Responsible+parties

Mary Hunt, Monica Howell, John Bartucz


 * __1.D. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES__**

Information that has been reported below was secured from personal interviews with district staff; technology coordinators / committee members; and Mary Mehsikomer, State Technology Planner at the Minnesota Department of Education. Eight very distinct Minnesota School District Technology Plans from the 2004-2007 clusters were reviewed for comparison.
 * __Sources of Information:__**

District information from eight demographically diverse Technology Plans that were submitted to the Minnesota Department of Education:
 * //REVIEW OF 8 TECHNOLOGY PLANS://**



Information secured from interview and surveys strongly suggested a pattern of involvement that was dependent on the:
 * //1. How involved are superintendents and/or principals with technology purchasing decisions?//**

· Size of District · Technology Needs of District · Superintendent’s Knowledge of Technology

Districts with smaller enrollment often had a more direct role in the technology purchasing decisions as there are often dual roles and job responsibilities in smaller districts. Overall, smaller districts generally have a higher involvement of superintendents and larger districts often have a lower involvement of superintendents. In addition, an interesting finding from the review of smaller districts' technology plans was that although they have a smaller number of participants on their technology committees, they often had a more diverse population of participants. This was often explained that certain individuals, including community members, were included on the committee based on their expertise with technology. Conversely, larger or urban districts have the opportunity to collaborate with businesses and universities to assist with the expertise needed for determining technology needs, guiding practices regarding purchases, and general knowledge. Specific information related to the roles of superintendents reported in the plans included:

· Provide leadership for the use of technology throughout the district · Communicate changes in technology to all participants within the school and community · Ensure that appropriate technological training is included in the district’s staff development · Search for and provide funding for maintenance, expansion, and training

The superintendent/principal must sign off on technology plans presented to the state for federal funding/discounts. (Minnesota Department of Education 2008-2011 Technology Planning Guide for Minnesota School Districts, Charter Schools, Nonpublic Schools, and Public Libraries[| 20082011GUIDEFINAL.doc])


 * Comments on the question:**
 * I think that unless the super or principal is very tech-savvy, their only task should be making sure that progress is made, i.e., motivating people and resolving stalemates. Even if the leader is very tech-savvy, the danger of giving one influential person what they think they need is very great. Certainly such a person should be able to voice their own requirements, but not in such a way that other voices are not heard. Ultimately, the people using the system should have the greatest voice in its design.
 * At a charter school, the administrator is right in there. Otherwise, there's usually a tech director in district who would be the one primarily directing things. It depends a lot on who the leader is and how much s/he knows. School board policy and budget must also be followed, both of which reflect the leadership's stance on technology.

Information secured from interviews and surveys showed that most districts had a process related to the evaluation of products before purchasing. A technology coordinator generally provides the oversight for the evaluation and purchase of systems. As previously stated, district procedures are often dependent on size, resources, and expertise found in the district. Also, the type of equipment requested may require different personnel to evaluate. This process was best summed up during an interview with a Technology Director who states:
 * //2. Who is evaluating the systems before the purchase? Are they the same people that will be using it? If not, or if they are just administrating it after purchase, how do they elicit the requirements of the people who will actually be using the system?//**

//“Any new request starts at the building level by teachers who must submit the request to the building technology team. The team will evaluate the request before passing the request on to the district technology team. If the request is hardware it is evaluated by the technicians to make sure it fits with existing systems and will work as expected. If the request is software we set up a pilot to have a team of teachers evaluate the product to make sure it fits with our current curriculum needs.”//


 * Comments on the question:**
 * It seems to me that there are three ways that systems are bought:
 * The IT "department" has a budget and goes and buys whatever they want
 * The administration decides what to buy, based on some information from either an internal committee or outside forces
 * A consultant (or consulting company) is hired to evaluate the needs
 * It is my opinion that everyone using the system (from sys-admins to students) needs to be involved in order to be truly successful. Therefore, whichever of the listed routes is taken, I believe that some level of formal systems engineering is mandatory. This means gathering use cases, going through every scenario that anyone can think of, creating requirements documents and ultimately formally outlining the architecture of a real system. Although this seems to take an enormous amount of time, I have **__many__** times been involved with projects where people wish they could go back to the design phase ("if only we'd thought of this before!") instead of wasting time and money putting round pegs in square holes. I have never yet been involved in a project where (after implementation), people have said "I wish we had just gone ahead with whatever we came up with first."
 * This is done by the technology committee, which should include administration, a variety of building staff, district staff if applicable, families, and students. Departments must be able to put in their requests/needs. These requests work up a chain for approval in larger districts, through building representatives, district representatives, etc.

Information secured from a review of the 8 Technology Plans indicated that all the technology committees had some role in the evaluation and adoption of new technologies and materials. A summary of trends gleaned from district plans suggested that smaller districts may have a more informal process and rely less on a specific personnel position (administrator, teacher, etc) but relied more on who had technology expertise to assist the district at any given time. More direct contact was noted to guide the evaluation and decision-making process. An expert from a small district’s plan exemplified this process:
 * //3. What role does a technology advisory committee play in the evaluation and adoption of new technologies? At what level should tech decisions be made - by those using them or those maintaining them?//**

//“ Needs assessment was completed when the school technology system started and now is an informal process – with small schools, [the expert] visits with the teachers and staff about needs and where they are developing technology in their classrooms.”// This district has a student population of 165 and indicated that they were studying more formal processes for the evaluation and adoption of new technologies.

On the other side of the continuum is a district that has over 42,000 students. The information in its plan reads:

“//The IT Steering Committee meets approximately monthly to look at IT requests and how they are coordinated with District goals.”//

This district also has internal memos which specify procedures for types of equipment and costs. An example of the information from the memo is cited below:

//“ At this time, computer hardware and software purchases have been standardized to ensure compatibility and cost-effective purchases. Therefore, routine purchases are controlled through the Purchasing Department and Information Technology Resources.// //However, starting June 2002, all requests for information technology projects of $20,000+ (including hardware, software purchase, staffing, or development of software or web pages, etc) and for contracts for IT services $5,000+ will be coordinated through the Information Technology Project Management Office. This request process has been put in place to ensure that the projects are:// · //Approved and supported by the IT Steering Committee// · //Aligned with the District Improvement Agenda and support District Initiatives// · //Cost-effective, and the total cost of ownerships is known before project start-up// · //Managed well so that work is documented, controlled and performed in a consistent manner"//

This process was described during an interview with a Technology Director who states:

//“Our technology team consists of seven teachers, five media specialists, two community members, the director of technology, the coordinator of MIS, two computer technicians, and our network administrator. NO technology can be purchased in our district without being first submitted to the district technology team for approval. Any new technology must fit with our districts' existing plans or the plans need to be modified. Software requests must also be submitted to curriculum teams for approval before purchases.”//


 * Comments on the question:**
 * I think the technology advisory committee is in charge of making sure the requirements are met. Therefore, they are the ones that need to formalize the process in order to make sure the system people get is the one they need.
 * There should be a balance created by the tech director (in a district with one). A good director is needed, one who can disseminate decisions and rationales to staff and who can work through protocol and politics. Staff training/development is also needed.
 * A school's four-year technology plan submitted to the state must note who its tech committee people are and how decisions are made. Suggested committee members are administrator(s), curriculum director, regular education teachers, special education teachers, tech coordinator, assessment coordinator, assistive tech coordinator, other tech staff, school library media coordinator, parents, students.
 * See also the guiding questions on pgs 14-15 [2008-11 document]


 * Other information citations associated with the questions on this page.**

From Minnesota Department of Education State Plan for Technology in K-12 Education 2005-2008 [|STATE TECH PLAN MAY 05.doc] Financial info/considerations on pgs 25-33 Pp 25-26 = Technology is essential for the efficient organization and management of every Minnesota public school and should be valued as an essential resource. Calls for funding for staff training and technical support Pp 26-28 = Technolgy support encompasses both technical and instructional domains provided through appropriate facilities, staff, services, and incentives. Calls for tech planning committees, staff training, statewide planning for cost-efficient telecommunications, establishment of state tech advisory council. Pp 29-30 = Technology is essential to the efficient organization and management of public schools. Calls for administrator training and support regarding tech. Pp 30-31 = Technology can facilitate data reporting, analysis, interpretation, and informed decision-making at all levels of the educational delivery system. Calls for greater system interoperability and more staff training regarding both use of tech and use of data. Pp 31-33 = Effective use of scarce resources (time, money, and staff) is essential. Calls for expanded use of electronic communications and data systems (communicating with parents, submitting reports, etc), commitment to updates/upgrades/expansions, movement to online or computer-based testing.


 * RESOURCES:**


 * The following link provides information related to administrators’ roles in data-driven decision-making within the school district. http://www.3d2know.org/index.cfm
 * **CASTLE** provides a **Principals Technology Leadership Assessment**. http://www.schooltechleadership.org/ptla/
 * Consortium for School Networking's Leadership Skills Framework at http://www.cosn.org/resources/cto_council/framework.cfm
 * E-School News: [|http://www.eschoolnews.org]
 * International Society for Technology in Education’s National Educational Technology Standards and Performance Indicators for Administrators (NETS-A), ISTE’s Essential Conditions for Implementing NETS, and administrative leadership pages. These can be found at http://cnets.iste.org/administrators/, with general info at http://www.iste.org . The NETS for teachers are found on this Wiki, on team page 2A.
 * Minnesota Education Media Organization: [|http://www.memoweb.org]
 * State Technology Director’s Association: [|http://www.setda.org] provides resources and links for general administrative oversight