Home PublicationsJRTEPast IssuesVolume 28 Number 5

Edited by Diane McGrath

Volume 28 Number 5 Summer 1996

A Qualitative Evaluation of a Statewide Networking Infrastructure in Education (NIE) Project, Part II

University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, LA

Effective Design

Project design. The evaluation team concluded that the project design seemed to be well conceived. As reported in this section,the evaluators felt that various features seemed to work well and to be an integral part of whatever success the projects had achieved so far, although the team had some design recommendations.

School site teams. The makeup of the school site teams seemed especially well conceived. The fact that the principal, librarian, counselor, and teachers were involved at each site provided a cohesive support environment.Teachers obviously are critical to the success of the project. Involvement of school principals was an especially crucial factor in gaining campuswide support for technology integration. Most districts were deriving substantial benefits as well from the involvement of librarians, who seemed to be a key ingredient in the mix of services and resources for students and teachers in effective schools.

Feeder schools. The project required that the five participating districts choose an elementary school that fed into the middle school chosen and a middle school whose students would go to the high school chosen. Using this feeder-school grouping concept had an initial positive effect and the potential for even greater effects. Indications are that this concept will positively impact parental involvement, student transition from school to school, teacher communication among school campuses, and curriculum discussions among grade levels.

As students in various grade levels from the same family use Internet-aided instruction, parents will likely receive increased exposure to the advantages and opportunities for learning that Internet access provides. Moreover, students trained using the Internet in one school could more easily adapt when they graduate to the next level. Because teachers of different grade levels in different schools use many of the same techniques, receive common training, and use similar resources, communication among schools has increased.

District level involvement. The project design should stipulate the involvement and support of district level personnel,including but not limited to curriculum supervisors, MIS/technical staff, and the director of the media center. These people should be knowledgeable advisors for those using Internet technology and information resources. In addition,the district staff should participate in the Internet training. The MIS/technical staff should assist in the integration of administrative and instructional networks. The state NIE project and the district personnel should provide additional opportunities for district MIS involvement in the project.

Support from university campuses. Involving universities in providing Internet training at the pilot sites established bridges between schools and preservice training programs. Although support by individual faculty members was consistently acknowledged by participants, strong support did not seem to extend to participating universities' administrators. Future efforts should seek institutional and departmental commitment, not just individual faculty member commitments. State-level personnel might provide a support mechanism to assist universities in preparing for project participation.

Discussion

Evaluation team members were impressed with the level of enthusiasm and commitment demonstrated by the teachers and others on the school teams. Everyone seemed to be excited and committed to the project,regardless of the implementation status on the various campuses. Participants seemed universally positive about the benefits of the program and cited numerous benefits along with problems and areas for improvement. Project leaders effectively mobilized and rose to the challenge presented by the project, frequently under difficult circumstances. Moreover, the $50,000 provided three of the school districts and $15,000 provided the other two were modest sums given the tasks confronting them, but the state and districts very effectively leveraged these funds with other monies from a wide array of other sources.

All of the districts have plans to include other schools in the system. In fact, one of the systems connected the offices and libraries of all of the school campuses immediately after the three pilot sites were up and running.

Successful Project Characteristics

As new sites funded through Goals 2000/NIE or through other resources initiate similar connectivity projects, effectiveness and efficiency can be enhanced through knowledge gained from this first project year. Decision makers should understand what characteristics successful pilot sites have in common as they undertake projects similar to this pilot project to provide direct Internet access to schools.

Districts and schools that seemed either more successful or more likely to be successful in effectively integrating the use of Internet into their sites had strong management teams and multiple sources of funding. There was usually a single person who could be identified as the driving force behind the reform, although, as efforts progressed, others "bought in" to the idea and were also making important contributions as well. District officials, principals, and other school personnel seemed dedicated to exploring innovative sources of funding. They were committed to strategic planning, including planning to extend the project in their schools or to other schools in the district. They were also innovative in generating a high level of community support, which assisted fundraising efforts. A part of this innovation related to how they maintained a high level of community involvement and effective and continuing communication with the community. They were not reluctant to seek the help and participation of those outside the school system. There was a commitment to collaboration among partners within the district, including those at the local university, and collaboration with the LDE and others outside of education.

Additionally the evaluation team found a high degree of commitment to ongoing staff development in successful projects and schools. The principals, teachers, and other school personnel involved showed a commitment to the alignment of technology use with effective curriculum integration that calls for new roles for teachers and learners consistent with standards based reform efforts. The schools that had made the most progress also seemed to benefit from a stable faculty (i.e., a faculty with low turnover rate).

Future Steps

Institutionalization: General Principles

A variety of insights surfaced for the evaluation team at various levels regarding principles for institutionalizing the project.It is clear for instance that for all districts to have reasonable access to Internet resources and related technologies, an infusion of monies from the state and other possible sources would be necessary. How that should be structured and phased in is a matter for state planning and policy making.

It is also clear that inservice training on Internet usage needs to be accompanied by preservice training by teacher training institutions.As the Internet becomes more integrated into various school programs, the demand for Internet-trained teacher candidates will increase. Problems will escalate if new teachers graduate unprepared to use technology in the classroom or in other settings.

Another principle identified by the evaluation team is that districts need to structure their initiatives to be easily incorporated into the state networking system. Current pilots have begun to do this as much as possible, given the current status of state standards. The state should require participating districts to adopt state networking standards, as they are enacted.

Within districts, the state should take steps to ensure that the superintendent develops a vision for the project early and to secure his or her support. The state should already have devised a series of steps that the superintendent and the district could take once the decision is made to pursue this reform. The superintendent should take the responsibility of approaching the school board in his or her own district.

In this pilot, districts assigned district technology coordination responsibilities in different ways. It is critical to have a reasonably high-level administrator coordinating district technology responsibilities.A person with this responsibility needs the administrative clout to arrange the support necessary for the initiative to be successful. It is a good idea for this individual to coordinate rather than to direct, since forced acceptance and implementation don't work well over time.

A related issue concerns whether a district should have a technology director or technology coordinator. Various factors relate to this policy decision in each individual district. Nevertheless, based on the general experiences of the districts, it seems that a technology coordinator who sees his or her role as a facilitator rather than a director offers the best chance for long-term success.

Successful environments were built on trust and bottom-up participation, with top-down support. Successful projects were likely to be those that avoided forcing schools or teachers to use technology. Instead,they made technology available, with clarification of support that the district or school can and will provide. Successful district and school approaches also included specific expectations that schools or teachers must meet if they decide to participate.

Communication and collaboration have already been mentioned as features of successful projects. Participants in the projects have suggested that districts and schools take the time to plan, making provision for full participation. An orientation or overview of the project for district administrators,including the elementary supervisor, and math and science supervisors should be included in the project plans. As a part of this planning effort, the district or school administrators should inform the public and parents of both the challenges and the promise of the reform.

Building on First Tier Sites

Educators who participated in the first round of the state NIE project were highly motivated to continue and were interested in steps that would be taken to help ensure that they could continue to progress.A number of steps should be considered. These include continuing training for those who have already participated in the Internet class and extending training to those teachers who were not in the first round from the pioneering schools. Steps might involve support stipends, consultant fees or substitute pay. Ideally, districts should build Internet training into their ongoing inservice programs.

Schools need intensive technical assistance when they first link to the Internet. It is unlikely that the same intensive technical help that was provided to the campuses in the project the first year can be provided to larger numbers of campuses. As districts expand the project to include other campuses, they might consider rotational assignment of a technical person to assist on other campuses as installation proceeds. The schools that get connected earlier could rely more heavily on trained on-site staff. Possibly the district could provide a portable telephone "help desk" that teachers and other personnel can call to resolve technical problems.

The issue of time must also be recognized and addressed. Schools cannot continue to add more to the curriculum and teacher workloads without seeking creative ways tp provide time for them. Administrators at the school, district, and state levels need to approach this problem and seek solutions that are in accordance with standards-based reform.

A new Challenge Grant of $4.3 million was awarded in the fall of 1995 by the U.S. Department of Education. This grant builds on the work of the pilot sites and provides underserved students access to technology and telecommunications. Its goal is to increase communications among all community stakeholders by using learning technologies to provide educational opportunities for students and parents at more convenient times and places.For more information about this project visit the state Challenge Grant Home Page at (http://www.challenge.state.la.us).

Expanding to Second Tier Sites

As planning reaches an appropriate stage, the state could require funding for a systemwide long-range technology plan that is consistent with and supports the state technology plan. As part of this plan, each district needs to focus on how it will help ensure equitable student access to Internet tools.

A follow-up Internet course should be designed and the project teams should complete it in the second year. The focus of this course should be instruction using Internet resources. Applicants should also consider providing locally facilitated sessions to assist team members with course projects and review, and to present new instructional tools and resources to their entire staff.

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

A special thank you should be given to Ms. Vickie Pfost, Ms. Becky Callaway, Ms. Karla Bowlin, Ms. Jean Curran, Dr. Kriss Cooper and Dr. Lajeane Thomas for their reports on the status of the project.

References

Bienvenu, S. (1995). Analysis of LaNIE Case Studies and Pre- and Post- Surveys and of Participants. Unpublished evaluation report.

Cooper, K. (1995, May 5). Lessons learned from the LaNIE project. Report submitted for publication.

Davidson, K. (1994). Perspective from the project director. LaSIP Nexus (7).

Davidson, K. (1995a, Autumn). USDE awards $4.3 million challenge grant to Louisiana. Challenge Grant Newsletter [Online serial]. Available: http://www.challenge.state.la.us/welcome.html.

Davidson, K. (1995b, November 14). Goals 2000/LaNIE Louisiana Networking Infrastructure in Education Report Unpublished report.

Enhancing science and mathematics instruction with the Internet: Lesson plans from Goals 2000/LaNIE. (1996, February). K. Cooper (Ed.). Monroe, LA: Northeast Louisiana University.

Frantz, C. D., Thomas, L. J., Goals 2000/LaNIE Site Visit Evaluation Report. Unpublished evaluation report.

Guerin, J. (1995). Goals 2000/LaNIE: Louisiana networking infrastructure in education: Rebirth of learning for learning's sake. Louisiana Educational Technology Review, 4(1). [Online serial]. No longer available online (7/99).

National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). Advanced telecommunications in U.S. public schools, K-12. [Online document]. 1994 report is not currently available, however, the 1996 report is available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97944.html.

Thomas, L. (1996, September 11). Statewide plan for K-14 educational technology [Online document]. Available: http://www.challenge.state.la.us/state/index.html.

Vantilburg, M., Cardwell, D.T. (1995). Goals 2000/LaNIE pilot sites: Educational technology: Pathways to the 21st century. [Videotape]. Baton Folsom, LADnA Creative Services.

Whelan, C. (1995). Louisiana Goals 2000/LaNIE: Narrowing the gap between technology and education. Louisiana Educational Technology Review, 4(1). [Online serial], 3(4). Available: http://etrc33.usl.edu/etrc/libr/reviews/Winter95/art1.htm.

Whelan, C. (1996). A conversation with Dr. Kerry Davidson: Networking the underserved communities in Louisiana. Louisiana Educational Technology Review, 2(1). [Online serial]. Available: http://etrc33.usl.edu/etrc/libr/reviews/Winter96/conver.htmDepartment of Education in Baton Rouge. E-mail: cwhelan@mail.doe.state.la.us.

Carl Frantz
Dr. Carl Frantz received his Ph.D. from Louisiana State University in Education.He is currently working as the evaluation coordinator for the Louisiana Systemic Initiatives Program and the Louisiana Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers. (Address: USL Box 42051, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504-2051. E-mail: cfrantz@usl.edu).

Juanita Guerin
Ms. Juanita Guerin received her master's degree from the University of Southwestern and is currently the Technology Facilitator for the Challenge Grant at the Lafayette Parish Site. (Address: Lafayette Parish School Board, P.O. Dryer, 113 Chaplin Drive, Lafayette, LA 70502-2158. E-mail: jguerin@lft.k12.la.us).

Sylvia Bienvenu
Ms. Sylvia Bienvenu received her Education Specialist degree from the University of Southwestern Louisiana and is currently a telecommunications curriculum specialist for the Challenge Grant. She was an evaluator for the LaNIE project.(Address: USL Box 42051, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504-2051. E-mail: ssb1221@usl.edu).

Copyright © 1996, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.