Information Technology Leadership in Education:

An Alberta Needs Assessment

Research & Writing Team

Chair and Lead Author: Maurice Hollingsworth

Analysis of Post-Secondary Programs: Rick Mrazek

Survey Profile Development: Marlo Steed

Editing/Proofing: Gary Spence

Content Review: Peter Balding, John Percevault, Marlo Steed, Gary Spence

IT Leadership Steering Committee (Alphabetically):

Name / Organization
Peter Balding, Division Technology Administrator / Black Gold Regional Division
Dale Burnett, Professor, Faculty of Education / University of Lethbridge
Maurice Hollingsworth, Director of Information Technology / Palliser Regional Schools
Rick Mrazek, Assistant Dean, Graduate Studies and Research, Faculty of Education / University of Lethbridge
John Percevault, Director of Technology and Communication / Grande Yellowhead Regional Division
Gary Spence, Assistant Superintendent / Wolf Creek School Division
Marlo Steed, Professor, Faculty of Education / University of Lethbridge

Focus Group Participants

30 JTC Members attending the May 2004 Jurisdictional Technology Coordinator’s Meeting, Edmonton, AlbertaTable of Contents

Definition of Termsvi

Executive Summaryvii

Introduction and Literature Review

A Global Perspective1

Educational Technology Standards for School Administrators4

A Provincial Context5

Need for a Strategic I.T. Leadership Direction5

Methodology

Survey Development7

Survey Implementation8

Focus Groups8

Results

Survey Response Rates10

District Level I.T. Leadership Survey Responses10

Today’s District IT Leaders: District IT

Leader Demographics11

Tomorrow’s District IT Leaders: Survey Description

of District IT Leader Needs & Direction18

Focus Group Triangulation Results22

School Level I.T. Leadership Survey Responses23

Today’s School IT Leaders: School Administrator Demographics 23

Tomorrow’s School IT Leaders: Survey Description

of IT Leader Needs and Direction27

Discussion

District IT Leaders30

School IT Leaders32

Summary33

Analysis of Post-Secondary Program Offerings34

Recommendations38

References46

Appendix A(i): District I.T. Leadership Needs Assessment Survey – Part 150

Appendix A(ii): School I.T. Leadership Needs Assessment Survey – Part 256

Appendix B: Total Information Technology Skills62

Appendix C: Results from I.T. Leadership Survey Questions – Part 163

Appendix D: Results from I.T. Leadership Survey Questions – Part 267

Appendix E: Canadian Educational Technology Programs

Appendix F: USA Educational Technology Programs

Appendix G: USA Educational Technology Leadership Programs
Definition of Terms

Information Technology (I.T.) and

Information Communications Technology (ICT)

The terms I.T. (information technology) and ICT (information communications technology) are largely used interchangeably within this document, recognizing a scope of knowledge required on behalf of leaders to meet the outcomes of curricular integration, administrative services, and curricular delivery. The scope of this knowledge includes leadership, educational, and technical knowledge.

The use of the term ICT and ICTs is used in a more general sense and is not to be confused with the specific Information and Communication Technology K-12 Program of Studies, sometimes referred to as the ‘ICT Outcomes’ as developed by Alberta Learning. References to the provincial program of studies will use specifically reference the K-12 program of studies.

Education Technology (ET)

Education Technology (ET) refers to a less technical understanding of information technologies, with more focus on the educational outcomes desired from the use of information technologies.

School I.T. Leader

The term School I.T. Leader is used synonymously with the term school administrator (principal or vice-principal). A rationale for this terminology is provided within the paper.

District I.T. Leader

An individual tasked with the responsibility of I.T., E.T. or both across a school district.

I.T. Leadership

The act of meeting the school district’s mission through effective implementation and use of information technologies. Leadership speaks to maintaining a strategic view. All I.T. projects, programs, and processes will reflect the organization’s mission through effective leadership.

Leadership is differentiated from management. Management ensures that various projects are met within the resource allocation, budget and timeline. However, management does not tend to maintain a strategic vision. Good leadership will incorporate good management, but not necessarily vice-versa.

Executive Summary

Education systems around the world are under increasing pressure to use information and communication technologies as part of the educational process. Not only does the implementation of new technologies have radical implications on conventional learning and teaching (Resta, 2002), leadership within the area of information technology is slowly becoming a focal point in addressing both new technologies and the associated change.

Both the Consortium for School Networking (2004) and Thomas (1998) find that although the demands for appropriate integration of information technologies into curricular settings have increased, there remains a paucity of leadership within this domain. Yee (2000), similarly, finds that there is limited information about the relation between educational leadership and ICT in education.

This current research was born out of recognition that a significant need exists, specifically within the Province of Alberta, to ensure that strong information technology leadership in education is prevalent. Alberta’s K-12 education sector spends more than $120 million annually in the area of ICT resources, yet leadership within this domain has, to date, scarcely been addressed. The present research a) provides a baseline understanding of current leadership in the ICT domain at both district and school levels, b) identifies, via current educational leaders, core knowledge, skills, and attributes (ksa’s) of ICT educational leaders at both the school and district levels, c) reviews information technology leadership programs in Alberta and elsewhere, and d) makes recommendations for future actions.

A province-wide Needs Assessment Survey was conducted, consisting of two-parts: one part focusing on district-level I.T. Leadership and the second part focusing on school-level I.T. Leadership. The survey was submitted to all Alberta Superintendents, District IT Leaders and School administrators. In addition to demographic information collection, the survey presented a series of items asking whether given ksa’s were important for district or school-level I.T. leaders. The series of items were largely constructed using technology standards from the Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) Collaborative. The TSSA Collaborative have very effectively addressed guiding standards for leaders at both district and school levels in educational I.T. leadership

Results from the provincial survey show a significant variance across personnel currently fulfilling the role of District IT Leader whether examining educational background, experience, responsibilities, depth of knowledge of I.T., or depth of knowledge of ICT integration. Such variance doesn’t exist at the school IT leader level (school administrator), although there does appear to be a lack of clarity regarding the role of ICT leadership. While some school administrators have a clear vision of the role of ICT in the curricula and as a learning tool for students, others question ICT’s place relative to other priorities and view it is an ‘add-on’.

Almost universally, survey results suggest that there is strong agreement with each of the ksa’s presented as important to effectively fulfill the role of either District I.T. Leader or for School I.T. leader.

A series of recommendations and the associated rationale for each springs from these findings. The recommendations are:

  1. Formalize, recognize and adopt the knowledge, skills, and attributes from this research as expectations of District I.T. Leaders.
  1. Formalize and recognize the knowledge, skills and attributes from this research as expectations of School I.T. Leaders.
  1. It is recommended that Alberta Learning develop a role description for District IT Leaders at the executive district level. Further, it is recommended that the position be funded directly by Alberta Learning, rather than requiring districts to allocate from the instructional pool to accommodate the position.
  1. Provide seed money for post-secondary institutions to develop and implement I.T. Leadership programs to meet both immediate needs of current District and School level IT leaders and to establish a capacity of I.T. leadership over the longer term to accommodate succession planning.

5. Provide a breadth of learning opportunities for personnel currently filling the role of District IT Leader and School IT Leader.

6. Review and align resource requirements; in terms of time, money, technical resources and training; to support integration of information and communications technology into the curriculum.

7. Develop a professional organization to represent and support District I.T. Leaders.

1

Introduction and Literature Review

A Global Perspective

Leadership in the education field related to instructional technology has never before been in such high demand. Resta (2002) points out that educational systems around the world are under increasing pressure to use new information and communication technologies (ICTs) to teach students the knowledge and skills they need in the 21st century. He further shares the 1998 UNESCO World Education Report, Teachers and Teaching in a Changing World, which suggests the new information and communication technologies will have radical implications on conventional teaching and learning. Transformations of the teaching- learning process are predicted and the way teachers and learners gain access to knowledge and information is expected to change (p. 10).

The UNESCO document Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher Education: A Planning Guide highlights the role ICTs play in shaping the new global economy and subsequent rapid changes across society, independent of industry or field. Policy-makers, business leaders and educators are increasingly aware that the current educational system, while best-designed for agrarian or industrial-based economies, fails to meet the needs of students in the 21st century, preparing for a knowledge-based economy and society.

As shared in UNESCO’s planning guide,

The new knowledge-based global society is one in which:

• the world’s knowledge base doubles every 2–3 years;

• 7,000 scientific and technical articles are published each day;

• data sent from satellites orbiting the earth transmit enough data to fill

19 million volumes every two weeks;

• graduates of secondary schools in industrialized nations have been

exposed to more information than their grandparents were in a lifetime;

• there will be as much change in the next three decades as there was in

the last three centuries (National School Board Association, 2002).

(pp. 14-15)

Costello (1997) noted that the question is no longer whether students will use technology, but rather whether educators will have a role in directing student’s use of technology. There is a growing expectation that students must achieve a level of technological fluency to function effectively in society and that schools have a responsibility to integrate technology to this end (Stephenson, 2004a). Thomas (1998) states that every national poll recently indicates that parents and business leaders want schools and students to increase their use of technology and further that significant investment has been made in educational technologies in pre-college settings.

However, in spite of rapid changes in the new knowledge-based global society and associated educational expectations, there remains a tardiness in addressing the need for leadership in the educational technology domain. Shuldman (2004) makes the keen observation, “There is a growing consensus that administrative support and leadership are successful to implementation of instructional technologies, and that the importance of this administrative support is often understated.” Even so, technology leadership is far from achieving capacity. The April, 1997 issue of The School Administrator further highlights the paucity of technology leadership in it’s issue’s title, “Building Technology Leadership: The Missing Link”.

Thomas (1998), as part of two surveys exploring superintendent and principal’s knowledge and preparedness for using information technologies in their educational systems and schools, finds a disconnect between the expectations on use of information technology and the capability of school leadership. His synopsis of the current status states:

The people who make decisions about policies and finances in schools have little or no training in educational technology and few resources to make informed decisions. School administrators do not appear to be prepared for their emerging role in technology, and their lack of understanding and resources sometimes creates barriers to change and improvement. There is no strong link between school leadership and educational technology. (p. 3)

Within his research of member boards of the Southern Regional Board of Education, in the South-East USA, Thomas indicates that while superintendents have increased their use of technology tools, they generally lack the comprehensive perspective necessary to provide strong leadership in this domain. Although, generally superintendents involve committees of educators, parents, business partners and community members in planning and setting direction, these committees can only support strong leadership in educational technology, not supplant it.

His commentary on district-level technology advisers also suggests a gap in the needed knowledge base:

Many technology directors in school districts are competent and hard-working individuals; their personal qualifications are not the issue. Rather the issue is the range of technology topics and issues in which they are trained and in which they are called upon to be ‘experts’ at any one time. (p. 5)

Similarly, Thomas observes that while school administrators are increasingly utilizing technology tools, there is a gap related to their knowledge of technology issues and topics. He suggests universities and colleges are largely failing to incorporate technology training into educational administration programs.

Yee (2000), in a study of school principal’s ICT leadership, notes that while there is research exploring ICT as a learning tool and as a tool for educational change, there is very limited information about the relation between educational leadership and ICT in education. This lack of underlying research information could well lend to an abeyance of instruction within academic educational communities.

Given social changes and expectations that educators integrate ICTs into the curricula, some authors are beginning to explore the nature of leadership within the information technology area in times of such change. Fullan (2001) writes extensively about providing leadership in times of change and complexity. Although he does not directly address ICT in education in his work, he does provide a model with relevance to educational leaders striving to meet the ICT needs of students. His model incorporates five essential elements: a) leading with a sense of moral purpose, b) understanding the change process, c) knowledge of building relationships within diverse groups, d) knowledge creation and sharing as a social process, and e) coherence making.

Other authors and associations are focusing on leadership in the ICT arena. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), recognizing the key role of IT Leadership, provided this focus across three articles in the spring 2004 (Stephenson, 2004a; Stephenson, 2004b; Stephenson, 2004c) each exploring the role of leadership from the perspective of different ISTE leaders. The articles include Finding and Growing Leaders, Leading through Advocacy, and Leadership as Service.

At a pragmatic level, Hall (2003) proffers sound advice to district ICT leaders across three articles: Power Strategy Toolkit -- Part 1: Managing the Vision, Part 2: Managing the Performance, and Part 3: Managing the Operations. In a similar pragmatic vein, Yee (1999) offers over a dozen pointers for school administrators and a handful of suggestions for school district administrators in leading ICT integration.

Recent studies by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) also underline the important role of district technology leadership. In a March, 2004 survey of 455 school district decision-makers, the authors found that school districts with strong district technology leadership tended to invest more significantly in technologies whereas districts with little or no ICT leadership invested much less. The study suggests the resulting disparity between ICT services for students in districts with high levels of ICT leadership versus low levels of leadership is cause for concern, indicates the authors. Interestingly, districts with high levels of ICT leadership also cite greater involvement of the school board, classroom teachers, and parents in ICT decisions.

The authors call for visionary district technology leaders and recommend investing in technology leadership through the creation of full-time chief technology officer positions who are deeply involved in district leadership and work as senior members of the superintendent’s team of key advisor’s to infuse technology into district educational vision, goals and strategies.

One of the most comprehensive undertakings in bringing meaning to the area of leadership for ICT in education is the work of the Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) Collaborative.

Educational Technology Standards for Administrators

The Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) Collaborative facilitated the development of a U.S. national consensus on what K – 12 administrators should both know and be able to implement to optimize the effective use of technology in schools.

This broad group of educational leaders consisted of representation from the following organizations:

  • American Association of School Administrators
/
  • National Association of Secondary School Principals

  • National Association of Elementary School Principals
/
  • National School Boards Association

  • Association of Educational Service Agencies
/
  • International Society for Technology in Education

  • Consortium for School Networking
/
  • North Central Regional Educational Laboratory,

  • Southern Regional Education Board
/
  • Kentucky State Department of Education

  • Mississippi State Department of Education
/
  • Principal’s Executive Program – U. of North Carolina

  • the College of Education – Western Michigan University.

The Collaborative sought to recognize the key role of administrators in ICT leadership. Development of the document was based upon a process of national consensus across the United States identifying what administrators should know and be able to do to optimize effective use of technology. Three broad roles were identified with the necessary fundamental knowledge and skills identified as standards for each of the roles. These roles include a) superintendent and executive cabinet, b) district-level leaders for content specific or other district programs, and c) school-level leaders, including principals and vice-principals. Broad standards areas were established as core performance indicators, then each standard area was further refined to highlight role-specific technology leadership tasks for each of the three leadership roles.