![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Theoretically, at least, innovations and reform activities can start at any level of the education system--anywhere from the federal agency seeking to stimulate reform through new programs and policies related to funding to the individual classroom teacher who is inspired to do something in a different way. Exhibit 6 provides descriptions of some of the stronger examples of actions by different levels of the education system in support of technology-based reforms.
Our case studies provide information on the magnitude of the influence of various levels of the education system from the perspective of the classroom and the school. That is, rather than asking federal and state administrators what impact they had had on technology-supported reform efforts, we asked teachers and administrators about the factors that had shaped their efforts, probing for the influence of district, state, and federal policies. In brief, the influence of various levels of the education system was strongly and inversely correlated with distance from the classroom. Teachers, principals, and technology coordinators were typically the source of leadership for technology-supported reform efforts. Although less central, district actions, resources, and policies were very important also. We judged the district's role to have been important in stimulating nearly half of the innovations we studied. State policies and funding programs were important influences for just two of the sites. Federal policies and funding had some influence, but were not major factors for any of the implementations. External partners, such as technology manufacturers, foundations, and research institutions, were much more important. In the following sections, we describe in more detail the variety of roles and influences reported for each level of the education system.
The federal government influenced case study sites in two basic ways. One was research, which was conducted with federal funding in several cases. Two sites were greatly influenced by research projects conducted by university or research institute staff with funding from federal agencies. (Two other sites were greatly influenced by research projects funded by an equipment manufacturer.) Research projects brought not only resources, such as equipment and technical assistance, but also intellectual influences to the participating classrooms and schools. These programs brought an important source of ideas about how technology could support instruction, were instrumental in attracting resources in the form of equipment and funding, and provided counsel and technical support for teachers addressing the challenge of integrating technology into their practice. In addition to this firsthand participation in research, sites were also influenced by prior research, some of which was performed with federal funding.
Exhibit 6Providing an Inspiration and Incentive for Change School Level Extensive use of technology within this urban elementary school began in 1986, when Alan Kay, a leading innovator in human-computer interaction research and development, approached the school about becoming a site for his research. The principal and teachers were interested because their educational approach stressed hands-on activities, and they thought that technology could be used to provide "mental bridges" between the physical, hands-on activity and symbolic knowledge. The principal felt strongly, however, that the introduction of technology had to be done on a whole-school basis, so that it would be a force for integrating rather than separating the teaching staff. In the first year, the school tried a computer lab, but subsequently the teachers voted against it because they did not like separating the students from their regular classrooms. With support from the researcher's company, the school eventually received enough computers to have one for every two students in all classrooms. The researcher and others from his company described and demonstrated new ideas and new technology for the school at after-school and intersession meetings over a period of 6 years. The company also provided technical support for teachers' development of their own technology-supported curriculum ideas. District Level Designing a New, Model School. When it became apparent that changing demographics in this "exurban" district would require reopening an old school, the superintendent sought to make it a model for educational uses of technology. He believes that technology will be a part of students' futures and can magnify teachers' capabilities. Given the demographic changes in the district, the new middle school would serve a widely diverse student body, but one in which the majority of students would be low-SES and from minority backgrounds. Originally, the superintendent put forward the concept of a magnet technology school, but the high-SES parents in other parts of the district preferred to keep their children closer to home. The superintendent proceeded, taking what was described as a "political risk" in "putting the money where it was needed most." The district refurbished the school, devoting $2.2 million to the installation of a schoolwide network and other technology. The new school's principal was hired a year in advance of the school's opening and given the charge of developing a "state-of-the-art" middle school that would integrate technology with instruction and provide effective educational programs for a disadvantaged population. Effective schools principles, such as high standards for all students, monitoring and feedback, and developing a safe environment and a campus leadership team, were considered equally important. Promoting Technology as Part of Districtwide Reforms. The superintendent of this racially diverse urban school district is regarded as a strong leader and a major proponent of school reform. Technology has been a significant part of the district's school reform efforts. Members of the education community believe that technology motivates students, increases their self-esteem, and supports learning in a broad range of areas (e.g., writing, problem solving, mathematics). Moreover, they argue that technology will be essential to success as citizens and workers in the 21st century; they feel a particular imperative to provide the low-SES students in their schools with the technology tools that more affluent communities take for granted. In 1992-93, the district began using its voluntary desegregation funds to support an ambitious districtwide school restructuring effort. Participating Demonstration Schools engage in self-reflection and assessment, choose an education model (e.g., the Comer model), and plan and implement schoolwide changes based on the assessment of needs and the selected model. The district has provided $300 to $400 per pupil per year to schools participating in the Demonstration Schools program. The district required participating schools to include a technology implementation plan, and in the first year recommended that 25% of the demonstration funds be spent on technology implementation (50% hardware, 25% software, 25% staff development). The district has provided technical assistance for technology implementations through a new district-level position for technology and curriculum. Subsequently, universities, corporations, and private foundations have approached the district seeking school partners in technology-related research. When the district set up competitions for schools that wanted to participate in these projects, the Demonstration Schools have typically had the leadership and staff capabilities as well as the technology infrastructure to take advantage of the new opportunities. State Level This large state has supported school implementations of technology in a number of ways. In addition to an early program of state support for teaching computer literacy and providing computers for teachers, there have been a series of state grants programs designed to support the integration of technology with school reform activities. Under one such program, schools were invited to apply for grants to support innovative ideas for using technology to support students' acquisition of thinking skills. Another program provided multiyear support for schools to develop, evaluate, and disseminate approaches to integrating technology within specific subject areas (e.g., science, language arts). This program complemented a model technology schools program that provided 5 years of funding to school districts setting up across-the-curriculum programs for technology implementation. In an innovative public-private partnership arrangement, the state has cofunded the development of multimedia programs that address the contents of state curriculum frameworks. The state department of education has made an effort also to conduct its other school reform activities in a way that is compatible with and supportive of technology implementations. The state's school restructuring grants program, for example, encouraged the use of technology as one tool for implementing school restructuring. The state's new curriculum frameworks and assessments involve the kinds of performances and higher-order skills that students might be acquiring through their work with technology. |
The second federal influence was federal program funding that could be used to support technology-based innovations. More specifically, three of the case study sites used Chapter 1 and/or Chapter 2 money to purchase equipment or to support additional positions that made technology-based activities more feasible. In no case, however, was this federal funding sufficient to fund the majority of the hardware and software, let alone the teacher training and technical support, needed to launch a major innovation. Federal funds were important nevertheless in that they helped to sustain or support technology programs launched with other funds at several sites.
Unlike the federal influence through funding of research projects, the federal funding usable for technology-related activities came without a pedagogical framework. Although much has been written about the conservative influence of the Chapter 1 program's emphasis on testing basic skills, with the side effect of boosting sales of integrated learning systems (ILS) supporting drill and practice on these skills, our case study sites did not put a strong emphasis on drill-and-practice uses of technology.
Much of the school reform rhetoric calls for giving those closest to students--i.e., schools--more decision-making authority in return for accountability. At the same time, however, there are calls for making education reform systemic, by coordinating all components of the system (e.g., curriculum, assessment, teacher training) to create a coherent set of educational experiences (Smith and O'Day, 1990) and for improving education through the adoption of higher standards. Both of these trends have stimulated greater state activism in education. California, for example, set out to implement a systemic reform approach through the development of curriculum frameworks with specific learning goals in seven areas, recommended instructional approaches, textbook adoptions based on the curriculum frameworks, and a new assessment system. Utah and Florida are among the states that have made major investments in technology as a tool for improving their schools. Ironically, states sometimes attempt to mandate bottom-up reforms. Texas and Kentucky, for example, require districts to implement site-based management.
The case for state-level planning and activity is bolstered in the area of technology implementation by the fact that states can both garner a greater set of technical resources and use leverage in equipment and software purchases and network usage fees that would be impossible for districts or individual schools to duplicate. The requirement for state-level or broader involvement is even stronger in efforts involving telecommunications, given the fact that broad access to resources and the sharing of information across school, district, state, and even national lines are essential activities. Higher levels of government also have an important role in guaranteeing equality of access to technology.
None of the case study implementations in our sample (spanning seven states) could be characterized as primarily a state-initiated, top-down program. States did influence many of the projects and provided important supports in several cases, however. In general, we found evidence of four kinds of state influence:
Many, but not all, of our case study sites evidenced considerable sensitivity to the contents of state curriculum frameworks or instructional objectives and of statewide testing programs. Those informants who talked about state curriculum frameworks or instructional objectives appeared comfortable with their contents; we did not hear stories about teachers implementing state-mandated curricula with which they felt at odds. At only one site, however, did the state's curriculum framework have a major impact on the software and technology-based activities implemented by the school.
Similarly, our case study schools accepted state testing as a fact of life but did not let it drive their programs. In some cases, the state tests were clearly incompatible with the content of the school's core instructional program. Some sites argued that scores on standardized tests were therefore not good reflections of the strength of their programs and went ahead and taught what they felt was most appropriate for their students. Some sites coped with state tests by "giving them their due"--an intensive period of cramming right before the test or a part of the school day devoted to the kinds of basic skills emphasized by the test. In several of the states in which our sites were located, the states were moving toward more performance-based forms of assessment or the assessment of higher-order skills, and a number of teachers were involved in either state or local efforts to develop more authentic assessments that would be a better match for their instructional programs. Overall, testing was a general influence on the schools but did not appear to have specific impacts on the technology implementation per se, with the exception of one middle school where an ILS lab was set up with the explicit goal of using technology to make sure students acquired the kinds of basic reading and math skills measured by standardized tests.
In addition to the funding for school restructuring and technology programs described above, states provided some more specific resources that affected schools' use of technology. One site was able to become active in telecommunications-based activities because of the state's development of a statewide network to link schools to the state universities and the Internet. Another state supported the participation of rural schools in a teacher networking project by providing reduced-cost dial-up access to the Internet. A third state supported one of our case study schools by funding the development of customized intelligent software for the school to use in developing and documenting individual instructional goals for its students.
Finally, state recognition of several sites as exemplary schools brought distinguished visitors and media attention. Although this kind of attention has its costs, it can help to build student and community pride in the school. Case study sites found also that positive publicity gave them clout when seeking district waivers or support.
Districts were much more influential than states in shaping the school reform technology implementations we studied. We describe district roles in two phases of technology-supported education reform: first in the initial instigation of the innovation and then in its ongoing support.
Initiating Reforms--With respect to the initiation of the innovations we studied, districts could be characterized as playing one of three roles: initial planner, opportunity broker, or spectator.
In three of our nine case studies, districts were at the center of initial planning, conceiving the original idea and providing funds for the innovation. In the case of TeacherNet, school superintendents set up and funded the network for communicating and sharing resources. South Creek and the School of the Future were both conceived at the district level as embodiments of innovative structures, ideas about more effective instructional practices, and exemplary use of technology for middle school students. Although in both cases the original impetus, the required extra funding, and needed waivers came from the district, leadership devolved to the school staff relatively quickly.
A less pivotal but still important role played by the district for four sites was that of opportunity broker . The main leadership for these initiatives came from within the school, but the district gave the school opportunities for outside funding and partnerships. In these cases, the district became aware of external funds available for schools willing to participate in various kinds of restructuring or technology implementation activities, and district staff put them in touch with schools in our case study sample. Nathaniel Elementary is an example of a school benefiting from this kind of district involvement. As university researchers and foundation-funded programs contacted the district seeking schools serving economically disadvantaged students with a strong staff willing to try innovations, the district directed them to this school because it had leadership and a staff prepared to take advantage of such opportunities. As Nathaniel's principal described it, "A lot of opportunities came our way because they knew that we would do something with it."
Bay Vista's district had the explicit goal of building technology capacity and looked for a school with a staff that could participate in seeking funds for and implementing projects involving technology use. John Wesley obtained the opportunity for a long-term grant from a foundation after the district superintendent met with the CEO of the foundation's parent corporation at a Business Roundtable meeting. In these cases, the district's role was more one of brokering opportunities than of shaping the innovation per se. School leadership, in the form of a supportive principal and a core teacher group, was decisive not only in taking advantage of the proffered opportunity but also in determining exactly what form the innovation would take.
Finally, for two of our case study sites the district's role can be characterized as that of benevolent spectator. The opportunity for the Progressive School to obtain a major infusion of technology and to work with Alan Kay and Apple-funded technical support staff on instructional uses of technology came directly to the school because of its own unique character and reputation. At Maynard Computer Mini-School, it was the computer coordinator who made connections with university-based research programs that resulted in the receipt of grant funds to set up and operate the computer network. In both cases, however, the district's spectator role during the initiation of the innovation evolved into somewhat more proactive involvement as the district learned and benefited from the school's example. Moreover, strong school leaders for technology innovations were quick to see that the favorable publicity their programs generated for the district could be leveraged into clout in advocating for resources.
Potentially, districts can play a major role in moving successful innovations beyond single schools to more widespread adoption. Maynard Computer Mini-School's district perceived the value of trying to disseminate the school's model for using networked computers to other schools within the district. However, dissemination has not proceeded very far. From our observations, many districts do not put adequate resources into this role-they point to model technology-using sites with pride, but few develop plans or commit significant resources for dissemination.
Ongoing Support--In addition to the instrumental roles in conceptualizing innovations or brokering opportunities described above, districts provided a range of support services and resources.
Outside funding is critical for the majority of technology-supported innovations, and districts frequently have resources that schools lack for pursuing these opportunities. Thus, support for grant writing is an important district role. The district can not only act as the fiscal agent for grants but also provide help from staff who are experienced in writing grant proposals and familiar with the process.
District bargaining and purchasing power for obtaining equipment, site licenses, telecommunications services, and so on, was another important contribution from the perspective of our case study schools. Even in those of our case study sites where the districts did not provide major funding or equipment for an innovation, they often supported the program with equipment, power, wiring, security systems, maintenance, or additional space. District support for maintenance was singled out as an important support at a number of sites. Even though teachers or technology coordinators at a number of schools became adept at routine maintenance (at three sites, they even earned repair licenses), more serious problems require professional services, and districts can offer or contract for these in a more cost-effective manner.
Although technical assistance on technology is an important district function generally because districts are likely to have a technology coordinator in cases where individual schools do not, such support appeared less than critical for the particular sites we studied. To be effective, technical support needs to be readily available on-site, and most of the case study sites found a way to provide this, in some cases through a district-funded position, but often through external funding or teachers' initiatives to train themselves. In addition, because we selected sites with a reputation for successful technology implementation, they were typically ahead of other schools in their districts in technology use, and many felt they had little to learn from district-provided technical support.
Finally, innovating schools are likely to want to hire individuals with special qualifications or to desire different allocations of space and time than specified in district formulas. Districts have an important role in granting waivers and in protecting reforming schools from detractors who oppose deviations from the status quo. When the teachers forming Maynard's computer mini-school, for example, voted to give up the daily preparation periods provided for in their contracts in order to obtain smaller classes, the union local threatened to sue. The district administration intervened, using its political clout with higher levels of the union to dissuade the locals from following through.
District-Level Impediments--Our cases illustrate the positive roles that the district can play in instigating or complementing reform activities. At the same time, it should be noted that in some instances we found evidence of the ineffectiveness of district attempts at top-down decision-making with respect to restructuring and technology implementation. Decisions regarding instructional approaches or technology made at the district level without the involvement and "buy-in" of the teachers who were expected to implement them sometimes backfired, resulting in wasted resources and resentment. In several cases, long-standing district policies worked at cross-purposes with the district's own reform efforts. Exhibit 7 provides descriptions of some of these difficulties, along with some of the solutions and negotiations that emerged. Lack of initial and ongoing communication between district and school, a change in leadership at the district level, and lack of follow-up support on the part of the district were three of the obstacles related to the district's role in initiating and sustaining reform. At both East City High School and the School of the Future, for example, district support was diminished with the loss of superintendents who had been instrumental in getting the projects off the ground.
Another frustration cited in several cases was red tape concerning software selection and purchases. Schools with technology-savvy staff get very frustrated when the district limits the equipment or software they are allowed to buy (or, more typically, just makes it very cumbersome to obtain things that are not on the "approved" list).
Exhibit 7Limitations of Top-Down Technology Implementations Top-Down Selection of Equipment When teachers are not involved in selecting technology and do not see the connection between its capabilities and what they are trying to accomplish, the technology is likely to be either ignored or used in ineffectual ways. John Wesley Elementary School's district gave every school a satellite dish. The school had not asked for the dish and rarely used it. In part because of state and district policies regarding teacher qualifications and hiring, the lead staff at the School of the Future was not brought on board until 6 weeks before the school opened. Consequently, major decisions regarding technology selection were made by district administration without the benefit of teacher involvement. One of the major purchases, a large integrated learning system (ILS) lab and extensive software, represented a kind of drill-and-practice approach to acquiring basic skills that was not compatible with the instructional philosophies of the subsequently hired staff. Although student time in the ILS lab was scheduled, most of the teachers took little interest in it, and student lab work was conducted in isolation from other classroom activities. Falling scores on standardized tests later called teachers' attention to the issue, and a greater effort was made to integrate ILS with other aspects of the curriculum in more meaningful ways. The general view of the teaching staff, however, was that the lab represented a mismatch with their overall program. Modifying District Restrictions on School-Level Technology Planning Nathaniel Elementary's school district has made a major commitment to districtwide reform through its Demonstration School program. In the first year of the program, the district took a somewhat top-down approach to shaping the restructuring process. Participating schools were required to follow one of three district-approved education models and to allocate 25% of the project funds to technology. Schools were asked to make their technology selections after careful planning and reflection, based on their stated instructional approaches and long-term goals. However, long-standing policies regarding purchasing schedules forced schools to make their selections while still in the early stages of the planning process. The district is in the process of revising these policies to accommodate a more gradual approach to hardware and software procurement. In addition, the district has been responsive to the need for schools to have greater flexibility in choosing the model on which they will base their restructuring efforts. In some cases, demonstration schools are creating their own education models. The district has also loosened the restrictions regarding the percentage of funds to be spent on technology, leaving this to the discretion of the schools. At the same time, the district is providing support to school administrators and teachers with in-services, visitations, and ongoing feedback to aid their planning and implementation process. |
There were also instances in which schools felt that long-standing district policies or practices having nothing to do with technology per se impeded their progress. Many of these instances had to do with staff allocation and hiring practices. Innovating schools are seeking to rethink roles within the school and to reassign roles in ways that free up resources for new essential activities. In some cases, rightly or wrongly, districts have been more cautious about innovating. One school reported that the district delayed its plan to replace the assistant principal position with a half-time project coordinator and half-time parent liaison for many months. Another had difficulty obtaining waivers to hire staff without the standard teaching credential. One school was unable to get approval for its plan to do away with the principal's position altogether and had a half-time principal thrust on it.
Even when the principal was not an active intellectual leader or manager for the innovations, sites maintained that support from the principal was an important factor. In cases where the principal was not a strong supporter, there was less success in getting the innovations spread throughout the school.
One of the leadership roles that was key to the reform efforts at a number of sites was that of program advocate and liaison to the district. In several cases, it was the principal who fulfilled this role; in a few cases, it was the technology coordinator. In each case, an important bridge between school and district was established by having an individual who was adept at articulating the goals and the needs of her or his program to key district players and whose leadership and professionalism were recognized at the district level. These characteristics place an individual in a unique position for providing the school with positive visibility and for garnering resources and support from the district and the greater community. The principal at South Creek viewed this aspect of her role as critical to the success of her program:
You must have someone out there to fight for the program, who is able to get the funding, deal with all the people, and knock down barriers. The only thing I want to say about that is if you don't have someone doing that, then the program becomes a second-, third-, or fourth-class citizen. It will be relegated to that role.But even more important, we believe, is the school leader's role in making the technology-supported reform a truly schoolwide effort. It is one thing to use technology in isolated classrooms and quite another to make technology a potent force in transforming an entire school. Although schools that choose to make technology part of their reform strategies face important challenges with respect to physical infrastructure, funding, equity, and ongoing maintenance, our case studies suggest that the greatest difference between more and less successful technology implementations resides in their artfulness in creating a coherent schoolwide approach to using technology in the core curricula for all students. (Chapter 5 provided a discussion of strategies for stimulating a schoolwide vision and the involvement of a majority of teachers.)
-###-
[Leadership for Technology Implementations (part 3 of 3)]