Chapters 7 & 8

The following is my interpretation of the key points of Chapter 7 and 8 of Technology in it’s Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools:

Chapter 7: Definition of “leadership”, the evolving role principals as leaders and facilitators, and the eight (8) step development process for change.

Chapter 7 opens with a discussion of the role of the principal in regard to the implementation of technology. The authors Arelado & Perry write that principals need to be leaders as schools grow technologically and are “expected to help teachers overcome obstacles and integrate technology into their instructional practice” (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001). This is an important distinction from the “traditional” role of principals as manager that merely implement school policies and directives (Perry &Areglado, 2001). Unfortunately, not all principals have embraced the evolving role of leaders in the technology arena. The principal at my school is definitely cut more from the “traditional” mold, or at least that is my perspective and the perspective of the teachers I have spoken to. While she does make sure that we have resources available, she pretty much leaves it up to the library and IT staff to identify our needs and see that the technology is being utilized. My theory is that her bias against technological leadership is a comfort factor: she is from a generation that did not have technology like we have today so she is more comfortable passing the buck to people who are trained in those technologies. She also has been a principal for many years, which may have resulted in her getting set in her duties. I am inclined to think the current and next generation of principals will adopt the role of technological leaders more readily.

I found the next section of the chapter particularly interesting. It talked about the difference between “managers” and “leaders”. The authors refer to a guy named Zaleznick that defines management as being “tough-minded problem solvers, dedicated task completers, compromisers, bureaucrats, and protectors of the existing order of affairs” (Perry & Areglado, 2001). Leaders, on the other hand, “have personal and active attitudes toward roles, develop fresh approaches to long-standing problems, are comfortable with high-risk, are intuitive and empathic, and create turbulence to intensify motivation and produce unintentional outcomes” (Perry & Areglado, 2001). The authors seem to feel each is mutually exclusive and I’m not sure I buy into this separation. To me it's too simplistic. What about the bureaucrat that takes risks and/or is somewhat intuitive? Certainly the authors are not suggesting these types of hybrids do not exist? I get their point about the traits that go into a good leader, but I do not believe managers and leaders are mutually exclusive.

Finally the chapter closes with the eight (8) step development process for change: Establish urgency, create a guiding coalition, develop a vision/strategy, communicate the vision, empower employees, generate short-term wins, consolidate gains to produce deeper change, and anchor change in the culture (Perry & Areglado, 2001). Anyone that has been in a position of successful leadership should have been familair with at least most of these steps. In laymans terms: rally the troops around a new idea, get others involved and excited about the idea, create attainable short-term goals for motivational purposes and for visible progress, and once the idea is rolling, make it a part of the daily routine.

Chapter 8: The real-world politics of technology integration, the role of the media, and the issues shared by the major stakeholders of technology in schools.

Chapter 8 opens by discussing the local, state, and Federal politics involved with technology integration in our schools. It is basically a battle of varied interests and varied agendas. The author Zimmerman points out that at the local level, the public does have some say in the decision making process (Zimmerman, 2001). As in any political arena, the key to getting noticed at the local level is by making enough noise that those higher up the food chain take notice. The authors talks about creating grassroot campaigns as an effective way to bring attention to concerns...e-mails, letters, position papers, and testifying (Zimmerman, 2001). The author cites several examples of (initially) small organizations that made big changes in the technology/education landscape and shows how a grassroot operation works in the real world. Similar to the leadership thoughts in the previous chapter, I believe this type of philosophy is not limited to the technology arena. But in regard to educational technology, the information is eerily timely considering the recent cuts in funding that are on the table.

Obviously the media plays a major role in public perception. The author notes how "one negative news story or comments by a key decision maker about educational technology has the potential to rally the unconvinced" (Zimmerman, 2001). But then again the same argument could be made for either side. The media is just another cog in the propaganda machine.

Finally the chapter closes with a listing if the different issues shared by major stakeholders in educational technology. Rather than list them individually, I'll summarize the list as making sure that technology in the schools have a definable need, are used properly, stay current, and are necessary. Any peceived deficiencies become fuel for the opposition to poke holes. cut spending, and argue for change.

Resources:

Areglado, R.J. & Perry Jr., G.S. (2001). The Computers are Here!: Now What Does the Principal Do?. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.) . Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA:Jossey- Bass Inc.Zimmerman, I.K. (2001).

Building Public Support: The Politics of Technology Transformation. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.