So the question was asked if you agreed with the rank ordering of the Key Implementation Factors assuming #1 is the most important and on down. If this is true then why would Principal training be last on the list? I'm thinking that if Principals are going to be able to help teachers shouldn't they, along with their leadership teams, be a much higher priority? I'm curious what others might think?
I think the principal key factor is ranked lowest because if it were ranked highest it would be the "tail wagging the dog" - which is rarely sustainable. In the case of a one-to-one initiative teachers are at the forefront and must have some kind of buy-in if it is to succeed. If you notice, the other 8 key factors are all instructional and tied directly to the classroom teacher. Even if not all 8 factors are implemented, it does show the instructor has taken some ownership of technology within their environment. The principal's training (#9) is to help nurture and encourage their staff so this technological usage can progress and be multi-faceted. This is similar to the usage of Moodle at Vail Academy. The administration introduced Moodle to the staff and didn't require its usage. However, as more teachers took ownership of it the more the admin endorsed and supplemented. Its a case of being pro-active and re-active depending on the stage of implementation.
Mr. Castro, I agree with you. Although the leadership of the school is responsible for the changing the climate and culture of a site, the teachers are responsible for the level of implementation in the classroom. It is up to us as administrators to ensure that programs flourish, but none of this can be done without teacher buy-in. The fidelity of a program lies in the hands of the teachers. The more the staff believes and buys-in, the better the results will be. However, I believe that we as administrators have a responsibility to learn the components of an effective 1:1 computing model and serve as coaches and mentors for our staff.
I do agree that Principals should also be trained along with teachers if were to try and implement together as a whole. I think many teachers have felt fear mostly because we still require much training and support so that teachers may know how technology can be tied into their subjects. We need to be supplied with the appropriate tools, resources to be able to go into this fearlessly. I do believe that technology Can't replace the Art that teachers bring to our classrooms. Now that ive read the beginning chapters of Project Red this all starts to make more and more sense. I like how its said that our outside world is moving much faster than our education in our schools and Its time to step up and incorporate technology to help our kids keep up with the world they live in. I also will be relying on our adminstrators to keep us informed and up to date with tech trainings.
Good question! I read #9 over again a few times. Principals are trained in "teacher buy-in," best practices, and technology-transformed learning, I feel means that if presented in a positive light, then the teacher buy-in for change will be easier. Principals need to advance education as fast as possible in their schools. If technology is going to advance or increase academics a more efficient way and cost less, then principals can use some of their school budget to hire technicians to educate their teachers and truly have a technology-transformation of learning at their school. Number 2: Change management leadership by principal, I feel is closely related to Number 9.
I agree with you Tammy wholeheartedly!!! I also thought this should of been #1 along with #2 (Change management leadership by principal). I think that if the leaders of a school ie. facilitators, coaches, prevention specialists aren't modeling the use of technology on a regular basis it would be harder for there to be buy-in from the staff. If you're being asked to do something it should be seen as important across the entire school starting with the leadership. Even though at most schools I think teacher buy-in happens when they see their fellow teammates/friends doing something and them sharing how excited they are and how it has worked/helped their students.
I agree with that in order for change to occurr at a site, leadership plays an important role. In the case of technology, principals/leadership should be well adversed with best practices and technology-transformed learning. One would need to be able to "talk the talk" before they are able to train in teacher buy-in. The principal/leadership need a buy in also, in order to be the change agent-Right?
I seen your point, principles are the leaders of the school and I would want my principle to have as much knowledge, tools, and resources as possible. I do think principle training should not be last on the list, 1 to 1 training and leadership training is crucial for success. However, it certainly does not need to be number one.
I was suprised to see principal trainging ranked ninth also. Groups leading the change should be ranked #1. Someone(s) must be leading the change in order for it to occur. Another surprise was the low number of schools implementing 6-9 factors.
My school is touching on all elements except virtual field trips. This doesnt mean we are fully implementing the factors but we have stepped into their practice on some level.