key challlenges in ICT leadership

1. Key Challenges in Educational Leadership in ICT
The implementation of technology for learning is affected by factors in a range of contexts spanning International, national, regional and local educational institutions. Whilst local schools in Australia have a degree of autonomy in decision making, the National Curriculum dictates specific sets of skills required for 21st century technological competencies. In implementing technology into schools, principals and administrators face a number of key issues that need to be met by an approach that is informed by best practice and research as well as contextually based to suit the needs of their own school.
With a curriculum that encourages high levels of digital reform, Australian principals are faced with numerous challenges when developing frameworks for implementing educational technologies. There is a growing body of research in relation to frameworks for effective leadership in this area. In their discussion of change dynamics, Chan, Ching and Hsu (2008) conceptualise the four dimensions of; vision, planning and management; staff development and training; infrastructure support and evaluation, research and assessment. Further to this, Smiley (2009) identifies planning, data use, infrastructure, access and professional development as key concerns in a number of case studies. Similar issues emerge throughout further analysis of the literature, and for my own context can be collated into three foremost challenges for the principal. These challenges include; creating a shared vision for technology integration, allocation of infrastructure and funding and the integration of appropriate supports systems for staff.
The shared ‘vision’ of leaders nationally can have an impact on both the local school and the skills and outcomes for individual students and their own place in a global economy. Towndrow and Valance (2012) explore the dichotomy in approaches to the implementation of 1:1 computing integration in both Singapore and Japan. The Singaporean policy makers embraced a shared vision that engaged leaders in initiatives that promoted teacher up skilling, investments in researching digital technologies, and a commitment to infrastructure (pp264- 5). Japan on the other hand demonstrated a limited priority in ICT in education, lacked clear guidance on policies and demonstrated strong reservations in reshaping educational practices (p267). As a result of this lack of vision the researchers reported low levels of digital and technological literacy skills for students.
On a more localised level, one of the key barriers to creating a shared vision for technology in schools lies with the attitudes and values of various stakeholders in the school. Grey-Bowen (2010) states that “Teachers’ attitudes toward technology and beliefs in the instructional benefits present a significant barrier to technology integration” (p3). Conversely, teachers have the capacity to be ‘agents of change’ in the facilitation of technology. Geer, Barnes and White (2008) suggest the need for teachers to develop a vision for the use of technology to enhance learning outcomes (p152). Perhaps the key challenge here for school leaders lies in

2. their capacity to firstly develop their own vision and inspire and motivate other teachers in a shared vision for their school context.
It is difficult for teachers to develop a sense of vision when there is a perception that computing staff and executives are the only key partners in driving change. Certainly there are responsibilities such as the maintenance of hardware and software that are most likely performed by computing teachers. However, Cakir (2012) referenced a study by seferoglu (2009) claiming that “administrators expected computing teachers to organize training, create projects and work with teachers to integrate technology into the classroom” (p279). In contrast, computing teachers expected administrators to “facilitate the use of technology, purchase new technology and encourage students and other teachers to use the technology”. Such a dichotomy of mutual expectations is counter to effective management of technology integration. Whilst there needs to be clearly appointed roles within the school, research by Early et.al. (2002) concluded that good school leaders also share their leadership responsibility with other members of staff and seek to foster a mutually supportive and collaborative culture” (in Lewis and murphy, 2008, p131). Thus an effective collaboration would entail willing staff from various subject areas along with an executive team whose leadership is visionary (Richardsom and McLeod, 2011) and transformative (Afshari et.al, 2012).
Whilst a collaborative approach to the key challenges is necessary, the burden of infrastructure lies with the executive administrators responsible for the daily running of the school. Perhaps the foremost challenge to infrastructure is funding the costs of the technology in order to produce equity in access for students. For Australian Schools, the National Secondary School Computer Fund (NSSCF) has provided funding for schools across the three main sectors to allow a rollout of years 7-9 laptops under the Digital Education Revolution (DER). Despite the opportunities this has presented there were also reports of the lack of infrastructure affecting the integration of the program in some schools. According to Reid (2009) “There are a number of practical difficulties including an initial lack of provision for the associated infrastructure needed for such a large injection of new equipment into schools, not to mention ongoing costs”. With the costs of ongoing maintenance of technology often falling to computing department budgets, there can be a sense of strain between executives and the computing staff regarding the allocation of budgets. This tension between two of the foremost stakeholders in the school can affect the overall vision for technology.
Owen and Demb (2004) highlight a number of themes in relation to funding including; unpredictability of technology cost, forecast and subject area allocation (p648). The issues of forecast and unpredictability can be a reflection of changing governmental policies, initiatives and response to international and economic crises. With the recent completion of the NSSCF, and a possible change in government affecting the future of educational funding, at this point in time it is difficult for administrators to make forward decisions regarding government funding. According to the DEEWR, the Digital Education Revolution was projected to be replaced by the National Plan for School Improvement in 2014 (DEEWR website). The plan allows more autonomy in decision making in effect giving state authorities and local schools more responsibility in the way that technology is used throughout the school. If this is

3. maintained by the next government it has the benefit of allowing schools to respond to their own socio-economic context. There is, however a lack of literature in regards to accountability and policies surrounding the plan at this point. Schools will inevitably be faced with decisions about allocation of funds and responsibilities, continuation of 1:1 initiatives, hardware and software choices, m-learning versus laptop learning, etc. In my own context this is usually the role of the head of IT, however in order for these choices to become grounded in the school’s overall vision they may need to be discussed and endorsed by the cross-curricular technology team.
According to Moyle (2010) “the quality of students’ experiences with schools’ online environments is influenced by the consistency of the interfaces used within various locations in a school” (45). In making decisions regarding the technical requirements, school administrators need to consider characteristics such as; sustainability, reliability, security, accessibility and flexibility. In order to determine these requirements schools should also have a clear central model for digital learning such as 1:1 laptops, macbooks, ipads, BYOD or BYOT initiatives. Lee (2013) for example believes that in response to societal and technological changes a move to BYOT (and a more ubiquitous model) is inevitable. Not only would such a model raise issues of equity, but problems with accessing content, applications and other software would make it difficult and possibly costly to plan for efficient infrastructure in the school.
Further to a need for infrastructure is the challenge of providing ongoing support for teachers and students. Voogt et.al. (2011) Identifies that such support “extends beyond just technical support to incorporate organisational support” (p7). The provision of technical support usually relies on the appointing of specific organisational roles within the school, with clearly defined duties and roles for IT personnel. These may include Technical Support Officers (TSO), Network Administrators and Learning Technology Facilitators who advise on pedagogical issues and professional development. Again allocation of funds is a clear concern for executives when creating such support roles. Under the DER, the government appointed a number of TSO positions to support the roll out of the 1:1 laptop initiative. Their role however was mostly limited to the specific coordination of the DER program, and many schools still needed personnel to maintain the other technical requirements within the school. Some schools elect to use contractors or appoint non-teaching IT staff, however with a strain on budgets for smaller schools such as my own, this burden generally falls to the IT faculty (dandolopartners, 2012). In this instance, executives may need to make decisions regarding training IT staff in specific areas of maintenance, or redefining selection criteria and roles for future job applicants.
Further support is also needed in regards to specific direction for professional development. Prestridge (2013) claims that “ICT professional development is perceived as an avenue for pedagogical change” (p2). Although the number of in-service and development days are rapidly growing, they tend to lack the content to initiate permanent pedagogical change (p5) and in my specific context can require infrastructure that the school simply does not have. Executives then need to meet the challenges of providing a framework for professional development that includes provision for ongoing learning and collaboration for all staff. An Australian study by Pegrum et.al. (2013), amongst other suggestions, highlighted the benefits

4. of building a professional community of practise/ professional development network as a platform for learning from other teachers both internally and externally. This is a viable option but principals would need to find a balance in ‘encouraging’ teachers to participate on a consistent basis perhaps by providing targeted time to participate in such an initiative.
There are a broad range of challenges facing educational leaders in implementing ICT into the curriculum. Principals must establish an achievable vision and provide support and infrastructure to all stakeholders in a realistic and manageable fashion. Both executives and teachers must also be prepared and plan for a range of circumstances that may affect their everyday engagement with technological learning tools and work together to create positive solutions. Such collaboration should assist the school to successfully realise its full vision for providing a 21st century learning environment.
References
Afshari, M., Bakar, K.A, Luan, W.S., Samah, B.A & Siraj, S. (2012). Factors affecting the transformational leadership role of principals in implementing ICT in schools. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (4), 164-176.
Cakir, R. (2012). Technology integration and technology leadership in schools as learning organisations. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (4), 273-282.
Chang, I.-H., Chin, J. M., & Hsu, C.-M. (2008). Teachers’ Perceptions of the Dimensions and Implementation of Technology Leadership of Principals in Taiwanese Elementary Schools. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (4), 229–245.
Dandolo partners. (2013). DER Mid-Program Review: Assessing Progress of the DER and Potential Future Directions – Final Report. Retrieved from http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/digital_education_revolution_program_review.pdf
DEEWR. Computers in schools. Retrieved from http://deewr.gov.au/computers-schools
Geer, R., Barnes, A. & White, B. (2008) Four ICT enablers in a contemporary learning environment: a case study. Act on ICT in ACEC’08 Refereed Conference Proceedings, Canberra. www.acec.2008
Grey-Bowen, J.E. (2010). A study of technology leadership among elementary public School principals in Miami-Dade County (doctoral dissertation). St Thomas University, Miami Gardens, Florida.
Lee, M. (2013) Where to After the Digital Education Revolution? ETSMagazine, May 2013. Retrieved online at http://educationtechnologysolutions.com.au/2013/05/13/where-to-after-the-digital- education-revolution/
Lewis, P., and Murphy, R. (2008). New directions in school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28 (2), 127-146.
Moyle, K (2010). Building Innovation: Learning with technologies. Australian Education review no,56. ACER Press.

5. Owen, P.S and Demb, A. (2004). Change Dynamics and Leadership in Technology Implementation. The Journal of Higher Education, 75 (6), 636-666. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838771
Pegrum,M., Oakley,G., and Faulkner, R. (2013). Schools going mobile: A study of the adoption of mobile handheld technologies in Western Australian independent schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 66-81. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/article/view/64/25
Prestridge, S. (2013). Three key elements in ICT professional Development. International Society for Technology in Education: Expanding horizons. Retrieved online from http://www.isteconference.org/2012/uploads/KEY_70082891/threePD.pdf
Reid, A. (2009). Is this a revolution? A critical analysis of the Rudd national education agenda. 2009 ACSA National Biennial Conference Curriculum: a national conversation. Canberra, ACT. Retrieved from http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/page484.asp
Richardson, J.W., & McLeod, S. (2011). Technology Leadership in Native American Schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(7).Retrieved from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/26-7.pdf.
Smiley, R.W. (2009). Characteristics of systems and leadership in K-12 public school educational technology programs: understanding data use, decision making and contextual factors (doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest (UMI No.3400032).
Towndrow, P.A., and Valance, M. (2013). Making the right decisions: leadership in 1-to-1 computing in education. International Journal of Educational Management, 27 (3), 260-272. DOI 10.1108/09513541311306477
Voogt, J., Knezek,G., Cox, M., Knezek, D. & Brummelhuis, A.T. (2011). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A Call to Action. Journal of computer assisted learning, 29 (1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00453.x