• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

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

Focus Group Participants

30 JTC Members attending the May 2004 Jurisdictional Technology Coordinator’s Meeting, Edmonton, Alberta

ii Table of Contents

Definition of Terms vi

Executive Summary vii

Introduction and Literature Review A Global Perspective 1 Educational Technology Standards for School Administrators 4 A Provincial Context 5 Need for a Strategic I.T. Leadership Direction 5

Methodology Survey Development 7 Survey Implementation 8 Focus Groups 8

Results Survey Response Rates 10 District Level I.T. Leadership Survey Responses 10 Today’s District IT Leaders: District IT Leader Demographics 11 Tomorrow’s District IT Leaders: Survey Description of District IT Leader Needs & Direction 18 Focus Group Triangulation Results 22 School Level I.T. Leadership Survey Responses 23 Today’s School IT Leaders: School Administrator Demographics 23 Tomorrow’s School IT Leaders: Survey Description of IT Leader Needs and Direction 27

Discussion District IT Leaders 30 School IT Leaders 32 Summary 33 Analysis of Post-Secondary Program Offerings 34 Recommendations 38

References 46

iii Appendix A(i) : District I.T. Leadership Needs Assessment Survey – Part 1 50 Appendix A(ii): School I.T. Leadership Needs Assessment Survey – Part 2 56 Appendix B: Total Information Technology Skills 62 Appendix C: Results from I.T. Leadership Survey Questions – Part 1 63 Appendix D: Results from I.T. Leadership Survey Questions – Part 2 67 Appendix E: Canadian Educational Technology Programs Appendix F: USA Educational Technology Programs Appendix G: USA Educational Technology Leadership Programs

iv 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.

v 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’.

vi 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.

2. Formalize and recognize the knowledge, skills and attributes from this research as expectations of School I.T. Leaders.

3. 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.

4. 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.

vii 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.

1 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. 2 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.

3 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  National Association of Secondary Administrators School Principals  National Association of Elementary  National School Boards Association School Principals  Association of Educational Service  International Society for Agencies 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  Principal’s Executive Program – U. Education 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.

A focus in this collaborative endeavor was the recognition that a) implementing technology involves large-scale systemic reform and b) leadership plays a key role is successful reform within education.

The standards for administrators are defined across six categories within the TSSA document: 1) Leadership and Vision 2) Learning and Teaching 3) Productivity and Professional Practice 4) Support, Management, and Operations 5) Assessment and Evaluation 6) Social, Legal and Ethical Issues 4 A Provincial Context

Initiatives The province of Alberta has expended significant energy in building I.T. infrastructure, resources and services over the past several years, in the interest of preparing students for an information age economy. Initiatives have focused on providing a level of I.T. access for students and educators, offering a curricular focus, providing reference material and furnishing building blocks for the future.

These initiatives include:  Alberta Supernet  Technology Standards and Solutions  LearnAlberta.ca  Information and Communications Program of Studies  K-12 Teaching Quality Standard  Telus2Learn project  Multiple Best Practice documents  Advisory Council formation including: School Technology Advisory Council (STAC), Technology Advisory Group (TAG), Post-Secondary Institution Technology Advisory Group (PSI TAG)

Investment in Information Technologies within the province of Alberta is ongoing. For example, the Alberta Supernet will cost the province nearly two hundred million dollars. Approximations suggest school districts invest over one hundred million per annum in hardware, software, infrastructure, and staffing. Given the investment in information technologies, the provincial initiatives, and needs at the school and district levels; assessing leadership needs in this area is required.

Need for a Strategic I.T. Leadership Direction While investment has occurred in I.T. resources, not unlike other parts of North America, less attention has been given to the need for leadership of I.T. within district and school environments. Certainly investments such as SATIR (School Administrators’ Technology Integration Resource) and the Telus2Learn/Telus2Lead project provide educational leaders access to some leadership resources. However, there remains a need for a more active stance in meeting both immediate and future I.T. Leadership needs at both the school and district levels.

While some districts have benefited from early entry and consequent evolution of I.T. Leadership for that district, other districts have been later entrants. Some of the late entrants relied on technical staff to provide the leadership role. Other late entrants have used educational leaders with no background in technologies. In both cases this can yield outcomes which are less than desired. With some frequency this has resulted in polarization between technical and educational personnel, funds wasted as districts invest 5 limited dollars in non-standard approaches and expensive outsourcing, and, finally, failure to meet educational goals.

For districts with a level of success in this domain, the future may be more challenging. Over the course of the next half decade many of the current lead district I.T. leaders will reach retirement. Complex I.T. systems have developed under these leaders. Management of staff, educational direction, professional development, and business acumen has evolved through their leadership. Yet, there is little planning for the transition. There is no formalized I.T. leadership program available in Alberta to address this need and little opportunity is available in Western Canada to meet the lead position taken with regard to I.T. in education as found in Alberta.

At the school level, I.T. leadership has also been somewhat mixed. Some schools have benefited from strong leaders who understand the ICT curricula, recognize the role of I.T. in educational change, and are able to articulate this into a meaningful implementation of in the ICT curricula into their school. Other school leaders lack the vision or understanding of I.T.’s role in education. Such administrators delegate ‘I.T.’ to someone on staff with technical knowledge, provide a perfunctory approach to ICT integration, or provide a poorly articulated direction for staff.

As well, there appears to be a gap between post-secondary and K-12 educational environments, with each suggesting the other lacks sufficient focus in I.T. integration. While K-12 educators suggest that post-secondary institutions fail to provide sufficient preparation for preservice teachers in the I.T. in education domain, post-secondary institutions relate that K-12 educational institutions fail to provide practicum student field experiences that build upon the ICT knowledge and skills taught.

Although mandated, implementation of the ICT Curricula remains somewhat haphazard. Given no accountability within this domain, as exists within other subject areas, there is a wide degree of variance of implementation across the province, across districts and across schools. Without adequate leadership and professional development at university, district and school levels, effective utilization of significant electronic educational resources will be lacking.

Given a lack of strategic I.T. Leadership direction, the current research undertaking attempts to provide a foundation of knowledge in the I.T. Leadership domain – answering, where are we today and what are the I.T. Leadership needs in Alberta?

6 Methodology

The current study attempts to answer the above questions by building on existing knowledge, surveying current leaders to ascertain existing I.T. leadership capacity, understand current I.T. leader needs, and provide direction in building future I.T. leadership capacity. Additionally, focus groups served as a vehicle for triangulating and extending the understandings gained through the survey process.

Survey Development

The Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) was recognized as a leading document in identifying important knowledge, skills and attributes (ksa’s) for educational leaders addressing the ICT domain. This document served as a core referent and building block in the development of a portfolio of knowledge, skills and attributes (ksa’s) that were recognized as important characteristics for ICT leadership in Alberta. The portfolio of ksa’s was developed for both a district level I.T. leader and a school level I.C.T. leader. Once each portfolio was developed, an I.T. Leadership Needs Assessment survey was formed using these underlying ksa’s served as the basis for development.

The Technology Standards for School Administrators document was developed as a collaborative endeavor by a breadth of stakeholders across the United States in recognition “that administrators play a pivotal role in determining how well technology is used in schools.” Further, the authors recognize that comprehensive implementations of technology encompass large-scale systemic reform, requiring strong leadership in enhancing learning and school operations.

The current study, developed against a backdrop of the TSSA document, concentrates upon both district level (with a specific focus on district I.T. leaders) and school level I.T. leadership. Although a few discussions were held at the Superintendency level via one meeting with a zone of the College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS) , these outcomes are not included in the current document, as they were both preliminary and not fully representative of all provincial CASS regions.

The TSSA document, serving as a solid building block, was massaged, shaped and extended to address specific needs within Alberta and to focus upon I.T. leadership within an Albertan context. An initial draft of an ideal candidate was prepared for both district-level and school-level I.T. leadership. This district level ideal candidate description was further reviewed and refined by four district I.T. leaders. Similarly, the school level ideal candidate description was reviewed and further honed by three school administrators from various school districts.

These ideal candidate descriptions then served as the basis for creating two surveys: one survey to gather an understanding of the important knowledge, skills, attributes, and needs of district I.T. leaders and a second to better understand the same for school level 7 I.T. leaders. Part 1 of the survey, the district-level survey is shown in Appendix A(i). Part 2 of the survey, the school-level survey is shown in Appendix A(ii).

Two main sections were used in each survey: a demographics section and a leadership ksa section. The demographics section gathered standard demographic information (e.g. gender, education, age) and also gathered information on educational needs. District I.T. Leaders were asked to indicate their knowledge of core technology areas.

The leadership ksa section used the six areas of leadership defined within the ideal candidate profile and included two additional categories for District I.T. Leaders: ‘Knowledge of Problem Solving and Information Technologies’ and ‘Organizational Relations and Communications.’ A five point Lickert scale, from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, was used with each question for respondents to rate the ksa’s value to the respective I.T. Leader.

Survey Implementation Once the two surveys were in complete draft form, these were forwarded for approval to the University of Lethbridge Faculty of Education Human Subject Research Ethics Review Committee. The final draft of the surveys were both placed into a web format by an outside contractor (Eveleigh Computing Solutions) for data collection. Complete testing of the web interface, survey authorization, and data collection procedures were then conducted by Eveleigh Computing Solutions, members of the I.T. Leadership Steering Committee, as well as another contractor in the interest of thoroughness.

Superintendents of Schools were informed of the forthcoming survey process via traditional mail and invited to participate. All eligible survey participants, namely superintendents, district I.T. leaders and school principals or vice-principals, were invited to participate via e-mail, first in the District IT Leadership Survey, then three weeks later in the School IT Leadership Survey. District I.T. Leaders were identified based upon submissions to Alberta Learning by school districts, indicating the names of a) a technical I.T. leader contact and b) an educational IT leader contact.

Survey tracking routines provided ongoing feedback on district participation levels, resulting in one or two reminders for each group. A closing date was identified for the web survey submissions. Further survey submissions were refused after this date and data was then analyzed.

Focus Groups Following preliminary analysis of survey data, focus group meetings were held to triangulate results and flesh out a better understanding of the results. First, Jurisdictional Technology Contacts (JTCs) were invited to participate in one of two one-hour focus group meetings as part of a quarterly meeting of provincial JTC’s hosted by Alberta Learning. Approximately thirty-five JTCs participated in these sessions.

JTCs are personnel who have been identified by senior administrators as providing ICT

8 leadership at the district level. JTCs may have backgrounds in either, or both, technical and educational areas.

The focus group process consisted of a series of six open-ended questions that helped refine understandings coming from surveys and better identified specific needs within the JTC community. Participants were invited to respond to each of the six questions while working in groups of six to eight people with a facilitator and recorder. As a summation exercise, each group then provided a synopsis of discussions by stating a key area of need for JTCs that was identified by their group.

The second set of focus group meetings were held with school administrators. These were hosted in two locations: Lethbridge and Calgary. Although initial intent was to host one session in Edmonton, participation rates were low in this region. Therefore the second session was hosted in Calgary.

School administrators were invited to participate on the basis of a) having participated in the I.T. Leadership survey and b) representing a demographic factor to include a breadth of background and experience within the sample of participants. Factors considered included urban and rural representation, school grade levels, and gender.

Five school administrators participated in the Lethbridge session. Nine school administrators participated in the Calgary session. Again participants were asked a series of questions in a structured interview setting helping to provide a deeper understanding of survey responses and administrator needs when providing IT leadership within a school.

9 Results

In this chapter results are reported across each of the data acquisition activities: survey responses from the District IT Leaders’ Needs Assessment, survey responses from the School IT Leaders’ Needs Assessment, Jurisdictional Technology Contact focus group responses and School Administrator focus group responses.

Survey Response Rates Part 1 of the survey, the District IT Leaders’ Needs Assessment, was completed by 512 respondents. These consisted of 20 Superintendents, 60 Jurisdictional Technology Contacts, 384 school administrators, and 48 personnel with other titles. Other titles included such roles as Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Network Administrator, District Principal, Jurisdictional Technology Coordinator, Corporate Treasurer, and Supervisor of Teaching and Learning.

Part 2 of the survey, the School IT Leaders’ Needs Assessment, was completed by 402 respondents. Nineteen Superintendents, 45 jurisdictional technology contacts, 306 school administrators, and 32 personnel with other titles completed this survey component.

To provide perspective on the above response levels, sixty-three school districts were targeted with each survey. The maximum response rate from Superintendents was 63, from District IT Leaders was approximately 63, and from schools approximately 1800.

District Level I.T. Leadership Survey Responses The demographics within the I.T. Leadership survey Part 1 is instructive as one explores the make-up of current District IT Leaders. This section of demographics is particularly noteworthy as little data appears to exist to identify the make-up of this group. This is not surprising, given the role is relatively new within pre-college educational settings.

Data for the following analysis is drawn specifically from Part 1 of the survey, as there were more respondents on this section. The demographic results are very similar across both survey components, Part 1 and Part 2. This is an expected outcome as the majority of respondents on the second survey had also completed Part 1.

From the survey results, personnel identifying themselves as district I.T. Leaders demonstrate a mix of roles, education and experience. The following segments summarize demographic results submitted by sixty District IT Leaders and provides a sense of this mix.

10 Today’s District IT Leaders: District IT Leader Demographics

Education In the area of education, while the majority of District I.T. Leaders have a Bachelor’s or a Master’s Degree; a few have either no post-secondary education, a college certificate or a doctoral degree. Table 2 shows the percentage of District I.T. Leaders at each educational level.

Education Levels No Post- secondary College Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral Education Certificate Degree Degree Degree % of District Leaders 1.7% 21.7% 35% 36.7% 5% Table 2. District IT Leader Education Levels

It is interesting to juxtapose the education levels of District IT leaders next to Superintendents and school administrators, namely those personnel with whom many District IT Leaders report and cooperate. Table 3 below illustrates that while the majority of Superintendents (95%) and School Administrators (66%) have completed a Master’s Degree or Doctoral program, proportionally fewer District I.T. Leaders (41%) have completed the same levels of education.

EDUCATION LEVEL Bachelor's Master's Doctoral Degree Degree Degree ROLE Supt. Count 1 14 5 % within 5.0% 70.0% 25.0% ROLE Dist. I.T. Count 21 22 3 Leader % within ROLE 35.0% 36.7% 5.0% School Count 127 242 11 Admin. % within 33.1% 63.0% 2.9% ROLE

Table 3. Degree Programs Completed by Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

11 Experience Levels The experience levels of District I.T. Leaders in their given roles doesn’t differ substantially from that of Superintendents and school administrators, although there is some difference in the range of 10+ years of experience. The majority of respondents have less than 6 years experience.

Years Experience in the Current Role <1 1 to 5 6 to 10 10+ Total ROLE Supt. Count 2 7 6 5 20 % within 10.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 100.0% ROLE District Count 5 28 18 9 60 I.T. % within Leader ROLE 8.3% 46.7% 30.0% 15.0% 100.0% School Count 35 170 76 103 384 Admin. % within 9.1% 44.3% 19.8% 26.8% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 7 25 10 6 48 % within 14.6% 52.1% 20.8% 12.5% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 49 230 110 123 512 % within 9.6% 44.9% 21.5% 24.0% 100.0% ROLE Table 4. Experience levels of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

Knowledge of the I.T. Domain Although not all District I.T. Leaders have responsibilities with regard to technology itself (15% have a role that is primarily education-only), the results of the demographics question asking District I.T. Leaders about their technical knowledge base is instructive. The following list of IT knowledge areas were included as a checklist on Part 1 of the I.T. Leadership Survey. Each of these items were identified s important in the role of District I.T. Leadership:  Internet protocols  Alberta Supernet architecture  Web Site Development  Internet services  Security  Desktop management  Voice over IP  Video conferencing  Video streaming  Server management  LAN and WAN networking architectures  Telecommunications

12 As detailed in Appendix B, seventy two percent of the respondents indicate they posses eight or more of the above twelve IT knowledge domains. While this question does not provide an understanding of the depth of knowledge held in any of these domains, it does provide a surface-level sense of the types of skills possessed by District I.T. Leaders.

As noted in Table 5, twenty-three percent of the respondents indicate that they have six or less of the above skills.

Total IT Skills 0 to 3 skills 4 to 6 skills 7 to 9 skills 10 to 12 skills % of District Leaders 8.3% 15% 28.3 48.3% Table 5. Percentage of District IT Leaders Possessing IT Skills

Knowledge of ICT Integration District I.T. Leaders generally rate their knowledge of ICT integration as Strong (41.7%) to Very Strong (48.3%). On the whole District I.T. Leaders rate their knowledge in this domain above self-ratings of Superintendents and School Administrators. While 90% of District I.T. Leaders rate their knowledge of ICT Integration as either strong or very strong, 65% of Superintendents and 68% of School Administrators offer the same self- rating.

Knowledge of ICT Integration Very Very Weak Weak Undecided Strong Strong Total ROLE Supt. Count 0 1 6 12 1 20 % within .0% 5.0% 30.0% 60.0% 5.0% 100.0% ROLE District Count 0 1 5 25 29 60 I.T. % within .0% 1.7% 8.3% 41.7% 48.3% 100.0% Leader ROLE School Count 4 27 91 204 58 384 Admin % within 1.0% 7.0% 23.7% 53.1% 15.1% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 0 1 12 27 8 48 % within .0% 2.1% 25.0% 56.3% 16.7% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 4 30 114 268 96 512 % within .8% 5.9% 22.3% 52.3% 18.8% 100.0% ROLE Table 6. Self-rating of ICT Integration Knowledge by Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

13 Organization’s IT Curricular Integration Ratings of organization’s IT curricular integration is not as strong as the above self- ratings of knowledge levels. The ratings of IT integration into the curricula are rated somewhat similarly by Superintendents (70%), District IT Leaders (61.7%) and School Administrators (63.8%), as one looks at ‘strong’ and ‘very strong’ ratings.

Rating of Organizations IT Curricular Integration Very Very Weak Weak Undecided Strong Strong Total ROLE Supt. Count 1 2 3 11 3 20 % within 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 55.0% 15.0% 100.0% ROLE District Count 1 8 14 31 6 60 I.T. % within 1.7% 13.3% 23.3% 51.7% 10.0% 100.0% Leader ROLE School Count 15 46 78 193 52 384 Admin. % within 3.9% 12.0% 20.3% 50.3% 13.5% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 1 11 13 21 2 48 % within 2.1% 22.9% 27.1% 43.8% 4.2% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 18 67 108 256 63 512 % within 3.5% 13.1% 21.1% 50.0% 12.3% 100.0% ROLE Table 7. Organization ratings of curricular integration by Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

Role of District I.T. Leaders Similarly, the role of District I.T. Leaders differs across districts. The majority, 48%, indicate that their primary role as a jurisdictional technology contact (JTC) is a mix of education and technical roles. Thirty-seven percent of District I.T. Leaders indicate that their primary role is a technical one, while fifteen percent of District I.T. Leaders indicate their primary responsibility is an educational role.

Role Type Both Primarily Primarily Education and Education Technical Technical % of District Leaders 15% 37% 48% Table 8. Primary role of District IT Leaders

14 I.T. Staff Size District I.T. leaders report varied staff sizes within their districts. While most districts host an I.T. staff of one to five people, a few have no staff and, not surprisingly, large urban districts employ a large staff.

Total I.T. Staff Role 0 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 90 District IT 5 34 8 5 6 Leaders Reporting Table 10. Number of District IT Staff Who Report to the IT Staff Supervisor

Age The average age of District I.T. Leaders tends to be less than that of either superintendents or school administrators. The bulk of District I.T. Leaders are in the 31 to 40 age group, unlike superintendents who tend to be over 50 years or school administrators who tend to be in the 41+ age range. Nonetheless over 51% of District I.T. Leaders are over forty years of age and almost a quarter (23%) are over fifty years.

AGE 20 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51+ Total ROLE Supt. Count 0 0 4 16 20 % within .0% .0% 20.0% 80.0% 100.0% ROLE District Count 1 28 17 14 60 I.T. % within 1.7% 46.7% 28.3% 23.3% 100.0% Leader ROLE School Count 8 84 165 127 384 Admin. % within 2.1% 21.9% 43.0% 33.1% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 3 10 24 11 48 % within 6.3% 20.8% 50.0% 22.9% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 12 122 210 168 512 % within 2.3% 23.8% 41.0% 32.8% 100.0% ROLE Table 11. Age of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

15 Gender An analysis of the gender of superintendents, district I.T. leaders and school administrators shows the majority of these roles are filled by males. While school administrators have a few more females in this role (32%), over 83% of superintendencies and District I.T. leaders are staffed by males.

GENDER Female Male Total ROLE Supt. Count 3 17 20 % within 15.0% 85.0% 100.0% ROLE District Count 10 50 60 I.T. % within 16.7% 83.3% 100.0% Leader ROLE School Count 124 260 384 Admin. % within 32.3% 67.7% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 15 33 48 % within 31.3% 68.8% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 152 360 512 % within 29.7% 70.3% 100.0% ROLE Table 12. Gender of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administators

Respondents’ Settings Respondents are almost equally from a rural school district or either an urban district or combined urban and rural district, as shown in Table 13 below.

SETTING Rural and Rural Urban Urban Total ROLE Supt. Count 10 3 7 20 % within 50.0% 15.0% 35.0% 100.0% ROLE District Count 26 20 14 60 I.T. % within 43.3% 33.3% 23.3% 100.0% Leader ROLE School Count 167 167 50 384 Admin. % within 43.5% 43.5% 13.0% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 24 11 13 48 % within 50.0% 22.9% 27.1% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 227 201 84 512 % within 44.3% 39.3% 16.4% 100.0% ROLE Table 13. Organizational Setting across Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

16 In terms of district size, the majority of districts have student populations of less than 10,000 students. Four districts in the province have student populations greater than 30,000 students, all representing Calgary and Edmonton school districts. Three more districts have 10,000 to 17,000 students.

In summation, personnel currently fulfilling the role of District IT Leader demonstrate significant variance across fundamental demographic areas such as educational background, experience, responsibilities, depth of knowledge of I.T., and depth of knowledge of ICT integration.

17 Tomorrow’s District IT Leaders: Survey Description of District IT Leader Needs & Direction

While the above section provides a clear understanding that few standards exist within the domain of District IT Leadership, the following section describes the knowledge, skills and attributes that are important in the eyes of Superintendents, District IT Leaders and School Administrators.

Part 1 of the I.T. Leadership Survey provides direction regarding the knowledge, skills and attributes (ksa’s) that are expected of District I.T. Leaders in Alberta. These expectations are set by educational leaders, including Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

Eight major knowledge, skill and attribute areas were identified as important for District I.T. Leaders. These major areas include

 Leadership and visioning  Learning and teaching  Productivity and professional practice  Support, management and operations  Assessment and evaluation  Knowledge of problem solving and information technologies  Social, legal, and ethical issues  Organizational relations and communications

A summary of results from survey respondents are detailed below. In each of the following tables, the percentage to the right is an expression of the percent of respondents who either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the survey statement. Responses within each table are sorted in descending order.

Organizational Relations and Communications Respondents are very clear that District IT Leaders must demonstrate effective skills in relating to district personnel and in translating technical specifics more easily comprehended by non-technical personnel.

The district IT leader is competent in:  relating effectively with Superintendency staff, school principals, 97% teachers, technical staff, students, parents, and support staff.  translating technical specifics and jargon into terms that are easily 97% understood by non-technical professionals.

Leadership and Visioning District I.T. Leaders are expected to be instrumental in providing Leadership and Visioning within the domain of information technologies. Within the survey, respondents were very clear that personnel within this role must collaborate with internal stakeholders

18 to meet district and Alberta Learning outcomes and also ensure there is ongoing knowledge of emerging technologies that may be adopted by districts to achieve program goals.

The district IT leader must be instrumental in:  Defining collaboratively with internal stakeholders how technology 96% will support the vision of the district and Alberta Learning mandated outcomes  ensuring there is ongoing knowledge of emerging technologies that 96% may be adopted by the district to achieve program goals

 facilitating systematic change at both an organizational and 94% individual level

 actively promoting the culture of seeking IT opportunities and 80% partnerships with other educational, corporate, and political organizations for staff and students.

Learning and Teaching Respondents most valued District IT leader competencies in leading effective staff development opportunities to promote the use of technologies for meaningful instruction, in leading educators and administrators in critically evaluating instructional technologies and ensuring the ICT curricula implementations align with provincial and district direction.

The district IT leader must be competent in:  Leading effective staff development opportunities in an ongoing 94% manner that promotes the use of technologies for meaningful instruction.  Leading educators and administrators in the critical evaluation of 90% instructional technologies.  Ensuring ICT curricula implementations align with direction set by 89% Alberta Learning and the local school district.  Focusing on technologies that serve the goals of learning while 75% discarding those that do not.  Guiding the development of online services. 75%

The district IT leader will:  Have a minimum of five years teaching experience. 72%

19 Productivity and Professional Practice Respondents clearly identified the expectations that District I.T. Leaders are to model effective uses of technology for professional productivity and share promising instructional and learning exemplars to support program improvement.

The district IT leader must be competent in:  Modeling, for instructional staff, the effective uses of technology for 95% professional productivity  Using technology to share promising instructional and learning 95% exemplars that support program improvement.  Using technology to improve administrative and business operations. 84%

Support, Management, and Operations Respondents highly valued competence in District IT Leaders’ ability to implement technology initiatives that provide instructional and technical support as defined by organizations’ plans and standards.

The district IT leader is competent in:  Implementing technology initiatives that provide instructional and 93% technical support as defined in the local, regional and provincial plans and standards.  Project management to meet budgets, and timelines of a project. 88%  Understanding procurement processes and requirements for IT 87%  Leading the appropriate design of IT infrastructure as organizations 85% remodel and build new facilities.  Managing IT personnel within the organization. 84%

Assessment and Evaluation Responses indicate support for District IT leaders ability to monitor and analyze data.

The district IT leader is competent in:  Monitoring and analyzing technical data to guide the implementation 86% of effective technologies.  Researching, monitoring, and analyzing learning performance data 82% on a continuous basis, to guide the design and improvement of program initiatives and activities.

Knowledge of Problem Solving and Information Technologies Respondents clearly valued the ability of District IT leaders to demonstrate the general skills of liaising with others to broaden perspective and share problem solving strategies, as well as an ability to solve problems by prioritizing and eliminating variables.

20 Identifying specific skill requirements may have been beyond some survey respondents scope of knowledge, given some of the technical terminology and considerations. Hence a deeper exploration of the data may be needed when examining the ‘weighting’ on various specific skill requirements in this section. However, it is clear that there is an expectation that I.T. Leaders will have a depth of understanding of the associated information technologies.

The district IT leader will:  liaise with other IT leaders at provincial and district levels to 96% broaden perspectives and share problem solving strategies.  be able to solve problems effectively by prioritizing and eliminating 95% variables.

The district IT leader will have a skill set for: o learning new technologies 93% o using a breadth of software applications 90% o programming software 31%

The district IT leader will:  access online communities and resources for pursuing information 86% and solving problems

The district IT leader will have a working knowledge of: o Internet protocols 90% o Security 85% o Alberta Supernet architecture 81% o LAN and WAN networking architectures 78% o Telecommunications 70% o developing web sites 70%

Social, Legal and Ethical Issues District IT Leaders are expected to provide communications on ICT issues related to privacy, security and confidentiality, as well as involve stakeholders in addressing equity of access.

The district IT leader will:  Inform district leadership of program-specific ICT issues related to 92% privacy, security, and confidentiality.  involve stakeholders in addressing equity of access to technology 90% resources.  educate program personnel about technology-related health, safety, 87% legal, and ethical issues.

21 A significant majority of survey responses from Alberta’s educational leaders indicate there is agreement or strong agreement with nearly all of the knowledge, skills and attributes (ksa’s) presented as important characteristics for District I.T. Leaders. With the exception of one item suggesting District I.T. leaders have programming skills, 70% or more respondents indicated the described ksa’s were important for District I.T. Leaders. Further, as shown in Appendix C, a significant majority of ksa’s received over 80% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that the presented ksa was important for District I.T. Leaders.

Focus Group Triangulation Results Focus groups meetings with Jurisdictional Technology Coordinators (JTCs) and triangulation of these findings with the original survey data suggest that survey results truly reflect much of the current status and future demands on the District IT Leader role. Additionally, some key findings were underlined through this interview process, as summarized below.

Need of Combined Information Technology/Educational Technology (IT/ET) Knowledge First, JTCs indicated that the position of District IT Leader requires substantial knowledge of both education and information technologies. While some districts have benefited from early entry and consequent evolution of I.T. Leadership for that district, other districts have been later entrants into this area and have had limited results. Some of the late entrants have utilized technical staff to provide the leadership role. Frequently this has resulted in failure to meet educational objectives and sometimes created a polarization between professional and technical staff. Other late entrants have used educational leaders with no I.T. background for this role. Again, outcomes have been less than desired. Funds are wasted as districts invest limited dollars in short-term solutions, non-standard approaches and expensive outsourcing. The general recommendation by JTC participants that District IT Leaders hold both a strong educational background and significant knowledge and depth within the information technolog domain help offset both polarization and knowledge of these domains.

Need for Role Description Several JTC participants noted the need for a standardized description of the District IT Leader. The lack of a provincial standard role description results in a breadth of directions taken and similarly a breadth of outcomes at the jurisdictional level. This limits opportunity for common direction across the province and limits opportunity to meet needs on a group basis.

Some JTCs noted that for the position to provide meaningful outcomes and given the investment in information technologies, the position ought to operate at an executive level within the organization, enabling decision making that incorporates a breadth of understanding and knowledge in educational leadership. This is in keeping with recommendations from the Consortium for School Networking(2004).

22 Need for a Professional Organization While organizations such as the College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS), the Alberta Teachers Association Council for School Administrators, and the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) serve educational needs for specific educational groups within Alberta; there is no professional body supporting District IT Leaders. Several members at the JTC focus group sessions indicated a need for the development of a professional organization to represent District IT Leaders. Such an organization could help guide standards, act as a forum for sharing information, and meet general needs of the group.

Need for Educational Opportunities A breadth of learning needs exist across the spectrum of current I.T. Leaders. This expressed need covers both content and format of learning. I.T. Leaders identified needs within both the educational and technical domains. They also identified a breadth of learning format needs – from weekend seminars, to individual courses, to practicum based experiences, to certification through a Master’s Degree program.

School I.T. Leadership Survey Responses

Unlike District IT Leaders, school administrators, as a focal point for school level IT leadership, are well-established figures within educational organizations. The role of school principal and vice-principals has had decades of time to become both established and recognized. However, incorporating ICTs is a relatively new consideration within this role.

In this section, the reporting of survey demographics will again utilize the Part 1 survey component, given more survey returns for this component and given the similar result between the two surveys. The tables shared in the results below are the same tables as shared earlier, but at this point provides a focus on School I.T. Leaders, rather than District IT Leaders.

Today’s School IT Leaders: School Administrator Demographics

The leadership role of the school administrator encompasses IT leadership at the school level. Hence, the term ‘School IT leader’ refers to school administrators. The assertion that the school administrator is the School I.T. Leader is based upon requirements within the teaching quality standard, the mandatory provincial K-12 ICT Curricula and subsequent associated supervision and leadership responsibilities. These responsibilities are the domain of school administrators.

23 Education School administrators tend to have a Master’s degree, with a very small percentage holding a doctoral degree. A Bachelor’s degree serves as a minimum standard for both administrators and teachers.

EDUCATION LEVEL Bachelor's Master's Doctoral Degree Degree Degree ROLE Supt. Count 1 14 5 % within 5.0% 70.0% 25.0% ROLE Dist. I.T. Count 21 22 3 Leader % within ROLE 35.0% 36.7% 5.0% School Count 127 242 11 Admin. % within 2.9% 33.1% 63.0% ROLE

Table 14. Degree Programs Completed by Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

Experience Levels Forty-four percent of the 384 school administrators who responded had one to five years of experience in their current role. Almost twenty-seven percent had ten or more years of experience and nearly twenty percent had six to ten years experience.

Years Experience in the Current Role <1 1 to 5 6 to 10 10+ Total ROLE Supt. Count 2 7 6 5 20 % within 10.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 100.0% ROLE District Count 5 28 18 9 60 I.T. % within Leader ROLE 8.3% 46.7% 30.0% 15.0% 100.0% School Count 35 170 76 103 384 Admin. % within 9.1% 44.3% 19.8% 26.8% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 7 25 10 6 48 % within 14.6% 52.1% 20.8% 12.5% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 49 230 110 123 512 % within 9.6% 44.9% 21.5% 24.0% 100.0% ROLE Table 15. Experience levels of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

24 Knowledge of ICT Integration School Administrators rate their knowledge of ICT integration lower than District I.T. Leaders. While 90% of District I.T. Leaders rated their knowledge as either strong or very strong, only 64% of School I.T. Leaders felt confident in their knowledge of ICT integration.

Knowledge of ICT Integration Very Very Weak Weak Undecided Strong Strong Total ROLE Supt. Count 0 1 6 12 1 20 % within .0% 5.0% 30.0% 60.0% 5.0% 100.0% ROLE District Count 0 1 5 25 29 60 I.T. % within .0% 1.7% 8.3% 41.7% 48.3% 100.0% Leader ROLE School Count 4 27 91 204 58 384 Admin % within 1.0% 7.0% 23.7% 53.1% 15.1% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 0 1 12 27 8 48 % within .0% 2.1% 25.0% 56.3% 16.7% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 4 30 114 268 96 512 % within .8% 5.9% 22.3% 52.3% 18.8% 100.0% ROLE Table 16. Self-rating of ICT Integration Knowledge by Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

Organization’s IT Curricular Integration School administrators tended to rate their school districts’ integration of IT curricula very similarly to ratings offered by District IT leaders with 63.8% and 61.7% rating respectively as either strong or very strong. School administrators tended not to rate their districts quite as strongly as Superintendents (70%).

Rating of Organizations IT Curricular Integration Very Very Weak Weak Undecided Strong Strong Total ROLE Supt. Count 1 2 3 11 3 20 % within 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 55.0% 15.0% 100.0% ROLE District IT Count 1 8 14 31 6 60 Leader % within 1.7% 13.3% 23.3% 51.7% 10.0% 100.0% ROLE School Count 15 46 78 193 52 384 Admin. % within 3.9% 12.0% 20.3% 50.3% 13.5% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 1 11 13 21 2 48 % within 2.1% 22.9% 27.1% 43.8% 4.2% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 18 67 108 256 63 512 % within 3.5% 13.1% 21.1% 50.0% 12.3% 100.0% ROLE Table 17. Organization ratings of curricular integration by Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators. 25 Age The typical age of School Administrator respondents tended to be over forty years of age (76%), with 33% over 50 years. Not surprisingly, a very small percentage of School Administrators are in the 20 to 30 year age bracket.

AGE 20 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51+ Total ROLE Supt. Count 0 0 4 16 20 % within .0% .0% 20.0% 80.0% 100.0% ROLE District Count 1 28 17 14 60 I.T. % within 1.7% 46.7% 28.3% 23.3% 100.0% Leader ROLE School Count 8 84 165 127 384 Admin. % within 2.1% 21.9% 43.0% 33.1% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 3 10 24 11 48 % within 6.3% 20.8% 50.0% 22.9% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 12 122 210 168 512 % within 2.3% 23.8% 41.0% 32.8% 100.0% ROLE Table 18. Age of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

Gender Schools have more males (68%) than females (32%) in the school administrative role. This, however, is more females than represented in either superintendent or District I.T. Leader roles.

GENDER Female Male Total ROLE Supt. Count 3 17 20 % within 15.0% 85.0% 100.0% ROLE District IT Count 10 50 60 Leader % within 16.7% 83.3% 100.0% ROLE School Count 124 260 384 Admin. % within 32.3% 67.7% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 15 33 48 % within 31.3% 68.8% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 152 360 512 % within 29.7% 70.3% 100.0% ROLE Table 19. Gender of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administators

26 Respondents’ Settings Almost 50% of responding School I.T. Leaders are from rural school districts and the same percentage are from urban school districts. A small percentage (13%) are from combined rural/urban districts, as shown in Table 20 below.

SETTING Rural and Rural Urban Urban Total ROLE Supt. Count 10 3 7 20 % within 50.0% 15.0% 35.0% 100.0% ROLE District Count 26 20 14 60 I.T. % within 43.3% 33.3% 23.3% 100.0% Leader ROLE School Count 167 167 50 384 Admin. % within 43.5% 43.5% 13.0% 100.0% ROLE Other Count 24 11 13 48 % within 50.0% 22.9% 27.1% 100.0% ROLE Total Count 227 201 84 512 % within 44.3% 39.3% 16.4% 100.0% ROLE Table 20. Organizational Setting across Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.

Tomorrow’s School IT Leaders: Survey Description of IT Leader Needs & Direction

The above section offers a sense of school administration demographics. For the purposes of this research the term school administrator is equivalent to the term school level I.T. leader – as school leaders, the school administrator is the key instructional leader including within the IT domain.

All six of the major knowledge, skill, and attribute areas were identified as important for school-level I.T. Leaders. These major areas include

 Leadership and visioning  Learning and teaching  Productivity and professional practice  Support, management and operations  Supervision and evaluation  Social, legal, and ethical issues

27 Leadership and Visioning The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be instrumental in:  Articulating a strong professional vision for meaningful technology 97% integration in teaching and learning  Facilitating meaningful ICT change at both the school and individual 95% level.

 Providing opportunities for staff and students to develop and display 94% ICT leadership abilities.  Facilitating the development of a collaborative ICT school 94% improvement plan.

 Participating in an inclusive district process through which 86% stakeholders formulate a shared vision and plan that defines expectations for technology use.

Learning and Teaching The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:

 Articulating a strong sense for the place of technology within the 98% educational environment – the focus is on teaching and learning rather than technology per se.  Ensuring programs and instruction align with ICT directions set by 97% Alberta Learning.  Implementing effective ICT professional development for all school 76% staff  Assisting teachers in using technology to access, analyze and 78% interpret student performance data and in using results to enhance student learning.

Productivity and Professional Practice The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must:  Be an effective user of contemporary information and technology 90% tools.  Use a variety of electronic media to communicate, interact and 90% collaborate with peers, experts and other education stakeholders.  Use technology-based management systems to access and maintain 88% personnel and student records  Model for students, parents, and instructional staff, the effective uses 87%

28 of technology in instruction and professional productivity.

Support, Management, and Operations The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:  Providing school-wide staff professional development for 90% electronically sharing work and resources.  Advocating or providing for adequate, timely and high-quality 89% technology support services that accommodates the district plan.  Allocating school discretionary funds and other resources to advance 82% implementation of the technology plan.  Guiding facility design to incorporate appropriate ICT infrastructure 71% as schools remodel, evergreen and build new facilities.

Supervision and Evaluation The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:  Implementing supervision and evaluation procedures of teachers to 87% assess their growth toward established ICT standards.  Evaluating the effectiveness of ICT use in the teaching and learning 84% process, as one criterion in assessing performance of instructional staff.

Social, Legal and Ethical Issues The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:  Adhering to and enforcing the district’s acceptable use policy and 96% other policies and procedures related to security, copyright and technology use.  Collaborating with staff to resolve issues relating to equity of access 95% to resources and equity of ICT professional development opportunities.  Disseminating information to staff on privacy, security, 90% confidentiality, and reporting of information that might impact technology systems and policy requirements

As shared in Appendix D, educational leaders across the province indicate agreement that the described ksa’s are important characteristics for school administrators.

29 Discussion

Provincially, ongoing investments have occurred within infrastructure (e.g. Supernet), services (e.g. LearnAlberta), and capital goods (e.g. networks, intranets, and computing technologies). Very approximate conservative estimates suggest that over $100 million is spent per annum in this vein in serving Alberta students. However, a gap exists between investments in capital items and developing the necessary human resources to provide leadership in this arena. The evolution of I.T. within education has progressed without systematic attention to leadership development in this domain at the district and school level. Consequently, minimal investment has been made to ensure well-educated leadership managing implementation and integration of contemporary information technologies into education.

Currently a lack of standards exist with regard to I.T. leadership development both at the district and school levels. Not surprisingly, significant variance exists across the province in effectiveness at integrating ICTs. Fifteen percent of respondents indicate their district is weak or very weak at integrating ICTs. Another fifteen to twenty percent indicate they are undecided whether their district is strong or weak in this area. Certainly, strengthened leadership in this area would better position districts to improve on these results.

District IT Leaders When examining District IT Leader demographics the most obvious result is the variance across District IT Leaders in terms of education, experience, depth of knowledge of I.T., and depth of knowledge of ICT integration and responsibilities within the role. This variance is not surprising, given the breadth of evolutionary approaches to filling this role within school districts.

The variance of education levels across District IT leaders presents a challenge in terms of establishing leadership at the district level in this domain. While district leaders make decisions affecting capital investment, student instruction, professional, administrative and support personnel; there is a lack of standards with regard to this role. With education levels ranging from no post-secondary education to doctoral degrees, the current District IT leader role presents a range of skills, knowledge and abilities. It is postulated that an ability to make executive level decisions requires a higher education level. Yet, there are no programs currently available in Canada to directly address this need.

Further when comparing education levels at the Superintendency and School Administrators levels to that of the District IT Leader, it is noted that 95% of Superintendents and 66% of school administrators have a Master’s or Doctoral Degree. Less than half (41%) of District IT Leaders hold a graduate degree. The differing levels of educational preparation poses potential for some discord, given expectations of the District IT Leader role as demonstrated through the survey results. These high-level expectations include: 30  Defining collaboratively with internal stakeholders how technology will support the vision of the district and Alberta Learning mandated outcomes.  Facilitating systematic change at both an organizational and individual level.  Ensuring there is ongoing knowledge of emerging technologies that may be adopted by the district to achieve program goals.  Leading effective staff development opportunities in an ongoing manner that promotes the use of technologies for meaningful instruction.  Leading educators and administrators in the critical evaluation of instructional technologies.  Implementing technology initiatives that provide instructional and technical support as defined in the local, regional, and provincial plans. (Note: Often these initiatives amount to several million dollar capital projects.)  Managing IT personnel within the organization.  Inform district leadership of program specific ICT issues related to privacy, security and confidentiality.  Relating effectively with Superintendency staff, school principals, teachers, technical staff, students, parents and support staff.  Translating technical specifics and jargon into terms that are easily understood by non-technical professionals.

While many of these expectations suggest an executive level role, the lack of formalized preparation and associated standards fails to provide a support structure for today’s leaders and the necessary grounding for tomorrow’s leaders.

Fundamental information technology knowledge is also variable across districts within the province. Within the twelve I.T. knowledge items, District IT Leaders identified some as clearly areas of relatively strong knowledge including Desktop Management (92%), and Internet Services (90%). However, other IT knowledge areas were identified as areas District IT Leaders were far from generally knowledgeable. These included security (65%), video conferencing (57%), video streaming (52%), and Voice Over IP (52%), – all areas of relevance for planning current information technology directions.

Similarly, a comparison of specific I.T. knowledge is diverse within the group of District IT Leaders. As shared in Appendix B, nearly 30% of personnel in the District IT leadership role identified they possess less than 8 of the 12 information technology skills; 23% identified possessing 6 or less of these skills. This result isn’t surprising for people assigned strictly educational integration roles, but only 15% of District IT leaders fill this role description. This isn’t a negative commentary on persons fulfilling these roles, but it is a commentary on the levels of educational support needed to assist people currently in these roles. As well, from a long-term planning level, it is a commentary on long-term needs for defining and developing I.T. knowledge for District IT Leader roles.

On the whole District IT Leaders have filled this role a relatively short time. Over 50% of these leaders have filled this role five years or less. Only 15% have held the position for more than ten years. This is possibly somewhat representative of the relatively recentness

31 with which this role has been recognized by school districts. It is also possibly related to turn-over of personnel within this position.

Succession planning is a serious consideration within this role, though based on demographics results, not as significant as at the superintendency level. Almost a quarter (23%) of District IT Leaders are at a potentially pensionable age in the next five years. A further 28% are in the 41+ age bracket.

Some have pointed out that many of District IT Leaders who have provided leadership within the province for the past several years are generally within a five to ten year horizon of potential retirement. Failure to succession plan, especially given the current lack of preparatory programs, may well lead to a shortage of knowledgeable senior leadership staff in educational information technologies – an area with significant capital investment; affecting contemporary learning, service offerings, and effectiveness of I.T. integration.

School IT Leaders A primary difference between District IT Leaders and School Administrators, as first layer IT Leaders, is that the role of school administrator has been long defined. There are standards associated with the role. It is recognized as a functioning educational role within communities, within the school, within districts and by Alberta Learning. This is in stark contrast to the newer District IT Leadership role.

Hence, one does not tend to see the level of variance noted within the group of District IT Leaders. Educational levels are pre-determined by a system that requires a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree and often expects a Master’s degree. A system exists for promotion through the teaching profession into the role of school administrator and at times onto a superintendency role.

However, even given this stability, the area of ICT integration remains a challenge for School I.T. Leaders. Most notable in the results from school administrators were reports of knowledge of ICT integration. While 68% indicated possessing a strong or very strong level knowledge of ICT integration; 32% were either undecided (24%), weak (7%), or very weak (1%). Fifteen percent of school administrators felt they possessed very strong knowledge of this domain. This is in contrast to 48% of District IT Leaders and 5% of superintendents who indicated very strong knowledge of ICT integration.

Results from the survey suggest that the knowledge, skills and attributes (ksa’s) presented within the survey encompass ksa’s that are largely expected of this role. A high percentage of respondents indicated either a strong agreement or very strong agreement that administrators be instrumental in, competent in, or must demonstrate the types ksa’s defined. A number of items held 90% or more, with no less than 71% indicating a strong to very strong agreement for the item. For example, items for which there was 90% or above agreement included:

 The school administrator must be instrumental in: 32 o Articulating a strong professional vision for meaningful technology integration in teaching and learning o Facilitating meaningful ICT change at both the school and individual level o Providing opportunities for staff and students to develop and display ICT leadership abilities. o Facilitating the development of a collaborative ICT school improvement plan.

 The school administrator must be competent in: o Articulating a strong sense for the place of technology within the educational environment – the focus is on teaching and learning rather than technology per se. o Ensuring programs and instruction align with ICT directions set by Alberta Learning. o Providing school-wide staff professional development for electronically sharing work and resources. o Adhering to and enforcing the district’s acceptable use policy and other policies and procedures related to security, copyright and technology use. o Collaborating with staff to resolve issues relating to equity of access to resources and equity of ICT professional development opportunities. o Disseminating information to staff on privacy, security, confidentiality, and reporting of information that might impact technology systems and policy requirements.

 The school administrator must: o Be an effective user of contemporary information and technology tools. o Use a variety of electronic media to communicate, interact and collaborate with peers, experts and other educational stakeholders.

A complete list of knowledge, skills and attributes sorted by respondent agreement is included in Appendix D. Given the high level of agreement by respondents in the survey, inclusive of Superintendents, District IT Leaders and School Administrators, it is suggested that these ksa’s serve as a guide in defining the role of the School IT Leader.

Additionally, one must consider the broader context of IT Leadership in school settings. This consideration was made clear during focus group meetings with school administrators and also related through several comments within the survey. School administrators were clear that the roles of the principal and vice-principal were focal roles for successful I.C.T. integration, but the role required a building of I.T. leadership capacity within their school to have more far reaching effect than simply during their term in this role.

33 Summary Significant variance exists across the province with regard to District IT Leaders across fundamental demographic areas; including educational background, experience, responsibilities, depth of knowledge of I.T., and depth of knowledge of ICT integration. No standards or guidelines exist with regard to this role – not through Alberta Learning, not through the School Act, not through the Alberta Teachers’ Association and not through a self-directed professional organization.

In spite of this variance, expectations on this group of personnel are high in terms of leadership skills. Many of the skills, knowledge and attributes expected of District I.T. Leaders require executive level abilities and likely require executive level decision- making and responsibility for effective outcomes. Further, many of the current District IT Leaders providing provincial advisement are within a retirement horizon – succession planning is needed.

The position of School I.T. Leader is a more established role. However, ICT integration remains a challenge for school administrators.

Learning needs exist across both of these roles and have been identified by both School and District I.T. Leaders. There is a need for instruction in information technology leadership in education.

Analysis of Post-Secondary Program Offerings

Given some of the learning needs expressed by District and School IT Leaders and some of the knowledge gaps recognized by these groups, an analysis was conducted of the program offerings that may address the area of educational IT leadership. In the interest of identifying resources available for the development of instructional technology leadership, a review of existing university programs and courses was conducted. A key word search of graduate university programs presently offered in North America was conducted on-line.

This process first identified universities that had instructional technology in education master's programs. The rationale for focusing on master's level studies is two fold. The 2002 UNESCO document, Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher Education: A Planning Guide, identifies university programs and courses as a principle component of professional development for teachers and administrators. Since the major focus of this study was also to look at the needs of the District and School IT leaders and the majority of these people have a baccalaureate degree, it is assumed that the entry point for professional development would be at a master's degree level. It is also acknowledged that courses and programs offered by universities are only one of the tools needed to provide professional development and support for current and potential leaders in educational instructional technology.

University programs were scrutinized in terms of program and course descriptions. The courses for each of the programs were then separated into categories representing the key 34 competencies identified by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE: http://cnets.iste.org). This information was also categorized in terms of the six standards that stem from the core competencies, as identified by ISTE and The Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA: http://cnets.istc.org/tssa).

The university programs were divided into two distinct groups representing those available in Canada (6) and those in the United States (31). They were further separated in terms of programs focusing on instructional technology in education (22) and those which combined instructional technology in education with specific reference to leadership (9). One of the difficulties encountered in identifying the percent emphasis within each of the competency areas and standards, is that some programs have specific course offerings and others allow participants to choose from a list of courses in identified categories. For the purposes of this study the percent emphases was calculated based on the total offerings available in that category, as participants in any of these programs can take courses extra to the number required for the master's degree.

The following section shares a comparison of Canadian and American Educational I.T. Programs, as well as American I.T. Leadership programs. For each of the following summary tables, there are specific tables included with each of the program listings of courses detailed in Appendix XYZ.

35 Educational Technology Programs in Canadian Universities

ISTE Standard % Emphasis % Emphasis % Emphasis Low High Average A Leadership and Vision 0 28.5 13.1 B Learning and Teaching 30 63.6 43.7 C Productivity and Professional Practice 0 7.2 1.4 D Support, Management, and Operations 0 21.4 13.4 E Assessment and Evaluation 7.2 40 20.6 F Social, Legal and Ethical Issues 2.3 13 8.3

ICT Competencies % Emphasis % Emphasis % Emphasis Low High Average I Content & Pedagogy 35.7 67 44.7 II Technical Issues 11 60 33.4 III Social Issues 0 18.2 8.6 IV Collaboration & Networking 0 21.4 13.2 Table. 21 A comparison of Educational Technology Programs in Canadian Universities.

Leadership and Educational Technology in American Universities

ISTE Standard % Emphasis % Emphasis % Emphasis Low High Average A Leadership and Vision 10 40 19.4 B Learning and Teaching 7.3 60 32.2 C Productivity and Professional Practice 5 30 16.1 D Support, Management, and Operations 0 29.2 12.3 E Assessment and Evaluation 0 20 12.7 F Social, Legal and Ethical Issues 0 20 7.4

ICT Competencies % Emphasis % Emphasis % Emphasis Low High Average I Content & Pedagogy 20 80 36.1 II Technical Issues 20 50 31.9 III Social Issues 0 20 7.4 IV Collaboration & Networking 0 50 24.9 Table 22. A comparison of Educational Technology Leadership Programs in American Universities.

Although the percent emphases varies in each of the categories from one institution to the next, some points become readily apparent. The number of programs offered at the master's level relating to instructional technology and leadership is very limited. This is particularly true of those presently offered in Canada, including those in Alberta. Even though there may be one or two courses offered related to the competencies and standards associated with leadership in a program, it is very difficult to tell from the calendar descriptions whether there are leadership components integrated through the identified content and processes. 36 Educational Technology/Information Technology Programs in American Universities

ISTE Standard % Emphasis % Emphasis % Emphasis Low High Average A Leadership and Vision 0 50 20.1 B Learning and Teaching 0 60 20.6 C Productivity and Professional Practice 10 66.7 34.6 D Support, Management, and Operations 0 25 9.4 E Assessment and Evaluation 0 30.8 11 F Social, Legal and Ethical Issues 0 37.5 4.3

ICT Competencies % Emphasis % Emphasis % Emphasis Low High Average I Content & Pedagogy 0 61.6 36.1 II Technical Issues 9.1 87.5 42.8 III Social Issues 0 12.5 4 IV Collaboration & Networking 0 46.7 17.1 Table 23. A comparison of Educational Technology/Information Technology Programs in American Universities.

A further analysis of the differences between programs is not included here, as this is not the major focus of the current IT Leadership needs assessment. However, what should be noted is that in existing instructional technology in education courses the major emphasis is primarily on teaching and learning including skill development in specific areas such as multimedia. When looking for a combined focus on leadership, on specific attention to the technical aspects of establishing and maintaining networks and I.T. systems, and on depth in curricular integration, there are currently very limited opportunities presently in Canadian university programs.

37 Recommendations

Several recommendations lead from the research conducted through this study. These recommendations spring directly from survey results and feedback received from District and School level I.T. leaders via focus group meetings.

Recommendation #1 Formalize, recognize and adopt the knowledge, skills, and attributes from this research as expectations of District IT Leaders.

Rationale: The vast majority of educational leaders, including District IT Leaders, support the ksa’s identified within the current study as important within the role.

While other leadership roles within education such as Superintendent or School Principals are loosely defined within legislation (i.e. The Alberta School Act), the role of District IT Leader has no definition, standards, or even commonality across many districts. A high degree of variance exists within Alberta in the nature of the role of District IT Leader – from curriculum directors with little technical knowledge to technical gurus lacking background in education. This variance, while indeed providing school districts a level of flexibility, fails to provide direction.

The integration of ICT into the curricula, supporting administrative technologies and implementing complex information technology systems requires a significant depth of knowledge, skills and attributes across leadership, education, and technical domains. The provision of a defined set of expected ksa’s for the role of District IT Leaders not only helps districts define the role, but also provides a basis for developing personnel to fulfill the role. Effective integration of ICTs and information technology requires district level leadership in this role – leadership that needs to be cultured over time through setting direction to achieve a high level of ability to meet district needs.

A very high percentage of lead educators (superintendents, District IT Leaders and school administrators) within the province have endorsed the ksa’s included in Appendix C, as important to fulfilling this role. Almost all individual ksa’s identified have support in excess of 80% of the current educational leadership, based on the IT Leadership Needs Assessment Survey. Opportunity exists to utilize the series of ksa’s from this research as a foundation to formulate a consistent, meaningful role description for District I.T. Leaders – a further recommendation below.

38 Recommendation #2 Formalize and recognize the knowledge, skills and attributes from this research as expectations of School I.T. Leaders. This recommendation furthers Alberta’s Commission on Learning recommendation #63, ‘Expect principals to provide leadership in integrating technology in both the instructional and administrative aspects of the school.’

Rationale: Again, the vast majority of educational leaders, including School I.T. Leaders, support the ksa’s identified within the current study as important within the role of School IT Leader.

It is important to recognize the important role school administrators play in leading teaching staff to effectively integrate ICTs within schools. As Shuldman (2004) points out, administrative support and leadership are key to success in implementing instructional technologies in school settings.

A lack of direction currently exists with regard to school administrators leadership roles within the ICT domain. The Teaching Quality Standard explicitly states the knowledge, skills, and attributes expected of teachers, including specificity in those ksa’s with regard to integrating ICTs. As defined within the standard, teachers holding an Interim Professional Certificate are expected to posses a defined set of knowledge, skills, and attributes, including:

j) the functions of traditional and electronic teaching/learning technologies. They know how to use and how to engage students in using these technologies to present and deliver content, communicate effectively with others, find and secure information, research, word process, manage information, and keep records; (Teaching Quality Standard)

Teachers holding a Permanent Professional Certificate are expected to posses a similar set of ksa’s that are further defined within the Teaching Quality Standard.

Similar ksa’s are not identified for school leadership – either within the Teaching Quality Standard or elsewhere. Provision of clear ksa’s and associated expectations within a framework of accountability may resolve some of the confusion with regard to the role of school leadership in the domain ICTs, which was noted in some comments from school administrators within the online survey.

During focus group interviews, school administrators strongly advised that it is also important to recognize that the role of school administrator should not represent ‘the’ solitary IT Leader within the school, but rather as one assisting in building other school leaders within this domain. This is in keeping with contemporary leadership theory suggesting that strong leaders promote building strong leadership (Fullan, 2001).

Again, a very high percentage of lead educators (superintendents, District IT Leaders and school administrators) within the province have recommended the ksa’s included in Appendix D, as important to fulfilling this role. 39 Recommendation #3 It is recommended that Alberta Learning develop a role description for District IT Leaders. This role should be incorporated into the executive district level, similar to the understanding regarding the specific role of superintendents, secretary treasurer, and school administrators. 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.

Rationale: As shared earlier in this research, there is significant variance in the educational background, experience, responsibilities, depth of knowledge of I.T., and depth of knowledge of ICT integration across District IT Leaders within the Province of Alberta. The provision of a standard District IT Leader role description and model would assist in meeting learning and operational outcomes defined at both the provincial and district levels.

While the province and school districts invest ongoing in contemporary information technologies, the provision of a model description for this role would serve to a) provide direction for districts as this role becomes more formalized – leading to a more standard set of ksa expectations within school districts when developing and filling this role, b) assist post-secondary institutions, professional development consortia, and learning communities as they provide both instruction and interface assumptions into this role, and c) provide longer-term direction as succession planning for this role becomes increasingly important for districts who are losing long-term District IT Leaders who have shaped their district’s IT infrastructure, processes and ICT integration.

Given the cross-organizational effect of I.T. within school districts, some suggest this role ought to operate as an Executive level role – working closely with Senior Administration in laying a foundation of I.T. direction in keeping with the school district’s vision. Recommendations from a CoSN and Grunwald Associates study (Consortium for School Networking, 2004) indicate, “…school districts should create a senior full time position [for a District IT Leader]. This person should be deeply involved in district leadership working as a senior member of the superintendent’s team of key advisors to infuse technology into the district’s educational vision, goals and strategies.” This concept was also raised by various current District IT Leaders.

Te role description will require sufficient flexibility, however, to accommodate specific district needs – much as descriptions within the Alberta School Act or the Teaching Quality Standard provide direction, but allow some district flexibility.

Fulfilling this recommendation will help lay the cornerstone for Recommendation #4, building capacity through I.T. Leadership programs. Having a standard role description built upon the ksa’s defined within this research will assist in more efficiently developing district level IT Leadership capacity. This capacity will become even more needed as current senior District IT Leaders reach retirement.

40 Recommendation #4 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.

Rationale: The responsibility for such seed money is traditionally a provincial government undertaking. Building capacity at both district and school levels will be critical to best utilization of capital investments – investments made using provincial funds.

As Thomas (1998) recommends, a strong link between educational technology and leadership is necessary to support improvements in education. He further observes, given the importance of this leadership development and role, it makes sense to invest in this domain.

Currently, no post-secondary institutions in Alberta, or in Western Canada, offer a program to address the need for I.T. leadership at district and school levels to ensure a depth of knowledge in leadership, education and information technology technical understandings. While district I.T. leaders require depth in all three domains according to focus group discussions, school I.T. leaders likely require less I.T. technical knowledge.

An analysis of post-secondary institution programs within both Canada and the United States indicates limited program offerings that address information technology leadership in education – specifically programs consisting of a complement of knowledge skills and attributes comprised of the core standards identified by the TSSA Collaborative and further supported within the current research.

Most post-secondary institutions offer some courses that address I.T. in education, but no Canadian institutions offer the depth, nor breadth, of knowledge necessary to sufficiently prepare district and school leaders for their role in the field – in spite of significant expenditures in I.T. capital items (e.g. hardware, software, and online learning resources) and infrastucture (e.g. Supernet). This leadership knowledge in educational technology will be necessary to support educators and systems, thus enabling students to more fully integrate information technologies into their studies.

Given the nature of both current need and the nature of the ‘package’ of ksa’s, it is recommended that programs developed encompass both graduate degree standing (Master’s degree and Doctoral degree) and also provide the flexibility for non-degree seeking candidates, including those currently filling District and School level IT Leadership roles, to participate in further developing their background.

As shared by one District I.T. Leader within the online survey comment section: I'm seasoned in the role, but I am concerned about transition planning. While I have no pressing personal needs other than continuing to be involved beyond the district with my peers to stay current and to continuously learn, I do feel a strong need for program development to develop and support the next 41 generation of Educational IT leaders. Specifically a Master's program would be great, both in developing the role, and raising the profile of what has become a pillar of modern educational leadership.

As noted in earlier discussions with District IT Leaders, outcomes from such formal programs should accommodate ksa’s for District IT Leaders that provide a complementary set of indepth technical skills with strong rooting in education and leadership foundations. This duality of knowledge bases provides an ability for the individual to comprehend, analyze, support and architect complex I.T. undertakings, but also, and most importantly, maintain a focus on educational outcomes and educational intent.

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

Rationale: While degree granting programs are needed for long-term planning of information technology leadership, there are also short-term learning needs. Degree granting programs will help offer a depth of knowledge across the domains of leadership, education and technical understanding. However, such programs take time to fully realize and also time to graduate a complement of leaders.

As shared above, some of these short-term needs may be met through flexibility in post- secondary program offerings. In other words, courses that are offered as part of a program, may also be made available as individual courses for participants who seek the ‘occasional course’ rather than a full program. Additionally, these short-term needs may be met through various other channels including Jurisdictional Technology Coordinator (JTC) functions, school district sponsored learning functions, professional development consortia, corporately sponsored courses, and ‘for-a-fee’ corporate training programs.

There is a need to ensure that people have opportunity to gain depth in the specific niche where they recognize a need. For example, some District I.T. Leaders have noted that they have significant technical depth, yet have limited opportunity to gain a better understanding of the field they are serving, namely education. Other District I.T. Leaders have pointed out that they have significant knowledge of the field of education, yet need opportunity to enhance their technical knowledge. Finally, others recognize a need to enhance their understanding of the field of leadership.

43 Recommendation #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 curricula. This recommendation is in keeping with Alberta’s Commission on Learning recommendation #67 ‘Provide adequate funding not only for the purchase of hardware and software but also for necessary technical support, training and continuous upgrading of equipment.’

Rationale: A review of comments, particularly from school administrators, clearly identifies a need for adequate resources to meet the objective of integrating information and communications technology into the curricula. These comments focus upon resourcing difficulties, time and funding consideration, all affecting meeting student needs in the ICT domain.

As one administrator effectively sums up concerns expressed within many survey responses: What is realistic is to provide support in terms of time, money and training for changes to occur - and be sustained. If the resources are not there, sheer will and higher expectations alone will not make meaningful changes.

Clearly, it can be argued that given the variance of districts’ ability to integrate ICTs across the province and where some districts are having a level of success, it may be possible to meet this objective within the current resourcing framework. However, school administrators frequently relate concern about trade-offs that are necessary to achieve a level of effectiveness within this domain.

Certainly leadership at both district and school levels have relevance to discussions of resourcing. Effective resource planning and utilization will more likely lead to higher satisfaction levels. Nonetheless, the frequency with which resourcing concerns surface needs exploration.

As part of this exploration, provincial best-practice studies need considered in planning for effectual resourcing approaches. Farthing (1999), as part of Technical Support Planning, provides details on specific categories of expenditures; including hardware, software, infrastructure, connectivity, internet access, security, backup and training; across both instruction and administration and some detail on associated costs.

Redhead (2001) in Investigating the Total Cost of Technology in Schools, provides a thorough examination of I.T. costs. She details six categories of costs: hardware, resources, infrastructure, technology support, professional development, management and planning. The author provides a calculational tool to assist in determining total costs of ownership. Thirteen case studies reviewed in this research suggest a breadth of level of investment. School Administrators, though often recognizing the value of ICT in the curricula, expressed concerns regarding affordability.

44 Recommendation #7 It is recommended that a professional organization be developed to represent District I.T. Leaders.

Rationale: While such professional organizations exist for superintendency staff through the College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS), for school administrators through the Alberta Teachers Association Council on School Administration, for secretary- treasurer staff through the Association of School Business Officials of Alberta (ASBOA), and for school boards through the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA); no similar organization has been developed to represent District I.T. Leaders.

As one District IT Leader aptly points out, We are in great need of a professional association which would have an agenda, including linkages with other key groups such as CASS and formats for sharing experiences and information. It appeared this might happen several years ago but the efforts did not reach implementation. One individual cannot know everything. We need to support each other.

Several District IT Leaders noted the need for an organizational support structure to serve the professional needs of this group. Much as with the development of other professional organizations, the responsibility for development of such an organization largely remains the responsibility of current District I.T. Leaders.

45 References

Alberta School Act. Queen’s Printer, Edmonton, Alberta.

Consortium for School Networking (2004). Digital Leadership Divide. Available at: http://www.cosn.org/resources/grunwald/index.cfm

Costello, R. (1997) T.H.E. Journal Article (November)

Farthing, C. (1999). Technical Support Planning. Best Practices for Alberta School Jurisdictions. Alberta Education, Edmonton, Alberta.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.

Hall, D. (2003). Power Strategy Toolkit – Part 1: Managing the Vision. Learning and Leading with Technology, Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(1), 46-51.

Hall, D. (2003). Power Strategy Toolkit – Part 1: Managing the Performance. Learning and Leading with Technology, Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(2), 36-41.

Hall, D. (2003). Power Strategy Toolkit – Part 1: Managing the Operations. Learning and Leading with Technology, Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(3), 40-53.

Redhead, P. (2001). Investigating the Total Cost of Technology in Schools: Tools and Strategies for Managing Technology Investments. Best Practices for Alberta School Jurisdictions. Alberta Learning, Edmonton, Alberta.

Resta, P., Ed. (2002). Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher Education: A Planning Guide. UNESCO, Division of Higher Education.

Smyth, J., Ed. (1998). World Education Report, 1998: Teachers and Teaching in a Changing World. UNESCO Publication.

Stephenson, C. (2004a).Finding and Growing Leaders: An Interview with ISTE Deputy CEO Leslie Conery. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(7), 26-29.

Stephenson, C. (2004b). Leading through Advocacy: An Interview with ISTE CEO Don Knezek. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(8), 6-9.

Stephenson, C. (2004c). Leadership as Service: An Interview with ISTE President Jan Van Dam. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(1), 12-15.

Teaching Quality Standard Applicable to the Provision of Basic Education in Alberta. (1997). Ministerial Order #016/97.

46 Thomas W.R. (1998). Educational Technology: Are School Administrators Ready For It? Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved from http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/pubsindex.asp

TSSA Collaborative [The Collaborative for Technology Standards for School Administrators. (2001). Available at: http://www.iste.org/tssa/framework.html

Wendol (2003-04). Reader Responds Editorial – Leadership is the Real Issue. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(4), 5.

Yee, D. (1999). Leading, Learning and Thinking with Information and Communication Technology ICT: Images of Principals’ ICT Leadership Research Summary. Available at: http://www.soe.waikato.ac.nz/elc/research/yee.html

Yee, D. (2000). Images of School Principals’ Information and Communications Technology Leadership. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 287-302.

47 Appendix A(i): District I.T. Leadership

Needs Assessment Survey - Part 1

48 49 50 51 52 53 Appendix A(ii): School I.T. Leadership

Needs Assessment Survey - Part 2

54 55 56 57 58 59 Appendix B: Total Information Technology Skills

Survey Question:

Responses:

Percentage of District IT Leaders Possessing IT Skills Total IT Skills 0 skills 1 skill 3 skills 4 skills 5 skills 6 skills % of District Leaders 1.7% 3.3% 3.3% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%

Total IT Skills 7 skills 8 skills 9 skills 10 skills 11 skills 12 skills

% of District Leaders 5.0% 10.0% 13.3% 8.3% 10.0% 30.0%

60 Appendix C: Results from I.T Leadership Survey Questions – Part 1 District I.T Leadership

For each of the following questions, the number expressed at the right represents the percentage of respondents (Superintendents, District IT Leaders, School Administrators) who responded ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’.

Survey Question (Knowledge, Skill or Attribute) Category Rate  The district IT leader is competent in relating effectively Organizational 97% with Superintendency staff, school principals, teachers, Relations & technical staff, students, parents, and support staff. Communicatio ns  The district IT leader is competent in translating technical Organizational 97% specifics and jargon into terms that are easily understood by Relations & non-technical professionals. Communicatio ns  The district IT leader must be instrumental in defining Leadership & 96% collaboratively with internal stakeholders how technology Visioning will support the vision of the district and Alberta Learning mandated outcomes  The district IT leader must be instrumental in ensuring there Leadership & 96% is ongoing knowledge of emerging technologies that may be Visioning adopted by the district to achieve program goals

 The district IT leader will liaise with other IT leaders at Knowledge of 96% provincial and district levels to broaden perspectives and Problem share problem solving strategies. Solving and I.T.  The district IT leader must be competent in modeling, for Productivity 95% instructional staff, the effective uses of technology for & professional productivity Professional Practice  The district IT leader must be competent in using Productivity 95% technology to share promising instructional and learning & exemplars that support program improvement. Professional Practice  The district IT leader will be able to solve problems Knowledge of 95% effectively by prioritizing and eliminating variables. Problem Solving and I.T.  The district IT leader must be instrumental in facilitating Leadership & 94% systematic change at both an organizational and individual Visioning level

61  The district IT leader must be competent in leading Learning & 94% effective staff development opportunities in an ongoing Teaching manner that promotes the use of technologies for meaningful instruction.  The district IT leader is competent in implementing Support, 93% technology initiatives that provide instructional and Management technical support as defined in the local, regional and and provincial plans and standards. Operations o The district IT leader will have a skill set for Knowledge of 93% learning new technologies Problem Solving and I.T.  The district IT leader will inform district leadership of Social, Legal 92% program-specific ICT issues related to privacy, security, and & Ethical confidentiality. Issues  The district IT leader must be competent in leading Learning & 90% educators and administrators in the critical evaluation of Teaching instructional technologies. o The district IT leader will have a working Knowledge of 90% knowledge of Internet protocols Problem Solving and I.T. o The district IT leader will have a skill set for using a Knowledge of 90% breadth of software applications Problem Solving and I.T.  The district IT leader will involve stakeholders in Social, Legal 90% addressing equity of access to technology resources. & Ethical Issues  The district IT leader must be competent in ensuring ICT Learning & 89% curricula implementations align with direction set by Teaching Alberta Learning and the local school district.  The district IT leader is competent in project management Support, 88% to meet budgets, and timelines of a project. Management and Operations  The district IT leader is competent in understanding Support, 87% procurement processes and requirements for IT Management and Operations  The district IT leader will educate program personnel about Social, Legal 87% technology-related health, safety, legal, and ethical issues. & Ethical Issues  The district IT leader is competent in monitoring and Assessment & 86% analyzing technical data to guide the implementation of Evaluation effective technologies. 62  The district IT leader will access online communities and Knowledge of 86% resources for pursuing information and solving problems Problem Solving and I.T.  The district IT leader is competent in leading the Support, 85% appropriate design of IT infrastructure as organizations Management remodel and build new facilities. and Operations o The district IT leader will have a working Knowledge of 85% knowledge of Security Problem Solving and I.T.  The district IT leader must be competent in using Productivity 84% technology to improve administrative and business & operations. Professional Practice  The district IT leader is competent in managing IT Support, 84% personnel within the organization. Management and Operations  The district IT leader is competent in researching, Assessment & 82% monitoring, and analyzing learning performance data on a Evaluation continuous basis, to guide the design and improvement of program initiatives and activities. o The district IT leader will have a working Knowledge of 81% knowledge of Alberta Supernet architecture Problem Solving and I.T.  The district IT leader must be instrumental in actively Leadership & 80% promoting the culture of seeking IT opportunities and Visioning partnerships with other educational, corporate, and political organizations for staff and students.

o The district IT leader will have a working Knowledge of 78% knowledge of LAN and WAN networking Problem architectures Solving and I.T.  The district IT leader must be competent in guiding the Learning & 75% development of online services. Teaching  The district IT leader must be competent in focusing on Learning & 75% technologies that serve the goals of learning while Teaching discarding those that do not.  The district IT leader will have a minimum of five years Learning & 72% teaching experience. Teaching o The district IT leader will have a working Knowledge of 70% knowledge of Telecommunications Problem 63 Solving and I.T. o The district IT leader will have a working Knowledge of 70% knowledge of developing web sites Problem Solving and I.T. o The district IT leader will have a skill set for Knowledge of 31% programming software Problem Solving and I.T.

64 Appendix D: Results from I.T Leadership Survey Questions – Part 2 School Administration I.T Leadership

For each of the following questions, the percentage expressed at the right represents the number of respondents (Superintendents, District IT Leaders, School Administrators) who responded ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’.

Survey Question (Knowledge, Skill or Attribute) Category Rate

Leadership and Visioning The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be instrumental in:  Articulating a strong professional vision for meaningful technology 97% integration in teaching and learning  Facilitating the development of a collaborative ICT school 94% improvement plan.

 Participating in an inclusive district process through which 86% stakeholders formulate a shared vision and plan that defines expectations for technology use.

 Facilitating meaningful ICT change at both the school and individual 95% level.

 Providing opportunities for staff and students to develop and display 94% ICT leadership abilities.

Learning and Teaching The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:

 Implementing effective ICT professional development for all school 76% staff  Assisting teachers in using technology to access, analyze and 78% interpret student performance data and in using results to enhanced student learning.  Ensuring programs and instruction align with ICT directions set by 97% Alberta Learning.  Articulating a strong sense for the place of technology within the 98% educational environment – the focus is on teaching and learning 65 rather than technology per se.

Productivity and Professional Practice The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must:  Model for students, parents, and instructional staff, the effective uses 87% of technology in instruction and professional productivity.  Use technology-based management systems to access and maintain 88% personnel and student records  Use a variety of electronic media to communicate, interact and 90% collaborate with peers, experts and other education stakeholders.  Be an effective user of contemporary information and technology 90% tools.

Support, Management, and Operations The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:  Providing school-wide staff professional development for 90% electronically sharing work and resources.  Guiding facility design to incorporate appropriate ICT infrastructure 71% as schools remodel, evergreen and build new facilities.  Allocating school discretionary funds and other resources to advance 82% implementation of the technology plan.  Advocating or providing for adequate, timely and high-quality 89% technology support services that accommodates the district plan.

Supervision and Evaluation The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:  Implementing supervision and evaluation procedures of teachers to 87% assess their growth toward established ICT standards.  Evaluating the effectiveness of ICT use in the teaching and learning 84% process, as one criterion in assessing performance of instructional staff.

Social, Legal and Ethical Issues The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:  Collaborating with staff to resolve issues relating to equity of access 95% to resources and equity of ICT professional development opportunities.  Disseminating information to staff on privacy, security, 90% confidentiality, and reporting of information that might impact technology systems and policy requirements  Adhering to and enforcing the district’s acceptable use policy and 96%

66 other policies and procedures related to security, copyright and technology use.

Appendix E (i)

Canadian Educational Technology/Information Technology Programs (compared using ICT Competencies)

67 68 Appendix E (ii)

Canadian Educational Technology/Information Technology Programs

(compared using ISTE Standards)

69 70 Appendix F (i)

USA Educational Technology/Information Technology Programs (compared using ICT Competencies)

71 72 Appendix F (ii)

USA Educational Technology/Information Technology Programs

(compared using ISTE Competencies)

73 74 Appendix G (i)

USA Leadership and Educational Technology (compared using ICT Competencies)

75 76 Appendix G (ii)

USA Leadership and Educational Technology (compared using ISTE Competencies)

77 78 Appendix H

SELECTED UNIVERSITIES CONTACT INFORMATION

79 Selected Universities Contact Information

Canadian Educational Technology/Information Technology Program Ed Tech @ Concordia University http://doe.concordia.ca/ed_tech_ma.html IKIT from OISE http://ikit.org/ MET @ UBC http://met.ubc.ca/01-pageoverview.htm Education & Technology @ SFU http://www.educ.sfu.ca/gradprogs/masters/curriculum/tech.html ED IT @ Memorial U.N. & UCCB http://www.mun.ca/educ/grad/grad_it/grad_it_frameset.html Ed Tech @ UofC http://external.educ.ucalgary.ca/

USA Leadership and Educational Technology Woodring College of Ed @ Western http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Depts/IT/DegreeProgs.shtml Washington University Southeastern Louisiana University http://selu.edu/Administration/recordsandregistration/01catalog/ Utexas – College of Education http://www.utexas.edu/education/technology/summer2000.html#PT3 George Washington University http://www.gwu.edu/~etl/etlpo.htm Fitchburg State College http://www.fsc.edu/catalog/Grad/techleader.html Southern Illinois University Edwardsville http://www.siue.edu/EDUCATION/ed_leadership/tech.html University of Sioux Falls http://www.thecoo.edu/academic/education/grad_tech.html New York University http://www.nyu.edu/education/alt/ectprogram/ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee http://www.soe.uwm.edu/pages/welcome/Technology/Technology_L

USA Educational Technology/Information Technology Program University of Houston http://www.it.coe.uh.edu/course_list.cfm Touro College http://www.touro.edu/edgrad/instructionaltechnology/Program.asp Texas Tech University http://www.educ.ttu.edu/EDIT/default.htm George State University http://msit.gsu.edu/programs/ms_it.htm Duquesne University, PA http://www.education.duq.edu/it/msedit.html Virginia Tech http://www.itma.vt.edu/ East Carolina – College of Education http://www.coe.ecu.edu/LTDI/ma-it.htm Notre Dame de Namur University http://www.ndnu.edu/catalog/catalog_0304/educational_technology.html Boise State University http://education.boisestate.edu/edtech2/CurrentStudentFAQs.htm Hawaii http://www.hawaii.edu/edtech/prog_masters.htm San Diego State University http://edweb.sdsu.edu/EDTEC/EDTEC_Home.html Purdue University http://www.edci.purdue.edu/et/welcome.html Curry – University of Virginia http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/it/ U. Northern Iowa http://uni.edu/contined/cp/degreeprogs/graddegrees/unified/edtec American InterContinental University http://www.onlineeducationworks.com/scripts/offer.php?code=SMO Graceland University http://www.graceland.edu/show.cfm?durki=242 Jones International University http://www.jonesinternational.edu/ourPrograms/specialization.php?p Walden University, MN http://www.degrees4teachers.net/index.cfm?s=324.r030y543i.0734031t11 Western Governors University http://worldwidelearn.com/wgu/online-degrees.htm University of San Francisco http://www.soe.usfca.edu/degrees_credentials/ma_ed_tech.html University of Central Florida http://edcollege.ucf.edu/mod_depts/prog_page.cfm?ProgDeptID=5&P

80

Load more

  87

Copy Link