Troy Hutchings, Ed.D.

Senior Policy Advisor, NASDTEC

The Emerging Playbook: Reexamining Professional Obligations in a Virtual Classroom

Part V – Ignorance of Technology is no Excuse

Since technological competence is routinely articulated in many of our professional standards, it would be understandable to question its relationship to professional ethics. After all, today's technology is intuitive, right? We don’t even need instruction manuals for our new computing devices.

But on a most basic level, professional ethics often asks a simple question – what could possibly go wrong?

The fallout from a technological gaffe was on full display this past month in a California community. An entire school board resigned after members of the board criticized and mocked parents in a virtual Zoom meeting not realizing their conversation was being live-streamed to the public .[i]

We all know the pace of technological innovation in education is accelerating at a seemingly staggering pace — but how often do we consider the issues likely to emerge around user naiveté, carelessness or even incompetence?

When I started teaching nearly 40 years ago, tech-competence consisted of successfully operating the most advanced pedagogical tools of the day – mimeograph machines, tape recorders, record players, overhead projectors, and what I found most difficult to master, 16-millimeter film projectors.

Missteps in utilizing yesterday’s technological tools may have resulted in a few minutes of lost instructional time, or at worst, a botched lesson plan. But rarely would they damage an educator’s career, put students at risk or erode trust in our profession. Clearly, the stakes are much higher in the contemporary schooling environment.

In Part V of our blog series focusing on ethical issues related to the virtual classroom, I asked cyber expert Frederick Lane[ii] to offer his thoughts on the risks and implications of technological ignorance.

Ignorance of Technology Is No Excuse

Frederick Lane

Schools and educators stand in loco parentis to their students and, accordingly, have an unequivocal duty to minimize the risk of various types of harm that children might suffer in school. Until recently, this duty has been more pressing for some educators than others: I look back on my high school shop classes with mild disbelief that I didn’t lose a finger to a band saw, lawnmower, or welding torch. My English and Latin classes were much less immediately threatening.

But the incredibly rapid adoption of technology has expanded the duty of care for educators and school districts. Not every classroom has a table saw, but virtually all have Internet-capable devices or wireless access for personal connectivity. Even a casual reader of the news is aware that the damage that electronic devices can inflict may be as severe—if not worse—than a mishap with shop tools.

Teachers who regularly use woodworking tools, chemistry equipment, or other potentially injurious equipment don’t do so, of course, without adequate training. But virtually all teachers are expected to incorporate or supervise the use of Internet-enabled technology into their classrooms. Unfortunately, the training teachers receive on any given piece of technology typically ranges from cursory to incomplete.

Every educator has an individual ethical obligation to ensure that their use of technology furthers their “ethic of care” regarding student health and safety. That imposes a duty on each educator to understand the technology they use in the class and the potential risks that can stem from its use. At the same time, school districts and administrators should aid teachers and staff in better understanding how classroom technology can be used or abused.

As Cicero might have put it, ignorantia technology operator non excusat.

 

There is a line in Fred’s commentary that warrants highlighting – “The incredibly rapid adoption of technology has expanded the duty of care for educators and school districts.”

Quite simply, duty of care refers to the practitioner's obligation to avoid acts which could foreseeably cause harm – to students, our own careers, our schools and our profession. Or as Fred so eloquently states, “… a duty on each educator to understand the technology they use in the class and the potential risks that can stem from its use.”

Practitioner competence in all areas – including technology – defines the context by which society enters a trusting relationship with the education profession.

After all, we act in the public’s interest in everything we do.

No excuses. Period.