I wonder who hired this particular Superintendent. Who hires a superintendent who is afraid to ask the tough questions, who is afraid to communicate with his/her subordinates/colleagues/constituents, who doesn’t seem to have a clear vision of direction.

The superintendent does ultimately have the decision as to what technology to implement in the school, but if the LMS is open-minded and talks freely with him, then possibly they can come to a solution as to why the things he proposes will or will not work and then go from there.

I find that both of these conversations (Miguel has provided a variant on his blog) are heading in the right direction — the intent is there. And perhaps they reflect specific conversations that take place as part of a larger set of conversations between a larger group of folks.

But I wonder how the intent might play out were the conversations to include a wider range of participants — because I think that the solution moving forward NEEDS to reflect and engage all of those involved — students, teachers, parents, tech coordinators, IT personnel, superintendents, directors. Until we have a collaborative process that is looking to address the WHY behind unlocking the technologies — namely the education of children — it is too easy for a smaller subset to limit their perspectives and their conversations.

Are inclusive, informed, forward-thinking deliberations regarding the changing nature of learning and teaching (due to, and influenced by technology) taking place on an ongoing basis in your jurisdiction? Moving forward will require that ALL of us move toward becoming better informed and more actively involved in the conversations.

– I’d also like to add here on Scott’s blog that I think the notion that the Tech Coordinator works for the Supt. may also side-step the reality that they both should be working to support the teachers — teachers who support the students. Top down without engaging/listening to the front-line teacher is inherently problematic.

I also wonder at what point it is capability vs. cooperation. Since I don’t understand filters (although I know if a floor is clean or busses are late and whether that is due to something palatable), it is sometimes hard to ascertain if the adjustments are “able” to be made. I’d still like to be able to say, “This is what I want and expect,” and have the tech person make that happen.

And, as far as I’m concerned, most superintendents are not interested in using technology because they haven’t a clue what they’re really supposed to be doing…and if they listen to their advisors, technology isn’t a priority. In fact, it should be the TOP priority because it changes the learning ecology.

If the tech co-ordinator really works for the system and therefore should be allowing for and encouraging access to the system. Why do they insist on so many layers of security – so much to the point that Flash doesn’t even work because the version is so out of date! The one size model fits all just doesn’t cut it if you really want to unleash the power of teachers and students.

If it truly is the Technology Coordinator that is the weak link in the system, that will become easily apparent when the measurable action steps in the tech plan, which will be owned by the tech coordinator, are not accomplished.

A couple other tips for this Superintendent: Make sure the Technology Coordinator is a member of your Instructional Cabinet, and take the time to review a set of technology coordinator standards, like CoSN’s CTO Skills ( http://www.cosn.org/EssentialSkillsoftheK12CTO/tabid/4489/Default.aspx ) to make sure you know all the responsibilities a technology coordinator has.