A Systems Change in Technology Use.

One school district uses a facilitator model to promote "just enough, just in time" support to teachers

Most school districts would tell you they have an initiative in place to integrate technology into their schools. While the definition of "integration" varies from place to place, most say they want to ensure their expensive and ongoing investment in technology truly benefits the students enrolled in their schools.

The process school leaders use to integrate technology into teaching and learning can affect significantly how well school districts achieve their desired ends.

In the scenario planning process used by large businesses and the military, one imagines the situations that might unfold in order to devise plans to address the various possibilities. You carry out this exercise while staying focused on your overall goals.

Integrating technology into our schools is much the same. It is full of uncertainties and possibilities that require strategic thinking. Districts must identify potential obstacles and benefits in order to devise implementation tactics that maximize return on the investment of time, personnel and dollars.

An Appealing Task

About four years ago, I was hired to lead the technology integration initiative for a large suburban school district in Schaumburg, Ill., just outside Chicago. We had 16,000 elementary students (in grades K-8) in 28 schools and more than 1,500 staff members.

The post of learning technologies director was a newly created one and the job description was attractive, even though my work at the time was in a much smaller school district with vastly different demographics. My new position was part of the district's curriculum department, and the major responsibilities were to find the best ways of integrating technology into the curriculum and to guide staff in accomplishing this task.

My first charge was to lead the strategic planning process to create a school district technology plan. A well-crafted plan for integration needs to consider important issues related to technology in the schools while recognizing the voices of different stakeholder groups--the board of education, parents and other community members, school personnel and local business proprietors.

Early on, we decided our plan should focus on what students did with the technology rather than just on acquiring the technology itself. Ours became an information and communication technologies plan with goals identified in the areas of student learning, instructional practices and teacher learning, community involvement and technology deployment.

It was about halfway through the planning process, after we had identified the major goal areas, that one task force member (who also was a school board member) shared his realization with the rest of the group. He noted we were headed toward proposing an instructional model in which students were more actively engaged in their own learning. The role of teacher would need to change substantially for this different type of learning to occur.

He said if we continued with the plan in that direction, we would need to be prepared to ask our entire school community to help us radically change the way teaching and learning occurred in our schools. There was a hush in the room as we all began to feel the pressure of the potential rough ride ahead.

It didn't take long for other task force members to agree that we had to continue in this direction for the sake of our students. We shaped an ongoing process for using technology tools more regularly and effectively in our teaching, learning and work. We knew that creating a great plan is just the beginning. Working through the painful process of effective implementation turned out to be the far more time consuming and ultimately rewarding part.

What We Learned

Having resourcefully traversed the uncertain path from school technology planning through implementation to systems change with more successes than failures, we learned a few lessons worthy of sharing. While not every situation will resemble ours, the key factors in getting entrenched staff comfortable with a new way of using learning technologies may be similar.

* Keep the vision up front. Make sure everyone knows the direction in which you re headed, even those who disagree.

Our vision was to transform systemically the way teaching and learning occurred in our schools to better prepare our students to meet the challenges of participating in the knowledge economy. The focus was to improve learning for all students as well as to improve and integrate the district's systems to facilitate learning.

We wanted everyone to be able to articulate this vision even if they didn't agree with it at first. Luckily, the superintendent, board of education and most of our parent community were in full support of our goals. We spent a lot of time in the first few months marketing our plan to administrators, teachers, district staff and parent groups. We sent out numerous copies of the plan and managed to get local newspaper coverage to share the goals with the community. We also asked each school to create its own plan for implementing the district plan.

The difficult part was presenting the vision in a way that honored the good instructional practices and uses of technology that already were occurring while challenging even the best of teachers, principals and school staff to grow some more. Unfortunately and probably predictably, the message often was misunderstood--either it was heard as offensive or overwhelming. At this stage it was essential to have the support and encouragement of the superintendent. Her message was, "We are all doing this. We will help you all we can, but this is not an option." It is amazing how statements from the top cause folks to pay attention to the message being delivered!

Creative Staffing

* Build a team and then empower it to lead out the changes from a site-based perspective.

As we moved into full implementation of our technology plan, we were challenged by the need to find ways of offering effective support to school staff and administrators while staying within our budget. We wanted to provide multiple types of readily accessible support to instructional staff in their classrooms as well as to administrators and other school personnel as they adopted new instructional practices and integrated the latest technology.

The board had allocated around $8 million for this three-year technology plan. It also earmarked another $400,000 from a state windfall toward the technology plan. However, most of the funds were acquired by having all other areas reduce their budgets by 10 percent. A "no growth" policy was in place that prevented the hiring of additional staff. So, if we were to have staff assigned to districtwide technology implementation, it needed to be from rethinking existing positions.

One important thing the school board did to build this support system was to create the position of learning technologies facilitator. Each of our five junior high schools had a teacher designated to instruct students in the existing computer labs as part of the district language arts curriculum. These teachers also served as liaisons to their feeder elementary schools to help them with technical difficulties. But since they were scheduled to teach a regular load of classes in the lab throughout the day, this left little time for ongoing support to others. We needed technology integration support in all buildings.

By rethinking the existing computer teacher positions to create more open-ended assistance for staff and students, we were able to move toward the ongoing support system we had in mind. Changing this position held many ramifications.

The teachers were not wholeheartedly in favor of such a change. Most liked their current role and felt it was working well. The junior high language arts teachers were distressed they would become responsible for integrating technology into their own curriculum. The teachers' association leadership became involved in the discussions, while the principals of the junior high schools believed something was being removed from their authority and given to the elementary schools.

Again, thanks to continued board and superintendent support, we moved ahead with our plans. We ended up offering an alternative to those who were not interested in taking on the new role of learning technologies facilitator and agreed to help the language arts teachers and junior high principals devise workable methods for integrating technology into their instruction.

During the first year, each of the five facilitators was responsible for five or six schools. They were relieved of scheduled instructional duties and were expected to provide curricular rather than technical support to staff members in each of their assigned buildings. For each facilitator, this meant the development of many new skills--foremost among them dealing with change and resistance. They also had to become familiar with the concepts of engaged learning and high-performance technology use, understand the district's curriculum from kindergarten through 8th grade in all subject areas and learn basic tenets of adult learning and professional development. It seemed almost insurmountable.

We met regularly as a team, initially to flesh out our roles and responsibilities during what proved to be rather intensive sessions. Many facilitators were initially uncomfortable with the imminent changes in technology, so we first worked on building trust and convincing one another that the job ahead would be challenging yet beneficial for everyone involved. We determined that keeping flexibility in our schedules among the assigned schools would be essential. In this way, technology wouldn't only happen on a Tuesday, but could take place three days in a row for two hours to get a new project going in a classroom. We designed action plans for working with principals to effect buildingwide change and address school-specific needs. We also discovered that one key ingredient to success--and one most of us admittedly were weak in--would be to listen and respond empathetically to others as they struggled to use technology in new ways.

Through this results-oriented team building, the learning technologies facilitators grew to understand how much they needed one another to be successful. As soon as we had the infrastructure in place, we also set up a listserv, an e-mail discussion group that quickly became a lifeline of internal support and encouragement.

Learning technologies facilitators now play a major role in the integration of technology in the Schaumburg schools. The uniqueness of our facilitator model is that it promotes "just enough, just in time" support in a multitude of formats that all focus on teaching and learning rather than technical troubleshooting.

By demonstrating a new way of doing things, we created an increased need for the services the facilitator provides. Thanks to the growing success of this concept, we added staff each year, increasing the level of support to one facilitator for every three schools. This has all been done in a way that does not affect the overall district budget or staffing counts. When staff retired or moved on and staffing needs in the schools shifted, we were able to absorb the position into a new facilitator spot.

Site-Based Support

* Provide as much support in as many different ways as possible.

Since we wanted a learning technologies facilitator spending his or her time on integrating technology into instructional practices rather than troubleshooting technical glitches, we needed to devise effective systems for dealing with these inevitable occurrences. Our solution was to combine the administrative with the instructional sides of technology.

We also set hardware and software standards that would put everyone from kindergarten pupil to superintendent on the same network system and operating system, as well as provide them with appropriate open-ended productivity tools. This enabled us to expand the roles of existing staff and welcome them into the growing learning technologies team.

We strategized as a group and created a new help desk system. Originally this was staffed on a rotating basis but now has a full-time person assigned. We added technicians over the first three years in accordance with our personnel growth guidelines. Technicians were given responsibility for a set of schools as well as to become an "expert resource" on a different aspect of technology.

We also initiated the site-based position of technology troubleshooter. The district's network coordinator manages this group of school staff interested in learning more about technical aspects of our new network and technology tools in order to help out (on an hourly fee basis) as needed and after school in solving minor issues. Many schools also have started student technology teams to help teachers and their fellow students learn some basic skills and troubleshooting tips, such as what to do if a printer jams, how to hook up a projection device or how to use a digital camera.

At the same time, we undertook an extensive professional development initiative for technology. Classes were offered during the day (with substitute teachers provided), after school, in the evenings and on Saturdays. Classes were open to all district employees and were structured around applications to classroom or office use rather than simple product training. We provided incentives for attending multiple sessions (a software package for home use for every 15 class hours completed). The facilitators initially taught all of the classes, but eventually we gathered additional staff into the ranks. Facilitators also worked with instructional coordinators for their schools to plan professional development that connected technology and learning.

Human Relations Hurdles

* Realize that human change takes time and perseverance, and it is often uncomfortable.

Over the course of two years, all of our schools were fully networked. We equipped each learning space, including offices, gyms and fine arts classrooms, with at least one computer. As schools used their site-based budgets to acquire additional equipment, many achieved a ratio of about one computer for each four students by the end of the three-year plan.

Through site-based plans tied to learning and technology plan goals, schools purchased additional equipment. We encouraged bringing technology to classrooms and created the "hub in a tub" concept (five or six laptops, a mini-hub and a wheeled cart) that can be moved easily from classroom to classroom. We made sure most computers were on carts for portability. We modeled and celebrated the use of technology for engaged learning projects tied to curricular goals and standards.

The tongue-in-cheek motto of our learning technologies team became "Change is good, you can go first." Often it seemed that no matter how much or what type of support we provided to staff members, there still were needs going unmet.

One of the largest hurdles was in getting those we served to see us as collaborators rather than enemies. Relationship building became and remains one of the critical factors in effectively implementing a districtwide technology plan. We found it essential for the facilitators and technical support team to become known in their assigned buildings so that the trust level would increase over time.

The use of technology as a tool for staff sharing and growing helped in this process. We encouraged staff to have fun in this unpredictable process of using technology. We recognized that once individuals get comfortable and feel empowered in terms of technology integration there's no stopping them and great things will happen.

Our model follows the belief that while educators need to be able to use technology to support their instructional practices and the curriculum, they do not need to be technology experts. In fact, one of our goals was for everyone to be comfortable being uncomfortable with the meaningful use of technology in their classrooms or offices.

In the initial three-year plan, we undertook to do everything at once. (There's nothing like a little cognitive dissonance to get folks moving.) The district now is reaping the benefits of this strategy.

We came a long way in a short time. Of course, the process is never complete. Last spring, the district's information and communications technologies plan was renewed for another three years, receiving the highest scores possible from the Illinois peer-review rating process. This time the goals focus on an even higher level of accountability for connecting technology and learning goals and practices.

Mary Moffitt is an educational technology consultant in Chicago and a former director of earning technologies in the Schaumburg, Ill., schools.

Requisite Skills for Facilitators

These are the skills that learning technologies facilitators need to be successful when working with school staff:

* The learning process. Knowledge of best-practice strategies for curriculum, instruction and assessment, engaged learning and performance standards.

* Technology as a tool to enhance learning. Experience with open-ended products, using a variety of tools within the classroom and integrating technology into curricular goals.

* Adult learning and facilitation skills. Knowledge of how change affects people, how adults learn differently than children and how strategies for confronting resistance are useful when implementing new ideas in schools.

* Teamwork and project work mindset. Knowledge of how systems within organizations have an impact on success, how to effectively communicate and how to work in a collaborative and supportive manner with others on the team.

Technology for Special-Needs Learners

Students with disabilities are included in regular classrooms in the Schaumburg, Ill., schools whenever possible.

In planning for technology integration, the school district has addressed the specific needs of those students who may require the use of assistive technologies to access information or communicate effectively with others. The school district has also focused on developing strategies for meeting the needs of at-risk, struggling and high-incidence special-needs students.

One Plan for All

A first step was to develop one all-encompassing technology plan that incorporated the specific considerations of special-needs students. A subgroup of the technology planning task force was responsible for developing goals and action steps that subsequently were folded into the larger district plan.

We ensured ownership at the site level for all students when making technology-related decisions. Site budgets were figured on a per-pupil allocation so school technology plans were expected to meet the needs of the range of learners in their building. Additional dollars were provided to schools that adopted an inclusion model to support them in this process.

A Spillover Effect

The position of assistive technologies facilitator was created and added to the team of learning technologies facilitators to provide services to schools. These teachers (currently four) spend their time working with individual students and teachers to determine assistive technology tools and devices that enable access to learning and communication. With their facilitator colleagues, they also guide the use of adaptive keyboards, talking word processors, word prediction programs and other resources in classrooms.

We found that when teachers had these tools in their classrooms for specific students, they often noticed a spillover of usefulness for all students. As a result, schools began to purchase more of this type of technology for use with other struggling students in their classrooms.

Many professional development classes were geared toward incorporating assistive and adaptive technology tools into instructional practices. One of the most popular and effective was called "Opening the Doors to Literacy." By participating in this five-week class, teachers received an adaptive keyboard and four open-ended companion software tools for use in their classrooms. This class helped teachers understand and practice using alternative tools for literacy instruction.

Modified Materials

As teachers created materials that adapted or modified curricular content, these materials were shared over the new district network. Overlays containing content from reading curriculum materials were developed using software for adaptive keyboards, graphic organization, multimedia and talking word processing tools.

These stories and followup comprehension activities and assessments were stored in a shared folder on the district server so all staff could have access. This enabled students who might otherwise be excluded from typical reading group instruction to participate more fully in their inclusive environment.

Students with special learning needs were able to use the same content base as their peers. Technology merely ensured an appropriate access point for them to become involved and experience learning success.

The A-Team

A group was formed in the third year of the initial plan to address the technology needs of students who were considered at-risk or had more typical learning disabilities than might ordinarily require assistive technology interventions.

The so-named A-TEAM (Adaptive Technology Enhancing Achievement through Modifications) core group met monthly to experience new teaching and learning practices and technology tools that could be used to overcome learning difficulties. The initial group was comprised of special education teachers and staff and was facilitated by an assistive technologies facilitator and a learning technologies facilitator.

The group was responsible for trying new tools and ideas with their students to create some general guidelines for use with other district students. Eventually, this group will become a mentor group to a new round of A-TEAM members. The group now has expanded to include regular education teachers and principals.