Technology Leadership Planks

The link above is a video presentation of what guides me as I practice Technology Leadership. The presentation is a Powerpoint created using Camtasia software.

Link to Google Docs This link is the Powerpoint presentation that is seen in the video above.

We are approaching the end of another school year. So I was reflecting to see what progress was made at my school with regards to instructional technology. Were there any “home runs” that could be used as bragging points? Was there any progress made?

Really, though, how does one measure instructional technology progress? I have anecdotal evidence and artifacts that I can site. But how about improved student test scores? We could measure those, but to be really accurate there would have to be control groups for comparison purposes.

How about professional development? We did have teachers attend professional development courses that addressed instructional technology. But is there a way to measure how this training impacted those teachers methods or lesson presentation. My sense is that the PD must have helped - the teachers agreed it was beneficial.

Still, I am wondering about real technological impact - The kind that changes class room environments and how a teacher conducts daily business. How do we determine if instructional technology is successful?

This document proposes and inventory plan based on available funding and bandwidth for a local school system. Click on the image to launch the PDF file.

Schools can have too many computers!

The case I am making is that each school systems should drive to an optimum number of computer systems that can exist on the computer network. This “optimum number” is not a function of the number of schools, teachers, or students but rather is a function of network bandwidth, money, and network support resources. I argue that there is a point of diminishing returns to a strategy of continuing to make computer purchases and increasing inventory. I argue that there is a careful balance that must be maintained between the number of computers for students and the performance of the network.

Keeping computers current (refreshing technology) – It is easier to ramp up and purchase computers than it is to manage inventory and keep the computer technology current. (I define current as 5 years old or less.) Some districts have continued to grow computer inventories to a point that it is impossible to fulfill any original commitment to a 4 or 5 -year refresh plan. Letting inventories grow has effectively let school system realities be more like an eight year refresh plan.

A key driver of the refresh plan is the available funds. To determine how many computers a school can support on a 4 or 5 year refresh plan, one can use a simple math model. Take the amount of money available for hardware purchases, divide that number by $1000 (this will ballpark how many systems you can buy), now take that number times 4 (or 5) the number of years in the refresh cycle. I argue this number is a schools optimal inventory.

The last facet that must be part of any district’s refresh plan is “what do we do with the old computers?” Each school district must think about how they are going to repurpose and then ultimately dispose of equipment. There are some things, I argue, that you want to guard against.

• Having the old computers find their way to the ESOL and Special Education programs. This will create the perception of these programs getting the old equipment. It adds to the digital divide.
• A computer that has been replaced should be counted differently in inventory than new computers. A repurposed computer should never be replaced – it has already been replaced once.
• “Old” computers will have old software. Teachers might get comfortable with the old software and that makes it problematic when a system tries to dispose of that system

(Link to research article: Knowledge Management in Education: Defining the Landscape)

By Lisa A. Petrides and Thad R. Nodine

This research article describes some common barriers to effective information use. Educational Technology leaders understand the importance of data driven decision making (D3M) - and so others in the organization. Yet, D3M is difficult to achieve. Below are obstacles to successful implementation of D3M practices.

• Lack of Staff. School, school district, and college personnel do not always have enough qualifies staff to provide proper analysis of raw data.
• Data collection not uniform. Various units and departments within educational institutions often use different software, definitions, and other means to collect and organize data, which causes significant problems in analysis and use.
• Lack of leadership. Many schools, school districts, colleges, and postsecondary systems face high turnover rates among upper-level managers, which make it difficult for them to remain consistent in using and sharing data and information.
• Lack of integration of technology. Many teachers, faculty, and staff adopt a “hands-off” approach to technology issues leaving them to “experts” who might know a lot about hardware but very little about the information needs of people in the organization.
• Unclear priorities. Information collection and analysis is often isolated and not clearly related to the mission of the organization.
• Distrust of data use. Many teachers and faculty have witnessed the manipulation of data, and are wary of any process that would have their work, class outcomes, or other activities subject to institutional “bean counting.”

(Link to research article: “Accountability Policies and Teacher Decision Making: Barriers to the Use of Data to Inform Practice”)

By Debra Ingram, Karen Seashore Louis, and Roger G. Schroeder

Below is a review of the seven barriers discussed in this research article to Establishing a School Culture Supportive of Data Driven Decision Making (D3M). As educational technology leaders, it is important that one be familiar with the undertows and cross-currents associated with achieving an organization that is focused on D3M.

Cultural Challenges

• Barrier 1: Many teachers have developed their own personal metric for judging the effectiveness of their teaching and often this metric differs from the metrics of external parties (e.g., state accountability systems and school boards).
• Barrier 2: Many teachers and administrators base their decisions on experience, intuition and anecdotal information (professional judgment) rather than on information that is collected systematically.
• Barrier 3: There is little agreement among stakeholders about which student outcomes are most important and what kinds of data are meaningful.

• Barrier 4: Some teachers disassociate their own performance and that of students, which leads them to overlook useful data.

Technical Challenges

• Barrier 5: Data that teachers want about ‘‘really important outcomes’’ are rarely available and are usually hard to measure.
• Barrier 6: Schools rarely provide the time needed to collect and analyze data.

Political Challenges

• Barrier 7: Data is often used politically, leading to mistrust of data and data avoidance.