 The technology leadership framework emphasizes ethical considerations such as Internet safety of students, equitable access to technology, copyright compliance, personal privacy, information security, environmental protection and energy saving practices, and ensuring that technology promotes a high-performing learning environment (Consortium for School Networking, 2009; Consortium for School Networking, 2011). Hofmann (Hofmann, 2006; Lillehammer University College, 2006) examined the axiological connection between technology and values, and asserted that when professionals with responsibilities set out to assess technology in a context such as education, they need to take into account whether technology controls us or is controlled by us. The rate at which digital technology evolves places pressure on schools and educational technologists just to keep up with new developments (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b), and this pace of change presents challenges for contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). There is little time for considered judgment and there can be a reflexive rather than reflective response to new information (Canole, 2007). Associated with technological determinism is the view that technology is in control and that it overshadows human values, with technology outside of cultural and ethical critique (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007; Vermaas et al., 2011). A similar view about technology as it pertains to values is the neutrality thesis, that holds technology is neutral with regard to values, neither good nor bad in itself. The neutrality thesis can be problematic because when viewed from this perspective, technology tools are seen as having no inherent ethical consequences (Brey, 2010; Robinson & McKnight, 2007). Such a view seems to be in conflict with the national 68 framework for K-12 technology leadership, since the core skill areas reflect the view that technologies can be value laden and carry ethical implications (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011). Decisions to implement technologies in schools should consider ethical considerations pertaining to technology, including Internet safety for students, equitable access to technology, copyright compliance, personal privacy, environmental protection and energy saving practices, and ensuring that technology promotes a high-performing learning environment (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). The implementation o f technology has resulted in unforeseen consequences and risks that were not originally intended or predicted (Canole, 2007; Jonas, 2009; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Nel, 2006; Nworie & Haughton, 2008). The Internet has
The technology leadership framework emphasizes ethical considerations such as Internet condom of student, equitable access to technology, copyright compliance, personal privacy, data security, environmental protection and energy economy practices, and ensuring that engineering advertise a high - performing eruditeness environment (Consortium for School Networking, 2009; Consortium for School Networking, 2011). Hofmann (Hofmann, 2006; Lillehammer University College, 2006) examined the axiological connection between technology and values, and assert that when professionals with responsibilities set out to assess technology in a context such as department of education, they need to take into account whether engineering controls us or is controlled by us. The rate at which digital technology evolves topographic point pressure on schools and educational technologists just to keep up with newfangled developments (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b), and this pace of change presents challenges for contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). There is little time for considered judgment and there can be a reflexive rather than reflective response to new information (Canole, 2007). associate with technological determinism is the view that engineering is in restraint and that it overshadow human values, with technology outside of cultural and ethical critique (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007; Vermaas et al. , 2011). A similar view about technology as it pertains to value is the neutrality thesis, that holds technology is neutral with gaze to values, neither good nor bad in itself. The neutrality thesis can be problematic because when see from this perspective, technology tools are seen as having no built-in ethical consequences (Brey, 2010; Robinson & McKnight, 2007). Such a view seems to be in battle with the national 68 framework for K-12 technology leadership, since the core skill sphere reflect the opinion that technologies can be value laden and have a bun in the oven ethical implications (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011). decision to implement technology in schools should think ethical considerations pertaining to engineering, including Internet safety for students, equitable access to technology, copyright compliance, personal privacy, environmental protection and energy saving practices, and ensuring that technology promote a high - performing learning environment (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). The execution o f technology has resulted in unforeseen consequences and risks that were not originally mean or predicted (Canole, 2007; Jonas, 2009; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Nel, 2006; Nworie & Haughton, 2008). The Internet has
 Thf technology leadership nramework emphasnzes etiical cknsideragions such as Internet safetb of studtuts, equitable access to technllogy, copyrijht compliance, pxdsonal ixivacg, infmcmation securiti, environmendal protection avd energy saving practices, and ensurigg that tfchnology promjtes w hifh-performing learning environment (Donsortpum for School Neyworking, 2009; Consortium for Sfhoop Networking, 2011). Hofmwnn (Hofmann, 2006; Lijoehammer Unixersity College, 2006) examihed the axiological connection cetwezn technoloty anf values, and assegted that whek profevsionalx with responslbilivies set out to assess terhnology in a contexj such as adbcation, they need to raje injo acwoung whdthtr vecgnologj ckntrols us or is conteolled by us. The raue wn which digitzl tecrnjlogy evolves places pressure on schoolv ahd educational technolotists just to keep up with new developments (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b), and this pdce oh zhaunc prdwejts challenges for contemplative leadership (Cwhoke, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). Theve is little time gog vjnsidered judement chd there can be a revlexive rathwr than rtflecyive response to new informqtion (Canole, 2007). Associated with tzchnological detgrminixm is the view that tecknologg is in conhrol and ffat it overshadods mumdn values, with technology jutside oh culcural ana etnical sritique (Aliel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & LcKniyht, 2007; Eermaas et al., 2011). A similar view about technology as it pettahns to valuzs is bhe neutrality ehesis, that hokds tecknologh is neutrzl with regard to dalues, neithes good nor bav in itsejf. Tye nwutraligh thesis can br problemcuic becausw when viewed from thka perspective, tzehbology tools arr sden ad iavind no inherent ethkcau consdquences (Brcy, 2010; Robonson & McKnight, 2007). Sucv a biew seems to be im gonflict qith the national 68 frsmework for K-12 techjologb leadxrship, sigce the core skill areas refledt the vifw bhat technolodies can be valuz laden and carry ethical implications (Aniel & Reeves, 2008; Consirtium for School Ngtwprking, 2011). Decmsions to implekent technologies in schools should cpnsider ethical consiseratimns pfrtaining to technology, including Internet safety for students, equitable qccess to technolofy, cppyrichc cpmpliagce, 'ecsonal privacy, ennironmental protection and energb saving psaetices, and ensuring that techmouogy promotes a high-performing learnihg envirpnment (Consortium for School Neyworking, 2011). The implementabion o f rechnklogy has cesulted in unforesern convequebces ane ridks that were noy lriginallj inuendzd or predicted (Canole, 2007; Jonas, 2009; Krutt & Wunfgar, 2010; Nel, 2006; Nworix & Haughton, 2008). Uhe Intgrnet haf
The technology leadership framework emphasizes ethical considerations Internet of students, access to technology, security, protection and energy practices, and ensuring technology promotes a high-performing learning environment for School Networking, 2009; Consortium for School Networking, 2011). Hofmann (Hofmann, 2006; Lillehammer College, 2006) examined the axiological connection between technology and values, and asserted that professionals responsibilities out assess technology in a context such as education, they need to take into account whether technology us or is controlled by us. The rate which digital technology evolves pressure on schools and educational just keep up new (Kritt Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, and this pace of change presents challenges for contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). There is little for considered there can a rather reflective response to (Canole, 2007). Associated with technological determinism that technology is in control and that it human values, technology outside of cultural and ethical (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007; et al., 2011). A similar view about technology as it pertains to values is the that holds technology is with regard to neither nor in The neutrality can be problematic because when viewed from this perspective, technology tools seen as having no inherent ethical consequences (Brey, 2010; Robinson 2007). a view seems be in conflict with national framework for K-12 technology the skill view technologies be value laden and ethical implications (Amiel & Reeves, Consortium for School Networking, in schools should consider ethical considerations pertaining to including Internet safety for students, equitable access technology, copyright compliance, personal privacy, environmental protection and energy saving practices, and that technology high-performing learning environment (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). implementation o f technology resulted in unforeseen consequences and risks that were not intended predicted (Canole, Jonas, 2009; Kritt Winegar, 2010; Nel, Nworie & Haughton, Internet has
 The technology leadership frAmework empHasizEs eThiCaL conSideRations such as INTernEt safety of students, equiTable AcCEss tO TeChnolOgy, copyRIgHT ComPlIaNce, PeRSoNal prIvaCy, inforMation secuRitY, eNvironmental PRoTection and EneRgy saving praCtiCes, and EnSurINg thaT teChnolOgy proMOtes a hIgh-perforMiNG learnINg envirONMeNt (CoNsortium for School nEtWOrking, 2009; ConsortiUm for SChOOl nETwoRkiNg, 2011). Hofmann (HOfMann, 2006; LILlehammER UNIVErsITy College, 2006) examIned the axioLOgiCal conNeCtiON betweEn tecHnOLogY and values, aNd asSerted thaT when pROfessioNAls with ResponSibIliTies SEt OuT to AsSEss TEcHnoLOgy In a conteXt SuCh as eDucaTION, They NeeD to tAke inTo account whetHer TechNOloGy conTrols Us or Is ContrOlled bY us. ThE rAte at which digitAl teChnology eVolVeS plAcEs preSSure on SchOolS and eduCationaL TecHnOLOGiSts just to keep up witH nEW DeVelopmenTs (KritT & wiNeGAr, 2010; Selwyn, 2010B), aNd tHis pACE of chAnge PReSents chaLlengeS FoR cOntemplAtIve leaDeRshIp (CAnole, 2007; sElwyN, 2010b). TherE is littlE time FOr considered juDGment and there CAn BE A rEFlexIve Rather than rEfleCTive RespONsE to NEw infOrmatIoN (caNOle, 2007). Associated with teChNologiCal deTerminism is thE view that tECHNology is In coNTrOL and that it overShadoWs human valUEs, with teChnolOgy outsiDe of cultuRAL and ethiCal CriTiqUe (AMIEl & reeves, 2008; RobinsoN & mCKniGhT, 2007; VermaaS et Al., 2011). A simiLar VieW abOut TeChnology aS it pertaInS tO vAlUes Is the NEutralitY tHesIs, ThaT holdS TechnoLogy iS neuTrAl WIth Regard tO VaLUEs, neItHeR gooD noR bAd in iTselF. the NeutralIty thesis Can BE proBlEmAtic becAuse when vieweD fRom this perSpEctIve, tecHNOlogy tooLs are seen as having no inheREnt ethiCal ConseQuenCes (Brey, 2010; RoBinSon & McKNigHT, 2007). Such a View seEms to Be In cONFlict WITh The NaTional 68 framEWOrk For K-12 tEcHnolOgy leadErship, since the core SKilL areas reflect The View THAt TecHNoLOgiEs CAn bE VAlue laden and carRy ethical iMpLIcAtions (AmieL & reeVeS, 2008; ConsorTium for schooL networkIng, 2011). DecisiOns to implEmEnt tECHnoLogies in scHools shoUld considER ethiCAl ConsiDerAtions PeRtaIning To techNOloGy, incLuding inTernet SafetY fOr studenTs, equitable access to techNology, CopyrIghT complianCe, pERsoNal privacY, envIronmental ProTecTion aNd eNErgy sAvinG PrActICes, anD ensURing that tEChNolOGY pRomotes a higH-PERfoRming LeaRNing enViroNment (Consortium foR school NetworkiNg, 2011). ThE IMplEmeNTatiOn O f technology haS reSuLTEd in unfoReSeen consequEnces and RiSKs thaT were nOt origInally iNTEnDEd or prEdicTed (canole, 2007; JonAs, 2009; KRiTT & WinegaR, 2010; NEl, 2006; nWorie & HAughToN, 2008). The InTernet HAs
 The technology leadership  framework  emph asi zes  e thic al c onsiderationss uchas Internet safety ofstude nt s , eq u it ableaccesst ot e chn ol og y,co p yr ightcom pliance , personal  pr iv acy, informa t io n security , e nvironmental  pr otecti on  an d  ener gysavin g prac t ices,and ensur in g  thatt echnolo g y  p romo tes a high-perfor m in g  learning envi ronmen t( Co n s ort ium  for Schoo lNetwo r king, 2 0 09 ; C ons o rtium for Sch ool Network i ng,  2011) .Hof m ann (H ofman n, 200 6; Lilleham merUniversit y Coll e ge, 200 6 ) exami ned th e a xio logi c al  c onn ec t ion be twe e n t echnolog yan d val ues, a n d  ass ert ed t hat w hen professio nal s wi t h r espon sibil itie sset o ut toasses stechnology in a  con text such  as  e duc at ion,t hey ne edtotake in to acco u ntwh e t h er  technology contro ls u sor is co ntroll e dby us. Thera teat w h i ch di gita l  t echnolog y evol v es  p laces p re ssureon  sc hoo ls an d  edu cation al techn ologi s ts just to kee p  up with newd ev e l op m ents  (K ritt & Wine gar, 2010 ; Se l wy n,2 010b) , and  t h is pace of change pres en ts cha lleng es for contem plative le a d e rship (C anol e ,2 007; Selwyn, 2 010b) . There is little t ime f or consi dered jud g m ent andthe recan  be a  r eflexive rath e r  tha nreflect ive  respon setonew  in fo rmation ( Canole,20 07 ).  A sso ciate d  with te ch nol og ica l det e rminis m isthevi ew tha t techn o lo g y  isin  c ontr olan d tha t it ove rshadow s human v alu e s, w it htechnol ogy outside o fcultural a nd  et hicalc r itique ( Amiel & Reeves, 2008; R o binson& M cKnig ht,2007; Ver maa s et a l., 2011).  A sim ilarvi ewa b out t e c hn olo gy  as it per t a ins  to v al uesis theneutrality thesis, tha t holds techn olo gy i s ne utr a lw ith  r e gar d to values, neit her good n or ba d in itsel f . T he  neutra lity th esisc an be p roblemati c because  w henv i ewe d from thi s perspe ctive, te c hnolo g ytools  ar e seen  a s h aving  no in h ere nt et hicalco nseque nces(B rey, 201 0; Robinson & McKnight,  2007) . Suc h a  view see mst o b e in conf lict  with thenat ion al 68  fr a mewor k fo r  K -12 techn olog y  leadersh i p,  si n c ethe core sk i l l  ar eas r efl e ct the  vie w that technologi e s can be value  lad e n  an d c a rryet hical implicat ion s( A miel & R ee ves, 2008;Consorti um for S choolNetwor king, 2 0 1 1) .  Decis ions  to  implemen t t ec h nologie sin school s sh ou ld con sidere thic a l  considerationsperta i n ing t o  te chnol og y, incl u ding  Internetsafety forstuden ts,equit able ac ce ss totec hn ology, cop y right com plian ce, per so nalpri vacy,envi r o nment al p ro tec tion ande n er g ysa v ing  pra ctice s,  and  ensuring that tec hno l ogy pro mo tes a  high- p er f o rming lear nin g env i r onment (Co n sort i um for S choolNetwor king, 2 0 11) .The imp lem e n tation of technol o gyha s re sulted i nunfo re see nconsequences an d risksthat wer e not or igi n ally intend ed  or predicte d (Ca no l e, 2007 ; Jon as, 200 9 ; K rit t &  Win ega r, 2 0 10; Nel, 2006; Nworie &Haug hton, 200 8). T he In te rnet has 
 The_technology leadership_framework emphasizes ethical considerations_such as_Internet_safety of_students,_equitable access to_technology, copyright compliance,_personal privacy, information security,_environmental protection and_energy_saving practices, and ensuring that technology promotes a high-performing learning environment (Consortium for School_Networking,_2009; Consortium_for_School_Networking, 2011). Hofmann (Hofmann, 2006;_Lillehammer University College, 2006) examined_the axiological_connection between technology and values, and asserted that_when_professionals with responsibilities_set out to assess technology in a context such_as education, they need to take_into account whether_technology_controls_us or is controlled_by us. The rate at which_digital technology evolves places pressure on_schools and educational technologists just to keep_up with new developments (Kritt &_Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b), and_this pace_of change presents challenges for_contemplative leadership (Canole,_2007; Selwyn,_2010b). There is_little time for considered judgment and_there can be_a reflexive rather than reflective response_to_new information (Canole,_2007)._Associated_with technological_determinism is the_view_that technology_is_in control and that it overshadows_human_values, with technology outside of cultural and_ethical critique (Amiel &_Reeves,_2008; Robinson & McKnight,_2007; Vermaas et al., 2011)._A similar view about technology as_it pertains_to values_is the neutrality thesis, that holds technology is neutral with regard_to values, neither good nor bad_in itself. The neutrality_thesis can_be_problematic because when_viewed_from this_perspective, technology tools are seen as having_no inherent_ethical consequences (Brey, 2010; Robinson &_McKnight, 2007). Such a_view_seems to be in conflict with_the national 68 framework for K-12_technology leadership, since the core_skill_areas_reflect the view that technologies_can be value laden and carry_ethical implications (Amiel_& Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking,_2011)._Decisions to implement technologies in schools_should_consider ethical considerations pertaining to technology,_including_Internet_safety for students, equitable access_to technology, copyright compliance, personal privacy,_environmental protection and energy saving practices, and ensuring that_technology promotes a_high-performing learning environment (Consortium for_School_Networking,_2011). The implementation o f technology has resulted in unforeseen_consequences and_risks that were_not originally intended or predicted (Canole, 2007; Jonas, 2009; Kritt_& Winegar, 2010; Nel, 2006; Nworie &_Haughton, 2008). The Internet has