The RFP process sent a ripple of excitement and concern through the school district. Certainly the schools chosen thought it was a wonderful model for implementing programs. Many of the sites not chosen stated they would be very interested in applying next year. Others felt slighted or that the process was flawed. However, the key element that was continually raised by critics of the process was the issue of equity. On the surface their arguments make sense -- if we use a competitive process to implement educational innovation or allocate resources, how can we be sure that every student will have the opportunity to use the resource? What about teachers, principals or schools where they are not interested or capable of writing proposals? Who speaks for those students?
There are two ways that one can respond to these questions. The first is to assume that these are honest and sincere concerns that need to be brought to the table. Any model of educational programming must concern itself with the equity issue. However, one should not be naive enough to believe that providing staff with access to technology without somehow motivating the teacher to believe in its importance will provide these resources to students. Divorcing the resource from its implementation allows for the guise of equity, but will provide no guarantees for students. So the issue of equity, although of a highest priority can become a red herring.
Equity occurs when students have access to quality comprehensive programming that has high expectations for all students. It is not surprising that many of the proposals we received addressed the needs of the underrepresented, special needs populations, or socio-economically disadvantaged students. However, technology is no different than any other educational resource. Good teaching, high expectations and leadership are critical elements in a successful educational program.
The second response is more cynical and assumes that these comments are indicative of what Hodas calls "the culture of refusal". Competing for funds and programs threatens traditional power structures. Many times the effect of demanding that everyone has everything is that no one gets anything. This allows the institution to maintain its inertia and power structure all in the name of equity. Although equal access is an important goal, empowerment, opportunity and ownership will force everyone to become accountable for equity in achievement. Given 83 schools with different faculties, communities and leadership, it is unreasonable to assume that a single centralized program will address their particular needs.
Addressing the equity issue is a challenge, especially with schools that do not take the initiative to write proposals. Although it is imperative that proposals be chosen on the basis of quality and probability of success, strategies must be found for addressing equity. These might include:
Return to Title Page