Running Head: STANDARD 4 BRIEF PAPER

Standard 4
Brief Paper Title Page
EDIT 760-D1 Instructional Tech Leadership S118
Markeda Stuckey
Coastal Carolina University
Running Head: STANDARD 4 BRIEF PAPER

Educators across the country are implementing ISTE standards as a source for digital

support, and enhancing classrooms to reflect a technology-rich environment. Through the eyes

of ISTE, technology escorts computational thinking into classrooms. In return, students achieve

the desired learning objectives. Computational thinking allows students to make powerful

connections between their classes and beyond. ISTE understands that learning with technology

doesn’t take place as a result of specific tool revolutionizing. In fact, it happens when proven

teaching strategies are partnered with technology tools. Technology has transitioned to be a

critical part of our daily lives. ISTE has taken the load off educators and created standards that

engage students and improve learning. Systemic Improvement, standard 4 as outlined:

administrators provide digital age leadership and management to continuously improve the

organization through the effective use of information and technology resources. Standard 4 five

indicators were modified to form interview questions. The objective of the interview was to

determine if the subject school has concrete evidence of this standard within its school. Amanda

Morris, middle school teacher and assistant technology coordinator for Hannah Pamplico

Elementary Middle was interviewed. This standard will be addressed within my improvement

plan. The evidence of this standard wasn’t as concrete as previous standards.

When asked, how HPEM establishes a purposeful change to maximize the achievement

of learning goals through the appropriate use of technology and media-rich resources, the

interviewee used precise knowledge. She acknowledged the importance of schools making sure

they provide digital citizenship classes for students. She believes simply providing technology

isn’t good enough, and teachers have to teach students the correct way to use technology

effectively. I agree with this response, mainly because students have to use technology properly

to maximize the use of technology. The second question probed how HPEM collaborates to
Running Head: STANDARD 4 BRIEF PAPER

establish metrics, collect and analyze data, interpret results, and share findings to improve staff

performance and student learning. The interviewee considered this as a weak area for the school.

She was able to recall a few metrics measured by the school to the best of her knowledge.

HPEM’s current metrics include student to faculty ratio, percentage of student in AP & foreign

language courses, students participating in STEM courses, proficiency rate for those courses,

percentage of staff with advanced certification and degrees, faculty retention/attendance, and

number of staff trainings per year. She also felt the school should track student attendance,

proficiency rate for ALL subjects, and research grants. HPEM participates in “Leader in Me”

and received a grant for the program. The school tracks some of the data, but in her opinion not

enough. Administrators, staff and students participate in the collecting, analyzing and

interpreting process. Of course the student’s responsibility is limited, but they do partake.

They’re responsible for tracking data and storing it in their “Data Tracking Binders”, which was

implemented through The Leader in Me program. The teachers are responsible for holding the

students accountable for the upkeep of their Data Tracking Binders, collecting, analyzing, and

interpreting: MAP, testing data, and grades which we relay to administrators. Being an

employee of the subject school, I have to agree with the interviewee. This area should be

refined, and data should be used to drive the school a little more. I would like for us to improve

our methods of sharing our findings.

The third question asked was describe HPEM’s process for recruiting and retaining

highly competent personnel who use technology creatively. As previously mentioned, the

interviewee is the assistant technology coordinator so she was able to provide substantial insight.

She suggests HPEM start by creating a tech team with one person from each grade level. This

team would be responsible for bringing ideas to their grade level coworkers. Also, they would
Running Head: STANDARD 4 BRIEF PAPER

report back how their grade level coworkers have successfully incorporated technology.

Conversation and communication is key to moving forward. This said team could collaborate

with the district’s technology team and technology director to recruit highly proficient personnel

who use technology creatively. Hosting job fairs highlighting interest in competent tech savvy

applicants would be an excellent way to recruit. Currently this suggestion is not in place, but I

think this would be beneficial and would improve technology advancements within the school. I

agree with her, and would love to see the school move towards welcoming staff that use

creatively use technology. Although the school does have a technology team, it doesn’t have a

representative from each grade level, and as suggested by the interviewee doing so would prove

to be beneficial. The fourth question asked how HPEM establishes and leverage strategic

partnerships to support systemic improvement. Her response was pretty similar to the previous

question response, creating a tech team, where they would work towards implementing more

technology within the class, because conversation and communication is key to moving forward.

She was able to recall from her personal experience with introducing technology to teachers.

She said some teachers are willing to learn, and some of the more seasoned teachers are still very

reluctant. She compares their attitude towards technology to a snail. I have had some encounters

with teachers that refuse to incorporate technology, and I have to agree. They would prefer for

someone to “do it for them” and leave them to their “traditional” methods. They’re not receptive

to the information, no matter who it comes from, a fellow colleague, assistant technology

coordinator or technology director. So I’m certain we need to improve this area. The fifth and

final question asked that she identify how HPEM establishes and maintain a robust infrastructure

for technology including integrated, interoperable technology systems to support management,

operations, teaching and learning. She responded personally, saying she was a dedicated
Running Head: STANDARD 4 BRIEF PAPER

technology employee, and it’s imperative to have in a district with technology. She believes

having a dedicated technology employee in the background maintaining network issues and

managing computer/device issues helps teachers continue to use technology in their classrooms

uninterrupted. I concur with her response. There has been times we’ve had technology issues to

arise during a lesson, and having someone you can immediately call on to assist absolutely saves

the day. We’re not losing countless instructional time addressing issues that could be resolved in

little to no time.

In conclusion, the interviewee and I agree that there are a few areas of improvement for

HPEM. Although there is evidence of some of this standard within the school, it’s not as

prominent as the other standards. Working on metrics and technology collaborations within the

school are somethings we need to refine. Data is used as substantial evidence to drive the

school, and 100% technology incorporation will boost our technology rich environment. We

have to also make ourselves marketable so that people with advanced technology expertise will

join our family.

Running Head: STANDARD 4 BRIEF PAPER

References

International Society for Technology in Education. (2018). ISTE. Retrieved from

http://www.iste.org/standards/for-administrators