dialogue, democracy, freedom, and social justice: critical planning in educational policy

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?


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


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


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 &


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).


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


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


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).


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).


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).


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


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


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,


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:


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:


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:


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:


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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,


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


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.


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


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


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


Appendix C

Case Study Database


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


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.


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?


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?


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?


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


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