INSIGHT—Summer 2001 by Texas Association of School Administrators

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS QUARTERLY PUBLICATION SUMMER 2001

INSIGHT

issue

Huckabee (FPO spr 01) pg. 2

INSIGHT F

SUMMER

2 0 0 1

VOLUME 15,

NO. 2 E S

2000 Texas Public School Technology Survey by Jon Denton, Trina Davis, and Arlen Strader

Shares results from the 2000 Texas Public School Technology Survey conducted in conjunction with the beginning of the 77th Texas Legislative Session, with cumulative summaries for key items across six domains: District Policies, District Technology Infrastructure, Technology Support and Sustainability, Technology Integration and Use, Professional Development, and Outreach/Communication

Enhancing Teacher Quality: How Portfolios Can Help by Jennifer S. Marcoux, Linda Rodriguez, Genevieve Brown, and Beverly J. Irby

Reviews how school leaders can support teacher development by encouraging implementation of a teacher evaluation portfolio system, which empowers teachers and encourages teacher growth while at the same time fostering a climate conducive to continuous learning and student achievement

Gearing Up for Year Two of the Expanded Technology Leadership Academy Provides an overview of the Technology Leadership Academy, including evaluation results from the 2000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2001 academy and information about the 2001â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2002 academy, which is funded by a three-year $6.3 million State Challenge Grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with matching funds from The Meadows Foundation, the Sid W. Richardson Foundation, and Houston Endowment, Inc.

SUMMER 2001 3

.......................................

Handled...........

With Care......... W

hen you outsource your student transportation services to Laidlaw Education Services, your employees become our number one priority. Over the years, Laidlaw has retained more than 90 percent of existing employees in the districts in which we operate. For more information contact Bob Thompson, Director of Business Development at (972) 547-4498, or e-mail at Bob_Thompson@lpsg.com.

55 Shuman Boulevard, Suite 400, Naperville, Illinois 60563 1.800.LAIDLAW â&#x20AC;˘ www.laidlawschoolbus.com

Newswire

Texas winners of Discover® Card Tribute Award® scholarships, nominees for 2001 SOTY Award, 2001 regional honor boards

Executive Director’s View New horizons in 2001-02

President’s Message

The Leader

Taking charge of the future

Program on principals as technology leaders, review on The Leadership Challenge, board briefs

INSIGHT Officers

At-Large Members

Leonard E. Merrell, President, Katy ISD Don Gibson, President-Elect, Wall ISD Dawson R. Orr, Vice-President, Pampa ISD James E. Wilcox, Past President, Hooks ISD

Willis Mackey, Navasota ISD Dana S. Marable, Marble Falls ISD Hector Montenegro, Dallas ISD Debra K. Nelson, Frisco ISD

Executive Committee

Editorial Advisory Committee

Eliseo Ruiz, Jr., Los Fresnos CISD, 1 Henry D. Herrera, Alice ISD, 2 Tom R. Jones, Jr., Tidehaven ISD, 3 James F. Smith, Alief ISD, 4 M. R. “Bob” Tilley, Kirbyville CISD, 5 Dorman C. Jackson, Crockett ISD, 6 Dee W. Hartt, Tatum ISD, 7 Harvey Hohenberger, Chisum ISD, 8 Randel R. Beaver, Archer City ISD, 9 Tony Daugherty, Pottsboro ISD, 10 Vernon N. Newsom, Mansfield ISD, 11 Rex Daniels, Lampasas ISD, 12 Ron Reaves, New Braunfels ISD, 13 Gayle Lomax, Snyder ISD, 14 Billy Jack Rankin, Bangs ISD, 15 Kyle Collier, Claude ISD, 16 Ken McCraw, Lamesa ISD, 17 Bobby D. McCall, Iraan-Sheffield ISD, 18 Lu Anna Stephens, Fabens ISD, 19 Alton Fields, Pleasanton ISD, 20 Michael Hinojosa, Hays CISD, Legislative Chair

Leonard E. Merrell, Katy ISD, Chair Don Gibson, Wall ISD Marla M. Guerra, University of Texas–Pan American Michael Hinojosa, Hays CISD Jan C. Jacob, Victoria ISD Thomas Earl Randle, La Marque ISD Jeff N. Turner, Burleson ISD Mary E. Ward, Dripping Springs ISD

TASA Headquarters Staff Johnny L. Veselka, Executive Director Paul Whitton, Jr., Associate Executive Director, Administrative Services Ellen V. Bell, Associate Executive Director, Professional Development Louann H. Martinez, Associate Executive Director, Governmental Relations David Backus, Assistant Executive Director, Governmental Relations Dian Cooper, Assistant Executive Director, Professional Development Ann M. Halstead, Director, Communications & Technology Pat Johnston, Director, Special Services Emily Starr, Design/Production Karen Limb, Editorial Coordinator Neal W. Adams, TASA General Counsel, Adams, Lynch, & Loftin—Bedford

Advertising For information on advertising in INSIGHT, contact Ann Halstead, TASA, 512-477-6361. INSIGHT is published quarterly by the Texas Association of School Administrators, 406 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701-2617. Subscription is included in TASA membership dues. © 2001 by TASA. All rights reserved. TASA members may reprint articles in limited quantities for in-house educational use. Articles in INSIGHT are expressions of the author or interviewee and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of TASA. Advertisements do not necessarily carry the endorsement of the Texas Association of School Administrators. INSIGHT is printed by Thomas Graphics, Austin, Texas.

SUMMER 2001 5

NEWS WIRE

Texas Juniors Win Discover® Card Scholarships Twelve Texas high school juniors won $2,500 each for a combined total of $30,000 in the Discover ® Card Tribute Award ® Scholarship Program. The program, sponsored by Discover® Financial Services in cooperation with AASA, recognizes high school juniors for outstanding accomplishments that extend to all aspects of their lives—personal, community, and academic. The scholarship categories and winners are: Arts & Humanities Studies Gold I: Brandon D. Mack, Brazoswood High School, Brazosport ISD Gold II: Allison R. Baucom, Connally High School, Connally ISD Gold III: Amalia E. Hellie, Nixon-Smiley High School, NixonSmiley CISD Gold IV: Natalie J. Cook, James E. Taylor High School, Katy ISD Science, Business & Technology Studies Gold I: Adam A. Odewumi, Winston Churchill High School, North East ISD

Gold II: Amir H. Barzin, M. B. Lamar High School, Arlington ISD Gold III: Debra T. Hsiung, Health Careers High School, Northside ISD Gold IV: Joseph M. Bellah, Throckmorton High School, Throckmorton ISD Trade & Technical Studies Gold I: Adrienne M. Coke, Splendora High School, Splendora ISD Gold II: Jonathan M. Bladen, Killeen High School, Killeen ISD Gold III: Lacey G. Rodriguez, Splendora High School, Splendora ISD Gold IV: Amber D. Meadows, American Heritage Academy, Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD Thank you to all the TASA members and community representatives who assisted in judging the scholarship applications. Congratulations also to those education leaders involved with these students’ successes.

Nominees Announced for 2001 SOTY Award Superintendents from 18 school districts have been nominated for the annual Superintendent of the Year (SOTY) award sponsored by the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB). The 17-year-old SOTY program recognizes exemplary superintendents for excellence and achievement in educational leadership. The year 2001 regional winners and nominating education service centers are: Rolando M. Peña, Rio Hondo ISD (1) Carol Ann Moffett, Flour Bluff ISD (2) Thomas E. Randle, nominated by La Marque ISD (4); now at Lamar CISD Thomas W. Harvey, Jr., Sabine Pass ISD (5) Janet L. Morris, Livingston ISD (6) David A. Sharp, Lufkin ISD (7) James P. Brewer, DeKalb ISD (8) Hollis Adams, Midway ISD–Clay County (9) Douglas W. Otto, Plano ISD (10) 6

INSIGHT

Sidney H. Poynter, Crowley ISD (11) Carol Ann Bonds, Rogers ISD (12) Marc L. Williamson, Fredericksburg ISD (13) Jim D. Copeland, nominated by Rotan ISD (14); now at Snook ISD Johnny Clawson, San Saba ISD (15) Linda Kay Barnhart, Pringle-Morse CISD (16) Larry Joe McClenny, Patton Springs ISD (17) Charles Hart, Canutillo ISD (19) Ed Rawlinson, Northside ISD–Bexar County (20) The state committee will select five finalists in August, and the 2001 Superintendent of the Year will be announced on September 22 during the First General Session of the 41st Annual TASB/TASA Convention in Dallas. The winning superintendent will receive a professional development award funded by the Balfour Company.

Regional Honor Boards Named Fifteen Texas school boards have been nominated for the 2001 School Board Awards Program sponsored by TASA. Boards are nominated for this prestigious award at the regional level and screened by a committee at the respective education service center before being forwarded to the state level. The 2001 regional nominees and their respective education service centers are: South Texas ISD (1) Orange Grove and Ricardo ISDs (2) Hallettsville and Meyersville ISDs (3)

When choosing an engineering firm, it’s best to go by the numbers.

Texas City ISD (4) Beaumont and Sabine Pass ISDs (5) Coppell ISD (10) Crowley ISD (11) Temple and Hubbard ISDs (12) Hays CISD (13) Sweetwater ISD (14) Clint ISD (19) TASA’s School Board Awards Committee will meet in late August to select no more than five of the boards to be recognized as 2001 Honor Boards. The Honor Boards will be interviewed on Friday, September 21, by the committee at the 41st Annual TASB/TASA Convention in Dallas, at which time the 2001 Outstanding School Board will be selected. The Honor Boards will be recognized and the Outstanding Board announced at the convention’s Second General Session on Sunday, September 23.

• • • •

548 Texas school districts served 335 years of combined engineering/design experience 27 years of service to the education community 47 colleges, universities, and other public schools throughout the country served

When you need quality air-conditioning, mechanical, electrical, or technology design/engineering services, just do the math. You’ll find our experience adds up. Whether you’re building a new facility or updating an existing one, replacing old air-conditioning, initiating an energy management program or wiring your school to connect classrooms to the Internet, our expertise can benefit you. For further information, contact James McClure, P.E., in our Tyler office. When you go by the numbers, it all adds up to Estes, McClure & Associates, Inc.

Celebrating 27 Years CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Estes, McClure & Assoc., Inc.

3608 West Way, Tyler, TX 75703 phone 903-581-2677 • fax 581-2721 visit our web site at estesmcclure.com

SUMMER 2001 7

Curriculum Advantage FPO (spr 01) pg 8

Executive Director’s VIEW

New Horizons in 2001–02 Over the past several months, TASA’s elected leadership and major policy and advisory committees have devoted considerable attention to the association’s priorities for the coming year. Obvious priorities include the interim school finance study to be conducted in preparation for the 2003 legislative session, monitoring the implementation of recently enacted legislation, and developing TASA’s legislative priorities for the next legislative session. Discussions also have focused on what new programs and services are needed and wanted by TASA members, what the association should be doing differently or not at all, and what can be done to increase awareness of and raise the level of participation in TASA’s subscription-based programs. Many of our efforts focus on utilizing Web-based technology to enhance the communication links among and between TASA members and association staff. One such project is the addition to TASA’s Educator Job Bank of an online job application system, which emerged from the work of several personnel administrators in the Houston area. Known as TXREAP (Regional Education Applicant and Placement Program) and set to kick off in early September, the system allows Texas school districts to access job applications online. TASA staff is working with the National School Applications Network to link its technology with TASA’s Educator Job Bank. The job bank will continue to be offered at no cost to Texas school districts with the enhanced online application system being offered on a subscription basis ranging from $350 to $850 per year depending on district size. Specific information on this project will be on superintendents’ desks within a few weeks. We also continue our efforts to enhance and broaden participation in the TASA EduPortal™. Launched last summer as the first statewide document-searching and document-sharing system of its kind to be implemented anywhere in the country, the EduPortal is now used in 8–10 other states. TASA committee members and other users have suggested a retooling of the EduPortal, with a heavier emphasis on sharing district documents and best practices. We are enthusiastic about the continued growth of the EduPortal and look forward to expanding its potential. In early September, we will conduct our first Central Office Academy, designed to address the professional development needs of district-level administrators. Modeled after TASA’s widely acclaimed First-time Superintendents’ Academy, the Central Office Academy is aimed at building a strong central office leadership team through the sharing of best collaborative practices. The 2001–02 school year promises to be both challenging and exciting. The recent announcement that Texas’ African-American and Hispanic fourth-grade students each ranked number one for their ethnic group in a state-by-state comparison of 2000 NAEP math scores and that Texas’ white fourth-grade students tied for first place with Connecticut, offered yet another testimonial that the hard work of Texas educators is making a difference. TASA will continue to offer quality products and services designed to enhance your efforts at the local level. The TASA staff is always open to your questions and suggestions—please do not hesitate to call whenever we can be of service. My best wishes for a successful and productive school year.

SUMMER 2001 9

TASA’s 2001–02 Professional Development Academies Two outstanding academies conducted by experts in school administration.

FIRST-TIME SUPERINTENDENTS’ AC ADEMY A unique, four-session academy--now in its 10th year--designed to assist new superintendents in successfully negotiating the many challenges they face in this critical leadership position. • August 28-30, 2001 • January 9-10, 2002

• November 1-2, 2001 • April 3-4, 2002

Inter-Continental Stephen F. Austin Hotel, Austin (Sessions One and Three) and Austin Marriott North at Round Rock, Round Rock (Sessions Two and Four)

CENTRAL OFFICE AC ADEMY A brand-new academy aimed at building a strong central office leadership team through the sharing of best collaborative practices. • September 5-6, 2001 • January 16-17, 2002

• November 7-8, 2001 • April 10-11, 2002

DoubleTree Club, Austin

President’s

MESSAGE

Taking Charge of the Future As school districts all across Texas prepare for the beginning of the 2001–02 school year, I am reminded of two years that were made famous in literature: the politically bleak 1984 described by George Orwell and the technologically menacing 2001 created by Arthur C. Clarke. In 1984, Texas schools stood at the portal of tremendous change. That summer, a special session of the Texas Legislature enacted the education reform bill that changed the face of public schools profoundly, creating exit-level testing, no-pass-no-play, a statewide teacher evaluation system, class caps in early grades, and an entirely new system of funding (which was struck down by the Texas Supreme Court only three years later). Like the readers of those two landmark novels looking ahead to a lessthan-rosy future, Texas school administrators, in the early days of school reform and accountability, felt awed and intimidated at the task at hand. The mountain seemed almost too high to climb; the instructional and financial consequences of the mandates seemed almost insurmountable. Looking back to 1984 from the vantage point of 2001, we can take pride that we climbed that mountain, one step at a time. No longer must we apologize, rationalize, or defend what goes on in our schools to parents, community members, business leaders, or lawmakers. We have objective evidence that Texas schools are creating excellence one student, one classroom, one school, one district at a time. In just seven years, statewide achievement levels on the TAAS have risen from the 58–76 percent range to 87–90 percent, with passing levels for minority and low-income children increasing by as many as 45 points. The percentage of “Exemplary” school districts has increased from 1.3 in 1995 to 16.1 this year; “Recognized” districts have gone from 13.1 percent in 1995 to 42.2 percent today. In spite of the misgivings of nearly two decades ago, our schools have taken on TECAT, TEAMS, TAAS, PDAS, funding equalization, accountability ratings, and a host of other challenges, and cleared every hurdle successfully. That success is primarily attributable to one factor: leadership. At the state level, leadership provided by a succession of outstanding commissioners of education has helped guide districts through the process of translating legislative mandates into local programs. But the most dedicated leadership at the state level requires equally dedicated leadership at the district and campus levels to actualize the goal of success for every child. Each one of you has provided that leadership in your district and can celebrate the accomplishments of your students, knowing that each individual success has brought Texas where it is today. But leadership is a dynamic process that cannot be totally satisfied with the past. We all realize the great challenges ahead: the important work on school finance that will occur over the next two years, the implementation of the TAKS in 2002–03, the growing need for excellent teachers and administrators, and the increasing diversity and mobility of our students. As I think about the leadership necessary to take charge of the future, I find profound insight in a thought from the past. St. Francis of Assisi, writing in the early 13th century, said: If you work with your hands, you are a laborer, If you work with your hands and your head, you are a craftsman, But if you work with your hands, your head, your heart, and your soul, you are an artist. As educators, we need to pay greater heed to the message of St. Francis and less to those of Orwell and Clarke, facing the coming years with a strong sense of optimism and dedication to the work we do. As school leaders, each of us can meet the challenge when we take charge of the future with the head, the hands, the heart, and the soul of an artist.

SUMMER 2001 11

Masonry ad (newâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;film provided) p. 12

by Jon Denton, Trina Davis, and Arlen Strader In 1994, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act became law. This act contained a number of provisions designed to foster instructional applications of technology in classrooms across the nation (President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, 1997). The technology infrastructure and staff development to use the technology for classroom applications have become important sources of benchmarks to mark progress with the integration of technology into our classrooms.

2000 Texas Public School

Technology Survey Few states invest adequately in either pre-service or in-service technology professional development for educators. As a result, most teachers have little direct experience in observing and learning about the wide range of computer-telecommunications applications for classrooms. An Education Commission of the States document (ECS, 1998) states that only 15 percent of the K–12 teachers in the nation have received as much as nine hours of training in technology. Further, this report notes that the average school district expenditures for technology devoted to teacher training is reported to be 6 percent while the recommended level is 30 percent. These expenditures are beginning to rise; an annual survey by Market Data Retrieval notes that 17 percent of public school technology spending in FY 2000 went to teacher professional development (Web-based Education Commission, December 2000). The Web-based Education Commission’s report to the president and the Congress of the

SUMMER 2001 13

United States includes the admonishment, “not enough is being done to assure that today’s educators have the skills and knowledge needed for effective Web-based teaching.” The report goes on to state that if this situation is not remedied immediately, “we will have lost an opportunity to enhance the performance of a whole generation of new teachers, and the students they teach.” Over the past three legislative sessions, the Texas State Legislature enacted laws that have accelerated the integration of technology into public education. Significant efforts to build technology infrastructure in Texas is evident through the 2,300 public school awards provided by the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) Board by the end of FY 1999 (TIF Web site, 2001); the 113 competitive Technology In Education (TIE) grants also called the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund grants that have provided 1,963 awards to school districts from 1997 through 2000 (TEA, 2000); and the 812 district technology plans certified by the Texas Education Agency for E-Rate discounts in year one of the program (TEA, 2000). With such an influx of funding into technology education, the following six questions were posed to guide this inquiry. 1. What district policies affect technology resources and technology integration? 2. What is the district’s present technology infrastructure? 3. What level of district support is provided to assure technology sustainability? 4. What level and kind of technology use occurs in the district? 5. What level and kind of professional development is being provided in the district? 6. What technology outreach does the district provide to the community?

Context In 1996 and again in 1998, TASA, with technical support from the South Central Regional Technology in Education Consortia–Texas (SCR*TEC–TX) at Texas A&M University (TAMU) conducted surveys of the technology infrastructure in all public schools in Texas. Between 76 percent and 82 percent of the 1,043 school districts in Texas participated in those survey efforts. Results of these technology surveys are available at http://eEducation.tamu.edu/. This site provides an electronic file and associated software, Web Survey Builder,

Spectrum Corp FPO

INSIGHT

that enable data to be electronically collected with the added feature of allowing school personnel to partially complete the instrument and return at later times to complete and submit their responses. The collected data are then partitioned and analyzed with respect to different geographic and school size classifications enabling customized reports for each reader. Anecdotal evidence indicates this site has been frequently accessed and used in developing proposals for technology support by schools across the state. With the recognition of the service TAMU provided to school districts and state agencies with these technology infrastructure surveys, a decision was readily made to undertake another technology survey. It is hoped this effort, conducted in conjunction with the beginning of the 77th Texas Legislative session, provided valued information to schools and legislators regarding technology integration into the public schools of Texas.

Method An initial draft of the survey instrument was developed at a meeting on August 17, 2000, held at TASA headquarters in Austin. This draft was based on the 1998 instrument, with new items presented at this meeting linked to the Texas STaR Chart (TEA, 2001). Participants at this meeting included Johnny Veselka and Ellen Bell, TASA; Anita Givens, Texas Education Agency (TEA); Gary Grogin, Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board (TIFB); and Jon Denton, Trina Davis, and Arlen Strader, TAMU. The instrument subsequently underwent revisions to incorporate suggestions from these individuals resulting in the final version that contained 49 items organized into the following seven sections: District Demographics (3 items), District Policies (6 items), District Technology Infrastructure (11 items), Technology Support and Sustainability (8 items), Technology Integration and Use (8 items), Professional Development (7 items), and Outreach/Communication (6 items). The instrument and data collection procedures were submitted to and approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board for research involving human subjects. The items were then integrated with the Web Survey Builder, enabling the TASA/TEA/TIFB/TAMU-supported effort entitled 2000 Texas Pubic School Technology Infrastructure and Implementation Survey to be conducted and instantaneously analyzed over the Internet.

Data Collection Data collection began on Friday, October 27, 2000, when a letter from TASA Executive Director Johnny Veselka was mailed to all 1,043 Texas school superintendents. The letter contained the following directions to complete the survey. “The survey is available online at the Web site http://eEducation.tamu.edu/TechSurvey2000/ so that you or your assigned staff can complete it in a short time. Use your county-district number to log in; do not put a “dash” between the two numbers. Use “texas1” as the password. As always, data gathered from the 2000 survey will be available to any district, ESC, or other interested party, and data from the 1996 and 1998 surveys also are available to you for comparison purposes.” On Monday, December 4, 2000, a reminder e-mail message was sent to superintendents whose districts had not responded to the survey. This e-mail message, which encouraged completion of the survey, resulted in more than 100 surveys being submitted over the following two weeks. A second e-mail message, which included another request to complete the survey online with an attached descriptive statistical summary of the initial 388 responses for the survey, was sent to nonresponding school districts on Friday, January 5, 2001. An e-mail message also was sent to district officials who submitted a completed survey thanking them for their participation. This message included an attached preliminary summary of survey results. A third e-mail request was sent on Friday, January 26, 2001; telephone follow-up calls were made to districts that had partially completed the online survey; and other districts were contacted that had not logged on to the survey during the final weeks of data collection, mid-February through March. The closing date for receipt of surveys was Friday, March 30, 2001, enabling five months for data collection. With the exception of the initial letter from Veselka to superintendents, all communications and data collection processes were conducted electronically. At the conclusion of the data collection phase, 708 districts had accessed the survey with 638 districts (61 percent) completing all or portions of the survey. A review of districts responding to the survey from the 20 education service center regions was made. All regional service center regions were represented with the response ratio ranging from 38 percent (Region 19) to 77 percent (Region 3). Table 1 provides a regional breakdown of the number of participating districts. Continued on page 17 SUMMER 2001 15

Brainchild FPO Pg 16

Continued from page 15

Percent of Districts by ESC Regions Participating in Survey

Table 1. ESC Region

# Districts Responding 16

Percent Responding

Table 2.

Percent of Districts by District Size Participating in Survey

District Size

Total Enrolled

# of Districts

Percent Responding

50,000 and Over

929,714

25,000-49,999

838,583

10,000-24,999

737,630

5,000-9,999

443,071

3,000-4,999

332,575

1,600-2,999

284,887

1,000-1,599

152,735

500-999

169,401

138

Under 500

103,783

191

3,991,783

A review of the responding districts with enrollments of 50,000 or more students revealed that 9 of 12 districts responded to the survey. The cumulative student enrollment of the districts that responded to the survey represents 67 percent of the total student public school enrollment in Texas. Table 2 provides a breakdown by district size of the number of participating districts.

Data Analysis and Findings Once submitted, data were verified with respect to the district name and/or county-district identification number, and a TAMU staff member reviewed each item response. If item responses appeared unusual or questionable, the district was e-mailed to check and confirm responses to particular items. Once this validation process was completed, the district’s data were concatenated with other district data and saved as Microsoft Excel files. The following summary represents a snapshot of data obtained and validated through March 30, 2001.

While this information is useful from a statewide perspective, we encourage readers to refer to http://eEducation.tamu.edu/ for electronic renderings of the results of this survey effort that can be specialized for particular information needs. Summaries can be requested by size of enrollment and/or education service center region.

Summary of Survey Percentage of Districts Responding Yes

Domain: District Policies 100

95 90

92 88 86

85 80 Q1

Q2 Item

Q5A

Figure 1. District Policy Items Q1 - Has your district benefited from HB 2128 (TIF Board funding)? Q2 - Has your district applied for an E-Rate (federal) rebate? Q4 - Does your district use Internet filtering software? Q5A - Does your district have an “acceptable use policy?” for students?

The following figures and discussions present cumulative summaries for key items across the domains of the survey instrument; i.e., District Policies, District Technology Infrastructure, Technology Support and Sustainability, Technology Integration and Use, Professional Development, and Outreach/Communication. These domains are aligned with the six research questions guiding this inquiry. Initial items on the instrument sought information about benefits to the district from TIF Board funding for technologies and the federal E-Rate program making technologies and telecommunications services available at discounted rates. Texas school districts have actively participated in these programs. District representatives completing the survey report that E-Rate rebates were directed to telecommunication services (78 percent), Internet Access (71 percent), and Internal wiring (35 percent). Limiting access to the venue of electronic materials is an important issue with a large percentage of districts reporting the use of Internet filtering software. A related question posed whether or not school districts had an acceptable use policy for Internet use by students, staff, and community patrons. As presented in figure 1, nearly all (96 percent) of the districts report having these guidelines in SUMMER 2001 17

place for student use of technology resources. Often the “acceptable use policy” has been extended to school staff (87 percent) and community patrons (40 percent). Because the provision of school technology resources to community residents is still evolving with nearly half of the districts providing this service, it is not surprising that use policies have not been formally stated for community patrons. One final item on needed technical assistance was posed. District responses strongly support additional opportunities for technology integration in classrooms (80 percent) with less interest indicated for guidance on developing grant applications for technology (65 percent), establishing technology consortia (41 percent), conducting technology audits (38 percent), and developing a school technology use plan (36 percent). School district interest and support for assistance with increasing technology in the classroom are evident from these responses.

Domain: District Technology Infrastructure 100

Percent

80 45

60 40 20 0 Q10A Q10B

Q10C

Q11

Q17

Items Figure 2. Technology Infrastructure Items Q10A – What percentage of Elementary classrooms have Internet access? Q10B – What percentage of Middle School classrooms have Internet access? Q10C – What percentage of High School classrooms have Internet access?

The results presented in figure 2 regarding the level of connectivity in Texas classrooms represents a dramatic shift over the past five years. In 1996, school districts reported that more than 70 percent of their classrooms did not have connections to the Internet. In 2000, high (95–98) percentages of classrooms at the elementary, middle, and high school levels were wired. Further, the bandwidth connection coming to the school district is T1 or greater in more than 94 percent of the districts. Financial reasons for these high values can be traced to active school district leadership in seeking federal E-Rate rebates and grants from the TIF Board. These resources also have enabled the number of Internet-linked computers per classroom to exceed two machines or approximately nine students per Internet-linked computer. While two linked workstations per classroom represent a significant increase in technology infrastructure in the classroom, district representatives report the greatest infrastructure need is more classroom computers (Item 17).

Q11 – Percentage of districts with bandwidth of T1 or higher

Other infrastructure issues addressed in this section of the survey that are not summarized in figure 2 reveal:

Q17 – Percentage of districts reporting “more classroom computers” as greatest infrastructure need

• The average number of two-way videoconferencing units per district is one. • The most cited replacement cycle for equipment by districts is 4–5 years. • The average value of teachers with home access to the Internet is 45 percent.

Not Available

Greater Than 5 Days

4-5 Days

2-3 Days

Next Day

Same Day

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Within 2 Hours

Percent

Domain: Technology Support and Sustainability

Response Time Technical Support Figure 3. Technical and Instructional Support

INSIGHT

Instructional Support

The availability of technology support staff is very important if integration of technology into the classroom is to occur. Figure 3 presents the reported response time to calls for assistance for technical support (that is, the installation and maintenance of hardware, operating systems, and general software) and instructional support (defined as help in using various components of technology, both hardware and software, in direct support of instruction). While nearly half of the instructional

requests and a third of the technical requests appear to be handled the same day the requests are submitted (note: these ratios were obtained by combining the “within two hours” and the “same day” values), this means that a glitch would likely delay an instructional activity for at least one day or up to a week if support did not arrive. Technical and instructional support must be provided in a timely fashion, with the benchmark of within four hours (TEA, 2001), if teachers are to rely on technology to support their instructional plans and activities. Although not presented in figure 3, the location of technical and instructional support personnel is at the district office rather than at the campus. Other information requested under this section of the instrument was the funding for professional development activities that included the cost of technical and instructional support personnel. Across the school districts, nearly 17 percent of the technology budget was allocated for professional development. This value was obtained by dividing funding for professional development on technology, $99,190 (state average), by the total funding for technology, $597,583 (state average). The final item under this domain asked whether or not the district provided laptop computers for checkout. More than one-third of the district representatives report their districts provide laptop checkout to their faculty, and nearly one-sixth of the districts provide laptop checkout to high school students. A laptop checkout practice by districts can directly address digital divide issues of technology equipment availability to students from households without these resources.

37 24 18 12

Proficiency Levels

Colla Collaboration/ b/StudStudent-centered Centered

Curriculum Integration

Plan Instruction

Know Basics

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Just Beginning

Percent

Domain: Technology Integration and Use

Figure 4. Proficiency Levels of Teachers

district representatives reported that elementary students use computers in their learning activities from two to four hours per week. At the middle school level, more than 41 percent of the students use computers for learning from two to four hours per week, and 30 percent of this age group use computers for five to nine hours per week. At the high school level, 27 percent of the students use computers for learning from two to four hours per week, and 37 percent use computers for five to nine hours per week. Productivity, drill and practice applications, and using the Internet for online information are the most cited uses by students. Accessing simulations, collaborative learning activities, and Web-based curricula are not common applications accessed by students at this time.

As figure 4 indicates, district representatives indicate more than one-third of the teachers know the basics for computer operation and the use of productivity software such as word processing and spreadsheet applications. Teacher proficiencies that are evolving include using technology to plan instruction, and integrating online resources into the curriculum. Values in figure 4 support the idea that teachers are beginning to change the way they teach, given the increasing technology resources that are available to them. While not presented in figure 4, student use of computers was addressed under this domain. More than half (57 percent) of the

Trying to make money Put your bond or operational funds to work using

professional money management. AJ Capital has the experience and desire to increase your earnings and hold down your taxes.

AJ Capital Corporation 24915 Baywick Spring, TX 77389 281.351.5334

Anne Jenkins SUMMER 2001 19

Domain: Professional Development 40 35

Percent

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

The most cited range of professional development on technology for teachers is one to six hours per year. While not presented in figure 5, district representatives estimate that nearly one-third of the teachers in their districts use strategies gained from professional development Elementary experiences. These experiences are typically provided by education serMiddle vice center personnel (73 percent) or High School by a full-time teacher with staff development responsibilities (45 percent) in face-to-face sessions (90 percent), or by attending conferences 0 11-6 to 6 77-12 to 12 13-24 25-36 25-36 >>37 37 (59 percent). In terms of the type of Number of Hours technology professional development most needed, district representatives identified technology integration Figure 5. Average Professional Development Hours into the curriculum as the greatest need for teachers, and the topics of strategic planning for technology and identification of best technology practices as the greatest needs for school administrators.

Homework

Other

Not Used

Directory

Achievement Data

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Calendar

Percent

Domain: Outreach/Communication

Type of Information Figure 6. District Use of Web to Communicate Information

Providing technology resources and information to the community by the Web are evolving services provided by school districts. Figure 6 indicates the most common items on school Web pages are the school calendar, achievement data reports, and faculty directories. At this time, district representatives estimate that 80 percent of their districtsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; teachers do not use or are just beginning to use instructional Web sites to communicate with parents and students about assignments and class activities. To underscore technology outreach as an evolving service, district representatives report that 47 percent of their school districts are offering computer access to community members, with the most cited technology outreach partner for schools being the public library. Providing computer and Internet access to community members by schools is a proactive strategy to reduce the digital divide for parents of children who do not have computers and Internet access in their homes.

Discussion and Conclusions Each of the six questions guiding this inquiry was addressed in the preceding section. With respect to the question about how district policies affect technology resources and technology integration, the findings convey that financial support for technology to schools has been substantial to the degree that technology use has become so prevalent that filtering software and acceptable use policies have become commonplace. Funding from the 2,300 awards provided by the TIF Board (TIF Web site, 2001); 1,963 awards of the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TEA, 2000); and high level of participation in the E-Rate program (TEA, 2000) have stimulated policies on the acceptable use of technology. The question addressing the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s technology infrastructure resulted in evidence of dramatic changes in classroom connectivity and classroom technology equipment. The level of connectivity recorded in 1996 was modest with more than 70 percent of the districts reporting no classroom access to the Internet, while in 2000, more than 96 percent of classrooms in Texas public schools participating in this survey reported having Internet access. Continued on page 22 20

INSIGHT

APPLE computer FPO (Spr 01)

Continued from page 20 These percentages compare very favorably with national values that report classroom connectivity soared from 14 percent in 1996 to 63 percent in 1999 (Web-based Education Commission, December 2000). What is just as impressive is the finding that dedicated T1 lines are the primary Internet connection to these districts. In terms of Internet-linked workstations for students, the 2000 survey results indicate today’s classroom holds two networked computers. This ratio corresponds to the student to computer ratio of 8.9:1 value reported for 1999 in the Texas Education Agency’s Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1996–2010 (December, 2000), and the national average of 9:1 (Web-based Education Commission, December 2000). While these values are consistent with one another, a substantial gap exists between the current ratio and the recommended student to computer ratio of 3:1 in the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1996–2010 (TEA, 1996). The question on district technology support for sustainability yielded the finding that 17 percent of technology support is targeted for technical assistance for addressing software and hardware problems. Technical assistance response time was reported to occur within a day by more than one-third of the districts. While this finding is encouraging, technical challenges must be provided within a four-hour time frame to meet the Target Tech benchmark in the Texas STaR Chart (TEA, 2001). The question, “What level and kind of technology use occurs in the district?” addressed teacher and student use of Internet-linked computers. Teacher technology proficiencies now include using productivity software (word processing and spreadsheet applications). This finding is supported by a recent national survey that found that most teachers have some aptitude using computers but do not know how to apply these computer skills in classroom instruction (Web-based Education Commission, December 2000). Student computer applications in school tend to mirror teacher proficiencies with Web-based curricula—collaborative learning activities and simulations being goals rather than reality. The technology professional development question yielded information on the hours of technology professional development offered each year, as well as information on the content, the provider, and whether the experience was offered in person or by distance education. While these findings provide descriptive data, perhaps the most useful information was provided by district representatives who indicate the most needed technology professional

TOTAL program Management FPO

INSIGHT

development program for teachers is more experiences addressing curriculum integration with technology. This professional development need suggests a limited amount of technology integration in today’s classrooms. The final question, addressing the district’s technology outreach to the community, resulted in information that school districts are providing informational Web pages to parents and community patrons. Services that schools are beginning to provide include supplying equipment, check-out opportunities, and access to the Internet for citizens across the community. Given the responses to the six questions that informed the design of this effort, slightly modified recommendations from a recent national report (Web-based Education Commission, December 2000) appear to be appropriate for concluding this discussion: • Sustain technology funding for Texas public schools • Continue providing reliable safeguards to protect online learners and ensure their privacy • Increase “on-request” technical and instructional support to teachers for technology problems • Continue high-quality, on-demand professional development support for teachers and administrators • Provide online educational content that is affordable and meets the highest standards of educational excellence • Enable universal broadband access at home and school to support learner-centered educational opportunities This report provides evidence that Texas schools are “in progress” with respect to attaining each of these recommendations. For the recommendations of broadband access at school and reliable safeguards to protect online learners, Texas districts are approaching the criterion of 100 percent for providing the recommended service and seeking and investing in technology. Providing high-quality professional development and rapid technology technical assistance are services that schools are “in progress” of attaining, but continued effort and additional resources are needed to attain these recommendations. School districts in Texas appear to be at the beginning of their journeys for providing broadband access to the students at home, and for developing quality online educational content. For these recommendations to be completely met, continuing resources are essential from state and federal sources to schools. The remarkable changes in the technology infrastructure supporting Texas public schools can be directly linked to school leaders attuned to the E-Rate program and the grants and policies of the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board and the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. These resources are invaluable in integrating technology into classroom activities and must be continued if our students are to benefit from a digital advantage that our schools now can provide. Jon Denton is executive associate dean and professor, and Trina Davis is director and Arlen Strader associate director, eEducation, College of Education, Texas A&M University.

References Education Commission of the States [ECS] (1998). Harnessing Technology for Teaching and Learning. Denver, ECS Distribution Center, 707 17th St., Suite 2700, Denver, Colorado 80202-3427. President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997). Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K–12 Education in the United States. Document downloaded from the URL, <www.whitehouse.gov/WH/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST>. Texas Education Agency (1996). Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1996–2010. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Document available at www.tea.state.tx.us. Texas Education Agency (December 2000). Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1996–2010. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Document available at www.tea.state.tx.us. Texas Education Agency (January 2001). The 2001 Texas STaR Chart (draft developed by the Educational Technology Advisory Committee for field testing during the spring of 2001). TIF Board Web site, 2001. http://www.tifb.state.tx.us/ Web-based Education Commission (December, 2000). The Power of the Internet for Learning Moving from Promise to Practice. Report of the Web-based Education Commission to the President and the Congress of the United States. Document downloaded from http://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission. SUMMER 2001 23

Enhancing Teacher Quality: How Portfolios Can Help by Jennifer S. Marcoux, Linda Rodriguez, Genevieve Brown, and Beverly J. Irby

The Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS), comprised of eight domains, is aimed at advancing the level of teachers’ professional practice and promoting their continuous professional development (TEA, 1997). School leaders can support teacher development by encouraging the inclusion of the teacher evaluation portfolio as an integral component of the PDAS. Serving as a catalyst for revisions and modifications needed to improve the teacher’s pedagogy and subsequent student achievement, the teacher portfolio can (1) provide an organized and systematic vehicle for documentation and reflection in all eight domains, (2) demonstrate strengths and target areas for needed improvement, and (3) offer teachers ownership of their own evaluations.

The Portfolio as a Vehicle for Documentation and Reflection The portfolio is a collection of thoughtfully selected exhibits or artifacts and accompanying reflections indicative of an individual’s experiences and progress toward and/or attainment of established goals. More specifically, a teacher portfolio contains documentation of actual teaching practices and highlights and demonstrates knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the teacher in relation to his/her work as a professional. While each teacher will determine specific contents and style in order to personalize his/her portfolio, the following items should be included: (1) table of contents, (2) introduction to the portfolio, (3) educator platform (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1988), (4) artifacts and reflections from the current year for each of the eight domains, and (5) next academic year’s goals. Artifacts may include peer evaluations, parent follow-up letter to a conference, or a teaching unit collaboratively developed. Other examples might be videotapes of lessons or lesson plans, certificates from workshops or staff development sessions, presentations to colleagues, and class newsletters or other examples that feature student achievement in the classroom or school (Brown & Irby, 1997). 24

INSIGHT

The ability to self-evaluate and reflect upon experiences portrayed by the selected artifacts is key to the teacher portfolio process and teacher growth. As a teacher reflects on his/her practice, he/she is able to critically self-assess the impact of a particular lesson or strategy and clarify future goals and plans for professional development aimed at improved pedagogy. The Reflection Cycle (Brown & Irby, 1997) offers a structure for in-depth teacher reflection and includes selecting artifacts; describing the events associated with the artifacts; and analyzing, appraising, and transforming the experiences.

Demonstrating Strengths and Targeting Areas for Improvement Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning depends largely on the commitment of teachers to continually assess and improve upon their own teaching as measured by student performance and established PDAS teaching criteria. The portfolio should be comprehensive, containing documentation of the many facets of the teacher’s work and achievement in relation to the eight domains and campus and classroom goals. Artifacts for reflection that may demonstrate strengths or indicate areas for improvement may include administrator walk-through feedback; observation reports from supervisors and peers; profile sheets on student progress; staff development sessions related to professional goals; implementation of “new learnings” related to professional development goals; and/or feedback from students, parents, and others. Selecting artifacts or samples of work and writing accompanying reflections are beneficial in denoting areas of needed improvement, assisting in maintaining focus, and providing new perspectives and insights. Honest self-reflection on a variety of artifacts related to professional experiences assists the teacher in realistic goal setting for each of the eight domains.

Ownership of the Evaluation The inclusion of a teacher evaluation portfolio in the PDAS fosters

a positive, personal, and individualized approach to appraisal. In portfolio development, teachers must conceptualize their roles and become highly involved in their own evaluation and growth. Administrators participate in a teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s appraisal, but, according to Lambert (1998), their assessment simply adds to a teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance portfolio. The portfolio evaluation process encourages collegial interaction among administrators and teachers, providing an avenue for twoway communication (Brogan, 1995; Brown & Irby, 1997). During the final evaluation conference, the teacher, while referring to concrete examples in the portfolio, shares with his/her administrator areas of growth over the course of the current school year, reflects on goals that have been accomplished, and offers a proactive plan for new goals for the upcoming year. Additionally, the administrator is able to seek clarification, give feedback, and offer assistance in goal setting. In this process, the administrator empowers the teacher who then can assume the major responsibility for his/her own growth and development and play an active part in his/her own evaluation.

References Brogan, B. R. (1995). The case for teacher portfolios. Paper presented at the 47th annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 516). Brown, G., & Irby, B., (1997). The principal portfolio. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sergiovanni, T., & Starratt, R. J. (1988). Supervision: Human perspectives (4ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Texas Education Agency (1997). The professional development appraisal system handbook. Texas Education Agency.

The implementation of a teacher evaluation portfolio system by school administrators not only empowers teachers and encourages teacher growth, it also fosters a climate conducive to continuous learning and student achievement. Jennifer Marcoux and Linda Rodriguez are principals at Aldine ISD, Houston, Texas, and are doctoral students at Sam Houston State University. Genevieve Brown is professor and chair, and Beverly J. Irby is professor and director of the Center for Research and Doctoral Studies, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Sam Houston State University. SUMMER 2001 25

he TASA/Texas Leadership Center is gearing up for its second year of the expanded Technology Leadership Academy. The 2001–2002 academy—four full days divided into two days in Phase One (fall) and two days in Phase Two (winter/spring)—is scheduled at each of the 20 education service centers and can accommodate a total of 1,470 participants.

with technology leadership. Six hundred seventy-one superintendents and principals participated in the academy—29 percent superintendents, 61 percent male, and 39 percent female. Seventy-eight percent of the participants came in teams, and 15 percent of Texas school districts were represented. Included in the total number of superintendents and principals were 28 private and charter school participants.

The purpose of the academy, which is funded by a three-year $6.3 million State Challenge Grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—with matching funds from The Meadows Foundation; the Sid W. Richardson Foundation; and Houston Endowment, Inc.—is to expand the state’s leadership development program for school superintendents and principals. Due to special support from Houston Endowment, Inc., associate superintendents, assistant superintendents, and assistant principals working in Harris County school districts also may register for the academy. Districts are limited to 10 participants, including the superintendent; private and charter schools are limited to 6 participants per ESC site.

Some interesting evaluation results came from both the pre-academy questionnaire and daily online evaluations, both compiled by Lyn Mefford, program coordinator, Texas Center for Educational Technology (TCET). TCET holds the contract to evaluate the academy. In the pre-academy questionnaire, 87 percent of the participants reported their district had a detailed technology implementation plan and that the plan was generally integrated into and aligned with district or campus planning. However, technology professional development was slightly less likely to be aligned with either the technology plan or the district-campus plan, and suffered from lack of variety in delivery and formal evaluation. Most participants use the computer on a frequent basis to produce work, communicate, and connect to the outside world. Much lower percentages of the respondents claimed sophisticated use of technology such as developing presentations or participating in online discussions.

The academy curriculum addresses the leader’s role in linking technology and student performance, systems change and Baldrige criteria, technology planning, curriculum integration, professional development best practices, total cost of ownership, sustainability, and bridging the Digital Divide. Other hot topics also are covered. The academy enjoyed tremendous success in its first year, with an overwhelming majority of the participants rating the academy as meeting or exceeding their expectations; being well organized, well presented, and relevant to their work; and increasing their comfort level

When asked to describe how technology is integrated into the K–12 curriculum in the district or on campus, superintendents and principals generally described practices that appeared more skills-based than integrated, such as using the computer lab to practice or reinforce skills and using the classroom computer to practice or learn skills—e.g., Accelerated Reader and Internet or

Gearing Up for Year Two of the

Technology Leadership Academy Web research. When asked to describe the most pressing issue regarding technology at the campus or district level, almost half the respondents mentioned ongoing professional development for teachers. Other issues mentioned frequently include keeping current with technology/updating/retrofitting; technology installation, maintenance, and support; and consistent and widespread integration of technology/computers into the classroom. In the daily online evaluations, Mefford concluded that the Technology Leadership Academy has served the target audience and number of participants, achieved statewide participation and effect, and expanded the participants’ view and use of technology. In addition, most participants feel they are learning important information, want to know more, appreciate the quality of the 26

INSIGHT

content and presentation, and believe the academy is meeting the project objectives as proposed. Registration for the 2001–2002 academy is on an online basis only at TASA’s Web site, www.TASAnet.org, and is first-come, first-served. Approximately 70 participant slots were reserved at each ESC location through July 1, 2001; however, participants may now register for sessions at ESCs other than their own on a space-available basis. The registration fee of $875 includes the participant’s choice of either a Gateway Solo 9500 SE or Apple iBook computer. The district signs a letter of agreement for the computer, and ownership of the computer and software license transfers to the district. Don’t miss this outstanding opportunity! Register today! Call Ellen V. Bell or Brettany Rhodes at TASA, 800-725-8272 or 512-477-6361, if you have any questions.

“I learned to use Power Point and make presentations that I used with my board on several occasions. In addition, I developed a Power Point presentation that I presented to the First-time Superintendents’ Academy. I used this same presentation for a workshop in Region 3. I’ve gained new confidence in the use of the computer for major presentations as well as for personal use. The academy gave us an opportunity to develop new friendships and a new cohort group.” —Don Gibson, superintendent, Wall ISD

Here’s what past participants have to say about the

Technology Leadership Academy:

“Overall the academy gave us the incentive to truly look at our technology program and our efforts as a district in providing a quality program for the students and staff. It succeeded in its goal of self-assessment as a leader and provided me with the insight necessary to upgrade and continue to implement the necessary components for a successful technology program. We have a long way to go, but I feel better prepared for the task after attending the academy.” —Michael Gilley, principal, Springtown High School, Springtown ISD

“I sincerely enjoyed the Technology Academy. I learned some new uses of the computer. Because I learned to do Power Point presentations, I purchased a projector for our district. The projector is now being used in our computer lab. The academy raised my awareness of the importance of using the computer as both an instructional and a curriculum tool. Our district is now seeking to train all of our teachers to use the computer in the classroom as an instructional tool. In short, the academy was invaluable to both me and Avinger ISD.” —Alicia Massingill, superintendent, Avinger ISD

“The Technology Academy was very beneficial to me and to our principals. It enhanced our knowledge of technology, improved our personal productivity with new tools, familiarized us with ways technology enhances high student performance, helped us understand the importance of our roles as leaders in changing systems to prepare for the future, assisted us in designing and implementing an action plan for our district, offered us access to a variety of resources that are phenomenal and will guide us in making decisions and planning for technology, and provided us with the models for professional development programs that are beneficial for continuous learning.” —Elizabeth Saenz, superintendent, Balmorhea ISD “Bovina ISD was represented in the Technology Leadership Academy by Superintendent Michael Downes, High School Principal K'Dawn Scroggins, and Elementary Principal Darla Sealey. The academy provided tools for the administrative team to properly assess the status of technology integration in the district and devise strategies to address the needs. The training and use of the laptop computer throughout the year also gave the administrative team a higher degree of confidence in leading technology training throughout the district.” —Michael Downes, superintendent, Bovina ISD

Creating Solutions for Public Agencies Retirement Enhancements Retirement Incentives Social Security Alternatives

888.838.2809 visit us online at: www.PARSINFO.org

PARS PUBLIC • AGENCY • RETIREMENT • SYSTEM

Phase II Systems PARS Trust Administrator Creative Solutions for Public Agencies™

SUMMER 2001 27

Principals as Technology Leaders Leadership for Technology for Teaching and Learning in K–12 Schools by Sheila Cory The Principals’ Executive Program (PEP), a constituent organization of the University of North Carolina’s Center for School Leadership Development, conducts professional development programs for principals, assistant principals, and other leadership personnel in North Carolina’s public schools. Established in 1984 by the North Carolina General Assembly, PEP seeks to improve the performance of the state’s K–12 students by enlarging the knowledge and improving the skills of school administrators as managers and education leaders. During the 1999–2000 school year, PEP offered a new program—Principals As Technology Leaders (PATL)—that focused on helping

school administrators lead their schools to high quality use of technology for teaching and learning. This highly successful program has now been scaled up to accommodate 2,100 principals and superintendents over the next three years, funded in part through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation State Challenge Grants for Leadership Development. PATL participants register through an online registration process. During registration, they identify their technology skills in a variety of areas. Participants pay a registration fee of $250. At their successful completion of the program, participants keep the laptop computer that they’ve used for instruction throughout the program.

DRIP DRIP DRIP Think you can ignore that leak through another Spring?

METAL ROOFING AND MANUFACTURING

Ft. Gibson, OK

877-272-7663

Purcell, OK

www.brbroofing.com • sales@brbroofing.com

INSIGHT

Sixty school administrators attend each four-day PATL program. The four days are divided into two two-day sessions, with about two months between sessions. Program participants complete assignments before each of the two sessions. Before Session One, participants read How Teachers Learn Technology Best (Jamie McKenzie, 1999), which focuses on vision. It examines the reasons why we have technology in our schools. Principal participants also complete

a Taking a Good Look at Instructional Technology (TAGLIT) assessment at their schools. TAGLIT assessments are not designed for superintendents. PATL Session One focuses on vision. It is designed to answer three questions: (1) What does it look like when technology is used well for teaching and learning? (2) Where is my school in relation to that vision? (3) What are the leadership issues I need to attend to in order to move my school from its current status toward that vision? The first question is addressed through activities that model powerful uses of technology for teaching and learning. One, a project-based learning experience, has teams of participants study an issue such as Alzheimer’s disease or genetically modified foods and develop a recommendation for action. Another has participants meet with Lee Ann Potter from the National Archives and Records Administration and work with original source documents available at their Web site. The activities are discussed in terms of where they fit on the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) continuum of school use of technology for teaching and learning. This discussion is facilitated through the use of Principal Connections: A Guide to Technology Leadership (SEIR*TEC and AEL, 2001). Session One culminates with participants developing a Web site that focuses on how technology is used in their school and what action needs to be completed to move their school forward. Between Sessions One and Two, participants read sections of Planning into Practice (SEIR*TEC, 2001), study sections of Principal Connections, and design a preliminary action plan. They also complete their TAGLIT Final Reports. continued on page 30

theLeader Book Review

News from the Texas Leadership Center

The Leadership Challenge by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner Published by Jossey-Bass Publishers ISBN 0-7879-0110-5 Reviewed by Jody Mason Westbrook, consultant, Texas Leadership Center and TASA First published in 1987, this new edition of the highly acclaimed book by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner has three things that Tom Peters claims gives it staying power: (1) a research base, (2) practical ideas, and (3) heart. The data is based on 11 years of work, 10,000 leaders, and 50,000 constituents; and is presented through case studies and anecdotal examples. Kouzes and Posner approached their work not by asking superstars how they became great leaders, but rather by asking ordinary people about their extraordinary experiences. From those stories, they found patterns of success. The book is organized into an overview of the five fundamental practices of exemplary leadership, including the Ten Commandments of Leadership—ten behaviors their research says one can put into practice in any organization. Each of the five fundamental practices is explored in depth within two chapters, related to others’ research, connected to one of the Ten Commandments, and concluded with a set of recommended actions.

The five fundamental practices of exemplary leadership are shown in italics; the concomitant Ten Commandments follow each practice. 1. Challenge the process. Search out challenging opportunities to change, grow, innovate, and improve. Experiment, take risks, and learn from the accompanying mistakes.

become a “victim of a vast, amorphous, unwitting, unconscious conspiracy to prevent me from doing anything whatever to change the university’s status quo.” He coined Bennis’s First Law of Academic Pseudodynamics: “Routine work drives out nonroutine work and smothers to death all creative planning, all fundamental change in the university—or any institution.”

2. Inspire a shared vision. Envision an uplifting and ennobling future. Enlist others in a common vision by appealing to their values, interests, hopes, and dreams.

The stories will inspire you; the lists will remind you; the book will serve you well. Read it with a highlighter in your hand.

3. Enable others to act. Foster collaboration by promoting cooperative goals and building trust. Strengthen people by giving power away, providing choice, developing competence, assigning critical tasks, and offering visible support.

Board Briefs

4. Model the way. Set the example by behaving in ways that are consistent with shared values. Achieve small wins that promote consistent progress and build commitment.

• Technology Leadership Academy

5. Encourage the heart. Recognize individual contributions to the success of every people. Celebrate team accomplishments regularly. Although it is risky to reduce a well-written and powerful body of work to a list, perhaps the list will inspire you and pique your curiosity so that you take the time to read the book and discuss it with your staff. Taking the time to read will be your first challenge, so ponder the following story about Warren Bennis, which was reported in the book. As president of a university, he found himself at his desk at four in the morning, “bone weary and soul weary.” Reviewing his calendar, he noted that he had

The following are highlights of the Texas Leadership Center board of directors meeting held June 18, 2001. Updates

The board received an update on implementation of the first year of the expanded Technology Leadership Academy. Six hundred seventy-one superintendents and principals participated in the academy. The required reports have been filed with two of the four foundations that support the academy—the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Meadows Foundation. Registration has opened for Year Two of the expanded academy. Principals and superintendents are eligible to participate. In Harris County, assistant principals, assistant superintendents, and associate superintendents also may register. Registration is available online only at www.tasanet.org. • Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) Leadership Development Initiative TASA/TLC staff anticipate finalizing a SUMMER 2001 29

Principals as Technology Leaders continued from page 28 PATL Session Two focuses on resources that are available to school administrators that will help them to move their schools forward. Highlighted resources include the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) project, government lesson plan databases, and resources available from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Learning modules also focus on professional development and on how to get the most out of the resources schools currently have. Participants receive a copy of National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Connecting Curriculum and Technology (ISTE, 1999). This book is used as the basis of an activity designed to help participants design appropriate professional development for their schools. The last day of PATL focuses on synthesizing information from what was learned on previous days, developing a final action

plan, and publishing the action plan on the participant’s Web sites. This day includes helping triads that review action plan content, and a peer review process that seeks to eliminate errors from the published action plans. The overall goal of PATL is to change the nature of conversations about technology in schools from those that focus primarily on hardware, software, and networking to those that focus on how technology can be used to support high-quality teaching and learning and on how to bring about those applications in North Carolina schools. We see PATL as a unique opportunity to achieve this goal for the vast majority of schools in our state. Sheila Cory is project director for the Principals’ Executive Program, UNC Center for School Leadership, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Board Briefs continued contract with the Center for Creative Leadership to provide a three and one-half day leadership development program. Pilots of the program will occur in 2001–2002 at ESC Regions 1 and 11, with the support of Sid W. Richardson Foundation funds. The program focuses on expanding the interpersonal skills of educational leaders

INSIGHT

through a process of personal assessment, feedback, and coaching. In official business, the board of directors approved the minutes of the January 31, 2001, meeting and approved the financial statement and auditor’s report of the center.

f o n o i t a i c o s s A s a x e T e Th d l u o w s r o t a r t s i n i m d A School k n a h t o t like e h t f o s r o s n o p s the Technology Leadership Academy Funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Matching Funds Provided by The Meadows Foundation Sid W. Richardson Foundation Houston Endowment, Inc.

Corporate In-kind Support Provided by Apple Computer, Inc. Dell Computer Corporation Gateway Companies, Inc.

Corporate Sponsors Southwestern Bell/SBC Foundation Curriculum Advantage EdVISION Corporation Gateway Business Palm, Inc. Sylvan Education Solutions

41st ANNUAL

TASB/TASA Convention September 21–24, 2001 • Dallas Convention Center • Dallas, Texas

! w o N r giste

For the Latest Information, check www.tasa.tasb.org. Application for Topic Discussion Sessions • Paul Whitton • 512-477-6361 • 800-725-8272 Registration • Pat Johnston, TASA • 512-477-6361• 800-725-8272 Housing • Lisa Carothers, TASB • 800-580-8272

406 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701-2617

Presorted Standard U.S. Postage PAID Austin, TX Permit No. 1941