TechFacilitatorStandards

The ability to use and make decisions about possible technology tools seems to be a basic skill that all educators posses. However, that is not always the case. All too often, teachers avoid using technology for fear that glitches will make them appear incompetent. The old image of the perfect and all-knowing teacher is a fast fading memory. The teacher of now is a learner. They are open to trying new things and even making mistakes. This adventurous attitude is one that is beneficial to students who learn to not be afraid of experimenting. As a facilitator, I can model this with my coworkers as I get "hands-on" in helping them to find the right tools to present their content. It is not my job to tell them the answers, but instead, I help the try the options available to see what works best. For example, I had a saved smart notebook file for a math game that a teacher wanted to play with her class. When I showed her how the students would need to color in the spaces of a graph with a stylus, she asked if there was a quicker way. It never occurred to me to make infinite cloning squares that the students could move into the appropriate place on the graph. It takes a bit of humility to be able to fearlessly tackle the task of implementing technology.
 * Standard I - Operations and Concepts **

The planning of technology integration is a very tricky. What worked well one year may not be as effective the next. Also, because technology is always changing, the software you used just a few years ago may be obsolete today. It takes a lot of flexibility to not fall behind or become too attached to one hardware or software. It is also important to always be aware of the new technologies as they become available. I certainly had to learn this one day. As I was discussing computer software with some former students, they brought up a program called "Pixie". I, being particularly fond of KidPix, said "It's not better than KidPix, though". I had only a vague idea of what Pixie was, but the urging of the students made me want to investigate further. I found that it was indeed a better and more efficient program. It reminded me of what a trucker once told me about driving. You can't allow your eyes to become fixated. Instead, you should keep them moving ahead of you as you drive. The planning of technology integration fits so perfectly with that analogy. As you become aware of new programs, you can look at the lessons ahead to see if they will fit your needs. Conversely, you can look for the technology that will best convey the content that you want the students to acquire.
 * Standard II - Planning and Design **

The need to revamp curriculum to include technology is an obvious one. Schools have changed so much from the days of the one room school house. Long gone are the days of reciting facts aloud and reproducing number sentences on chalkboard slates. Information is no longer held within the confines of an educator’s mind. Students have all they could need or want to know available to them with only a click of a button. The challenge for educators now is to make the switch from being a vessel from which knowledge is dispensed to being a filter for the flood of information that is awaits today’s student. The disparity between the ways students use technology for their personal lives and the ways they experience it in educational settings is a difficult one to change. It reminds me of the difference a child that has only been to daycare and a student that has attended a preschool. As a kindergarten teacher, I can spot the students that are accustomed to being in a structured environment on the very first day of school. While we certainly want to make curriculum technology-rich and engaging, I don’t see the need for it to compete with technologies that are meant to entertain. Just like an entering kinder student must come to learn the difference between play time and learning time, students also need to see that technology can be fun as well as a tool for learning. It doesn’t mean that students should feel that learning cannot be fun. It is just important to recognize the goal / end product of the technology being used. That being said, I think it is beneficial to develop and use curriculum that is enriched with technological learning materials that inspire students to produce newer and fresher ideas than their predecessors. Learning environments which are clear and accurate will allow students to have a quicker and more firm grasp of concepts so that they can move on to more complicated material.
 * Standard III - Curriculum **

Assessing student learning is an important part of any instruction, but the area of technology is one in which assessment is difficult and lacking. As a new content area, technology literacy is still being defined. There is a lack of an universal standard for what students should know and be able to do, and at what grade levels they should be able to do it. Because there no specific agreed upon set of standards the development of assessment is slow in coming. Also, priority is given to curriculum areas which are the basis for school accountability ratings. Thus, there is not as much interest in this area of assessment. While assessment of technology literacy is lagging behind other standardized testing, the use of technology is becoming increasingly popular. Teachers are coming to recognize the benefit of providing students with instant feedback. I personally have had the opportunity to use CPS systems in my classroom. Students are always thoroughly engaged and I truly appreciate the ease with which I can analyze student data. The use of technology assessments in the whole group setting is great way to simultaneously gather information about student learning and re-teach the information through class discussion.
 * Standard IV - Assessment **

The use of technology is often focused on instruction and student use. The potential of technology to make so many of the tasks teachers have to perform on a day to day basis is sometimes overlooked. Teachers lack the time and patience to learn to use new software which leads the designers to make their application more simplified and obvious, or as text refers to it, contextualized. There are two problems associated with creating contextualized software is that it is then limited in the ways that it can be used, and the teachers that use them do not become proficient in envisioning ways productivity tools can be used. Nardi and O' day (1999) suggest that a facilitator that does the job of finding contextualized software and then applying that software to the curriculum for his fellow teachers is acting as a "chauffeur". I fear I am guilty of assuming that role. I truly enjoy being there for my colleagues.
 * Standard V - Productivity and Professional Practice **

**Standard VI – Social, Ethical, Legal and Human Issues** Creating equitable access to technology is a priority for some schools and a dream for others. Willamson and Redish (2009) highlight the disparity in available access for schools of varying socio-economic status. It is sad to see the old adage “ For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.” As the text mentions, schools that spent less on technology had more severe funding than those that spent more. (Consortium for School Networking, 2005) Thus, it seems the gap is doomed to continue widening. The only hope is those low income, urban and minority schools to show evidence of more effective use of technology funds. Unfortunately, such campus tend do to be far more focused on performing well on standardized tests. Therefore, when they are able to acquire much needed technology hardware tools, it is often used for drill and kill.

Conforming to safety policies creates a formidable obstacle for technology leaders. Many of the most easily integrated technology practice present a danger for students. Either they are vulnerable to predators and/or cyber-bullies, or the privacy of their student records is put in jeopardy. The loop-holes that educators must jump through in order to create safe, technology-integrated learning experiences leads many to wonder if it is “worth the risk.” (Williamson and Redish, 2009)

**Standard VII – Procedures, Policies, Planning, and Budgeting for Technology Environments** Planning the budget to allow for procurement of technology tools is tricky task. Administrators must make sure every dollar is used effectively. Consideration must be given to the appropriate technology for the campus and then also include the professional development needed to make that technology be put to good use. Making use of experienced campus personnel is a cost effective way to provide training.

The text states that despite continuous increases in technology tools being put in the hands of educators, a 2006 survey of 1,000 teacher found that the number one barrier to technology integration was insufficient access. This may be due to facilitator's lack of proper implementation. William and Reddish suggest that once an educator has had technology fail to work, they form a negative attitude toward technology that is difficult to dispel. I have experience this first hand. Thought a teacher might have had success with integrating technology into numerous lessons, one failed attempt makes them less likely to make another. For that reason, I feel implementation and maintenance is just as important as the procurement of technology. 

**Standard VIII – Leadership and Vision** Creating a vision to guide the long-range implementation of technology for a campus should be a collaborative task with the administration at the lead. When our school created our plan, we were provided with video footage and slide shows for motivation. We also did a jig-saw reading of a current research article. The background information gave us only a small window to the possibilities that we could look forward to. The Horizon report on the other hand, is preview of educational technology paradise. If that had been the spring-board for our vision planning, I am sure we would have reached a little higher with our goals.

While being obtainable, our goals fell prey to the circumstance of our school's growing community. While we hoped to maintain a lab outfitted with all the tools needed to support a whole group technology integrated lesson, the overflowing student population demanded the lab be turned in to a regular classroom. The situation led to a more favorable technology integration strategy. Computers had to be dispersed to classrooms. To make up for the lack of a lab, the administration purchase laptop carts that could serve classrooms on an as-needed basis.

Redish, T., & Williamson, J. (2009). ISTE’s Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards: What Every K-12 Leader Should Know and Be Able to Do. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education.