Who's Responsibility Is It?

As I contemplate and discuss the Agreements that guide our schools in the selection, implementation, maintenance and support of technology, the question arises, "Who's responsibility is it to make everything work?". In our district we have a distributed system of decision making but we don't always have a distributed sense of responsibility to purchase and support sustainable technology. Staff members are given the money to choose the technology they want to implement in their building. In the past, they provided a significant share of the support in the building as well. But as the demands have grown, we have hired district staff to increase tech support. Some schools continue to provide a fair amount of support by building staff. This gives them some internal support when something goes wrong and gives them a set of eyes within their staff for looking ahead. More and more schools are abandoning this, devoting their FTEs (staff hours basically) to other instructional purposes; direct instruction of technology for the most part.

There has been a see-saw debate in our district as to who should choose the hardware and software, who should pay for tech support and who should provide the support. Alongside this debate is the idea that schools are in the best position to decide and spend money to implement technology. Despite the fact everyone feels very constrained with the small budget they have, some schools have done an excellent job of providing access to their students and teachers.

My concern with this mix of responsibility is that we aren't clear about who insures that everything is implemented and working effectively. More important, we aren't clear that everything that is implemented is sustainable, not only from a building to building perspective but from a district perspective. If I purchase something that is unusual or unique, should I be responsible to make it work? or If I purchase it, can I assume that someone will rush in and figure out how it works, show me how to use it, and keep it running? If my school chooses to adopt some software that no one else is using, should our staff have the expectation of support? Is this sustainable in the big picture? Some schools have this expectation - some schools do not. Most important:

• teachers want technology for their students,
• they want it to work in their instruction,
• they want support when it breaks.

To reach this goal we all need to take some responsibility for the technology we are using. While it would be ideal if someone was on hand to provide instruction and solve problems when the need arises, we don't have the resources to meet this desire. I understand and agree that teachers should not be expected to do this on their own. They deserve training and support. There is a limit to the amount of support that can be given when there is an infinite number of software and devices to learn and fix. The following would move us in the right direction.

• Support a limited the number of applications and hardware.
• Empower building, community and district support staff to say no to support on unsupported hardware and software.
• Prioritize training on applications that we want to support.
• Provide training on supported applications and hardware.
• Encourage teachers to help one another with day to day fixes.
• Prioritize the response for support to instructional applications - as we have done for business applications.

Watching training - Meaning or Mechanics?

I'm sitting here watching people struggle to understand the meaning of the Instructional Practices of Marzano. The presenter is trying to incorporate the use of technology in his instruction. We are logged into a wiki and into a McRel blog - at least some of us are. There is a fair amount of frustration in the room. Part of this is due to the adults general frustration with technology. We often think that we are supposed to understand things the first time. If the technology doesn't work the first time we try it, we are annoyed and look for someone or something to blame. The thing with tech is that it is very experimental by it's very nature. There are few times, if any, that it works out of the box especially with a large group of people. In our case we have 50 people in the room, on a wireless connection, logging into accounts that were just created, using tools that are novel to most. This is a formula for stress and frustration.

It is difficult to control for some of these factors. It would be great if we could do a pretest of people's knowledge and ability with the tools beforehand. It would be a good idea to host the workshop in a setting that is well equipped for bandwidth and power. It would be a good to avoid first time login issues. Advice to self: If you are going to create accounts for people in a new app, you should probably send them their credentials ahead of time and invite them to let you know if it doesn't work.

We are just about to break for lunch and we have just begun to get into the content of the workshop - the Practices. The presenter has assigned a table of people to take notes (trying to keep people from breaking the lock).

Afternoon - Everyone has a username and password and can sign on to the blog and the wiki. That's not a bad turnaround on the account solution problem. While the presenter has described the difference between a blog and a wiki, I'm not sure that people understand the distinction or more importantly understand how it would fit into their instructional work flow. And this is the challenge. On the one hand we have technology. On the other we have instructional practice. If I were a teacher I think I would need a time to practice with each and each together. Despite the frustration, I think we are on the right track in this workshop. The question is whether people understand the instructional practices that are being illustrated with the technology. Also, will the get enough exposure in this session or in the ones to follow to benefit from the use of technology? There needs to be some amount of exposure to the tools with a easy reference to them for later use. Along with this, teachers need to have a deep understanding of the Instructional Practices.

I have assumed that the second ingredient, the Instructional Practices, were second nature to teachers. After speaking with some of the participants I realize that they are familiar with them but not enough to be able to train other teachers - and that is the point of this training. We are trying to encourage teachers in new practice - sometimes even breaking old bad habits. This group of teachers and administrators are supposed to be our ministers for best Instructional Practice. They are frustrated that this - the backbone of the workshop - is being sacrificed for the technology. I'm not saying that I have made this judgement, but it seems to be the prevailing theme.

At the end of this workshop I had stuff to clean up - I'm the AV guy :-) This gave me an opportunity to reflect on this question of balance with the presenter and the participants. Quite a bit of frustration was expressed by the participants. They felt there wasn't enough exposure to the practices. The presenter seemed a little puzzled at the frustration. He thought it was important for people to learn about the different free and low cost tools available to deliver the different aspects of instruction. He thought that technology was a useful tool for examining and illustrating the practices.

Participants thought there were some great tools and resources shared but felt that the technology overshadowed and delayed the presentation of the Instructional Practices. The time taken to get the wiki and blog working was a fairly large portion of the morning. The tech examples that were presented with each practice took quite a bit of time as well. Some of this time was spent in understanding the mechanics of the tool rather than the meaning of it for the practices

In order to frame the frustration of this workshop, it is important to understand the backdrop of people's frustration. Our district is under high pressure to decrease the achievement gap between our high achievers and low. Our teachers and administrators take this task very seriously. They want to help kids be successful. They want to fix the problem now. While most if not all of the teachers think we should be doing more with technology, they don't think that technology is the issue in this gap. There is a concern that, if we dwell on technology, we will fail to fully understand the Instructional Practices that are key to instruction.

As with all issues, everyone has their own perspective based on the role they play and their background. While I am hungry for integrating technology into the classroom, I realize that timing and meaning are essential to it's adoption. If people are overwhelmed with it OR with the other demands on them, their adoption will suffer. On the other hand I have to wonder when will the time be right to help people understand the meaning and the mechanics of integrating it. There is wisdom in exposure - immersion even. As people struggled to get logged into the wiki and blog I was concerned about the meaning being lost on them, but if not now - when will people begin to use the technology we have been talking about.

I understand and support the idea that these instructional practices are the meaning behind the practice of teaching. We need to help teachers understand and implement them with precision. If technology has to wait, so be it. But if we can find ways to interject technology into these practices we need to take these opportunities. We can take the time to document tech tools that bring the practices to light, to use these tools as examples and be willing to explore them even when they are a bit messy.

A Glimmer of Hope for Tech and Instruction

Last Wednesday I found out that the workshop on Instructional Practice, scheduled for today, is focused on Instructional Practice with Technology. Imagine my surprise as that is what I've been thinking, writing and researching since taking this job. I'm still not sure why no one told me about it. It sounds like something you'd want the tech director to know about. At any rate, the workshop is happening, I'm thrilled that it is happening. I will be there with 2 of my staff. Here's the outline:

• Introduction
• Using the Workshop Wiki and Blog
• Lesson Planning and Its Four Questions
• Overview of the Research
• Effective Instructional Strategies and Educational Technology
• Planning for Technology
• Presentation Zen and Tour of Your Manuals
• Conclusion and Evaluation

These areas are very important to the overall success of technology. It will be interesting to see how much emphasis is given to each. The workshop will be lead by Matt Kuhn, who was the trainer for the teacher evaluation/walkthrough training. He seems to know his way around the web 2.0 technology. I hope he can help people understand how all the pieces align to support the use of technology in the classroom.

As much as the content of the training, I am curious to see how the content is received; how natural will our teachers and administrators relate to his ideas and approaches? How familiar will they be with the content? How easily will they access some of the resources and ideas? How much will they complain that they don't have the resources to do what he is asking?

I am also interested to see who the administrators bring to the workshop. Each of them will be bringing 2 teachers. I will be taking their names for future reference as they are going to be the ones training the other teachers on this content.

It should be an interesting day.

Working out Agreements - what works for everyone?

Yesterday, the Technology Leadership Team met to discuss the Agreements (rules of the road) for Technology. This was a lively conversation, one that involved many side trips. It is evidence that everything is related - purchasing is related to hardware and software is related to training is related to time is related to focus is related to vision. While the main thing is student achievement, the 'stuff' that brings this to life has to work, be compatible, be understood and within our means to maintain. The fact that there are these relationships means, not that we get off the subject, but that we get diverted by another - related - subject.

As we move from subject to subject, issue to issue, I begin to wonder what the guiding forces are in the mix. This isn't a static project. We are doing the equivalent of repairing and guiding a airplane that is in the air. Sometimes I wonder if we have agreed on the destination :-) And to that point, it would make sense (as we said in our meeting) to get more clear about our goal and vision. And very wisely, we stopped and discussed that vision for a time.

The question is, to what extent do we all have the same goal. We are all in agreement that student achievement and success is the main goal. But, in our day to day operations, what do we focus our time and energy on? Do we keep student achievement and success in mind? What is the Action Plan behind our vision. Is it aimed at integrating technology into the curriculum or providing administrative tools for classroom reporting and management? Have we got the specifics of our vision nailed down or are we simply flailing away at the day to day challenges that arise.

In the meeting I made the observation that this is a somewhat uncomfortable conversation for all of us. I said that this conversation impacts the level of control that we have or don't have. In making agreements, we are choosing to limit ourselves in some way and abide by some rules or procedures. Making these agreements takes control away even as it gives us control (predictability) and is therefore threatening to our individual desires.

I didn't feel like I got much agreement on this point - I didn't see many nods. Even so, I know this is true for me. I need some assurance that people will abide by some rules of the road. If they don't, my staff will suffer under the disorganization. They will get drown in working on poorly organized and disjointed systems. They will be pulled one way and another by teachers with very important but unrelated projects. This is a control issue for me. My guess is that everyone, from every school, has a related concern. They want us to support them on their most important initiatives. They need us to keep the computer and software engines running so they can do their work. They have special projects that require support, software configuration, hardware reliability. They may want us to stay away from meddling in certain areas. They probably have concerns about our over-involvement in certain areas as well, though I may be wrong. So, while we all would welcome the additional control and predictability that the agreements would afford, the agreements limit our freedom as well.

I wonder if other school districts are having these conversations. I don't think we are unique in our search for technology that works for students and teachers. But I wonder if other districts spend so much time discussing the policies and procedures for purchasing and managing systems. Do they allow every school to decide how they will spend money on computers and software or do they dictate these things? I think the latter.

We have been engaged in this process of collective bargaining for about 8 years. I think we have learned a lot from one another through that time. We have very dedicated building technology staff who think very seriously about how to help students and teachers. Our conversations are generally positive and respectful of differences in role and responsibility. But I can't help wondering if we aren't losing time and money by allowing each building to set their own course.

The course we have chosen is a challenging one. In our system, each school has the right to set their own agenda for technology, spend their own money, and expect that we will keep up. While they are expected to stay within the general vision of the district (and the agreements) and have very limited money to spend, they are free to do what they choose. The agreements are our attempt to put some parameters around their activities so that we can keep pace with the various issues and initiatives. And true, the schools have accepted (I don't know how willingly) some of the decisions that the district has made for network infrastructure (servers, email, physical networks, firewall, etc). It is an interesting mix of freedom and control.

Framing the Agreements - The carrot and the stick

It is 2:30 am and I'm thinking about our agreement meeting that we are having tomorrow. Here's my dark night diatribe

People deserve to know why we have rules. Write the agreements from the ground up. Start with the rationale for having agreements at all. People have a hard time with being constrained in their choices. We need to explain the rationale behind the rules. There are specific reasons we have the specific rules. The overall reasons are:

• A network is a public place, fraught with the same benefits and precautions of any public place. We share the road with many other people. The rules of the road are are the speed limits, stop signs, vehicle inspections, etc. You get the idea.
• Limited funding for technology. We have to live within a budget. This budget limits the number of computers we can make available and the services we can provide. We have to be proactive in what we choose because we can't afford all the choices. A computer, on a network, that serves many people, has many costs. All of these costs have to be considered.
• Limited time to provide support. We are trying to provide a set of services that can be maintained by a limited number of staff. The more skilled we become as a whole, the more services we will be able to provide.
• Limited time for training. The more time we take for training, the more self-sufficient teachers can be, the more time available to provide additional services. Until we make a commitment to train teachers to some basic level of competence, we are going to be busy helping them along and fixing some basic problems.
• Limited understanding of the network and the common good. It is ironic but until and unless people understand the implications of their behavior on the overall systems (stated above), we need rules to guide them. I was not given the passwords to critical computer systems until I understood the implications of making changes in those systems. Before we can drive the streets on our own, we have to learn the rules of the road and demonstrate competence. It would be irresponsible to give someone the right to drive without the requisite skills.

A Reality. A building administrator made the point that these constraints will be denied and the rules will always be challenged. In his words, "That's the nature of teachers. They want to work independently, autonomously and without the limits that serve the bigger picture. They aren't concerned about the problems their behavior will cause others but how they will deliver tomorrow's lesson."

With this reality in mind... we should be prepared for people to try and go around the expectations. We need to explain and correct them when they stray from the expectations. People deserve to know why we have these rules. I would like them to accept the rules. I would like them to acknowledge the reasons we have the rules. But this may be too much to expect for some - perhaps most. First they don't understand how all the pieces affect one another - how management of one computer at a time is inefficient. Second, just as that administrator said, some simply don't want to look at issues from the big picture. They are focused on how the limits affect them and their classroom only.

The many carrots of technology. Let's remember, there are still many choices available to people. The agreements are created to constraint behavior in some key areas. But within those constraints, there is plenty of room to move. In fact the constraints are in place to afford us the ability to operate and continue to provide a working system to use. We need to help teachers see the ways in which they do have choice. We need to let them know of some of the resources available to them? How can we help them connect to these resources? We certainly can't progress on limits only. We need to provide equal time to pointing them in the direction of opportunities.

Agreements - Barriers and Benefits

This week our Technology Leadership Team (IBB Tech Team) will meet to discuss the agreements that guide our selection and support of technology. I have spent quite a bit of time documenting these agreements and adding some on a pbwiki page. In this process I listed some key questions and a rationale for the particular agreement. My preparation was intended to help our team frame the issues surrounding the various aspects of selecting and supporting technology. I made this page available for editing/commenting so we could get a head start on the discussion.

As I have commented in earlier blog posts, the process of managing technology is fraught with many opportunities (more than we can grasp really) and many pitfalls. The pitfalls are generally unintended but can be anticipated with a bit of consideration. The good news is that we have some experience now. Ten years ago we had no idea what we were getting ourselves into and there were few people (besides salesmen) who were available to give us advice. Now we have made quite a few mistakes, we own quite a bit of equipment, and we have experienced the life-cycle of some equipment. This gives us a good basis upon which to make decisions.

Despite our experience with technology, the members of our technology leadership team represent many different specialties and perspectives. This has been beneficial but it does increases the time required to formulate a plan. One of the main points of conflict occurs when the convenience of one group does not appear to impact another group. It is a lack of understanding of the interdependence of all the pieces.

One example; Passwords. Over the years the passwords to administer teacher and student computers have become common knowledge. It began when building technology staff felt pressured to get software installed and preferences changed on computers. As an educational organization we didn't adopt the practice of business, that employees should use what is provided on a computer and not be capable of messing with the underbelly. Given the relative small number of support staff to computers, it seemed to make sense to share passwords and allow anyone to have the power to fix (or damage) their computer. Clearly, the practice of sharing passwords seems like a winner from the users perspective. It makes sense to make computer management convenient. On the other hand it defies best practice (in the IT world) to allow this access just because it is convenient. There is a wide range of knowledge and ability among users. Some staff understand and help themselves when they have computer trouble. The question becomes; Why have an administrative account at all if all users are admin users?

As this example shows, we are often balancing user convenience with overall security and/or support costs. My 6 staff are responsible for all the computers in the district. Building technology staff are responsible for support in their building only. The district tech's efficiency is hinged upon a common configuration and setup of computers. When we are asked to fix a computer that has been rearranged, it increases our resolution by hours. While, on the face of it, it makes sense to make life convenient for the largest number of people, it is the largest number that will be inconvenienced when one of my staff is indisposed with a single "customized" computer.

How do we overcome these differences in perspective? Fortunately there has been enough common understanding within the Technology Leadership to balance the needs of the many (teachers and staff) with the needs of the few (support staff). Most of the members of the team have some experience and therefore some appreciation of the real challenges of computer support. They know that what appears to be an easy solution isn't always so. They have spent hours and days fixing a single computer. On the other side, we (district support staff), have a desire to make technology convenient and understandable for our users. We want them to use these tools in their instruction. We want them to have easy and quick resolution to their problems. It is in this spirit that we debate the issues and forge creative solutions to our shared problems.

Given that we have more support available to teachers (we added 3 staff last year), it seems like we are better equipped to respond quickly to support calls. I am hoping that this fact helps sway people into greater restriction on admin passwords. I am not opposed to allowing a greater number of users admin rights but the people who have these rights should have an understanding of the options and implications for their use. They should also have an appreciation for the standardization of computer configurations. In the end, this standardization will speed the resolution of issues. It will also allow us to provide training and support in a format that is understandable to people using standard tools.

Affordable - Sustainable Technology

In my school district we have a modest budget for technology expenditures. Among school districts in our region, we don't have the largest budget and we don't have the smallest budget. Perhaps it's just right :-) I don't know. But the fact is that we have a pretty tight budget and one that we have to live within. Another important detail is that technology expenditures are not controlled by the district office. At the time we established regular technology expenditures, we decided to distribute a substantial amount to the schools to spend according to their priorities. At the same time we asked them to complete a technology plan that described their goals and a plan showing that their expenditures are sustainable. It makes sense to me that, given the short life of technology, we should consider obsolescence and the replacement of resources over time. I have read about schools who have failed to do this long term planning and who end up with an assortment of computers and software that are outdated and in disrepair, without the money to continue programming.

In our district we are finding that the 5 year replacement of computers that we planned is inadequate to provide the number of computers needed for our students and teachers. Schools are hanging on to 6, 7, and 8 year old computers in their classrooms. On one hand I think this is great. I don't want to rush good computers to their grave. If it serves a purpose for someone I think we should keep it in service. At the same time, we have found that the maintenance and support of older computers can eat up a substantial amount of staff time. These aged computers can also cause a high degree of frustration when they are depended upon and placed in a mission critical task. And when a critical computer crashes, the expectation is that the technology staff will run to the rescue, save the data and restore programs. This is simply unrealistic.

So, like other resource we rely on - water, fuel, food, air - we live in an age where we are reminded of our limits. We cannot spend and consume like there is no tomorrow. We need to assess what we really need, ask if we can afford it - can we afford to acquire it, can we afford to maintain it, can we afford to replace it when it expires. Since the 1950s we (Americans on the whole) haven't been very worried about the impact of our consumption on our community or the planet. To the contrary, we created a culture that depended upon increased consumption. When the Twin Towers fell in 2001 and our economy shuddered, we were told to go out and spend, show those terrorists that they can't thwart our way of life. Well, here we are in 2008 and our economy has been attacked once again but the enemy is us. Our desire for more and our habit for spending (other people's money) has put our economy in crisis. We have gone back to the capitalist drawing board for a new play book. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Sorry for the economic rant, but I think it has significance to our microcosm called technology. It is time for us to be strategic about how we spend our precious few resources. We cannot afford to throw technology into the milieu and pray that it comes out right - that teachers will understand and use it wisely, that students will make constructive sense of it, that achievement will be advanced. It is time to get serious about spending. It is time to focus on the results we are aiming for. It is time to realize that we can't accomplish everything through technology, but we can accomplish something - if we narrow our expectations to the most important target.

For example; What if we decided that our technology would be focused on writing. Let's consider all the ways that technology could be employed behind to goal of writing. The most obvious tool is word processing. All of our computers come with a word processor. If we wanted to provide a word processor for every student, there are affordable tools available to this task. Beyond the word processor, we could develop an audience for student writing through blogs, wikis and email. The content that kids create on their computers could be saved on the computer or it could be saved on the web. Spend a little more money and you could purchase writing software that will give students feedback on their work. These wouldn't replace a teachers touch but they could provide immediate and constructive feedback to students that would be helpful to the writing process. Extend this further and we could adopt writing tools in spanish, translation tools. We could use the built in tools on a Macintosh to read the writing aloud to students. We could train student to create audio visual presentations with the focus on writing scripts. While it would be difficult to hold them back from the camera and the computer, we could build an expectation that good presentations must have a detailed script. Perhaps this will help them find a strong writing voice.

There is much more we could include in a "writing-technology plan" - literacy and safety in media and technology, research, grammar, spelling, etc. My point is that based upon this plan we could create a list of the resources (people, technology, time) that would be required to make the plan work. Based on the number of students and the other activities in the school, we could build an affordable, sustainable plan.

Most important to our plans is that the majority of people are pulling in the same direction. Everyone doesn't have to have the same level of understanding, but the plan needs to be simple enough and significant enough (have meaning) to most of us that it will be carried out. When we attend a conference, we are successful when we take and implement one or two ideas to fruition. I'd like to apply this kind of simplicity to technology - some constructive limits. Some teachers will continue to experiment with a variety of approaches and techniques - no problem. But their experiments will have to be supplementary to the main idea.

Will this bring our spending and fragmentation into line? It's hard to say. Perhaps the conversations that we will have will help bring some rationality to our process of purchasing and implementing technology. To look at technology as a means to the end, an expensive means that requires conscious tending.

Technology Integration or Segregation?

Listening to Moving with the Speed of Creativity - Wesley Fryer's work. I am trying to steep myself in the concept of Media Literacy and k12 technology in general. While I am the technology director, I have been too busy with building and maintaining infrastructure to consider the significance of all this technology for students - the people we are building this for. It's time for me to put this together so that I can do my part to enrich the conversation. I want to be able to think critically about the decisions we are making (or not) with regard to technology and the curriculum. None of us seem to know how they fit together so we need to engage in these conversations. Hopefully this will help us make the connections we need to make to move forward. We need to understand technology in the context of our day to day teaching and learning. We tend to have meetings on technology, meetings on curriculum, meetings on assessment, on standards based education, etc., without bringing the ideas together.

Recently I posted a document called "IBB Agreements" for the consideration of our District Technology Leadership Team. In that document, I try to make the point that technology plans and purchases need to be woven into the other deliberations and activities of the school. I want to see more teachers involved in the conversation. I want building leadership to weave tech decisions into their adoption of curriculum, lesson planning and assessment. Most important I want them to move away from technology planning as a discrete activity - sitting down at the end of the year and writing a plan that meets the basic requirements.

One of the reactions I got to this idea was that we don't have time. Teachers are already too busy, trying to survive training in reading, writing and math instruction, testing and evaluation. I appreciate and agree with that sentiment. Teachers do seem stressed and at the end of their rope with training and other demands. But this is not what I am proposing. I am 'simply' suggesting that we use every opportunity to consider the implications of technology as we are busy doing all this other work.

Example: When we are doing curriculum adoption, why not consider the ways that technology can be woven into the subject at hand. What are the free or subscription services that are available that might fit within the subject. Not only that, what tools are we already invested with, the hardware, software, peripherals, that might be used in the context of a subject. We might even save ourselves some time and money by considering these questions.

Example: When a building leadership team sits down to look at their schedule for the upcoming year, they might consider the computer resources they have in the building and find ways to integrate these resources within the regular classroom process rather than scheduling them for pullout classes. This might lead to a restructuring of the 'specials' schedule. It might change the role of the 'technology teacher' or 'media specialist'.

These example are only examples. I'm trying to point out an organizing principal - not a prescription. If we want students to integrate technology into their learning process we need to integrate technology into our planning process.

Media and