Chronicle of a Midwest Public Schools Approach to Technology Integration:
Lessons Learned

Susan L. Jones, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Southwest Missouri State University
School of Teacher Education
College of Education
Email:  SusanJones@smsu.edu

I am thrilled to be writing again for my distance learning and technology column. I have been very busy working on two textbooks, which are still in progress, along with many other things. Life just never seems to slow down. I have recently begun working with a Midwest public school system to help them with their technology plan (i.e. their approach to technology integration) and thought it might be helpful to others if I chronicled the events “unedited” as they unfold.

Please understand that while I am working with the public school district, this is a “team” effort; a collaborative approach – not an approach where I go in and tell them exactly what needs to be done and help them establish goals, objectives, and assessment efforts to meet curriculum standards, etc. – I am part of the collaborative approach (that was me gritting my teeth).

Many of you who will read this are just like I am and are in the business of technology integration and distance learning initiatives and are very much aware of how things should pedagogically and strategically be implemented; unfortunately, please understand that the human component combined with a collaborative “team” effort does not always follow a logical path as you will soon see in the initial phases of this school district’s approach to integrating technology.

As I sit on the panel as one of the many “experts” who come from varying backgrounds (including those with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in teaching not technology, instructional design, or even distance learning as I with a Ph.D. in it), I am amazed at the characters and personalities that emerge and who tries to push through personal agendas and where those agendas come from. The school I am working with has approximately 6,000 students total district wide. The schools are run down and not updated; the majority of community members are poor working in low-paying, part-time factory-like jobs if they are lucky. Elite community members exist within the community, but due to the administration’s indecisiveness and untruthfulness, elite community members are split on how to help, if at all. Thus, prior attempts to pass school bonds have failed, and due to the failing economy combined with past unfruitful attempts at a school bond passage leaves talks about any future school bonds an unpopular thought.

Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, each state is required to assess all school districts to determine if each district has made adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting the academic testing standards and additional measures set by the state. AYP decisions are based on the results of state testing in communication arts and math and the district’s attendance rate and graduation rate. If the district has not made AYP for two consecutive years in any one of the four areas, it is considered “in need of improvement.” Based on this information, this school district is in its third year of this designation and is under corrective action in which they will evaluate and update the plan for improvement that has already been developed. The State’s Department of Education will then review the district’s progress toward meeting their goals and objectives and may apply additional sanctions. Below I will outline the technology situation, the individuals involved, and where they are currently headed from initial meetings.

Meeting 1, end of school year 2008-2009

An initial call went out for teachers, staff, parents, community members and anyone who was interested in being a part of the Technology Administration Planning Committee to come to one of several meeting times/places. Once at the initial meeting, if you were still interested, then you were to sign up for a committee that you wanted to serve upon. There was no discussion as to the qualifications or experience that would be helpful if you were to join and try and participate in specific groups.

Committees were set up as follows: Student Learning Committee, a Teacher Prep Committee, and a Technology Support/Resource Distribution Committee; once participants signed up for a committee, meeting times and dates were chosen and committees were each tasked with their individual goals. Note that the “Student Learning Committee and the Teacher Prep Committee” are completely separate. I thought it was interesting to note that the technology coordinator’s goal was to ensure that we were creating the required documentation for the E-rate filing process (I can’t wait to see if it also includes the preparation of applications and responses to USAC questions). He also boldly declared during this time that he could not provide all of the technology training himself that we might come up with, he was understaffed, and to provide the district with the training, he would need more staff. (Mental not to self: His underlying objective is to build an empire for himself…he’s not interested in training faculty or students and helping ensure that the district gets off the “District Improvement list” generated by the district’s inadequacy of four areas…we’ll see if this comes into play as we progress ). From what I have researched and found out, the district technology guru does not over exert himself to provide any training district wide and his job duties are always farmed out to committees…i.e. that small town “team” effort, that other districts technology coordinators normally complete themselves. With an interest and expertise in faculty/teacher training, I decided to follow the teacher preparation committee to lend my expertise.

Meeting 2, end of school year 2008-2009

The teacher preparation committee met and discussion occurred over what direction to go in. The committee consists of namely kindergarten and first grade teachers, school technology coordinators, a district grant writer, and the district professional development coordinator. Discussions occurred on what to do and where to go. Rather than looking nation-wide to see what the most exemplary school districts are doing with the nation they choose to look to their backyard to see what other small, local, rural schools are doing. They also decided since the district technology coordinator could not do all the training (remember mental note: empire building) no matter what training we determined was necessary, we would need to find “experts” in the district who can be “expert in-house trainers” since the district has stopped providing professional development to teachers via sending them to training or bringing quality trainers into the district with sustainable ideas and programs beyond the initial training phase. Do not get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with in-house trainers, but given the status of this school district I think it is in need of more than the same old hometown views of technology. Some discussion also occurred on over what areas one could possibly need training. This included broad-based instructional models and techniques (whatever that is), and discrete skill improvements such as email and the student database program. Bravo!

Yes, I am sure those things will improve students’ scores (remember the student learning committee is separate from teacher preparation). The teacher preparation committee then went off on another tangent on then deciding that they wanted/needed data of some type to assess the skill levels of teachers because the prior questionnaire was not performance-based.

Meeting 3, beginning of school year 2009-2010

At this point, I have begun to think to myself, “What have you gotten yourself into?” I buckled down, went to the committee meeting and sat patiently listening to the committee again all over the place, lead adamantly by the district grant writer who kept eye contact with the districts professional development coordinator. Me thinks the fix is in and somebody came to the meeting with their heads together by watching them play off of each other with their worked-out thoughts. I do not think the district stands a chance in correcting what needs to be done with the district and that is a huge shame for the children and parents who attend school and live here.

It always amazes me to sit back and watch group dynamics. After sitting for awhile and listening to the grant writer taking us down a path to use an assessment for teachers that is used for students and working backwards in the direction we should be taking, I spoke up as the “expert” in trying to redirect them down the path they should be going. I suggested that they define “doable” goals and objectives. I suggested that they look at the school curriculum for each grade level as well as ISTE’s NETs for teachers, students and administrators. (Did you know the district has principals who do not know what these are? I fell off my chair and blacked out momentarily). I suggested conducting a needs assessment to determine what teachers are wanting to use within their own classroom walls and what they need to be trained on which would probably vary by teacher and specific building and curriculum goals (well, there is a new thought). Not to mention why they want to use a pre-packaged assessment program geared for assessment of student’s technology skills and trying to squeeze teachers into it to assess their technology skills.

I questioned why the district wouldn’t want to create an assessment tool that matched the goals and objectives that would be decided upon IF one could not be found but not before identifying goals and objectives. And, why would they not want to start training with instructional design processes where pedagogy and student learning supersedes how to turn a computer on and connect the cables? Maybe defining what technology integration means to this committee should be a priority as well. The grant coordinator turned her back on me in the chair and sat temperamentally like a four-year-old who had been told to stop kicking the dog. Eventually, she turned back around and said she understood where I was coming from but she thought the assessment she found was really good and everybody was using it so they should also. (Mental note to self…..don’t go there with her). Other group members began talking about ISTE NETS, and it was decided that this is where they needed to start. Whew! After all that, I am satisfied with the initial step.

You are invited to join AE Extra staff!
Send your ideas and/or writing sample to the Editor-in-chief:
Elizabeth Haller
Kent State University (e-mail: editoraee@hotmail.com)

Return to AE Home

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader response to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.