If We Build It, They Might Not Come: Better Ways to Distribute Technology Resources in Schools

By Michael Johnson, Ph.D.

Published in NSBA's Technology Leadership News. February, 1998

One of the most frustrating experiences in educational technology is distributing computers and network resources to classrooms/schools only to go back six months later and find many computer screens black and the building network traffic minimal. Having experienced the disappointment of "We built it and they didn't come," many administrators have developed distribution processes that maximize the probability that those hard earned resources will be fully utilized.

District Technology Grants

Having visited over 200 schools across the country, my co-evaluators and I concluded, "Don't waste time and resources on those who aren't interested and committed, get the technology to those who ready, willing and able.≤ (See http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-15/32foa.h15 and http://www.edweek.org/search/ connecting schools.≤) Establishing a grant process does just that because teachers/principals have to ask for it to get it. Many school districts have developed these grant processes and some of the most successful have the following recipe of components and requirements:

1. Start with a District Technology Steering Committee.

This committee:

∑ Has been establish by formal board policy and administrative action with written by-laws and procedures

∑ Is representative of the district and members are elected by their constituents: (teachers, administrators, support personnel, and students)

∑ Spends a good deal of time learning about best practices and uses of technology (Members attend conferences and visits other districts and classrooms)

∑ Develops a mission statement, beliefs, and technology directions for the district

∑ Develops short-term and long term goals for district educational technology

∑ Has members who rotate on the grant reading committee and staggered annually to ensure new ideas and representation

• Has someone (usually the technology director or person who fills that role) who acts as their chief executive officer, coordinator, meeting planner, and leader

2. Develop a grant process that:

∑ Requires that applicants describe: a) how they plan to integrate technology into their classrooms and curriculum, b) how, and very specifically, when, they will do the staff development to learn to use the technology and how to change their instructional practices to effectively utilize it, and c) what specific technology and software are they requesting and how it will be used, and d) how their proposal addresses district and school mission statement, instructional goals, and technology goals

∑ Educates those who go through the process (the written grant guidelines contain information about the effective use of technology and explains the preferences and goals and beliefs of the technology steering committee. Moreover, the grant RFP also contains research information and sources about the technology integration, such as the ACOT research: Apple Computerπs 13 year longitudinal study of technology integration in classrooms across the nation.

∑ Has a follow-up process where someone goes out and meets with unsuccessful grant applicants, educates, and helps them write a successful proposal (how to effectively use and integrate technology (Computers for subject specific drill and practice are NOT considered acceptable proposals. Projects that reference computers as tools and software that is productivity based; such as HyperCard, HyperStudio, ClarisWorks and so forth are given preference)

∑ Requires the principal signature and encourages local school technology committee review and approval

∑ Gives preference to teacher teams where grade level, subject area, or departments work together to write and implement the grant (peer coaching research shows that teams are the most effective learning and change processes)

• Is on-going and the District Technology Committee reviews proposals on a monthly or quarterly basis and those projects that are successful are put into a list for the next projects to receive funding as soon as funding is available. (This is important so that the schools realize that they are all eventually going to get their projects funded and that technology planning and implementation is an on-going process. Without this feature the political games and bickering can start between those schools who got their projects funded and those who didnπt. This gives everybody hope and keeps them focused on the process over time.
• Pays close attention to the computer per student ratios between schools. Equity cannot be ignored and the District Technology Committee needs to encourage, educate, and assist those schools who are behind in acquisition and use of technology. Again, this attention to equity is not based on distributing X number of computers per school or student, but on the principalπs and teachersπ readiness to ask for the technology. Without this attention to equity and assisting those who need to catch up, the political forces of parent groups and school board controversy can for the ineffective and inefficient distribution process based on numbers and not desire and need.

3. Follow-up Process

It is also helpful to have someone go out to the schools and see for themselves how technology is being used. This keeps the building faculty and administration attention focused on integrating the technology. Various methods can be used to focus this attention; such as school day visits by the school board or the district technology committee, open house parent nights that highlight technology, or student technology demonstrations at science fairs or in local shopping malls and businesses. Being able to show what they have done is also a much needed recognition process for the teachers and students and especially for teachers to share their expertise in a professional level. Some districts even establish teacher visitation programs where teachers can go visit another teacherπs classroom to see first hand how to successfully integrate technology.

4. Different Kinds of Proposal Processes

Many districts have also found that this same proposal procedure also works for other processes or to emphasize other aspects of the districtπs technology program and goals. For example, this RFP process work extremely well in helping the district technology and administrative staff decide which schools are going to get networked first. The RFP process is basically the same, the only difference is that the grant proposal asks them to describe how they would implement the new network and integrate it into their instructional practices.

Another process that works is the Migration Plan. In this process a teacher who has already implemented technology in their classroom can get a new computer system, if she or he can come up with another teacher partner who has not implemented technology. In this process the technology experienced teacher agrees to give their old technology to the novice teacher and train him/her on how to use and integrate it. The novice teacher has to agree to accept and use the technology and the team has to give specific plans for how and when this training will occur. In this way you maintain the enthusiasm of the teachers who have made the effort to learn and use technology in that they get new equipment. You also spread the use of technology further in the building and insure better use as the teachers train each other in the process.

Many districts have set the goal to have a networked computer (with Internet and library connection) in every classroom. Funding for this kind of goal does not usually come in a single year. Using this grant proposal process provides a logical and fair process to determine who gets the technology first and insures a better probability of success so that administrators are not left trying to explain why they networked a school and the computers and network are not being used effectively or much at all. It also increases the probability that teachers and students will using technology as an effective tool in the learning process.