Journal Review: Student Data Privacy, Digital Learning, and Special Education: Challenges at the Intersection of Policy and Practice

This article was a review of the fact that digital teaching and learning in schools is a double-edge sword. As the authors state, technology has "raised the specter of dangerous and privacy-invading misuse, simultaneous with the potential for customizing education" (Stahl, Karger, 2016). The authors briefly talk about the promises of educational technology being able to provide teachers with an unimaginable amount data, while providing the ability to analyze the data. Schools and educational researchers can easily see how the demographics of students correlate to pedagogical practices and student achievement.

However, Stahl and Karger focus greatly on the concerns that arise as schools collect more data on students and as schools continue to partner with more and more third-party vendors that have access to that student data. The main focus of concern from parents and student advocates focus on understanding what data is being collected and whom has access to that data. Stahl and Karger provide situations in which teachers and staff might form biases on students based on records of negative behavior or poor academic performance. They also reference a study that found many districts signed contracts with third-party vendors that didn't prohibit the sale or use of student data for marketing and advertising purposes (Stahl, Karger, 2016).

Finally, current federal laws that impact student privacy were discusses. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) states that parents and students have the right to view the education records of the students and can request a change or challenge any information in the records. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides greater transparency for parents. It states that schools must tell parents what information is being collected on a student with a disability, why, and how that information will be stored. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was enacted to protect children under 14 from having their data used for commercial purposes.

In general, this article provided more information about student data privacy than I have received prior. I have seen these acronyms before, but didn't understand what they meant to how they impact student data and privacy. All educators should have a basic understanding of these laws to prevent violating these laws as we try to expand our digital pedagogy.

Stahl, W. M., & Karger, J. (2016). Student Data Privacy, Digital Learning, and Special Education: Challenges at the Intersection of Policy and Practice. Journal Of Special Education Leadership, 29(2), 79-88.

Journal Review: Promises and Pitfalls of Virtual Education in the United States and Indiana

This article addresses the rise of virtual schools in the United States as either an alternative to traditional schooling or as a supplement. The authors then looked at some of the promises and pitfalls of virtual schools. The areas they looked at are financial, program quality, teacher quality and certification, and program oversight. I will briefly summarize their conclusions.

Financially, virtual schools are a mixed bag, depending on the state and if the virtual school is state-led, charter school, district-led, or private. Because virtual schools have lower over-head costs, operating costs can range from $300 - $5,000 less per student than a traditional, brick-and-mortar school. However, because many states don't have laws providing a funding formula that includes virtual schools, some students end up paying for their education. This can limit access to underprivileged families (Holstead, Spradlin, Plucker, 2008).

The virtual programs can vary in quality. However, it is hard to accurately rate virtual programs because some focus on gifted students wanting access to more rigorous classes and others focus on at-risk students needing an alternative education(Holstead, Spradlin, Plucker, 2008).

The certification process of the virtual school teachers also varies. In some situations some of the instructors are not certified. However, more states are stepping up their certification and consistent professional development requirements. 

Oversight of these programs also varies depending on the state and situation. At times, there are oversight measures in place, but they aren't enforced because states don't have laws that cover virtual schooling programs.

The go-to complaint about virtual schools is that students lose the social interaction that brings about a lot of social and emotional growth that is just as important as academics. It is interesting that the authors don't mention this. Because of this, virtual schools should limited in adoption. West Aurora High School has credit recovery options for students after they fail a class. From conversations with students, they tend to work through the material not for the sake of learning, but in order to accomplish their classes. Virtual schools for supplementation is good, but it should have limited applications. It should be an option for at-risk students and students who are limited by their local public schools. There is still value in going to a school, interacting with your peers and their is some content that is better hands-on and in a controlled environment.

Holstead, M. S., Spradlin, T. E., Plucker, J. A., & Indiana University, C. P. (2008). Promises and Pitfalls of Virtual Education in the United States and Indiana. Education Policy Brief. Volume 6, Number 6, Spring 2008. Center For Evaluation And Education Policy, Indiana University,

Journal Review: The Changing Role of the CTO

The role of the Chief Technology Officer, or CTO, has evolved over the last 2 decades. As school districts have wanted to focus on making more efficient and strategic decisions with technology, and the role of technology, the CTO has taken on more responsibility. Previously, the CTO was more focused on the nuts and bolts of the technology that the district owned. They were not part of the decision making process with regards to staff or technology. Now, they have moved to being part of the superintendent's cabinet and focusing on how technology can be used to further district goals and initiatives (Dessoff, 2011). Now, the CTO is part of meetings when teachers and administrators want to adopt a new piece of technology, whether it be software or hardware. CTOs are bridging the gap between the technology department and academics (Dessoff, 2011). Because of this change, the CTO has to be adept with communicating the technical aspect of software/hardware, but also the instructional benefits of incorporating the software/hardware.

In West Aurora District 129, this idea of strategic and efficient spending on technology is becoming more evident. When the technology pilot was first started three years ago, teachers had to have research backed ideas on how they were going to improve learning in the classrooms with technology. As the pilot has grown, district administration has continued to ask the same question; "How is this going to improve student learning?" Our Director of Technology (same role as CTO) has consistently been in meetings bridging the gap between administration and teachers, curriculum and technology. Our Director of Technology has done well to ask for feedback from teachers, but has focused only on technology-literate staff. CTOs/Directors of Technology should try to get feedback from all teachers. 

Dessoff, A. (2011). The Changing Role of the CTO. District Administration, 47(6), 44-50.