a different divide: preparing tech-savvy leaders.

As technology becomes an integral part of education, the leadership responsibilities of school administrators deserve more attention.

The Internet is driving nearly all aspects of our society. Almost 40 million American households have a personal computer, and e-mail access has increased by 400 percent over the last three years (CEO Forum, 1999). Business, community leaders and parents are looking to technology as a powerful tool for transforming schools, and more resources are flowing into school budgets for the purchase of hardware, software, networks and upgraded infrastructures.

As technology becomes an integral part of our schools, more attention is given to teachers and their ability to integrate technology into the classroom. However, the role of the principal and the leadership responsibilities in our connected schools are often overlooked. Providing a pool of competent school leaders in this technology-rich environment must become a priority for higher education institutions and school districts.

Recent reports indicate that 95 percent of our schools are now connected (Williams, 2000). Our kids are tech savvy, our teachers are getting trained but our school leaders are being left behind. Most funding provided for technology for educators is targeted for teachers. To provide the leadership necessary for success, principals and school district leaders must have sufficient knowledge of technology to guide them in their decision making in two critical areas: technology planning and staff development.

Technology planning

Case one: Early 1990s, a southern California school district assumes contracted debt totaling over $4 million for the purchase of already obsolete computers. The personal computers purchased had no CD players, no Internet capabilities and were loaded with software that required costly annual maintenance fees. The actual cost to upgrade the equipment was assessed at more than the original purchase price per unit. Needless to say, the computers found very limited use in the educational program.

Case two: In 1996 at another California school district, several school-based decision-making teams purchased full computer labs (30-100 computers per site) without consultation with district technical support staff. Computers languished in the district warehouse for most of the school year due to school sites' lack of infrastructural preparedness and lack of a district master plan.

First, principals need to understand the power of planning, and the need to create a technology plan that supports the instructional goals and objectives of the school.

Todd (1999) ties vision to technology and information literacy skills. He observes that "improved learning outcomes through information technology do not happen by chance," and claims that a principal needs to be a strong visionary with a good knowledge of technology and an understanding of the pedagogy required to bring innovation to the classroom and engage students in learning. He emphasizes the need for a written technology vision statement, collaboration and communication strategies that enlist teacher support.

However, developing a vision and plan is complicated by the multiple uses of technology in our schools. Traditionally, technology has been a tool for school principals in the form of student recordkeeping, voice mail, fax machines and other business management functions. Yet, the Internet has created new means for communication with staff, students and the community.

Computer-savvy parents have rising expectations for schools to provide information relevant to their child's school life via Web pages, e-mail and other electronic interactions. Integrated software packages provide a networked accounting system that allows student recordkeeping that eliminates duplication of efforts by teachers and office staff. Centralized data can be generated and instantly accessed by those interested in attendance, grades and other pertinent information related to any student.

Technology is transforming the classroom as well. Searching for information is no longer relegated to the traditional library or media center. Desktop computers connected to the Internet can lead students to data anywhere in the world, providing extensive resources for their research questions. Videoconferencing, newsgroups, e-mail and chat groups offer further contacts for students to expand their knowledge of a particular subject. Students rely upon word processing and graphics software to prepare sophisticated reports of their research findings. PowerPoint, video and Web pages are becoming popular ways to develop students' presentation skills.

To prepare a meaningful technology plan, principals need to have knowledge of how to make informed purchases of hardware and software. They must be able to understand the implications of infrastructure needs and network solutions. They must take a realistic look at long-term commitments, the rapidly changing nature of technology and costs.

Part of the school's technology plan must address the associated issues that follow the integration of technology into a school. A clear policy must be established regarding the appropriate use of the equipment. Standards of safety and security must be set and practiced uniformly by students and staff. Discipline procedures must be discussed and adapted to new methods of misbehavior.

Cyberspace misconduct

Trotter (1998) notes concern for an emerging problem, that of a minority of students using the Internet for cyberspace misconduct, such as pranks and vandalism. He characterizes these antics as mischief, and relates the extreme measures that school administrators have taken in some cases led to court cases and legal conflicts. Suspension and expulsion procedures need to take into consideration some of the thorny free speech issues that Internet communication creates. Copyright, plagiarism and other ethical dilemmas have taken on new twists that challenge school leaders.

Creating a realistic technology plan that will prove an inspiration to staff, students and parents is not an easy task and calls upon the principal to be informed, capable and future-thinking in respect to educational technology issues.

Staff development

Case three: School district X developed a technology plan with little input from school sites. A master plan was developed which provided a laptop for each high school teacher. However, training was optional and at a later date. On the other hand, no computers were provided for classroom or student use. There were reports that many teachers locked their new laptops, still in boxes, in their classroom closets.

Case four: School district Y adopted a literacy and math software that was mandatory for all elementary school teachers to use. However, inadequate training and computer breakdowns considerably hampered the effective implementation of the project.

Supervising in the technology-rich environment requires the principal to know how to support staffin the application of technology in meaningful learning activities, and how to evaluate teachers in their use of technology. Recognizing that teachers need instruction and coaching on the effective use of technology in the classroom is a significant responsibility of the principal.

There is a growing awareness that just adding the hardware, software and connectivity to schools will not lead to improved learning for students. Studies indicate that simply transferring poor teaching strategies from pencil and paper worksheets to computerized drill-and-kill formats is unlikely to bring about improvement in achievement.

Effective use of technology requires more than the basic knowledge of how to operate a computer, digital camera or scanner. Knowledge of how to integrate technology into meaningful classroom activities, how to align it with the curriculum standards and how to assure that students are challenged with higher order thinking problems are the key to increasing student achievement.

"Technology-rich classrooms are most successful when advanced technologies are linked with advanced teaching strategies, such as cooperative learning, thinking skills, guided inquiry and thematic teaching. Successful implementation of the technology does not remove teachers from the scene, but casts them in new roles as learning coaches and motivators," writes Dickinson (1999).

And in this new learning environment what students need to learn in order to be skilled in the future is dramatically different from the teacher-focused, broadcast methods of traditional classroom instruction. Students will need information literacy skills that will enable them to determine what is useful and what is meaningless in the mountain of information they will face at home and school. Technology is the tool, but student learning is the ultimate goal.

Even when teachers have obtained technology skills, many argue that effective technology implementation will not occur without strong leadership. "No matter how dedicated teachers may be and how convinced they may be about the benefits of technology in the classroom, they will not be able to accomplish much if they do not have the support -- both financial and moral -- from their principals, curriculum directors and superintendents" (Sharp, 1998).

Most training for teachers and administrators has revolved around desktop applications and computer-aided instruction. Word processing, spreadsheets and graphics software were the staples of computer training. However, the World Wide Web has widened the spectrum of what technology offers. "The litany of word processor, spreadsheet, database is no longer the mantra it once was. Given the new tools and opportunities, many administrators are faced with the question of how to organize and lead their faculty to the next level of performance and no, not literacy, but fluency" (Shelly, 2000).

Unfortunately, most administrators are not any better prepared to address these changes than the teachers they must lead. "Most likely they didn't learn in a technology-rich environment and have had little or limited technology training provided in administrative courses" (Anderson, 1998). In California, vast numbers of veteran school leaders completed their programs for leadership preparation when the technology of the day was 16 mm projectors, mimeographs, slides and overheads. Many of these school leaders have not been provided opportunities nor required to update their technology skills.

Principal preparation programs

Case five: An informal survey taken in January 2000 of students enrolled in two courses of the California State University, Long Beach administrator's credential program shows a disappointing level of expertise in the areas of Web design, online chat, newsgroups, networks and how to integrate the Web into class activities. The majority of students had no experience with such common multimedia peripherals as digital cameras and scanners. In fact, a few neither had a computer nor Internet access at home or work. As expected, the majority of students claimed to be adequate to proficient in the use of Windows, word processing, spreadsheets and e-mail.

Case six: In 1999, Leonard Burns from Eastern Kentucky University conducted a survey of superintendents, principals and technical coordinators asking two questions:

* What do principals need to know about technology?

* What do they need to be able to do with technology?

Although Burns acknowledges that the survey was small (22 responses) and the method of delivery through listservs might bias some responses, his findings suggest that preservice and inservice programs must develop a technology knowledge base for school principals that includes:

* Exposure to information and data that enables principals to develop a vision for a technology-based school that supports the instructional programs.

* Ongoing development and improvement in several technology skills, including word processing, databases, presentation, communication, Web site development and maintenance, Internet searches and troubleshooting.

The types of information and skills principals need for the future are rapidly outpacing the administrative preparation programs. Frustration with university-based administration credentialing programs has reached the point where organizations such as the American Association of School Administrators are calling for private alternatives to be established for preparing school leaders. Among their criticisms of university-based preparation programs is the lack of technology courses. Schneider (1999) asserts that nothing less than competition from the private sector will bring about the reforms necessary to produce high-quality school leaders.

University administrator training programs are reputed to have lost touch with the real world of schools. Much of the curriculum is based upon the role of principal as building manager. Technology issues are only peripherally addressed and most students must rely upon their personal acquisition of computer skills to meet the required technology proficiencies.

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing articulates its expectations for school administrators' competence in use of technology in Standard 30 (1995). Their rationale states, "Administrators must be able to use, manage and make decisions about several forms of technology. They need to learn what forms are appropriate for schools, and how these technologies can contribute to instructional support, administrative decision making, and the management of data."

If school leaders are to do as Shelly (2000) challenges them to do, take their schools from literate to fluent in technology, then the university administrator preparation programs must revise their training to include the skills that new principals will need to accomplish this.

Need for ongoing staff development

The responsibility of preparing administrators for leadership in digital schools rests not only with institutions of higher education but with school districts. Ongoing staff development must be provided for veteran and new administrators.

Educational administration preparation programs must hire faculty competent in technology integration and offer instruction that provides new leaders with the skills necessary for technology planning and staff development.

University coursework should model instructional practices that are required by state and national certification agencies. The curriculum must be revised as needed to include new technologies. And it must be an explicit part of the mission of colleges of education to produce technology competent educators.

References

Anderson, M.A. (1998). "Expectations: Building partnerships with principals." Multimedia Schools. 5 (5).

Burns, L. (1999). "Bits and bytes: The electronic leaders: What does it take?" The AASA Professor. 23 (1).

C.E.O. Forum on Education and Technology. (1999). School technology and readiness report. Washington, D.C.: CEO Forum.

Dickinson, D. (1999). Positive trends in learning: Meeting the needs of a rapidly changing world. Seattle, Washington: New Horizons for Learning.

Schneider, E.J. (February 1999). Improve the preparation of school leaders by eliminating the master's degree in educational administration. Paper presented at the conference within a conference American Association of School Administrators National Conference on Education, New Orleans.

Sharp, W.L. (1998). "School administrators need technology too." T.H.E. journal. 26 (2).

Shelly, R.W. (2000). "From literacy to fluency in instructional technology: Taking your staff to the next level." National Association of Secondary School Principals. 84 (614).

State of California. (1995). Standards of quality and effectiveness for administrative services credential programs. Sacramento: Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

Todd, R.J. (1999). "Transforming leadership and transformational learning: Information literacy and the World Wide Web." National Association of Secondary School Principals. 83 (605).

Trotter, A. (May 13, 1998). "Administrators confounded by Internet pranks." Education Week.

Williams, C. (February 2000). Internet access in U.S. public school classrooms: 1994-1999. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.

A SYSTEMIC APPROACH

Planning on offering a quick, one-day class to help your teachers become technologically proficient? Think again.

Computer Using Educators (www.CUE.org) recently released recommendations for technology staff development. They hope, says Susan Brooks, to help schools switch from one- or two-day workshops to systemic, long-term staff development practices.

Among their recommendations:

* All training should be based on standards such as the National Educational Technology Standards (www.iste.org) or the Factors to Consider from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (www.ctc.ca.gov). Assessments aligned to these standards should be developed and used.

* Site-based technical support should include funding to maintain and replace equipment; a paid, onsite technician at each school with a network; multiple ways to contact technicians including tech chats and e-mail; and support for hardware and software upgrades.

* On-site technology teams should train teachers on required technology proficiencies, with incentives offered to teachers who complete various levels within the proficiencies.

* Administrators should have access to a centralized information system for sharing models of successful programs built around student work tied to standards, concise summaries of research and strategies to evaluate high test scores and how they correlate to academic success.

Linda Holland is an assistant principal on special assignment coordinating the Digital High School grant for Orange County Department of Education's alternative schools. Thelma Moore-Steward is an associate professor and coordinator of the Educational Administration Program at CSU Long Beach.