Information Technology Leadership in Education:
An Alberta Needs Assessment
Research & Writing Team
Chair and Lead Author: Maurice Hollingsworth
Analysis of Post-Secondary Programs: Rick Mrazek
Survey Profile Development: Marlo Steed
Editing/Proofing: Gary Spence
Content Review: Peter Balding, John Percevault, Marlo Steed, Gary Spence
IT Leadership Steering Committee (Alphabetically):
Name
Peter Balding, Division Technology
Administrator
Dale Burnett, Professor, Faculty of
Education
Maurice Hollingsworth, Director of
Information Technology
Rick Mrazek, Assistant Dean, Graduate
Studies and Research, Faculty of Education
John Percevault, Director of Technology
and Communication
Gary Spence, Assistant Superintendent
Marlo Steed, Professor, Faculty of
Education
Organization
Black Gold Regional Division
University of Lethbridge
Palliser Regional Schools
University of Lethbridge
Grande Yellowhead Regional Division
Wolf Creek School Division
University of Lethbridge
Focus Group Participants
30 JTC Members attending the May 2004 Jurisdictional Technology
Coordinator’s Meeting, Edmonton, Alberta
ii
Table of Contents
Definition of Terms
vi
Executive Summary
vii
Introduction and Literature Review
A Global Perspective
Educational Technology Standards for School Administrators
A Provincial Context
Need for a Strategic I.T. Leadership Direction
1
4
5
5
Methodology
Survey Development
Survey Implementation
Focus Groups
7
8
8
Results
Survey Response Rates
District Level I.T. Leadership Survey Responses
Today’s District IT Leaders: District IT
Leader Demographics
Tomorrow’s District IT Leaders: Survey Description
of District IT Leader Needs & Direction
Focus Group Triangulation Results
School Level I.T. Leadership Survey Responses
Today’s School IT Leaders: School
Administrator Demographics
Tomorrow’s School IT Leaders: Survey Description
of IT Leader Needs and Direction
10
10
11
18
22
23
23
27
Discussion
District IT Leaders
School IT Leaders
Summary
Analysis of Post-Secondary Program Offerings
Recommendations
30
32
33
34
38
References
46
iii
Appendix A(i) : District I.T. Leadership Needs Assessment Survey – Part 1
Appendix A(ii): School I.T. Leadership Needs Assessment Survey – Part 2
Appendix B: Total Information Technology Skills
Appendix C: Results from I.T. Leadership Survey Questions – Part 1
Appendix D: Results from I.T. Leadership Survey Questions – Part 2
Appendix E: Canadian Educational Technology Programs
Appendix F: USA Educational Technology Programs
Appendix G: USA Educational Technology Leadership Programs
iv
50
56
62
63
67
Definition of Terms
Information Technology (I.T.) and
Information Communications Technology (ICT)
The terms I.T. (information technology) and ICT (information communications
technology) are largely used interchangeably within this document, recognizing a scope
of knowledge required on behalf of leaders to meet the outcomes of curricular
integration, administrative services, and curricular delivery. The scope of this knowledge
includes leadership, educational, and technical knowledge.
The use of the term ICT and ICTs is used in a more general sense and is not to be
confused with the specific Information and Communication Technology K-12 Program of
Studies, sometimes referred to as the ‘ICT Outcomes’ as developed by Alberta Learning.
References to the provincial program of studies will use specifically reference the K-12
program of studies.
Education Technology (ET)
Education Technology (ET) refers to a less technical understanding of information
technologies, with more focus on the educational outcomes desired from the use of
information technologies.
School I.T. Leader
The term School I.T. Leader is used synonymously with the term school administrator
(principal or vice-principal). A rationale for this terminology is provided within the
paper.
District I.T. Leader
An individual tasked with the responsibility of I.T., E.T. or both across a school district.
I.T. Leadership
The act of meeting the school district’s mission through effective implementation and use
of information technologies. Leadership speaks to maintaining a strategic view. All I.T.
projects, programs, and processes will reflect the organization’s mission through effective
leadership.
Leadership is differentiated from management. Management ensures that various projects
are met within the resource allocation, budget and timeline. However, management does
not tend to maintain a strategic vision. Good leadership will incorporate good
management, but not necessarily vice-versa.
v
Executive Summary
Education systems around the world are under increasing pressure to use information and
communication technologies as part of the educational process. Not only does the
implementation of new technologies have radical implications on conventional learning
and teaching (Resta, 2002), leadership within the area of information technology is
slowly becoming a focal point in addressing both new technologies and the associated
change.
Both the Consortium for School Networking (2004) and Thomas (1998) find that
although the demands for appropriate integration of information technologies into
curricular settings have increased, there remains a paucity of leadership within this
domain. Yee (2000), similarly, finds that there is limited information about the relation
between educational leadership and ICT in education.
This current research was born out of recognition that a significant need exists,
specifically within the Province of Alberta, to ensure that strong information technology
leadership in education is prevalent. Alberta’s K-12 education sector spends more than
$120 million annually in the area of ICT resources, yet leadership within this domain has,
to date, scarcely been addressed. The present research a) provides a baseline
understanding of current leadership in the ICT domain at both district and school levels,
b) identifies, via current educational leaders, core knowledge, skills, and attributes (ksa’s)
of ICT educational leaders at both the school and district levels, c) reviews information
technology leadership programs in Alberta and elsewhere, and d) makes
recommendations for future actions.
A province-wide Needs Assessment Survey was conducted, consisting of two-parts: one
part focusing on district-level I.T. Leadership and the second part focusing on schoollevel I.T. Leadership. The survey was submitted to all Alberta Superintendents, District
IT Leaders and School administrators. In addition to demographic information collection,
the survey presented a series of items asking whether given ksa’s were important for
district or school-level I.T. leaders. The series of items were largely constructed using
technology standards from the Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA)
Collaborative. The TSSA Collaborative have very effectively addressed guiding
standards for leaders at both district and school levels in educational I.T. leadership
Results from the provincial survey show a significant variance across personnel currently
fulfilling the role of District IT Leader whether examining educational background,
experience, responsibilities, depth of knowledge of I.T., or depth of knowledge of ICT
integration. Such variance doesn’t exist at the school IT leader level (school
administrator), although there does appear to be a lack of clarity regarding the role of ICT
leadership. While some school administrators have a clear vision of the role of ICT in the
curricula and as a learning tool for students, others question ICT’s place relative to other
priorities and view it is an ‘add-on’.
vi
Almost universally, survey results suggest that there is strong agreement with each of the
ksa’s presented as important to effectively fulfill the role of either District I.T. Leader or
for School I.T. leader.
A series of recommendations and the associated rationale for each springs from these
findings. The recommendations are:
1. Formalize, recognize and adopt the knowledge, skills, and attributes from this
research as expectations of District I.T. Leaders.
2. Formalize and recognize the knowledge, skills and attributes from this
research as expectations of School I.T. Leaders.
3. It is recommended that Alberta Learning develop a role description for
District IT Leaders at the executive district level. Further, it is recommended
that the position be funded directly by Alberta Learning, rather than requiring
districts to allocate from the instructional pool to accommodate the position.
4. Provide seed money for post-secondary institutions to develop and implement
I.T. Leadership programs to meet both immediate needs of current District
and School level IT leaders and to establish a capacity of I.T. leadership over
the longer term to accommodate succession planning.
5. Provide a breadth of learning opportunities for personnel currently filling the
role of District IT Leader and School IT Leader.
6. Review and align resource requirements; in terms of time, money, technical
resources and training; to support integration of information and
communications technology into the curriculum.
7. Develop a professional organization to represent and support District I.T.
Leaders.
vii
Introduction and Literature Review
A Global Perspective
Leadership in the education field related to instructional technology has never before
been in such high demand. Resta (2002) points out that educational systems around the
world are under increasing pressure to use new information and communication
technologies (ICTs) to teach students the knowledge and skills they need in the 21st
century. He further shares the 1998 UNESCO World Education Report, Teachers and
Teaching in a Changing World, which suggests the new information and communication
technologies will have radical implications on conventional teaching and learning.
Transformations of the teaching- learning process are predicted and the way teachers and
learners gain access to knowledge and information is expected to change (p. 10).
The UNESCO document Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher
Education: A Planning Guide highlights the role ICTs play in shaping the new global
economy and subsequent rapid changes across society, independent of industry or field.
Policy-makers, business leaders and educators are increasingly aware that the current
educational system, while best-designed for agrarian or industrial-based economies, fails
to meet the needs of students in the 21st century, preparing for a knowledge-based
economy and society.
As shared in UNESCO’s planning guide,
The new knowledge-based global society is one in which:
• the world’s knowledge base doubles every 2–3 years;
• 7,000 scientific and technical articles are published each day;
• data sent from satellites orbiting the earth transmit enough data to fill
19 million volumes every two weeks;
• graduates of secondary schools in industrialized nations have been
exposed to more information than their grandparents were in a lifetime;
• there will be as much change in the next three decades as there was in
the last three centuries (National School Board Association, 2002).
(pp. 14-15)
Costello (1997) noted that the question is no longer whether students will use technology,
but rather whether educators will have a role in directing student’s use of technology.
There is a growing expectation that students must achieve a level of technological
fluency to function effectively in society and that schools have a responsibility to
integrate technology to this end (Stephenson, 2004a). Thomas (1998) states that every
national poll recently indicates that parents and business leaders want schools and
students to increase their use of technology and further that significant investment has
been made in educational technologies in pre-college settings.
1
However, in spite of rapid changes in the new knowledge-based global society and
associated educational expectations, there remains a tardiness in addressing the need for
leadership in the educational technology domain. Shuldman (2004) makes the keen
observation, “There is a growing consensus that administrative support and leadership are
successful to implementation of instructional technologies, and that the importance of this
administrative support is often understated.” Even so, technology leadership is far from
achieving capacity. The April, 1997 issue of The School Administrator further highlights
the paucity of technology leadership in it’s issue’s title, “Building Technology
Leadership: The Missing Link”.
Thomas (1998), as part of two surveys exploring superintendent and principal’s
knowledge and preparedness for using information technologies in their educational
systems and schools, finds a disconnect between the expectations on use of information
technology and the capability of school leadership. His synopsis of the current status
states:
The people who make decisions about policies and finances in schools have little
or no training in educational technology and few resources to make informed
decisions. School administrators do not appear to be prepared for their emerging
role in technology, and their lack of understanding and resources sometimes
creates barriers to change and improvement. There is no strong link between
school leadership and educational technology. (p. 3)
Within his research of member boards of the Southern Regional Board of Education, in
the South-East USA, Thomas indicates that while superintendents have increased their
use of technology tools, they generally lack the comprehensive perspective necessary to
provide strong leadership in this domain. Although, generally superintendents involve
committees of educators, parents, business partners and community members in planning
and setting direction, these committees can only support strong leadership in educational
technology, not supplant it.
His commentary on district-level technology advisers also suggests a gap in the needed
knowledge base:
Many technology directors in school districts are competent and hard-working
individuals; their personal qualifications are not the issue. Rather the issue is the
range of technology topics and issues in which they are trained and in which they
are called upon to be ‘experts’ at any one time. (p. 5)
Similarly, Thomas observes that while school administrators are increasingly utilizing
technology tools, there is a gap related to their knowledge of technology issues and
topics. He suggests universities and colleges are largely failing to incorporate technology
training into educational administration programs.
Yee (2000), in a study of school principal’s ICT leadership, notes that while there is
research exploring ICT as a learning tool and as a tool for educational change, there is
very limited information about the relation between educational leadership and ICT in
education. This lack of underlying research information could well lend to an abeyance of
instruction within academic educational communities.
2
Given social changes and expectations that educators integrate ICTs into the curricula,
some authors are beginning to explore the nature of leadership within the information
technology area in times of such change. Fullan (2001) writes extensively about
providing leadership in times of change and complexity. Although he does not directly
address ICT in education in his work, he does provide a model with relevance to
educational leaders striving to meet the ICT needs of students. His model incorporates
five essential elements: a) leading with a sense of moral purpose, b) understanding the
change process, c) knowledge of building relationships within diverse groups, d)
knowledge creation and sharing as a social process, and e) coherence making.
Other authors and associations are focusing on leadership in the ICT arena. The
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), recognizing the key role of IT
Leadership, provided this focus across three articles in the spring 2004 (Stephenson,
2004a; Stephenson, 2004b; Stephenson, 2004c) each exploring the role of leadership
from the perspective of different ISTE leaders. The articles include Finding and Growing
Leaders, Leading through Advocacy, and Leadership as Service.
At a pragmatic level, Hall (2003) proffers sound advice to district ICT leaders across
three articles: Power Strategy Toolkit -- Part 1: Managing the Vision, Part 2: Managing
the Performance, and Part 3: Managing the Operations. In a similar pragmatic vein, Yee
(1999) offers over a dozen pointers for school administrators and a handful of
suggestions for school district administrators in leading ICT integration.
Recent studies by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) also underline the
important role of district technology leadership. In a March, 2004 survey of 455 school
district decision-makers, the authors found that school districts with strong district
technology leadership tended to invest more significantly in technologies whereas
districts with little or no ICT leadership invested much less. The study suggests the
resulting disparity between ICT services for students in districts with high levels of ICT
leadership versus low levels of leadership is cause for concern, indicates the authors.
Interestingly, districts with high levels of ICT leadership also cite greater involvement of
the school board, classroom teachers, and parents in ICT decisions.
The authors call for visionary district technology leaders and recommend investing in
technology leadership through the creation of full-time chief technology officer positions
who are deeply involved in district leadership and work as senior members of the
superintendent’s team of key advisor’s to infuse technology into district educational
vision, goals and strategies.
One of the most comprehensive undertakings in bringing meaning to the area of
leadership for ICT in education is the work of the Technology Standards for School
Administrators (TSSA) Collaborative.
3
Educational Technology Standards for Administrators
The Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) Collaborative facilitated
the development of a U.S. national consensus on what K – 12 administrators should both
know and be able to implement to optimize the effective use of technology in schools.
This broad group of educational leaders consisted of representation from the following
organizations:



American Association of School
Administrators
National Association of Elementary
School Principals
Association of Educational Service
Agencies
Consortium for School Networking

Southern Regional Education Board


Mississippi State Department of
Education
the College of Education – Western
Michigan University.







National Association of Secondary
School Principals
National School Boards Association
International Society for
Technology in Education
North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory,
Kentucky State Department of
Education
Principal’s Executive Program – U.
of North Carolina
The Collaborative sought to recognize the key role of administrators in ICT leadership.
Development of the document was based upon a process of national consensus across the
United States identifying what administrators should know and be able to do to optimize
effective use of technology. Three broad roles were identified with the necessary
fundamental knowledge and skills identified as standards for each of the roles. These
roles include a) superintendent and executive cabinet, b) district-level leaders for content
specific or other district programs, and c) school-level leaders, including principals and
vice-principals. Broad standards areas were established as core performance indicators,
then each standard area was further refined to highlight role-specific technology
leadership tasks for each of the three leadership roles.
A focus in this collaborative endeavor was the recognition that a) implementing
technology involves large-scale systemic reform and b) leadership plays a key role is
successful reform within education.
The standards for administrators are defined across six categories within the TSSA
document:
1) Leadership and Vision
2) Learning and Teaching
3) Productivity and Professional Practice
4) Support, Management, and Operations
5) Assessment and Evaluation
6) Social, Legal and Ethical Issues
4
A Provincial Context
Initiatives
The province of Alberta has expended significant energy in building I.T. infrastructure,
resources and services over the past several years, in the interest of preparing students for
an information age economy. Initiatives have focused on providing a level of I.T. access
for students and educators, offering a curricular focus, providing reference material and
furnishing building blocks for the future.
These initiatives include:
 Alberta Supernet
 Technology Standards and Solutions
 LearnAlberta.ca
 Information and Communications Program of Studies
 K-12 Teaching Quality Standard
 Telus2Learn project
 Multiple Best Practice documents
 Advisory Council formation including: School Technology Advisory
Council (STAC), Technology Advisory Group (TAG), Post-Secondary
Institution Technology Advisory Group (PSI TAG)
Investment in Information Technologies within the province of Alberta is ongoing. For
example, the Alberta Supernet will cost the province nearly two hundred million dollars.
Approximations suggest school districts invest over one hundred million per annum in
hardware, software, infrastructure, and staffing. Given the investment in information
technologies, the provincial initiatives, and needs at the school and district levels;
assessing leadership needs in this area is required.
Need for a Strategic I.T. Leadership Direction
While investment has occurred in I.T. resources, not unlike other parts of North America,
less attention has been given to the need for leadership of I.T. within district and school
environments. Certainly investments such as SATIR (School Administrators’ Technology
Integration Resource) and the Telus2Learn/Telus2Lead project provide educational
leaders access to some leadership resources. However, there remains a need for a more
active stance in meeting both immediate and future I.T. Leadership needs at both the
school and district levels.
While some districts have benefited from early entry and consequent evolution of I.T.
Leadership for that district, other districts have been later entrants. Some of the late
entrants relied on technical staff to provide the leadership role. Other late entrants have
used educational leaders with no background in technologies. In both cases this can yield
outcomes which are less than desired. With some frequency this has resulted in
polarization between technical and educational personnel, funds wasted as districts invest
5
limited dollars in non-standard approaches and expensive outsourcing, and, finally,
failure to meet educational goals.
For districts with a level of success in this domain, the future may be more challenging.
Over the course of the next half decade many of the current lead district I.T. leaders will
reach retirement. Complex I.T. systems have developed under these leaders. Management
of staff, educational direction, professional development, and business acumen has
evolved through their leadership. Yet, there is little planning for the transition. There is
no formalized I.T. leadership program available in Alberta to address this need and little
opportunity is available in Western Canada to meet the lead position taken with regard to
I.T. in education as found in Alberta.
At the school level, I.T. leadership has also been somewhat mixed. Some schools have
benefited from strong leaders who understand the ICT curricula, recognize the role of I.T.
in educational change, and are able to articulate this into a meaningful implementation of
in the ICT curricula into their school. Other school leaders lack the vision or
understanding of I.T.’s role in education. Such administrators delegate ‘I.T.’ to someone
on staff with technical knowledge, provide a perfunctory approach to ICT integration, or
provide a poorly articulated direction for staff.
As well, there appears to be a gap between post-secondary and K-12 educational
environments, with each suggesting the other lacks sufficient focus in I.T. integration.
While K-12 educators suggest that post-secondary institutions fail to provide sufficient
preparation for preservice teachers in the I.T. in education domain, post-secondary
institutions relate that K-12 educational institutions fail to provide practicum student field
experiences that build upon the ICT knowledge and skills taught.
Although mandated, implementation of the ICT Curricula remains somewhat haphazard.
Given no accountability within this domain, as exists within other subject areas, there is a
wide degree of variance of implementation across the province, across districts and
across schools. Without adequate leadership and professional development at university,
district and school levels, effective utilization of significant electronic educational
resources will be lacking.
Given a lack of strategic I.T. Leadership direction, the current research undertaking
attempts to provide a foundation of knowledge in the I.T. Leadership domain –
answering, where are we today and what are the I.T. Leadership needs in Alberta?
6
Methodology
The current study attempts to answer the above questions by building on existing
knowledge, surveying current leaders to ascertain existing I.T. leadership capacity,
understand current I.T. leader needs, and provide direction in building future I.T.
leadership capacity. Additionally, focus groups served as a vehicle for triangulating and
extending the understandings gained through the survey process.
Survey Development
The Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) was recognized as a
leading document in identifying important knowledge, skills and attributes (ksa’s) for
educational leaders addressing the ICT domain. This document served as a core referent
and building block in the development of a portfolio of knowledge, skills and attributes
(ksa’s) that were recognized as important characteristics for ICT leadership in Alberta.
The portfolio of ksa’s was developed for both a district level I.T. leader and a school
level I.C.T. leader. Once each portfolio was developed, an I.T. Leadership Needs
Assessment survey was formed using these underlying ksa’s served as the basis for
development.
The Technology Standards for School Administrators document was developed as a
collaborative endeavor by a breadth of stakeholders across the United States in
recognition “that administrators play a pivotal role in determining how well technology is
used in schools.” Further, the authors recognize that comprehensive implementations of
technology encompass large-scale systemic reform, requiring strong leadership in
enhancing learning and school operations.
The current study, developed against a backdrop of the TSSA document, concentrates
upon both district level (with a specific focus on district I.T. leaders) and school level I.T.
leadership. Although a few discussions were held at the Superintendency level via one
meeting with a zone of the College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS) , these
outcomes are not included in the current document, as they were both preliminary and not
fully representative of all provincial CASS regions.
The TSSA document, serving as a solid building block, was massaged, shaped and
extended to address specific needs within Alberta and to focus upon I.T. leadership
within an Albertan context. An initial draft of an ideal candidate was prepared for both
district-level and school-level I.T. leadership. This district level ideal candidate
description was further reviewed and refined by four district I.T. leaders. Similarly, the
school level ideal candidate description was reviewed and further honed by three school
administrators from various school districts.
These ideal candidate descriptions then served as the basis for creating two surveys: one
survey to gather an understanding of the important knowledge, skills, attributes, and
needs of district I.T. leaders and a second to better understand the same for school level
7
I.T. leaders. Part 1 of the survey, the district-level survey is shown in Appendix A(i). Part
2 of the survey, the school-level survey is shown in Appendix A(ii).
Two main sections were used in each survey: a demographics section and a leadership
ksa section. The demographics section gathered standard demographic information (e.g.
gender, education, age) and also gathered information on educational needs. District I.T.
Leaders were asked to indicate their knowledge of core technology areas.
The leadership ksa section used the six areas of leadership defined within the ideal
candidate profile and included two additional categories for District I.T. Leaders:
‘Knowledge of Problem Solving and Information Technologies’ and ‘Organizational
Relations and Communications.’ A five point Lickert scale, from Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree, was used with each question for respondents to rate the ksa’s value to the
respective I.T. Leader.
Survey Implementation
Once the two surveys were in complete draft form, these were forwarded for approval to
the University of Lethbridge Faculty of Education Human Subject Research Ethics
Review Committee. The final draft of the surveys were both placed into a web format by
an outside contractor (Eveleigh Computing Solutions) for data collection. Complete
testing of the web interface, survey authorization, and data collection procedures were
then conducted by Eveleigh Computing Solutions, members of the I.T. Leadership
Steering Committee, as well as another contractor in the interest of thoroughness.
Superintendents of Schools were informed of the forthcoming survey process via
traditional mail and invited to participate. All eligible survey participants, namely
superintendents, district I.T. leaders and school principals or vice-principals, were invited
to participate via e-mail, first in the District IT Leadership Survey, then three weeks later
in the School IT Leadership Survey. District I.T. Leaders were identified based upon
submissions to Alberta Learning by school districts, indicating the names of a) a technical
I.T. leader contact and b) an educational IT leader contact.
Survey tracking routines provided ongoing feedback on district participation levels,
resulting in one or two reminders for each group. A closing date was identified for the
web survey submissions. Further survey submissions were refused after this date and data
was then analyzed.
Focus Groups
Following preliminary analysis of survey data, focus group meetings were held to
triangulate results and flesh out a better understanding of the results. First, Jurisdictional
Technology Contacts (JTCs) were invited to participate in one of two one-hour focus
group meetings as part of a quarterly meeting of provincial JTC’s hosted by Alberta
Learning. Approximately thirty-five JTCs participated in these sessions.
JTCs are personnel who have been identified by senior administrators as providing ICT
8
leadership at the district level. JTCs may have backgrounds in either, or both, technical
and educational areas.
The focus group process consisted of a series of six open-ended questions that helped
refine understandings coming from surveys and better identified specific needs within the
JTC community. Participants were invited to respond to each of the six questions while
working in groups of six to eight people with a facilitator and recorder. As a summation
exercise, each group then provided a synopsis of discussions by stating a key area of need
for JTCs that was identified by their group.
The second set of focus group meetings were held with school administrators. These were
hosted in two locations: Lethbridge and Calgary. Although initial intent was to host one
session in Edmonton, participation rates were low in this region. Therefore the second
session was hosted in Calgary.
School administrators were invited to participate on the basis of a) having participated in
the I.T. Leadership survey and b) representing a demographic factor to include a breadth
of background and experience within the sample of participants. Factors considered
included urban and rural representation, school grade levels, and gender.
Five school administrators participated in the Lethbridge session. Nine school
administrators participated in the Calgary session. Again participants were asked a series
of questions in a structured interview setting helping to provide a deeper understanding of
survey responses and administrator needs when providing IT leadership within a school.
9
Results
In this chapter results are reported across each of the data acquisition activities: survey
responses from the District IT Leaders’ Needs Assessment, survey responses from the
School IT Leaders’ Needs Assessment, Jurisdictional Technology Contact focus group
responses and School Administrator focus group responses.
Survey Response Rates
Part 1 of the survey, the District IT Leaders’ Needs Assessment, was completed by 512
respondents. These consisted of 20 Superintendents, 60 Jurisdictional Technology
Contacts, 384 school administrators, and 48 personnel with other titles. Other titles
included such roles as Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Network
Administrator, District Principal, Jurisdictional Technology Coordinator, Corporate
Treasurer, and Supervisor of Teaching and Learning.
Part 2 of the survey, the School IT Leaders’ Needs Assessment, was completed by 402
respondents. Nineteen Superintendents, 45 jurisdictional technology contacts, 306 school
administrators, and 32 personnel with other titles completed this survey component.
To provide perspective on the above response levels, sixty-three school districts were
targeted with each survey. The maximum response rate from Superintendents was 63,
from District IT Leaders was approximately 63, and from schools approximately 1800.
District Level I.T. Leadership Survey Responses
The demographics within the I.T. Leadership survey Part 1 is instructive as one explores
the make-up of current District IT Leaders. This section of demographics is particularly
noteworthy as little data appears to exist to identify the make-up of this group. This is not
surprising, given the role is relatively new within pre-college educational settings.
Data for the following analysis is drawn specifically from Part 1 of the survey, as there
were more respondents on this section. The demographic results are very similar across
both survey components, Part 1 and Part 2. This is an expected outcome as the majority
of respondents on the second survey had also completed Part 1.
From the survey results, personnel identifying themselves as district I.T. Leaders
demonstrate a mix of roles, education and experience. The following segments
summarize demographic results submitted by sixty District IT Leaders and provides a
sense of this mix.
10
Today’s District IT Leaders: District IT Leader Demographics
Education
In the area of education, while the majority of District I.T. Leaders have a Bachelor’s or a
Master’s Degree; a few have either no post-secondary education, a college certificate or a
doctoral degree. Table 2 shows the percentage of District I.T. Leaders at each educational
level.
Education Levels
No Postsecondary College
Bachelor’s
Education Certificate Degree
% of
District
Leaders
1.7%
21.7%
Master’s
Degree
35%
Doctoral
Degree
36.7%
5%
Table 2. District IT Leader Education Levels
It is interesting to juxtapose the education levels of District IT leaders next to
Superintendents and school administrators, namely those personnel with whom many
District IT Leaders report and cooperate. Table 3 below illustrates that while the majority
of Superintendents (95%) and School Administrators (66%) have completed a Master’s
Degree or Doctoral program, proportionally fewer District I.T. Leaders (41%) have
completed the same levels of education.
EDUCATION LEVEL
Bachelor's
Degree
ROLE
Supt.
Dist. I.T.
Leader
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
School
Admin.
Count
% within
ROLE
Master's
Degree
Doctoral
Degree
1
14
5
5.0%
70.0%
25.0%
21
22
3
35.0%
36.7%
5.0%
127
242
11
33.1%
63.0%
2.9%
Table 3. Degree Programs Completed by Superintendents,
District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.
11
Experience Levels
The experience levels of District I.T. Leaders in their given roles doesn’t differ
substantially from that of Superintendents and school administrators, although there is
some difference in the range of 10+ years of experience. The majority of respondents
have less than 6 years experience.
Years Experience in the Current Role
<1
ROLE
Supt.
District
I.T.
Leader
School
Admin.
Other
Total
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
1 to 5
6 to 10
10+
Total
2
7
6
5
20
10.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
100.0%
5
28
18
9
60
8.3%
46.7%
30.0%
15.0%
100.0%
35
170
76
103
384
9.1%
44.3%
19.8%
26.8%
100.0%
7
25
10
6
48
14.6%
52.1%
20.8%
12.5%
100.0%
49
230
110
123
512
9.6%
44.9%
21.5%
24.0%
100.0%
Table 4. Experience levels of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School
Administrators.
Knowledge of the I.T. Domain
Although not all District I.T. Leaders have responsibilities with regard to technology
itself (15% have a role that is primarily education-only), the results of the demographics
question asking District I.T. Leaders about their technical knowledge base is instructive.
The following list of IT knowledge areas were included as a checklist on Part 1 of the I.T.
Leadership Survey. Each of these items were identified s important in the role of District
I.T. Leadership:
 Internet protocols
 Alberta Supernet architecture
 Web Site Development
 Internet services
 Security
 Desktop management
 Voice over IP
 Video conferencing
 Video streaming
 Server management
 LAN and WAN networking architectures
 Telecommunications
12
As detailed in Appendix B, seventy two percent of the respondents indicate they posses
eight or more of the above twelve IT knowledge domains. While this question does not
provide an understanding of the depth of knowledge held in any of these domains, it does
provide a surface-level sense of the types of skills possessed by District I.T. Leaders.
As noted in Table 5, twenty-three percent of the respondents indicate that they have six or
less of the above skills.
Total IT Skills
0 to 3 skills 4 to 6 skills 7 to 9 skills 10 to 12 skills
% of
District
Leaders
8.3%
15%
28.3
48.3%
Table 5. Percentage of District IT Leaders Possessing IT Skills
Knowledge of ICT Integration
District I.T. Leaders generally rate their knowledge of ICT integration as Strong (41.7%)
to Very Strong (48.3%). On the whole District I.T. Leaders rate their knowledge in this
domain above self-ratings of Superintendents and School Administrators. While 90% of
District I.T. Leaders rate their knowledge of ICT Integration as either strong or very
strong, 65% of Superintendents and 68% of School Administrators offer the same selfrating.
Knowledge of ICT Integration
ROLE
Supt.
District
I.T.
Leader
School
Admin
Other
Total
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Very Weak
0
Weak
1
Undecided
6
Strong
12
.0%
5.0%
30.0%
0
1
.0%
Very
Strong
Total
1
20
60.0%
5.0%
100.0%
5
25
29
60
1.7%
8.3%
41.7%
48.3%
100.0%
4
27
91
204
58
384
1.0%
7.0%
23.7%
53.1%
15.1%
100.0%
0
1
12
27
8
48
.0%
2.1%
25.0%
56.3%
16.7%
100.0%
4
30
114
268
96
512
.8%
5.9%
22.3%
52.3%
18.8%
100.0%
Table 6. Self-rating of ICT Integration Knowledge by Superintendents, District I.T.
Leaders and School Administrators.
13
Organization’s IT Curricular Integration
Ratings of organization’s IT curricular integration is not as strong as the above selfratings of knowledge levels. The ratings of IT integration into the curricula are rated
somewhat similarly by Superintendents (70%), District IT Leaders (61.7%) and School
Administrators (63.8%), as one looks at ‘strong’ and ‘very strong’ ratings.
Rating of Organizations IT Curricular Integration
ROLE
Supt.
Very Weak
1
Count
District
I.T.
Leader
School
Admin.
Other
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
Total
% within
ROLE
Weak
2
Undecided
3
Strong
11
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
1
8
1.7%
Very
Strong
Total
3
20
55.0%
15.0%
100.0%
14
31
6
60
13.3%
23.3%
51.7%
10.0%
100.0%
15
46
78
193
52
384
3.9%
12.0%
20.3%
50.3%
13.5%
100.0%
1
11
13
21
2
48
2.1%
22.9%
27.1%
43.8%
4.2%
100.0%
18
67
108
256
63
512
3.5%
13.1%
21.1%
50.0%
12.3%
100.0%
Table 7. Organization ratings of curricular integration by Superintendents, District I.T.
Leaders and School Administrators.
Role of District I.T. Leaders
Similarly, the role of District I.T. Leaders differs across districts. The majority, 48%,
indicate that their primary role as a jurisdictional technology contact (JTC) is a mix of
education and technical roles. Thirty-seven percent of District I.T. Leaders indicate that
their primary role is a technical one, while fifteen percent of District I.T. Leaders indicate
their primary responsibility is an educational role.
Role Type
Both
Primarily Primarily Education and
Education Technical Technical
% of
District
Leaders
15%
37%
48%
Table 8. Primary role of District IT Leaders
14
I.T. Staff Size
District I.T. leaders report varied staff sizes within their districts. While most districts
host an I.T. staff of one to five people, a few have no staff and, not surprisingly, large
urban districts employ a large staff.
Total I.T. Staff
6 to 10
11 to 20
8
5
0
1 to 5
21 to 90
Role
5
34
6
District IT
Leaders
Reporting
Table 10. Number of District IT Staff Who Report to the IT Staff Supervisor
Age
The average age of District I.T. Leaders tends to be less than that of either
superintendents or school administrators. The bulk of District I.T. Leaders are in the 31 to
40 age group, unlike superintendents who tend to be over 50 years or school
administrators who tend to be in the 41+ age range. Nonetheless over 51% of District I.T.
Leaders are over forty years of age and almost a quarter (23%) are over fifty years.
AGE
20 to 30
ROLE
Supt.
District
I.T.
Leader
School
Admin.
Other
Total
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
31 to 40
41 to 50
51+
Total
0
0
4
16
20
.0%
.0%
20.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1
28
17
14
60
1.7%
46.7%
28.3%
23.3%
100.0%
8
84
165
127
384
2.1%
21.9%
43.0%
33.1%
100.0%
3
10
24
11
48
6.3%
20.8%
50.0%
22.9%
100.0%
12
122
210
168
512
2.3%
23.8%
41.0%
32.8%
100.0%
Table 11. Age of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.
15
Gender
An analysis of the gender of superintendents, district I.T. leaders and school
administrators shows the majority of these roles are filled by males. While school
administrators have a few more females in this role (32%), over 83% of
superintendencies and District I.T. leaders are staffed by males.
GENDER
Female
ROLE
Supt.
District
I.T.
Leader
School
Admin.
Other
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
Total
% within
ROLE
Male
Total
3
17
20
15.0%
85.0%
100.0%
10
50
60
16.7%
83.3%
100.0%
124
260
384
32.3%
67.7%
100.0%
15
33
48
31.3%
68.8%
100.0%
152
360
512
29.7%
70.3%
100.0%
Table 12. Gender of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administators
Respondents’ Settings
Respondents are almost equally from a rural school district or either an urban district or
combined urban and rural district, as shown in Table 13 below.
SETTING
Rural
ROLE
Supt.
District
I.T.
Leader
School
Admin.
Other
Total
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Rural and
Urban
Urban
Total
10
3
7
20
50.0%
15.0%
35.0%
100.0%
26
20
14
60
43.3%
33.3%
23.3%
100.0%
167
167
50
384
43.5%
43.5%
13.0%
100.0%
24
11
13
48
50.0%
22.9%
27.1%
100.0%
227
201
84
512
44.3%
39.3%
16.4%
100.0%
Table 13. Organizational Setting across Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and
School Administrators.
16
In terms of district size, the majority of districts have student populations of less than
10,000 students. Four districts in the province have student populations greater than
30,000 students, all representing Calgary and Edmonton school districts. Three more
districts have 10,000 to 17,000 students.
In summation, personnel currently fulfilling the role of District IT Leader demonstrate
significant variance across fundamental demographic areas such as educational
background, experience, responsibilities, depth of knowledge of I.T., and depth of
knowledge of ICT integration.
17
Tomorrow’s District IT Leaders: Survey Description of District IT Leader
Needs & Direction
While the above section provides a clear understanding that few standards exist within
the domain of District IT Leadership, the following section describes the knowledge,
skills and attributes that are important in the eyes of Superintendents, District IT Leaders
and School Administrators.
Part 1 of the I.T. Leadership Survey provides direction regarding the knowledge, skills
and attributes (ksa’s) that are expected of District I.T. Leaders in Alberta. These
expectations are set by educational leaders, including Superintendents, District I.T.
Leaders and School Administrators.
Eight major knowledge, skill and attribute areas were identified as important for District
I.T. Leaders. These major areas include








Leadership and visioning
Learning and teaching
Productivity and professional practice
Support, management and operations
Assessment and evaluation
Knowledge of problem solving and information technologies
Social, legal, and ethical issues
Organizational relations and communications
A summary of results from survey respondents are detailed below. In each of the
following tables, the percentage to the right is an expression of the percent of respondents
who either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the survey statement. Responses within
each table are sorted in descending order.
Organizational Relations and Communications
Respondents are very clear that District IT Leaders must demonstrate effective skills in
relating to district personnel and in translating technical specifics more easily
comprehended by non-technical personnel.
The district IT leader is competent in:
 relating effectively with Superintendency staff, school principals,
teachers, technical staff, students, parents, and support staff.
 translating technical specifics and jargon into terms that are easily
understood by non-technical professionals.
97%
97%
Leadership and Visioning
District I.T. Leaders are expected to be instrumental in providing Leadership and
Visioning within the domain of information technologies. Within the survey, respondents
were very clear that personnel within this role must collaborate with internal stakeholders
to meet district and Alberta Learning outcomes and also ensure there is ongoing
18
knowledge of emerging technologies that may be adopted by districts to achieve program
goals.
The district IT leader must be instrumental in:
 Defining collaboratively with internal stakeholders how technology
will support the vision of the district and Alberta Learning mandated
outcomes
 ensuring there is ongoing knowledge of emerging technologies that
may be adopted by the district to achieve program goals
96%
96%

facilitating systematic change at both an organizational and
individual level
94%

actively promoting the culture of seeking IT opportunities and
partnerships with other educational, corporate, and political
organizations for staff and students.
80%
Learning and Teaching
Respondents most valued District IT leader competencies in leading effective staff
development opportunities to promote the use of technologies for meaningful instruction,
in leading educators and administrators in critically evaluating instructional technologies
and ensuring the ICT curricula implementations align with provincial and district
direction.
The district IT leader must be competent in:
 Leading effective staff development opportunities in an ongoing
manner that promotes the use of technologies for meaningful
instruction.
 Leading educators and administrators in the critical evaluation of
instructional technologies.
 Ensuring ICT curricula implementations align with direction set by
Alberta Learning and the local school district.
 Focusing on technologies that serve the goals of learning while
discarding those that do not.
 Guiding the development of online services.
The district IT leader will:
 Have a minimum of five years teaching experience.
19
94%
90%
89%
75%
75%
72%
Productivity and Professional Practice
Respondents clearly identified the expectations that District I.T. Leaders are to model
effective uses of technology for professional productivity and share promising
instructional and learning exemplars to support program improvement.
The district IT leader must be competent in:
 Modeling, for instructional staff, the effective uses of technology for 95%
professional productivity
95%
 Using technology to share promising instructional and learning
exemplars that support program improvement.
 Using technology to improve administrative and business operations. 84%
Support, Management, and Operations
Respondents highly valued competence in District IT Leaders’ ability to implement
technology initiatives that provide instructional and technical support as defined by
organizations’ plans and standards.
The district IT leader is competent in:
 Implementing technology initiatives that provide instructional and
technical support as defined in the local, regional and provincial
plans and standards.
 Project management to meet budgets, and timelines of a project.
 Understanding procurement processes and requirements for IT
 Leading the appropriate design of IT infrastructure as organizations
remodel and build new facilities.
 Managing IT personnel within the organization.
93%
88%
87%
85%
84%
Assessment and Evaluation
Responses indicate support for District IT leaders ability to monitor and analyze data.
The district IT leader is competent in:
 Monitoring and analyzing technical data to guide the implementation 86%
of effective technologies.
82%
 Researching, monitoring, and analyzing learning performance data
on a continuous basis, to guide the design and improvement of
program initiatives and activities.
Knowledge of Problem Solving and Information Technologies
Respondents clearly valued the ability of District IT leaders to demonstrate the general
skills of liaising with others to broaden perspective and share problem solving strategies,
as well as an ability to solve problems by prioritizing and eliminating variables.
20
Identifying specific skill requirements may have been beyond some survey respondents
scope of knowledge, given some of the technical terminology and considerations. Hence
a deeper exploration of the data may be needed when examining the ‘weighting’ on
various specific skill requirements in this section. However, it is clear that there is an
expectation that I.T. Leaders will have a depth of understanding of the associated
information technologies.
The district IT leader will:
 liaise with other IT leaders at provincial and district levels to
broaden perspectives and share problem solving strategies.
 be able to solve problems effectively by prioritizing and eliminating
variables.
The district IT leader will have a skill set for:
o learning new technologies
o using a breadth of software applications
o programming software
The district IT leader will:
 access online communities and resources for pursuing information
and solving problems
The district IT leader will have a working knowledge of:
o Internet protocols
o Security
o Alberta Supernet architecture
o LAN and WAN networking architectures
o Telecommunications
o developing web sites
96%
95%
93%
90%
31%
86%
90%
85%
81%
78%
70%
70%
Social, Legal and Ethical Issues
District IT Leaders are expected to provide communications on ICT issues related to
privacy, security and confidentiality, as well as involve stakeholders in addressing equity
of access.
The district IT leader will:
 Inform district leadership of program-specific ICT issues related to
privacy, security, and confidentiality.
 involve stakeholders in addressing equity of access to technology
resources.
 educate program personnel about technology-related health, safety,
legal, and ethical issues.
21
92%
90%
87%
A significant majority of survey responses from Alberta’s educational leaders indicate
there is agreement or strong agreement with nearly all of the knowledge, skills and
attributes (ksa’s) presented as important characteristics for District I.T. Leaders. With the
exception of one item suggesting District I.T. leaders have programming skills, 70% or
more respondents indicated the described ksa’s were important for District I.T. Leaders.
Further, as shown in Appendix C, a significant majority of ksa’s received over 80% of
respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that the presented ksa was important for
District I.T. Leaders.
Focus Group Triangulation Results
Focus groups meetings with Jurisdictional Technology Coordinators (JTCs) and
triangulation of these findings with the original survey data suggest that survey results
truly reflect much of the current status and future demands on the District IT Leader role.
Additionally, some key findings were underlined through this interview process, as
summarized below.
Need of Combined Information Technology/Educational Technology (IT/ET)
Knowledge
First, JTCs indicated that the position of District IT Leader requires substantial
knowledge of both education and information technologies. While some districts have
benefited from early entry and consequent evolution of I.T. Leadership for that district,
other districts have been later entrants into this area and have had limited results. Some of
the late entrants have utilized technical staff to provide the leadership role. Frequently
this has resulted in failure to meet educational objectives and sometimes created a
polarization between professional and technical staff. Other late entrants have used
educational leaders with no I.T. background for this role. Again, outcomes have been less
than desired. Funds are wasted as districts invest limited dollars in short-term solutions,
non-standard approaches and expensive outsourcing. The general recommendation by
JTC participants that District IT Leaders hold both a strong educational background and
significant knowledge and depth within the information technolog domain help offset
both polarization and knowledge of these domains.
Need for Role Description
Several JTC participants noted the need for a standardized description of the District IT
Leader. The lack of a provincial standard role description results in a breadth of
directions taken and similarly a breadth of outcomes at the jurisdictional level. This limits
opportunity for common direction across the province and limits opportunity to meet
needs on a group basis.
Some JTCs noted that for the position to provide meaningful outcomes and given the
investment in information technologies, the position ought to operate at an executive
level within the organization, enabling decision making that incorporates a breadth of
understanding and knowledge in educational leadership. This is in keeping with
recommendations from the Consortium for School Networking(2004).
22
Need for a Professional Organization
While organizations such as the College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS), the
Alberta Teachers Association Council for School Administrators, and the Alberta School
Boards Association (ASBA) serve educational needs for specific educational groups
within Alberta; there is no professional body supporting District IT Leaders. Several
members at the JTC focus group sessions indicated a need for the development of a
professional organization to represent District IT Leaders. Such an organization could
help guide standards, act as a forum for sharing information, and meet general needs of
the group.
Need for Educational Opportunities
A breadth of learning needs exist across the spectrum of current I.T. Leaders. This
expressed need covers both content and format of learning. I.T. Leaders identified needs
within both the educational and technical domains. They also identified a breadth of
learning format needs – from weekend seminars, to individual courses, to practicum
based experiences, to certification through a Master’s Degree program.
School I.T. Leadership Survey Responses
Unlike District IT Leaders, school administrators, as a focal point for school level IT
leadership, are well-established figures within educational organizations. The role of
school principal and vice-principals has had decades of time to become both established
and recognized. However, incorporating ICTs is a relatively new consideration within
this role.
In this section, the reporting of survey demographics will again utilize the Part 1 survey
component, given more survey returns for this component and given the similar result
between the two surveys. The tables shared in the results below are the same tables as
shared earlier, but at this point provides a focus on School I.T. Leaders, rather than
District IT Leaders.
Today’s School IT Leaders: School Administrator Demographics
The leadership role of the school administrator encompasses IT leadership at the school
level. Hence, the term ‘School IT leader’ refers to school administrators. The assertion
that the school administrator is the School I.T. Leader is based upon requirements within
the teaching quality standard, the mandatory provincial K-12 ICT Curricula and
subsequent associated supervision and leadership responsibilities. These responsibilities
are the domain of school administrators.
23
Education
School administrators tend to have a Master’s degree, with a very small percentage
holding a doctoral degree. A Bachelor’s degree serves as a minimum standard for both
administrators and teachers.
EDUCATION LEVEL
Bachelor's
Degree
ROLE
Supt.
Dist. I.T.
Leader
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
School
Admin.
Doctoral
Degree
1
14
5
5.0%
70.0%
25.0%
21
22
3
35.0%
36.7%
5.0%
127
242
11
33.1%
63.0%
Count
% within
ROLE
Master's
Degree
2.9%
Table 14. Degree Programs Completed by Superintendents,
District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.
Experience Levels
Forty-four percent of the 384 school administrators who responded had one to five years
of experience in their current role. Almost twenty-seven percent had ten or more years of
experience and nearly twenty percent had six to ten years experience.
Years Experience in the Current Role
<1
ROLE
Supt.
District
I.T.
Leader
School
Admin.
Other
Total
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
1 to 5
6 to 10
10+
Total
2
7
6
5
20
10.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
100.0%
5
28
18
9
60
8.3%
46.7%
30.0%
15.0%
100.0%
35
170
76
103
384
9.1%
44.3%
19.8%
26.8%
100.0%
7
25
10
6
48
14.6%
52.1%
20.8%
12.5%
100.0%
49
230
110
123
512
9.6%
44.9%
21.5%
24.0%
100.0%
Table 15. Experience levels of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School
Administrators.
24
Knowledge of ICT Integration
School Administrators rate their knowledge of ICT integration lower than District I.T.
Leaders. While 90% of District I.T. Leaders rated their knowledge as either strong or
very strong, only 64% of School I.T. Leaders felt confident in their knowledge of ICT
integration.
Knowledge of ICT Integration
ROLE
Supt.
District
I.T.
Leader
School
Admin
Other
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
Total
% within
ROLE
Very Weak
0
Weak
1
Undecided
6
Strong
12
.0%
5.0%
30.0%
0
1
.0%
Very
Strong
Total
1
20
60.0%
5.0%
100.0%
5
25
29
60
1.7%
8.3%
41.7%
48.3%
100.0%
4
27
91
204
58
384
1.0%
7.0%
23.7%
53.1%
15.1%
100.0%
0
1
12
27
8
48
.0%
2.1%
25.0%
56.3%
16.7%
100.0%
4
30
114
268
96
512
.8%
5.9%
22.3%
52.3%
18.8%
100.0%
Table 16. Self-rating of ICT Integration Knowledge by Superintendents, District I.T.
Leaders and School Administrators.
Organization’s IT Curricular Integration
School administrators tended to rate their school districts’ integration of IT curricula
very similarly to ratings offered by District IT leaders with 63.8% and 61.7% rating
respectively as either strong or very strong. School administrators tended not to rate their
districts quite as strongly as Superintendents (70%).
Rating of Organizations IT Curricular Integration
ROLE
Supt.
District IT
Leader
School
Admin.
Other
Total
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Very Weak
1
Weak
2
Undecided
3
Strong
11
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
1
8
1.7%
Very
Strong
Total
3
20
55.0%
15.0%
100.0%
14
31
6
60
13.3%
23.3%
51.7%
10.0%
100.0%
15
46
78
193
52
384
3.9%
12.0%
20.3%
50.3%
13.5%
100.0%
1
11
13
21
2
48
2.1%
22.9%
27.1%
43.8%
4.2%
100.0%
18
67
108
256
63
512
3.5%
13.1%
21.1%
50.0%
12.3%
100.0%
25
Table 17. Organization ratings of curricular integration by Superintendents, District I.T.
Leaders and School Administrators.
Age
The typical age of School Administrator respondents tended to be over forty years of age
(76%), with 33% over 50 years. Not surprisingly, a very small percentage of School
Administrators are in the 20 to 30 year age bracket.
AGE
20 to 30
ROLE
Supt.
District
I.T.
Leader
School
Admin.
Other
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
Total
% within
ROLE
31 to 40
41 to 50
51+
Total
0
0
4
16
20
.0%
.0%
20.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1
28
17
14
60
1.7%
46.7%
28.3%
23.3%
100.0%
8
84
165
127
384
2.1%
21.9%
43.0%
33.1%
100.0%
3
10
24
11
48
6.3%
20.8%
50.0%
22.9%
100.0%
12
122
210
168
512
2.3%
23.8%
41.0%
32.8%
100.0%
Table 18. Age of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administrators.
Gender
Schools have more males (68%) than females (32%) in the school administrative role.
This, however, is more females than represented in either superintendent or District I.T.
Leader roles.
GENDER
Female
ROLE
Supt.
District IT
Leader
School
Admin.
Other
Total
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Male
Total
3
17
20
15.0%
85.0%
100.0%
10
50
60
16.7%
83.3%
100.0%
124
260
384
32.3%
67.7%
100.0%
15
33
48
31.3%
68.8%
100.0%
152
360
512
29.7%
70.3%
100.0%
Table 19. Gender of Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and School Administators
26
Respondents’ Settings
Almost 50% of responding School I.T. Leaders are from rural school districts and the
same percentage are from urban school districts. A small percentage (13%) are from
combined rural/urban districts, as shown in Table 20 below.
SETTING
10
3
Rural and
Urban
7
50.0%
15.0%
35.0%
100.0%
26
20
14
60
43.3%
33.3%
23.3%
100.0%
167
167
50
384
43.5%
43.5%
13.0%
100.0%
24
11
13
48
50.0%
22.9%
27.1%
100.0%
227
201
84
512
44.3%
39.3%
16.4%
100.0%
Rural
ROLE
Supt.
District
I.T.
Leader
School
Admin.
Other
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
% within
ROLE
Count
Total
% within
ROLE
Urban
Total
20
Table 20. Organizational Setting across Superintendents, District I.T. Leaders and
School Administrators.
Tomorrow’s School IT Leaders: Survey Description of IT Leader Needs &
Direction
The above section offers a sense of school administration demographics. For the purposes
of this research the term school administrator is equivalent to the term school level I.T.
leader – as school leaders, the school administrator is the key instructional leader
including within the IT domain.
All six of the major knowledge, skill, and attribute areas were identified as important for
school-level I.T. Leaders. These major areas include






Leadership and visioning
Learning and teaching
Productivity and professional practice
Support, management and operations
Supervision and evaluation
Social, legal, and ethical issues
27
Leadership and Visioning
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be instrumental in:
97%
 Articulating a strong professional vision for meaningful technology
integration in teaching and learning
 Facilitating meaningful ICT change at both the school and individual 95%
level.



Providing opportunities for staff and students to develop and display
ICT leadership abilities.
Facilitating the development of a collaborative ICT school
improvement plan.
94%
Participating in an inclusive district process through which
stakeholders formulate a shared vision and plan that defines
expectations for technology use.
86%
Learning and Teaching
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:
 Articulating a strong sense for the place of technology within the
educational environment – the focus is on teaching and learning
rather than technology per se.
 Ensuring programs and instruction align with ICT directions set by
Alberta Learning.
 Implementing effective ICT professional development for all school
staff
 Assisting teachers in using technology to access, analyze and
interpret student performance data and in using results to enhance
student learning.
Productivity and Professional Practice
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must:
 Be an effective user of contemporary information and technology
tools.
 Use a variety of electronic media to communicate, interact and
collaborate with peers, experts and other education stakeholders.
 Use technology-based management systems to access and maintain
personnel and student records
 Model for students, parents, and instructional staff, the effective uses
of technology in instruction and professional productivity.
Support, Management, and Operations
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:
 Providing school-wide staff professional development for
28
94%
98%
97%
76%
78%
90%
90%
88%
87%
90%



electronically sharing work and resources.
89%
Advocating or providing for adequate, timely and high-quality
technology support services that accommodates the district plan.
Allocating school discretionary funds and other resources to advance 82%
implementation of the technology plan.
Guiding facility design to incorporate appropriate ICT infrastructure 71%
as schools remodel, evergreen and build new facilities.
Supervision and Evaluation
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:
 Implementing supervision and evaluation procedures of teachers to
assess their growth toward established ICT standards.
 Evaluating the effectiveness of ICT use in the teaching and learning
process, as one criterion in assessing performance of instructional
staff.
Social, Legal and Ethical Issues
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:
 Adhering to and enforcing the district’s acceptable use policy and
other policies and procedures related to security, copyright and
technology use.
 Collaborating with staff to resolve issues relating to equity of access
to resources and equity of ICT professional development
opportunities.
 Disseminating information to staff on privacy, security,
confidentiality, and reporting of information that might impact
technology systems and policy requirements
87%
84%
96%
95%
90%
As shared in Appendix D, educational leaders across the province indicate agreement that
the described ksa’s are important characteristics for school administrators.
29
Discussion
Provincially, ongoing investments have occurred within infrastructure (e.g. Supernet),
services (e.g. LearnAlberta), and capital goods (e.g. networks, intranets, and computing
technologies). Very approximate conservative estimates suggest that over $100 million is
spent per annum in this vein in serving Alberta students. However, a gap exists between
investments in capital items and developing the necessary human resources to provide
leadership in this arena. The evolution of I.T. within education has progressed without
systematic attention to leadership development in this domain at the district and school
level. Consequently, minimal investment has been made to ensure well-educated
leadership managing implementation and integration of contemporary information
technologies into education.
Currently a lack of standards exist with regard to I.T. leadership development both at the
district and school levels. Not surprisingly, significant variance exists across the province
in effectiveness at integrating ICTs. Fifteen percent of respondents indicate their district
is weak or very weak at integrating ICTs. Another fifteen to twenty percent indicate they
are undecided whether their district is strong or weak in this area. Certainly, strengthened
leadership in this area would better position districts to improve on these results.
District IT Leaders
When examining District IT Leader demographics the most obvious result is the variance
across District IT Leaders in terms of education, experience, depth of knowledge of I.T.,
and depth of knowledge of ICT integration and responsibilities within the role. This
variance is not surprising, given the breadth of evolutionary approaches to filling this role
within school districts.
The variance of education levels across District IT leaders presents a challenge in terms
of establishing leadership at the district level in this domain. While district leaders make
decisions affecting capital investment, student instruction, professional, administrative
and support personnel; there is a lack of standards with regard to this role. With
education levels ranging from no post-secondary education to doctoral degrees, the
current District IT leader role presents a range of skills, knowledge and abilities. It is
postulated that an ability to make executive level decisions requires a higher education
level. Yet, there are no programs currently available in Canada to directly address this
need.
Further when comparing education levels at the Superintendency and School
Administrators levels to that of the District IT Leader, it is noted that 95% of
Superintendents and 66% of school administrators have a Master’s or Doctoral Degree.
Less than half (41%) of District IT Leaders hold a graduate degree. The differing levels
of educational preparation poses potential for some discord, given expectations of the
District IT Leader role as demonstrated through the survey results. These high-level
expectations include:
30










Defining collaboratively with internal stakeholders how technology will support
the vision of the district and Alberta Learning mandated outcomes.
Facilitating systematic change at both an organizational and individual level.
Ensuring there is ongoing knowledge of emerging technologies that may be
adopted by the district to achieve program goals.
Leading effective staff development opportunities in an ongoing manner that
promotes the use of technologies for meaningful instruction.
Leading educators and administrators in the critical evaluation of instructional
technologies.
Implementing technology initiatives that provide instructional and technical
support as defined in the local, regional, and provincial plans. (Note: Often these
initiatives amount to several million dollar capital projects.)
Managing IT personnel within the organization.
Inform district leadership of program specific ICT issues related to privacy,
security and confidentiality.
Relating effectively with Superintendency staff, school principals, teachers,
technical staff, students, parents and support staff.
Translating technical specifics and jargon into terms that are easily understood by
non-technical professionals.
While many of these expectations suggest an executive level role, the lack of formalized
preparation and associated standards fails to provide a support structure for today’s
leaders and the necessary grounding for tomorrow’s leaders.
Fundamental information technology knowledge is also variable across districts within
the province. Within the twelve I.T. knowledge items, District IT Leaders identified some
as clearly areas of relatively strong knowledge including Desktop Management (92%),
and Internet Services (90%). However, other IT knowledge areas were identified as areas
District IT Leaders were far from generally knowledgeable. These included security
(65%), video conferencing (57%), video streaming (52%), and Voice Over IP (52%), –
all areas of relevance for planning current information technology directions.
Similarly, a comparison of specific I.T. knowledge is diverse within the group of District
IT Leaders. As shared in Appendix B, nearly 30% of personnel in the District IT
leadership role identified they possess less than 8 of the 12 information technology skills;
23% identified possessing 6 or less of these skills. This result isn’t surprising for people
assigned strictly educational integration roles, but only 15% of District IT leaders fill this
role description. This isn’t a negative commentary on persons fulfilling these roles, but it
is a commentary on the levels of educational support needed to assist people currently in
these roles. As well, from a long-term planning level, it is a commentary on long-term
needs for defining and developing I.T. knowledge for District IT Leader roles.
On the whole District IT Leaders have filled this role a relatively short time. Over 50% of
these leaders have filled this role five years or less. Only 15% have held the position for
more than ten years. This is possibly somewhat representative of the relatively recentness
31
with which this role has been recognized by school districts. It is also possibly related to
turn-over of personnel within this position.
Succession planning is a serious consideration within this role, though based on
demographics results, not as significant as at the superintendency level. Almost a quarter
(23%) of District IT Leaders are at a potentially pensionable age in the next five years. A
further 28% are in the 41+ age bracket.
Some have pointed out that many of District IT Leaders who have provided leadership
within the province for the past several years are generally within a five to ten year
horizon of potential retirement. Failure to succession plan, especially given the current
lack of preparatory programs, may well lead to a shortage of knowledgeable senior
leadership staff in educational information technologies – an area with significant capital
investment; affecting contemporary learning, service offerings, and effectiveness of I.T.
integration.
School IT Leaders
A primary difference between District IT Leaders and School Administrators, as first
layer IT Leaders, is that the role of school administrator has been long defined. There are
standards associated with the role. It is recognized as a functioning educational role
within communities, within the school, within districts and by Alberta Learning. This is
in stark contrast to the newer District IT Leadership role.
Hence, one does not tend to see the level of variance noted within the group of District IT
Leaders. Educational levels are pre-determined by a system that requires a minimum of a
Bachelor’s degree and often expects a Master’s degree. A system exists for promotion
through the teaching profession into the role of school administrator and at times onto a
superintendency role.
However, even given this stability, the area of ICT integration remains a challenge for
School I.T. Leaders. Most notable in the results from school administrators were reports
of knowledge of ICT integration. While 68% indicated possessing a strong or very strong
level knowledge of ICT integration; 32% were either undecided (24%), weak (7%), or
very weak (1%). Fifteen percent of school administrators felt they possessed very strong
knowledge of this domain. This is in contrast to 48% of District IT Leaders and 5% of
superintendents who indicated very strong knowledge of ICT integration.
Results from the survey suggest that the knowledge, skills and attributes (ksa’s) presented
within the survey encompass ksa’s that are largely expected of this role. A high
percentage of respondents indicated either a strong agreement or very strong agreement
that administrators be instrumental in, competent in, or must demonstrate the types ksa’s
defined. A number of items held 90% or more, with no less than 71% indicating a strong
to very strong agreement for the item. For example, items for which there was 90% or
above agreement included:

The school administrator must be instrumental in:
32
o Articulating a strong professional vision for meaningful technology
integration in teaching and learning
o Facilitating meaningful ICT change at both the school and individual
level
o Providing opportunities for staff and students to develop and display ICT
leadership abilities.
o Facilitating the development of a collaborative ICT school improvement
plan.

The school administrator must be competent in:
o Articulating a strong sense for the place of technology within the
educational environment – the focus is on teaching and learning rather
than technology per se.
o Ensuring programs and instruction align with ICT directions set by
Alberta Learning.
o Providing school-wide staff professional development for electronically
sharing work and resources.
o Adhering to and enforcing the district’s acceptable use policy and other
policies and procedures related to security, copyright and technology use.
o Collaborating with staff to resolve issues relating to equity of access to
resources and equity of ICT professional development opportunities.
o Disseminating information to staff on privacy, security, confidentiality,
and reporting of information that might impact technology systems and
policy requirements.

The school administrator must:
o Be an effective user of contemporary information and technology tools.
o Use a variety of electronic media to communicate, interact and
collaborate with peers, experts and other educational stakeholders.
A complete list of knowledge, skills and attributes sorted by respondent agreement is
included in Appendix D. Given the high level of agreement by respondents in the survey,
inclusive of Superintendents, District IT Leaders and School Administrators, it is
suggested that these ksa’s serve as a guide in defining the role of the School IT Leader.
Additionally, one must consider the broader context of IT Leadership in school settings.
This consideration was made clear during focus group meetings with school
administrators and also related through several comments within the survey. School
administrators were clear that the roles of the principal and vice-principal were focal
roles for successful I.C.T. integration, but the role required a building of I.T. leadership
capacity within their school to have more far reaching effect than simply during their
term in this role.
33
Summary
Significant variance exists across the province with regard to District IT Leaders across
fundamental demographic areas; including educational background, experience,
responsibilities, depth of knowledge of I.T., and depth of knowledge of ICT integration.
No standards or guidelines exist with regard to this role – not through Alberta Learning,
not through the School Act, not through the Alberta Teachers’ Association and not
through a self-directed professional organization.
In spite of this variance, expectations on this group of personnel are high in terms of
leadership skills. Many of the skills, knowledge and attributes expected of District I.T.
Leaders require executive level abilities and likely require executive level decisionmaking and responsibility for effective outcomes. Further, many of the current District IT
Leaders providing provincial advisement are within a retirement horizon – succession
planning is needed.
The position of School I.T. Leader is a more established role. However, ICT integration
remains a challenge for school administrators.
Learning needs exist across both of these roles and have been identified by both School
and District I.T. Leaders. There is a need for instruction in information technology
leadership in education.
Analysis of Post-Secondary Program Offerings
Given some of the learning needs expressed by District and School IT Leaders and some
of the knowledge gaps recognized by these groups, an analysis was conducted of the
program offerings that may address the area of educational IT leadership. In the interest
of identifying resources available for the development of instructional technology
leadership, a review of existing university programs and courses was conducted. A key
word search of graduate university programs presently offered in North America was
conducted on-line.
This process first identified universities that had instructional technology in education
master's programs. The rationale for focusing on master's level studies is two fold. The
2002 UNESCO document, Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher
Education: A Planning Guide, identifies university programs and courses as a principle
component of professional development for teachers and administrators. Since the major
focus of this study was also to look at the needs of the District and School IT leaders and
the majority of these people have a baccalaureate degree, it is assumed that the entry
point for professional development would be at a master's degree level. It is also
acknowledged that courses and programs offered by universities are only one of the tools
needed to provide professional development and support for current and potential leaders
in educational instructional technology.
University programs were scrutinized in terms of program and course descriptions. The
courses for each of the programs were then separated into categories representing the key
34
competencies identified by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE:
http://cnets.iste.org). This information was also categorized in terms of the six standards
that stem from the core competencies, as identified by ISTE and The Technology
Standards for School Administrators (TSSA: http://cnets.istc.org/tssa).
The university programs were divided into two distinct groups representing those
available in Canada (6) and those in the United States (31). They were further separated
in terms of programs focusing on instructional technology in education (22) and those
which combined instructional technology in education with specific reference to
leadership (9). One of the difficulties encountered in identifying the percent emphasis
within each of the competency areas and standards, is that some programs have specific
course offerings and others allow participants to choose from a list of courses in
identified categories. For the purposes of this study the percent emphases was calculated
based on the total offerings available in that category, as participants in any of these
programs can take courses extra to the number required for the master's degree.
The following section shares a comparison of Canadian and American Educational I.T.
Programs, as well as American I.T. Leadership programs. For each of the following
summary tables, there are specific tables included with each of the program listings of
courses detailed in Appendix XYZ.
35
Educational Technology Programs in Canadian Universities
ISTE Standard
A
B
C
D
E
F
Leadership and Vision
Learning and Teaching
Productivity and Professional Practice
Support, Management, and Operations
Assessment and Evaluation
Social, Legal and Ethical Issues
ICT Competencies
I
II
III
IV
Content & Pedagogy
Technical Issues
Social Issues
Collaboration & Networking
% Emphasis
Low
0
30
0
0
7.2
2.3
% Emphasis
High
28.5
63.6
7.2
21.4
40
13
% Emphasis
Average
13.1
43.7
1.4
13.4
20.6
8.3
% Emphasis
Low
35.7
11
0
0
% Emphasis
High
67
60
18.2
21.4
% Emphasis
Average
44.7
33.4
8.6
13.2
Table. 21 A comparison of Educational Technology Programs in Canadian
Universities.
Leadership and Educational Technology in American Universities
ISTE Standard
A
B
C
D
E
F
Leadership and Vision
Learning and Teaching
Productivity and Professional Practice
Support, Management, and Operations
Assessment and Evaluation
Social, Legal and Ethical Issues
ICT Competencies
I
II
III
IV
Content & Pedagogy
Technical Issues
Social Issues
Collaboration & Networking
% Emphasis
Low
10
7.3
5
0
0
0
% Emphasis
High
40
60
30
29.2
20
20
% Emphasis
Average
19.4
32.2
16.1
12.3
12.7
7.4
% Emphasis
Low
20
20
0
0
% Emphasis
High
80
50
20
50
% Emphasis
Average
36.1
31.9
7.4
24.9
Table 22. A comparison of Educational Technology Leadership Programs in American
Universities.
Although the percent emphases varies in each of the categories from one institution to the
next, some points become readily apparent. The number of programs offered at the
master's level relating to instructional technology and leadership is very limited. This is
particularly true of those presently offered in Canada, including those in Alberta. Even
though there may be one or two courses offered related to the competencies and standards
associated with leadership in a program, it is very difficult to tell from the calendar
descriptions whether there are leadership components integrated through the identified
content and processes.
36
Educational Technology/Information Technology Programs in American
Universities
ISTE Standard
A
B
C
D
E
F
Leadership and Vision
Learning and Teaching
Productivity and Professional Practice
Support, Management, and Operations
Assessment and Evaluation
Social, Legal and Ethical Issues
ICT Competencies
I
II
III
IV
Content & Pedagogy
Technical Issues
Social Issues
Collaboration & Networking
% Emphasis
Low
0
0
10
0
0
0
% Emphasis
High
50
60
66.7
25
30.8
37.5
% Emphasis
Average
20.1
20.6
34.6
9.4
11
4.3
% Emphasis
Low
0
9.1
0
0
% Emphasis
High
61.6
87.5
12.5
46.7
% Emphasis
Average
36.1
42.8
4
17.1
Table 23. A comparison of Educational Technology/Information Technology Programs
in American Universities.
A further analysis of the differences between programs is not included here, as this is not
the major focus of the current IT Leadership needs assessment. However, what should be
noted is that in existing instructional technology in education courses the major emphasis
is primarily on teaching and learning including skill development in specific areas such
as multimedia. When looking for a combined focus on leadership, on specific attention to
the technical aspects of establishing and maintaining networks and I.T. systems, and on
depth in curricular integration, there are currently very limited opportunities presently in
Canadian university programs.
37
Recommendations
Several recommendations lead from the research conducted through this study. These
recommendations spring directly from survey results and feedback received from District
and School level I.T. leaders via focus group meetings.
Recommendation #1
Formalize, recognize and adopt the knowledge, skills, and attributes from this research as
expectations of District IT Leaders.
Rationale: The vast majority of educational leaders, including District IT Leaders,
support the ksa’s identified within the current study as important within the role.
While other leadership roles within education such as Superintendent or School
Principals are loosely defined within legislation (i.e. The Alberta School Act), the role of
District IT Leader has no definition, standards, or even commonality across many
districts. A high degree of variance exists within Alberta in the nature of the role of
District IT Leader – from curriculum directors with little technical knowledge to
technical gurus lacking background in education. This variance, while indeed providing
school districts a level of flexibility, fails to provide direction.
The integration of ICT into the curricula, supporting administrative technologies and
implementing complex information technology systems requires a significant depth of
knowledge, skills and attributes across leadership, education, and technical domains. The
provision of a defined set of expected ksa’s for the role of District IT Leaders not only
helps districts define the role, but also provides a basis for developing personnel to fulfill
the role. Effective integration of ICTs and information technology requires district level
leadership in this role – leadership that needs to be cultured over time through setting
direction to achieve a high level of ability to meet district needs.
A very high percentage of lead educators (superintendents, District IT Leaders and school
administrators) within the province have endorsed the ksa’s included in Appendix C, as
important to fulfilling this role. Almost all individual ksa’s identified have support in
excess of 80% of the current educational leadership, based on the IT Leadership Needs
Assessment Survey. Opportunity exists to utilize the series of ksa’s from this research as
a foundation to formulate a consistent, meaningful role description for District I.T.
Leaders – a further recommendation below.
38
Recommendation #2
Formalize and recognize the knowledge, skills and attributes from this research as
expectations of School I.T. Leaders. This recommendation furthers Alberta’s
Commission on Learning recommendation #63, ‘Expect principals to provide leadership
in integrating technology in both the instructional and administrative aspects of the
school.’
Rationale: Again, the vast majority of educational leaders, including School I.T.
Leaders, support the ksa’s identified within the current study as important within the role
of School IT Leader.
It is important to recognize the important role school administrators play in leading
teaching staff to effectively integrate ICTs within schools. As Shuldman (2004) points
out, administrative support and leadership are key to success in implementing
instructional technologies in school settings.
A lack of direction currently exists with regard to school administrators leadership roles
within the ICT domain. The Teaching Quality Standard explicitly states the knowledge,
skills, and attributes expected of teachers, including specificity in those ksa’s with regard
to integrating ICTs. As defined within the standard, teachers holding an Interim
Professional Certificate are expected to posses a defined set of knowledge, skills, and
attributes, including:
j) the functions of traditional and electronic teaching/learning technologies. They
know how to use and how to engage students in using these technologies to present
and deliver content, communicate effectively with others, find and secure
information, research, word process, manage information, and keep records;
(Teaching Quality Standard)
Teachers holding a Permanent Professional Certificate are expected to posses a similar
set of ksa’s that are further defined within the Teaching Quality Standard.
Similar ksa’s are not identified for school leadership – either within the Teaching Quality
Standard or elsewhere. Provision of clear ksa’s and associated expectations within a
framework of accountability may resolve some of the confusion with regard to the role of
school leadership in the domain ICTs, which was noted in some comments from school
administrators within the online survey.
During focus group interviews, school administrators strongly advised that it is also
important to recognize that the role of school administrator should not represent ‘the’
solitary IT Leader within the school, but rather as one assisting in building other school
leaders within this domain. This is in keeping with contemporary leadership theory
suggesting that strong leaders promote building strong leadership (Fullan, 2001).
Again, a very high percentage of lead educators (superintendents, District IT Leaders and
school administrators) within the province have recommended the ksa’s included in
Appendix D, as important to fulfilling this role.
39
Recommendation #3
It is recommended that Alberta Learning develop a role description for District IT
Leaders. This role should be incorporated into the executive district level, similar to the
understanding regarding the specific role of superintendents, secretary treasurer, and
school administrators. Further, it is recommended that the position be funded directly by
Alberta Learning, rather than requiring districts to allocate from the instructional pool to
accommodate the position.
Rationale: As shared earlier in this research, there is significant variance in the
educational background, experience, responsibilities, depth of knowledge of I.T., and
depth of knowledge of ICT integration across District IT Leaders within the Province of
Alberta. The provision of a standard District IT Leader role description and model would
assist in meeting learning and operational outcomes defined at both the provincial and
district levels.
While the province and school districts invest ongoing in contemporary information
technologies, the provision of a model description for this role would serve to a) provide
direction for districts as this role becomes more formalized – leading to a more standard
set of ksa expectations within school districts when developing and filling this role, b)
assist post-secondary institutions, professional development consortia, and learning
communities as they provide both instruction and interface assumptions into this role, and
c) provide longer-term direction as succession planning for this role becomes
increasingly important for districts who are losing long-term District IT Leaders who
have shaped their district’s IT infrastructure, processes and ICT integration.
Given the cross-organizational effect of I.T. within school districts, some suggest this
role ought to operate as an Executive level role – working closely with Senior
Administration in laying a foundation of I.T. direction in keeping with the school
district’s vision. Recommendations from a CoSN and Grunwald Associates study
(Consortium for School Networking, 2004) indicate, “…school districts should create a
senior full time position [for a District IT Leader]. This person should be deeply involved
in district leadership working as a senior member of the superintendent’s team of key
advisors to infuse technology into the district’s educational vision, goals and strategies.”
This concept was also raised by various current District IT Leaders.
Te role description will require sufficient flexibility, however, to accommodate specific
district needs – much as descriptions within the Alberta School Act or the Teaching
Quality Standard provide direction, but allow some district flexibility.
Fulfilling this recommendation will help lay the cornerstone for Recommendation #4,
building capacity through I.T. Leadership programs. Having a standard role description
built upon the ksa’s defined within this research will assist in more efficiently developing
district level IT Leadership capacity. This capacity will become even more needed as
current senior District IT Leaders reach retirement.
40
Recommendation #4
Provide seed money for post-secondary institutions to develop and implement I.T.
Leadership programs to meet both immediate needs of current District and School level
IT leaders and to establish a capacity of I.T. leadership over the longer term to
accommodate succession planning.
Rationale: The responsibility for such seed money is traditionally a provincial
government undertaking. Building capacity at both district and school levels will be
critical to best utilization of capital investments – investments made using provincial
funds.
As Thomas (1998) recommends, a strong link between educational technology and
leadership is necessary to support improvements in education. He further observes, given
the importance of this leadership development and role, it makes sense to invest in this
domain.
Currently, no post-secondary institutions in Alberta, or in Western Canada, offer a
program to address the need for I.T. leadership at district and school levels to ensure a
depth of knowledge in leadership, education and information technology technical
understandings. While district I.T. leaders require depth in all three domains according to
focus group discussions, school I.T. leaders likely require less I.T. technical knowledge.
An analysis of post-secondary institution programs within both Canada and the United
States indicates limited program offerings that address information technology leadership
in education – specifically programs consisting of a complement of knowledge skills and
attributes comprised of the core standards identified by the TSSA Collaborative and
further supported within the current research.
Most post-secondary institutions offer some courses that address I.T. in education, but no
Canadian institutions offer the depth, nor breadth, of knowledge necessary to sufficiently
prepare district and school leaders for their role in the field – in spite of significant
expenditures in I.T. capital items (e.g. hardware, software, and online learning resources)
and infrastucture (e.g. Supernet). This leadership knowledge in educational technology
will be necessary to support educators and systems, thus enabling students to more fully
integrate information technologies into their studies.
Given the nature of both current need and the nature of the ‘package’ of ksa’s, it is
recommended that programs developed encompass both graduate degree standing
(Master’s degree and Doctoral degree) and also provide the flexibility for non-degree
seeking candidates, including those currently filling District and School level IT
Leadership roles, to participate in further developing their background.
As shared by one District I.T. Leader within the online survey comment section:
I'm seasoned in the role, but I am concerned about transition
planning. While I have no pressing personal needs other than
continuing to be involved beyond the district with my peers to
stay current and to continuously learn, I do feel a strong need
for program development to develop and support the next generation
41
of Educational IT leaders. Specifically a Master's program would
be great, both in developing the role, and raising the profile of
what has become a pillar of modern educational leadership.
As noted in earlier discussions with District IT Leaders, outcomes from such formal
programs should accommodate ksa’s for District IT Leaders that provide a
complementary set of indepth technical skills with strong rooting in education and
leadership foundations. This duality of knowledge bases provides an ability for the
individual to comprehend, analyze, support and architect complex I.T. undertakings, but
also, and most importantly, maintain a focus on educational outcomes and educational
intent.
42
Recommendation #5
Provide a breadth of learning opportunities for personnel currently filling the role of
District IT Leader and School IT Leader.
Rationale: While degree granting programs are needed for long-term planning of
information technology leadership, there are also short-term learning needs. Degree
granting programs will help offer a depth of knowledge across the domains of leadership,
education and technical understanding. However, such programs take time to fully realize
and also time to graduate a complement of leaders.
As shared above, some of these short-term needs may be met through flexibility in postsecondary program offerings. In other words, courses that are offered as part of a
program, may also be made available as individual courses for participants who seek the
‘occasional course’ rather than a full program. Additionally, these short-term needs may
be met through various other channels including Jurisdictional Technology Coordinator
(JTC) functions, school district sponsored learning functions, professional development
consortia, corporately sponsored courses, and ‘for-a-fee’ corporate training programs.
There is a need to ensure that people have opportunity to gain depth in the specific niche
where they recognize a need. For example, some District I.T. Leaders have noted that
they have significant technical depth, yet have limited opportunity to gain a better
understanding of the field they are serving, namely education. Other District I.T. Leaders
have pointed out that they have significant knowledge of the field of education, yet need
opportunity to enhance their technical knowledge. Finally, others recognize a need to
enhance their understanding of the field of leadership.
43
Recommendation #6
Review and align resource requirements; in terms of time, money, technical resources
and training; to support integration of information and communications technology into
the curricula. This recommendation is in keeping with Alberta’s Commission on
Learning recommendation #67 ‘Provide adequate funding not only for the purchase of
hardware and software but also for necessary technical support, training and continuous
upgrading of equipment.’
Rationale: A review of comments, particularly from school administrators, clearly
identifies a need for adequate resources to meet the objective of integrating information
and communications technology into the curricula. These comments focus upon
resourcing difficulties, time and funding consideration, all affecting meeting student
needs in the ICT domain.
As one administrator effectively sums up concerns expressed within many survey
responses:
What is realistic is to provide support in terms of time, money
and training for changes to occur - and be sustained. If the
resources are not there, sheer will and higher expectations alone
will not make meaningful changes.
Clearly, it can be argued that given the variance of districts’ ability to integrate ICTs
across the province and where some districts are having a level of success, it may be
possible to meet this objective within the current resourcing framework. However, school
administrators frequently relate concern about trade-offs that are necessary to achieve a
level of effectiveness within this domain.
Certainly leadership at both district and school levels have relevance to discussions of
resourcing. Effective resource planning and utilization will more likely lead to higher
satisfaction levels. Nonetheless, the frequency with which resourcing concerns surface
needs exploration.
As part of this exploration, provincial best-practice studies need considered in planning
for effectual resourcing approaches. Farthing (1999), as part of Technical Support
Planning, provides details on specific categories of expenditures; including hardware,
software, infrastructure, connectivity, internet access, security, backup and training;
across both instruction and administration and some detail on associated costs.
Redhead (2001) in Investigating the Total Cost of Technology in Schools, provides a
thorough examination of I.T. costs. She details six categories of costs: hardware,
resources, infrastructure, technology support, professional development, management and
planning. The author provides a calculational tool to assist in determining total costs of
ownership. Thirteen case studies reviewed in this research suggest a breadth of level of
investment. School Administrators, though often recognizing the value of ICT in the
curricula, expressed concerns regarding affordability.
44
Recommendation #7
It is recommended that a professional organization be developed to represent District I.T.
Leaders.
Rationale: While such professional organizations exist for superintendency staff through
the College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS), for school administrators through
the Alberta Teachers Association Council on School Administration, for secretarytreasurer staff through the Association of School Business Officials of Alberta (ASBOA),
and for school boards through the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA); no similar
organization has been developed to represent District I.T. Leaders.
As one District IT Leader aptly points out,
We are in great need of a professional association which would
have an agenda, including linkages with other key groups such as
CASS and formats for sharing experiences and information. It
appeared this might happen several years ago but the efforts did
not reach implementation. One individual cannot know everything.
We need to support each other.
Several District IT Leaders noted the need for an organizational support structure to serve
the professional needs of this group. Much as with the development of other professional
organizations, the responsibility for development of such an organization largely remains
the responsibility of current District I.T. Leaders.
45
References
Alberta School Act. Queen’s Printer, Edmonton, Alberta.
Consortium for School Networking (2004). Digital Leadership Divide. Available at:
http://www.cosn.org/resources/grunwald/index.cfm
Costello, R. (1997) T.H.E. Journal Article (November)
Farthing, C. (1999). Technical Support Planning. Best Practices for Alberta School
Jurisdictions. Alberta Education, Edmonton, Alberta.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.
Hall, D. (2003). Power Strategy Toolkit – Part 1: Managing the Vision. Learning and
Leading with Technology, Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(1), 46-51.
Hall, D. (2003). Power Strategy Toolkit – Part 1: Managing the Performance. Learning
and Leading with Technology, Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(2), 36-41.
Hall, D. (2003). Power Strategy Toolkit – Part 1: Managing the Operations. Learning and
Leading with Technology, Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(3), 40-53.
Redhead, P. (2001). Investigating the Total Cost of Technology in Schools: Tools and
Strategies for Managing Technology Investments. Best Practices for Alberta School
Jurisdictions. Alberta Learning, Edmonton, Alberta.
Resta, P., Ed. (2002). Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher
Education: A Planning Guide. UNESCO, Division of Higher Education.
Smyth, J., Ed. (1998). World Education Report, 1998: Teachers and Teaching in a
Changing World. UNESCO Publication.
Stephenson, C. (2004a).Finding and Growing Leaders: An Interview with ISTE Deputy
CEO Leslie Conery. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(7), 26-29.
Stephenson, C. (2004b). Leading through Advocacy: An Interview with ISTE CEO Don
Knezek. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(8), 6-9.
Stephenson, C. (2004c). Leadership as Service: An Interview with ISTE President Jan
Van Dam. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(1), 12-15.
Teaching Quality Standard Applicable to the Provision of Basic Education in Alberta.
(1997). Ministerial Order #016/97.
46
Thomas W.R. (1998). Educational Technology: Are School Administrators Ready For It?
Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved from
http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/pubsindex.asp
TSSA Collaborative [The Collaborative for Technology Standards for School
Administrators. (2001). Available at: http://www.iste.org/tssa/framework.html
Wendol (2003-04). Reader Responds Editorial – Leadership is the Real Issue. Learning
and Leading with Technology, 31(4), 5.
Yee, D. (1999). Leading, Learning and Thinking with Information and Communication
Technology ICT: Images of Principals’ ICT Leadership Research Summary. Available at:
http://www.soe.waikato.ac.nz/elc/research/yee.html
Yee, D. (2000). Images of School Principals’ Information and Communications
Technology Leadership. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3),
287-302.
47
Appendix A(i): District I.T. Leadership
Needs Assessment Survey - Part 1
48
49
50
51
52
53
Appendix A(ii): School I.T. Leadership
Needs Assessment Survey - Part 2
54
55
56
57
58
59
Appendix B: Total Information Technology Skills
Survey Question:
Responses:
Percentage of District IT Leaders Possessing IT Skills
0 skills
% of
District
Leaders
1 skill
1.7%
3.3%
7 skills
% of District Leaders
3 skills
5.0%
3.3%
Total IT Skills
4 skills 5 skills
5.0%
Total IT Skills
8 skills 9 skills
10.0%
13.3%
60
5.0%
6 skills
5.0%
10 skills 11 skills 12 skills
8.3%
10.0%
30.0%
Appendix C: Results from I.T Leadership Survey Questions – Part 1
District I.T Leadership
For each of the following questions, the number expressed at the right represents the
percentage of respondents (Superintendents, District IT Leaders, School Administrators)
who responded ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’.
Survey Question (Knowledge, Skill or Attribute)
 The district IT leader is competent in relating effectively
with Superintendency staff, school principals, teachers,
technical staff, students, parents, and support staff.
Category
Organizational
Relations &
Communicatio
ns
Organizational
Relations &
Communicatio
ns
Leadership &
Visioning
Rate
97%

The district IT leader is competent in translating technical
specifics and jargon into terms that are easily understood by
non-technical professionals.

The district IT leader must be instrumental in defining
collaboratively with internal stakeholders how technology
will support the vision of the district and Alberta Learning
mandated outcomes
The district IT leader must be instrumental in ensuring there Leadership &
is ongoing knowledge of emerging technologies that may be Visioning
adopted by the district to achieve program goals
96%
Knowledge of
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
Productivity
&
Professional
Practice
Productivity
&
Professional
Practice
Knowledge of
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
Leadership &
Visioning
96%


The district IT leader will liaise with other IT leaders at
provincial and district levels to broaden perspectives and
share problem solving strategies.

The district IT leader must be competent in modeling, for
instructional staff, the effective uses of technology for
professional productivity

The district IT leader must be competent in using
technology to share promising instructional and learning
exemplars that support program improvement.

The district IT leader will be able to solve problems
effectively by prioritizing and eliminating variables.

The district IT leader must be instrumental in facilitating
systematic change at both an organizational and individual
level
61
97%
96%
95%
95%
95%
94%










The district IT leader must be competent in leading
effective staff development opportunities in an ongoing
manner that promotes the use of technologies for
meaningful instruction.
The district IT leader is competent in implementing
technology initiatives that provide instructional and
technical support as defined in the local, regional and
provincial plans and standards.
o The district IT leader will have a skill set for
learning new technologies
Learning &
Teaching
Support,
Management
and
Operations
Knowledge of
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
Social, Legal
The district IT leader will inform district leadership of
program-specific ICT issues related to privacy, security, and & Ethical
Issues
confidentiality.
Learning &
The district IT leader must be competent in leading
Teaching
educators and administrators in the critical evaluation of
instructional technologies.
o The district IT leader will have a working
Knowledge of
knowledge of Internet protocols
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
o The district IT leader will have a skill set for using a Knowledge of
breadth of software applications
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
Social, Legal
The district IT leader will involve stakeholders in
& Ethical
addressing equity of access to technology resources.
Issues
Learning &
The district IT leader must be competent in ensuring ICT
Teaching
curricula implementations align with direction set by
Alberta Learning and the local school district.
The district IT leader is competent in project management to Support,
Management
meet budgets, and timelines of a project.
and
Operations
Support,
The district IT leader is competent in understanding
Management
procurement processes and requirements for IT
and
Operations
The district IT leader will educate program personnel about Social, Legal
& Ethical
technology-related health, safety, legal, and ethical issues.
Issues
Assessment &
The district IT leader is competent in monitoring and
Evaluation
analyzing technical data to guide the implementation of
effective technologies.
62
94%
93%
93%
92%
90%
90%
90%
90%
89%
88%
87%
87%
86%

The district IT leader will access online communities and
resources for pursuing information and solving problems

The district IT leader is competent in leading the
appropriate design of IT infrastructure as organizations
remodel and build new facilities.
o The district IT leader will have a working
knowledge of Security

The district IT leader must be competent in using
technology to improve administrative and business
operations.

The district IT leader is competent in managing IT
personnel within the organization.

The district IT leader is competent in researching,
monitoring, and analyzing learning performance data on a
continuous basis, to guide the design and improvement of
program initiatives and activities.
o The district IT leader will have a working
knowledge of Alberta Supernet architecture

The district IT leader must be instrumental in actively
promoting the culture of seeking IT opportunities and
partnerships with other educational, corporate, and political
organizations for staff and students.
o The district IT leader will have a working
knowledge of LAN and WAN networking
architectures



The district IT leader must be competent in guiding the
development of online services.
The district IT leader must be competent in focusing on
technologies that serve the goals of learning while
discarding those that do not.
The district IT leader will have a minimum of five years
teaching experience.
o The district IT leader will have a working
knowledge of Telecommunications
63
Knowledge of
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
Support,
Management
and
Operations
Knowledge of
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
Productivity
&
Professional
Practice
Support,
Management
and
Operations
Assessment &
Evaluation
86%
Knowledge of
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
Leadership &
Visioning
81%
Knowledge of
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
Learning &
Teaching
Learning &
Teaching
78%
Learning &
Teaching
Knowledge of
Problem
72%
85%
85%
84%
84%
82%
80%
75%
75%
70%
o The district IT leader will have a working
knowledge of developing web sites
o The district IT leader will have a skill set for
programming software
64
Solving and
I.T.
Knowledge of 70%
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
Knowledge of 31%
Problem
Solving and
I.T.
Appendix D: Results from I.T Leadership Survey Questions –
Part 2
School Administration I.T Leadership
For each of the following questions, the percentage expressed at the right represents the
number of respondents (Superintendents, District IT Leaders, School Administrators)
who responded ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’.
Survey Question (Knowledge, Skill or Attribute)
Category
Leadership and Visioning
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be instrumental in:
 Articulating a strong professional vision for meaningful technology
integration in teaching and learning
 Facilitating the development of a collaborative ICT school
improvement plan.
97%
94%

Participating in an inclusive district process through which
stakeholders formulate a shared vision and plan that defines
expectations for technology use.

Facilitating meaningful ICT change at both the school and individual 95%
level.

Providing opportunities for staff and students to develop and display
ICT leadership abilities.
Learning and Teaching
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:
 Implementing effective ICT professional development for all school
staff
 Assisting teachers in using technology to access, analyze and
interpret student performance data and in using results to enhanced
student learning.
 Ensuring programs and instruction align with ICT directions set by
Alberta Learning.
 Articulating a strong sense for the place of technology within the
educational environment – the focus is on teaching and learning
rather than technology per se.
65
86%
94%
76%
78%
97%
98%
Rate
Productivity and Professional Practice
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must:
 Model for students, parents, and instructional staff, the effective uses
of technology in instruction and professional productivity.
 Use technology-based management systems to access and maintain
personnel and student records
 Use a variety of electronic media to communicate, interact and
collaborate with peers, experts and other education stakeholders.
 Be an effective user of contemporary information and technology
tools.
Support, Management, and Operations
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:
 Providing school-wide staff professional development for
electronically sharing work and resources.
 Guiding facility design to incorporate appropriate ICT infrastructure
as schools remodel, evergreen and build new facilities.
 Allocating school discretionary funds and other resources to advance
implementation of the technology plan.
 Advocating or providing for adequate, timely and high-quality
technology support services that accommodates the district plan.
Supervision and Evaluation
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:
 Implementing supervision and evaluation procedures of teachers to
assess their growth toward established ICT standards.
 Evaluating the effectiveness of ICT use in the teaching and learning
process, as one criterion in assessing performance of instructional
staff.
Social, Legal and Ethical Issues
The school administrator (principal/vice-principal) must be competent in:
 Collaborating with staff to resolve issues relating to equity of access
to resources and equity of ICT professional development
opportunities.
 Disseminating information to staff on privacy, security,
confidentiality, and reporting of information that might impact
technology systems and policy requirements
 Adhering to and enforcing the district’s acceptable use policy and
other policies and procedures related to security, copyright and
technology use.
66
87%
88%
90%
90%
90%
71%
82%
89%
87%
84%
95%
90%
96%
Appendix E (i)
Canadian Educational Technology/Information Technology
Programs
(compared using ICT Competencies)
67
68
Appendix E (ii)
Canadian Educational Technology/Information Technology
Programs
(compared using ISTE Standards)
69
70
Appendix F (i)
USA Educational Technology/Information Technology Programs
(compared using ICT Competencies)
71
72
Appendix F (ii)
USA Educational Technology/Information Technology Programs
(compared using ISTE Competencies)
73
74
Appendix G (i)
USA Leadership and Educational Technology
(compared using ICT Competencies)
75
76
Appendix G (ii)
USA Leadership and Educational Technology
(compared using ISTE Competencies)
77
78
Appendix H
SELECTED UNIVERSITIES CONTACT INFORMATION
79
Selected Universities Contact Information
Canadian Educational Technology/Information Technology Program
Ed Tech @ Concordia University
http://doe.concordia.ca/ed_tech_ma.html
IKIT from OISE
http://ikit.org/
MET @ UBC
http://met.ubc.ca/01-pageoverview.htm
Education & Technology @ SFU
http://www.educ.sfu.ca/gradprogs/masters/curriculum/tech.html
ED IT @ Memorial U.N. & UCCB
http://www.mun.ca/educ/grad/grad_it/grad_it_frameset.html
Ed Tech @ UofC
http://external.educ.ucalgary.ca/
USA Leadership and Educational Technology
Woodring College of Ed @ Western
http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Depts/IT/DegreeProgs.shtml
Washington University
Southeastern Louisiana University
http://selu.edu/Administration/recordsandregistration/01catalog/
Utexas – College of Education
http://www.utexas.edu/education/technology/summer2000.html#PT3
George Washington University
http://www.gwu.edu/~etl/etlpo.htm
Fitchburg State College
http://www.fsc.edu/catalog/Grad/techleader.html
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
http://www.siue.edu/EDUCATION/ed_leadership/tech.html
University of Sioux Falls
http://www.thecoo.edu/academic/education/grad_tech.html
New York University
http://www.nyu.edu/education/alt/ectprogram/
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
http://www.soe.uwm.edu/pages/welcome/Technology/Technology_L
USA Educational Technology/Information Technology Program
University of Houston
http://www.it.coe.uh.edu/course_list.cfm
Touro College
http://www.touro.edu/edgrad/instructionaltechnology/Program.asp
Texas Tech University
http://www.educ.ttu.edu/EDIT/default.htm
George State University
http://msit.gsu.edu/programs/ms_it.htm
Duquesne University, PA
http://www.education.duq.edu/it/msedit.html
Virginia Tech
http://www.itma.vt.edu/
East Carolina – College of Education
http://www.coe.ecu.edu/LTDI/ma-it.htm
Notre Dame de Namur University
http://www.ndnu.edu/catalog/catalog_0304/educational_technology.html
Boise State University
http://education.boisestate.edu/edtech2/CurrentStudentFAQs.htm
Hawaii
http://www.hawaii.edu/edtech/prog_masters.htm
San Diego State University
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/EDTEC/EDTEC_Home.html
Purdue University
http://www.edci.purdue.edu/et/welcome.html
Curry – University of Virginia
http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/it/
U. Northern Iowa
http://uni.edu/contined/cp/degreeprogs/graddegrees/unified/edtec
American InterContinental University
http://www.onlineeducationworks.com/scripts/offer.php?code=SMO
Graceland University
http://www.graceland.edu/show.cfm?durki=242
Jones International University
http://www.jonesinternational.edu/ourPrograms/specialization.php?p
Walden University, MN
http://www.degrees4teachers.net/index.cfm?s=324.r030y543i.0734031t11
Western Governors University
http://worldwidelearn.com/wgu/online-degrees.htm
University of San Francisco
http://www.soe.usfca.edu/degrees_credentials/ma_ed_tech.html
University of Central Florida
http://edcollege.ucf.edu/mod_depts/prog_page.cfm?ProgDeptID=5&P
80