School Technology Policies

Check out my latest article on social networking and its use in schools, published by the THE Journal’s Collaboration 2.0 publication. If you’ve been wondering what I do in my “spare” time, here’s a sample of my work:

http://tinyurl.com/24dve5o

The time I have had to update this blog has been escaping me for some time now. I am planning on putting out another article shortly, but the recent issues around cyberbullying have made that the topic of the day in many news environments.

As far as another book goes, I do have a proposal in to my editor / publisher, but we are taking our time on that due to the demands of other writing projects in my timeline. However, I have recently completed a piece for the THE Journal, and will publicize it when the article hits the press (or the emails…)!

LOVE the book!!! I already am a big fan. When is the next book coming out? what will it be on?

When you visit your lawyer’s office, you expect a high level of client confidentiality. However, in an odd turn of events, client information was discovered in a dumpster, even though the firm had policies and procedures in place to protect against this type of data leak.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/2545870,CST-NWS-mitch29.article#

For any organization managing the private information of others, there seem to be three professions that struggle under high expectations:

• Medical offices - healthcare data
• Education - student and parent data, especially at the university level
• Legal firms - client information

In this case, the law firm was a bankruptcy-focused legal firm that did not manage its records of previous clients properly. In another case, a hospital lost the records of 800,000 patients. According to the Open Security Foundation, a research firm reviewing data breaches in various industries, over 500 universities have had data breaches since 2003.

So, what can you do?

• First, you need to understand the risks involved. A good place to start reading about the risk and the costs might be this article from Dark Reading. It’s not fun reading, but an important place to start.
• Second, you need to know where data can be stolen. Here’s a great article to read that identifies university data-theft opportunities. Hint: they aren’t all electronic! Another hint: They can be applied to different businesses and educational institutions!
• Third, plan now for data breaches. I know it’s not the most positive concept, but the Federal Trade Commission has an excellent set of resources that you should read and think through now with your staff members. While this comes from a business perspective, schools (and health care organizations, and legal firms, too) can adapt these resources to their needs. Prepare a strategy that works for your school, district, or group. (A little bonus on writing disclosure letters here!)
• Fourth, develop a culture of data protection. You can read more about creating this culture in my book, Smarter Clicking: School Technology Policies that Work!

Good luck protecting your data!

This is part four of a four-part series. Please click here to read the first article in this series on “Active vs. Passive”. Please click here to read the second article in this series on “Appropriate vs. Inappropriate”. Click here to read the third article in this series on “Public vs. Private”.

Wells is the author of Smarter Clicking: School Technology Policies that Work! from Corwin Press, which was the April 2010 Book Club selection for both the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) and the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP).

In the previous articles in this series, three “dimensions” of considerations for software selection were discussed individually. However, when choosing online software and learning resources, the discussions being held with staff and district team members should revolve around all three dimensions. The first dimension, Active vs. Passive, provides a foundation for rich interactions with others and with learning resources. The second dimension, Appropriate vs. Inappropriate, encourages a discussion about what students will see, hear, and experience when using web-delivered tools. The third dimension is entitled Public vs. Private, and this dimension addresses the need to protect student data while still encouraging open discussions using online software. Taken together, a three-dimensional model of these concepts looks like this:

The purpose of this model is begin identifying the best software for your district based on discussions around these three axes. Each of the axes is subjectively scaled for every community, but the key to selecting the right resource is to discuss these concepts as you make online tools available in your school or district. (There are many other dimensions, of course, but these will at least start the discussion for the major decision points.) There is a set of “golden zones” where the best of online learning can take place in a way that is safe, secure, and productive.

• Active, Private, Appropriate: This is the optimum zone for engaged, active learning. Students are fully engaged in the learning process (active), student data is securely protected and shielded from prying eyes (private), and the learning is exactly what the students need at this point in their development (appropriate).
• Passive, Private, Appropriate: Tools in this category include research engines and more content-driven. Video presentations delivered online can be an example of this type of golden zone. Secured class blogs are another example of appropriate use of online technologies that fit into this zone.
• Active, Public, Appropriate: Assuming you have parent permission, there are a number of online research-based projects that conducted entirely on the web and allow students to speak with top researchers in specific fields, or even communicate with astronauts on the space missions. While these are more public activities, they are both active and appropriate, and should always involve parental communications.

As you can imagine, the combination of different zones can lead down several interesting pathways, but not all of these discussions are fruitful. Finding the golden zones requires a clear understanding of instructional goals as well as district and school expectations for the web sites that are used for instruction. Here are some questions that might need to be addressed to make decisions for your school or district:

• (Appropriate vs. Inappropriate) Are these learning activities connected to state, national, or international learning standards?
• (Public vs. Private) Is there a way to deliver content from the web but keep student data here on our servers?
• (Active vs. Passive; Public vs. Private) Will teachers have the ability to moderate entries prior to posting?
• (Active vs. Passive) Does this application allow students to participate in forums with other students at our school learning the same thing?

Again, the list can go on well beyond the scope of this article. The questions your district will ask are part of your culture and leadership practices. One final word of caution: If you can’t speak with a vendor, think twice about using their service. Holding discussions with vendors to answer your questions is an important process in the vetting of software, either internet-based or locally-installed. Without a relationship with the vendor, you may get a product that exploits your school’s data or provides inappropriate content, and you will have no recourse.

If you have any thoughts or questions about this series of articles, please contact me through my website, www.schooltechpolicies.com or through e-mail at cwells@schooltechpolicies.com.

This is part three of a four-part series - Article 1: “Active vs. Passive” and Article 2: “Appropriate vs. Inappropriate”.

This series is a response to the questions I receive as a central office administrator in a large school district. Online instructional and administrative tools are constantly being introduced into the K-12 marketplace, and the guidance in this article is to help schools and administrators hold the critical discussions with staff members (and sometimes students) that will facilitate smarter, more effective purchases.

One of the key aspects of online resources that is often misunderstood or overlooked is the concept of privacy. This dimension of online technology can be the “make or break” decision around the use of a tool in our schools. Unless teachers and administrators understand the risks and mindset of the district or school, then there might be some staff negativity as well. For example, when teachers return from a conference all bright and full of ideas, they are usually also carrying a large bag of disks or access codes gathered in the conference expo hall. Installing any of these titles or using them in a classroom can create a serious breach of security protocols if testing is not performed on the software.

Even more difficult to pin down is the security protection offered by online software vendors. “Simply upload your student data,” the enthusiastic teachers are told, “and we will send you reports that will cure all of your instructional problems.” However, teachers rarely, if ever, ask if the data being uploaded will be protected from prying eyes, unauthorized usage by the company, or transmission to another vendor. For data that is somewhere in the “cloud”, who owns the sensitive information once it has left your school? (Bissonette, 2009, Ch. 4; Wells, 2010, Ch. 2)

In our district, we try to work with vendors proactively, but local school governance often makes this difficult. Schools need to make their own instructional decisions, and may find great resources online, but may not remember to get advice from the technology support groups first. Some of the questions we ask require the vendors to respond about data security, data confidentiality, and data use, and there are a number of cases where an online software product was not allowed because the vendor could not assure our district that data would be protected. Our due diligence process requires vendors to agree to protect our data and then delete it when our district no longer uses the product. Here is an example of such an agreement.

When discussing the dimension of public vs. private, the concept of data privacy should be considered, especially where student data is concerned. A key assumption for this article is that your district has a clear understanding or philosophy regarding student data confidentiality. This includes understanding federal and state regulations that impact your district. (Robinson, Brown, & Green, 2010, pp. 55-60)

1. Endpoint: Private web resources. Private web resources are those online tools that secure identities of students and still allow for effective instruction. Many online tools allow schools and districts to create unique student profiles along with a secure backup and data safety system to protect all aspects of student data, including performance information obtained by the tool. E-mail is a good example of a private web resource, especially when encrypted, because communications occur between two unique addresses. Some districts have invested in private blogging resources, and each student has tailored access for communication with others. A secured “learning portal” is a common response to providing online student-centric private communications, and these work best when they are connected to teacher, parent, and administrative communication tools, too. The portal approach also allows the school or district to provide unique learning resources in a secure manner with a single sign-on process.
2. Midpoint: Semi-private web resources. Semi-private web tools are those tools that may be publicly available, but student (and staff) information is shielded or coded to prevent recognition. This is useful when a school has purchased accounts with an online resource, but students are given a code, not their names or student numbers, to participate in learning activities. Another example is non-public blogs, where teachers hold private online class discussions that are moderated prior to posting for the remainder of the class to see. The students can access the information to complete assignments, but must log into a private and secured web service to post entries. Thankfully, many vendors now see the value of protecting student data more stringently, and are enhancing their solutions with privacy-enabled options.
3. Endpoint: Public web resources. Public web resources are those interactions that are totally public and the students are clearly identifiable as both a student and as a participant in the learning event. As echoed by Solomon and Schrum (2007), public web resources are not appropriate for school-endorsed solutions, although many schools and districts do so. Without fully examining your school or district’s public information policies (or creating them with some expert help), your district may find itself in very hot water. (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, pp. 152-157)

The issues of public vs. private web resources create something of a sliding scale. What may be perfectly appropriate in a public setting may change when the student privacy is considered. A recent discussion I held with a teacher regarding classroom use of wikis was around this topic. Students were engaging in the conversation, that is true, but each student’s entry was identified by name, and was publicly available on the web. Misunderstandings often occur around this issue, because the teaching culture is one of free distribution: free distribution of knowledge, sharing of lesson plans, providing the after-hours support for students. However, the online educational tools that we choose must also be private, secured, and appropriate for our students’ use. For the classroom teacher, this concept may not be important, but as an administrator, student privacy must always be honored.

In the next article in this series, we will be exploring the interactions among the three dimensions.

References
Bissonette, A. M. (2009). Cyber law: maximizing safety and minimizing risk in classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Robinson, L. K., Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2010). Security vs. access: balancing safety and productivity in the digital school. Washington, DC 30036-3132: International Society for Technology in Education.
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Wells, C. (2010). Smarter clicking: School technology policies that work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

This is part two of a four-part series. Please click here to read the first article, focusing on “Active vs. Passive” in this series. [Production: Insert link on the entire second sentence.]

Wells is the author of Smarter Clicking: School Technology Policies that Work! from Corwin Press, which was the American Association School Administrators’ April 2010 Book Club selection.

As noted in the previous article, these articles are a direct result of my communications with other school and district technology leaders who are seeking a more effective method to discuss online technology software selection. Without passing any judgment on your school or district’s philosophy for purchasing software, this model accommodates a wide variety of different software use philosophies.

This issue’s topic is the dimension of appropriate versus inappropriate online resources. While this may seem like a straightforward issue by asking the question, “Is this appropriate for the user?”, there are other considerations that are worth examining. After all, appropriate is a sliding scale, and what should be shown to a third grader is not the same as what should be shown to a tenth-grade student. When evaluating online applications and resources, “appropriate” can refer to age, gender, curriculum, content, developmental level, visual ability, and even motor skills. As an administrators and technology leaders, we are already skilled in choosing the right instructional resources for our students. When online software is brought into the picture, many administrators assume that there is a different decision-making skill that must be used. Do not believe such myths; you have the ability to continue making solid instructional decisions, regardless of the medium. (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 115)

Luckily, most administrators and educators have the ability to identify those learning resources that work for their students. It becomes much more troublesome when a potential site has a number of excellent learning resources but is connected to inappropriate content, as well. YouTube is an example of a website with thousands of videos that can be used for effective instruction, but if a student can use YouTube, he or she can also access millions of other videos that may be totally inappropriate. Such content is also difficult, if not impossible, to filter.

Look, for example, at online mug shot photos. A recent incident at a school in my district occurred when students were spending their time looking through local mug shots (displayed in “poster” thumbnail form on a single web page) to find people that they knew or were related to their classmates. Aside from being inappropriate uses of school technology, knowledge of the photos became disruptive in classes and in the hallways. I checked with the school police officers, to make sure it was okay to block these sites, and was give approval to prevent district network users from going to the sites. Almost immediately, several complaints emerged: assistant principals, school transportation office staff, and criminal science teachers all insisted that they needed these pictures.

How, then, does a school district (or even a school) provide controversial web sites to some people but not others? While segmenting populations to provide different levels of access to school community members may be possible, is it the correct action to take? In this case, we redirected people to the authenticated police force site that provided the same information, but did not show mug shots in a “poster page” form; each picture and infraction was noted by a text list and required the user to know the name of the arrested person, which still met the needs of all of the groups requesting access. In this example, what was appropriate for some groups is not appropriate for others, but the needs of the whole district or school should be considered when making such decisions.

1. Endpoint: Extremely appropriate web resources. When web sites are appropriate, some thought has been given to advertising, links, age appropriateness, and the users that would be exploring the pages on the site. One size rarely fits all students, but if the site is designed properly, the company supporting the web site should have guarantees or assurances that the site is both “student-friendly” and instructionally supportive. Education companies work hard to create such tools, and allow educators and technologies to provide feedback, too. Some companies, such as NetTrekker, BrainPOP, Discovery Education, and ProQuestK12, are all in the business of providing safe, appropriate content resources.
2. Midpoint: General-purpose web resources with filtering. It seems as though there are as many people working to expose students to inappropriate materials as there are trying to filter out content that should not be shown on school computers. Even the most sophisticated blocking and filtering software tools let some digital trash in, and students without clear learning objectives and mischievous fingers may find sites that are clearly not education-appropriate. (Robinson, Brown, & Green, 2010, p. 19) However, with a clear instructional goal, a solid Acceptable Use Policy, and a culture that supports appropriate use of technology, students will often police themselves when computers are used to view inappropriate materials. (Wells, 2010, Ch. 5)
3. Endpoint: Extremely inappropriate web resources. Would you give a third-grade student a magazine with a children’s article to read if there were pornographic advertisements on the sides of each page? While this may be an exaggeration, many students are faced with this every day, even when using free e-mail, such as Yahoo! Mail, or FaceBook. While school districts may say that such social networking tools are blocked to limit in-school distractions, there is a more compelling legal side as well: the Children’s Internet Protection Act, or CIPA. This law requires all schools seeking federal funding to have an internet filtering resource in place, and this should be used to the extent practicable. That means that we, as educators, are required to protect students from inappropriate material whenever we can, and that includes blocking most social networking sites. However, CIPA is much broader than just social networking, and schools and districts must constantly improve their protection strategies to keep students safe from inappropriate materials. (Bissonette, 2009, p. 57)

At the end of the instructional day, the appropriate vs. inappropriate dimension relies heavily on the educational leadership and school culture. The concepts surrounding finding the right online resources is one that may involve the entire school community, because parents, staff members, and even students want the right resources in their hands for solid education. As school leaders, we also must be mindful of our legal responsibilities in CIPA and the concept of in loco parentis, and this may flavor our perceptions of specific online tools and software. Should the rules be different for students and staff members? Is a software tool used in the eleventh grade also something that can be installed at elementary or middle schools? Only you know and your staff members understand how your district or school will answer those questions, and holding a frank discussion to explore the concepts of appropriate vs. inappropriate will help make more effective decisions when using online software.

In the next article in this series, we will be exploring the third dimension, “Public vs. Private”.

Learn More
For more on this topic, read Smarter Clicking: School Technology Policies that Work!, a joint publication with Corwin Press, AASA, and NASSP. His book is designed to provide ready, effective access to dozens of resources and processes to protect students using technology.

References
Bissonette, A. M. (2009). Cyber law: maximizing safety and minimizing risk in classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: the heart of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Robinson, L. K., Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2010). Security vs. access: balancing safety and productivity in the digital school. Washington, DC 30036-3132: International Society for Technology in Education.
Wells, C. (2010). Smarter clicking: School technology policies that work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

About the Author
Christopher Wells is the Director of IT Policies and Communications for Gwinnett County Public Schools, the largest school district in Georgia. With over 160,000 students in the district, he responds to the diverse, creative ways technology is being used in classrooms. By incorporating realistic examples and messages with humor, compassion, and vision, Christopher presents regularly to diverse audiences and leaves listeners focused and energized on the development of new resources for students and teachers. Email Christopher at cwells@schooltechpolicies.com or visit his web site: www.schooltechpolicies.com.

This is part one of a four-part series.

One of the challenges facing me as a district administrator is how to provide guidance to schools when choosing online instructional and support resources. Other school and district leaders often struggle with the same concepts. There are so many choices of instructional tools, social networks, and productivity applications, and very aggressive salespeople are pushing many of these tools. Additionally, teachers and students all have their favorite online resources that they may be using in the classroom to illustrate topics, complete homework, or connect with one another. (Watkins, 2009, pp. 47-74)

As a result, I have been crafting a simple model to help all members of the school community, including students, parents, staff members, and administrators. This model is not an absolute reference, but a tool for discussing the right solutions in the school community when online resources are evaluated.

The first “dimension” for discussion is the dimension entitled “active vs. passive”. Simply stated, some internet applications are engaging, interactive, and require significant input from the person (or the computer!) visiting the website, and those are labeled “active”. (Fodeman & Monroe, 2009, pp. 41-42) Passive web tools are often information resources that are static or changeable at the request of the user.

1. Endpoint: Extremely active web resources. Online resources can provide a true online playground that gives students a chance to both learn and be engaged. Far from the “edutainment” software previously dumped on schools and districts, this software is often correlated to various learning standards and may provide a range of learning experiences from remedial to advanced. Furthermore, students themselves are helping shape the way the online software provides concepts through pretests and posttests. Tapscott and Williams term interactions like these as “the perfect storm”, because the ability of the internet to provide a medium for communications between a single student and an application a district could not internally develop or provide. The application adapts to the learner, and the learner designs a unique learning plan based on performance data.(Tapscott & Williams, 2008, p. 37)
2. Midpoint: Balancing active and passive. Consider e-mail, blogs, and search engines, a blending of active and passive technologies. All three have active components because users can actually do something with the information being presented on the screen, but if the user wishes to end the experience there, he or she may simply leave the website with no interaction. E-mail is first read, then acted upon if the user chooses. Blogs can be a source of discussion, but if the user simply wants to read posts (when researching a solution to a dilemma, for example) and then leave the site, nothing further is required of the reader. Search engines are also in this category, because the user controls the direction of the searches, managing the content being discovered and refining searches to find specific web-based resources.
3. Endpoint: Extremely passive web resources. Finally, there are those web-based resources that are totally passive. RSS Readers, online encyclopedias, and static posts of information are all passive web resources. RSS readers (RSS is an acronym for “real simple syndication”) are extremely simple tools that allow users to create the equivalent of an online newspaper by selecting content from various websites that provide RSS “feeds”.(Vossen & Hagemann, 2007, p. 48) To explore the use of a reader, look at Google’s free reader tool. ( http://reader.google.com) Online encyclopedias and static posts, such as digital brochures, large quantities of textual or graphic information, or even streaming audiovisual content, usually require little to no interaction from the user to be effective.

In this first dimension of active vs. passive, we are looking at the level of interaction between users and the web-based software being used. Depending on the instructional need, is a passive or active resource best? Do students need to interact with information and one another, or is the essential skill identifying and collecting information to complete a larger task? The answers to these questions can drive your decisions on whether a specific online tool is the right tool for the job. Some educators will argue that an active web resource is always best, and the key question here is, “Best for what purpose?” Yes, an active online software may be great for learning new skills and connecting with others, but a passive online tool may also be required to help build understanding and provide supportive concepts in a lesson plan.

In the next article in this series, we will be exploring the second dimension, “Appropriate vs. Inappropriate”.

Learn More

For more on this topic, read Smarter Clicking: School Technology Policies that Work!, a joint publication with Corwin Press, AASA, and NASSP. His book is designed to provide ready, effective access to dozens of resources and processes to protect students using technology.

References
Fodeman, D., & Monroe, M. (2009). Safe practices for life online: a guide for middle and high school. Washington, DC 20036-3132: International Society for Technology in Education.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything (Expanded ed.). New York, NY 10014: Portfolio.
Vossen, G., & Hagemann, S. (2007). Unleashing web 2.0: from concepts to creativity. Burlington, MA 01803: Morgan Kaufmann.
Watkins, S. C. (2009). The young and the digital: what the migration to social network sites, games, or anytime, anywhere media means to our future. Boston, MA 02108-2892: Beacon Press.

Note: This article is available in a slightly different format in AASA’s Leader’s Edge newsletter. -christopher

In most states, school budgets are receiving unexpected – and intense – scrutiny. There are so many competing demands for resources, and our economic environment is still languishing. Unfortunately, due to the nature of school district budget cycles and funding resources, the worst shortages may be on the horizon for the next school year. Is this the right time, then, to concentrate on innovation? Oddly enough, the answer may be “yes”. 

One of the interesting statements in Friedman’s book Total Leadership: Be a Better Leader, Have a Richer Life is the idea that there are four components of our environment today that are critical to success as leaders (and perhaps as followers, too). They are social change, demands of a new workforce, technological shifts, and changes in organizations and markets. (Friedman, 2008, pp. 19-20) These concepts hinge on change itself, one of the most difficult-to-manage forces in schools today. Used properly, these four success factors can guide the way for school leaders striving to do more with less, and exceed the stringent performance requirements on their schools. 

Here are the four factors (using Friedman’s work as a springboard) from a large-school-district’s perspective on technology innovation:

1. Social Change. We have all heard the good, the bad, and the ugly about social networking, but the forces changing our society through digital communications cannot be ignored. Our students need schools that use social networks when necessary to make knowledge a resource for making decisions. Not only that, if we avoid this trend or outlaw it, our students, and our most promising new teachers, will work around us. Oddly enough, the tools that promote social networking are largely free, paid for by advertisers or other types of business models, such as premium subscriptions. 
    
   Many teachers would take advantage of safely using innovative social if they only knew how to do so safely and effectively. Moderated blogs, protected or “walled garden” social networking sites, or even some student-oriented discussion rooms can be used for classroom and extracurricular instruction, and many of them are available for free.
2. Demands of a New Workforce. Teachers emerging into the workforce over the last five years expect a great deal more from technology than more seasoned teachers. On one hand, they may need a crash course on protecting their image and building appropriate electronic boundaries, but on the other hand, these new teachers may bring new methods to finding instructional materials. As a leader, you may need to work more closely with these teachers to learn their education-related technology ideas that may be appropriate for other groups within your staff. Online resource banks, collaborative workspaces, video and podcast tools, and online polling may be tools that your newest teachers may have recently used in their college classes, making these teachers a source of free innovation.
3. Technological Shifts. Technology tools are becoming more customizable, more personal, and more flexible. They are also becoming more ubiquitous, in the forms of handheld applications owned by students. One site that I recently discovered thanks to a colleague was a response tool for smartphones that could be purchased for the school for about the same cost as a set of response devices. The students use their own phones to respond to questions, and answers are collected and displayed, just like other classroom response programs. (Click here to learn more)  Another was a mind-mapping presentation tool that has incredible online display capability and equally incredible educator pricing. (Click here to learn more) Many educators forget that technological shifts include better pricing for many products, and newer, cheaper, and more competitive tools emerge almost every day in many facets of education.
4. Changes in Organizations and Markets. If you have specific technology-related funds to spend, now is the perfect time to establish a vendor relationship where you are in charge. The vendors right now are anxious to establish and maintain customer relationships. Many already have educational pricing, but general tools, like productivity tools, web site development tools, administrative applications, and portal resources, may be available at reduced prices for educators. Another option is to work with other schools or districts to find out how they are accomplishing their goals or spending their funds. For example, some schools are writing subject-specific iPod Touch applications for the class sets of handheld devices that have already been purchased.  If other schools or districts have ideas that help lower your costs to achieve the same (or higher) goals, then this is another example of inexpensive innovation.

 At the end of the day, we must also ask ourselves to imagine the world where our students will enter a workforce either prepared or racing to catch up. Somehow, we must change to meet the students’ needs, the teachers’ needs, and our leadership needs to address our present financial challenges alongside our need to innovate. Your experience in negotiating agreements is important, and you can certainly lean on others to help you make the most effective decisions. With these tips, you can start a plan for innovation that is either low-cost or no-cost, and the students will benefit from your leadership and thrift! 
Friedman, S. D. (2008). Total leadership: be a better leader, have a richer life.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.