1. Should the new administrator standards parallel the new teacher standards?
Administrator standards should parallel teacher standards to provide a coherent framework from which to lead. The current alignment seems disjointed. For example, professional development is addressed in the NETS standards for administrators by standard 3, Productivity and Professional Practice. Standard 5 on the new NETS standards for teachers is Professional Growth and Leadership. It just seems to me that the standards would make more sense if they addressed the same topic with the same standard.
2. Are there additional standards to which administrators should be held?
I think that the new NETS standards for administrators should include specific indicator's for the use of digital tools. After reviewing the old standards, there is no push to achieve digital fluency throughout their school. In other words, hold administrators responsible for updating all existing technologies.
3. What is your overall reaction to the current administrator standards?
The standards for administrators should be the leading edge of technological advancement within the school. These standards do not show that. The performance indicators seem redundant and vague. For example, standard 1, indicator D states: administrators should use data in making leadership decisions(vague). Standard 3, indicator F states: use technology to advance organizational improvement (redundant).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Jeff,
You make some good points. Yes, the standards could use more detail. They should also align more closely with those of the teacher. Technology is an area where administrators, teachers and students can grow together. It should not be difficult to address the same topic with the same standard with each. I think with technology changing so rapidly, it may prove to be a daunting task to hold administrators responsible for updating all existing technology. Things happen so quickly with technology, sometimes an update is moot. Sometimes you just have start over. But you have to start somewhere. I guess the building level administrator could be the place to start.
I didn't even think about aligning the standards between teachers and administrators to make them seem more cohesive. That's an excellent point. I also agree that some of the standards for admininstrators seemed redunant and more concise verbiage and detail would not only make the expectations more clear but appear more obtainable.
I agree with you that administrator should be held to greater standards than teachers should. Digital fluency is important and having goals designed to support additional technology is important. Then the equipment needs to be in place in each classroom and school as well.
It is interesting to see that you thought some of the standards were vague and redundant; however, now that you mention it, I agree with you. The more precise details as to what an administrator is held accountable for in technology would help all at stake!
My response to your stick theory is in your duck post.
Ditto on redundancy and non-alignment. I also beieve that administrators should lead in the use of technology in the schools. Being the leader does not necessarily mean they have to be the best. Like you said, they need to be on the leading edge, knowing where technology can lead even if they are not the most proficient in its usage.
I agree the standards should parallel in content. It is important for the administrator to stay upto date on technological advances; however, the constant training may be difficult to keep up with all of the other administrative duties.
I need to improve my technology skills. I find it difficult to find the time necessary to keep up. I had hoped this class would give some real technology experience. (Let us implement technology and 'play with it'.) Unfortunately, that did not happen. So it places us in the position to go out and find the information on our own.
In regards to holding the administrator responsible for funding technology appropriately: Others have noted that not all counties are funded the same. Within counties, there are inequities in resources. In addition to the lack of actual hardware, the constant push to teach more, faster requires us to integrate technology into every subject. The problem is many of our lower SES students do not have access to computers at home and lack the basic operating skills necessary to use the technology in another area. How do administrators handle this problem?
You're right, the current standards do not show the administrator leading the way. In many ways an administrator not involved with developing the use of new technology reminds me of something called a "pole turtle." A pole turtle is a turtle on top of a fence pole along some stretch of a large farm. When you notice him up there, you have to assume a few things: He didn't get there by himself, he's in danger of falling and he's got no business there in the first place. A principal with a tech-plan is the same: he's got no business in today's schools, he could lead to trouble for the school at large.
Principals need to be aware of the digital tools that they are spending money on. I'm not saying they have to be the technology guru for the school, but they should have some idea of what is going on in the digital classroom. It's like buying a car before you test drive, it looks like a nice car but what about the other factors.
You brought out some great thoughts. I agree that the standards would be more user friendly if they addressed the same topic in the same standard. I don't know if I think administrators should be held accountable for updating technologies in the schools. I believe that most progressive administrators will update as funds become available. Now that I have looked at your comments, I do agree that some of the language is vague and redundant. What purpose is served by writing standards this way?
Post a Comment