Critique the existing technology plan in your
school/district:
1.
How did the plan meet the existing needs in
technology, funding, and management?
As mentioned in prior posts, the only
previous documented technology plan for The John Cooper School was prepared
some years ago in preparation for an accreditation audit and successive
follow-ups. Earlier attempts to locate a
copy of this document for my benefit failed.
Two weeks ago I again requested to see a copy of the plan. The Technology Director tells me that it
cannot be found.
However, in an effort to provide some
responses to this week’s discussion I interviewed the Technology Director about
accomplishments of the department during his tenure.
In 2001 the department consisted of just
the current director as the sole full-time technology employee and one student
working part-time. Enrollment at the
school was approximately 400 students.
Faculty and staff shared access to a small number of desktop computer. Students had limited access to computers
through “Computers on Wheels (COWS)”, a program that Dr. Ezell began before he
left John Cooper to join SHSU. The
school was running a Novell network on a single (large) server. However, all
the applications needed by faculty and staff required Windows. Funding
for technology was unpredictable, consisting of left over funds and directed
donations.
The director converted the network to
Windows, and has progressively expanded the network hardware and services. The school Headmaster established and grew a
technology item in the school’s budget.
The director with backing from the Headmaster has grown the department staffing
by adding 3 full-time technology specialists, and one part-time data
administrator who is also a part-time faculty member. Enrollment at the school has increased to
1000 and the department now supplies all staff and faculty with desktop and
laptops, and supplies students with 5 computer labs and upgraded laptop carts (Lisembee,
2012) .
Therefore, I would say that over the past
11 years, the technology planning done by the director and the Headmaster has
met the needs of the school in technology, funding, and management. Both have grown impressively. The school now has a very efficient and
current infrastructure that is adequately funded and is managed in a
sustainable manner. The plan that was put together for the accreditation
audit was apparently sufficient for the school to pass the audit and subsequent
follow-ups.
2.
How did the goals provide the measurable
outcomes for future improvements?
From what I have observed, the Technology
Director does his planning on a short term basis with specific, achievable
objectives in mind. His plans have to
fit within his existing budget and staffing. From his perspective his plans are proactive
and very successful. The expected outcomes
are well defined and achievable. This approach
could be a holdover from when the department was a sole person operation. However, this is not a long-term plan with
strategic goals and measurable objectives.
One possible consequence of his planning
technique is that while the infrastructure is modern and well run, the
technology department has never developed a connection with or influence over
the instructional goals of the school. The
school is now at the point of beginning a deployment of instructional
technology in the classrooms, but the technology department is not well
positioned to lead this effort. The
director will find it difficult to continue to operate in a proactive, yet
independent manner without a strategic technology plan that is integrated with
the educational direction of the school.
3.
How did the strategies defined meet the proposed
objectives?
As described above, the plans have probably
been focused only on near-term, self-contained objectives that are technically
achievable. There have not been any
broad strategies that integrate technology objectives with educational
objectives beyond annual goals like establishing and equipping a computer lab
for this grade level or that or replacing a laptop cart.
Lisembee, R. (2012, Janurary - February). Director of
technology. (M. Morrow, Interviewer)
I noticed the statement “the plans have probably been focused only on near-term, self-contained objectives that are technically achievable.” The purpose of technology is not to put more “stuff” in schools. It is to utilize these technological tools to increase the ability of our students to increase their educational achievements. “Educators can expect to gain students adopting a deep approach to learning where students do not just memorize course materials but focus instead on understanding the course concepts because they need this knowledge to accomplish specific “quests” in the game-based learning environment. Our 12 design principles are a step toward creating a cyber-enabled constructivist environment that is engaging and encourages deep learning.” (Rosario, R., & Widmeyer, G. R., 2009) Integrating technology into the achievable objectives leads us to stretch those objectives to more rigorous requirements that the students will thrive at achieving.
ReplyDeleteRosario, R., & Widmeyer, G. R. (2009). An Exploratory Review of Design Principles in Constructivist Gaming Learning Environments. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 289-300. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Robb, I agree with you. The goals of the school's technology department are not well-aligned currently with the needs of the students or the teachers. The technology is standing on its own without a strategic plan that is tied to educational goals. My plan proposals try to address this issue.
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteIt sound like the technology department at John Cooper has existed to support school operations rather than instruction. There are 4.5 staff devoted to technology, but all with technical skills rather than instructional technology skills (which, I admit should not be mutually exclusive sets of skills). I can understand using short-term goals; technology has evolved and changed at such a rapid rate, long-term planning of specifics is very difficult. Looking back just five years, I can’t imagine many foreseeing the explosion of mobile devices and their use in business or education. If technology at John Cooper has focused on operations, this is understandable. One ripe area for long-term planning that you have identified is integrating the goals of the technology department with instructional goals. Have you talked to the tech director about this? Does he see it as a high priority? If so, does he envision bringing in a tech facilitator either as a member of the tech department or teaching faculty to bridge these two domains? In case the John Cooper tech director needs some convincing, the Williamson and Redish article (2009) discusses what the Tech Facilitator’s role is and why it’s important.
Williamson, J., and Redish, T. (2009). ISTE’s technology facilitation and leadership standards. Retrieved April 17, 2012 from http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/TLPREP-excerpt.pdf
Susan,
DeleteI agree with your comments. In answer to your question, I have had talks with the tech director, the last as recently as yesterday, about the need to integrate the technology objectives with the instructional goals. He does not disagree with that. However, there seems to be political and organizational issues at play here that make that difficult at present. The lower school has a tech facilitator, but she reports to the lower school head, not to the tech director. She and the tech director both have strong personalities, and different views on how to approach such an integration. For now they are butting heads, and seem content to agree to disagree. This will not lead to an integrated solution.
One idea that I can carry forward from my corporate experience is that organizations need to occasionally have an outside entity assess their operation. Self-assessment is good and necessary, but it needs to be calibrated with an independent comparison to the rest of the world. The TEA provides some of that for the public schools. But the private schools might be missing out on that. They need more than just the accreditation audit. They need a competitive assessment against other private schools, and the public school system as well. But that thought is beyond the scope of this course!
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI hope that all the hard work you have done this semester will benefit the John Cooper School in the long run. I have enjoyed your blog and have learned from your experiences.
“With the introduction of new hardware and increased demands on support staff comes the vital question: How will this help us teach? Inevitably, this question is asked first not of the teachers themselves but of technologist.” - Richard M. Beattie (2000)
Beattie, R.M. (Sept. 2000). "The Truth About Tech Support," Electronic School. Retrieved February 2, 2012 from http://www.electronic-school.com/2000/09/0900f3.html.
Amy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind words.
I have found these blogs very supportive and insightful, especially being able to compare notes and issues with the private schools that you, Susan, and Allison have analyzed. Private schools are a different situation, and it was good to see that I was not alone.
But for all the schools represented, it seems like the challenge almost everyone is facing is getting the technology effectively applied in the classroom. That surprised me in this course.