There comes a time when every district needs to have a sit-down with the budget committee. So, how do we know what to budget toward technology in the future? Typically, the technology coordinator or technology department has to create a needs assessment. The needs assessment will enable a school district to target specific technology needs and "could entail a diverse intra-district committee meeting several times to examine school data, canvass opinions from peers and stakeholders, and identify and prioritize needs" ((Morrison et. al., 2019, p. 410). No, you can't just say, "gimmie, gimmie, gimmie." The needs assessment follows through several phases, but the first is gathering data. Gathering data entails many vital factors "such as inventory and professional development statistics, as well as any other information that provides a current picture of technology in the district" (Frazier & Hearrington, 2017, p. 174). If this were not hard enough, the district and school staff’s future desires need to be evaluated. The needs assessment is critical, and "failure to include any type of systematic needs assessment increases the risk of disappointment and wasteful spending" (Morrison et. al., 2019, p. 408). With the data mining and planning for the future accomplished, the rest of the process must commence.
Depending on who you speak with, the needs assessment or the allotment of funding should come first. Without money, district purchases can't be made, but district purchases will go awry without knowing what is needed. I prefer to think of the first two stages of the diagram above happening at the same time. When districts decide on a three or five-year technology plan, it is easily conceivable that they may purchase an application or program that is only two or three years old. Technology is coming so fast that applications are being developed more quickly than teachers are learning to use the technology. Before a purchase is made, we need knowledge of how well the product works in the classroom. Let this be real clear, "it is not the technology that affects student learning, but rather the instructional strategies and lesson content that technology affords or delivers" (Morrison et. al., 2019, p. 390). It is in the use of a product that references are created. I realize the references provided will most likely be favorable to the specific vendor, but the real-world outcomes do matter. In one study, "interview participants noted that they either would ask the vendor for current users or would consult with neighboring districts regarding their opinions and experiences with products"(Morrison et. al., 2019, p. 399). It is common for teachers to be permitted a trial of many programs or applications before purchase. The use of pilot programs utilizing a small number of teachers to give feedback will allow purchasers "to obtain first-hand knowledge of what a full-scale implementation may look like" (Morrison et. al., 2019, p. 400). Once a selection is made, the technology’s acquisition moves forward, and the hard work of professional development begins.
Professional development throughout the life cycle of the application or hardware is necessary for successful implementation. No one wants to be responsible for purchasing an unusable product for a school, and "a lack of support after an initial sale would influence whether the district chose to renew a software license" (Morrison et. al., 2019, p. 406). It is a general consideration that roughly twenty percent of a budget for technology procurement should be explicitly retained for professional development (Frazier & Hearrington, 2017, p. 175). If you don't provide enough professional development, all you will hear is, "Fix it, Fix it, Fix it." The procurement process result should be successful implementation and leaning forward into our students’ technology future. Although I spoke about professional development last, please ensure whatever contract you choose, a formal professional development program is available and ready for the implementation phase.
References
Frazier, M. & Hearrington, D. (2017). The Technology Coordinator’s (Third Edition) Handbook. Portland, Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education.
Giphy. (2019, September 13). Professional Life GIF. GIPHY. https://giphy.com/gifs/xFaOujGmCFHoI/embed.
“Money Tree” by jp3g is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Morrison, J. R., Ross, S. M., & Cheung, A. C. K. (2019, February 6). From the market to the classroom: how ed-tech products are procured by school districts interacting with vendors. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-019-09649-4/figures/1.
Morrison, J. R., Ross, S. M., & Cheung, A. C. K. (2019). From the market to the classroom: how ed-tech products are procured by school districts interacting with vendors. Educational Technology Research & Development, 67(2), 389–421. https://doi-org.ezproxy.montevallo.edu/10.1007/s11423-019-09649-4
Paak, A. (2019, April 10). Rich Money GIF by Anderson Paak. GIPHY. https://giphy.com/gifs/andersonpaak-money-pool-lptjRBxFKCJmFoibP3/embed.
"Working Together Teamwork Puzzle Concept" by rama_miguel is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Darren
ReplyDeleteYour blog was really amazing and awesome. I wish I had that pool of money too.(Lol) On a serious note, I understand the importance of having a needs assessment from the technology standpoint and also from an educator's standpoint as well. It is imperative to understand the needs of your classroom in order to give our students the best possible opportunity to gain as much knowledge as their minds can hold. According to Gupta et al.(2007) who states,"Programs and products that specifically target documented needs are inherently effective and marketable." We want teachers and students to gain valuable knowledge that can be utilized inside and outside of the classroom setting.
References
Gupta,K., Sleezer, C. and Russ-Eft, D.(2007). A Practical Guide to Needs Assessment. Wiley: Sanfrancisco.