also connected with outside systems to learn
more about those districts' B.Y.O.D. programs. Jason relates, "I’ve gone to about eight different
meetings, seven classes, and a couple of things that MoreNet has put on for it [B.Y.O.D.
programs]. I’ve visited a school in St. Louis that’s doing it and one up around Kansas City." (I2)
Fostering dialogue is a planning strength for the B.Y.O.D. committee. Through site visits
at comparable schools, peer-to-peer contacts, and conference attendance, committee members
ask questions, listen actively, and seek information about educational technology. In particular,
committee members connect with outside networks of personal and professional contacts to learn
more about educational technology.
Promoting Democracy
The B.Y.O.D. committee promotes democratic ideals through shared decision making
and collaboration in their policy development efforts. Committee members and their leader, the
Hashtag High School principal, describe a shared decision-making style. Dawn, Hashtag's
principal, explains, "...during these meetings, it's just kind of open dialogue, everybody just
trying to share...so they [committee members] feel like they can share ideas or thoughts with
everybody" (I1). Committee members describe "roundtable discussions" during meetings, noting
"We're not following Robert's Rules of Order" or "Yeah, we're not raising our hands and voting,"
along with "There's no parliamentary procedure or something" (FG1b). Even during the
complexities of drafting written policy, the committee exhibits high competency in shared
decision making. Katrina recalls the group's writing process:
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 16
Somebody sent us a policy, and then we shared it on a Google doc, and we all made, we
all picked a color and changed things we thought we should do, and we met back together
as a committee and just fixed it or didn't and went. It was that simple. That was probably
the most simple thing we've done, I think. (FG1b)
Members reveal the lack of formality as a sign of collegiality. Debbie adds, "But we are able to
really, you know, field discussions and, and we can disagree and explain why. So it's been, you
know, a very professional collaboration" (FG1b). Indeed, the committee's strong partnerships
indicate the emergence of a new subtheme of promoting democracy: collaborate with others.
Internally, the B.Y.O.D. committee demonstrates strong collaboration and open, shared
decision making. In contrast, the committee's inclusion of key stakeholders in the policy-making
process is somewhat uneven. It appears that discussions about including other stakeholders
outside the B.Y.O.D committee are sometimes lacking. Student involvement is at a limited
level, but most notable among those missing stakeholders are parents and guardians and reluctant
or resistant teachers.
Hashtag's leadership committee purposefully adopts a student-centered focus during
participation in a SWOT analysis for the B.Y.O.D. project. Directions for the SWOT analysis
include: "As you work through this process, please keep the following in mind: Stay student-
focused. How can this help our students?" (A6). Students, as a stakeholder group, are being
engaged in the policy-making process through survey feedback. The school conducted a
B.Y.O.D. student survey to learn about students' access to technology at home and school, how
students currently use technology at school, and students' feelings on bringing devices to school
(A5). Hashtag's principal, Dawn, notes:
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 17
We've done some surveys within our students to find out how many of them have access
to tech, technology, what types of technology they have access to, if they would be
willing or if their parents would be willing to um, allow them to bring that to school. (I1)
While the committee is including some student feedback in their planning process, they have not
yet formally reached out to parents and guardians.
During the focus group, members discuss parent/guardian resistance as a potential barrier
to B.Y.O.D. policy implementation, but express no plans or need to engage this stakeholder
group into their planning process. Debbie comments, "There could even be the cranky moms [as
an obstacle to implementing the B.Y.O.D. policies]. You're not taking that to school! It'll get
stolen!" (FG1b). Further, parents and guardians might resist the B.Y.O.D. policy because they
expect their taxes to provide fully for students' educational needs without the added expense of
individual technology devices. Debbie anticipates parent and guardian comments about, "I paid
good money for that or my taxes are supposed to be providing for you. So, that's gonna be
another issue" (FG1b). Hashtag's principal recognizes the need to engage parents and guardians
into the B.Y.O.D. discussion. Dawn reflects:
We weren't talking a whole lot with parents yet, and I think that's gonna come whenever
we get our [B.Y.O.D.] proposal out there and we've already got um, the proposal lined up
as far as um, the guidelines and the criteria that they need to meet in order to bring your
device. But I think that's when the parent dialogue is going to begin, is when the parents
have to read through that [policy] with their student and sign off. (I1)
The committee recognizes the need for parent and guardian buy-in for program success.
However, the school's plan is not to engage parents and guardians until implementation. Dawn
continues and explains the eventual plans for reaching out to parents and guardians:
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 18
I think part of what we're gonna be doing with parents in starting a dialogue, and just
kind of getting them adjusted to it, is posting some bring-your-own-device um, You Tube
videos on our school website so that they can kind of start looking at that and that will
just kind of plant the seed for them. (I1)
Committee members recognize the need to educate parents and guardians about B.Y.O.D.
implementation, but they do not conceptualize parents and guardians fully as a stakeholder group
and exclude them from representation in the policy-making process.
B.Y.O.D. committee members either volunteer or are recruited to participate from the
school's leadership committee, which consists of departmental teacher-leaders. Underlying
participation is a willingness to serve in extra capacities outside a teacher's typical job
commitment. The voluntary basis of participation results in the committee membership being
extremely pro-B.Y.O.D and pro-technology minded. During any change process, there are
people who are reluctant or resistant to the changes. Reluctant and resistant teachers comprise
another stakeholder group in the B.Y.O.D. policy-making process. Internally, the B.Y.O.D.
committee demonstrates strong collaboration and networking. However, they are not currently
engaging their reluctant and resistant peers or representing this group's unique needs and
perspectives into the policy-making process. During the focus group conversation, the B.Y.O.D
committee members begin to recognize that including reluctant teachers on their committee
might be wise and helpful for hearing a different, or even dissenting, voice during the policy-
making process. Sabrina notes, "And I think it may not be the best, I don't know, maybe not the
best process to just have volunteers [on the B.Y.O.D. committee] because you're gonna get
volunteers that wanna do it in their classroom" (FG1b). Sabrina continues:
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 19
I think it's important to not only include people that will be using the technology but
people who are afraid of it, because they then can filter the questions that the committee
that is, you know, all for it and excited about it... (FG1b)
As Sabrina raises this topic of engaging resistant colleagues and gaining their representation on
the B.Y.O.D. committee, other focus group members support her comments. Katrina adds:
Maybe nominate a few people that probably wouldn't do it and to help persuade them that
it's gonna be effective and, you know, then also to help filter the questions that we
wouldn't think of like: How do I turn all of those [devices] on? Well, we wouldn't think
of that because it's so simple. (FG1b)
Upon reflection, the committee's strengths of openness, shared decision making, and
collaboration are apparent once again and begin extending--at least conceptually--to the
stakeholder group of reluctant and resistant teachers.
Within the group, the B.Y.O.D committee clearly shares decision making and is highly
collaborative in its policy-making process. Engaging all stakeholders in the policy-planning
process is not readily apparent, however, with students, parents and guardians, and reluctant or
resistant teachers unevenly represented during this phase. Inclusion of other key policy
stakeholders in the planning process is an area for growth for the B.Y.O.D. committee in order to
promote equal representation in educational policy development.
Furthering Individual Freedom
As the committee develops B.Y.O.D. policy, the influence of individual freedom is
evident in the policy's intended outcomes: developing independent student learners and
empowering teachers. An approach offering equal opportunities and respecting basic liberties
for both student and teacher groups is assumed early in the B.Y.O.D. planning process. During
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 20
the SWOT analysis phase, the committee uses this prompt to guide analysis: "What good
opportunities can you recognize for both teachers and students?" (A6).
Developing student skills is a pervasive theme throughout the committee's policy-
planning process. Discussions about B.Y.O.D. benefits for students permeate artifact data such
as meeting agendas, minutes, and other policy documents. In minutes for a committee planning
meeting, the group reviews benefits of B.Y.O.D.: "Prepare students to be successful in a
digitized world. Increase student engagement and motivation" (A4). In the SWOT analysis, the
group identifies student-centered purposes for developing a B.Y.O.D. policy: "Research shows
that technology strengthens student achievement, rigor, and overall student involvement.
Students who do not have access to technology will still learn how to use it" (A6). Further, the
value of developing independent student learners is reflected in the drafted B.Y.O.D. policy:
Today's students need to be able to think critically, collaborate, communicate, and create.
Today's students are digital natives who prefer to access information quickly from
multiple sources. They want to process their own learning through images, sounds, and
videos as well as through text. They prefer to network with others through a variety of
multimedia sources. In embarking on this new educational venture, Hashtag High School
is excited to offer students a Bring Your Own Device pilot program. (A2)
The committee hopes to increase educational freedoms and opportunities for students through the
new educational technology policies.
Hashtag's efforts to further individual freedom are not limited to students; they include
the faculty as well. Committee members expect B.Y.O.D policies to grant teachers greater
control and freedom within their classrooms. Their sense of empowerment derives from two
sources: autonomy from school-based tech support and increased teaching resources. The
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 21
school district employs two technology staff to provide support for all three schools (the
elementary, middle, and high schools), administration, and athletic complexes. Katrina describes
the impact of inadequate tech support in the classroom:
Well, when it comes to getting technology done, we can, we can put a request in. It may
or may not get addressed right away. It may not get addressed at all. We're not the only
building. There's the elementary and middle school. There are two people who do those
things. You just gotta wait. And sometimes it doesn't fit in with your lesson plans. And
you just move one. (FG1b)
Committee members anticipate B.Y.O.D. will grant teachers greater flexibility to troubleshoot
technology problems or overcome resource deficiencies. With students' own devices, Sabrina
notes there will be no "locked down [devices] with passwords..." (FG1b). A business and
technology teacher with her own classroom-based computer lab, Sabrina continues:
It'll be more control of your own classroom ...The things that we can help students with
are: This is how you access this. This is how you troubleshoot this device...Teachers
will feel like they have more--Empowered in their classroom." (FG1b)
Committee members embrace the increased freedom, and responsibility, in anticipation of the
B.Y.O.D. program. Debbie asserts, "It's my responsibility in my room to make it work" (FG1b).
Along with empowerment over classroom technologies, teachers anticipate increased
creativity, freedom, and resources, as they adapt lessons and teaching methods to utilize
B.Y.O.D. creatively, efficiently, and effectively. Jeff, who already has a computer-based
classroom as a math teacher, offers a preview for teachers:
So I have a set of computers in my room, and we use them every day in my math classes.
So, the bring-your-own-device is gonna be good because I don't have enough for all the
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 22
students all the time. But, I've already been able to adapt my lessons for the technology
that I have. So, I'll have to tweak it a little bit, but I'm ahead of the game. (FG1b)
During a site visit at another high school, committee members inquire about teaching techniques
and assignments the site teachers are using (A1; O2b), and more members participate in the site
visit conversation as the topic steers to pedagogy (O2b). For example, Debbie inquired about the
site teachers' "favorite class projects using technology" (O2b). After the site teachers described
innovations in teaching and class projects, Katrina responded with "Awesome!" (O2b).
Inspiring independent student learners and empowering teachers are highly anticipated
components of B.Y.O.D. at Hashtag High School. The B.Y.O.D. policy promises more equitable
educational opportunities for students and teachers alike. Students will have increased exposure
to educational technologies, and teachers will have increased control over their classrooms and
more technology resources for innovative pedagogy.
Advancing Social Justice
The B.Y.O.D. policy-making process is advancing social justice by increasing technology
access for students and distributing resources more equitably. The committee evokes the theme
of mobilizing change with this quotation by John Dewey atop their meeting agenda: "If we teach
today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow” (A4). For the Hashtag school
district, student access to technology and educational resources is certainly a key social justice
issue. In this community, problems of social and economic injustice center around pervasive
regional poverty with 72% of students receiving free or reduced lunch subsidies (FG1b; I1).
Committee members express concerns about students having access to individual electronic
devices for a B.Y.O.D. program. However, they see B.Y.O.D. policies as a means to overcome
social justice obstacles. The district conducted a student survey, and results indicate that
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 23
students already personally own several devices that could be utilized in a B.Y.O.D. program.
For example, 59.9% of respondents own smartphones; 56.1% own laptop computers; 27.8% own
an iPod Touch; 11.8% own iPads; and 30% own devices they categorized in the category of
other (A5). When many students bring their own devices, school resources can then be shifted to
students who do not have personal devices.
Subsidizing devices for students is a topic of frequent discussion, reflected in the group's
SWOT analysis: "Need to increase technology devices to accommodate students who cannot
afford them" (A6). Jason, the technology director, adds:
The decisions we’ve made [for B.Y.O.D. are] based on the financial requirements for the
district and the students because not all students are gonna be able to afford devices, so
we're trying to make sure we had some [devices] on hand to where students who don't
have devices can check 'em out and use 'em so we're trying to...make sure that all
students have access to the technology... (I2)
Sensitivity to the students' needs regarding access to personal devices is strong among the
B.Y.O.D. planners.
Similarly, committee members express concern about the B.Y.O.D. pilot project's
exclusion of smartphones as approved devices (A7). Katrina, who is scheduled to teach a pilot
class, relates that she conducted her own, informal survey of students in her class:
We have been discussing whether to let students bring their smartphones or not. And
we're not going to do it for the piloting program. We're going to hope that they can bring
a tablet or a laptop, something like that. And it-- not all of the students have something.
And so we are going to have to get our local computer labs, mobile labs and bring those
in. Because we don't have a way, until we include smartphones, we won't have every
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 24
student with a device. But, really, every student that I have, if I said: If you could bring
your smartphone? I would-- Everybody in my class would have it. So, and that is, that's
an issue that we are having to hurdle. (FG1b)
The school has insufficient computer lab space or computers located within classrooms for all
students. As Debbie notes during the focus group discussion:
We do have limited resources. Lab space is thin. It changes the way I have to structure
my lessons. I always have to have a back-up of-- If this, you know, if I don't have
enough computer access in the lab, then I got to have this other option for them. In my
classroom right now, I do have eight stand-alone computers. Sometimes they work,
sometimes they don't [sigh]. (FG1b)
The issue of resources becomes evident during a researcher's tour of the high school with the
district's technology director. There are only two stand-alone computer labs, and few classrooms
are equipped with computers or other devices (O3). Katrina explains, "There just aren't enough
computers. Like, there'd be no way we could go 1:1. And there's not enough financial resources
in our district, of course...But, we'll figure it out. That's all part of the process" (FG1b).
Teachers are keenly aware of limited technology resources within their building and district.
Social justice issues related to poverty and access to technology are challenges in the
Hashtag community. Planners see B.Y.O.D. policy as a means for overcoming some of the
obstacles for distributing resources equitably and granting equal access, which promote fuller
student participation in their educational experiences, their communities, and the broader world.
B.Y.O.D. policy will empower students to use their own devices as educational resources, with
the school subsidizing devices for those who cannot afford such expenses.
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 25
Summary of Findings
The research question seeks understanding of how the B.Y.O.D. committee's policy-
planning efforts reflect principles of Cervero and Wilson's (1994) critical viewpoint on planning.
The B.Y.O.D. committee's work reflects the four principles of critical planning in different ways.
First, committee members are strikingly open to dialogue, seeking input and information from
others. Fostering dialogue is a considerable strength of the group, reflected in their practices of
conducting site visits, attending conferences and trainings, and connecting with outside networks
to gain information. The committee promotes democratic ideals in their open and shared
decision-making model. In contrast, their efforts toward representation of all stakeholders are
uneven, with limited outreach to students, parents and guardians, and reluctant or resistant
teachers. Granting opportunities is a significantly moving theme in the B.Y.O.D policy-planning
process, as the committee promotes teacher empowerment and independent student learning.
Issues of social injustice are considerable due to the community's high levels of poverty, which
are directly reflected in shortfalls in school computing resources and student access to
educational technology. B.Y.O.D. planners are using policy-making efforts purposefully to
overcome issues of limited access to technology and educational resources.
Discussion
The B.Y.O.D. committee's policy-planning efforts align with the four areas of critical
planning in varying ways. In this section, the researchers will assess how the findings relate to
broader ideas about policy planning. The discussion will focus, again, on the four principles of
critical planning as they thematically emerged during the case study.
Open dialogue is a central need in effective communication (Levi, 2014). In educational
planning, skills in asking questions, active listening, and providing or receiving feedback become
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 26
important due to the typical focus on problem solving (Cervero & Wilson, 1994; Rees, 2001).
The B.Y.O.D. committee demonstrates exceptional skill in asking questions, seeking
information, and connecting with outside systems for innovative ideas.
Policy making includes the dynamics of power, negotiation, and stakeholders (Bolman &
Deal, 2008; Levi, 2014; Wilson & Cervero, 2010). Ethical planning promotes democratic
principles of sharing decision making, representing all participants, and operating transparently
(Bolman & Deal, 2008; Levi, 2014; Wilson & Cervero, 2010). Within the B.Y.O.D. committee,
the group clearly uses shared, consensus-based decision making. The group's skills in dialogue
and communication are an asset in their shared decision making. In their various policy-making
efforts, the committee has considered the needs of students, parents and guardians, and other
faculty. However, they have not fully engaged these stakeholder groups in the formal policy-
making process. The committee demonstrates high skill in shared decision making and
collaboration, but has focused fewer efforts to ensure representation of all stakeholder groups.
Aligned with democratic ideals in policy-making is the concept of furthering individual
freedom. Educational policy must respect basic liberties and human rights, while offering equal
educational opportunity (Rawls, 1999; Wilson & Cervero, 2010). In the study, a theme of
furthering individual freedom emerges as the committee seeks to develop independent student
learners with increased educational freedoms and opportunity through implementation of the
B.Y.O.D. policy. Increased freedom and empowerment for teachers manifest as well, with more
control over their classrooms, increased teaching resources, and greater autonomy with
educational technology uses.
The inequalities of society are intertwined with educational systems (Bell, 1997; Cervero
& Wilson, 1994). Advancing social justice focuses on the equitable distribution of resources,
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 27
full and equal participation in society, and providing basic safety and security for all (Bell,
1997). A discussion about social justice is particularly meaningful with the case study
community's social and economic inequalities based in pervasive regional poverty. The
committee is using B.Y.O.D. policy to overcome educational and technology inequalities by
providing greater resources for the study body. When students are empowered to bring their own
devices for school use, this frees school-based resources for the students unable to bring their
own. The Hashtag district will provide a safety net by providing devices for students who cannot
afford their own.
Implications for Practice
Use of educational technology in new and creative ways is a popular and rapidly evolving
topic. Educators are regularly planning and implementing new technology policies and
programs. This study offers helpful planning information to practitioners, both instructors and
administrators, at all educational levels. Information can be used to help guide practitioners as
they seek to foster dialogue, promote democracy, further individual freedoms, and advance
social justice in their efforts for educational technology planning. The study demonstrates the
importance of openness in communicating with both internal and external systems, representing
all stakeholder groups in the policy-planning process, empowering students and teachers, and
overcoming inadequate resources related to social injustice.
Limitations and Future Research
Study limitations center on the need for additional time in the field. Due to the
constraints of time and distance, the researchers were unable to conduct the interviews and
contacts necessary to reach data saturation (Merriam, 2009). For example, the study would be
strengthened by interviews with more B.Y.O.D. committee members and contacts with all major
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 28
stakeholder groups including teachers who are not serving on the B.Y.O.D. committee, other
school administrators, students, and parents and guardians.
Based on this case study, there are interesting ideas for future research. It would be
beneficial to explore how the school principal's personal leadership style connects with the
principles of critical policy planning, along with the committee's work efforts. Change
processes, such as implementing a B.Y.O.D. policy, often beget organizational and personnel
turnover. It would be informative to study how teacher responses to change are impacted when
policy changes are guided by the ideals of critical planning.
Conclusion
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to learn how a rural high school in a high-
poverty area develops educational technology policy. Using Cervero and Wilson's (1994)
theoretical framework on critical planning, the researchers focused specifically on how the
B.Y.O.D. committee fosters dialogue, promotes democracy, furthers individual freedom, and
advances social justice in their planning efforts. Researchers found the committee exemplifying
the four principles in varying ways. The committee is particularly skilled at engaging in
dialogue, both within the committee and with outside systems, and actively seeks information
about educational technology uses and policies. Within the committee, the group promotes
democratic ideals with shared decision making and collaboration. The committee has not
focused as fully on issues of representation, with some key policy stakeholders missing from the
planning process. Efforts toward furthering individual freedom focus on developing independent
learners and empowering teachers through the B.Y.O.D. policy. Finally, the committee hopes to
advance ideals of social justice through the policy by overcoming inadequate technology
resources and increasing student access to greater educational and technological opportunities.
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 29
References
American Educational Research Association (2011). Code of ethics. Educational Researcher,
40(3), 145-156. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11410403
Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell,
& P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 4-15). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (1994). Planning responsibly for adult education: A guide to
negotiating power and interests. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Levi, D.J. (2014). Group dynamics for teams (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Rees, F. (2001). How to lead work teams (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinhart, and
Winston.
Wilson, A. L., & Cervero, R. M. (2010). Democracy and program planning. New Directions For
Adult & Continuing Education, (128), 81-89. doi:10.1002/ace.393
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 30
Appendix A
Case Study Participants
Case Study Par3cipants:B.Y.O.D.
CommiNee (pseudonyms)
Debbie • English Teacher
• 10 years Katrina • English Teacher
• 5 years
Sabrina • Technology
Instructor • 7 years
Jeff • Math Teacher
• 6 years
Jason • Technology
Director • 4 years
Dawn • Principal • 10 years
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 31
Appendix B
Summary of Interviews, Focus Group, Observations, and Artifacts
• High School Principal • Technology Director
Individual Interviews
• Technology CommiNee Members
Focus Group
• Technology CommiNee's Site Visit #1 • Technology CommiNee's Site Visit #2 • High School Tour • Technology CommiNee Mee3ng
Observa3ons
• Technology CommiNee Mee3ng Agenda • BYOD Pilot Program Informa3on • BYOD Program Policy • BYOD Student Survey • Site Visit Ques3ons • Leadership Team Mee3ng Agenda • High School Tour Photos
Ar3facts
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 32
Appendix C
Case Study Database
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 33
Appendix D
Observation Guide for Data Collection
Event: Date:
Observer:
Record observations categorized by Cervero & Wilson's (1994) critical viewpoint on planning:
Four Principles of the Critical Viewpoint on Planning Fostering dialogue • Ask questions • Listen actively • Seek/provide constructive feedback
Promoting democracy • Share decision-making • Represent all • Operate transparently
Furthering individual freedom • Grant equal rights • Respect basic liberties • Offer equal opportunities
Advancing social justice • Distribute resources equitably • Promote full and equal participation • Provide physical/psychological safety & security
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 34
During the event, observe and note the following:
What type of event did you observe?
Who attended the event (by roles, not name)?
Draw the layout of the room and identify the people present (by role, not by name; e.g., principal, dean, math teacher, etc.).
What topics were addressed during the event?
Describe the communication used during the event.
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 35
Appendix E
Interview Protocol for Hashtag High School Principal
Opening question
• Tell me a little about yourself and your role as principal at this school.
Introductory question
• Can you tell me the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the term
“educational technology?”
Transition questions
• What has your experience been when working with students and technology?
• Do you feel the school is prepared for this technology rollout?
• How did you become involved in the committee?
Key questions
• In your estimation, what are the most important tasks and activities the committee has
accomplished?
• What observations have you made regarding marginalization at this school?
• How can marginalization be avoided when new technology is introduced?
• How has the committee addressed issues of access while developing technology policies?
• How does the committee identify barriers?
• What issues of access do you identify?
• What issues of fairness do you identify?
• How do the committee’s decisions meet the needs of all students?
Ending question
• Are there any topics that you would like to discuss that we did not cover?
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 36
Appendix F
Questioning Route for B.Y.O.D. Committee Focus Group
Hashtag High School March 10, 2014 @ 3:30 PM
Opening: 1. Tell us a little about yourself and your role at Ava High School.
Introductory: 2. How did you become involved with the technology committee?
Transition: 3. What are the committee's most important accomplishments so far?
Key Questions: 4. How does the committee gather information?
5. How does the committee make decisions?
6. How do the committee's decisions consider the needs of all students?
7. Overall, what obstacles do students at this school face?
8. How is the committee addressing issues of access while developing technology policies?
9. At this point, what information do you need to make policies about educational technology at your school?
10. How will you obtain that information?
Ending Question: 11. We want to understand more about developing policies for educational technology. Is there anything that we missed?
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 37
Appendix G
Interview Protocol for Hashtag High School Technology Director
Opening: 1. Tell us about yourself and your role at Ava High School. Introductory: 2. What is your role with the Bring Your Own
Device (BYOD) program? Transition: 3. What has been done to prepare for implementation of the
BYOD program? Key Questions: 4. How has data and other information about BYOD been
gathered? 5. How have decisions been made regarding the BYOD policy? 6. How have decisions considered the needs of all students? 7. Overall, what obstacles do students at this school face? 8. How does the district address issues of access while developing technology policies?
Ending Question: 9. We want to understand more about how the BYOD policy was
developed. Is there anything that we missed that you might want to add?
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 38
Appendix H
Focus Group Consent for Disclosure
Observations from interviews, meetings, and other activities will be used to write a qualitative
data collection experience on the topic of leadership and policy development. The resulting case
study will be read by Drs. Cindy MacGregor and T.C. Wall, with a formal presentation and
executive summary also available to classmates, all of which are submitted to meet the
requirements of EDD 908: Qualitative Tools for Applied Research in Educational Leadership
for the University of Missouri-Columbia.
The focus group session is being recorded, but names of participants and/or schools will not be
identified in transcripts or reports.
I hereby consent to participate in the educational technology focus group and that my direct
quotations may be utilized in this academic paper. My name and organization name will remain
anonymous.
Signature Date
Printed Name
CRITICAL PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 39
Appendix I
Consent for Disclosure
Observations from interviews, meetings, and other activities will be used to write a qualitative
data collection experience on the topic of leadership and policy development. The resulting case
study will be read by Drs. Cindy MacGregor and T.C. Wall, with a formal presentation and
executive summary also available to classmates, all of which are submitted to meet the
requirements of EDD 908: Qualitative Tools for Applied Research in Educational Leadership
for the University of Missouri-Columbia.
I hereby consent that my name, organization name, and direct quotations be utilized in this
academic paper.
___________________________________________ _______________________ Signature Date ___________________________________________ Printed Name I do not consent to my name being identified in this academic paper. Although my direct
quotations maybe utilized in this academic paper, my name and organization name will remain
anonymous.
___________________________________________ _______________________ Signature Date ___________________________________________ Printed Name