Visions and Decisions
The school board's role in implementing technology
By Donald C. Wold and Richard E. Windsor
School technology is everyone's business -- not just the technology coordinator's.
Many individuals, including board members, are responsible for integrating
technology into the classroom. In fact, with its central role in philosophy,
policy, curriculum, personnel, and finance, the school board plays a key
part in bringing new technology to students and staff.
That was the case in Community Unit School District No. 201, in Westmont,
Ill., in the summer of 1996, when our 1,600-student district put a new technology
plan into action. The school board was involved and supportive throughout
the process and remains so today. We believe the steps our board followed
can be instructive to any school board that is launching a major technology
project.
The first responsibility of the school board was to establish the vision
for the technology project. In concert with the superintendent, the board
determined and articulated a need for new technology and charted a direction
for change. That vision then became a clearly worded mission statement.
Just as mission statements relating to curriculum, personnel, or finance
drive decisions in those areas, the technology mission statement should
drive subsequent steps in developing and implementing a district technology
plan.
Normally, a school board will call on the expertise of staff or administration
to write the mission statement, and that's what our board did. The statement
should be broadly written but should lead to a list of goals that address
the specific parameters of the project, such as the desired equipment and
system and objectives for staff training. (See the sidebar
for our technology mission statement and goals.)
How much the project will cost depends on its scope, which should become
clear to the school board during the process of developing the mission and
goal statements. We found that, at this juncture, the best way for the board
to get a realistic cost estimate for the project was with the help of a
technology consultant. After checking with local school districts and businesses
and interviewing a number of possible consultants, we entered into an ongoing
relationship with consultants whose experience and expertise fit our district's
needs.
The next step for the board was to decide how to finance the undertaking.
If your board is facing this question, you have a number of options: Will
a bond issue be necessary? Will funds need to be taken from reserves? Can
next year's budget handle the new expenditures? Will PTOs and other parent
or community organizations be willing to help fund the new venture? In our
case, the answer was a $2.2 million bond issue to cover hardware, software,
and training. The board was not required to go to the voters for the money;
instead, it passed a board resolution, which voters could have petitioned
to stop. There was no opposition.
Planning and purchasing
After determining costs and funding, the school board's next responsibility
is to provide support for districtwide technology committees whose task
is to recommend to the school board hardware and software purchases. Before
making any recommendation, however, the committees should do a complete
inventory of existing technology equipment. If the district already employs
a technology coordinator, that person may make recommendations for wiring,
network system hardware, and software.
If the district has not yet selected a technology coordinator, a central
office administrator can help the board make many of these decisions --
especially decisions about major purchases. In our district, the assistant
superintendent worked closely with the technology team and paid consultants
to develop recommendations for needed equipment. The school board then reviewed
the recommendations before making decisions about purchasing.
The school board might also ask for a time line that attaches dates to
each technology task and event, such as when all the wiring will be completed,
or when all the computers will be purchased. It's a good idea to order equipment
and wiring in time for installation to be completed by the beginning of
the school year.
Other crucial decisions have to do with teacher training. What kind of
training will be provided, and who will deliver it? Will the board help
finance personal computer purchases for teachers? In our district, a number
of teachers were already enthusiastic computer users, and many of them --
along with personnel from local colleges and universities -- formed our
cadre of trainers.
When it is time to make large purchases, the board should be prepared
to approve bids for wiring and equipment. In Illinois, the school code provides
an exception to competitive bidding for "purchases and contracts for
the use, purchase, delivery, movement, or installation of data processing
equipment, software, or services and telecommunications and interconnect
equipment, software, and services." Nevertheless, our school board
felt ethically bound to select the lowest qualified bidder, with one important
qualification being the vendor's ability to offer support for the products
or services provided. The school board consulted the board attorney to help
with the legally complex process of competitive bidding.
Throughout this period, it's important that everyone involved -- especially
administrators -- work to build support for the project within the school
community. The superintendent and principals need to champion the new vision
and its goals by encouraging enthusiasm among staff, parents, and students
for the soon-to-arrive technology. Even if nothing specific has been decided
about the kind of equipment or software to be purchased, the anticipation
of new technology is generally enough to get the ball rolling. This in turn
should foster general support for the project and encourage staff members
to participate in technology committees.
Policies and personnel
The school board should be prepared to enact policy related to various
aspects of the technology project. Negative publicity about students misusing
the Internet or electronic mail will probably prompt parents, board members,
or staff members to suggest an acceptable-use policy that covers these two
areas. The focus of such a policy should coincide with the educational mission
of the district, and the policy itself should address concerns about the
use and misuse of these information and communication tools. The policy
needs to stipulate the responsibilities students have when they are granted
e-mail and Internet privileges. Consequences for violating the policy should
also be clearly spelled out.
With a carefully worded policy, you shouldn't need to use Internet filtering
software. In our district, we instruct students about their rights and responsibilities
and ask them to sign off on a list of unacceptable uses of the computer.
We have had very few problems as a result. (Sample acceptable-use policies
are available in the Education
Leadership Toolkit, an online resource for school board members developed
by the National School Boards Association.)
As for personnel, the school board is likely to receive a recommendation
from the superintendent for additional staff. In our district, the recommendation
was for three levels of technology personnel: a districtwide technology
coordinator, a network administrator, and building-level technology facilitators.
The board approved the recommendation.
Our technology coordinator is responsible for budgeting, selecting software,
and coordinating teacher training across the district. Our network administrator
is charged with maintaining the network as well as repairing and configuring
individual computers. Building facilitators work with staff and students
on a daily basis and maintain a building-level technology inventory. When
a teacher says, "I can't figure out how to make my computer print to
my printer," it's the building facilitator who helps. Facilitators
are also responsible for proposing the annual technology budget for their
individual school building. Keep in mind that the building-level facilitator
might need to be only a part-time position. Providing a computer-savvy teacher
with a few hours of released time might be adequate.
A school board that champions education technology might understandably
be tempted to become intricately involved in its implementation. But leaving
implementation details to a district technology team or to technology personnel
is probably best. Through such delegation, the school board maintains its
appropriate role as the body that makes policy, approves financial expenditures,
and appoints top school personnel. And at the same time, the board empowers
district professionals, thereby increasing their commitment to the technology
project and their personal investment in it.
But the school board has one final responsibility in implementing a technology
plan, and that is the ongoing evaluation of the plan. Evaluation is codified
in our district's goal statements. On a regular basis, the board must ask
such questions as these: Based on all available information, is the district's
technology mission statement being implemented? Are time tables being met?
If not, why not? Is the staff involved on committees? If something goes
wrong, such as a major system failure, how do we find out what happened?
And what will be done to guard against the same thing happening again?
Gathering the information to answer these questions need not be difficult.
In fact, it's possible to do so and demonstrate board support for the staff's
efforts at the same time. Our solution is to hold a board meeting at a local
school, where a realistic on-site demonstration shows what progress is being
made toward meeting the district's technology mission and fulfilling its
technology plan.
When a school board makes a commitment to technology, it sends a strong
message to students, staff, and community. By making this commitment, the
board is altering significantly how the schools will be run, how teachers
will teach, and how students will learn. Developing an effective technology
program for a school district requires bold leadership by both the superintendent
and the school board. When all the right pieces are in place, the results
can be gratifying for everyone.
Donald
C. Wold is superintendent, and Richard
E. Windsor is assistant superintendent, of Community Unit School District
No. 201, Westmont, Ill.
| 
