![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
For many of these students, technology has become an integral part of their learning process. This raised an issue of concern for several of the program innovators we spoke with regarding what would happen to these students when they enter programs that are not well enough equipped to provide follow-up. Students leaving technology-supported elementary and middle schools may find that they do not have the opportunity to build on the skills they have developed. At one of the case study sites, in particular, students who had previously graduated returned to their former school to gain access to the technology. The problem of students transitioning out of a technology-rich program generally involves more than one school. District involvement in this issue is therefore very important.
The technology-supported projects described in our case studies represent a new vision of teaching and learning, altering the shape of classrooms as we have known them in the past. This vision needs to extend beyond isolated model programs, however, if it is to have a significant impact on the state of education. The ultimate goal of education reform is to provide all students with lifelong learning skills and a meaningful preparation for the future. Many schools and districts across the country are struggling to define these goals within their own particular settings. Although each path to reform is unique, there is much to be gained from the experiences of the trailblazers-those schools (such as the ones featured in this study) that have taken a lead in the implementation of technology-supported reform. These early innovators have valuable stories to tell, offering a wealth of information regarding lessons learned, successes achieved, and obstacles overcome. Their classrooms offer concrete examples of technology-supported teaching and learning in action.
The extent to which the stories of the case study schools were being shared with others varied from site to site. In some cases, a plan for dissemination was an integral component of a project's implementation. The mini-school at East City High School, for example, now conducts a teacher development center (supported by both Apple and a federal grant), which offers summer institutes and 1-week practicum during the school year to teachers from across the country. The purpose of the center is "to give the participants those experiences they will need to implement similar instructional activities in their own classrooms/schools/districts." Training is provided by four East City High teachers, who model technology-supported instruction and provide follow-up support to hands-on activities. Students also participate in the institute so that attendees have the opportunity to observe and use technology within the context of teaching.
For most of the case study schools, a continuous stream of on-site visitations and the professional activities of the staff (such as the conference presentations, committee memberships, and publications) have served as the primary vehicles for dissemination. Media attention has also aided the process of dissemination (although for some programs, too much attention too soon has led to difficulties). In several sites, individuals within the school have been particularly adept at gaining program visibility, which in turn has led to increased requests for visitations and for information regarding technology implementation. The coordinator at the Maynard Computer Mini-School was one such individual. In addition to conducting numerous interviews and conference presentations, he created a home page on the Internet World Wide Web with periodically updated information about the computer mini-school's activities. This same individual was recently awarded an Apple leadership grant to replicate components of the mini-school's computer network/lab at another site. He has also received a separate corporate grant to produce a publication on the use of technology in teaching. Corporate partnerships have funded a range of dissemination activities within a number of the sites, including teacher participation in conferences, the production of materials featuring exemplary technology projects for widespread distribution, and arranging for media coverage. In some schools (such as East City High), outside funders have been the primary source of support for dissemination.
The major obstacles to dissemination are the lack of funds and time. The process of implementing technology and reform within their own sites makes tremendous demands on administrators and teachers. Not surprisingly, most schools are not ready to engage in dissemination activities until their programs are well established. Even at this point, it is difficult to take on this added task if additional funds and support specifically designated for this purpose are lacking. This was certainly the case for several of the sites we visited. For these and other reasons, the issue of dissemination to other schools within many of the case study sites' districts was particularly complex and sometimes problematic.
The principal at South Creek reported that the reopening of her school as a technology-rich program set into motion a wave of envy on the part of other schools' administrators and teachers, who began requesting that the district equip their schools with technology as well. She commented that, in contrast to forcing technology on sites that had previously expressed no interest, the instigation of "the green-eyed factor" served as a "brilliant strategy" for getting schools interested in technology use. South Creek teachers have offered a series of technology in-services to other teachers throughout the district. The school has hosted a technology conference and has piloted a state program for career exploration through technology. The principal has played a key role in orchestrating these initiatives, which she has viewed as the opportunity to give something back in return for the support provided by the district and state.
In this case, the increased desire for technology on the part of other schools was reported as a positive side effect of "the green-eyed factor," helping set the stage for the dissemination process. More often than not, however, jealousy and resentment stemming from the perception that the case study sites have been provided with more than their fair share of resources have interfered with relations with other schools, making dissemination within districts more problematic. At the School of the Future, the impressive amount of technology and year-round teacher positions became the source of a great deal of criticism and envy within the local education system. As the school struggled through the early phases of pulling together a new program, heavy public scrutiny led to decreasing credibility and diminished support within the community. The restructuring coordinator at another site reported that her school's faculty had the reputation among other teachers within the district as being "elitist," in part because of their success in attracting outside funds to support technology use. In her view, this perception slowed the local dissemination process, which she characterized as "the weak spoke in the wheel."
The same factors can impede dissemination even within a school. The school-within-a-school programs at Maynard Elementary and at East City High School have had negligible impacts on the schools in which they are housed. A district administrator at the latter site commented that the technology-supported program was a "stand-alone enrichment environment" (in terms of its influence at the school level), despite the staff's diligent efforts to open their doors and share their expertise with other East City High teachers. His perception was that the teachers outside the program did not take advantage of these offerings because they felt that the teachers within the program "had it easy" given their resources and the fact that their afternoons were available for planning.
Administrators and teachers involved in the implementation of new programs stress the importance of taking a proactive stance toward providing information regarding their activities and maintaining ongoing communication with the district and with the local community as a way to avoid and address some of these difficulties. Many sites reported having to deal locally with misinformation regarding the acquisition and use of funds to support technology and other program features. A common misconception was that technology installations and special programs were paid for primarily with district funding, thus reducing the funds available to other schools. In many cases, however, technology implementations were funded through corporate partnerships, special grants, and other sources external to the district. Interestingly enough, three of the case study schools receiving higher levels of district support than most reported the fewest problems in terms of relations with local schools. When districts invest in this level of technology-supported reform at a single site, they may also be more likely to have a stake in paving the way for dissemination (although this was not always the case).
Nathaniel Elementary's school district provides one example where district-initiated reform was coupled with an ongoing commitment to the spread of innovation. Each year, a new cohort of schools has been funded for restructuring and technology implementation through the district's Demonstration School project. A "Teacher on Special Assignment" (a district-funded position) assists schools with the restructuring process, particularly in the areas of technology and curriculum. An important part of this process has involved learning from the experiences of the other sites. Having an individual who visits each site and is familiar with their activities aids the dissemination process. Each school has been encouraged to take its own path to reform while incorporating whatever elements from other sites they might find useful. The district has also initiated monthly meetings for teachers and for technology leaders from the participating schools, providing opportunities for sharing, feedback, and support. At the time of our site visit, the district was putting together plans for a wide area network that would supply further linkages between schools.
The district is in a critical position to support dissemination once a project is under way. Districts can assist with the sharing of information and expertise and with the formation of partnerships between schools. Some of the districts within our study filled this role in various ways, for example: funding in-services taught by computer-using teachers, setting up mentorship teacher programs, providing teachers with opportunities to observe technology-supported classrooms, bringing administrators and teachers together from across sites to discuss technology implementation and reform, and setting up wide area networks.
The state can also play an important role in supporting replication and dissemination to other sites. Bay Vista Elementary was funded by the state to serve as a model technology school to other schools within the district and across the state. The school's mission was to focus on technology use in the area of science, while additional sites were funded as model schools in other areas of the curriculum. Once the technology-supported science curriculum was implemented and certified as aligned with the state framework, the school was funded by the state for 4 years of dissemination activities. Bay Vista teachers demonstrated the use of technology in science through visits to other schools and by having teachers from other schools visit their classrooms. A computer cadre at the district level was formed so that there would be at least one teacher in each school who had a high level of exposure to the Bay Vista program, which they in turn could share with their fellow teachers. State funds support the position of a coordinator to take responsibility for orchestrating many of the dissemination activities, as well as a part-time consultant to maintain a model site for visits and training. The school has produced a series of materials and videotapes on integrating technology into the science curriculum. By 1993, 55 projects adapting portions of the program had received education technology grants from the state department of education.
One problem is the level of difficulty of what education reformers are asking teachers to do. Constructivist approaches to teaching are quite simply more demanding. Some have argued that it is unrealistic to expect all teachers to do this kind of teaching all the time, no matter how strongly they have internalized constructivist principles. In addition, learning to use technology and designing worthwhile instructional activities that incorporate it are time-consuming. Especially in situations where no system of support for these activities has developed and teachers must use their own time if they are to participate, teachers are likely to grow weary of the effort. But even in well-designed and well-supported projects, it can be difficult to maintain the spirit of innovation. External sources talking about one of our case study sites that had been using technology intensively for 8 years reported that teachers were no longer putting in the extraordinary effort and energy they had brought to the project in the beginning. Afternoons set aside for collegial planning were no longer being used in that way. Experiencing less support at the district level and several years without the infusion of new equipment, teachers had ceased to show the level of creativity in their instructional uses of technology that had characterized earlier years of the program, according to some observers. A recent resurgence of district interest and acquisition of multimedia equipment has rekindled some of the program's energy and creativity, but has not brought it back to the level experienced in the first few years of the program.
Many innovations depend greatly on a single individual to champion and protect the program, to pull teachers together, or to provide necessary technical expertise. Quite a number of our sites had faced or were facing situations in which a change in leadership at the project, school, or district level or the cessation of funding left them vulnerable.
Given the inevitable changes among administrators, staff transfers, and retirements, projects that have not evolved into sharing of technical knowledge and the development of multiple sources of leadership and enthusiasm will have a hard time sustaining themselves. The key appears to be a solid core of participating teachers. One case study elementary school described how their use of technology had survived the principalship of someone who did not like the idea of technology in schools and who would in fact avoid hiring anyone with this interest. With their external funding for technology-based activities and support from each other, technology-using teachers quietly continued their activities. Another case study school lost the majority of its external funding for technology projects and support positions between our first and second site visits. Nevertheless, the commitment of the teaching staff to the school and technology's role in it appeared to be carrying them through:
The staff has never been more together than they are this year; there is a real cohesiveness.... Aren't they something else?.... And while it's a shock after 7 years to have all that support taken away, in some respects it has given the teachers a better understanding about their own abilities, knowledge, and capabilities. Since then, six teachers have been trained by Apple so that we are now an Apple service center. That would have been unheard of years ago. The teachers would not have thought that they were capable of doing those kinds of things.
--Elementary school principal
-###-
[Resources for Technology Implementations]