“No/Low Paper” Policy and Equipment Upkeep

“No/Low Paper” Policy and Equipment Upkeep

Alicia Martinez (School Teacher, USA)
Copyright: © 2012 |Pages: 4
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61350-492-5.ch002
OnDemand PDF Download:
No Current Special Offers


In an effort to control paper supplies and budget, an elementary school initiated a “No/Low Paper Policy.” Under this policy, teachers are encouraged to use the technology available in classrooms instead of worksheets, and teachers were assigned quotas and pin numbers to discourage excessive paper usage. Despite the forward thinking attitude of the school, the campus technology specialist continues to struggle with being heard by campus and district administration on issues dealing with the purchase and upkeep of technology.
Chapter Preview

The Case

Mr. Lee is a ten year veteran employee for the Metropolitan School District. A.W. Jones Elementary School is his current campus location. He has spent the majority of his employment with the District as a technology specialist and computer teacher. As part of his job, he must stay current with the latest technology available in the field of education. Many campus employees approach him with questions and concerns about educational technology. When it comes time for purchasing new software or gadgets for the school, he is often approached about giving his input into the final purchase and to answer questions about the item being purchased and how it could benefit the campus.

In his second year of working at A.W. Jones Elementary, he was asked to join the team of professionals deciding what changes needed to be considered for the new school year. One of the decisions made at this meeting was that the school would initiate a “No/Low Paper” policy. Many other schools were considering similar policies due to recent budget cuts and past abuse of supplies. The administration decided that cutting back on paper use in the classroom–such as worksheets and student handouts–would be a huge step in supporting this new policy. Mr. Lee was approached about whether this would be too much of a problem due to recent additions of new technology and supplies. He expressed that this would be a better question for the teachers to debate but that using the technology involved in the process would not be a problem. However, he also advised that technology like projectors, computers, printers, and screens would require a certain level of upkeep.

At this time, he also shared that among the new interactive whiteboards available for the schools to purchase, the M Brand would be a better purchase than the previously suggested S Brand. The M Brand would cost a third of the price of the S Brand and were much easier to reposition and store.

However, in the end, the school decided to continue on their main course of purchasing twenty S Brand electronic whiteboards. By the middle of the school year, there were still five S Brand electronic whiteboards locked in a closet with no teacher willing to use them since they were so large and inconvenient to use with the type and placement of the projectors already installed in the classrooms. The S Brand electronic whiteboards also were rejected by a lot of teachers because they would have to be placed in front of dry erase boards that the teachers felt were easier to use and not as valuable.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: