1.3: Policies, Procedures, Program and Funding
Candidates research, recommend, and implement policies, procedures, programs and funding strategies to support implementation of the shared vision represented in the school, district, state, and federal technology plans and guidelines. Funding strategies may include the development, submission, and evaluation of formal grant proposals. (PSC 1.3/ISTE 1c)
Artifacts: Artifact A: Technology Integrationist Professional Growth Model
Artifact B: Technology Integrationist Professional Growth Model Rubric
Reflection
This artifact (Artifact A) became part of what Atlanta International School (AIS) had already put into place in the 2011 Technology Plan. Two teachers had been hired (one for elementary and one for secondary) to be technology integrationists with a teaching load. However, the school introduced new standards for faculty professional development and growth in 2013, it became clear the role of the full time technology integrationist (me) was very different to that of a classroom teacher therefore, it was necessary to visit the policies and procedures in place for such faculty as the existing model of SMART Goals professional evaluation, growth and development would not align to this role to be continue to be funded.
Therefore, I set about aligning three strategic documents that would develop, for submission, paperwork that would satisfy the SMART professional development goals for an instructional technologist at AIS and a professional assessment “rubric” to be used in Instructional Technologist growth model evaluations. As the budget is projected to expand the department by hiring a full time Digital Coach and STEAM Coordinator, this infrastructure was required to continue funding from the sources that had secured the positions above.
The artifact synthesized the ISTE Standards for Coaches, The Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GaPSC) and the International Baccalaureate (IB) Standards and Practices for IB World Schools. This tool was to help us meet some of the key goals set up by the School Technology Plan in 2011.
Called the “Technology Integrationist Professional Growth Model at Atlanta International School”, this tool is the base line for how the existing instructional technology faculty and future Digital Coach and STEAM Coordinator will be evaluated professionally set to their SMART goals for the year. As the funding strategies that are in place require evaluation as evidence, this tool is invaluable to sustain funding beyond the life cycle of the grant currently in place.
The process of synthesizing these three documents was arduous – and when reviewed by my peers, it has been recommended that it be shorted and that the standards in blue perhaps might be the best areas to extract the briefer components for professional growth into a rubric that might better serve the practitioner in a more adept and clear way. That peer review process is ongoing although I have included the current iteration as Artifact B. I have learned the detail that must go into a document like this that will address positions in our school that do not even exist this year. The funding is in place – the faculty is not. Therefore, I had to combine everything that makes AIS and IB World Schools’ and imagine what it looks like in the 21st Century with more technology support for faculty than ever before. What professional acumen and growth would that member of faculty need to sustain in a change rich environment like AIS?
I learned that writing a tool like this does not happen overnight – and it is still “under construction”. However, I am proud of this particular aspect of my new role as a Technology Integrationist in a school, where I was a classroom teacher of Geography for seven years. One thing I would do differently, however, should I be tasked with this kind of challenge again, is to encapsulate the ideas of my colleagues in an ongoing manner of procedure. On two occasions I isolated myself and wrote the documents only to find at peer review, massive changes were needed. I had spent vast amounts of time taking my prior knowledge and building it into the current research and standards that have set a benchmark system for, not only our school, but for International Schools’ world over. Had I been a little more open to my colleagues as “critical friends” in the process, the task might not have been so isolating and, on occasions, frustrating.
The existence of this policy document and rubric for professional growth in the field of instructional technology will secure the ongoing technology programme in AIS and its funding moving forward, which will have sure impacts on iterative school improvement. As the five-year review of the AIS Technology Plan begins in 2015 – 16, this document will become a keystone to the skills that will be necessary for technology faculty success and professional growth in order to implement some of the visions that will be part and parcel of that review for high quality technology integration for the sustained success of our students.
This artifact (Artifact A) became part of what Atlanta International School (AIS) had already put into place in the 2011 Technology Plan. Two teachers had been hired (one for elementary and one for secondary) to be technology integrationists with a teaching load. However, the school introduced new standards for faculty professional development and growth in 2013, it became clear the role of the full time technology integrationist (me) was very different to that of a classroom teacher therefore, it was necessary to visit the policies and procedures in place for such faculty as the existing model of SMART Goals professional evaluation, growth and development would not align to this role to be continue to be funded.
Therefore, I set about aligning three strategic documents that would develop, for submission, paperwork that would satisfy the SMART professional development goals for an instructional technologist at AIS and a professional assessment “rubric” to be used in Instructional Technologist growth model evaluations. As the budget is projected to expand the department by hiring a full time Digital Coach and STEAM Coordinator, this infrastructure was required to continue funding from the sources that had secured the positions above.
The artifact synthesized the ISTE Standards for Coaches, The Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GaPSC) and the International Baccalaureate (IB) Standards and Practices for IB World Schools. This tool was to help us meet some of the key goals set up by the School Technology Plan in 2011.
Called the “Technology Integrationist Professional Growth Model at Atlanta International School”, this tool is the base line for how the existing instructional technology faculty and future Digital Coach and STEAM Coordinator will be evaluated professionally set to their SMART goals for the year. As the funding strategies that are in place require evaluation as evidence, this tool is invaluable to sustain funding beyond the life cycle of the grant currently in place.
The process of synthesizing these three documents was arduous – and when reviewed by my peers, it has been recommended that it be shorted and that the standards in blue perhaps might be the best areas to extract the briefer components for professional growth into a rubric that might better serve the practitioner in a more adept and clear way. That peer review process is ongoing although I have included the current iteration as Artifact B. I have learned the detail that must go into a document like this that will address positions in our school that do not even exist this year. The funding is in place – the faculty is not. Therefore, I had to combine everything that makes AIS and IB World Schools’ and imagine what it looks like in the 21st Century with more technology support for faculty than ever before. What professional acumen and growth would that member of faculty need to sustain in a change rich environment like AIS?
I learned that writing a tool like this does not happen overnight – and it is still “under construction”. However, I am proud of this particular aspect of my new role as a Technology Integrationist in a school, where I was a classroom teacher of Geography for seven years. One thing I would do differently, however, should I be tasked with this kind of challenge again, is to encapsulate the ideas of my colleagues in an ongoing manner of procedure. On two occasions I isolated myself and wrote the documents only to find at peer review, massive changes were needed. I had spent vast amounts of time taking my prior knowledge and building it into the current research and standards that have set a benchmark system for, not only our school, but for International Schools’ world over. Had I been a little more open to my colleagues as “critical friends” in the process, the task might not have been so isolating and, on occasions, frustrating.
The existence of this policy document and rubric for professional growth in the field of instructional technology will secure the ongoing technology programme in AIS and its funding moving forward, which will have sure impacts on iterative school improvement. As the five-year review of the AIS Technology Plan begins in 2015 – 16, this document will become a keystone to the skills that will be necessary for technology faculty success and professional growth in order to implement some of the visions that will be part and parcel of that review for high quality technology integration for the sustained success of our students.