One of my favorite courses to teach is titled Leadership and Technology for Winona State’s organizational leadership program. It is intended to provide organizational leaders with a basic understanding of the various facets of technology and how leaders must consider those facets in the development of both strategic and short term decision making. In today’s environment with ubiquitous technology in nearly all aspects of educational organizations and the rise of AI tools, all leaders need to understand how technology decisions can influence the organization overall.

In the first class meeting, there are three key points that I emphasize that leaders need to consider.

1. Balancing usability versus security. Seeing regular news items about ransomware attacks on schools and public organizations tends to push leaders to embrace all of the security recommendations of their IT staff. However, usability is just as important as security. Secure systems that cannot be effectively accessed by end users are not effective. Security systems that require too many steps for end users tend to encourage users to develop work arounds that may be significantly less secure. Leaders must ensure that systems protect data without negatively impacting workflow.

2. Leaders do not need to be technology experts, but they need a basic understanding of the way technology systems are built and how they function within an organizational ecosystem. This foundational knowledge enables leaders to ask informed questions, engage meaningfully in strategic planning, and evaluate the risks and benefits of potential technology investments. Without this baseline understanding, leaders risk becoming overly reliant on technical staff or even IT vendors, which can lead to misaligned priorities, missed opportunities, or inadequate oversight.

For example, a school district superintendent doesn’t need to write code or pull reports, but they should understand how a student information system (SIS) integrates with extant learning management platforms and state reporting tools before approving a new purchase. This awareness helps them ensure that procurement decisions align with instructional goals and compliance requirements, rather than being driven solely by technical convenience or vendor promises.

3. Strong leadership is data-informed and not data-driven. The difference is that data-informed leaders view decisions as based upon data but they also take organizational culture and their leadership experiences into account. This provides the necessary human agency so decisions are made holistically and not only based upon data without context.

For example, a new principal once sent a truancy letter to the parents of a child who was struggling with cancer because they had missed ten days of school. The parents called me to complain. I was shocked, but when I reached out to the new principal, she told me she didn’t think that she had the ability to not follow the ten-day letter rule. Previous leadership had felt that such data had to be followed without considering the context of the absences, etc. As we enter a world that is becoming more data-rich by the day, it is essential that leaders at all levels understand that their experiences and judgement have to be engaged to bring context and hopefully clarity to the piles of data being gathered.

In today’s technology-saturated environment, organizational leaders must develop a strong foundational understanding of how technology influences strategic and operational decisions. Aspiring leaders need to balance usability with security so they recognize that overly secure systems that hinder usability can lead to risky workarounds. They need to understand how technology systems function and how the various facets of technology impact one another within an organization in order to make informed, mission-aligned decisions. Finally, they need to be data-informed rather than data-driven, and be able to contextualize data within the realities of organizational culture and human experience to avoid harmful missteps and make thoughtful decisions.

• 9 Ways School Leaders Can Use AI
• AI Resources for District Leaders

On a recent OnEducation Podcast episode (embedded at the bottom of this post), the hosts Mike and Glen got into a debate about what exactly is the “right” model of support when it comes to technology integration in schools? As they called out my name in particular, I felt it best to write this post in response.

Make no bones about it…Technology is a gift with a tail. It’s predicted that schools will spend $19 Billion dollars on technology in schools. This can range from a variety of devices, apps, software and various “STEM” tools but not necessarily servers, wires, and all that stuff in the closet.  Despite this large amount of money invested in technology, the amount of money to support and integrate these tools dwarfs the amount spent on the hardware and software. I’d also wager that a majority of that “support” money is primarily for personnel needed to repair and keep the technology running, not to integrate it into learning.

I’ve been integrating technology in some form or fashion during my entire 20 years in education. A few years ago I wrote this post about how funding support in both I.T. and instruction can affect the level of integration. From that research as well as my work with districts around the country, I’ve seen a wide variety of models when it comes to support. With most models, the two largest determining factors are budget and vision. What follows are the various models I’ve seen employed by districts around the country. Each model is followed by a letter grade that is completely subjective, because, hey, this is for education right?

The “Tech Support Only” Model

In this model, staff and funding for support go solely towards keeping everything up and running. That means at a bare minimum, the technology will work. Will it be integrated thoughtfully? That depends largely on the teacher and the goals and expectation of the principal. I would say a majority of districts and schools across the country use this model.

Grade= C- 

While it’s great that the technology can turn on and off, there’s really no way to know if it’s making a difference educationally without some intense expectations, strategies and vision from leadership.

The “Pay and Pray” Model

No tech support. No Instructional support. Just spend the money on devices and see what happens. Whenever you read research about how technology in schools doesn’t really help, it largely comes from schools that employ either the previous model or this one. Often times you’ll hear phrases like “well, some tech is better than no tech” but in terms of this model, you could almost make the case that this could be worse for students (not to mention the tax payers funding the bill).

Grade= F

No support at all is not an advisable model.

The “Vanguard Teacher” Stipend Model

When I started as a classroom teacher, this was the widely used model I saw for technology integration. The way it works is you have I.T. staff to make sure the technology is running and you add some stipend or an extra amount to a group of teachers or a single “rock star” teacher to help with the integration on campus.

Grade=B-

While the district saves money by not paying for a full-time staff member to support integration, this model puts a lot of pressure on the Vanguard Teacher to not only do their full-time teaching duties, but also support staff on a variety of issues. As someone who lived this role for several years, eventually the vanguard teacher also gets roped into helping with printer issues, projector issues, and everything in between.

The Ed Tech Consultant Model

This model seems to be on the rise as many districts that can’t support a full-time staff member. Having a consultant who’s an expert in technology integration can help build vision, support the Vanguard Teachers and converse with IT staff can be a huge benefit at a fraction of the cost of a full-time administrator.

Grade=B+

This model works best when school and district leadership are on board and match the vision for technology integration with campus-wide expectations. Also, having those Vanguard Teachers or to work with gives insight and boots on the ground so to speak. As someone who consults with schools and districts from time-to-time, I’ve seen first-hand the benefits of this model when done right.

The Full-Time Coordinator/Director Model

While far from ubiquitous, many districts districts land on this model of support by hiring a full-time administrator to help guide the integration of technology in schools. On top of helping with the vision and expectations, this person (also the role I’m currently in) works with all teachers, the community, leadership, and IT to makes sure all stakeholders are on the same page. While it does cost a district a little more, having a full time person coordinating the integration of technology came make a huge difference in learning and usage, especially when compared with the “Tech support only” models.

Grade = A-

The only reason this wouldn’t grade out higher depends on two factors – the amount of campuses to support and how they work with the I.T. Department. If an Instructional Technology Director has too many campuses to support, their impact is minimized as they can really only take a shotgun approach to integration. If they have an over-bearing or controlling IT department, it limits the amount of progress they can accomplish.

The 1:1 Coaching Model

This model involves putting a highly qualified, instructionally-focused staff member on each campus to support the integration of technology. Some schools have used current staff (instructional coaches or library media specialists) to sort of “hack” this model as it does cost the most money of all the models listed above. However, having a dedicated ITS or EdTech on each campus to coach, co-teach, and lead innovation with technology on campuses can be EXTREMELY powerful. When coupled with well-communicated expectations from campus leadership and vision from the district, I’ve yet to ever see a more beneficial model of integrating technology into the classroom.

Grade = A+

Note: I may be a little biased as this is the model my district currently employs. That said, as someone who has been in the “Director” role for the past 8 years, I can tell you maintaining the A+ Coaching model isn’t necessarily easy. Whenever budget cuts come, as they often do in public education, it’s often the first position to come under the knife which can cause disruption and uncertainness to those in the position. Also, it’s important to coordinate these positions across the district to guarantee some level of fidelity or else risk the role being used differently from campus to campus.

Summary

You can get various levels of technology integration depending on the vision, goals and budget of a district. I’ve lived through 3 different iterations of our “Ed Tech” position in my tenure and am now going through another “evolution” of sorts. As we’ve had a high level of support for years, we are evolving the position from someone who supports the integration of technology to someone who supports high quality teaching and learning with technology as an embedded part of that.

While it seems subtle, it does change the ideology around support. Removing the word “technology” or “digital learning” from a title implies that this person supports all learning, which is a good thing. That also implies that they don’t exist solely to repair printer issues or help a principal make a newsletter.

Regardless of roles, position titles, and support, without a well-communicated vision and expectation, technology usage will continue to be only substitutive in nature with the exception of a few outliers. If you have a moment, give the OnEducation Podcast below a listen. They start to get into the debate around the coaching and support models right around the 27 minute mark. Drop a comment below too if you have feedback on the models I’ve shared or maybe some I’ve left off.  

cross-posted at https://hookedoninnovation.com

Carl Hooker has been a part of a strong educational shift with technology integration since becoming an educator. As Director of Innovation & Digital Learning at Eanes ISD, he has helped spearhead the LEAP program, which put one-to-one iPads in the hands of all K-12 students in his 8000-student district. He is also the founder of “iPadpalooza”- a three-day “learning festival” held in Austin annually. He's also the author of the six-book series titled Mobile Learning Mindset, a guide for teachers, administrators, parents and others to support and embrace mobile learning in our schools. Read more at Hooked on Innovation.

Here’s the challenge. As the technology coordinator in your school, you want teachers—and students—to read the manual before using (new) technology. But people have been conditioned to believe that tech manuals are written by geeks who know how the thing works, and who therefore set out the manual in a very logical way—logical, that is, if you already know how it works and have a good idea of what you would want to know.

To take a simple example, a techie writing a manual for a digital camera would probably list all the functions for each button on the camera and wouldn’t get to how to actually take a picture until page 75, by which time the user will have lost the will to live. This is all a bit of a pity because in your school, as far as everyone else is concerned, the geek is you! So, how can you overcome your geeky tendencies and write a manual that people will not only read but actually enjoy? Taking the example of a digital camera manual, here are five tips.

1. Think About What the User Wants to Do

The average student or teacher doesn’t need to know how to adjust the focal length and aperture in order to achieve a soft-focus effect—at least not right away. What they want (wait for it) is to take a picture. There’s a reason that every programming manual gets the reader to create a program called “Hello, World” by page two. Achieving something more or less immediately builds confidence and therefore builds motivation—not to mention the fact that most people can’t handle deferred gratification.

So, get the user to take a picture right away, and then point them to where they can find out how to work on becoming the next award-winning National Geographic photographer—if that’s what they want.

Taking this a step further, what’s the next thing that the average teacher or student will want to do? They’ll probably want to save the picture somewhere accessible, carry out some simple editing, and insert it into a document. They probably do not want to know about color saturation, bleeding, and heaven knows what else. They just want to use the darn thing.

2. Make the Manual Readable

Yes, we know that you have ambitions to be the new D.H. Lawrence, but for the manual, keep it simple with short sentences and liberal use of numbered and bulleted lists. Use numbered lists for giving instructions that must be followed in a particular order. Use bulleted lists for instructions where the order doesn’t matter.

And keep the text light-hearted, even if it means sacrificing a bit of technical accuracy or jargon. For example, there is no earthly reason that the word “aperture” should appear anywhere. You just have to write, “The darker the place you’re in, the lower the f-number you should use on the dial around the lens.”

3. Use Illustrations

Pictures not only paint thousands of words, but they also break up the text. Don’t be afraid to use hand-drawn illustrations either, and even humorous ones. Can’t draw? No problem! Find a student who can. They will leap at the chance to contribute, and it will give them a small bit of fame (though probably not fortune). One of my most successful manuals was a spreadsheet guide that included hilarious drawings created by a student. In fact, shortly after the manual was published, a huge poster about an upcoming school trip appeared in the lobby, obviously illustrated by the same student (he had a distinctive style). I’m sure someone in the upper echelons of school management saw the spreadsheet manual and then made a beeline for the student. I often wonder if he went on to make a living from his craft. I hope so.

4. Test It on Users

On the subject of students, get a few of them to test the manual before you release it to the world. I have done this even with how-to posters, and the feedback has been invaluable. The students also love being treated as partners rather than just having stuff done to them. In fact, if your school has an after-school computer club or similar, why not get them to test it? Better yet, why not get them to write it? What a brilliant project that would make. Think about it: they’d have to research user needs, grab screenshots and photos, write the text, maybe create an interactive ebook with video demos in it, and organize themselves and collaborate with each other. And then, once the manual was complete, they’d need to test it on a user group.

5. Make the Manual Inviting

The days when school documents looked like something typed on a manual typewriter with a staple in the corner are over. Hold a competition for students to design the cover art, find a nice template, and print it on good quality paper. Why not splash out and self-publish it on Kindle and KDP? For the paperback version, you’ll be able to buy the manuals for the cost of printing. If other schools decide they like them, they can buy them on Amazon, thereby giving your school a nice royalty. Back in 1992 or thereabouts, I wrote and published a word-processing manual and sold it to schools and individuals around the country. The school made enough profit to be able to afford a flatbed scanner—which in those days cost almost as much as a computer, and computers cost a fortune. If I could do that before Amazon was a twinkle in Jeff Bezos’ eye, and even before email was widely used, I see no reason that schools couldn’t do it now.

Bottom Line

If you make your manual look inviting, people will want to read it. And if you can make it readable, then they will read it!

Terry Freedman is an independent edtech consultant and freelance writer based in London, England. He publishes the ICT & Computing in Education website.