by Scott McLeod | Mar 14, 2007 | International, Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision, Planning and Funding, Quotes, Tech Integration |
[cross-posted at the TechLearning blog]
[Law students learn to argue both sides of any issue because as attorneys
they may be hired for either side of a case. Knowledge of the other side’s
arguments also allows attorneys to counter those arguments and thus strengthen
their own side. So with that in mind, here’s a little contrarian perspective on
School 2.0. As technology advocates, we must be able to offer real solutions,
not just empty rhetoric.]
Dear School 2.0 advocates,
We’ve heard it all before. The sky is falling.
America is in danger of losing its role as lead actor on the global stage. What
else is new?
National commissions? Esteemed task forces? Corporate leaders as education
critics? We’ll see your Bill Gates and raise you a Sputnik.
We heard it in the 1950s:
We are engaged in a grim duel. We are beginning to recognize the threat
to American technical supremacy which could materialize if Russia succeeds in
her ambitious program of achieving world scientific and engineering supremacy by
turning out vast numbers of well-trained scientists and engineers. . . We have
let our educational problem grow much too big for comfort and safety. We are
beginning to see now that we must solve it without delay. – Admiral Hyman
Rickover, 1959
We heard it in the 1980s:
The risk is not only that the Japanese make automobiles more efficiently
than Americans and have government subsidies for development and export. It is
not just that the South Koreans recently built the world’s most efficient steel
mill, or that American machine tools, once the pride of the world, are being
displaced by German products. It is also that these developments signify a
redistribution of trained capability throughout the globe. . . If only to keep
and improve on the slim competitive edge we still retain in world markets, we
must dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system for the benefit
of all–old and young alike, affluent and poor, majority and minority. Learning
is the indispensable investment required for success in the "information age" we
are entering. – A
Nation at Risk, 1983
We heard it in the 1990s:
America’s education system is broken. – IBM
CEO Louis Gerstner, 1994
And we’re hearing it again today:
Whereas for most of the 20th century the United States could take pride
in having the best-educated workforce in the world, that is no longer true. Over
the past 30 years, one country after another has surpassed us. . . . While our
international counterparts are increasingly getting more education, their young
people are getting a better education as well. . . . Our relative position in
the world’s education league tables [continues] its long slow decline. – The New Commission on the
Skills of the American Workforce, 2006
America’s high schools are obsolete. – Microsoft CEO Bill Gates,
2005
And yet, somehow, despite our educational system’s long history of alleged
mediocrity, our country and our economy keep chugging along quite nicely. Our standard
of living is the envy of most of the world. Our gross
domestic product per capita literally dwarfs those of China or India, the
latest international competition du jour. Despite our country’s
creativity-stifling schools, our citizens and workers continue, quite
astonishingly, to build upon our nation’s well recognized and long-standing
traditions of innovation and excellence to create new products, new systems, and
new markets.
We’ve heard it all before. Creative thinking.
Problem solving. Independent, self-directed learning. Daniel Pink, Richard
Florida, John Seely Brown…
Ho hum. Ever heard of progressive education? The turn of the LAST century?
Summerhill? John Dewey? Neil Postman? The 1960s? Been there, done that. Why is
THIS time any different? Why is it that THIS time we should replace the entire
system?
Yes, we get it. Most kids think schools are boring. Big surprise. John
Goodlad told us that long ago. As if we needed ANYONE to tell us that. Isn’t
that just the way school is?
Fine. School 2.0 is the “right” thing to do. Technology has the potential to
transform education. Our educational institutions could be doing so much more.
Educators should feel more of a moral imperative to do things differently. Blah
blah blah… Let’s be honest: isn’t this true for ANY bureaucratic government
entity? Do we really expect our public schools to be any different?
We’ve heard it all before. The status quo is
inadequate. Too many kids drop out, our assessment systems are all wrong, and
we’re squandering our children’s future. The problem is that you offer no
concrete, tangible, publicly- and politically-viable alternatives.
It’s easy to throw stones at glass houses. It’s much harder to replace a
venerable system that’s served us well for a century with something else. The
old saw, “Never make a complaint without offering potential solutions” applies
here in spades. Just for argument’s sake, let’s say that we “tore down the
walls” tomorrow. What would education look like instead? How would we ever get
there from where we are now? How are you going to persuade educators, and
politicians, and your local community members that this is worth moving toward?
That it’s not just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking?
What’s your plan? We mean a real plan. Not just “kids learning
independently on matters of personal interest, taking advantage of the power of
digital technology to help them do so.” What will the structures look like?
Policies? Laws? Funding streams? How will we know if kids have learned anything
important? How will we handle parents’ very real needs for someone to take their
kids while they go to work?
Quit offering us wishes. Quit offering us dreams. Quit preaching to us about
what is morally right and educationally appropriate. Help us realize, in terms
we can understand, what this new thing might actually look like AT SCALE and how
we might reasonably get here. Even if we agree with you that this is important,
without a vision AND a plan we’re just as stuck as you are.
We’ve heard it all before. What else you got?
by Scott McLeod | Feb 20, 2007 | Assistive and Accessible, Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision, Management and Operations, Online Learning, Planning and Funding, Tech Integration, Tech Tools |
My letter to Secretary Spellings in the previous post about online multimedia textbooks is the outcome of a conversation that I had with Jim Hirsch, Associate Superintendent for Technology and Academic Services for the Plano (TX) Independent School District, at the TIES conference last December. I’m not the only one thinking on this front. For example, Scott McNealy, Chairman of the Board for Sun Microsystems, said last June that ‘technology trumps the textbook.‘ Similarly, four days ago Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, noted that textbooks as we know them will disappear.
To be honest, the two most visible free online textbook initiatives still have a long way to go. WikiBooks, a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, seems to be having a hard time getting off the ground; most of its content has yet to be created or is in the very earliest stages of development. Curriki, which is sponsored by Sun and has gotten a lot of media attention, so far seems to consist primarily of disparate resources and activities rather than comprehensive, meaningfully-organized textbooks. Both seem to be relying on volunteers’ efforts for most of the content. While both initiatives have potential, so far that potential remains unfulfilled. It’s early in the game, though. The National Repository of Online Courses (NROC) also is doing some interesting work but appears to be complementing, rather than replacing, print textbooks.
As my letter indicates, I think we need something more intentional and systematic. A strategic investment of monies could go a long way toward creating some pedagogically powerful, wonderfully engaging, online multimedia textbooks that then could be used by anyone in the country (or world). Can you imagine what a rich, interactive, media-saturated textbook a team of expert teachers, professors, and computer / Web programmers could create given a year’s time and $800,000 to play with (above and beyond their sabbatical salaries)? Can you imagine how fiscally and educationally empowering it would be for schools to have free and open access to 150 to 200 high-quality online multimedia textbooks created by the top experts in the country?
Clearly this an expensive venture from a raw dollar standpoint, at least to do it well. That said, the $200 million per year figure that I proposed represents less than 4 one-thousandths of the current federal discretionary funds allocated for K-12 education. The federal government clearly has the money to pull this kind of thing off. So might a consortium of states or maybe a large private foundation. As big as the numbers are, the return on this strategic investment would be HUGE.
Textbook publishers probably would oppose this idea. So might others, for a variety of political, educational, and sociological reasons. But Public Education Network CEO Wendy Puriefoy’s February 14 statement that "the new federal education budget is full of enthusiasm but lacks powerful ideas and transformative levels of funding" strikes home with me. I think this is a powerful, transformative idea whose time has come and I hope someone besides me will think big and make this happen.
by Scott McLeod | Feb 20, 2007 | Assistive and Accessible, Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision, Management and Operations, Online Learning, Planning and Funding, Tech Integration, Tech Tools |
[send this letter to Secretary Spellings, Director Magner, and Congress]
The
Honorable Margaret Spellings
Secretary
United States Department of
Education
400 Maryland Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20202-7100
Dear Secretary Spellings,
The United States Department of Education currently administers a budget of
approximately $56 billion per year in discretionary monies. I am sending this
letter to encourage the Department to make a relatively small, but extremely
strategic, investment that would pay enormous dividends for our nation’s
elementary and secondary students.
For $200 million per year, the Department could create phenomenal,
mind-blowing online multimedia textbooks that could be used by students all
across the country. Imagine 50 teams, each made up of individuals who took a
paid sabbatical for one year, working to create rigorous, standards-based,
online textbooks that included text, graphics, electronic presentations, audio,
video, simulations, learning games, interactive problem-solving and review
activities, etc. The teams could be comprised as follows:
- 16 expert teachers * $100,000 each = $1,600,000
- 4 university professors * $100,000 each = $400,000
- 8 computer / Web programmers * $100,000 each = $800,000
- 1 assistive technology expert * $100,000 = $100,000
- 1 national organization representative * $100,000 = $100,000
- 1 project manager * $200,000 = $200,000
- Communication and other software, supplies, travel, etc. =
$800,000
Four teachers plus a professor plus two programmers equals a workgroup; four
workgroups per team. Each team receives ongoing feedback from a representative
from an appropriate national organization (e.g., National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, National Council for Social Studies), has an assistive technology
expert to ensure content accessibility by students with disabilities, and has a
project manager to keep the workgroups moving along. The workgroups create
content; post that content online as they go along for review, comment, and
input from others; and, over the course of a year, create several units each
that add up to a complete, amazing, deep, rich online multimedia textbook.
Each year would see the completion of 50 textbooks. Over three or four years,
these Department-sponsored teams would create 150 to 200 textbooks for common,
key courses (e.g., Algebra I, Physics I, AP English, United States History, 5th
grade reading) that are present in nearly every school district nationwide.
Textbook content would be refreshed every three or four years to ensure content
relevance and usage of the latest digital technologies. If the textbooks were
wiki-based, much of the content could be revised and updated even before their
refresh cycle came due.
Once created, these textbooks then could be hosted by the Department, state
departments of education, and other entities or could be downloaded for hosting
on local school district servers. Federal provision of these textbooks would
free states and school districts to spend funds on laptops, classroom-level
high-speed wireless connectivity, and other technologies necessary to ensure the
global competitiveness of our students in the decades to come. All textbook
material would be free and openly accessible to our nation’s K-12 students and
educators.
I hope that you can see the instructional power of teachers and students
tapping into expert-created content delivered via the latest interactive,
engaging digital technologies. Although a few organizations (e.g., Wikibooks or
Curriki) are attempting to create free online textbooks or learning materials,
their reliance on volunteers has resulted in relatively little progress. A
strategic investment by the Department could make an extremely powerful
contribution to the K-12 educational landscape and would be a powerful lever
toward ensuring that all students had access to top-quality, engaging learning
materials.
Please consider instituting a national online textbook initiative. I believe
that this is an idea whose time has come and would welcome the opportunity to
discuss this further with you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Scott McLeod
Assistant Professor, Department of Educational
Policy and Administration
Director, UCEA Center for the Advanced Study
of
Technology Leadership in Education (CASTLE)
Affiliate Faculty, Law
School
University of Minnesota
by Scott McLeod | Jan 31, 2007 | Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision, Planning and Funding, Tech Integration, Tech Tools |
David Warlick has blogged often about our need to tell a new story. A story about the technological shifts that are occurring in our society. A story about the impacts that digital technologies are having on our lives, the workplace, and, indeed, our very economies. A story about the future of eduation and what our kids need to know and be able to do in the New Economy. A story that helps people make the move from an education system designed for yesteryear to a system that is designed for tomorrow. This story needs to be told in a compelling way so that it resonates with listeners.
I agree with David. We do need a new story. We probably need multiple new stories, told in different ways to different people at different times in different settings. We need to tailor the new story for different audiences to ensure maximum reception. But I’m also thinking that a new story is not enough. A new story alone will not get us to where we need to be.
I think we also need a BHAG: a big, hairy, audacious goal. A tangible, concrete target that lets us know when we’ve reached some crucial point. A new story (or three or four…) is a necessary component, but I don’t think it will be sufficient in and of itself. I think we need a new story and a BHAG, because the BHAG will help drive action and allocation of resources. A new story tells us what the issues are but it doesn’t necessarily help people know what to do. The BHAG helps people understand where we might go and how to get there. Together a new story and a BHAG will help educators, and parents, and community members, and politicans create the will and the action to move us forward.
I think we’re starting to wrap our heads around what a new story might look like. For example, I know that the presentation set I’ve been delivering lately, which combines diifferent resources and quotes and materials from the blogosphere and elsewhere, is resonating well with folks here in Minnesota. But we still need a BHAG.
So what might a BHAG be? What might be a big, hairy, audacious goal, a target that makes us gulp a little bit but also is focused and achievable? What might be something that would help us accomplish our goal of moving schools, students, teachers, and classroom pedagogy into the 21st century? What might be a goal that is tangible and yet energizing, a goal that grabs people in the gut and serves as a unifying focal point of effort?
I’ve been thinking a lot about this and I can’t come up with anything better than this:
- ubiqitous nationwide high-speed wireless Internet access, and
- a wireless-capable laptop for every student and educator.
I’ve previously blogged about variations of the first component (both here and here), and I think we’re starting to see the revolutionary impacts of giving every kid and teacher a computer, even when those impacts weren’t foreseen or desired at the outset. I think these two in coordination (and you need them both, I believe) are a BHAG worth rallying around. Now of course the question is… what do you think?
This post is also available at the TechLearning blog.
by Scott McLeod | Jan 23, 2007 | Leadership and Vision, Management and Operations, News and Events, Planning and Funding, Podcasts, Professional Development, Tech Integration |
Listen to this post!
I had the pleasure of spending last Friday morning with the Minneapolis Public Schools Technology Planning Steering Committee. Coleen Kosloski, Director of Information Technology Services, gave me the task of energizing the group and giving them some things to think about.
We started with Karl Fisch’s Did You Know? presentation. I then talked for a little over half an hour about the changes we’re seeing in American society, essential workplace skills for the 21st century, Web 2.0, gaming, and other fun stuff. If you’re interested, here are the materials from the session:
by Scott McLeod | Nov 27, 2006 | Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision, Planning and Funding, Tech Integration |
The federal government spent $45.7
billion on elementary and secondary education in 2005–2006. This represented
about 8.2% of the overall government spending on P-12 education in our country,
with the rest of the monies coming from state and local sources.
The estimated P-12 public school enrollment for that same year was 48.7 million
children. Add in about 5 million private
school children and another 1.1 million
homeschooled children and we have an approximate total of 54.8 million students. Using
these numbers, we can calculate that currently the federal
government spends about $834 per school-age child.
Even knowing that many families could afford a better computer,
what if the federal government bought a $100 (or so) laptop for every child in
America? What would our schools be like? What would our children’s lives be like?
by jon | Oct 5, 2006 | Assessment, Blogging, Guest Bloggers, Leadership and Vision, Management and Operations, Planning and Funding |
I’ve been wanting to write this piece for a long time, but never figured out the right outlet. This blog, however, is a great space for me to try it out (ah, the beauty of blogging!). Plus, I think I did reasonably well with my Freakonomics analysis on Monday, so I figure it’s safe to work my thoughts through another popular non-fiction book.
Moneyball, by Michael Lewis, is a book about baseball. So, I don’t know how many readers of this blog will have read the book. But, for me, the book is about so much more than baseball and the lessons of the book are incredibly applicable to education. Lewis initially set out to write a book about how the Oakland A’s, a major league baseball team on the low end of the financial resources continuum, managed to compete at such a high level seemingly every year. There are tremendous disparities in spending across Major League Baseball, and the game has been plagued by the perception that the teams that spend the most money win the most. The New York Yankees (my favorite team!) were the face of this perception. The A’s seemed to defy this perception.
What Lewis ultimately discovered was that the A’s, led by their unique general manager Billy Beane, had adopted an organizational commitment to scouting and assessing players using statistical analysis of the loads of data generated by the game of baseball. These forms of analysis, labeled generally as sabermetrics, had been around for many years, but they were largely written off as the province of geeks and statheads who just happened to like baseball. Beane, however, came to believe that a sabermetric approach to scouting and valuing players would allow them to make the most cost-effective decisions possible. They were able to figure out which individual statistics were the greatest predictors of team success. Then they sought players who thrived in those key areas despite being deemed by others as flawed in other areas of the game thereby devaluing their salaries. So, for example, sabermetricians were able to demonstrate that on base percentage (OBP – the likelihood that a player will get on base in any given plate appearance) was the single greatest predictor of runs scored. That seems logical since a player must get on base to score a run. But, traditionally, players were valued based more on their batting average (the likelihood that a player will get a hit in any given plate appearance) than OBP. Therefore, there were some players who didn’t have great batting averages (and as a result didn’t earn very high salaries), but had relatively higher on base percentages (mostly because they earned lots of base-on-balls – aka walks). Those players became Oakland A’s.
Most baseball purists and old school baseball people fervently opposed this sabermetric orientation. They argued that you couldn’t judge a player by crunching numbers. You had to watch the players play, get to know them as people, etc.; in other words, make value determinations by scouting the old fashioned way. The numbers were cold and unreliable, they’d say.
Is this starting to sound familiar? Purists, traditionalists arguing that we should not rely on numerical data to make decisions? Numerical data are cold and unreliable, and they can’t tell you what you need to know about people? These are the same arguments you hear from those opposed to what has been labeled "data-driven decision-making" (DDDM) in education.
I could stop here and argue that the Oakland A’s commitment to sabermetrics and cost-effective decision-making has been highly successful (just look at how well they’re doing in this year’s playoffs!), so everyone should buy in to DDDM in education. But, that’s not the real point I want to make.
For me, there is another perception problem here. The popular sports media has, for the most part, portrayed this so-called Moneyball philosophy inaccurately. The popular sports media would have us believe that sabermetric analysis is an opposing paradigm to traditional baseball scouting methods. But, the fact is that sabermetric analysis has been used by the A’s (and now many other teams as well) as a complement to more traditional methods of scouting and player valuation. It is not as if the A’s have fired all of their scouts and hired all statisticians; their scouting department includes a few number crunchers in addition to all of the scouts who do what they’ve always done.
Similarly, in education, "data-driven decision making" is the label given to the movement to making decisions based on the scores of numerical data that are now available to educators as technological means (computers, databases, etc.) have intersected with a climate of standards and assessment. But, to suggest that DDDM is a new movement or idea in education implies that before now, decisions were made in a vacuum; decisions were made in the absence of data. That’s not the case, though. Decisions, particularly those about individual students, were made based on professional judgments (teacher perceptions, observations, etc.). Like sabermetrics in baseball, (statistically oriented) DDDM is a complementary approach to professional judgment in education. They are epistemologically different approaches, but they are not mutually exclusive.
Finally, the Oakland A’s needed to add sabermetric analysis to their organization because they were playing on an uneven playing field with respect to financial resources. As a result, they have been able to compete successfully against the big spenders. Education is a notoriously uneven playing field with respect to financial resources. I hope schools and districts struggling with relatively low per-pupil expenditures see DDDM as a way to make more cost-effective decisions.
by jon | Oct 4, 2006 | Guest Bloggers, Planning and Funding, Research and Evaluation, Tech Integration |
This question is at the heart of a dissertation one of my advisees is undertaking. In fact, she successfully defended the proposal today (congrats, Jennifer!), so I thought I’d share some thoughts on this while the ideas are fresh in my mind.
The genesis of the study was my observation that I had heard the term "technology integration" used regularly, had read a lot about it, and had even studied it, but did not really have a firm grasp of what it really meant. A quick review of the literature made it clear that most of those who studied and/or wrote about technology integration failed to define or operationalize the term. Furthermore, where there were efforts to define technology integration, those definitions varied greatly and were either too vague or too narrow (in my opinion).
For me, this was enough justification for a study that would systematically create an operational definition of technology integration. But, most of the discussion at today’s dissertation proposal hearing revolved around why such a study was important. In other words, why is it important to create a theory/model/definition of technology integration? My advisee did a nice job of addressing these sorts of questions, and ultimately a number of reasons were discussed. Certainly, there are empirical reasons for creating an operational definition of technology integration. That is, for those of us that study technology integration, it would be helpful to have a comprehensive framework or template or lens to use. For the world of educational practice, though, the main justification for this study is that clarity and/or understanding leads to action. Or, vice versa, a lack of clarity and/or understanding can stifle action. So, the argument goes, if we want technology integration to happen (and we do!!!) it is important to provide teachers and administrators with a clear and comprehensive road map or picture of what technology integration looks like.
Interestingly, the Superintendent of the district in which my advisee works has convened a technology roundtable to revisit/revise the district’s "Technology Integration Plan," which, itself, fails to really define what is meant by technology integration. So, this study will satisfy the requirements for a dissertation for my advisee, but the findings will also become a real reference piece for the district’s technology plan. I love when dissertation work has real and practical implications.
Ultimately, the theory/model/definition of technology integration that comes out of this dissertation will emanate from the data yielded through a deep and systematic review of the literature. However, I have some biases going in. One major bias is that I think a theory/model/definition of technology integration must be broad and comprehensive. My sense is that most educators and researchers think too narrowly about technology integration. For some, the focus is on access and infrastructure (i.e. we’ve integrated technology if we make it a part of our teaching and learning space). For others, the focus is on curriculum and teaching (i.e. we’ve integrated technology if it is used to support teaching and learning in the content areas). For me, technology integration includes both of these aspects…and more. According to the American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (as referenced on dictionary.com), integration is defined as, "[t]he state of combination or the process of combining into completeness and harmony."
I hope that the theory/model/definition of technology integration that comes from this study takes into consideration notions of completeness and harmony. I look forward to seeing what the data say and to sharing what my advisee and I learn.
by steve | Sep 26, 2006 | Guest Bloggers, Leadership and Vision, Planning and Funding |
Yesterday, I talked a little about how visionary leadership is essential in leading the way to the schools we need with technology, teaching, and learning being comprehensive and cohesive. The daunting question is: how do you take a school district and move them from where they are to where they need to be? In addition to vision, it takes collaboration and planning. School districts need to partner with all stakeholders including, and especially, the local business community. One such collaboration and plan has been unfolding in our school district. It is one model that I think will continue to be very successful. We want to be world class. Our superintendent will give you a feel for the type of collaboration and planning that we have had. It is called our Roadmap to Renewed Excellence. Do you notice how technology is woven throughout the plan meaning that it will be what we do not just in addition to what we do? That is an important distinction.
I would like to hear from you. What types of planning processes have you been through on this scale? What were your results?
A final thought:
Do you believe it when you see it? Or do you see it because you believe it? Those two viewpoints are worlds apart.
Posted by .
by david_quinn | Sep 18, 2006 | Guest Bloggers, Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision, Management and Operations, Planning and Funding, Tech Integration |
The pressure of being the first guest blogger!
As Scott mentioned my name is David Quinn and I am an Assistant Professor of Educational Administration and Policy at the University of Florida . I am in my second year at UF having previously taught at the University of Arizona for six years. I am excited about the opportunities that are emerging at UF especially being able to focus my teaching, research and service around issues of technology leadership in schools. I teach three classes at UF: Leading Change, Data-Driven Decision Making and Technology Leadership in Schools and I am excited at the convergence of literature and research in these areas that are readily applied to administrative practice. I just read through this bio and it is sounding pretty academic, so on to my musings.
While teaching the tech leadership class this past summer, my graduate assistant, Matt Ohlson, and I were talking about how relevant or irrelevant school and district technology plans can be. As we looked for school and district tech plans that could serve as exemplars for our students, we were amazed at the spectrum of plans. Some might contend that a plan is just a piece of paper (or more often than not an Adobe Acrobat file) that schools and districts complete because of a mandate like receiving e-rate funding. I would argue however, that an inclusive process of planning for technology can be a powerful stimulus for changing schools from something Frederick Taylor would appreciate into an organization that acknowledges that technology, especially the Internet, has radically changed our world over the last 10-15 years. I am in schools on a regular basis and cringe whenever I see the same rote instruction led by lecture, while 5 networked computers collect dust in the back of the room (that’s a whole other blog entry).
Getting back to the discussion of technology planning, one of the often-referenced district plans is from Bellingham Public Schools. This is an excellent “living” document that really drives the utilization and integration of technology in Bellingham Washington. Searching the Internet for model plans tweaked my interest in what was happening at the district level in Florida. Being new to the state, I with major assistance from Matt began collecting and analyzing as many of the 67 district technology plans as we could get our hands on. Out of the 52 plans that we compiled, there are some powerful documents including those from Pinellas, Sumter and Palm Beach Counties. Many of the plans fall far short of providing a guiding vision for tech utilization. A majority of these plans follow Florida’s minimum guidelines for district technology plans without deviation. I don’t blame these districts, they were told “if you want e-rate funding, you will submit a plan that addresses these criteria.” Those districts that went above and beyond typically have large technology departments and experienced leadership, whereas many of the weaker plans are from small rural districts where the director of technology may also have numerous other obligations. Colleges of education should also accept some of the responsibility because most are not preparing administrators how to be technology leaders.
This investigation has been enlightening and we have begun to collect school-level technology plans for review. While district tech plans provide a roadmap for many schools, a school-level technology plan is essential for guiding technology implementation acknowledging the unique context of each school. The most rewarding part of teaching the tech leadership class was seeing a good number of my students become excited about the opportunities that technology provide for schools. Several students are using their new knowledge and enthusiasm to start leading change in their own schools.
This “stuff” as Scott so eloquently puts it, is always on my mind, and I am excited about the future of technology in schools.
