VISMT/Bell-Atlantic: Tech Support Grant
Findings and Recommendations

Background/History

This view is also supported in a recent article in Technology & Learning magazine (March 2000) called Staffing Up for Technology Support in which a number of the technical support issues and problems are examined. On close examination it becomes apparent that the support issues identified in the article are the same issues we face here in Vermont. For example, a typical school scenario, the article reports, is one in which an individual teacher takes on leadership for technology initiatives in a school and then becomes overloaded with help requests as the technology expands.  This scenario has been repeated over and over in Vermont schools. Furthermore, the article states that while in a typical school setting the support ratio is 1 support person for every 500 students, in business the ratio is 1 to 50. In its 1997 report From Pillars to Progress, The CEO Forum reports that lack of support for technology erodes teacher’s willingness to use it. As indicated below, we have found this to be true in Vermont also. The Forum also reports that while in “low-tech” schools hardware is the primary limiting factor in a school’s use of technology, the limitation becomes technical support in both “mid-tech” and “high-tech” schools. When one examines the progress Vermont schools have made in infrastructure development, it becomes clear that the majority of our schools are in the “mid-tech” range.

Clearly many schools in Vermont have followed the national pattern of establishing a strong infrastructure of hardware and connectivity.  But because of budgetary pressure and many competing needs, the case for strong technical support and professional development has been relegated to a lower priority than it deserves.

In order to call attention to this matter VISMT, with Bell-Atlantic’s support, developed a pilot project to call attention to the significant need for technical support of school technology.

Grant Description

The grant provided salary for part-time technical support in order to “demonstrate the effectiveness of such support in facilitating the use of Information Technology to improve student learning.” The grant was targeted at schools/districts that were frustrated by minor technical problems that interfere with the effective use of instructional technology and that were willing to document specifically how technical support improves its effective use.

Eight schools, clustered in pairs, received funding from the grant.  The Lunenburg/Gilman School and the Waterford School shared one 60% FTE tech support position that was valued at $19,872. The Orleans Southwest Supervisory Union (Craftsbury and Lakeview) and the Walden School shared a second 60% FTE position. The Guilford and Halifax schools shared a 40% FTE position ($13,248), with a second 40% position shared by The Newton School of South Strafford and the Chelsea School.

Findings

The nature of the technical support hired by the schools varied. In some cases the position became part of the employee structure of the school, while in others an outside contractor was retained. In some cases the person had a purely technical background, while in others the tech support person had a background in K-12 education. Despite this varied approach, the impact of the support was surprisingly consistent among the schools. 

Contact with the receiving schools was maintained by VISMT through e-mail and two full-group meetings held in November 1999 and May 2000 in Montpelier, Vermont. At the very first meeting some of the important findings of this pilot program became evident. At the May meeting, not only were the initial findings confirmed, but also more evidence regarding the impact of the positions was offered.

Among the major impacts of the technical support position were:

1. Reliability improvements from providing technical support breed teacher confidence in the technology, and therefore, more use of it with students. Every participating school reported this impact. Moreover some schools reported that the existence of the support led teachers to “higher level uses” far faster than would normally occur. Another school reported that because of the support there was “accelerated development of good uses” (as opposed to more workbook-like activities with computers).  Another school reported that the presence of technical support “opened up integration” because many of the technical problems had been “stealing time” from actually using the technology with students. This finding strongly verifies what the Technology & Learning report stated, that “Lack of support effects teachers willingness to use technology.”

2. Communication between the technical support person and others is essential for success. One school declared that it takes more than a “geek” to provide the needed support. The technical support person became the “bridge” between teachers and the technology.  Another school indicated that having technical support must presume that communication and coordination come with it, or much effectiveness is lost.

3. Technical support should be part of the “infrastructure building” process and not an afterthought. One school had acquired an assortment of computers in small purchases made over a number of years. The “hodge-podge” of equipment needed an inordinate amount of time to keep running and consumed time from technical support that would have been better spent on “moving ahead” rather than “catching up”.  This experience has also been verified in Vermont’s Technology Literacy Challenge grant experience, which recently funded about thirty Vermont schools that were identified as being most in need of technology. As part of the grant process the schools were required to identify not only their hardware and networking needs, but had to acknowledge how they were to provide technical support before they made their hardware purchases. Furthermore, these schools were required to use 25% of their grant funds for professional development. Earliest indications are that these “needy” schools have made very significant advances in their integration of technology and, in many cases, have avoided the frustrations faced by others as they grapple with technical and professional development shortcomings caused by expanding technologies.

Perhaps the most significant indicator of the importance of technical support as found in this project is the fact that every one of the schools involved has found a way to fund technical support in the future by using district-provided funds, rather than grants. Clearly the eight schools now recognize the critical importance of technical support. We hope that this report will provide some evidence to indicate the critical need for such support in Vermont’s K-12 schools. 

VISMT and Vermont’s schools are grateful to Bell-Atlantic for their support of this program. For additional information regarding this grant, and for specific school contact information, please e-mail Bill Romond or call (802) 828-0064.

Resources:

There are numerous web-based resources that can provide information as well as analytical tools for schools as they work to gather data to support their needs. Following are a few of those resources.

CEO Forum on Education and Technology.  From Pillars to Progress October 1997
http://www.ceoforum.org

Generation Why – World Wide Horizons for Youth (Student support model)
http://genwhy.wednet.edu

Michigan Technology Staffing Guidelines. Merit Network, Inc.
http://techguide.merit.edu/

National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov

National Study of School Evaluation. Technology – Indicators of Quality Information Technology Systems in K-12 Schools. Schaumburg, IL. 1996
http://www.nsse.org/pubs.html

Rylander, Carole Keeton. Helping Schools Make Technology Work, Texas School Performance Review; April 2000
http://www.window.state.tx.us/tpr/tspr/tech10.html