INSIGHT—Winter 2003 by Texas Association of School Administrators

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL WINTER 2003

INSIGHT

Huckabee Ad FPO

INSIGHT F

2002 Texas Public School Technology Survey

Learning in the Present, Preparing for the Future

There’s a Chat Room in Your Future

VOLUME 17,

NO. 3

by Alton J. Fields Offers a glimpse of Pleasanton ISD’s journey to a wireless environment, and how Pleasanton has encouraged all members of the education community to understand students’ use of technology

by Virginia Collier with Research Assistance from Jie Lin Reveals the impact that distance education is having on public education and its potential for completely changing the educational environment

A Snapshot of Technology Integration Best Practices in La Porte ISD by Mark E. Gabehart Shares how La Porte ISD has begun to systematically change its teaching, learning, and administrative technology practices to meet the more rigorous academic requirements from both state and federal legislative mandates

Irving ISD Cooks Up a Hot, New E-Learning Paradigm

Performance-Driven Budgeting

2 0 03

by Jon Denton, Trina Davis, Arlen Strader, and Brooke Durbin Reports results from the 2002 Texas Public School Technology Survey based on the final report by the eEducation Group at Texas A&M University for the Telecommunication Infrastructure Fund Board

WINTER

by Jennifer Anderson and Ryan Sanders Discusses how Irving ISD created one of the premiere e-learning programs in the world using critical ingredients from its Long-Range Technology Plan

by Cole Pugh Explains how San Angelo ISD is approaching the annual budgeting process by beginning implementation of performance-driven budgeting

Powerful Professional Development for Superintendents! The Lamar University Superintendent Academy

2003 Honor Boards

pp. 58–59

by John R. Hoyle Shares feedback from participants of the Lamar Superintendent Academy and highlights themes of why the Academy is revered by participants

We Respected the Board When We Began; We Were in Awe of Its Accomplishments Upon Completion by Brenda Hill Highlights Lufkin ISD’s inspiring experiences in the nomination process as TASA’s 2003 Outstanding School Board

WINTER 2003 3

Laidlaw Ad Less is More FPO

Newswire

President’s Message

Berry Named Texas NSOTY Representative; Veselka Receives 2003 Golden Deeds Award; Statewide Superintendent Salary Survey Released; “PICK-A-WEEK” in March for Texas Public Schools Week

A unified position

Executive Director’s View Developing leaders

The Leader Review of The Principal’s Companion (Second Edition): Strategies and Hints to Make the Job Easier

INSIGHT Officers

At-Large Members

Dawson R. Orr, President, Wichita Falls ISD Michael Hinojosa, President-Elect, Spring ISD Alton J. Fields, Vice-President, Pleasanton ISD Don Gibson, Past President, Wall

Michael G. Killian, Lewisville ISD Hector Montenegro, Ysleta ISD Ronald Peace, Victoria ISD Shelley Schmitz Sweatt, Burkburnett ISD

Editorial Advisory Committee Executive Committee Arturo Guajardo, Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD, 1 Henry D. Herrera, Alice ISD, 2 Tom R. Jones, Jr., Tidehaven ISD, 3 Rick Schneider, Pasadena ISD, 4 Gail Krohn, Nederland ISD, 5 Steve R. Johnson, College Station ISD, 6 Dee W. Hartt, Tatum ISD, 7 R. Lynn Marshall, Pittsburg ISD, 8 Randel R. Beaver, Archer City ISD, 9 Kay Waggoner, Red Oak ISD, 10 Vernon N. Newsom, Mansfield ISD, 11 George Evan Kazanas, China Spring ISD, 12 Elizabeth Gardner, Pflugerville ISD, 13 Rick Howard, Comanche ISD, 14 Alan Richey, Bronte ISD, 15 Robin D. Adkins, Perryton ISD, 16 Ken McCraw, Lamesa ISD, 17 M. David Kennedy, Terrell County ISD, 18 Paul L. Vranish, Tornillo ISD, 19 Craig Stockstill, Floresville ISD, 20

Advertising:

Dawson R. Orr, Wichita Falls ISD, chair Michael Hinojosa, Spring ISD Rick Howard, Comanche ISD Michael G. Killian, Lewisville ISD Ken McCraw, Lamesa ISD Linda G. Mora, Northside ISD Vernon N. Newsom, Mansfield ISD Kip Sullivan, Sul Ross State University

TASA Headquarters Staff Johnny L. Veselka, Executive Director Karen Soehnge, Associate Executive Director, Governmental Relations Paul Whitton, Jr., Associate Executive Director, Administrative Services Amy T. Beneski, Assistant Executive Director, Governmental Relations Ann M. Halstead, Assistant Executive Director, Communications & Information Systems Pat Johnston, Director, Special Services Emmy Starr, Design/Production Karen Limb, Editorial Coordinator Neal W. Adams, TASA General Counsel, Adams, Lynch, & Loftin—Bedford

For information on advertising in INSIGHT, contact Ann Halstead, TASA, 512-477-6361.

INSIGHT is published triannually (spring/summer, fall, and winter) by the Texas Association of School Administrators, 406 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701-2617. Subscription is included in TASA membership dues. © 2003 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.

WINTER 2003 5

NEWS WIRE

Rick Berry Named Texas NSOTY Representative Rick Berry, superintendent, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, has been selected as Texasâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; representative to AASAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s National Superintendent of the Year Program. A national committee will select four finalists from among the state representatives. State finalists as well as the four national finalists and the National Superintendent of the Year will be recognized during the first general session at the 2004 National Conference on Education, February 19, in San Francisco. All four national finalists will receive cash awards and medallions. In addition, the National Superintendent of the Year will personally present a $10,000 scholarship to a deserving student from his or her high school alma mater.

Veselka Receives 2003 Golden Deeds Award TASA Executive Director Johnny Veselka was named recipient of the Golden Deeds for Education Award on November 20 during an awards banquet for the annual TASA/Texas A&M Administrative Leadership Institute. A champion for quality leadership in Texas public schools, Veselka has served as executive director of TASA since 1986. Under his leadership, TASA has become a major voice for school administrators on legislative issues and state policy matters. The Golden Deeds for Education Award is considered the most coveted award in the field of Texas education. Recipients are nominated through a statewide process, including school district superintendents from across the state. The award, which was first presented to A. M. Aiken in 1964, is presented each year to an educator who has improved the educational system of Texas to enrich the lives of all Texas public school students.

INSIGHT

Statewide Superintendent Salary Survey Released A recent survey of district trends in superintendents' salaries and benefits was released by TASB and TASA in November. The survey includes data from 778 of the 1,037 public school districts in Texas representing 75 percent of the districts in the state. The 2003–2004 median salary in responding districts is $83,160, representing an increase of 2.7 percent over the prior year. On average, superintendents have four years of experience as superintendent in their current position, with nearly 60 percent of respondents currently serving as superintendent in their first district. For the full story, go to www.TASAnet.org >> Front Burner >> News Briefs.

“PICK-A-WEEK” in March for Texas Public Schools Week This year’s Texas Public Schools Week celebration promises to be one of the biggest and best as we celebrate 150 years of Texas Public Education and the 50th anniversary of the annual Texas Public Schools Week celebration. To help schools throughout the state promote education, the Texas School Public Relations Association (TSPRA) has once again created a Texas Public Schools Week Kit. The TPSW Kit offers tips, tools, and information for celebrating education in your community. Order forms for the TPSW Kit have been mailed to all TSPRA members, superintendents, elementary and middle school principals, and persons who ordered last year. Also, a printable order form is available at www.tspra.org/OrderForm1.pdf. Place your order now to allow time to receive specialty items.

WINTER 2003 7

Some things in life we know to be certain.

Never lick a frozen flag pole.

Yellow and blue make green.

Total Masonry Construction ensures your school to last as long as your fight song.

Durable â&#x20AC;˘ Mold Resistant â&#x20AC;˘ Fire Resistant Unlimited Possibilities

Texas Masonry Council

Demand Quality . . . Specify TMC Members w w w. t e x a s m a s o n r y c o u n c i l . o r g

President’s

MESSAGE

A Unified Position Collaboration, consensus, and commitment—more than just powerful words to describe the path your association has followed since the close of the last regular legislative session. These words have become the "tools of our trade" and a reaffirmation of the values of an association with a mission unique among the organizations that represent the interests and needs of school districts. Simply stated, to be effective, TASA, as the umbrella organization for district-level leaders, must employ collaboration, consensus, and commitment to a broad range of issues that affect our work as professional educators. Since the close of a contentious legislative session, the TASA leadership—both members and staff—have worked to unify the many voices that speak for Texas school districts. Since the July planning session of the Executive Committee, Study Group chairs, and major committee chairs, TASA has with singleness of purpose pursued a path to build a unified position on school finance. An expanded Legislative Committee, ably led by Chair Ken McCraw and Vice-Chair Jesus Chavez, has produced a set of Core Principles that reaffirm the association’s historic leadership role as advocate for excellence through adequacy and equity. Adopted by the Executive Committee in November, these Core Principles now guide and frame our decision making. Concomitantly, TASA has initiated dialogue with all the professional associations that have superintendents as organizational leaders, as well as our longtime allies at TASB. Ably facilitated by John Horn, former superintendent of Mesquite ISD, one-time president of the Equity Center, and former TASA president, the leaders of these associations have met and affirmed the importance of a unified position as we move towards what will surely be a contentious special session. Soon we will join one another at the Administrators’ Midwinter Conference on Education— a conference previously hosted by the Texas Education Agency for many years and now the responsibility of TASA. A simple change in many ways, and yet illustrative of the impact of the recent legislative session. This conference will be an important opportunity for superintendents and district leaders to learn of the work that has occurred and to contribute to the dialogue of how we shape and influence our desired future. I urge you to make a special effort to join your association at this important conference. Your participation will strengthen the process and product. You will not be disappointed!

WINTER 2003 9

Executive Director’s VIEW

Developing Leaders In 2004, TASA will complete a four-year program of specialized technology leadership training for Texas superintendents and principals. The program, initiated in September 2000 and supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and three Texas foundations, has trained more than 4,200 participants—representing close to 700 school districts— to successfully support teachers in technology integration. Participants have learned how technology can positively influence student achievement, explored best practices in professional development, and developed personal action plans. This ambitious program would not have been possible without the matching financial assistance of The Meadows Foundation, Sid W. Richardson Foundation, and the Houston Endowment. Our team of TASA trainers and facilitators, and the staffs of the regional education service centers across the state, contributed countless hours of hard work to ensure the success of this program. We all take great pride in knowing that we will reach our goal of providing this unique leadership development opportunity to more than 50 percent of Texas’ superintendents and principals upon completion of this program. The Technology Leadership Academy is just one of TASA’s many leadership development initiatives. Beginning in April, we will pilot a new series of institutes utilizing handheld technology to further enhance the leadership skills of Texas educators. As we continue our efforts to assist school leaders statewide, I am pleased to announce the appointment of two new staff members who will assume major responsibility for our leadership development initiatives beginning in January 2004. Judith de la Garza joins our staff on January 5 as associate executive director, Instructional Support and Leadership Development. Immediately prior to coming to TASA, she served as deputy superintendent, Human Resources and Academic Services, in San Antonio ISD. She previously held positions in La Joya ISD and Mission CISD, bringing 6 years of campus administration and 17 years of central office experience to this position. Betty Burks will join the department as assistant executive director, beginning on January 19. She currently serves as director, Teaching and Learning for Professional Development, in Fort Worth ISD. Previously, she served in various campus and district-level administrative positions in Weatherford ISD, bringing 11 years of administrative experience to TASA. We are especially excited about the leadership development opportunities you will have at the upcoming Midwinter Conference on Education, being planned solely by TASA for the first time since the conference was initiated in 1950. The conference will offer a Special Strand on School Finance, Leader-to-Leader Forums on Critical Issues, and numerous sessions of interest to your leadership team. Please visit TASAnet for complete details on the conference. I look forward to seeing you in Austin January 26–28!

WINTER 2003 11

2002 Texas Public School Technology Survey by Jon Denton, Trina Davis, Arlen Strader, and Brooke Durbin Texas A&M University Over the past

their students? And third, what professional development

four legislative

activities are being provided to educators to use these tech-

sessions, the Texas

nology resources? The telecommunications infrastructure

State Legislature

in the public schools across Texas has changed significant-

enacted laws that have accelerated the integration of tech-

ly during the past six years with more than 98 percent of

nology into public education. Significant efforts to build

classrooms in Texas public schools having Internet access.

technology infrastructure in Texas is evident through the

Also, technology professional development activities for

thousands of public school awards provided by the

Texas classroom teachers have received substantial support.

Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board (TIF),

Yet much still needs to be accomplished, because just 21

the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund grants, and the

percent of the districts indicate their teachers use online

E-Rate discounts. With such an influx of funding into

resources in their instruction.

technology education, the following questions were posed to guide this inquiry. What technology resources have been

Funding for this project was provided by the

put in place in schools as a result of these awards? Second,

Telecommunications

what technology resources are being used by teachers and

Contract Number: PS-2002-SPECS-7325

ince 1995, the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) Board has awarded approximately $1.2 billion (TIF, 2002a) in telecommunication grants to four constituent groups (public schools, libraries, institutions of higher education, and not-forprofit healthcare facilities) with more than 7,000 awards (TIF, 2002b). In addition, the Texas Education Agency has administered the federal flow-through competitive Technology In Education (TIE) grants program also called the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund grants that have provided $150.5 million to school districts (191 to 452 per year) from 1997 through 2001. And during FY2002, TEA began administering No Child Left Behind program funding with more than $50 million in TARGET grants [Technology Applications Readiness Grants for Empowering Texas students and teachers initiative] being awarded to Texas schools (TEA, 2002).

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. A few years ago an Education Commission of the States document (ECS, 1998) stated that only 15 percent of the Kâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;12 teachers in the nation received as much as 9 hours of training in technology. Further, this report noted that the average school district expenditures for technology devoted to teacher training was reported to be 6 percent while the recommended level was 30 percent. Since then expenditures have begun to rise; an annual survey by Market Data Retrieval noted that 17 percent of public school technology spending in FY00 went to teacher professional development (Web-based Education Commission, December 2000). In support of a greater investment in technology professional development,

Infrastructure

Fund

Board.

WINTER 2003 13

Becker (1999) reported a “staff development effect” for teachers using Internet-based instructional activities if they had access at home and school as well as having participated in professional development experiences on the use of the Internet for instruction.

Context In 1996, 1998, and again in 2000, the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA), with technical support from the eEducation Group, formerly the South Central Regional Technology in Education Consortia-Texas (SCR*TEC-TX) staff at Texas A&M University (TAMU), conducted surveys of the technology infrastructure in Texas public schools. Between 69 percent and 82 percent of the public school districts in Texas participated in those survey efforts. “…one-third of the districts responded to this survey online resulting in a dramatic reduction of costs and processing time.”

The initial survey in 1996 involved a postal system protocol with a paper instrument being mailed to school districts with a return mailer enclosed. When the completed instrument was received, TAMU staff manually transcribed the data to optical scan sheets for machine scoring. This protocol was labor intensive, involved multiple cross-checking steps, and was quite expensive. In 1998, options were provided of completing the infrastructure survey online or completing a mark sense survey instrument then remitting it by mail. Approximately one-third of the districts responded to this survey online resulting in a dramatic reduction of costs and processing time. The 2000 survey was conducted completely online and began with a letter being sent to superintendents from TASA Executive Director Johnny Veselka citing the importance of completing the infrastructure survey, and providing directions for accessing the online instrument at our TAMU’s Web site. This Web site provides an electronic file and associated software, the Web Survey Builder, where data are electronically collected 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. Recognizing this service to the state’s schools and with 14

INSIGHT

support provided by the TIF Board, a decision was made to undertake another technology survey.

Method A draft of the survey instrument, based on the survey instrument used in 2000, was reviewed at a meeting in late August 2002 by representatives from TASA, the TIF Board, and TAMU. The draft was revised to incorporate suggestions offered at this meeting resulting in the instrument being organized into seven sections [District Demographics, District Policies, District Technology Infrastructure, Technology Support and Sustainability, Technology Integration and Use, Professional Development, and Outreach/Communication]. The instrument and data collection procedures were then submitted to and approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board for research involving human subjects. The instrument was then integrated into the Web Survey Builder, enabling the TIFB-TASA-TAMU-supported effort, entitled 2002 Texas Pubic School Technology Infrastructure and Implementation Survey, to be conducted.

Data Collection Data collection consisted of four waves of data collection. Wave 1 of the data collection protocol began Friday, September 20, 2002, when an e-mail request from Johnny Veselka was sent to superintendents citing the importance of completing the 2002 survey, as well as directions for accessing the online instrument. During the following three weeks, 232 school districts accessed the survey. Wave 2 began with a second e-mail message from TASA being sent to non-responding school districts during the week of October 14–18, 2002. Given these communications, 529 school districts had accessed the survey by November 18, 2002. Wave 3 began on December 2, 2002, with telephone requests to non-responding school districts. Seven hundred five (705) school districts had accessed the survey on December 21, 2002. The final effort (Wave 4), beginning January 13, 2003, entailed contacting school districts by phone that had partially completed the survey with a request to complete the online survey. At the conclusion of data collection on January 23, 2003, 68.8 percent (n=716) of the Texas school districts (n=1,040) had accessed and completed at least a portion of the survey.

A review of the responding districts with enrollments of 50,000 or more students revealed that 10 of 13 districts responded to the survey. The cumulative student enrollment of the districts that responded to the survey

represents approximately 72 percent of the total student public school enrollment in Texas. Table 1 provides a breakdown by district size of the number of participating districts.

TABLE 1. Number of Districts by District Size Participating in Survey District Size

Total Enrollment by District Size*

Number of Districts by District Size**

Number of Districts Accessing Survey

Approximate Enrollments of Accessing Districts

50,000 and Over

1,040,893

801,488

25,000 – 49,999

757,580

621,216

10,000 – 24,999

752,052

466,272

5,000 – 9,999

467,358

336,498

3,000 – 4,999

325,199

227,639

1,600 – 2,999

282,176

129

209,991

1,000 – 1,599

159,054

125

109,747

500 – 999

167,966

231

140

101,798

Under 500

107,341

320

228

76,480

Total 4,059,619 1,040** * Enrollment values obtained from 2001 Snapshot (TEA, 2001). ** Number of districts with under 500 excluded 159 charter schools.

716

2,951,129

Data Analysis and Findings Once submitted, data were verified with respect to the district name and/or district-county 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 for subsequent analysis.

Summary of Survey Items The following tables present cumulative responses for selected survey items on the 2000 and 2002 surveys.

TABLE 2. District Technology Infrastructure Item

2000 Survey

2002 Survey

How many Internet-accessible computers are located in your elementary classrooms? [Average #]

2.2

How many Internet-accessible computers are located in your middle school classrooms? [Average #]

2.2

2.1

How many Internet-accessible computers are located in your high school classrooms? [Average #]

2.3

2.6

What percentage of elementary classrooms have Internet access?

94%

98%

What percentage of middle school classrooms have Internet access?

97%

98%

What percentage of high school classrooms have Internet access?

96%

99%

What is the bandwidth of your district’s main Internet connection? [% of reporting districts with T1 or greater bandwidth]

90%

93%

How often do you replace old technology? 4-5 years [% of reporting districts]

48%

51%

What is your greatest need in technology infrastructure? [highest % "more classroom computers"]

46%

51%

How many of your district’s campuses have 2-way videoconferencing capabilities? [Average #]

WINTER 2003 15

INSIGHT

â&#x20AC;&#x153;â&#x20AC;Śthe evolving availability

Item summaries in Table 2 convey a leveling rather than personal digital assistants a large increase for perhaps signals a shift technology. To from teacher-centered illustrate, across the surveys the number to learner-centered of Internet-accessiinstructional activities in ble computers per Texas classrooms.â&#x20AC;? classroom was unchanged at 2.2 in elementary schools, diminished from 2.2 to 2.1 in middle schools, and increased from 2.3 to 2.6 in high schools. Yet increasing the number of classroom computers has been cited as the greatest infrastructure need in both 2000 of wireless laptops and

and 2002. Another hint of leveling is the slight increase in the replacement cycle of 4 to 5 years for technology hardware across the surveys. From the perspective of growth or increased technology resources, Internet access increased moderately from 94 percent to 98 percent in elementary schools, from 97 percent to 98 percent in middle schools, and from 96 percent to 99 percent in high schools. Connectivity in classrooms was reported to be above 95 percent across all school levels in the 2000 survey and is approaching 100 percent across all school levels in the 2002 survey. These values correspond with a recent evaluation report that 99 percent of Texas school principals report their classrooms have at least one Internet connection, and classrooms now average more than four drops per room (TEA, 2002).

TABLE 3. Technology Support and Sustainability Item

2000 Survey

2002 Survey

$596,490

$451,403

$98,877

$64,372

38%

51%

13%

Indicate the types of technology applications available [wireless laptop carts]

51%

Indicate the types of technology applications available [presentation stations including projection devices]

84%

Indicate the types of technology applications available [electronic writing tools, e.g., AlphaSmart]

30%

Indicate the types of technology applications available [document cameras]

63%

Indicate the types of technology applications available [personal digital assistants (PDA)/handheld computers]

27%

Indicate the types of technology applications available [computerized sensors/probeware]

25%

Indicate the types of technology applications available [eBook readers]

Indicate the types of technology applications available [telephones in classroom]

31%

Last year, what did you spend on technology? [Average $ reported] Last year, what did you spend for professional development on technology? [Average $ reported] Does your district make laptops available for checkout to faculty? [% of districts reporting Yes] Does your district make laptops available for checkout to students? [% of districts reporting Yes]

* Item not included on 2000 survey.

An observation drawn from the initial two items in this table is that a reduction of funding for technology has occurred over the past two years with a corresponding drop in support for technology professional development. Yet a positive change has occurred with the increased availability of laptop computers to check out for home use by teachers and students. Responses about the types of hardware being provided for classroom use cite mostly computer projection systems, digital cameras, and wireless laptop carts. In another

technology evaluation, teachers report that classrooms do have a substantial percentage of printers and projection devices, but other technology tools usually are available at the building rather than the classroom (TEA, 2002). The high level of projection equipment available (84 percent in participating school districts) suggests this technology tool may be employed by teachers and their students for classroom presentations. Also, the evolving availability of wireless laptops and personal digital assistants perhaps signals a shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered instructional activities in Texas classrooms. WINTER 2003 17

TABLE 4. Technology Integration and Use Item

2000 Survey

2002 Survey

What % of your teachers are just beginning to learn technology applications? [Average %]

12%

What % of your teachers are beginning to use Internet for instruction? [Average %]

24%

26%

What % of your teachers are using online resources and using Internet tools in student assignments? [Average %]

18%

21%

What % of your students use computers for productivity applications? [% of districts reporting .75 to all students]

14%

What % of your students use computers for drill and practice? [% of districts reporting .75 to all students]

13%

11%

What % of your students use computers for online research on topics? [% of districts reporting .75 to all students]

18%

12%

What % of your teachers use technology to plan and collaborate in creating a student-centered curriculum? [Average %]

What % of your students use computers for accessing Web-based curricula? [% of districts reporting .75 to all students]

Barriers that teachers cite to using technology in their classes include lack of time to learn and practice using technology, and especially insufficient availability of classroom computers (TEA, 2002). These factors possibly explain the modest percentage values for technology integration and use in teaching noted across all items in Table 4.

The final items in Table 4 provide percentages of students using various computer and Internet applications. Similar to the teacher technology applications summaries across this time frame, student technology applications have remained modest. Some students suggest that the lack of classroom technology applications is because their teachers’ computer abilities are limited compared with their own computer skills (TEA, 2002).

TABLE 5. Professional Development Item

2000 Survey

2002 Survey

What is your district’s greatest need in the area of technology integration and use? [highest % reported – staff development in technology applications]

56%

53%

What % of your teachers use professional development ideas to design lessons? [% of districts reporting .75 to all teachers]

10%

12%

What type of technology professional development is needed most? [highest % reported – curriculum integration]

55%

53%

57%

What is your greatest need for administrators’ technology professional development? [highest % reported – strategic planning, evaluation, and identification of best practices]

34%

35%

Estimate the hours of campus-based technology professional development for basic technology skills.[% reported for 7–12 hrs]

19%

49%

Estimate the hours of campus-based technology professional development using technology for communications (e-mail, LISTSERVE@) offered per year. [% reported for 7–12 hrs]

14%

60%

Estimate the hours of campus-based technology professional development to use technology to plan instruction, basic Internet use offered per year. [% reported for 7–12 hrs]

21%

49%

Estimate the hours of campus-based technology professional development using online resources in the curriculum offered per year. [% reported for 7–12 hrs]

18%

43%

Estimate the hours of campus-based technology professional development on collaborating with others to create student-centered curriculum offered per year. [% reported for 7–12 hrs]

16%

46%

Average hours of professional development completed for each teacher each year [highest % reported for 1–6 hrs]

35%

36%

What professional development activities are most needed to support technology integration? [examples and modeling of best practices]

* Item not included on 2000 survey.

INSIGHT

Over the past two years, marked changes have been reported for the hours of professional development provided for basic technology skills, communications, instructional planning with technology, using online resources, and creating student-centered curricula. These changes suggest that technology professional development is being tailored to the needs of individual faculty given the breadth of skills being offered (i.e., from basic technology skills to developing online resources). Support for this hunch about technology professional development being tailored for teachers

comes from a Texas Center for Educational Research evaluation that reports technology training experiences differ by school size, with principals from larger schools citing needed professional development on content-specific lesson plans, integration in the onecomputer classroom, and in-depth theories supporting integration. In contrast, principals from smaller schools and smaller districts usually cite the need for technology training on basic applications, applications for enhancing student basic skills, and advanced telecommunications (TEA, 2002).

TABLE 6. Outreach/Community Item

2000 Survey

2002 Survey

Does your district use the Web to communicate general information to the public? [% responding Yes to providing district calendar]

75%

79%

Does your district use the Web to communicate general information to the public? [% responding Yes to providing achievement data]

43%

46%

Does your district use the Web to communicate general information to the public? [% responding Yes to providing faculty directory]

50%

63%

Does your district use the Web to communicate general information to the public? [% responding Yes to providing homework online]

15%

20%

Percent of teachers with instructional Web pages to communicate with parents/students [% of districts reporting .76 to all teachers]

Outreach and community technology services offered by school districts were addressed in Table 6. Over the past two years, small incremental changes have occurred for online communication resources being provided to parents and patrons by their school district. To illustrate, more district Web sites now contain school calendars, district achievement data, homework assignments, and a faculty directory than was the case in 2000. In contrast, faculty Web pages generally have not been included on district Web sites as a means of communicating the quality and experience of the district’s professional staff. Highlights from these tables include: • A high percentage of Texas public school classrooms with Internet access (98–99 percent). • Approximately half of the districts provide laptops for check out to their teachers. • There is an average of one (1) two-way videoconferencing system per district.

• The most cited technology replacement cycle by districts is 4 to 5 years. • The greatest infrastructure need cited by districts is more classroom computers. • Twenty-one percent of participating districts report their teachers have integrated technology in their instruction. • Three percent of participating districts report their students access Web-based curricula on school computers. • Web sites are used by 79 percent of the districts to communicate information such as the school calendar with parents and community patrons NOTE: While the preceding tabular summaries provide information for a statewide perspective, and a final report was e-mailed to all Texas school districts, readers are encouraged to refer to http://eEducation.tamu.edu/ for electronic renderings WINTER 2003 19

of the results of this survey effort that can be specialized for particular information needs. Report summaries can be generated by district size (enrollment) or location (educational service center region).

Technology Trends A number of comparisons are offered from information collected across the four statewide surveys conducted by the investigators beginning with the 1996 survey. Financial support, technology infrastructure, use of technology, and professional development are examined to determine the trends during this six-year period.

Technology Infrastructure Support. Similar questions were posed across surveys about expenditures targeted for technology. The following question captures the essence of the items posed. “During the … school year, what amount (in dollars) of your total annual expenditures was dedicated to technical and instructional technology support? (Include salaries, hardware, software, development activities, etc.)” The source of funds was not asked in these questions, but it is reasonable that state and federal funds have augmented local funds and influenced technology expenditures by school district.

TABLE 7. Financial Support for Technology Infrastructure Reported by School Districts Amount

1996*

1998*

2000*

2002*

628

497

411

430

118

Between $501K and $1M

Between $1M and $10M

745

603

607

Less than $250,000 Between $250K and $500K

Above $10M * number of school districts reporting

Examining expenditures across the funding support categories and years indicates districts increased technology expenditures substantially between 1996 and 1998, given the high frequency of districts in the highdollar expenditure categories. Yet from 1998 to 2000, technology expenditures by the districts leveled off and began to decrease between 2000 and 2002 with increasing frequencies of districts occurring in the lower-dollar expenditure categories. 20

INSIGHT

754

Current Technology Infrastructure. Internet classroom access has been examined across the surveys and is summarized in Table 8. Access has increased dramatically at the campus level, given the high percentages of districts reporting classrooms with “No Internet Access” in 1996 to 98+ percent of the districts reporting high levels of classroom connectivity in 2002. Clearly, remarkable progress has occurred in bringing connectivity to classrooms during the past six years.

TABLE 8. Number of Classrooms with Internet Access Year

Reporting Districts

Elementary School Classrooms

No Access

75% or More Access

Percent 85

Percent 12 49 94 98

1996 1998 2000 2002

841 580 635 630

1996 1998 2000 2002

841 517 635 628

10 53 97 98

1996 1998 2000 2002

841 567 635 629

19 65 96 99

Middle School

High School

continued on page 25

Thank you Convention sponsors!

Provided coffee service

WINTER 2003 21

INSIGHT

WINTER 2003 23

INSIGHT

While nearly all public school classrooms across the state have connectivity, availability of Internet-linked computers for individual students remains an unmet goal. In addition to Internet access, all surveys have addressed the number of computers per classroom. The current Internet-linked computers per classroom ratios across elementary, middle, and secondary schools range from 2.1 to 2.6. For the sake of comparison, the

state’s long-range plan for technology states the benchmark of 4.5 to 5 Internet-linked computers per classroom for 2003–2004, then advancing to a computer per student by 2010 (TEA, 2002). Use of Technology. The following tables present data on classroom use of the Internet and the type of Internet applications accessed by students.

TABLE 9. Percent of Students Using Internet in Class Year

Reporting Districts

Percent No Access

Percent (1- 49)

Percent (50- 75)

Percent (76-100)

22 69 48 43

1 18 27 31

0 14 18 19

Internet-based Instruction 1996 1998 2000 2002

* ** **

840 776 619 619

1 0

* 1998 survey instrument did not contain the category “no access.” ** Percent values do not total 100% due to non-responses to this item.

Increased use of the Internet for instruction is evident across years. A shift from 74 percent of the students with no access to the Internet in class changed substantially in just two years with 32 percent of the districts reporting that 50–100 percent of their students were using the Internet in class in the 1998 survey. The percent of districts reporting that 50–100 percent of their students are using the Internet in class has continued to

rise since the 1998 survey, but the rate of change has not continued to be in double-digit increases. While Internet access is available in classrooms, the transition to Internet-based instruction appears to be occurring at a much more deliberate rate, perhaps due to the limited number of Internet-accessible computers in the classroom as well as the lack of teacher time to learn and practice using technology.

TABLE 10: Percentage of Student Internet Applications Across Years by 50% to all Students in District*

Reporting Districts E-mail/online forums Exploring (Web-browsing) Accessing Web-based curricula Research for class assignments Collaborative learning multiple sites Creating multimedia projects Problem solving Simulations

1996 841 Percent 1 1 0 2 -

1998 727 Percent 10 29 16 26 6 8 -

2000 619 Percent 5 45 3 11 9 2

2002 619 Percent 8 49 4 13 11 3

* Empty cells due to item differences across the surveys. WINTER 2003 25

In general, online research for class assignments has evolved as an application and is now used widely by students, while collaborative learning projects, problemsolving exercises, and accessing Web-based curricula are being integrated by students at a slower rate. One reason for the different rates of adoption may be that the technology skills required for conducting simulations, problem solving, and creating multimedia products are more complex than seeking and downloading resources from the Web.

Professional Development on Technology. The topic of professional development and the number of sessions provided by the districts each year have offered bases for comparison across time. Table 10 provides a summary of district responses to these common variables. During the six years covered by these surveys, the emphasis placed on technology professional staff development in schools across Texas has increased. The two ends of the continuum (i.e., more than 10 sessions and no sessions offered) reflect the shift toward greater emphasis on technology training to professional staff.

TABLE 11. Professional Development on Technology Reported by School Districts Number of Sessions More than 10 7 to 10 3 to 6 * 1 to 2 * No sessions Total Responses Assistance Needs of School Districts Grant procurement Conducting technology audits Forming a technology consortium Developing a technology use plan Staff Development on technology integration Total Responses

1996 % 9 3 20 49 20 847

1998 % 30 18 31 17 4 781

2000 % 29 27 17 17 4 638

2002 % 25 27 18 18 1 619

68 44 48 56 78

76 46 44 46 89

66 40 42 37 81

64 40 39 39 81

847

727

638

626

* 2000 and 2002 surveys combined the number of sessions into single category (1 to 6); reported value represents .5 of recorded value.

The topic noted by approximately 80 percent of the respondents during the six-year time frame is a need for professional development on technology integration in classrooms, and the re-occurring request for assistance with grant procurement by 64 percent or more of the respondents across the surveys. Considered together, these trends suggest school districts anticipate that external funding will provide resources for technology professional development in the future although at this time support for technology is diminishing at both federal and state levels. 26

INSIGHT

Discussion and Conclusions Recent Past. The telecommunications infrastructure in the public schools across Texas has changed significantly during the past six years. Financial support for technology to schools has been substantial, resulting in dramatic changes in classroom connectivity and classroom technology equipment. The level of connectivity recorded in 1996 was very modest with districts reporting no classroom access to the Internet for 74 percent of their high school classrooms and 85 percent of their elementary and middle school classrooms. In

2002, Texas public schools participating in this survey reported having Internet access in more than 98 percent of their classrooms. These connectivity values 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). These dramatic changes in connectivity in Texas public schools have occurred because of the 7,000 grants totaling approximately $1 billion being awarded by the TIF Board to its constituents (TIF Web site, 2002b; TIF Web site, 2003); the 1,963 awards of the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TEA, 2000); and the high level of participation in the E-Rate program (TEA, 2000). In terms of Internet-linked workstations for students, survey results indicate today’s public school classroom in Texas holds 2+ 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 to 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 4:1 in the 2002 Update to the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1996–2010 (TEA, 2002). Similarly, technology professional development activities for Texas classroom teachers have become more frequent and are being tailored to teachers’ particular needs. These are encouraging trends, but continuing refinements are likely needed, because technology directors in this survey reported that just 12 percent of the district’s teachers actually use ideas from their professional development experiences in designing their lessons. This finding suggests why another survey finding occurred; i.e., that 21 percent of these teachers use the Internet in designing their lessons and student assignments. One interpretation of this finding is that embracing technology tools to enhance instruction is a long-term goal that requires both attitudinal and skill changes by teachers, and while today’s teachers have some facility using computers, many do not care to apply these computer skills in classroom instruction (Web-based Education Commission, December 2000). To overcome these circumstances, future technology professional development activities for these teachers should be designed to meet specifically stated needs of

the individual teacher, and be offered at a time that accommodates the teacher’s schedule. The Present. This report concluded with a paragraph encouraging school technology directors to seek additional funding from state and federal sources for computer workstations and individualized professional development growth plans for teachers until the following item appeared on the TIF home page.

Notice to TIF Constituents and Interested Parties Governor Perry has vetoed Article III Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board from House Bill 1. This veto action will eliminate the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board. The agency has not awarded grants since August 2002. Another entity will be needed to close out existing grants, but this will be done by Executive Order. (TIF Web site, 2003)

The impact of this veto action on technology integration in Texas public schools will become evident as time passes. However, it is clear that opportunities for funding to support technology integration from the TIF Board will no longer be possible. Whether a new organizational structure is established by the state to continue funding technology integration in schools, or whether total responsibility for funding technology integration is shifted to local school boards—given the infrastructure that has been established over the past six years—remains to be seen. Jon Denton is executive director, Trina Davis director, and Arlen Strader associate director of Information Systems, eEducation, College of Education and Human Development, Texas A&M University. Brooke Durbin, former research assistant with Texas A&M University, is now with Houston Endowment, Inc., University of Houston System.

References Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet Use by Teachers: Conditions of Professional Use and Teacher-Directed WINTER 2003 27

Student Use. Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998 National Survey, Report #1. Irvine, CA: University of California, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations and the University of Minnesota. Document available at http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/ findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm 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. Texas Education Agency (December 2000). Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1996–2010. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Document available at http://ww.tea.state.tx.us Texas Education Agency (2001). Snapshot. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Texas Education Agency (2002). 2002 Update to the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1996–2010. A Report to the 78th Texas Legislature. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. This document is available online at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/technology/lrpt TIF Web site, (2002a). http://www.tifb.state.tx.us/grantloan/LibraryInfo/LB9/LB9_Press_Release.doc TIF Web site, (2002b). What TIF has done (December 3, 2002). http://www.whattifhasdone.org/ TIF Web site, (2003). 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 in February 2001 from http://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission

INSIGHT

Learning in the Present; Preparing for the Future by Alton J. Fields Imagine a campus where every teacher and student has a laptop computer that can access the World Wide Web from any point on campus and from many locations in the community. In December, Pleasanton ISD’s visionary plan to close the digital divide becomes a reality with the arrival of 1,200 iBook laptops—one for every high school student, teacher, and administrator at Pleasanton High School. The program will realize the dream of instant connectivity for every student and teacher. Before the Christmas holidays, each student will be issued an Apple iBook. When school resumes in the new year, the computers will be an integral part of teaching and learning at the school.

Amanda Hindes, daughter of Technology Director Jim Hindes

leasanton, Texas, is a small rural community approximately 30 miles south of San Antonio on Interstate 37. The population is 63 percent Hispanic and 35 percent white. The school district has a very high ratio of low socioeconomic students. However, through several years of planning, intense attention to curricular and instructional changes, and a commitment to excellence, the district has become a Texas Education Agency “Recognized” district with an “Exemplary” high school. There is, however, a serious digital divide in the community, with many families lacking access to technology. The 1:1 Computer Initiative is a program that will move our high school and indeed our community into the Digital Age. Our students and their families will have unprecedented access to a world of resources 24/7. Even though Pleasanton High School is an “Exemplary” high school, Pleasanton ISD is very concerned about the future of its students in the workplace. According to some

experts, 80 percent of jobs in the Digital Age don’t even exist today. The skills of today’s average worker will become outdated in 3–5 years, and the average worker will likely change jobs five times and careers four times. Many believe that the illiterate of the future are not those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and then relearn. The 1:1 Computer Initiative will address essential workplace skills for the Digital Age, including: • Critical thinking skills and reasoning • Creativity • Visualizing and decision making • Strong communication skills • Technology literacy • Cross-cultural understanding • Lifelong learning • Personal and social responsibility • Teamwork and interpersonal relationships

WINTER 2003 29

The initiative has been dubbed the “PHS Laptop Initiative: Learning in the Present, Preparing for the Future” by the campus leadership team. Efforts began two years ago when I learned of a similar initiative in Henrico County School District in Richmond, Virginia. I was so impressed with the outcomes of the program that I convinced the president of our board, Roger S. Castillo, to visit Henrico to learn firsthand how the program was implemented. He brought the information back to the Pleasanton board. Other technology initiatives in the district have started with the lower grades and worked up. However, the skills and possibilities provided by this technology will be essential for our graduates to compete in the digital work world. We needed to get this technology into the hands of our secondary students now. For the last several years, the district’s budgetary practice has been that “if you don’t use it you don’t lose it.” Therefore, campus budgets have not been depleted unless necessary. Surplus funds go directly into the Board Priority Fund. Then, each summer the board of trustees reviews all areas of the district—from finances to facilities to student performance—and reviews the long-term goals for the district. Part of that process includes a look at the status of current projects. Last summer, during this review, the board determined that its top three projects were almost completed. During the following needs assessment review and goal-setting exercise to determine new projects, the 1:1 Computer Initiative came to the top of the list as an immediate goal. Funding was the biggest roadblock. The initiative would require $2.2 million over a four-year lease-purchase agreement. Pleasanton ISD is a relatively low-wealth district, with $109,100 valuation per student as compared to the state average of $242,809 valuation per student, according to 2002–2003 TEA data. At the tax rate ceiling of $1.50, no tax increase was possible to pay for the laptops. This project will be funded entirely from the Board Priority Fund. By using this fund, no other campus will have present or future budgets affected by the cost of this project. 30

INSIGHT

PISD accepts delivery of 1,207 iBooks

After the RFP process, Apple was awarded the bid for the laptops. Apple’s bid included 1,207 G3 iBooks; 1,080 backpacks; 140 briefcases; 14 laserjet printers; 4 color laser printers; 20 digital video cameras; 24 digital still cameras; 60 multimedia projectors; 90 wireless airports; 5 digital microscope kits; and 1 Vernier science lab kit. I continued to work with PHS teachers and administrators and moved into the community to gather suggestions and concerns about the project. Apple representatives were brought in to demonstrate the iBooks, answering questions and addressing concerns about use, application, and purpose. A team made up of Apple computer advisors, campus administrators, lead teachers, district technology staff, and central office staff met over a three-month period to map out plans for deployment of the computers. The initiative focuses on more than simply supplying laptops. It also focuses on systematic change by encouraging all members of the education community to understand the technology students are using in the classroom through professional development for teachers and required training sessions for parents. It was decided that teachers and administrators needed time to become acquainted with the computers before they were issued to students. Just before Thanksgiving, computers were distributed to teachers and administrators. Basic training in operation of the computers was provided. Teachers also have opportunities for just-in-time online professional development. They can work through training modules available 24/7. A district “iTeam” was formed to become a role model in integration of the technology. Applications were taken

from teachers interested in becoming part of the “iTeam”. This team of volunteers will be provided with 16 days of release time during the year for training in productivity and multimedia tools and Internet applications. They will be expected to share this knowledge with peers and students and to be role models in the integration of the technology. iTeam members also will present one day of technology training next summer for campus staff. Students also share training responsibilities. A campus help desk will be manned by designated students who were identified as “experts” and were asked to apply for positions at the help desk. They will be trained and expected to volunteer before school, after school, and during lunch breaks to provide technical assistance to students and teachers. These tech-savvy students (overseen by a faculty advisor) will diagnose and resolve hardware and software issues, further containing tech support costs. If teachers come out of a class and something is wrong with their laptop, they will just drop by the help desk and get immediate technical assistance. In December, just before the Christmas holidays, computers and backpacks will be distributed to students. Trainers from Apple Computers will be on hand to instruct students and parents in details of care, maintenance, and handling. Both the student and parent are required to sign the Student Laptop Checkout Agreement Form, which spells out the circumstances by which a student can lose computer privileges. It also outlines financial responsibilities of the student in the event the computer is damaged, lost, or stolen. The agreement states that no software (including games) will be downloaded or installed on the laptop except printer drivers and Internet service provider software.

tool, as well as NetTrekker, an education-specific search engine. Jim Hindes, Pleasanton ISD director of technology, has worked with a local Internet service provider to offer a special rate to Pleasanton ISD students and faculty in conjunction with the laptop project, carrying the 24/7 concept to students’ homes. Ken Whiteker, high school principal, notes, “This technology will fast forward learning in Pleasanton to the place where it should be. Plans are to have wireless access to the Internet throughout the high school and at multiple ‘airport’ base stations in the community. This technology breaks down the four walls of the classroom and allows us to go anywhere in the world. We’re not limited to the volumes in our library or whether we can get a bus for a field trip—whole classes of students can go online anytime and check out a multitude of resources.” A technology initiative of this size requires the coordinated efforts of administrators, teachers, parents, and the district technology staff. I’ve been asked what will happen after four years. The program will be evaluated at that time and decisions made. But for now, we hope to create a networked community of lifelong learners. By equipping all Pleasanton High School students and teachers with wireless laptop access to educational resources and tools, we hope to move our district even further into the digital learning environment. Instead of having an hour or two a week in a computer lab, our students will have the opportunity for continuous learning, 24/7. Installation of server; Jim Hindes, PISD Technology Director (right), and Scott Myers, Apple

Students will be issued the same computer until graduation, and then it will be issued to a new student. Wireless technology will give students connectivity throughout the Pleasanton High School building complex, inside and out. Wireless access points are strategically located to provide network and Internet access from the cafeteria to the field house to the classrooms throughout a sprawling campus that encompasses approximately 300,000 square feet. The iBooks contain Microsoft Office software for word processing, spread sheets, and PowerPoint presentations and are totally compatible with existing PCs and networks in the district. Resources available to students and teachers will include Beyond Books, an online curriculum enrichment WINTER 2003 31

(High School Staff Planning Meeting)

Pleasanton ISD leaders still have a strong belief that the most important thing in the classroom is the teacher and not the technology. By providing teachers with this wonderful teaching tool, we can make them even more effective in the classroom.

Learn more about Pleasanton ISD’s journey to a wireless environment at the

Administrators’ Midwinter Conference on Education. Concurrent Session:

Alton Fields is superintendent at Pleasanton ISD and TASA’s 2003–2004 vice-president.

PHS LAPTOP INITIATIVE: Learning in the Present; Preparing for the Future Monday, January 26, 9:45–10:45 a.m.

Spectrum Ad FPO

INSIGHT

There’s a Chat Room in Your Future by Virginia Collier with research assistance from Jie Lin our first thought at the mention of “chat room” is probably that of teenagers engaged in their special brand of Web communication. Chat rooms rival the telephone as a communication tool for teens. For distance educators, chat rooms are one of the many tools for providing instruction electronically. This article is about distance education and the impact it is having and may have on public education in the future.

Peter Drucker has been quoted as saying, “In 30 years, the universities of America, as we have traditionally known them, will be barren wastelands.” Dryden and Vos, authors of The Learning Revolution, suggest that Drucker is conservative and that three years might be a more realistic prediction. It is their prediction “that within the next few years students around the world will have instant access to the world’s best teachers, through an extensive variety of sources: the Internet, satellite, digital video discs, two-way conferencing, CD-ROMs and multimedia interactive study.”1 Internationally, distance education is a rapidly growing phenomenon at the college and university levels. This is especially true in countries with sparsely populated areas. For example, seven universities in Australia teach at a distance to 15,000 students.2 These students represent 10 percent of their total enrollment. University consortiums are common, but individual institutions also abound. Consider Thailand’s Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University with more than 200,000 students or China’s Central Radio and Television University with 1.5 million students. These are examples of distance education institutions developed in the 1970s and centered around radio

and television. As technology evolves, distance learning is centering on more diverse and interactive technologies. One of these is videoconferencing. Texas A&M University (TAMU) has “In 30 years, the been one of the leaders in establishing videoconferencing as a technology for universities of teaching in Texas. The university’s orig- America, as we have inal motivation was communication within the TAMU system. Today, traditionally known videoconferencing is just one piece of a them, will be barren growing effort to provide learning opportunities for students and profes- wastelands.” sionals around the world. Online courses are offered in the Colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Architecture, Business Administration, Education and Human Development, Education Distance Learning, Engineering, Geosciences, Liberal Arts, Science, Veterinary Medicine, and the George Bush School of Government and Public Service. Several of these colleges are serving students in foreign countries. Where there is a need there usually is a market, and there are needs for distance education. One of the needs in K–12 education is for qualified teachers in rural areas. A concurrent need is for teachers who can provide instruction for high-level and advanced-placement courses. The issue of teaching all children at high levels is moving from being a discussion of socioeconomic groups to a discussion of geographic locations. Teacher shortages occur in both rural and urban areas, but the solution may be more difficult in rural areas due to a lack of options. Distance education provides an option. WINTER 2003 33

In addition, the concept of international schooling embraced by universities is moving into the K–12 arena. This past summer, Bob Slater of TAMU met with the president of India to discuss the formation of a campus of the American International School for Inquiry and Creativity (AISIC). Designed by Slater as a prototype, AISIC is a hightech, research-based, innovative, private middle-secondary school located in the Texas A&M University Research Park in College Station, Texas. An outgrowth of Texas A&M’s Technology Transfer and Commercialization Initiative, AISIC is an international school with campuses in Asia and others under development in Europe, Mexico, and South America. Students on one campus may transfer to another for a semester or a year as exchange students. For more information, go to www.inquirycreativityschools.us/. It is Slater’s opinion that “Other countries will move forward more rapidly than the United States in distance education because their needs are so great. Distance learning is perhaps the only way these nations can provide learning for their rural populations and their advanced students. Their greater needs will drive their more rapid progress.”

As a participant in the American Association of School Administrators’ International Seminars on Schooling, I have seen evidence that the quality of public education is dependent upon where a student lives. I listened through an interpreter as a Chinese taxi driver told me of a news story he had heard on television the night before. The story praised a 14-year-old girl who was teaching the children of her village. America is blessed with many certified teachers. Our problem is convincing our certified professionals to teach and then to ensure quality in the instruction provided. This is very different from those nations struggling with a lack of certified teachers. Last spring, the International Seminar on Schooling went to Italy. Italy has an excess of certified teachers. Even with an excess of teachers, however, students living in the rural areas must often come into the cities for schooling. Discussions with Italian teachers included the problems associated with getting the children of the countryside into the schools. We could have similar discussions regarding the education of our rural students in America, particularly in regard to the accessibility of higher-level courses.

ONLINE TAKS HELP!

TRACK - TAKS Readiness and Core Knowledge TRACK is a free educational resource to help 10th and 11th graders prepare for the exit-level TAKS test. The University of Texas TeleCampus offers this interactive website in a user-friendly format. The site includes sample diagnostics and supplemental learning materials in subjects tested on the TAKS. Students receive feedback from tests and can be directed to appropriate learning materials.

The UT TeleCampus provides online undergraduate and graduate college credit courses; professional development and K-12 TAKS readiness programs.

Browse the site today and get on TRACK. Email: track@utsystem.edu Phone: 1-888-TEXAS-16

www.track.uttelecampus.org Funding provided by the Houston Endowment and the Meadows Foundation.

INSIGHT

In 1987, TEA published a Guide to Distance Learning as an Alternative Delivery Procedure. It was one of the agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first efforts to encourage Texas schools to use alternative delivery systems to provide instruction. In December 2002, a Report on Electronic Courses and Virtual Learning Programs was presented to the 78th Texas Legislature. This report was in response to Senate Bill 975, which directed the commissioner of education to gather needed information on the rapidly expanding world of electronic courses and virtual learning. This report addresses the issues surrounding distance education and is available online at www.tea.state.tx.us/technology.3 While the shortage of funds has slowed the momentum for virtual learning in Texas, I am confident the exploration of distance learning will continue. According to the Office of Technology Assessment, a research arm of Congress, fewer than 10 states participated in distance-learning projects eight years ago. Today, nearly every state is involved in some type of distance-learning program.4 While distance education may be the only option for students in remote areas desiring a high level of specialized instruction, it is not appropriate for every student any more than our current delivery methods work for every student. In addition, there are numerous misconceptions about this rapidly growing field. There are some facts that you should be aware of about distance education. The ones listed below are adapted from Cyber Schools: An Education Renaissance by G. R. Jones.5 Distance education is not instant education. The enrollment procedure for distance education is the same as enrolling for regular instruction. At the university, you have to provide the same transcripts, letters of

recommendation, etc. In the public schools, you have to meet the same residency or transfer requirements. A related issue is the funding mechanism for distance students. Our current average daily attendance model is not a good fit for the distance education student. Distance education is not a passive way to learn and is usually rigorous. In a distance education interaction, the student who does the minimum is obvious. There is no sitting in the back of the room and snoozing with your eyes open. Every student is in a front-row seat. A lack of participation is not only obvious but can be easily documented for grading purposes. For example, distance education classes normally involve either a chat room (where everyone is online at the same time) or a threaded discussion (where thoughts are posted and responded to over a period of time). Students are expected to submit products and comments, react to presentations, and engage in discussions with fellow students. Homework becomes in-class work. Distance education is a better way for some students to learn and the only option for other students. Educators know that every student does not respond with enthusiasm to our current instructional models. In response, magnet schools and alternative schools have become standard features in larger and even medium-sized districts. Instruction is provided for students with special interests, such as the health professions; with special needs, as reflected in the disciplinary alternative education programs; and with special abilities and desires, as reflected in the demand for Advanced Placement courses or alternative high school settings. These needs and demands have resulted in a growing market for packaged computer programs. Unfortunately, the more interactive components of distance education freâ&#x20AC;&#x153;Our current quently are not included average daily in these packaged course offerings.

attendance model

is not a good fit for the distance education student.â&#x20AC;?

WINTER 2003 35

In addition to meeting special needs, distance education has the “If school is not a potential for completely changing the educational environment. place, how do we Ask yourself these questions: change our schools “What if school is not a place?” If school is not a place, what is to respond to the public education in this new envinew environment ronment? Will public education continue to serve the majority of created by distance society as “keeper of the young education?” masses” between the ages of six and eighteen if school is not a place? If school is not a place, how do we change our schools to respond to the new environment created by distance education?” The TEA Report on Electronic Courses and Virtual Learning Programs puts forward the following list of impacts that distance learning will have on schools: • A focus on learning, not schools • Learning organizations defined by mission, not by geography and facilities • Student-focused, customized learning; not mass-produced, one-size-fits-all instruction • Self-directed and holistic learning, not regimented recitation • Learning on a continual basis and throughout the year, not on artificial schedules and calendars • Empowerment of families and educators, no bureaucracies • A number of options and educational providers for each student, not a standard model for all6 Knowing that administrators are struggling with the mandates of No Child Left Behind and serious financial dilemmas, presenting another challenge is difficult for me to do. I know too well how precious your time is and how limited your opportunities are for personal growth. Your responsibilities, however, extend beyond handling today’s dilemmas. You must look to the future as well. The future will require that you understand the tools, potential, and problems associated with distance education. I highly recommend the TEA Report on Electronic Learning*. The initiative may have been stopped but the need and the exploration will go on, if not in Texas then somewhere else. The TEA publication will give you more than enough to think about and introduce you to some of the innovations developed in Texas school districts. 36

INSIGHT

*An Executive Summary of the “2002 Report on Electronic Courses and Virtual Learning Programs” is available on TASAnet, www.tasanet.org. When I left the superintendency and became a professor at TAMU in September of 2000, I had no idea that my future involved chat rooms, videoconferencing, threaded discussions, or electronic paper submissions. I had never heard of WebCT, one of the nation’s largest platforms for delivering online instruction. I had no plans for incorporating any of these tools into the course syllabi I developed for administrator preparation programs. Today, I do not teach a class that does not have a distancelearning component. I am convinced that preparation programs for future teachers and administrators are lacking if they do not include experiences with distance learning. A graduate with no experience or understandings about distance learning means a graduate ill-prepared to make decisions about the issues he or she will face in the educational environment of the future. I’m convinced that there’s a chat room in your future. Virginia Collier is a clinical associate professor and Jie Lin is a research assistant at Texas A&M University. References 1 Dryden, G. & Vos, J. (1999). The learning revolution: a life-long learning program for the world’s finest computer your amazing brain. Jalmar Press, Carson, CA. 2

Jones, G. R. (2002). Cyber schools: an education renaissance. Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York, NY, p. 36.

A report to the 78th Texas legislature from the Texas Education Agency: Report on electronic courses and virtual learning programs. (2002). Texas Education Agency, Austin, TX.

Milller, B. (2003). Distance learning much closer. Retrieved November 4, 2003, from Government technology: solutions for local government in the information age.

Jones, G. R., p. 141.

TEA, Report on Electronic Learning, p. 66.

BRB ROOFING WeatherBoss® D E S I G N

•

Roof Design Solutions E N G I N E E R

•

B U I L D

We Convert Flat Roofs To Sloped™ H 24 ga. steel H Eave-to-ridge lengths H 20 year warranty sales@brbrooﬁng.com Ft. Gibson, OK • Purcell, OK

METAL ROOFING AND MANUFACTURING

877-272-7663

GOT MONEY? Call Anne! Having a tough time earning decent interest income? Call Anne Jenkins, AJ Capital.

This firm has the experience and desire to help you increase earnings with your bond and operational funds. AJ Capital Corporation 24915 Baywick Spring, TX 77389 281-351-5334

Anne Jenkins

WINTER 2003 37

A Snapshot of Technology Integration Best Practices in La Porte ISD by Mark E. Gabehart Superintendents and school administrators are increasingly looking towards technology to help address the additional accountability pressures from both state (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills—TAKS) and federal (No Child Left Behind) legislative mandates. Under the leadership of Superintendent Molly Helmlinger and Chief Technology Officer Mark E. Gabehart, La Porte ISD—a district with more than 7,700 students located 30 minutes southeast of Houston—has begun to systematically change its teaching, learning, and administrative technology practices to meet these more rigorous academic requirements. olly Helmlinger’s leadership since March 2003 has provided La Porte ISD an opportunity to review its technology programs and practices and better align them to meet the academic needs of the district. In her convocation address at the start of the school year, Helmlinger stressed the importance of technology integration in the district’s schools. This importance was highlighted when she required all campus administrators, along with central office staff with technology integration activities, to attend the TASA Technology Leadership Academy this year.

implementation. The Star Chart measures Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Administration and Support Services; and Infrastructure at four levels: beginning, developing, advanced, and target. A review of this assessment data indicated an urgent need to address Teaching and Learning and Educator Preparation and Development components, thus leading to the creation of an Instructional Technology Department to develop and implement systemic and systematic technology integration.

The following representative list of La Porte ISD’s top-10 technology best practices illustrates this leadership and provides discussion points for district superintendents and school administrators. Please review this list to see how well your district is matching up with these practices.

2. La Porte ISD’s Instructional Technology Department includes a director who oversees the (1) academic computer education specialists (ACES), who are full-time certified teachers responsible for the staff development and integration of technology at the computer lab and classroom level; (2) the paraprofessional instructional technology assistants (ITAs), who help teach technology skills to students in assigned computer labs; and (3) the

1. The Texas Star Chart over the past two years has provided a district- and campus-level assessment of technology 38

INSIGHT

secondary technology teachers, who teach both Technology Applications and Career and Technology Education (CATE) related courses at the junior high and high school levels. 3. The Levels of Technology implementation (LoTi) survey was administered last spring to measure teachers’ actual classroom use of technology. The vast majority of the district’s 500-plus campus teachers and administrators indicated that their present uses of technology were mostly at the nonuse and personal productivity levels (e.g., e-mail and lesson plans) with very few teachers integrating the technology with students to foster higher-order thinking skills. A series of LoTi leadership seminars, led by Christopher Moersch with campus and central office administrators and the ACES, have led to specific campus technology plans that focus efforts at students using technology to support higher-order thinking skills. 4. The TAKS and NCLB requirements are calling for increased data-driven decision making. While administrators are familiar with student and business/financial management systems, they are less familiar with curriculum management systems. A curriculum management system is a Web-based collection of lessons, resources, and assessments that is continually available to a wide variety of stakeholders (e.g., administrators, teachers, students, and parents). There is growing pressure to have additional formative benchmark assessments as well as the summative TAKS. With this in mind, La

Porte ISD is making use of Academic Success through Evaluation (ASE) Resources’ product cable ADM to scan curriculum benchmark assessments this year. This is being accomplished utilizing the Texas Business Education Coalition’s partnership with TRIAND to conduct online the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) and to address TAKS/NCLB data desegregation needs through Standardized Test Analysis Reporting (STAR) components. It is hoped that the following year the district will have selected and implemented a robust, fully functioning curriculum management system that aligns the district’s curriculum maps, lessons, resources, and assessments. 5. An online Curriculum Mapper™ tool was used by the ACES to develop curriculum maps for the Technology Applications TEKS for grades K–2, 3–5, 6–8, and high school technology courses. This tool provides a Tech Apps scope and sequence of what needs to be taught and when it needs to be taught. In addition, this same Curriculum Mapper tool was used by K–12 core subject teachers to map out their respective curriculum areas. These curriculum maps are being used by the ACES to develop suitable integration projects. All elementary and junior high school teachers are required to do three quality integration projects while high school teachers are required to do one quality integration project this year. The quality of these projects is measured by the Texas Star Chart and LoTi levels that call for students’ use of technology tools in a problem-solving context. WINTER 2003 39

6. Eighth grade students are benefiting by taking a technology survey course of Web Mastering, Multimedia, and Video Technology TEKS in order to meet the high school graduation technology credit requirement. In addition, the district is offering a wide range of Technology Applications courses (Web Mastering, Video Technology, Desktop Publishing, and Computer Science to meet state law requirements) and Career and Technology courses (Business Computer Information Systems I and II, Business Imaging/Multimedia, Cisco Academy, and Computer Assisted Design) at the high school. Students have plenty of opportunities to take several technology credits before graduating, thus preparing them better for post-secondary education or the workforce. 7. Teachers and staff have access to a wide range of technology training classes that address both basic software applications, such as word processing and spreadsheets, and integration of these tools to support TEKS in core subjects. This type of training is necessary to help our teachers become proficient with the technology applications and their integration into the curriculum in order to meet SBEC’s technology standards and NCLB teacher technology requirements. These training courses are delivered by our ACES or by subscribing to an online training program called Mind Leaders. In addition, a technology 12-hour training requirement outside of contract time is being implemented and coordinated through the district’s online Professional Development Planner database that lists technology courses, registers teachers, and tracks attendance and completion of technology hours or projects. Teachers have the option of attending face-to-face sessions, receiving training online, or developing technology projects to meet their 12-hour training requirement.

district has implemented SASIXP’s Parent Connect feature that lets parents go online to see their children’s grades, homework assignments, and other related information. More than 1,000 parents have enrolled in this program. The district also has implemented SASIXP’s Parent Choice, a call automation system that calls students’ homes when they are absent. This system also can be used to send mass messages to parents and to conduct surveys. 10. The district has standardized on Microsoft’s Windows and Office XP platform with a five-year computerreplacement cycle that is funded by technology bonds. There are approximately 3,100 computers in the district serving more than 7,700 students and 500 teachers. The technology access for professional staff has been met (one staff to one computer) while the student-to-computer ratio is a very respectable three students to one computer. At the end of the five years, these computers are distributed to the district’s free- and reduced-lunch students. As of this time, nearly 900 families have one of these computers at home. There are numerous technology initiatives underway in La Porte ISD. The district’s top-10 list provided in this article serves as a representative sample of major efforts taking place this school year. Please feel free to use this list as a means to dialogue with staff about your district’s technology best practices and to develop new plans to meet emerging needs. Mark Gabehart is the chief technology officer at La Porte ISD.

References: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/technology/etac/campus_txstar/ index.html

8. There is real value in providing each professional staff member at the campuses a wireless laptop computer. All teachers and administrators have continuous access to a tool they can use for a wide variety of instructional and administrative purposes. For example, teachers are electronically maintaining their grades and attendance with SASIXP’s IGPRO and Class XP. The next logical step in this evolution would be providing wireless laptops for students. The district is currently searching for funding opportunities to accomplish this goal.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/technology/ta/index.html

9. Parents need immediate access to know how well their children are doing in school. With this in mind, the

http://fmpweb.lpisd.org/pdp/courselist.htm

INSIGHT

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/technology/ta/tacredit.html http://pipe.triand.com http://www.lotilounge.com http://www.lpisd.org/superintendent/ http://www.sbec.state.tx..us/SBECOnline/standtest/ standards/techapps_allbegtch.pdf http://www.curriculummapper.com http://www.aseresources.com http://pcxp.lpisd.org

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™

WINTER 2003 41

Cooks Up a Hot, New E-Learning Paradigm

Irving ISD

by Jennifer Anderson and Ryan Sanders

In his culinary wisdom, chef Emeril Lagasse has written, “To cook great food, you have to have great ingredients.” Certainly, Emeril knows his way around a kitchen, but he might also know something about technology in education, because cooking up a world-class instructional technology program starts with world-class ingredients.

INSIGHT

ver the last three years, Irving ISD has been busy mixing one of the premiere e-learning programs in the world. The ingredients for that program are laid out in a document called the Long-Range Technology Plan (LRP), which has been a reliable recipe for success—not just in making technology available but in making it useful and meaningful in a student’s education. The 10 most critical ingredients are listed here.

FUNDING One of Dallas’ largest neighbors, Irving ISD is a propertypoor district with 31,000 students—58 percent of whom are Hispanic. Irving ISD is among an elite number of Recognized districts in Texas that are large (25,000 students or more) and diverse (majority non-white), with a significant number of economically disadvantaged students (more than half on free- or reduced-lunch programs.) With a tax rate at $1.815 per $100 valuation, Irving ISD, like many other Texas districts, has reached the maximum tax cap, endangering technology spending and implementation of the LRP. But in 2001, Irving voters approved a $249 million bond package—the largest in the district’s history. Despite a slowing economy and a stalled legislature, the district’s visionary trustees saw the importance of technology’s role in modern education. Wisely, they included almost $55 million for instructional technology on that bond issue—seed money that is now blossoming into successful, confident students equipped for the challenges of college and work. Thanks to a talented and dedicated grant-writing team, the district also has received more than $8.6 million through TIF and E-Rate grants. INFRASTRUCTURE Before the district was able to add the garnish and toppings of community involvement and digital awards, it had to mix in a healthy amount of the most basic techno-ingredients. Irving ISD schools and departments are connected by a state-of-the-art ATM network (soon to be upgraded to GigE) that allows the transmission of audio, video, and data over the same lines. This network stretches to every building in a district that is more than eight miles across. And that’s just the wires. Currently, the administration building and six of the district’s schools (including all four high schools) also have wireless networks, allowing students to access Internet and intranet databases at any moment during the instructional day. Eventually, all of the district’s 38 campuses will offer wireless Internet. The network has to be robust enough to host traffic from 3,900 employees and 31,000 students every day. Of course, with a network of that size, security is an essential ingredient. Irving ISD uses Websense, a leading Internet filtering service, to ensure the protection of district networks, proprietary information, and impressionable young minds.

FACILITIES Just as the LRP provides the framework for all of the district’s technology use, another document lays out expectations for how facilities will integrate technology. It’s called the Facilities Planning Document, and it specifies the technology requirements for each room in each building in the district. For example, elementary classrooms should have a projection unit, a teacher laptop, a shared printer, and at least three student computers. While these specifications may seem demanding, they set important benchmarks for architects, contractors, and district facilities planners.

“This network stretches to every building in a district that is more than eight miles across. And that’s just the wires.” One school in Irving ISD has set the model for the Facilities Planning Document. It is the pinnacle of e-learning accessibility and usability—a showcase of what can happen when educators think like innovators—when a learning facility is designed to facilitate learning, not house it. That school is The Academy of Irving ISD. From the land-swap deal trustees made with the local community college district for a place to build it to the decision not to install school bells, The Academy was the vanguard that ushered in the next paradigm of technology in education in Irving ISD and across the country. The school has won national awards—both architectural and educational— for its design and usefulness, including AASA’s 2003 Walter Taylor Award. It has been toured and praised by leaders from Microsoft, Nokia, the U.S. Department of Education, and numerous other school districts. It was the first school in Irving ISD to offer a laptop for every student, the first to

Recipient of AASA’s 2003 WALTER TAYLOR

Award

The Academy of Irving ISD Architect: Milton Powell, AIA, Powell/PSP

WINTER 2003 43

offer wireless Internet, and the first to so deeply integrate technology into everyday classroom instruction. The Academy does more than make technology available. It makes it useful and relevant to learning. The curriculum is infused with Academy of Irving ISD Photo ©Michael Lyon the expectations that stuOf course there are risks involved. Last year, dents will develop skills in just less than 4 percent of the computers technology and in employaAcademy of Irving ISD courtesy of Irving ISD issued were lost or stolen. Each student is bility. There are no school required to provide insurance on his or her laptop so that lost bells because students are expected to know when they or damaged computers can be replaced and issued to the next should be in class. After all, in college or the business world, class of students. they will be expected to get themselves to the next class or meeting. Likewise, there are no chalkboards. In the career INCREASED STUDENT USE world, presentations are made with multimedia software, Giving students access to technology is not enough. Irving and research is done via online resources. The Academy is ISD planners know that. So the LRP includes dozens of ways preparing students for success, not just a diploma. to direct student use of technology to ensure that hi-tech tools are being used to support education. In elementary and midSince The Academy opened in 2001, the district has added dle school classrooms, this can be as simple as deciding where other facilities—deZavala Middle School, Townsell to put desktop computers. Instead of lining a wall with them, Elementary, and a new Administration Building—all based district instructional technology officials developed something on the Facilities Planning Document. called the “Inspired Classroom” where computer workstations are scattered throughout the room so that their use becomes a ONE-TO-ONE ACCESS seamless part of everyday lessons, not a scheduled seclusion to When it comes to technology access, Irving ISD leaders have the corner of the room. So far, only a few classrooms follow set the bar high. Emeril might say they’ve “kicked it up a the “inspired” design, but action follows vision, and the vision notch.” The most visible ingredient in Irving ISD’s aggressive has been cast. recipe for success is the one-to-one ratio. As of 2002, every high school student in Irving ISD carries his or her own laptop computer. Students scurrying to class with computer bags on their shoulders can be a new and, frankly, unsettling sight for many educators. But district leaders have chosen to give the responsibility of using and caring for laptops to those students who are more capable and sooner likely to use the skills gained by having a computer. The reason is simple. “No student should graduate from Irving schools without the skills he’ll need in the world of work,” Superintendent Jack Singley says. In lower grades, too, the student-to-computing-device ratio is high with middle school students using portable laptop labs and classroom desktop computers, and elementary students learning keyboarding, spelling, and writing on smaller devices called AlphaSmarts. 44

INSIGHT

Every school in the district has a distance learning room or mobile distance learning cart so that teachers and students can collaborate with their peers in other schools, districts, and even countries to discover best practices for research and learning. Teachers attend national training conferences without leaving their campus. And students gain insight when they discuss their latest reading assignment face to face with students of other cultures. There is measurable evidence that students are using technology for learning more. The district’s annual media fair—a competition for photography, visual arts, graphics arts and animation, presentations, and other projects— used to draw about 600 entries from all grade levels across the district. Within the last three years, the number of entries has skyrocketed. Now, campuses hold their own

media fairs and send only the winners to the district fair, which still gets more than 900 entries. Students are more comfortable creating, displaying, and sharing their work than ever before. More evidence comes in the form of statistics. Irving is the number-one user of streaming video from United Learning, Inc., and the district uses 40 megabytes of the Internet conduit provided by Dallas County—more than any other district in North Texas. Thanks to the LRP recipe, Irving ISD students are learning more and learning faster than ever before. INCREASED STAFF USE Students use technology more because staff use it more. There are no paper records of grades or attendance in Irving ISD. Teachers track student progress, share teaching ideas, and complete administrative tasks all via the district’s extensive intranet. Of course, the most important area of technology use is in the classroom, and here, again, the district shows its muscle. Based on the StarChart state technology assessment, the average teacher in Irving ISD is an advanced user of technology. The district is one of the top K–12 users in the nation of Blackboard—the system most U.S. universities use to offer courses online. And staff use is growing quickly. On average, Blackboard records 140,000 hits per day from district users. That’s up from 14,000 per day last year. Teachers in the district stored and accessed more than 1,200 classes in the first three months of this school year. Last year, they accessed 600 for the entire year. One of the most promising aspects of classroom technology integration is the interdepartmental use of student data. Using a system called Pentamation, the district can track student data for PIEMS, and then use that data for other solutions like food service or facilities planning. But with a new software called EdSoft, teachers in the district are learning to use student data to customize curriculum day-by-day. Eventually, teachers will be able to teach an objective, give a benchmark test, and then choose custom exercises for the next day’s class to address weaknesses revealed in each student’s understanding of the subject matter. From districtwide demographics to student-by-student lessons, technology is allowing Irving ISD teachers and administrators to become more efficient and more effective. STAFF DEVELOPMENT Teachers have to learn before they can teach. The district’s technology planners know that tech-savvy teachers without access to the latest tools are a waste of talent. But teachers who have access to all the latest tools but no skills to use them are a waste of taxpayer money. Both are to be avoided.

New

World Wide Web

Think kids like to be challenged? Ms. Garrison’s science class was given the task of saving the world. Students were told to imagine that overcrowding and pollution were making planet Earth unlivable and that it was up to them to design a planet capable of supporting life. The students researched, designed, and created a model of such a planet using the Internet and online databases. Then they posted a multimedia presentation of their findings on the Planet Pac Web site for other science classes across the nation to study.

Distance Learning To improve the language skills of both middle school and elementary students, seventh and eighth graders from Austin Middle School read books to English as a Second Language classes in kindergarten through third grades at other schools. Each reading was “attended” via distance learning equipment by as many as nine classes at a time. Two other Irving ISD schools used distance learning technology to sharpen their literary prowess with a quiz show. Students from both schools were given the same book to read. Then a classroom of students from each school competed against one another to answer questions about the reading. The winning class enjoyed a pizza party.

Community

Development

When hi-tech tools meet hi-energy students, the outcome benefits can reach far beyond the walls of a classroom. In an effort to serve their community, a team of middle-schoolers created brochures about the stages of child development as a project in health class. The brochures were then printed and distributed to local child care centers where they help parents and providers understand the needs of young bodies and minds.

WINTER 2003 45

Staff development in Irving ISD is moving beyond how to work computer applications towards how to use them in effective teaching. High school teachers are required to undergo 24 hours of training on integrating computers into teaching. The district is the leading user of Voyager instructional technology training in Texas. And every campus in the district has at least two full-time staff members dedicated to making technology work in the classroom. Campus technicians (CTs) keep things running—repairing and installing equipment. Instructional technology specialists (ITSs) help with specifics of technology-integrated teaching, providing just-in-time training for teachers specific to their students’ needs. COMMUNITY NETWORK Students and teachers aren’t the only ingredients in a successful instructional technology recipe. Parents, taxpayers, political leaders, and business partners must buy into the e-learning paradigm. In Irving, that collaboration has been evidenced in the creation of a community Web portal known as Irving.net. Originally funded with a TIF grant, Irving.net has been so successful in combining the efforts of school, city, chamber of commerce, and higher education officials that it recently won a $500,000 continuation grant from the U.S. Department of Education. More than a Web site, Irving.net provides a duallanguage Internet portal for city, school, and business services in Irving. It also provides computer literacy training for Irving residents. It is establishing wireless Internet “hot spots” in local libraries, recreation centers, and apartment complexes. And it has created community sites at storefronts and churches where residents can access online services at no charge. Irving ISD has established partnership agreements with more than 100 local businesses, churches, and civic organizations. One such partner, Nissan Corporation, donated more than 150 used computers to the district. The machines were cleaned and refurbished by high school students and then

INSIGHT

donated to families in the district’s HIPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) Program, which is designed to start children learning at home and make the parent a child’s first and primary teacher. Parents were required to attend computer literacy training, facilitated by the district’s teachers and students, to receive the machines. Every facet of the community holds a stake in the education of tomorrow’s generation—schools, businesses, civic and religious organizations, and the city itself. As Emeril would say, a savory dish is only guaranteed when great care is taken in combining its ingredients. WEB SITE As Irving’s teachers, students, and parents have become more tech-savvy, they’ve also become more Web-savvy, and they are demanding more content and more usefulness from the district’s Web presence. The Technology Department has responded. The district Web site, www.irvingisd.net, has won several awards, including third place among all U.S. education-related Web sites in the 2003 Center for Digital Education Best of the Web Awards; 2001 and 2002 Gold Star Awards from the Texas School Public Relations Association; and a top-notch review from The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board in its column “Sites to Behold.” “A school district has to communicate with several parts of the public, and the Irving site wastes no time or space reaching out to all of its stakeholders,” the editors wrote. “The site does more than just inform, though. For example, it recently was used for community members to sound off on the calendar proposals.” Besides the district’s site, each campus maintains its own Web presence, many of which also are award-winning. Irving High School’s Web site (www.irvinghigh.com) has won a Golden Web Award from the International Association of

Web Masters and Developers. And the Good Elementary Web site (www.irvingisd.net/good) has been recognized by Education World and PC Teach It magazines. Attractive. Informative. Extensive. Interactive. All describe Irving’s district and school Web sites. RECOGNITION Nothing fosters success like a little success. When accolades started rolling in for Irving’s efforts to foster quality hi-tech education, teachers, parents, and IT employees knew their efforts were not in vain. Though there have been dozens of awards and anecdotes of success, two are worthy of mention. In 2002, Irving ISD was named the first Microsoft Center of Excellence in the world. Seven other sites were so recognized later that year. This year, former Irving ISD Executive Director of Technology Jennifer Anderson will co-chair the panel to choose eight more Centers of Excellence. Anderson has been recognized by leaders not only in technology but in education as well. In March, she represented all of America’s K–12 schools on a two-week speaking tour of Japan. Organized by the U.S. State Department, Anderson and a speaker from the U.S. Department of Education were invited to share their insights into e-learning with teachers, professors, ministers of education, and other leaders in the field in every Japanese state. MIX AND LET RISE The contents of a successful, modern education are changing. Added to books and tablets are search engines and tablet computers. Adjoining lecture and literature are multimedia and megabytes. And as the lives for which we educate our children change, educational content and delivery must change.

The ingredients in the recipe for a modern, successful student are many and sometimes hard to mix. The students must think critically—not trusting every source of information like yesterday’s student could trust an encyclopedia. She must think quickly— understanding that customs, communication, ideas, and the very sum of all knowledge changes daily. And she must think progressively—storing wisdom and skills for the career ahead of her. Irving ISD is working hard to include those ingredients in each one of its 31,000 students because district leaders believe in a new paradigm of e-learning, and they believe that Emeril Lagasse is right: to cook great food, you have to have great ingredients.

Jennifer Anderson is former executive director of technology and Ryan Sanders is communications specialist at Irving ISD.

Learn more about Irving ISD’s aggressive

s s e c c u s r o f e p i c re at the

Administrators’ Midwinter Conference on Education. CONCURRENT SESSION: Laptops for Every High School Student: Changing the Locus of Control Tuesday, January 27, 9–10 a.m.

WINTER 2003 47

Performance-Driven Budgeting by Cole Pugh

As educators, we are in a very challenging time. Many Texas school districts face rising expectations at the same time that they are experiencing declining revenues.

We must prepare

our students to pass the more rigorous state accountability test and implement the No Child Left Behind

requirements.

School district costs continue to rise with inflation.

school finance system to increase revenue, with many

Employees expect competitive salaries and annual

districts at or near the $1.50 maintenance and opera-

salary increases.

tions (M & O) tax rate cap. There is a need for significant

Many districts have significant All school districts

new money for public education from the state level.

have dealt with unfunded mandates for many years.

How should we approach the annual budgeting process

There is very little capacity left in the current state

during these challenging times?

Without information on the specific costs of programs and the corresponding outputs or results of monies spent, decision makers are unable to make cost-effective decisions, efficiently direct resources to priority programs, or couple valid organizational objectives with funding allocations.

deferred maintenance needs.

he traditional line-item budgeting approach facilitates accounting but not financial planning. A productive school system is one that gets better over time, independent of changes in the level of resources available to it. The challenge is to improve the productivity of our schools within existing funding or even diminishing funding. School improvement is the result of careful planning, particularly in the use of scarce resources. Taking last year’s budget levels as the baseline and adding an increase for the subsequent years does not facilitate the planning that is necessary to deliver performance on educational priorities, given limited financial resources.

INSIGHT

When budget reductions are necessary, across-the-board cuts—in which all units are assessed the same percentage— may seem to be a fair approach. However, it isn’t really fair; it is just easier. This approach eliminates the need for prioritizing and evaluating. Across-the-board cuts reduce the quality of everything—from your top priority to your lowest priority. Targeted cuts, on the other hand, are harder because

“In a time when there is little or no capacity to generate additional revenue, it becomes prudent to reallocate funds from low-priority areas to higher-priority programs.”

they require priorities and decisions. Many organizations do not have a budget approach that is built around priorities.

a process in which I have six years experience in other Texas school districts.

In 1998, San Angelo ISD had a curriculum management audit conducted through TASA’s Texas Curriculum Management Audit Center. Auditors found that the budgeting process was a typical line-item approach that was dependent on the previous history of expenditures to determine the budget for the following year. The budget planning process was tightly held, and it seldom linked fiscal support to diagnosed or measured needs and priorities of the system. The Curriculum Audit Report contained a recommendation that the budgeting process be redefined in a performance-based approach involving stakeholders in the prioritization process.

The process was initiated with a workshop for district administrators and program supervisors conducted by Bill Poston from Iowa. Performance-driven budgeting is the intellectual property of University Research Associates, Inc. Poston presented an overview of the process and reviewed the advantages.

San Angelo ISD was declared a circling-the-drain (CTD) school district by the Texas Education Agency in May of 2001. Since then district leaders have taken several significant steps to improve the financial status. These include the following: • Increasing the maintenance and operations (M & O) tax rate by 5 cents to $1.50 in the summer of 2002 • Reducing approximately 300 personnel positions • Reducing the Maintenance Department budget by $1 million • Reducing the Administration Building budget by more than $900,000 • Changing from a block schedule to a seven-period day at four secondary campuses District leaders are currently working on the development of a long-range facilities plan that will likely include the closure of some campuses. District enrollment has declined by more than 2,300 students since 1995, and a demographer has predicted that the decline will continue for several more years, but may slow somewhat.

According to Poston, “The purpose of performance-driven budgeting is to distribute scarce resources across schools’ needs and priorities based upon shared values. The process relates what is requested in a budget with what is needed to gain productivity. The vehicle to get it done is a value-based decision-making process laced with consensus techniques that result in programmatic priorities.” Most school district budgets focus on line items related to what is purchased. The budget is not mission related, and there is little connection to the system. Performance-driven budgeting adds several steps to the budgeting process. Connections are established among programs, goals, and objectives. Programs are broken into packages that are costed separately, then rank-ordered. An additional step adds results or performance to the process. Since many school districts do not do an effective job of program evaluation, this phase may take several years to function effectively.

Performance-Based Budgeting Steps

The district offers a 20 percent local optional homestead exemption that lowers revenue by approximately $7 million per year. This exemption makes the “actual” M & O tax rate approximately $1.33.

The first step in the performance-driven budgeting process is to identify district goals, objectives, and priorities. These should become the focus of the budgeting process. A list of district programs should then be established. A typical district might identify 25–40 programs, such as business services, elementary instruction, library/media, transportation, co-curricular athletics, and gifted and talented. Each program is assigned a manager who is responsible for the development of that specific budget.

San Angelo ISD is beginning the implementation of performance-driven budgeting during the 2003–2004 school year,

Each program manager is asked to develop budget packages at various funding levels. The district business office takes WINTER 2003 49

the current line-item budget and establishes program costs. These program costs include all costs related to each specific program. This is the beginning point of planning for the budget for the next school year. Several budget packages are developed at recovery or reallocation levels. In a time when there is little or no capacity to generate additional revenue, it becomes prudent to reallocate funds from low-priority areas to higher-priority programs. We tend to think that in order to fund new initiatives we need additional revenue. When additional revenue is not forthcoming, we may need to reallocate funds within the current budget. When a particular program is funded at less than the 100 percent level (the level of funding in the prior year), the funds realized are reallocated to other programs. Performance-driven budgeting also can show the need for additional revenue when the capacity exists to raise it. The lowest recovery level might be 90 percent. The program manager and those people whom he or she chooses to include in the decision-making process would need to plan how they would offer the program if they received 10

anything differently?” We tend not to conduct this type of analysis on a routine basis. Program managers also are given the option to prepare one or more improvement/expansion budget packages. In this case, they can ask for more funding than they received in the previous year. Program managers are asked to complete a page of information for each budget package or funding level, containing responses to the following requests: 1. Describe program activities and services provided by this package. 2. Describe how activities requested in this package will differ from the previous year’s operation. 3. Describe how the package, if funded, will relate to or support the District Improvement Plan, district goals, and/or program goals. 4. Describe methods/means of assessment of the ends or accomplishments of this package. 5. What organizational results or outcomes will be affected if this package is not funded?

“The board has the authority to change the priority ranking prior to approving the budget. Boards rarely make significant

Program managers are asked to include the employees whom they supervise in the process of developing these budget packages.

changes to the priority list because of all the input that has gone into the ranking process.” percent less funding in the next school year. In most cases this would require a reduction in the number of personnel involved in the program. Due to the fact that 80 percent or more of the typical school budget is devoted to personnel-related costs, personnel units must be considered in the process. At this level of funding, the level of service might have to be reduced. Program managers might be asked to complete additional recovery or reallocation packages at 93 percent, 96 percent, and 98 percent, for example. Another option would be to allow packages within variable amounts, such as 93–95 percent, 96–98 percent, and so forth. Program managers are asked to prepare one budget package at the current or existing (100 percent) funding level. The question to be asked is, “If you received the same level of funding next year as you received this year, would you do 50

INSIGHT

After program managers prepare these budget packages, the packages are presented to a group such as the District Site-Based Decision-Making Committee, which is composed of employees and community members. Students also can be involved in the process. Each program manager is given a few minutes to present his or her budget packages to the committee. Following all the presentations, each committee member and program manager is asked to help rank the budget packages. A process called quintile or Q-sort voting works well. Each budget package is ranked from the highest priority in the district to the lowest. This process can be completed before revenue for the next school year is known. Once revenue is determined, a line is drawn where the money runs out. Those packages above the line are funded, and those below the line are not. Programs are not normally eliminated. Some programs will receive less funding, while others may actually receive increased funding. After the budget is ranked by the committee, it then goes to central administration for review at that level. Central

administrators may modify the ranking before sending it to the superintendent. Program managers are asked to make the same presentation that they made to the budget committee to the board of trustees. The board has the authority to change the priority ranking prior to approving the budget. Boards rarely make significant changes to the priority list because of all the input that has gone into the ranking process. It soon becomes apparent that if one item is moved up above the line, another one will have to be dropped below it. Board members receive an Excel spreadsheet with a great deal of information. It contains the programs ranked in priority order, along with the cost of each program at each funding level. The number of students affected by each program is indicated, along with a cost per student. The number of personnel included in each program also is shown. The total amount of revenue expected is listed at the top of the page. As the cost of each program is listed, it is subtracted from the total. As the board member visually moves down the list of programs, the impact of the cost of each program is apparent.

Advantages of Performance-Driven Budgeting There are several advantages of performance-driven budgeting: • Stakeholder involvement in the budgeting process is increased, both in budget development and prioritization. • The cost of various programs is identified. • There is a program evaluation component in the process. • The process encourages creative thinking. • Programs are prioritized based on the district’s mission and goals. • The impact of various funding levels is shown. • The process allows funds in the existing budget to be reprioritized. This is especially important when significant increases in revenue are not expected. None of us initially welcomes budgeting in hard times. However, nothing helps us determine priorities like less money. Performance-driven budgeting is an effective process when school district leaders are faced with less revenue, the same amount of revenue, or more revenue. A budgeting philosophy that allows for priorities is essential to the efficient operation of a school system.

RESULTS! TANGIBLE ductivity

d pro tudents • improve tives for s c je b o d li d va rces • clear an l of resou o tr n o c d e • increas

The Texas Curriculum Management Audit Center (TCMAC) is one of many powerful services offered by TASA. Curriculum auditing offers a focused approach to increasing student productivity. It is an allencompassing management tool that gives administrators the impetus and means to improve their entire system for designing and delivering the curriculum. TCMAC supports the delivery of curriculum management audits and provides training programs, consultation, and technical support services in Texas. For additional information about TCMAC, please contact TASA’s Professional Development Department, 512-477-6361 or 800-725-8272, or

For more information on performance-driven budgeting, contact Cole Pugh, superintendent, San Angelo ISD, 325-947-3764, cole.pugh@saisd.org; or William K. (Bill) Poston, Jr., University Research Associates, Inc., 515-986-4662, wkp@attglobal.net.

access TASA’s Web site, www.tasanet.org/ services/customized.html.

WINTER 2003 51

Powerful Professional Development for Superintendents! The Lamar University Superintendent Academy by John R. Hoyle

A central Texas superintendent was asked about his experience in the Lamar University Superintendent Academy. His enthusiastic response was, “It is powerful professional development for superintendents. It was the best thing I ever did for in-service training.”

he Academy has been evaluated each year since its inception in 1993 by New York Professor Fran Murphy. Over 10 years of evaluation, the respondents offered the following dramatic data: (1) Their schools improved after attending the Academy: 55 percent of those polled reported that state accountability ratings in their districts had improved within three

years of their attendance at the Academy, 29 percent reported a change from “Acceptable” to “Recognized,” and 68 percent indicated district status went from “Recognized” to “Exemplary”; (2) they rated the impact of the Academy on their job performance as 3.41 on a 4-point scale, 4 being the highest; and (3) they rated the impact of the Academy on their district overall performance as 3.32 on a 4-point scale, 4 being the highest.

So what happens to these school leaders that makes them so positive about the Lamar Superintendent Academy? And how is it different from many other training programs for superintendents? Unlike most other professional development for school superintendents, the Lamar University Academy is a career commitment. Academy alumni members select each new class from recommendations and then the new members’ boards of education are notified about their superintendents’ honor. The new members are invited to seven 3-day programs conducted at the new Lamar Executive

INSIGHT

Leadership Center. Included also is a 5-day session at the IBM training site in Palisades, New York; and a 2-day session in San Antonio, Texas, with participants’ school board members. The superintendents and board members are encouraged to think, prioritize, plan, and change. Other sessions focus on conflict resolution, visioning, electronic decision making, problem solving, and communications. The Academy Electronic Decision Support Center can instantaneously process hundreds of alternatives for problem solving in simulated and actual school districts. In addition, since the Academy is primarily an intensive residential (weekend) program over one full year, participants

“The Academy Electronic Decision Support Center can instantaneously process hundreds of alternatives for problem solving in

simulated and actual

school districts.”

can choose to earn 12 graduate credits from Lamar University. Funding for the Academy includes a grant from the Texas Education Agency, participants’ school districts, and student tuition. As a presenter and evaluator of the Academy, I find three significant themes that make it so revered by former and current participants: 1. Participant CEOs are treated as first-class guests. They are given first-class accommodations; gourmet meals; and plenty of drinks, snack foods, and candies throughout each day.

the success of superintendents and is a popular search consultant for school boards. His careful planning for each Academy session, unique and provocative teaching style, and interpersonal communication skills are obvious to all observers.

2. Academy alumni are involved in planning and offering suggestions to improve training experiences. This network of former participants includes many of the leading superintendents in Texas and other states. Speaking of this network, one superintendent said, “The Academy is almost cult-like in its intensity and impact on all participants.”

The Lamar Superintendent Academy is a benchmark for others planning in-service and university preparation programs. It provides current and aspiring superintendents with key skills and knowledge relevant to success in their demanding roles. National research studies find that superintendents are concerned about the lack of relevancy of many university preparation and professional development programs that fail to provide them with new and practical information to meet current demands and help them succeed. The Lamar Academy is a step in the right direction by using a blend of administrative theory, research, and practice in the professional development of superintendents in Texas.

3. Director Bob Thompson, a former superintendent and current professor at Lamar University, is the prime mover behind the Academy and its 10 years of success. Thompson invests his time and energy in

John R. Hoyle is professor of educational administration at Texas A&M University.

WINTER 2003 53

INSIGHT

From left: Cooper Castleberry Joe McElroy Willie Mae Burley Stanley New Andra Self David Sharp Larry Kegler Not shown: David Perkins

ecause Andra Self, Larry Kegler, Stanley New, Joe McElroy, David Perkins, Cooper Castleberry, and Willie Mae Burley are passionate about the betterment of Lufkin students and staff, the “Why” to nominate the Lufkin ISD Board of Trustees was an effortless choice. With its student-centered approach, our district has transformed from a demeanor of average to one in which excellence is the norm. This new norm has translated in application to a significant gap-closing in minority student performance, district rating change from Acceptable to Recognized, continuous research on what can make us better, unitary status after 30 years of a desegregation court order, and belief that we can excel regardless of the endeavor.

In addition to a student-centered approach, the board’s ability to function as an effective “Team of Eight” was instrumental in our decision for its nomination. Because of the diverse background of the board members, they each bring a unique perspective to problem solving. Although they typically propose different solutions, they are committed to the consensus process. Furthermore, once they obtain a consensus, they stand united. Superintendent David Sharp, in his opening remarks to the School Board Awards Committee, described the depth of this board as a team utilizing a science concept. He began with the analogy that water, which is composed of numerous molecules, appears calm and solid from a

distance, but once any force disturbs those calm molecules, they immediately separate. However, when those same molecules of water are frozen, the molecules become resilient, are dense, and can tolerate pressure. The Lufkin ISD Board represents depth and density of the ice not only in its character but also in its ability to deal with any situation.

“…our district has transformed from a demeanor of average to one in which excellence is the norm.”

The board presents a clear vision that serves as a guiding light for the district and ensures that progress toward the district goals is being monitored. In practice, the board not only projects short-term goals but also thinks critically about future ramifications before making decisions. This approach has circumvented crisis situations and positioned this district in above-average standing financially as well as in academic performance. While the board understands its governance role, it enhances such by communicating continually with the superintendent and administrative staff. The board’s numerous accomplishments, as well, were key factors in our decision for nomination. Under its tenure, many policies beyond state mandates have assisted in positive staff and student morale, such as day care for professionals, standardized dress, and facilities named for important community role models. Educationally, innovative programs WINTER 2003 55

have been supported to provide additional opportunities beyond the base curricula for all students ranging from those in need of compensatory acceleration to those in need of gifted strategies. Some of those programs include the addition of Pre-AP in grades 6–8, which allows for a solid foundation prior to the high school AP curricula; the duallanguage program that produces students with bi-literate competencies; the Texas Teacher Cadet Class, a TEAapproved innovative class that provides teaching exposure to those students interested in the teaching profession; HOSTS, a one-on-one reading program utilizing some 200 mentors from our community; the GEAR-UP program that promotes post-secondary expectations; a full-day three-year-old program, one of the few in our state; and numerous grants for comprehensive reform. Our board set a pattern of excellence in its own code of ethics when it established specific Board Operating Procedures that guide it in addressing any level of concern from parents, students, or staff as well as define how to effectively manage a board meeting. In addition, the board has augmented its monthly board meeting with a finance meeting the Tuesday preceding its Thursday night meeting. This permits quality time for item discussion prior to taking action. Financially, the board has taken actions that stabilize our district through property exchanges, utility bidding, shared service arrangements, and collaboratives with the community on projects for our students. District long-term planning was requested by

INSIGHT

the board in order to determine measures that could be enacted to take us from Acceptable to Recognized. This long-term plan evolved into a strategic plan that guides the district over the next five years in all facets of district management. This planning literally involved parents, students, and a wide spectrum of the community; and representation of every department, campus, and teacher. The board has embedded these guiding objectives in its decision-making process, district plan, and the superintendent’s evaluation. Promoting the district through positive actions and involvement of the community in decision making resulted as well in our choice for the nomination. The board adopted a policy initiating a tri-ethnic committee that serves not only to advise the board regarding our continued accomplishments in unitary status but also provides a diverse perspective of community input. When one has a community that desires involvement, not all decisions are popular. Because this board stands firm, it is able to weather pressure that it receives for unpopular decisions. Its strength to withstand outside pressure by doing what is right for students and staff was as well a deciding factor in its nomination. While the “Why” was an obvious choice, the “How” to relay the board’s team spirit and accomplishments presented a challenge because

“Some of those programs include…the dual-language program that produces students with bi-literate competencies; the Texas Teacher Cadet Class, a TEA-approved innovative class that provides teaching exposure to those students interested in the teaching profession; HOSTS, a one-on-one reading program utilizing some 200 mentors from our community…”

we had never before pursued this type of endeavor. We began, however, by committing ourselves to the project and including our entire district, except for the board, in the process. We agreed to keep the nomination as a surprise. Initially, the administrative staff gathered together and brainstormed specific examples to address the 10 questions in the TASA School Board Awards Program. We then reviewed district scrapbooks for newspaper articles and pictures that specifically depicted those examples. Based upon our findings, a draft layout was proposed with specific pages allocated to each question, including division pages and a table of contents. These articles and pictures were categorized into 10 files that represented the 10 questions. As a team, we each agreed to address a question that fell within our realm of expertise; the respective file with the question and supporting data was then disseminated to the designated staff member. Because our data included numerous newspaper articles, we decided that a bound book format in lieu of a scrapbook was more appropriate; therefore, the secretary began by scanning all selected newspaper articles and pictures. Staggered timelines were

established for question completion. Our final decision was the book cover. Because the board believes that “Students Are Its Business,” we chose to project that theme for our book cover with the entire student population being represented by including one student from each campus on the cover. Being involved in the daily routines of a district, one can lose site of board accomplishments, particularly over a period of two to three years. To take time and actually recall specific accomplishments and how their impact has changed the culture of our district was a valuable activity for us all. While we addressed the 10 questions, we discovered an eleventh one, “Where would Lufkin ISD be today without the diversity, passion, and positive impact of Andra Self, Larry Kegler, Stanley New, Joe McElroy, David Perkins, Cooper Castleberry, and Willie Mae Burley?” While we began this activity respecting our board, we concluded our endeavor by holding it in awe. Brenda Hill is associate superintendent at Lufkin ISD.

• Any Texas superintendent of schools who is a member of TASA and who has been serving in his/her current position since July 1, 2002, other than the TASA president at the time the awards will be made, ng i k n i h T Start 4 may nominate his/her board of trustees by collecting and submitting data supportive of the criteria. 0 0 2 r u o • School boards nominated for the awards program must have served during the school year About Y oard B School rogram immediately preceding the awards program. P • For 2004, only those school boards serving during the 2003–2004 school year are eligible to Awards ! w be nominated. Entry No For further information, including criteria, procedures, timeline, and previous winners, go to www.tasanet.org/awards/school_board.html. WINTER 2003 57

Boerne

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

INSIGHT

Denton

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

Midland

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

Pasadena INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

WINTER 2003 59

Timeframe and Costs for Developing the Educational Program and the Educational Specifications

TASA Facility Planning Services— Helping Districts Meet New Requirements New Commissioner’s Rules, effective January 1, 2004, encourage good planning of new school construction. They strengthen the influence of your district’s instructional program on school planning. School districts are required to develop both an educational program statement and educational specifications for school construction projects. The revised rules, which apply to school construction starting on or after January 1, 2004, state “The school district shall provide the architect or engineer the educational program and educational specifications approved by the board of trustees.” Generally, both documents will be developed based on staff and community input. The documents should reflect the instructional program as identified and defined by the school board and the professional school staff. They also should be sensitive to the wishes and expectations of the community for its schools.

TASA Can Help! TASA Facility Planning Services, featuring professional educational consultants trained and experienced in school planning, can help you in two ways. Our consultants can coordinate the development of the educational program statement and the educational specifications for new construction. The end product will allow your district to meet the new requirements for either the educational program or the educational specifications. Alternatively, TASA consultants can support and guide your staff through the process of developing the needed documents, as defined by the revised rules. If you elect to use consulting help, the approach you choose will depend on administrative time available, and the experience of your district's administrators with educational programming and educational specifications.

INSIGHT

The process of developing the two necessary documents will normally take about 90 to 120 days from start to finish. Procedures can be used to accelerate the time to complete the documents. Substantial community input will generally extend the time needed to complete the educational programming and educational specifications. The costs will vary by school level and school size. Elementary construction projects will take less time than secondary projects, and smaller schools will take less time than larger schools. Accelerated planning processes also will reduce the required time and cost, as would developing both documents in tandem. For a specific quote, please contact the TASA office.

Additional Facility Planning SERVICES • Comprehensive School Facility Studies—offer a thorough study of existing facilities and future building needs • Demographic Analysis and Enrollment Forecasts—offer detailed forecast information needed to proactively plan for the future • Strategic Planning: Educational Specifications and Community Involvement—offer assistance in the development of an overall strategic plan that examines and aligns the building needs of the district • Specialized Facility Planning—offers knowledgeable and thorough planning for developing unique, special-needs facilities

For More INFORMATION For more information or to obtain a cost estimate for any of our Facility Planning Services, contact Paul Whitton, Jr. (PWhitton@TASAnet.org), associate executive director, Administrative Services, 512-477-6361 or 800-725-8272; or Jerry Gideon, project coordinator, 915-223-1113.

theLeader Book Review

From the Texas Leadership Center

The Principal’s Companion (Second Edition) Strategies and Hints to Make the Job Easier by Pam Robbins and Harvey B. Alvy Published by Corwin Press, 2002 ISBN: 0761945156 Reviewed by Jody Westbrook-Youngblood, assistant professor, Texas Woman’s University

he Principal’s Companion: Strategies and Hints to Make the Job Easier is a comprehensive guide to the principalship. It’s a “friendly” book to read and includes citations to the research supporting the authors’ recommendations. Seven sections are included: The Principal’s Role, Critical Skills for Effective Leadership, Honoring the School’s Mission, Working Together to Build a Learning Organization, Keeping the Pipes from Leaking: Adding Meaning to Traditional Practice, Understanding Your Constituencies, and Professional and Personal Issues. Very practical tips will appeal even to the experienced principal who wants to refresh

and refine his or her practice. The section authors assert that a principal can burn out on using faculty meetings as learning oppor- very quickly if he or she does not follow some tunities will generate ideas about how to use practices: taking control of your schedule to this time most productively. New principals care for yourself; developing a personal mission will be well served to focus on the sections statement; gaining perspective by spending that outline the first days of school: logisti- time with students; paying attention to cal concerns, new teacher orientation, and “…reading this chapter was a joy. Easy tips are offered, welcoming students and which in the frantic reality of a principal’s day can still parents to the school. be accomplished.” Rarely noted or discussed in other publications, this book has an excel- physical, physiological, emotional, and psylent chapter called “Effectively Working with chological health; and finally, maintaining the Central Office: Forging Success through institutional and individual balance. Cooperation.” Philosophical issues emerge, such as how to maintain a strong relationship The last chapter in The Principal’s with the central office staff, but, more impor- Companion is “Keeping the Professional tantly, the authors offer eight management Candle Lit.” As a reviewer, I must admit tips that are specific, easy to implement, and my bias regarding the principal’s responsiright on target for maintaining that ever- bility as the “Lead Learner” in his or her important campus and central office rela- organization. Thus, reading this chapter tionship. Two tips are especially important was a joy. Easy tips are offered, which in the and helpful: Keep the district informed by frantic reality of a principal’s day can still be sending weekly memos usually intended for accomplished. Listening to books on tape parents and staff to the central office. It while driving to work, coaching and conferassists their work if they know what is hap- ring with other principals so as not to be so pening on campuses. Another useful tip isolated, and maintaining a portfolio are from this section is to have a hanging file excellent strategies. box on the desk with folders for districtlevel projects. As information comes in, or I recommend The Principal’s Companion as a as ideas are generated, simply drop those in college textbook (which I intend to use in my the appropriate file and, when needed, one own classes), refresher for the experienced doesn’t need to go searching in the tradi- principal, guide for the new principal, and reftional “District” stack or file. erence for those responsible for the professional development of principals. Additionally, Another unusual but enormously important those who supervise principals will find it concept is found in the chapter that empha- useful as they evaluate the effectiveness of sizes the need for taking care of oneself. The principals in school improvement. WINTER 2003 61

l l a s It ’ ut you abod your an ership lead am! te

T E X A S A S S O C I A T I O N O F S C H O O L A D M I N I S T R A T O R S presents

Administrators’ Midwinter Conference on Education January 26–28, 2004 ∞ Austin Convention Center

NEW THIS YEAR! Early Arrivals’ Welcome Reception Sunday, January 25, 5–6:30 p.m., at the new Hilton Austin Hotel, Salon J-K

NEW THIS YEAR!

Registration opens Sunday afternoon 3–6 p.m., Austin Convention Center!

Leader-to-Leader Forums on Critical Issues

General Session Speakers

You’ve listened to the experts and talked in the halls. Here’s

Dawson Orr, Superintendent, Wichita Falls ISD, and TASA President John Horn, Educational Consultant, Retired Superintendent, and TASA Past President Murray Banks, Motivational Speaker, Speak Inc.

your opportunity to react to what you’ve heard! Don’t let your team miss Wednesday’s Leader-to-Leader Forums—led

Scott McCown, Executive Director, Center for Public Policy Priorities Phil Schlechty, CEO, Center for Leadership in School Reform

by practitioners, designed for your input!

Featured Strand: School Finance Where we’ve been, where we want to go, and how we think we’ll get there! This strand of sessions runs throughout the conference featuring topics such as: The Interplay Between the Economy and Texas School Finance The Costs of Education in Texas The Latest and Greatest about School Finance: The Experts Speak Update on School Finance Litigation Exploring Taxing Options and Their Impact on School Finance The Interim School Finance Studies: A Report on the Findings

Administrators’ Midwinter Conference on Education

DON’T MISS IT! 62

INSIGHT

Photo courtesy of the photographic archives of Frank Charles Winstead ADVOCATE FOR EXCELLENCE IN AMERICA’S CLASSROOMS, INC.

NEW THIS YEAR!

WINTER 2003 63

Texas Regional Education Applicant Placement Program An applicant placement system that lets you ✔ Search for teacher and administrator applicants from a bank of 30,000 applicants! ✔ Maintain a paperless human resources department! ✔ Implement a districtwide online applicant rating and management system!

TX REAP lets you create an electronic, password-protected applicant management system that makes identifying and ranking potential candidates as easy as surfing the Web. For more information visit us online at TASAnet.org or call the TASA office today, 512-477-6361 or 800-725-8272.

406 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701-2617

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