In two pieces over the past month, Cambridge Day has reported on the continued rollout of Chromebooks for all students at CRLS. The coverage has been misleading and unfair. The new policy, which gives a Chromebook to every student in the school, and requires them to use only that devices while in the classroom, is a major success for the school and for the city. The two articles, unfortunately, focused heavily on the perceived lack of a “democratic process.”
Why were a small number of families so upset about the new policy that they reached out to a School Committee member? Why did that School Committee member add a last-minute motion to the agenda asking that juniors and seniors be exempt from the new policy? Why did Cambridge Day write two articles bemoaning the lack of what they saw as a fair process? In my mind, the answer to all of these questions is that families in our district with the most racial and economic power have a hard time seeing their own unearned privilege.
The first article bemoaned that, “issues of equality outweigh the lack of notice,” and that officials were, “shrugging off concerns over process.” The second piece, an opinion piece, opined:
Our school officials talk a lot about how much they respect the students, but mania for a theoretical instant equity has given cause for students to see it as nothing more than lip service. The students are in better company, though: Democratic process got the same treatment.
I won’t get in to the merits of the new policy, which were defended convincingly at the last School Committee. Nor will I argue about whether students had ample warning of the policy. (I personally sat in at least one meeting about the policy over a year ago, but I will take at their word that students had no idea this was coming.) Instead, I want to focus my comments on the paper’s assertion that there wasn’t a fair and democratic process here. I think that doing so can help us as a city as we continue to have conversations about how to achieve equity in our schools.
To begin, it’s important to state that parents and students are not entitled to be consulted about every decision made at the school. It’s the height of white and class privilege to think otherwise. On those occasions where the decisions will have a real effect on the education of students, parents are consistently asked for input. This was not one of those decisions because there was no potential harm to students in the new policy; the logic for the policy was overwhelming, and supported by the staff.
The fact that some students and their families saw great harm in the policy, and were upset about not being consulted or warned, points to unexamined privilege. As one small example, students wealthy enough to have their own computers complained that they would be harmed in AP computer science classes because Chromebooks are inadequate in those classes. The computer science teachers testified that this was not the case and that they support the new policy. If the teachers of the AP class say that the classes don’t require outside computers, why do the wealthy families insist that they want to continue using them?
It’s not disrespectful to students to inform them of a new policy and then expect them to adhere to it, unless that policy harms them in some way. How have wealthy white parents in our district come away with the idea that we need to be consulted on all decisions and that what is best for our individual child should carry the day? We elect a school committee, who hires a superintendent, who supervises the principal. That principal, on the advice of a team of technology experts, in consultation with teachers and after a yearlong pilot program, decided on the policy. Families were told about it and could have celebrated, as most families did. Instead, some of them complained that the new policy would harm their children. When that was proven to be false, they hung on to their complaint that the process was not fair or democratic.
Here’s what democracy looked like in this case: The school made a policy that some people didn’t like. Those people, who did not represent any of the people too poor to afford computers for their children, were upset that they had not been consulted or adequately warned and wanted to be exempt from the policy. They found an elected official to sponsor their cause. School personnel came to two consecutive School Committee meetings to explain in detail why the policy made sense. Two student representatives from the high school who sit on the Committee conducted a hurried survey to see how their peers felt. Based on the results of the survey, both of those students also supported the new policy. Based on all of this, the committee member who wanted to exempt the juniors and seniors withdrew her motion. Furthermore, based on feedback from students at the first committee meeting, the administration at the high school fixed several things to ameliorate some of the hiccups that came with the new policy.
In what ways is this not democratic? In what ways was the process unfair? It was the picture of democracy. You can only ascertain that it was unfair if you believe that families with the most social capital should be consulted on all decisions or if you believe that when wealthy families want something, democracy should lean in their favor. Is that a lesson we want to reinforce?
Tara Edelschick
Parent of two CRLS students
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
So well said. Thank you for this incredibly thoughtful and, in my mind, spot on piece. The unchecked privilege of parents and families in Cambridge continues to astound. Especially poignant “You can only ascertain that it was unfair if you believe that families with the most social capital should be consulted on all decisions or if you believe that when wealthy families want something, democracy should lean in their favor.” I fear that a majority of Cambridge residents believe just this and it is imperative that those of us who believe otherwise, like this author, speak out. Thank you to this writer.
Just to point out: The only reference in Cambridge Day to parents or students being consulted about what decision to make was Sept. 28, referring to consulting with lower-income students and families, not upper-income students and families.
This bit about “families with the most social capital should be consulted on all decisions” is a canard – nothing of any sort has been written here about the sudden expansion of Chromebook use. All three pieces published, which followed the order by School Committee Patty Nolan – have been about NOTICE, not consultation.
Perhaps I’m missing a passage? Can someone find the text and produce it here where arguments are being made that upper-income families are supposed to be consulted before decisions are made? My expectation is that you’ll find that the order and subsequent writing is about NOTICE, not consultation.
The author here says: “Nor will I argue about whether students had ample warning of the policy.” But that is the substance of the material to which she says she’s responding.
Tara Edelschick raises the important issue of race/class privilege in her column about the CRLS Chromebook-only policy. A few fact corrections: 1) Only one of the two student reps said he felt positive about the policy; the other student rep described the survey data, but didn’t offer an opinion. 2) The AP Computer Science teacher said he currently DOES need to teach the AP CS course on PC-laptops, and is expecting an upgraded set of PCs this year, with the hope that some PC laptops can be sent home with students who don’t have laptops at home (so they can do their homework); i.e. the AP Computer Science course CANNOT currently be taught on Chromebooks. 3) The HS administrators/tech staff did not say they had fixed any issues raised by the students. They did say they were looking into whether/how they could lift some of the internet filters, particularly those that currently block access to all YouTube videos, including those with educational value. (More than a hiccup.)
There are many inaccuracies in this letter. To begin with, the policy about 1:1 generally – providing Chromebooks for all was never the issue. That was celebrated by all.
EVERYONE who spoke supported the 1:1 initiative, including me. We are lucky in Cambridge to have it. Many districts, for example Amherst public schools, have a 1:1 program and allow students to use their own. 1:1 generally refers to access to a device, not a mandatory use of the same device.
Junior and senior parents and students did not know that students would be REQUIRED to use Chrome-books and could not access the internet during the school day. Many teachers were surprised by this decision – and had not been included in it. WE heard loud and clear from the community that they were surprised – NOT by the fact that Chromebooks were available but by the new mandate that they were mandatory for class time.
The issue was the fact that there was a CHANGE for existing students, juniors and seniors this year. Contrary to the last two years, if these students owned a computer they would no longer be able to use it during class time and could not access the internet in classes from anything other than a school issued device. Note this was a change that was not discussed, debated, or presented for input from students.
The assertion that there was no harm gives no credence to the many students who came and spoke about why this change hurt them. These were not whiny students miffed about a minor thing. They were reasonable young adults seeking to understand why a change was made that didn’t make sense to them. While we may disagree, we should welcome their input and listen and learn. Instead of telling them they don’t matter.
contrary to the piece here, I believe in democracy and believe strongly in our district values, which include student voice and teacher voice. In this case, students were not given a chance for input. And a number of teachers were surprised by the change as well. I think that is unfortunate. Which is why I sought to have the issue discussed.
Another misnomer is that the students who were advocating for them to be allowed to use their own computers were all wealthy white students. That is not the case. Many students could not afford fancy computers, and worked hard to earn enough to buy not fancy computers – similar quality to the school issued ones. Those students wanted to keep using their computers so they didn’t have to lug two computers around. To treat them like spoiled over privileged students is disrespectful and not in line with my values of inclusion and respect for all.
Students on the whole, including a diverse group of students, had concerns about the process by which this was decided and how it was sprung on students without full communication.
Our district strategic plan places student voice and family engagement at the center of our efforts to improve our district. To not listen to families and students who come forward and dismiss them if they are not wholly representative creates divisions instead of nurturing community. Of course we should reach out to more families and listen. And ensure that we are hearing from a range of families. That will not happen if we dismiss those who do stand up and ask reasonable questions about policy changes that were not communicated in advance.
I note that I was the School Committee member who put forth the motion. It was not a last minute motion to change a policy – it was a motion to ask for more clarification on a policy no one on School Committee had ever discussed or voted on. NOT the 1:1 policy itself, which I supported and support. But the change to REQUIRE all students to use ONLY school-issued Chromebooks in classrooms and not have access to internet in class for their own computers. THAT was the only point of my motion and all the testimony.
I am glad the students who came spoke up and glad I made the motion, to have the discussion. I acknowledge there is privilege and injustices – the students speaking up about this policy should not be blanketly criticized for being clueless – they were aware of inequities and spoke of them and deserve our respect, not criticism.
Although it was not a focus of what I wrote about, I agree with Patty Nolan that democracy could and should “include student voice and teacher voice.” (And family voice or, as we call it, family engagement.) I would like to stress that this not about “consulting” with upper-income white families, but about getting enough input from all stakeholders to proceed intelligently and confidently. Nor is this about Chromebooks; it’s just a good idea for a democracy to listen first before making big decisions that affects the public represented by that democracy. Our city makes a fairly big show of that, and I don’t think it’s a particularly controversial idea (“taxation without representation is tyranny” being a pretty obvious, early and foundational example of the general concept).
At this point this person needs to just make amends with her community. There are enough real injustices in the world to stand against and clearly this isn’t one of them.