Teacher Feature...

by Rob Reilly Ed.D.

State Departments of Education are busily funding technology for school system, providing all sorts of support for the computerization of school records, deploying certification standards for educational technologists, mandating the creation of multi-year school technology implementation plans, fostering educational technology conferences, identifying programs and educators of excellence, and so on, and so forth. The federal government is not to be outdone-it's providing the E-rate, establishing all sorts of technology standards, and trying to craft laws to insure the safety of children while on the Web (well they're trying to craft legislation but the courts have other opinions).

Computers and all sorts of other technology artifacts are receiving God-like status in school systems. Everyone seems to be on the technology-in-schools-is-great bandwagon. No one seems to be questioning their utility or function. Even while politicians, parents, and pundits berate the quality of teachers, schools, and education in general, nobody (well except for Clifford Stoll) is questioning the purpose/utility of computers in schools. It would seem that the leaders of education at the federal level, at the state level, and at the local level would see that this area of education is one where lots of money is going, and - where lots of support exists.

Technology is education's most accepted and sought after subject-the acceptance of computers in the schools is almost an article of faith. It's need is not questioned, the curriculum being taught is not questioned - even a marginal technology/computer education program would be viewed as exceptional.

Teachers are doing a fine job given the situation. In their defense teachers are faced with the reality that they must implement a curriculum I which they have no background or training. The vast majority of computer education teachers were trained in other areas. All of the technology coordinators in the county where I live were teachers in other subject areas before they migrated over.

So what's my point? People are behind technology in schools, people are dissatisfied with schools, and it's not uncommon for teachers to be teaching outside their area of certification especially in computer education! The point is that the public is looking for better schools, actually I believe that they are just looking for leadership at the state and county level. It is also interesting that this same public is willing to support new initiatives in our schools. Just look at technology; it's unchallenged acceptance is evidence.

So - why aren't things going better if there's all this support?

Well it seems to me that the bug in the system is that the integration of technology into the schools (into the curriculum), has as its motto: ready, fire, aim. Education was, and continues to be, ready for technology, for the most part, teachers are ready for technology, students are clearly ready for technology, and the public is ready. But the next step should have been the aim phase, which is to focus on the curriculum, to plan, to prepare, to think through how computers will make education and teaching better-but something happened, something got sidetracked-the next step was fire it was not aim.

So what happened, and perhaps more importantly, what did not happen. Why did fire happen second? And, just as important, what happens when fire is premature, what happens when aim occurs last?

It seems to me that all those buy-technology-with-state-funds mandates, while well intentioned, just dumped far too much equipment onto schools. There was no accompanying mandate to hire support staff so the techno-gizmos were just dumped onto teachers and administrators. This was not really much of an issue until the equipment began to age or simply started to die. It was also a third-rate issue as most states were faced with education reform. Thus in addition to their day jobs, teacher also had technology befalling them, and they had to deal with the mandates of education reform.

Much to their credit local powers-that-be tried to alleviate the situation; they created the position of technology coordinator and began hiring people. As a result, in the last 5-8 years the technology coordinators have become a staple in school systems, where previously they did not even exist.

This new position was billed as the technology guru; someone who was capable of maintaining the equipment, someone who was also capable of being the technology integration specialist (the curriculum coordinator specializing in technology). But the lofty job description soon changed such that the technology coordinator was, in reality, the 'electronic janitor'-a modern day Cinderella.

Computers were being haphazardly thrown at school through state/federal grant money and by increased line-items in town budgets. Too much technology was appearing and no one knew how to integrate it into the curriculum. To compound the problem state departments of education began to release annual statistics on the computer-to-student ratio. This caused the schools to 'teach to the test.' School systems bought more and more computers but still did not have a firm idea of what to do with them.

Aim did not happen, remember, we went directly from ready right to fire!

But if aim had occurred before fire then perhaps technology integration would have addressed how computers and other technology would best augment, support, and enhance the curriculum. We would not be seeing technology coordinators spending 85-90% of their time fixing, tweaking, repairing, cleaning, laying cable, yada - yada - yada - If aim happened when it should have, we'd be seeing technology coordinators in the role of curriculum coordinator. Technology coordinators would be the people who are familiar with curriculum development and understand how computers can fit into the curriculum. But such is not the case (just yet anyway).

It seems strange that the-powers-that-be in school systems and at state departments of education did not see this opportunity very early on in the process. I am amazed that they did not seize the moment and support proper integration of this terrific innovation. Perhaps they did see this as an opportunity or conceivably just did not know how to manage it. But isn't it typical; the state or federal government mandates something and then fails to properly fund it and support it? Anyone ever hear of the term 'unfunded mandate'? Hmmm - maybe all this is just a wide-scale lesson in educational administration?

Nevertheless there is hope. I suppose that the ready, fire, aim motto works as long as you eventually go through the aim phase-it's just unfortunate that aim was not handled at a higher level. But perhaps it's not important to dwell on who should have done what, or who did not do what when they should have. Perhaps it's just important to know what went astray.

OK, so let's move on. Let's do the aim phase, let's be the technology leader. The time is right for some action items, and here they are:

A. What should be done about the technology coordinator position:
• the technology coordinator should be a curriculum coordinator-like position. The technology coordinator should be not be the 'electronic janitor' or the technology equivalent of a 'Cinderella at-large.'

• the 'electronic janitor' should either be an out-sourced contract or should be, for example, a person that is shared among several schools. Or if the school is large enough, should be stationed at just one school.

  The point being that the technology coordinator and the repair person should not be the same individual. When these two jobs are vested in the same person research shows that the 'electronic janitor' tasks take precedence over the curriculum coordinator side of the job to the point where the curriculum coordinator side of the job virtually disappears.

  B. What should be done by a revamped/redirected technology coordinator:

• Realize that some teachers will embrace technology and want to make it a part of their routine. Become close colleagues with these folks. Help them as much as possible. And avoid becoming the 'electronic janitor'-hesitate to fix things; diagnosing problems is ok, but don't go beyond that.

• Realize that some teachers will not embrace technology. Be sociable to these folks, suggest they come to see what those teachers who have embraced technology are doing. However avoid being to helpful as you'll soon become their 'Cinderella at-large.'

• Realize that some teachers will be hostile toward technology. Be careful with these folks they don't like technology and don't want it in their classroom. Be friendly, but avoid these folks.

As the song goes: "don't worry, be happy." Create the aim phase of the motto and implement it, albeit late.

In addition to what I have mentioned above, be a little crusty, very helpful to those who want your help (meaning assistance when they get stuck), provide leadership, advice, support, seek out material for those who embrace technology (but just enough to get them started, then let them fly with your occasional assistance), be very crusty to those who expect you to be their personal Cinderella, be especially nice to those who do not expect you to fix anything, do not be overly nice to those who expect you to fix everything, and, know that YOU CAN do great things by knowing what you're trying to accomplish-using technology to support the curriculum.