University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Technology, policy, and school change: the role of intermediary organizations

(USC Thesis Other)

Technology, policy, and school change: the role of intermediary organizations

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

TECHNOLOGY, POLICY, AND SCHOOL CHANGE:
THE ROLE OF INTERMEDIARY ORGANIZATIONS

by

Darrell Forthe

__________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Darrell Forthe
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my loving and supportive wife, Meghan.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my professors, my committee and my dissertation chair for
their expertise, encouragement, and guidance.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 7
Significance of the Study 7
Definition of the Terms 9
Organization of the Study 12

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 14
Challenge Facing Educational Reform 15
Leadership in Times of Change 27
Intermediary Organization Contributions to School Reform 36
Theoretical Framework 43
Summary 45

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 46
Overview of the Study 46
Purpose of the Study 47
Research Questions 48
Research Design Summary 48
Participants and Setting 49
Instrumentation 51
Data Collection 53
Data Analysis 56
Figure 3.1: Case Study Matrix 57
Limitations 58
Chapter Summary 59

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 60
Site Descriptions and Participants 62
Results for Research Question 1 70
Summary of Research Question 1 82
Results for Research Question 2 83
v
Summary of Research Question 2 98
Results for Research Question 3 104
Summary of Research Question 3 116
Chapter Summary 122

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 124
Summary of Findings 125
Implications for Practice 138
Recommendations for Future Research 140
Conclusion 141

REFERENCES 142

APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview Questions 147
Appendix B: Open-Ended Written Response Questionnaire 149
Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol 151

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Question Alignment Chart 53

Table 4.1: Research Question 2 Cross-Case Analysis Matrix 99

Table 4.2: Research Question 3 Cross-Case Analysis Matrix 117
vii
ABSTRACT
As educators work to advance 21
st
century teaching and learning in
schools, numerous reforms are needed but none greater than the necessity to
integrate technology. Technology integration presents complex challenges because
numerous changes must take place. The National Education Technology Plan 2010
(NETP) provides a road map for these necessary changes. Schools must find ways to
increase their capacity to change in order to make technology integration a reality.
Intermediaries are uniquely positioned to fill that need lending their skills and
talents. Intermediary organizations have begun to increase their role in the process of
reforming education by providing critical technology services and supports.
Three qualitative case studies of California unified school districts and their
supporting intermediary organizations were conducted to examine the impacts of the
NETP, functions and strategies of intermediary organizations working with districts,
and actions taken during technology integration implementations. Among the major
findings, it was discovered that the NETP has minimal impact on the actions of
districts and their intermediaries mostly due to infrastructure barriers. It was also
found that intermediaries network with schools based on relationships built on
reciprocity. In addition, district technology integration initiatives proved to be
problematic and partnering with intermediaries was imperative and must be on-going
to bring schools into the 21
st
century.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background of the Problem
Reforming public education is at a critical juncture in American schools
today. At the forefront of reform efforts, policymakers are looking for ways to
harness the power of technology in preparing students for success in a globalized
society. The National Education Technology Plan 2010 (NETP) entitled
Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology clearly
defines recommendations for coupling the power of technology in the U.S. education
system. Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, states,
The plan calls for applying the advanced technologies used in our daily
personal and professional lives to our entire education system to improve
student learning, accelerate and scale up the adoption of effective practices,
and use data and information for continuous improvement (NETP, 2010, p.
7).

The NETP is not enacted policy; however, it serves to guide schools as they
integrate technology to improve teaching and learning. The plan is moving K-12
schools in the right direction toward educational reform that focuses on students
gaining twenty-first century skills in order for teaching and learning to be relevant
for today’s students. However, capacity for this monumental change is a real
concern.
K-12 reform gained national attention in 2001 when the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was reauthorized by Congress and renamed the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB seeks to address the prevailing achievement
2
gap that persists between students and turn around “failing schools.” Public schools
were to meet NCLB goals not just based on previous practices of raising school-wide
averages but instead raising achievement scores for all students in each demographic
group (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). While schools interpret these reform
goals as commendable, how to reach said goals remains contentious and complex.
Elmore (2003) asserts, “The research on how to turn around failing schools is weak,
as are the state and local policies and programs designed to address this problem”
(pp. 7-8).
The complexity of large-scale initiated reform is rooted in the multitude of
demands and stakeholders. A political assumption a leader makes is that there are
simply not enough resources in an atmosphere of competing stakeholder interests
(Bolman & Deal, 2002). This competition can lead to challenges related to policy
coherence (Honig & Hatch, 2004). Policy coherence occurs when “top down”
systemic demands are managed with “bottom-up” school-based solutions.
Researchers assert this is accomplished by the following: (a) schools create specific
goals based on site needs, (b) school-based goals serve to connect to or distinguish
from external policies, and (c) district operations are organized based on established
school goals, strategies and experiences (Honig & Hatch, 2004, p. 26). Many
districts have yet to deploy such tactics in managing implementation of federal
initiatives with “bottom-up” ideology. Therefore, principals and teachers are left
lamenting the burden of “top-down” expectations.
3
In addition, reform efforts spurred on by NCLB illuminate the pressure
placed on “frontline workers” –chiefly principals and teachers (Honig & Hatch,
2004). Principals and teachers are left to navigate the implementation process, which
leads to wide variance with interpretation of goals and results. “Frontline workers”
hold little power during the development of large-scale reform initiatives. Elmore
(2003) suggest, “In the face of policies like NCLB, professional educators have weak
political authority and influence in part because they are fragmented professionally
and lack strong cooperative theories on how to improve the enterprise” (p. 3).
Therefore, a paradox of power exists between policy and implementation. School
leaders are in charge of implementing reform initiatives yet they have little say in
their development. Teachers feel more apprehensive with each new policy and plan.
Teachers begin to see reform efforts as sources of frustration and perceive them as
“endless cycles” (Datnow, 2005).
Integrating technology, as prescribe in NETP, into K-12 schools is not
immune to this skepticism. In fact, it exemplifies the frustrations of educators.
Collins and Halverson (2009) highlight a plethora of challenges including: (a) cost
and access, (b) classroom management, (c) what computer can’t teach, (d) challenges
to instruction, (e) authority and teaching, and (f) assessment (pp. 37-42). Schools
have been working to address these obstacles over long periods of time with minimal
results system wide. To this point researchers conclude, “The multiplicity of actors
in the system targeted for change, their different levels of authority, and the
complexity of joint action affect the pace of progress” (Bodilly, Keltner, Prunell,
4
Reichardt, & Ikemoto, 1998, p. 111). These challenges to technology integration can
best be summed up with the estimation that change is difficult and solutions take
dynamic actions of educational leaders. Much research has been conducted about
addressing such problems as described above, but reformers have begun to sense a
need for increased action and resolve. Technology innovations and their
incorporation into society have increased the urgency for schools to reform. The
NETP 2010 plan states, “The NETP accepts that we do not have the luxury of time.
We must act now and commit to fine-tuning and midcourse corrections as we go”
(NETP, 2010, p. xv).
Statement of the Problem
The new focus of educational reform is on systemic change. Systemic change
is exactly what the NETP aims to accomplish by “embracing a strategy of
innovation, careful implementation, regular evaluation, and continuous
improvement” (NETP, 2010, p. 3). Albeit complex, but given what we know about
K-12 schools, system changes are needed and are the most credible approach to
integrating technology. Cohen (2010) states, “Building a coherent educational
system would be a large task, but not nearly as daunting as trying to solve our
educational problems without building such a system” (p. 46). The fact is technology
has changed society in many ways and education is not immune. Technologies have
changed the way people think and communicate by increasingly vast information
tools and rapid interface mediums (Collins & Halverson, 2009).
5
Innovations in technology are changing the globalized world and this
includes education. Ironically, leading the way toward a globalized digital world are
students of this generation but, unfortunately, their schools are not reflecting this step
toward the future (Montgomery, 2007). K-12 schools require comprehensive
reforms to fully integrate technology and meet the needs of this digital generation.
Historically, K-12 schools have viewed technology as sideline or token additions to
teaching. Technology has been either “co-opt” or “marginalized” in schools (Collins
& Halverson, 2009). This marginalization has been led by the fact NCLB does not
place a high value on technology. The comprehensive NETP (2010) recognizes this
disconnect and proposes new reforms not only to teaching and learning but to
assessment, infrastructure, research and development, and productivity as well.
Shouldering the work of this plan will be school leaders. Therefore, building
capacity within California K-12 public schools is an eminent need. The need is
rooted in “bottom-up” reform thinking that permeates educational research. Honig
(2004b) describes, “Implementers such as schools become key decision makers
rather than mainly agents of others’ decisions, roles traditionally held by policy
makers” (p. 528). The NETP supports this stance by providing overarching themes
that address areas that need reform without being overly prescriptive. However, this
does not leave policy makers off the hook. Honig (2004b) further states, “Policy
makers become supporters rather than directors of others’ decisions, roles
traditionally held by implementers” (p. 528).
6
While school leaders are key actors in improving education, K-12 schools
must look outside their walls to increase their capacity to initiate comprehensive
changes. Researchers contend,
School leaders and teachers operate in uncertain and highly dynamic
environments, where means and ends are not always clear. Faced with
shifting, limited information, school leaders and teachers do not always act as
the profitable or self-maximizing actors portrayed in rational choice models”
(Spillane et al., 2002, p. 733).

Intermediaries fill these gaps described above. School leaders become more
effective and efficient as intermediaries provide expertise and information during the
implementation process. Leaders who can build networks “create routines and
practices that build or sustain connections between people who have expertise to
share but little contact” (Burch & Spillane, 2004, p. 4). By establishing meaningful
networks, schools can increase their capacity to innovate and change. Intermediary
organizations increase the school’s capacity by providing power, information,
rewards, and knowledge and skill (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Chau, & Polhemus, 2003).
Purpose of the Study
The overall aim of this study is to contribute to the research of K-12
education technology reform efforts. The secondary focus of the study is to
investigate how K-12 schools and their supporting intermediary organizations work
toward advancing technology integration. More specially, the study has three
purposes. First, to identify the impacts of the NETP 2010 and to what extent it
provides direction to the goals and actions of school districts and their partnering
intermediaries. The NETP 2010, being the most recent development to come from
7
the U.S. Department of Education, provides a unique opportunity for this study to
identify emerging themes and implications and identify best practices to systemic
change. Secondly, to identify the strategies and functions intermediary organizations
provide to K-12 districts looking to advance technology integration initiatives.
Finally, to identify the collaborative implementation efforts between districts and
intermediaries in regards to technology integration initiatives and school technology
reform.
Research Questions
This study aims to examine the following research questions:
1. How does the large-scale technology reform efforts of the NETP 2010
impact, if at all, the goals and actions of intermediary organizations and K-12
school leaders in California public schools?
2. What strategies and functions are intermediary organizations deploying to
increase technology integration in California K-12 public schools?
3. How are K-12 district technology leaders collaborating with intermediary
organizations to implement technology integration initiatives and other
technology reforms in California public schools?
Significance of the Study
Large-scale education reform efforts in the United States have been well
documented. On a global-scale, the U.S. does not have the best track-record. Fullan
(2009) states, “Unfortunately NCLB continues to limp along doing more harm than
good with too many and too narrow tests, short time lines, little capacity building,
8
and a punitive strategy” (p. 107). If the NETP is going to yield different results then
it must employ improved strategies. The new strategies will need to be systemic,
involving “non-school” actors in the process (Fullan, 2009). Also, whole system
changes are needed to increase school leadership and building capacity. At risk is the
relevancy of our education system preparing students for the 21
st
century.
Technology integration has encountered numerous problems affecting the
effort teachers are willing to put into its implementation. NCLB has hindered
technology integration by narrowing the focus to standardized tests and
accountability measures. Teachers are unlikely to invest time or energy on a plan
they do not perceive as important to their job responsibilities. Incentives for teachers
need to be embedded in the goals and purposes of their work (Elmore, 2002). In
other words, technology is nowhere to be found on these high-stakes tests, therefore,
teachers do not use it. The NETP recognizes this phenomenon and has begun a
conversation with educators about rethinking and redesigning assessment in K-12
schools.
In addition, competition has entered the field of education with charter
schools and virtual learning academies. Moreover, the competitors of K-12 public
schools are using technology innovations to lead the way toward increased
privatization and higher enrollment in charter schools. Research highlights the
propensity of charters to collaborate with intermediaries (Wohlstetter, Malloy,
Hentschke, & Smith, 2004). Charters schools are building alliances and networks
with nonprofit, for-profit, and public intermediaries. The benefits exhibited in these
9
collaborations are financial, political, and organizational (Wohlstetter et al., 2004).
As a result, charters have been better positioned for innovations to be implemented.
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2007) assert that the private sector plays an important
role in public education. In the past, the private sector played a minor role just filling
in the gaps as needed, but now it has far reaching impacts on education. Hentschke
and Wohlstetter (2007) credit this to various factors but the most obvious is the
steady growth of the privatization of education which has shown increased stability
and measurable levels of success.
Definition of Terms
Intermediary Organizations. Intermediaries are independent organizations
that operate outside of the district to mediate changes in schools. They work with
schools to facilitate policy initiatives and reform practices. Some labels associated
with intermediaries are: collaboratives, capacity builders, vendors, university-school
partnerships, resource organizations, professional development organizations,
external support providers, design teams, educational non-profits and others (Honig,
2004a). Intermediary organizations occupy the space between policy (or plan) and
implementers.
Technology Integration. Technology integration includes a combination of
tools and processes. A school that has fully integrated technology uses it in the
following arenas: (a) instructional, (b) productivity, and (c) administrative (Roblyer,
2006). As described in the NETP, new innovations will require schools to adapt their
processes to harness the tremendous power of learning powered by technology.
10
Digital generation students benefit from technology integration by fostering
contextual learning. “According to the contextual approach, instructional methods
cannot be separate from the context in which they are used- including the social and
cultural background of the students, the classroom, the school and the educational
system at large” (Mayer, 2008, p. 10). Consideration must be taken to ensure that the
technology being deployed is “authentic” and not just technology for the sake of it
being present. Researchers define authentic education technology as, “Authentic
educational technology as education solutions resulting from a systemic analysis that
identities the problem being solved, selects and translates appropriate, well-designed
research and applies it to design culturally appropriate educational solutions” (Clark
& Estes, 1999, p. 2).
National Education Technology Plan 2010 (NETP). There are five key
components to the NETP titled: (a) Learning- Engage and Empower, (b)
Assessment- Measure What Matters, (c) Teaching- Prepare and Connect, (d)
Infrastructure- Access and Enable, and (e) Productivity- Redesign and Transform.
For each of the above areas, the plan provides an explanation of the importance of
the section and goals for the future. The plan is based on the following assumptions
as stated by NETP (2010):
● Many of the failings of our education system stem from our failure to
engage the hearts and minds of students.
● What students need to learn and what we know about how they learn have
changed, and therefore the learning experiences we provide should change.
● How we assess learning focuses too much on what has been learned after
the fact and not enough on improving learning in the moment.
11
● We miss a huge opportunity to improve our entire education system when
we gather student-learning data in silos and fail to integrate the information
and make it broadly available to decision-makers at all levels of our
education system- individual educators, schools, districts, states, and the
federal government.
● Learning depends on effective teaching, and we need to focus on extended
teams of connected educators with different roles who collaborate with
schools and across time and distance and who use technology resources and
tolls to augment human talent.
● Effective teaching is an outcome of preparing and continually training
teachers and leaders to guide the type of learning we want in our schools.
● Making engaging learning experiences and resources available to all
learners anytime and anywhere requires state-of-the-art infrastructure, which
includes technology, people, and processes that ensure continued access.
● Education can learn much from such industries as business and
entertainment about leveraging technology to continuously improve learning
outcomes while increasing the productivity of our education systems at all
levels.
● Just as in health, energy, and defense, the federal government has an
important role to play in funding and coordinating some of the R&D
challenges associated with leveraging technology to ensure the maximum
opportunity to learn. (p. 5)

School Leadership. For this study school leadership will be viewed from the
following perspectives: (a) transformational leadership, (b) situational leadership,
and (c) instructional leadership (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). First,
transformational leaders set goals and provides feedback to others. Second,
situational leaders are able to adapt their methods based on skills of others to attain
best results. Lastly, instructional leaders lead by example and are highly visible
during the change process. Instructional technology directors will be the focus of the
study and represent all three levels of leadership described. These leaders are best
suited to create change because they have vital information about technology and are
working directly with technology integration plans and initiatives. “Leaders must
12
change the system but simultaneously create, nurture, and sustain a local culture in
doing so” (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003, p. 81).
Additionally, the need for distributed leadership is assumed throughout the
paper. “Distributed leadership” focuses on the interactions between leaders and
followers, and the leadership practices that involve multiple leaders in formal and
informal positions (Spillane, 2006). Furthermore, Elmore (2000) goes on to assert,
Control implies that the controller knows exactly what the controllee (if you
will) should do, whereas guidance and direction imply some degree of shared
expertise and some degree of difference in the level and kind of expertise
among individuals. It is this problem of the distribution of knowledge
required for large scale improvement that creates the imperative for the
development of models of distributed leadership. (p. 14)

Organization of the Study
The remaining chapters are organized as follows:
Chapter 2 presents the review of the literature and conceptual framework
deployed throughout the study. The literature review is organized by the following
three topics: challenges of educational reform, school leadership, and intermediary
organizations.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology for this study including the design
summary, participants and setting, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis,
and study limitations.
Chapter 4 presents the results and analysis of the questionnaire data,
interview data, and document analysis organized by research question.
13
Chapter 5 provides a summary of the findings, implications to practice,
emergent limitations, recommendation for future research, and conclusions.
14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
“The essential question facing us as we transform the U.S. education system
is this: What should learning in the 21
st
century look like?” (NETP, 2010, p. v). A
partial answer to that question is –integrated technology. Technology holds a
tremendous amount of potential to fuel reform and renewal in schools today. With
the recent release of the National Education Technology Plan 2010, schools have
been charged with the “call for leveraging the power of technology to support
continuous and lifelong learning” (NETP, 2010, p. 7). The purpose of this call is to
initiate “grand-scale” reforms to our education system and re-architect its systems for
learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. Previous educational
reform research and findings can provide informative implications to the new plan.
The literature review is based on three assumptions. First, reform is
problematic being that educational institutions are slow to change and rely on self-
preservation modes of action. To this point, Wehling (2007) asserts, “The fact is that
every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets” (p. 13). Including the
review of literature on educational reform establishes the foreseeable challenges
technology integration and systemic reform are bound to face. Second, school
leadership is critical to the change process. K-12 schools with strong instructional
technology directors are fortunately positioned to implement the changes as
described in the NETP. Third, bringing schools into the 21
st
century will require
increased capacity and skills provided by intermediary organizations.
15
A search of the literature was conducted using data bases such as Academic
Search Premier, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO. Keyword searches included
combinations of: technology, K-12 school, NCLB, reform, leadership, intermediary
organizations, and school capacity. The studies are arranged by chronological order
starting with the most recent research with the intended purpose of demonstrating
important trends.
The literature review is organized in the follow three categories:
1) Challenges Facing Educational Reform
2) Leadership in Times of Change
3) Intermediary Organizations’ Contributions to School Reform
Challenges Facing Educational Reform
Many stakeholders must work in concert to successfully create real changes
in actions of K-12 schools, as cited in the previous chapter. This section is
contextually based in large-scale reform policies, and the studies were selected based
on the challenges encountered at the “ground-level” of reform. While external
entities do impact technology reform in schools, it is critical to begin with the
“frontline” personnel who are working with students on a daily basis. For this reason,
it makes sense to start with analyzing the challenges teachers face when using
technology. Hennessy, Ruthven, and Brindley (2005) interviewed, using a focus
group method, secondary school teachers from six schools to investigate their
perspectives about using technology and its impact to their pedagogical practices in
the classroom. The purpose of the study was to better understand the
16
transformational qualities of technology use on classroom practices and student
learning. The study was conducted under the context of “externally imposed
pressure” due to recently adopted policy that mandated the use of technology
(Hennessy et al., 2005, p. 170).
Hennessy et al. (2005) identified four key findings: (a) commitment, (b)
constraints, (c) caution, and (d) change. First, commitment to using technology was
correlated to teacher perception of its “educational value.” Without this
commitment, teachers did not successfully implement technology with any
regularity. Second, constraints to using technology included: logistical issues relating
to access to technology; lack of technical skills (access to training, experience and
confidence), and pressure to implement under a policy which teachers’ perceived as
“external.” This pressure was amplified by the lack of “professional control” given
that teachers did not have the opportunity to provide input into the technology
policy’s curriculum and assessment. Third, caution was a theme evident in the
findings of how teachers were using the technology. Teachers were incorporating
technology into their classrooms but at “conservative” levels and were resistant to
transform their pedagogical practices. Hennessy et al. (2005) attributed this to the
“top-down” approach of the policy. “Work on organizational change shows that, for
an innovation to have a significant impact, shared ownership of plans is required”
(Hennessy et al., 2005, p. 186). Finally, change was measured by analyzing its
impact on curriculum, assessment, and pedagogical practices. Curriculum and
assessment were not significantly impacted because technology was perceived as a
17
“tool” for learning with little support and guidance for teachers as to explicit
intended goals. Some change was present in pedagogical practices in the areas of
critical literacy, structuring and channeling activities, and increased focus on
learning objectives.
The challenges encountered in the study are critical areas to focus on when
considering the roles intermediary organizations take in school reform. Hennessy et
al. (2005) clearly define the following implications to consider at the school level:
(a) opportunities for exploration to build confidence, (b) defined responsibilities, and
(c) learning objectives related to technology. First, teachers need to have the time to
try the technology in a relaxed atmosphere allowing them to see its potential.
Second, clear expectations give teachers the explicit direction to create lessons that
meet multiple goals, both academic and technology learning. Implications on a larger
scale policy include: well documented rationale and purpose, teacher-centered
implementation, and revision of the learning objectives- curriculum and assessment
(Hennessy et al., 2005). These assertions provide ample insight for intermediaries
working with K-12 schools as they work toward implementing changes at the school
level.
Incorporating the use of technology in schools is only complicated by the
more publicized (standardized test scores) aspect of NCLB. Keller and Bichelmeyer
(2004) conclude, “Standard-based reforms may be at odds with efforts to increase
technology integration in K-12 schools” (p. 17). The challenges described in this
article highlight the tension between the priorities of educational technology in
18
schools and standard-based reform efforts. Three tensions areas are highlighted: (a)
traditional vs. progressive pedagogy, (b) standardized tests vs. performance-based
assessment, and (c) technology as central vs. technology as peripheral.
Keller and Bichelmeyer (2004) cite the first “tension” of pedagogy has been
impacted by NLCB placing highest priority on standardized test results thus creating
conflict between traditional pedagogy (“transmission approach”) and progressive
pedagogy (“process skills”). The teacher perception is that traditional pedagogical
approaches align best with standardized tests-“the sole measure of student learning”
(Keller & Bichelmeyer, 2004, p. 20). The use of standardized test in the NLCB
policy has set a de facto mission for schools placing math and English skills as the
top priority. “The language of accountability at the federal and state levels has
established the goal of schools as the raising of test scores and that this goal has
trumped technology integration efforts” (Keller & Bichelmeyer, 2004, p. 23). In
other words, the skills that progressive pedagogy fosters are not tested and, therefore,
teachers are not willing to use the time and effort. The second “tension” considers
the decisions schools have to make about teaching practices and assessment.
Standardized tests emphasize breadth of knowledge, and teachers are more likely to
focus on “skill and drill” teaching techniques. Performance-based assessment
focuses on “deep and meaningful learning,” and teachers are likely to employ
project-based methodology supported with technology (Keller & Bichelmeyer, 2004,
p. 21). While technology can be used in either situation, the latter harnesses the
greatest potential for students to grow in the following areas (process skills): writing,
19
problem solving, teamwork, communicating, and cross-domain thinking (Keller &
Bichelmeyer, 2004). Lastly, the third “tension” is about the role technology should
play in schools. Under the current conditions of NCLB, technology has been pushed
to the “margins of educational practice” (Keller & Bichelmeyer, 2004, p. 21). The
message K-12 educators have been hearing is to pursue methods that allow for the
standard-based curriculum to be covered quickly. These conditions create pressure
on teachers to increase student performance on standardized tests, and they choose
traditional pedagogy and place technology on the sideline.
Keller and Bichelmeyer (2004) identify four strategies for combating these
tensions: (a) aligning teacher development to support technology integration, (b)
developing district-level assessments that support a holistic view of education, (c)
develop a plan (vision) that exceeds baseline federal targets for learning to broaden
the scope of teaching, and (d) focus on higher level pedagogical practices. These
strategies serve as a model to investigate how intermediary organizations might be
collaborating with schools to support the use of technology.
Policy such as NETP needs to address the “scale-up” process. Schools will
implement the same plan with varied results and approaches based on personnel,
expertise, and values. O’Day (2002) looked at this by studying two school districts
that have contrasting accountability approaches for implementing school reform. She
highlights three problems that face reform efforts in K-12 schools: (a) the school is
the unit of intervention, yet the individual is the unit of action, (b) external control
seeks to influence internal operations, and (c) information is both problematic in
20
schools and essential to school improvement (O’Day, 2002). The bureaucratic
accountability approach poses four areas of weakness. First, outcome measures
associated with the approach have problems in validity, periodicity, and specificity
(O’Day, 2002). These problems inhibit teachers from sustaining any lasting changes
because the information (outcome measures feedback) is not formative. Second, the
approach fails to create interaction patterns for continuous improvement and
adaptation. Third, the “reliance on negative incentives undermines innovation and
risk-taking” (O’Day, 2002, p. 315). The lack of positive incentives creates an
environment where “organizational survival” becomes the focus at the expense of
some student learning. Lastly, resources are not strategic. Each school presents
unique needs and must have adequate resources for addressing them.
The second approach examined in this study looked at a district that used a
combination of administration and professional accountability in their reform efforts.
Three positive outcomes were attributed to this approach: (a) improved instructional
practices, (b) collaboration based on data analysis, and (c) increased professional
knowledge and skills. The crucial aspect to this approach is the involvement of
teachers in the reform process and “collective responsibility” it creates. “The
addition of professional accountability…strengthens the links between individual
teacher and their schools by fostering interaction around common work, a sense of
shared purpose” (O’Day, 2002, p. 320). Balancing external expectation
(“bureaucratic accountability”) and internal control (“professional accountability”)
21
provides the greatest opportunity for lasting reform and school improvement (O’Day,
2002).
Policymakers must be mindful of how to initiate the K-12 reform process.
This study illuminates the need for a balanced approach to ensure successful
implementation of reform efforts. Many intermediaries serve as mediators in this
way and need to know the typography of accountability, especially as it relates to
math and reading. Understanding the climate surrounding NCLB’s accountability
informs the context of this study. NCLB’s “highly prescriptive and stringent teaching
and accountability measures” adds many layers of complexity when schools engage
in change, particularly the increased use of technology for instructional purposes
(O’Day, 2002, p. 321).
Butzin (2001) studied two similar elementary schools where instructional
integration of technology was the variable. Project CHILD (Computers Helping
Instruction and Learning Development) was a three year study that followed two
groups of students (PC students and non-PC students) to see if the use of technology
in the classroom for instructional purposes made a difference in reading and math
scores. The study found that PC students outperformed their counterparts on all test
comparisons. This research supports the notion that the use of technology in schools
can better prepare students for the 21
st
century while working toward math and
reading targets set by policymakers.
Butzin (2001) identifies the following barriers to instructional integration of
technology: (a) lack of technology in-service training, (b) incompatibility with
22
traditional instructional models, and (c) teachers ability to stay current with
instructional software trends. In particular, elementary teachers face numerous
challenges just based on the fact that they teach all content areas. That means more
instructional materials to track and learn. Given the amount of material and length of
the school year, teacher acquiesce to more traditional models because the perception
is that they lend themselves to short time periods of instruction and using other
models for instruction would take up too much time (Butzin, 2001). Time efficiency
is taking precedent over effectiveness because teachers are under duress to cover the
entire required curriculum.
The Project CHILD outlines solutions for these challenges: (a) creating team
teaching opportunities, (b) planning guides aligned with benchmark tests, (c)
extensive training and coaching, and (d) systematic classroom management system
with technology emphasis (Butzin, 2001). These solutions are resounded in later
studies with the most influential of them being the need to align technology use with
academic benchmarks. The most critical aspect identified by the Butzin (2001) study
was the extent to which the implementation plan was strategic and teacher centric.
By starting first with the needs of teachers, it allowed the project to see results in the
classroom. The key was placing the emphasis on the instructional goals and not just
focusing on the technology itself, “Simply putting more computers into a model ill-
designed to accommodate technology integration will continue to disappoint”
(Butzin, 2001, p. 372). This provides a clear opportunity for intermediaries to assist
23
in goal alignment strategies that support both academic and technology intended
outcomes.
Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001) illuminate the many misconceptions
regarding technology use in schools. The assumption is that if schools are outfitted
with the infrastructure and equipment then teachers will use technology for
instruction. On the contrary the researchers contend, “We found that access to
equipment and software seldom led to widespread teacher and student use” (Cuban
et al., 2001, p. 813). The qualitative research methods deployed in this study
consisted of interviews with 21 teachers and 26 students from two different “high-
tech” schools with over 1,300 students and 60 teachers at each location. Twelve
students and 11 teachers at each school were shadowed throughout the day to
examine technology use. Also, accreditation reports and other relevant documents
were analyzed and examined. Additionally, the majority of teachers and students
were surveyed at both sites.
Cuban et al. (2001) found that the most influential aspects of their study were
the paradoxes described between teacher access/use at home and their use of
technology in the classroom. Over 80% of teachers between the two schools reported
using a computer at home, yet only 60% of the teachers reported that technology had
changed their approach to teaching (Cuban et al., 2001). What makes this
information even more telling is the fact that this research was conducted at schools
with clear goals around the use of technology, so one can only assume this
disconnect is amplified in other settings. Cuban et al. (2001) attributed this anomaly
24
to the fact that most technology use pedagogical practices are student-centered
approaches to instruction, and teacher-centered approaches dominate most practices
in schools.
Cuban et al. (2001) offer two more critical areas to consider when looking at
teacher technology use in the classroom: (a) teachers do not have the time to find and
evaluate software, and (b) computer software training is inadequate. These obstacles
need to be considered for implementation. Likewise, Cuban et al. (2001) describe
two areas to consider from a policy (reform) perspective: (a) “slow revolution”
phenomenon, and (b) contextual restraints (e.g. school structure, time, teacher
preparation, etc.). The “slow revolution” explanation suggests that as more and more
technology is available, teachers’ beliefs will change and use will increase (Cuban et
al., 2001). The latter perspective describes a more serious concern with future use of
technology in schools. Cuban et al. (2001) contend, “Fundamental changes would
need to be made in how schools are organized, how time is allocated, and how
teachers are prepared” (p. 815).
Becker (2000) highlights key findings from national data called the Teaching,
Learning, and Computing (TLC) survey. More than 4,000 teachers were surveyed
throughout the country with special consideration given to grades 4 through 12, and
especially schools that had a greater presence of technology and reform programs
aimed at increasing technological initiatives. The research organizes the challenges
facing technology use in the following three categories: (a) access and frequency
25
analysis, (b) teacher expertise and comfort with technology, and (c) teaching
philosophy and computer use.
First, frequency was dependent on the content area and readily available
access to technology. Business courses and classrooms where computers were
present (not labs) had greater use of technology. Also, classes that had more time
(i.e. self-contained elementary classrooms) reported significantly more use than other
classes with time restraints (i.e. 50 minute high school English). Second, teacher skill
levels in using computers did have direct correlation to their use in the classroom.
However, the content area of the teacher still had an impact regardless of teacher
skill. The research also suggests that the sophistication also increased as teachers
were more skilled, leading to more integrated approaches. Third, teachers’ personal
philosophy or pedagogy played an integral role in technology use. The traditional
modes of skills transmission approach are rooted in explicit direct instruction and
being teacher-centered. This approach focuses on narrow academic competencies
likely in isolation which tend to serve the interest of “standards-based” assessment
(Becker, 2000). This allows the teacher to ensure all tested material has been covered
and keeps the instruction “standardized.”
Becker (2000) provides an argument for creating “favorable” conditions to
better facilitate the use of technology in schools: (a) compatible philosophy, (b)
access, and (c) expertise. Becker (2000) suggests that as teachers increase technology
use in their teaching, they begin to adopt a more constructivist approach to
instruction. “Teachers…who used computers with students regularly over a three
26
year period were roughly twice as likely to report having made a number of
constructivist-oriented changes” (Becker, 2000, p. 22). In addition, 70% of teachers
who use technology report that they are more willing to be “taught by students” as
compared to 30% of their counterparts. This approach does require more creativity
and innovation, and if teachers have increased skills with computers, they are more
likely to initiate this change. The study found the best access in the classroom itself;
a small cluster of five computers or so is a great start. Lastly, increased expertise
does increase teacher use of technology in their teaching which in time will
fundamentally impact their instructional practices toward a more constructivist
approach.
The common challenge cited in the research is linked to demands of
standard-based policy. NCLB has stunted the growth of technology use in K-12
schools. Teachers abandon innovations for explicit direct instruction which lends
itself to standard-based ideology. To overcome these challenges, leaders and
intermediary organizations will need to align the use of technology with the current
structure of the curriculum. Leaders will also need to involve teachers in this process
to truly impact teaching practices. In addition, leaders will need the intermediary
organizations to increase schools’ capacity for being proactive in addressing
potential obstacles before they deploy any plan for K-12 technology integration. The
climate of intensive pressure created by NCLB demands leaders to more strategic
than ever. Using the areas described in the above research will give K-12 leaders a
27
place to start, but knowing that each school presents unique challenges will require
dynamic leadership as well.
Leadership in Times of Change
The challenges highlighted in the aforementioned studies are manageable
with strong and strategic leadership. Leadership in times of reform is
multidimensional and requires many stakeholders working together to meet the
increasing demands on K-12 schools. The NETP calls for dynamic leaders ready to
tackle fundamental changes in education. The research below describes the
approaches, actions, and skill sets most conducive to effective change.
Johnson and Chrispeels’ (2010) research sought to investigate the importance
of leader-supported “linkages” in school systems as they pertain to reform efforts,
especially in the area of 21
st
century school initiatives. The qualitative embedded
case study focused on 10 central office leaders, five principals, and 45 school
leadership team members to understand the linkages between these stakeholders. The
findings of the study were organized by five types of “linkages”: (a) resource, (b)
structural, (c) communication, (d) relational, and (e) ideological.
Resource linkages found to be critical in the study were important
partnerships that provided a “more cohesive and comprehensive assessment and data
analysis system” (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010, p. 751). The system allowed teachers
to integrate federal and state accountability measures while establishing more
specialized measures concentrated on the intended outcomes of their reform efforts.
In addition, it established the use of formative feedback teams and instructional
28
action plans to monitor implementation. Also these evaluative measures were used to
guide professional development for school leadership at all three levels. Structurally,
the study concluded that practices, policies, and organizational arrangements were
critical to reform (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). Interviews conveyed a pressing
conflict between NCLB accountability pressure and internal assessments intended to
direct instructional decisions. Clarification of instructional practices needed to be
discussed and outlined with teacher input.
Additionally, important communication linkages identified in the study were:
(a) coherent district message, (b) principal as communicator, (c) shift from one-way
to two-way communication, and (d) face-to-face communication (Johnson &
Chrispeels, 2010). The study suggested “that it is through face-to-face dialogue that
reforms can be more successfully implemented” (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010, p.
760). When leaders are engaged in meaningful dialogue with teachers they can
better understand the needs of the schools and students to provide proper support.
As a result of this dialogue, more opportunities were created for relational linkages
between teachers, administrators, and central office leaders. Each school’s leadership
team (comprised of teachers) found that communication opened up new channels of
collaboration which allowed them to better understand the reform effort, increasing
the buy-in.
The ideological linkages are more common when it comes to establishing
consensus about goals but the means for obtaining those goals are divergent at all
three levels (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). “The ideological linkage represents a
29
critical pathway for developing teacher commitment and professional accountability”
(Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010, p. 768). Overall, the data support leadership teams
because the links they create improve the reform process. The collaboration builds
professional networks and shared interpretation of reform directives (Johnson &
Chrispeels, 2010).
Another article that contributes to this topic is the Public Education
Leadership Project (PELP) which studied 15 large urban school districts in the
United States to better understand the strengths and weakness of varying
management approaches (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). What PELP found
is that large urban school districts are operating under very complex and difficult
circumstances when trying to create change. Districts cited five main barriers to
reform: (a) executing the strategy consistently across schools with different
characteristics, (b) creating a coherent organizational design in support of the
strategy, (c) developing and managing human capital, (d) allocating resources in
alignment with the strategy, and (e) using performance data to guide decisions and to
create accountability (Childress et al., 2006, p. 59). Childress et al. (2006) developed
a managerial framework and tested nine of the original 15 districts to create a more
coherent organization and increase instructional effectiveness.
The framework consists of five key components: (a) culture, (b) systems and
structures, (c) resources, (d) stakeholders, and (e) environments (Childress et al.,
2006). The findings in these five key areas establish some best practices for districts
moving toward implementation of reform. First, culture must be focused on
30
professional collaboration, high expectations and balanced accountability. Second,
systems and structures have to be continuously re-evaluated and reinvented to ensure
they are supporting the efforts of the reform. Third, technology needs to be used to
increase productivity and responsiveness. Fourth, the proper stakeholders of the
reform strategy must be secured and supported so that when faced with opposition
there has been a coalition established to ensure the plan will move forward. Finally,
while district leaders have little control over all the influences on their schools,
actions must be intentional and strategic to manage the effects of these influencers.
“A variety of strategies can produce results, as long as they focus on strengthening
teaching and learning, have clear objectives and establish accountability” (Childress
et al., 2006, p. 68). The specifics of employed strategies should be based on the
needs of the school, but the fundamental themes mentioned above need to be present.
Marsh et al. (2005) conducted a three-year comparative case study that
looked at three main components of instructional reform: (a) strategies deployed to
initiate instructional improvement, (b) challenges and strengths of instructional
improvement, and (c) the impact of intermediary organization on instructional
reform. Three sources of data collected were surveys of principals and teachers,
district and intermediary organization document analysis, and student achievement
data. The participants included three urban districts selected based on an
instructional reform initiative in progress, collaboration with an intermediary
organization, and district size.
31
Research findings for district instructional improvement strategies are as
follows: (a) instructional leadership, (b) school-based coaching, (c) curriculum
specification, and (d) data use (Marsh et al., 2005). Principals had to engage in
professional development to increase their capacity to serve as instructional leaders
and gain credibility with the teachers. Coaching provided “job-embedded”
professional development that increased the ability to customize the support to the
needs of teachers. Specifying curriculum with maps and pacing guides provided
some support when it came to ensuring standards were covered. Lastly, data analysis
training for the teachers was found to be essential when it came to actually using the
data to guide instructional decisions and reform evaluation.
The researchers highlighted four constraints and enablers between the
administrative leaders and teachers (implementers of the instructional reform
initiatives): (a) size of reform efforts, (b) school capacity, (c) broad policy
implications, and (d) local policy dimensions and characteristics (Marsh et al., 2005).
While it was important that the reform plan be comprehensive in nature, schools
benefitted when reform efforts were concentrated on two key area of instructional
change. Schools had varied results due to gaps that existed between schools in areas
like expertise, instructional materials, time for planning, time for leadership actions,
and funding. Another constraint mentioned was the priority placed on state and
federal policies that grabbed the majority of the attention of the district office,
leaving the instructional reform efforts with fewer resources. District goals and
32
instructional goals needed to be aligned, balanced (standardized and flexible),
inclusive of all stakeholders, and contain local incentives (Marsh et al., 2005).
Finally, the study suggests that intermediary organizations did have an impact
on instructional reform in the following ways: “District and school leaders reported
that the IFL (intermediary organization) affected the organizational culture, norms,
and beliefs about instruction” (Marsh et al., 2005, p. 24), and “The IFL (intermediary
organization) was credited with helping develop the knowledge and skills of central
office and school administrators” (Marsh et al., 2005, p. 24). The study found that
the intermediary organization impact was strongest when they were perceived as
highly skilled and trustworthy by school leaders. They were able to provide practical
tools that supported implementation of the instructional reform ideas and concepts
(Marsh et al., 2005).
Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of 70
studies that looked at principal leadership qualities and their correlation to student
achievement. The compilation of these research studies provided a sample size of
2,849 schools, 14,000 teachers, and more than 1.1 million students. The following
statements were concluded: (a) leadership matters, (b) effective leadership can be
empirically defined, and (c) effective leaders not only know what to do, but how,
when and why to do it (Waters et al., 2004). First, leadership does matter as the data
suggest that there is a .25 correlation between leadership and student achievement
data. Second, the study defined 21 key areas of leadership as a set of characteristics
found in effective leaders. Third, the differential impact of leadership action is
33
described by the focus of change (what) and the order of change (how, when, and
why) (Waters et al., 2004).
The “focus of change” needs to be about classroom practices (Waters et al.,
2004). The classroom is where reform will have the strongest impact on education.
Focusing on classroom practices involves everything from effective instructional
strategies to increasing professionalism (Waters et al., 2004). Starting from the
classroom and working one’s way back to the district office will inform
improvement plans leading to higher student achievement. The “order of change” is
segmented into first-order and second-order changes (Waters et al., 2004). First-
order only makes small changes to existing structures without challenging values or
norms. On the other hand, second-order changes are much more innovative and
challenge status quo. Effective leaders must know the difference between the two
and be strategic in the latter to see successful implementation of reform initiatives
(Waters et al., 2004).
Honig (2003) conducted a qualitative study that focused on four collaborative
educational policies within a school district. What was unique about this research
was the district’s use of an intermediary organization for implementation purposes,
and the observations collected from central office personnel. Data were collected
over a two year period and events of 10 years were included to increase the
longitudinal perspective of the research. Honig (2003) describes three “thresholds”
that were present in the district that held implications for the implementation
34
process: (a) intentionality, (b) designation of boundary spanners, and (c) preemptive
policy action.
First, districts need schools sites to hear a clear message from administrators.
The recommendation from the research suggests this should be done with a
collaborative approach that supports school-based decision making while
maintaining objectives of the initiative (Honig, 2003). Second, district administrators
needed to be strategic about creating a group of liaisons to work between the school
sites and the central office. During implementation of an educational initiative, it is
critical to have authentic feedback to inform future decisions, and skilled “boundary
spanners” serve to measure real change (Honig, 2003). Third, preemptive policy
action facilitates the efficient start of implementation. Greater results were present
when district leaders were proactive toward possible barriers of implementation
verses being passive and waiting for problems to occur.
Elmore (1999) describes the following conflict: “school-based reform and the
logic of the traditional instructional structure of public education challenge both
public schools and the people who work in them” (p. 10). To overcome these
challenges, Elmore (1999) suggests distributed leadership with the following key
principles: (a) The purpose of leadership is the improvement of instructional practice
and performance - regardless of role, (b) Instructional improvement requires
continuous learning, (c) Learning requires modeling, (d) The roles and activities of
leadership flow from the expertise required for learning and improvement, not from
the formal dictates of the institution, and (e) The exercise of authority requires
35
reciprocity of accountability and capacity (pp. 20-21). As schools distribute
leadership responsibilities, K-12 schools demonstrate increased results and increased
capacity for change.
Elmore (1999) also provides five design principles for leaders when working
toward improvement initiatives: (a) maintain a tight instructional focus sustained
over time, (b) routinize accountability for practice and performance in face-to-face
relationships, (c) reduce isolation and open practice up to direct observation,
analysis, and criticism, (d) exercise differential treatment based on performance and
capacity, not on volunteerism, and (e) devolve increased discretion based on practice
and performance (p. 30). These principles provide guidelines for school leaders to
consider when developing an implementation plan.
The research is clear; leadership in K-12 does matter. Leaders need to first
establish what it is that needs to be done and then when and how to do it. Their
ability to perceive real complications and work to remove them is critical to school
reform. The additional challenges that technology integration present only amplify
the need for strong leadership. K-12 leaders need to send clear and coherent
messages to teachers if they are to have any level of success in establishing real
change. The above research provides a pathway for intentional and strategic actions
of effective leaders. The research offers salient points about the facets of leadership
that are most critical to reform. Leaders need to align their accountability measures,
be instructional leaders, and build capacity within their schools. The majority of the
36
findings presented more theoretical frameworks due the complex nature of schools
and the unique opportunities and challenges each holds.
Intermediary Organization Contributions to School Reform
School leaders need to be resourceful in building partnerships to increase
their schools’ capacity to innovate and move into the 21
st
century. Intermediary
organizations serve a critical role in moving K-12 schools to change. The research
mentioned below will demonstrate the ways in which intermediary organizations
partner with schools toward educational reform through support, expertise, and
specialization.
Honig (2009) conducted a comparative case study analysis of small
autonomous school initiatives. A combined 112 interviews and 78 participants took
part in the study from two different school districts. In addition, the research
included document analysis and observation of meetings regarding implementation.
Both districts were undertaking a reform initiative with the support of an “external
organization” to help facilitate implementation of the newly adopted policy. The
study contributes three comparative dynamics as related to policy implementation:
(a) politics of implementation framework, (b) organizational histories and past
practices, and (c) the dynamics of the policy design (Honig, 2009).
First, Honig (2009) describes how the framework will impact the actions and
contributions of the participants during implementation. The successes of the
implementation practices are more favorable when the intermediary organization
takes an active role to increase capacity and support through the use of
37
complementary strategies. Second, the historical perspectives of the participants
influence the implementation process. Honig (2009) found that schools that had
some experience in school reform efforts at least had a starting point to which they
could build on their current trajectory toward increased results. Third, if debate
occurs during the design of the policy then implementation will be compromised.
“Actors will pass those challenges and tensions on to implementation in ways that
can interfere with implementation process” (Honig, 2009, p. 408).
Coburn, Bae, and Turner (2008) engaged in a longitudinal case study of a
large (approx. 50,000 students) school district that collaborated with an outside
organization to support its continuous instructional improvement initiatives. At the
onset of the study, they were confronted with issues of authority. Coburn et al.
(2008) states, “Clear authority relations actually enabled productive working
relationships” (p. 377). Coburn et al. (2008) sites three ways that authority was
established in the study: (a) contractually, (b) authorized, and (c) emerged. The most
used was emergent authority that fostered a co-construction attitude toward reform, a
mentality that supports shared leadership and relationship building. Emerged
authority does present some challenges, for example issues of control, but does allow
for shared authority and individuals with unique talents to surface.
In addition, Coburn et al.’s (2008) research asserts three other findings
unique to “insider-outsider” partnerships in the following areas: (a) dynamics of
status relationships, (b) working within organizational structures, and (c)
collaborative partnerships to leverage change. Status relationships should not be
38
assumed but investigated based on practice and knowledge (Coburn et al., 2008).
Intermediary organizations were found to be at an advantage because they exist
outside of the hierarchical authority present in schools, creating unique opportunities
to interact with participants. The opportunities allowed them to serve as negotiators
and increase communication between district leaders and school personnel. Lastly,
outsiders were able to help initiate change based on perceptions of shared beliefs and
expertise. Long-term relationships built trust between schools and intermediary
organizations which in turn increased their impact toward generating change.
Huberman and Poland (2008) studied five states to uncover strategies for
building regional capacity in support of local school reform. State plans were
investigated to describe some best practices for engaging stakeholders, building
relationships with intermediary organizations, and aligning and coordinating services
(Huberman & Poland, 2008). The central theme that resounded among the five states
was “the three Cs- Communication, Coordination, and Collaboration” (Huberman &
Poland, 2008, p. 6). Key actions noted in the research are creating common
language toward improvement, increased professional development opportunities,
and building trust with intermediary organizations. “Increasing the communication,
coordination, and collaboration both within and across agencies and levels can
decrease competition and break down silos” (Huberman & Poland, 2008, p. 7).
As districts work toward increasing regional capacity to meet the increasing
demands of NCLB, many are contracting with private educational vendors. Burch
(2006) conducted a multidimensional qualitative study that first highlights the use of
39
products and services provided by private vendors in the following areas: (a) test
development, (b) data analysis and management, (c) remedial services, and (d)
content area-specific programming. Policy documentation and financial statements
analysis provided ample proof that “growing local demand for these services and the
role of current Federal education policy is spurring demand and influencing field
changes” (Burch, 2006, p. 2589). Findings in the aforementioned areas provide
evidence of increased use of technology-based suppliers as a result of increased
Federal policy demands. Each category demonstrated a significant increase in
spending across the board.
In addition to the increased use, Burch’s (2006) case study illuminates how
these providers have impacted reform efforts in the following areas: (a) data-based
decision-making, (b) reform coherence, and (c) academic press. First, technology-
based information systems made data more readily available, and high-performing
leaders reported using this tool to inform improvement plans. Second, vendors
provided services and products that allowed leaders to align their reform efforts with
district goals and Federal policy mandates. While useful, Burch (2006) reports, “The
work of vendors did little to address the problem of social cohesion in the district”
(p. 2601). Incorporating this component of “buy-in” is critical to the implementation
process. Third, schools reported segmenting the data to concentrate their efforts. By
breaking the data apart, teachers had more meaningful information about student
learning.
40
Coburn’s (2005) cross-sectional study identifies five ways teachers respond
to the messages of policy: (a) rejection, (b) symbolic response, (c) parallel structures,
(d) assimilation, and (e) accommodation. Rejection occurs when teachers perceive
the policy as inappropriate for their practice. Symbolic response is superficial in
nature being that teachers will just appear to incorporate change. Parallel structures
involves the teacher incorporating the new reform initiatives while maintaining
previous practices. Assimilation ensues when teachers make some changes in
classroom structure or materials, but they maintain their preexisting pedagogical
approaches. Finally, accommodation involves a fundamental restructuring of
teachers’ pedagogy (Coburn, 2005). This provides an adequate categorization of
policy impact on classroom practices where reform occurs.
After establishing teacher response mechanisms, Coburn (2005) researched
the impact of non-system participants in establishing a policy’s message. The
findings conclude that teachers are significantly more likely to respond to non-
system participants than system messengers. Coburn (2005) attributed non-system
actors as capable to connect to teachers on four different levels: (a) greater intensity,
(b) greater proximity to the classroom, (c) greater depth, and (d) more likely to be
voluntary. First, greater intensity allowed for more interaction through ongoing
professional development. Second, system participants usually communicate through
documents and task reports while non-system participants communicate through
classroom materials, assessments, and professional development activities (Coburn,
2005). The latter is more abstract and less personal reducing teacher participation.
41
Third, “degree of depth was linked with degree of intensity, in that greater intensity
seemed to allow teachers to encounter policy messages that pushed beyond
superficial manifestations to include underlying pedagogical principles” (Coburn,
2005, p. 38). Finally, aspects of voluntariness was linked to teacher perceptions of
non-system participants sending a message you “should” adopt reform initiatives
verses perceived system participants message of “you must.”
Intermediary organizations have unique opportunities in providing
implementation consultation to schools. The Honig (2004a) qualitative case study of
four intermediary organizations provides two sections of information. The first is the
characteristics and actions of intermediary organizations toward knowledge of school
sites and policy systems. The second is the support they provide to the social and
political aspects of reform policy implementation. There are significant findings in
each section to be considered.
Actions associated with intermediary organizations’ knowledge of school
sites and policy systems consisted of the following: (a) regular meetings, (b)
documentation and dissemination, (c) simplified information about experience, and
(d) ongoing knowledge building process (Honig, 2004a). First, regular “business-
like” meetings provided face-to-face interactions between the central office and sites
and allowed for increased knowledge of site needs and potential obstacles. Second,
intermediaries ensured that vital information (case studies, implementation reports,
etc.) were not only available but used with regularity. Third, small tangible steps
were provided at the onset of the implementation based on the preexisting capacity
42
of the schools to take action immediately. Finally, ongoing meetings were focused
on continuous school improvement plans to reevaluate previous actions taken in the
implementation process.
Translation of sites’ demands into “actionable terms” and being the go-
betweens for sites were found to be integral types of support that schools needed
from intermediaries (Honig, 2004a). With the support of the intermediary
organization, sites were able to convey their needs to overcome implementation
obstacles. These obstacles are site specific, and the added expertise of intermediaries
helped to formulate action plans to overcome barriers. The study also indicated that
intermediaries serve as a buffer between “long-standing, strained relationships
between sites and the central office” (Honig, 2004a, p. 78). The study cites that
previous actions of the central office, unrelated to the reform policy, can serve as an
obstacle and intermediary organizations help to keep the focus concentrated on the
implementation task at hand.
The sum of the articles provides sufficient research highlighting the
opportunities intermediary organizations have in change processes. Intermediaries
serve as the “go-betweens” during the implementation process allowing for increased
communication between reform policy planners and implementers. Intermediaries
lend their expertise to organize a practical plan that is manageable for teachers. The
NETP will need this very assistance as it seeks to systemically change the way in
which schools teach their students, determine what they will learn, and assess
intended outcomes. Little research exists regarding intermediary organizations and
43
technology. While the lessons learned from previous policy implementations will be
useful, technology integration will add another layer of complexity worthy of
examination.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework employed throughout the study is Bolman and
Deal’s Four Frames. Bolman and Deal (2008) assert the frames are “rooted in both
managerial wisdom and social science knowledge” (p. 21). The four frames allow
for multiple perspectives to be explored when analyzing a problem. In addition, the
frames serve as “filters for sorting essence from trivia… [as] tools for solving
problems and getting things done” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 21). The theory is a
tool for understanding leadership styles and strategies, organizational structures and
goals, and insights into the actions of participants. The framework includes the
following four areas: (a) structural, (b) human resource, (c) political, and (d)
symbolic.
First, the structural frame is based in the discipline of sociology. It
emphasizes formal roles and relationships within an organization. It explores this
through the lenses of rules, roles, goals, policies, and environment. Processes
focused on in the structural frame are division of labor and the work of individuals
with the organization. Second, the human resource frame is based in the disciplines
of social and organizational psychology. The frame focuses on the people within the
organization and their capacity to complete their assigned responsibilities. It
examines this in connection to needs, skills, and relationships. In addition, the frame
44
provides insight into the organization’s ability to specialize its action to meet
individual needs. Third, the political frame is grounded in the discipline of political
sciences. It stresses the scarcity of resources and allocation of power. The concepts
explored are power, conflict, competition, and positive politics. Processes
highlighted are bargaining, negotiating, and coalition building. Finally, the symbolic
frame is based in the disciplines of social and cultural anthropology. It analyzes the
cultural histories of organizations. Key concepts present in the symbolic frame are
culture, stories, myths, charisma, and rituals. The processes studied are the actions
centered on creating and promoting a common vision.
Each frame provides a unique insight into the potentials of organizational
change. They are most effective when all frames are used, called “multiframe
thinking” (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Multiframe thinking allows for organizations to
be viewed from a multitude of standpoints ensuring the clearest picture possible.
“The use of multiple frames permits leaders to see and understand more- if they are
able to employ the different logics that accompany diverse ways of thinking”
(Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 437). Multiframe thinking framework was deployed
throughout the course of this study to investigate the challenges and opportunities of
K-12 school reform from different perspectives of numerous stakeholders.
Furthermore, the framework was used to inform the methods and organization of the
study.

45
Summary
In summary, the review of the literature on school reform, leadership, and
intermediary organizations revealed numerous challenges and opportunities moving
forward toward implementation of the NETP. Common themes gleaned from the
literature include: (a) the need for a teacher-centered approach to K-12 reform, (b)
the need for leaders to be strategic, and (c) the need for increasing school capacity to
change with the use of intermediaries. Chapter 3 presents the methodology for
investigating these themes in the context of technology integration and school
change.
46
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Overview of the Study
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the implementation of the extensive National
Technology Education Plan 2010 (NETP) requires the full attention of K-12
technology leaders. NETP is a call to “leverage technology to create relevant
learning experiences” (NETP, 2010, p. 9). Reform initiatives set out by NETP will
challenge school leaders to conduct large-scale changes to meet the skills required of
students in the 21
st
century. These challenges are only compounded by the NCLB
legislation that emphasizes standardized test results. “If teachers feel compelled to
prepare students for these examinations, then instruction in twenty-first century skill
may be neglected, particularly if these skills are not emphasized on tests”
(Anderman, 2011, p. 22). Much research has been conducted to better understand the
role of leadership in times of educational reform, which will help to inform this study
as well. Likewise, technology integration research has been empirical and anecdotal,
describing the challenges technology integration presents to the schools’ capacity to
implement change. Leaders in education have sought to increase school capacity
with the incorporation of intermediary organizations. This action by leaders has been
in response to the need for specialized support. Intermediaries provide services
beyond the skill set of many school leaders and serve a paramount capacity building
role between policy and implementers.

47
Relying on leaders to solve the problem of systemic reform in schools is, to
put it bluntly, asking people to do something they don’t know how to do and
have had no occasion to learning in the course of their careers (Elmore, 1999,
p. 3).

This study examines California K-12 public schools that have used the
support of intermediary organizations to integrate technology as prescribed by the
NETP.
Purpose of Study
The overall aim of this study was to contribute to the research of K-12
education technology reform efforts. The secondary focus of the study was to
investigate how K-12 schools and their supporting intermediary organizations work
toward advancing technology integration. More specially, the study had three
purposes. First, to identify the impacts of the NETP and if they provide any direction
to the goals and actions of school districts and their partnering intermediaries. The
NETP, being the most recent development to come from the U.S. Department of
Education, provides a unique opportunity for this study to identify emerging themes
and implications and identify best practices to systemic change. Secondly, to identify
the strategies and functions intermediary organizations provide to K-12 districts
looking to advance technology integration initiatives. Finally, to identify the
collaborative implementation efforts between districts and intermediaries in regards
to technology integration initiatives and school technology reform.

48
Research Questions
Three research questions were developed to investigate the impact of the
NETP in California K-12 schools and to advance the research of intermediaries in K-
12 technology reform. The following questions guided this study:
1. How does the large-scale technology reform efforts of the NETP 2010
impact, if at all, the goals and actions of intermediary organizations and
K-12 district technology leaders in California public schools?
2. What strategies and functions are intermediary organizations deploying
to increase technology in California K-12 public schools?
3. How are K-12 district technology leaders collaborating with intermediary
organizations to implement technology integration initiatives and other
technology reforms in California public schools?
Research Design Summary
This study employed an “emerging qualitative approach to inquiry”
(Creswell, 2007, pg. 37). Qualitative research methods were especially appropriate
for this study due to the developing nature of research regarding the NETP.
“Qualitative research is appropriate to use …when a complex, detailed understanding
is needed” (Creswell, 2007, p. 51). This study took a collective case study approach
to provide descriptive reports and implications from multiple sources. Three case
study districts were selected and two of their supporting intermediaries were
included for each site. First, participants were selected on a criterion-based method.
District technology plans were researched for the inclusion of the NETP and then
49
districts were contacted in order to determine their immediate work with
intermediary organizations. Secondly, multiple measures were deployed to ensure
triangulation using the following methods: (a) open-ended written response
questionnaires of K-12 district technology directors implementing NETP, (b)
interviews of intermediary organization personnel that support and provide services
for the selected districts’ technology initiatives and implementations, (c) document
analysis of artifacts related to NETP, technology integration, technology plans,
intermediary information and other applicable documents. Essentially, the study used
“data triangulation” to strengthen the study and provide a comprehensive
examination of the problem (Patton, 2002).
Participants and Setting
The participants were selected based on the following criteria:
1. California K-12 unified school district
2. Student population over 20,000 with diverse demographics representative of
California schools
3. Inclusion of the NETP in the district-developed technology plan
4. Actively implementing aspects of their technology plan
5. Actively working with at least two intermediary organizations to increase
technology integration initiatives
Participants were identified through a criterion sampling process containing
multiple steps. First, districts were screened for student population and their structure
as a K-12 unified school. Districts larger than 20,000 students provided a setting that
50
illuminates the presence of multiple stakeholders. Secondly, a web search for the
districts’ technology plans was conducted and the plans were downloaded and
reviewed for the inclusion of the NETP. Afterwards, sites that were remaining were
screened for the presence of diversity as it is well known that the majority of
California schools are ethically, economically, and linguistically diverse. Technology
directors from these districts were contacted to ascertain if they were actively
integrating technology, were working with at least two technology-focused
intermediary organizations, and were interested in participating. Finally,
intermediary organization personnel consent was acquired as well. Once respondent
data were collected, “purposeful maximal sampling” was used to allow for different
perspectives to be examined (Creswell, 2007). Additionally, emergent sampling was
used to “follow new leads during fieldwork by taking advantage of the unexpected”
(Patton, 2002, p. 244). The units of analysis for this study are the NETP, California
K-12 unified school districts, and intermediary organizations. The findings are
intended to be relevant and useful to all three units. First, the data will illuminate the
impact of the NETP from the perspectives of school technology leaders and their
supporting intermediaries which will be useful in future revisions. Second, California
schools looking to implement the NETP will be able to translate the issues addressed
for their own sites. Finally, intermediary organizations can evaluate the strategies,
functions, services and supports they provide to schools integrating technology. The
setting of this study is California K-12 public schools and varied intermediary

51
organizations as to maximize the variations that exist to “identify important common
patterns that cut across variations” (Patton, 2002, p. 243).
Instrumentation
This study used two instruments to collect data: an open-ended questionnaire
survey and semi-structured one-on-one interviews. The instruments allowed for the
data to be triangulated, improving reliability and trustworthiness of the study.
At the onset of the study, all participants were given an informed consent
form describing the purpose of the study and their confidentiality. The informed
consent protocol was created using the following guiding questions: (a) What is the
purpose of collecting the information? (b) Who is the information for? How will it be
used? (c) What will be asked in the interview/questionnaire? (d) How will responses
be handled, including confidentiality? and (e) What risks and/ or benefits are
involved for person being interviewed? (Patton, 2002, p. 407). This instrument
established trust and privacy which are imperative to the qualitative research design.
The semi-structured interview questions (see Appendix A) were developed
using two conceptual frameworks. First, Section one of the interview addressed
Patton’s conceptual framework for questioning strategies as follows: (Q1) behaviors,
(Q2) opinions, (Q3) feelings, (Q4) knowledge, (Q5) sensory, and (Q6) demographics
(Patton, 2002). The key protocols for these questions were neutrality and empathy on
the behalf of the researcher. Second, Sections two through five were developed using
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) Four Frames and organized as follows: Section II –
Structural, Section III- Human Resource, Section IV- Political, and Section V-
52
Symbolic. The last question allowed the respondent to include any information that
was not addressed, allowing for emergent themes to occur.
Written response questionnaires were opened-ended to “permit one to
understand the world as seen by the respondents…to understand and capture the
points of view” (Patton, 2002, p. 21). The questionnaire (see Appendix B) was also
developed using two conceptual frameworks. Section one used Patton’s (2002)
conceptual framework for questioning protocols. Likewise, section two through
section five were organized using Bolman and Deal’s (2008) Four Frames. The last
question allowed for respondents to include any information they believed to be
important to the study. The open-ended questionnaires and interview questions were
triangulated by research questions and organized by theoretical frameworks (see
Table 3.1).

53
Table 3.1: Question Alignment Chart
Research Questions
Written Response
Questionnaire
(District Technology
Directors)
Semi-Structured
Interview
(Intermediary
Organization
Personnel)
Document Analysis
RQ1- How does the
large-scale technology
reform efforts of the
NETP impact, if at all,
the goals and actions of
intermediary
organizations and K-12
school leaders in
California public
schools?
Section I –Q2, Q3,
Q5 ,Q6

Section III – Q2, Q3

Section V – Q2, Q3
Section I – Q2,Q3,
Q5, Q6

Section III – Q3

Section IV – Q1, Q2

Section V – Q1, Q2

- NETP

- District-
Developed
Technology Plan

RQ2- What strategies
and functions are
intermediary
organizations deploying
to increase technology
integration in California
K-12?
Section II – Q2, Q3
Section III – Q1
Section IV – Q2
Section V – Q1
Section II – Q1, Q3
Section III – Q2, Q3

- Intermediary
Organization
Websites

- Meeting Notes/
Communications

RQ3- How are K-12
district technology
directors collaborating
with intermediary
organizations to
implement technology
integration initiatives
and other technology
reforms in California
public schools?
Section II – Q1, Q3

Section III – Q1

Section IV – Q1, Q2,
Q3

Section I – Q4
Section II – Q2, Q3
Section III – Q1, Q3
Section IV – Q3
Section V – Q3

- District-
Developed
Technology Plans

- Communication
Documents

Data Collection
This study included three components for data collection. These segments
consisted of: (1) open-ended written responses questionnaires, (2) semi-structured
interviews, and (3) documents for analysis. Additionally, they were conducted in the
above order to allow for emergent information to be included during the interviews
with the intermediary organization personnel.
54
The first phase of the study was to collect data to identify potential
participants. Participants were considered based on the following criterion sampling
(Patton, 2002): (a) California K-12 unified school district, (b) student population
over 20,000 and diversity present, (c) inclusion of the NETP in the district-developed
technology plan, (d) actively implementing aspects of their technology plan, and (e)
actively working with at least two intermediary organizations to increase technology
integration initiatives. Three case study district sties were selected based on the
purposeful sampling of California K-12 public schools to detect common themes
embedded in the “scale-up” process of large-scale initiatives.
The second phase included the development of a plan for the collection of
related documents to the research. The documents analysis protocol was developed
to connect the information to other sources of data (see Appendix C). District-
developed technology plans were collected along with the NETP document. District
technology directors were asked to submit any school generated or intermediary
organization generated materials regarding aspects of their technology integration.
Many of these documents were readily available on district websites. Other
submissions were scanned and sent electronically. Documents were organized by
case site to analyze in concert with the other sources of data from that case. The
physical artifacts were analyzed for their use and intention to verify their relevancy
to this study. In addition, supportive documents were requested at the end of the
interviews and were submitted electronically.

55
The third phase of this study was to collect data from district technology
directors. They completed open-ended written response questionnaires that
“enable(s) the researcher to understand and capture the points of view of other
people” (Patton, 2002, p. 21). These questionnaires were administered using online
survey questionnaire software and administration tools. Participants had the
opportunity to carefully consider each question because they were given a
considerable amount of time to complete it.
The fourth phase of the study was conducting the semi-structured one-on-one
interviews at the intermediaries’ locations. Interviewees were the personnel of the
partnering intermediary organization who served at the “ground-level” during the
technology integration implementation process. Each participant was given the
“informed consent form” before being interviewed and reassured of the
confidentiality to the study. The interviews were tape recorded. The first six
questions were developed for the purposes of finding out about the background of
the interviewee and to establish a rapport. The protocol for the interview was for the
researcher to remain neutral to responses and “to be open to the other person and
nonjudgmental” (Patton, 2002, p. 53). Participants had the right to refrain from any
questions they wished not to address. The tape recorded interviews were transcribed
to electronic format. Follow-up questions or clarifications after the interviews were
completed through electronic correspondence.

56
Data Analysis
The sources of data that were analyzed for each of the three cases included:
(a) written open-ended questionnaire responses, (b) transcribed audio recordings of
interviews, and (c) multiple documents. Examining data from multiple sources
increased the legitimacy of the study. The research question alignment chart (see
Table 3.1) was developed to demonstrate the triangulation of the data. “Triangulation
increases credibility and quality countering the concern (or accusation) that a study’s
findings are simply an artifact of a single method, a single source, or a single
investigator’s blinders” (Patton, 2002, p. 563). Data were color coded using
pseudonyms and dated to keep the case studies organized. Each component was
categorized by people, critical occurrences, and setting (Patton, 2002).
First the data were inputted using a computer program. The data were coded
into meaningful units using Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames theoretical framework.
Qualitative data software was employed for storing, coding, linking, and comparing.
Responses from the written questionnaire, interview transcriptions, and interview
notes were organized by the frames- structural (Section II), human resource (Section
III), political (Section IV), and symbolic (Section V). After the data were read and
organized into the three case studies, it was coded using the theoretical frameworks
in relation to the research question it addressed. A descriptive narrative was written
to illuminate the key information and pertinent contextual information from each
case site. The document analyses provided some contextual information to the study
and developed a time and place for the intermediary organizations and the district
57
sites. Emerging patterns were established within each case individually. Data were
then interpreted in relation to the research literature. In addition, the data informed a
layered case study matrix that illuminated the relationships between various
participants (see Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: Case Study Matrix

By attending to each case study individually, a cross-case comparison can be
conducted to highlight and cluster common themes (Patton, 2002). From the coded
data, a content analysis was deployed to identify consistencies and meanings
Individual School
Sites
School Administrators
District TechnDology
Directors
terOrganization
Personnel

National Education Technology Plan 2010

District Technology
Directors
Intermediary
Organization
Personnel
School
Administrators
Individual
School Sites
58
between the three case studies. “The core meanings found through content analysis
are often called patterns or themes” (Patton, 2002, p. 453). Emerging themes were
identified and categorized using the theoretical framework deployed throughout the
study.
Limitations
Federal initiatives pose a unique challenge because of the variety of
opportunistic and constraining factors present in schools (Bodilly et al., 1998). Each
district has inherent issues, historical or recent, that will impact their capacity to
implement the NETP. Likewise, the intermediary organizations will have unique
variables that may be hidden to the researcher. Natural variance is expected because
each case study presents distinctive experiences. In addition, intermediaries are
structured differently with divergent goals and practices making it difficult to
identify comprehensive conclusions.
To complicate matters, the NETP is a recent development that has little
supportive research to draw from. The depth of experiences of the K-12 schools
implementing aspects of the NETP will be limited. The emergent nature of this study
will uncover the initial stages K-12 districts are going through to implement
sweeping changes to their approach to education as planned in the NETP. In
addition, it is likely to uncover the pressing needs and resource constraints that
education is experiencing during these highly publicized budgetary cuts. Schools are
being asked to do more with less, creating an environment where technology is not
59
center stage. Conversely, the limited resources will illuminate the challenges
associated with motivation, organizational structures, and knowledge.
Furthermore, qualitative inquiry is a complex and dynamic process that does
not seek to manipulate or set a control to the study. “Qualitative inquiry is rife with
ambiguities” (Patton, 2002, pg. 242). These ambiguities are to be expected due to the
nature of school change. “The effort (of) school reform is complex because of the
multiple actors involved, no single one of which controls all the inputs needed to
ensure implementation outcomes” (Bodilly et al., 1998, p. 111). A hindrance will be
the lack of data from all the actors that are a part of integrating technology in
schools. This study aims to capture “on-the-ground” experiences of district
technology leaders advancing technology integration and the intermediaries that
support them along the way.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 3 presented the methodology for this qualitative cross-case
comparison study. Questionnaires, interviews, and documents were collected for
three case sites. Data collection was done in four phases with set protocols to
maintain reliability between cases. Data analysis was designed using suitable
qualitative methods as well as the deployment of the Four Frames (Bolman & Deal,
2008) theoretical framework. Limitations inherent in the study were discussed.

60
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Advancing technology integration in California K-12 public schools to bring
them into the 21
st
century has proven to be a formidable task in the face of pressures
associated with NCLB. Tensions between technology integration and standard-based
reforms have been trumped by efforts to raise scores while assigning a peripheral
role to technology (Keller & Bichelmeyer, 2004). The federal NETP has provided
schools with a plan toward integration aimed at providing a focus toward advancing
technology use in this terrain of accountability. This study examined to what extent
the NETP has impacted the actions and goals of the California K-12 school districts
selected as case studies. Schools are slow to change due to competing stakeholders
with various levels of power struggle making it difficult to coordinate their actions
toward progress (Bodilly et al., 1998). The complexity of technology reform efforts
are rooted in the multitude of demands, stakeholder interests, guiding plans, and
infrastructure obstacles. Intermediary organizations serve a critical role in this
advancement of technology by increasing the capacity to change. The aim of this
study was to better understand the functions, strategies, supports, and actions that
intermediary organizations provide K-12 schools. The qualitative findings for this
chapter have been organized in alignment with the following research questions:
1. How does the large-scale technology reform efforts of the NETP 2010
impact, if at all, the goals and actions of intermediary organizations and K-12
district technology leaders in California public schools?
61
2. What strategies and functions are intermediary organizations deploying to
increase technology integration in California K-12 public schools?
3. How are K-12 district technology leaders collaborating with intermediary
organizations to implement technology integration initiatives and other
technology reforms in California public schools?
For each of the research questions, three case studies are presented followed
by a summary cross-case comparison. The results for the research questions were
analyzed and formulated through the triangulation of one-on-one interviews,
electronic open-ended response surveys, document reviews, and the research
literature. The interviews were conducted with the intermediary organization
personnel and the open-ended response surveys were collected from the district
instructional technology directors. Documents included for review were: district
technology plans, intermediary organization documents and correspondence,
intermediary organization websites, NETP 2010, district websites, and California
Department of Education website.
This chapter first reports on the participants that were selected for the study
and briefly describes them to give some background information. Next, the results
for all three research questions are presented, discussed, cross-examined, and
summarized. The results are based on the analysis of survey responses, document
review notes, and quotations from the interviews. The chapter concludes with a
discussion of the results.

62
Site Descriptions and Participants
Districts for the study were first screened for their inclusion of the NETP in
their district technology plans. Secondly, schools were considered based on
Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant funding because it ensured
their integration activity was ongoing. Finally, large districts of over 20,000 students
were contacted to find out if they were actively working with intermediaries to
increase technology integration. Three school districts were selected as case studies
based on meeting these criteria:
1. Inclusion of the NETP in the district technology plan
2. Actively implementing aspects of this plan (ensured by EETT awards)
3. California K-12 unified school district (over 20,000 student population)
4. Actively working with intermediary organizations to increase technology
integration
The assurance of anonymity was deployed throughout the data collection
process in order to establish trust with participants and gain more honest responses.
Therefore, pseudonyms are used to identify participating school districts and
intermediary organizations. A brief description of each district and intermediary
organizations working with them will provide important background information to
establish the context for each case.

63
Case Study A
Unified School District X (USDX)
The participants for Case Study A were Unified School District X (USDX),
Educational Technology Intermediary Organization (ETIO), and Service Provider
Intermediary Organization (SPIO). The following information about USDX
establishes the contextual setting of the district. The information was taken from the
district’s technology plan including: student population, demographics, API,
percentage of student on free or reduced price lunch program, and percentage
English Language Learners (ELLs). Some approximations were used to maintain
anonymity. USDX has a student population over 42,000. The student ethnicity
demographics of USDX consist of Hispanic or Latino students representing over
50% of the students and Caucasians being the second largest group of students at
30%. The Academic Performance Index (API) score for this district is approximately
790 according to district statistics. At USDX, over 55% of students are eligible for
the free or reduced lunch program and nearly 20% are English Language Learners.
The district’s technology profile, as cited in their technology district plan, consists of
the following as described in their technology plan document: 150 servers, over
9,000 computers, 1,000 interactive whiteboards, document cameras, student response
systems, computer tablets, 2,000 netbooks, 10 megabit per second internet access,
electronic learning resources, and eight full-time technical support staff. In 2011, the
district was awarded over $500,000 in EETT grant funding along with other grants
over $200,000. USDX has made efforts to take progressive steps toward technology
64
integration and, under these tough budgetary times, would be considered an
exemplary district continuing to stay the course toward innovation.
USDX has begun to take steps toward technology reform by focusing on 21
st

century skills. The district technology plan can best be described by the following
excerpt from the technology plan document,
The goals, objectives, and activities outlined in this plan are based on the
understanding that we live in a different world than we grew up in; one in
which digital natives rely on digital immigrants to understand their emerging
learning style and personal academic needs. We also recognize that business
is seeking graduates with a set of skills (e.g. global awareness, complex
problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration, active learning, and
intellectual curiosity), which challenge school and district standardization
efforts.

Educational Technology Intermediary Organization
The first intermediary organization working with USDX has a primary focus
on the advancement of technology use in K-12 education. The Educational
Technology Intermediary Organization’s (ETIO) primary mission is to generate and
distribute high quality educational open-content, web-based collaborative models for
textbooks. The Executive Director and Co-Founder of the organization described
how the organization began by stating,
We wanted to help because we realized that California textbooks kind of
directed the way we teach students and what we teach students. And so we
thought you know, this would be a great place to see if we could change the
way we teach students.

The ETIO is a non-profit organization, founded in 2006, that works directly
with school districts to create and establish technology-based content. This
65
organization is funded by charitable donations. USDX partnered with ETIO services
to create web-based content for various subjects (e.g., Math and Science).
Service Provider Intermediary Organization
The second intermediary organization working with USDX is a vendor who
provides internet service and other web solutions. The Service Provider Intermediary
Organization (SPIO), founded in 2000, worked with USDX to provide internet
service (mobile netbooks) to students outside of the school setting to increase access
to technology, thereby addressing the digital divide in the district. The relationship
between the SPIO and USDX is more than just buyer and seller. According to the
Account Executive, “We definitely take a consultative selling approach so we’re not
trying to ram devices and services down people’s throat, but really want to
understand them.” The collaboration was based on finding out needs the district had
and how SPIO could provide service solutions. As a joint venture private business,
profitability is the central focus of their organization.
Case Study B
Unified School District Y (USDY )
The participants for Case Study B were Unified School District Y (USDY),
Community Intermediary Organization (CIO), and Vendor Intermediary
Organization (VIO). The following information about the district establishes the
contextual setting of the district. The information was taken from the district’s
technology plan including: student population, demographics, API, percentage of
students on free or reduced price lunch program, and percentage ELLs. Some
66
approximations were used to maintain anonymity. USDY has a student population of
over 44,000. The predominate ethnicity, at nearly 40% of the student population, is
Hispanic or Latino, and the second largest ethnic group represented in the district is
African American at 35%. According to district statistics, the Academic
Performance Index score for this district is approximately 730. At USDY,
approximately 70% of students are eligible for the free or reduced lunch program and
over 30% are English Language Learners. The district’s technology profile as cited
in their technology plan consists of the following: over 100 server networks, 11,500
computers, over 2,700 classrooms with Internet connectivity, limited interactive
whiteboards, document cameras, student response systems, 300 megabit per second
internet access, electronic learning resources, and five full-time technical support
staff. In 2010, USDY was awarded over $200,000 of funding from the EETT grant.
USDY’s technology plan can be summed up by the following portion of their
technology plan:
USDY’s technology plan is based on a set of research-based beliefs on how
technology can impact student learning and improve teaching practices so
that we may better prepare our youth to succeed in the 21
st
century. The plan
has been designed to support the premise that technology needs to be an
appropriate and comprehensive resource that supports and extends
curriculum objectives and that technology, information literacy, and 21
st

century skills should be integrated into the curriculum and aligned with
content area standards in order to improve student achievement, develop
lifelong learners, and prepare our children to successfully meet the demands
of 21
st
century society and a global economy.

67
Community Intermediary Organization
The first intermediary organization working with USDY is a non-profit
organization that provides students and schools with computers. The Community
Intermediary Organization (CIO), founded in 1999, has a mission to eliminate the
digital divide in the local area and in local schools. Through charitable donations,
they collect used computers and other devices and refurbish them for redistribution
to students and schools. Along with computers, CIO provides support and training to
help ensure better access. The organization is led by the Founder/Director who, when
asked about the nature of their work with USDY, replied, “We provide computers,
IT services, teacher training, technology classes for families, and installation.” The
majority of the funding comes from grants and donations, but there are fees for some
services and computers given the cost to run the organization and IT support. The
founder describes the fee side of their organization as follows,
Social enterprise is an enterprise that a nonprofit puts together that’s in
support of and in alignment with their mission that brings in a revenue stream
through a fee-for-service. So you can raise money, and funders like it often,
because they see you’re not just dependent on the whims of philanthropists
and funders; you’ve got a revenue stream.

By using refurbished computers they are also supporting their secondary
mission of reducing the environmental footprint of technology use in schools.
Vendor Intermediary Organization
The second intermediary organization working with USDY is a vendor who
manufactures technology hardware and software for classroom use. The Vendor
Intermediary Organization (VIO) employs personnel to work with users of their
68
products in order to facilitate competent and satisfied customers. The VIO’s stated
mission is to “increase achievement among teachers and students alike.” The VIO in
this case was not the direct seller of the products because they do not sell direct to
schools but are in collaboration with end users. The Teaching and Learning
Consultant describes the way in which they work with USDY as follows, “helping
sites develop professional development, making lessons, trouble shooting, and
providing resources.” The support services of a Teaching and Learning Consultant
come with the purchase of the products at no additional charge to the district.
However, the number of consultants is limited and each covers a large territory (e.g.,
USDY’s consultant territory is from the Oregon border to Bakersfield, CA and as she
states, “technically Hawaii, but I don’t get to go out there very much”).
Case Study C
Unified School District Z (USDZ)
The participants in Case Study C were Unified School District Z (USDZ),
University Intermediary Organization (UIO), and Government Intermediary
Organization (GIO). Information about the district establishes the contextual setting
of the district. The following information was taken from the district’s technology
plan: student population, demographics, API, percentage of student on free or
reduced price lunch program, and percentage ELLs. Some approximations were used
to maintain anonymity. USDZ has a student population of over 20,000. Student
population at USDY is predominately Hispanic or Latino at near 80% and Caucasian
is the second largest group at approximately 20%. The Academic Performance Index
69
score for this district is approximately 750 according to district reports. At USDZ,
nearly 70% of students are eligible for the free or reduced lunch program and over
35% are English Language Learners. The district’s technology profile consist of the
following as described in their technology plan document: 3,500 computers, 10
gigabit per second Internet access, over 1,000 classrooms with Internet, document
cameras, digital cameras, electronic learning resources, and five full-time technical
support staff. In 2010, USDZ was awarded over $250,000 of funding from the EETT
grant. The following citation from their technology plan document describes the
direction of the district’s technology plan:
Technology is a key element in guaranteeing a quality education for all
students. Technology can provide information and communications that can
help support better teaching, learning, and collaboration…Increasingly, there
has been growing concern in government and business of whether students
possess the 21
st
century skills: Organization, Communication, Problem
Solving & Reasoning, Creativity, Teamwork and Collaboration, and Science
and Technology.

University Intermediary Organization
The first intermediary organization working with USDZ is a neighboring
university who provides teacher training. The University Intermediary Organization
(UIO) provides training courses in the area of educational technology to educators at
USDZ. The result of this program allows teachers to gain a supplemental
authorization in technology for their credentials. The program description reads,
“The Technology in Education Certificate program was developed to assist educators
in understanding how to integrate educational technology into the school curricula.”
In addition to certification, the UIO works to provide specific curriculum requested
70
by USDZ. The relationship is reciprocal in nature given that the district provides the
student enrollment while the organization provides the course as set out by the
district. This organization receives funding from the state, university endowment,
and student tuition dollars.
Government Intermediary Organization
The second intermediary organization working with USDZ is a government
operated support provider. The Government Intermediary Organization (GIO) was
initiated by the state department and receives annual funding to promote the use of
technology in K-12 education. The support provided includes professional
development, technology support planning, technology plan writing support, and
grant programs support. USDZ became involved with the GIO through their grant
award and their recent revision of their district technology plan. The GIO’s
coordinator states, “We provide a comprehensive three year professional
development program that would meet the requirements of the EETT grant
program.” The organization has been in operation for over 15 years working to
increase technology use in schools.
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked: How does the large-scale technology reform
efforts of the NETP 2010 impact, if at all, the goals and actions of intermediary
organizations and K-12 district technology leaders in California public schools? The
aim of this inquiry was to find out how the NETP was impacting the work of districts
and their supporting intermediary organizations around technology integration.
71
While NCLB continues to dominate much of the reform efforts of K-12 schools, the
question remains to what extent are school districts working toward technology
integration. Furthermore, has the pressing need for technology in schools today
garnered the attention of district technology leaders and their partnering
intermediaries? Keller and Bichelmeyer (2004) assert, “The language of
accountability at the federal and state levels has established the goal of schools as the
raising of test scores and that this goal has trumped technology integration efforts”
(p.23). However, this reaction is misguided. Butzin’s (2001) research supports the
notion that the use of technology in schools can better prepare students for the 21
st

century while still outperforming their “non-technology using” counterparts on math
and readings targets set by policymakers. Policymakers and education leaders have
made efforts to draw attention toward technology in schools with the introduction of
the NETP 2010 with the purpose of bringing 21
st
century teaching and learning to the
forefront. This research question aims to understand the impact of the NETP on
districts and the intermediary organizations they work with.
The results from the open-response surveys, interviews, and document
analysis showed three themes that emerged in relation to the impacts of the NETP on
K-12 districts and their intermediary organizations. First, there is a lack of
uniformity to the use of the plan with various levels of inclusion within districts and
intermediary goals and actions. Second, districts and the intermediary organizations
that serve them are not aligned in their interpretations or uses of the plan’s utility.
Third, infrastructure proves to be a barrier to the adoption of the plan in some of the
72
actions of the participants. Infrastructure is considered as the “people, processes,
learning resources, policies, and sustainable models for continuous improvement in
addition to broadband connectivity, servers, software, management systems, and
administrative tools” (NETP, 2010, p.51). Each of the three cases will be presented
separately, concluding with a cross-case comparison summary.
Case Study A (USDX, ETIO, and SPIO)
Varied Interpretations of Plan’s Utility
In the first case, USDX’s instructional technology director stated,
I learned about the NETP through research and national discussions. We
thought it was very progressive especially when compared to the past plan as
well as comparing to the new national broadband plan. We felt that the NETP
was very much aligned with where we wanted to go and it helped that it was
a national goal rather than just a state goal.

The technology director further stated, “I appreciate the cutting-edge nature
of the plan and want the district to be part of that progression.”
Conversely, ETIO’s director had a contrasting viewpoint of the utility of the
NETP,
The federal government has a plan (NETP) for technology right which is
great. But the fundamental issue with the whole plan is our students don't
have access to computers. How the heck are you going to implement the
technology plan without technology right? You can bring in all he broadband
stuff you’re supposed to bring in and have a plan on what you should use and
the best practices and all that. But at the end of the day you don't have a paper
and pencil or a book to read how are you going to have literacy in a particular
way right? So it's the same with computers. The students don't have access,
and I've had conversations about this with a lot of people at the federal level.
And well it's too costly; we can’t really do it for every student. So we are the
stage where we have one foot on the ground and we’ve just lifted the second
foot to step? So I just hope it's a forward step not a backward step.

73
The director reported being apprehensive with the inclusion of plans as it
may hinder or slow innovation as educators seek compliance over experimentation.
Additionally, the director expressed concern with the recent adoption of the
“common core” standards and the existing state standards in that too many
influences are encroaching on the goals of the organization. The director reported
that as an organization they try to minimize their influences as to maintain their
focus on change and innovation.
The above uneven terrain as to the NETP’s utility between district and
intermediary networks is highlighted even more with the SPIO account executive
response,
I am not familiar with the plan. I have not seen anything in my organization
reference the NETP. We are encouraged to look at the technology plan of our
individual school districts more locally but nothing has referenced a national
plan in our organization.

The SPIO places value of customer needs over the plan but reports making
efforts to understand the direction of the field of education. The SPIO account
executive stated, “I stay current with trends in education through personal
responsibility and to hold myself accountable to be informed as their sales consultant
if you will.” Certainly, as an organization that provides infrastructure to districts they
will play a critical role in the advancement of technology use in schools but
capturing the business is clearly the focus.

74
Lack of Alignment Between Organizations
Of all the districts and organizations in this study, USDX had the most
extensive alignment of the NETP to their district goals and actions. First, a
prominent section of the USDX technology plan states,
Our vision shaping activities included review and consideration of the five
goals articulated in the newly released 2010 National Technology Plan: 1. All
learners will have engaging and empowering learning experiences both inside
and outside of school that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable,
and ethical participants in our globally networked society. 2. Our education
system, at all levels, will leverage the power of technology to measure what
matters and use assessment data for continuous improvement. 3. Professional
educators will be supported individually and in teams by technology that
connects them to data, content, resources, expertise, and learning experiences
that enable and inspire more effective teaching for all learners. 4. All students
and educators will have access to a comprehensive infrastructure for learning
where and when they need it. 5. Our education system, at all levels, will
redesign processes and structures to take advantage of the power of
technology to improve learning outcomes while making more efficient use of
time, money, and staff.

Secondly, USDX described their process of alignment as follows,
The committee (consisting of superintendent, associate superintendents, IT
management, director of instructional technology, teacher’s union president,
classified union president, and three principals) agreed to combine the
suggested elements of the national tech plan with the required rubrics of this
state plan to guide our work. The committee also agreed to begin the process
by discussing how education and the accompanying technology should look
in 2020 and then backward planning to identify the elements in this plan. It
cannot be emphasized enough that this plan focuses on teaching and learning
and adopts many of the themes outlined in Blueprint for Reform and the
National Education Technology Plan.

Additionally, USDX used the NETP to guide their assessment structures.
USDX’s technology plans reads,
Assessment is one of the major tenets of the National Technology Plan. As
such we have used that plan as a template for the district plan in coordination
75
with our vision of learning in the year 2020. In order to provide true 21st
century assessments it will be important for the District to conduct research
and development on embedded and motivating assessment of student
learning.

The conversation about alignment sounded very different for the ETIO. The
director at ETIO stated, “Our organization has not made any effort to align our goals
with the NETP.” The director of the ETIO has a pointed view about the implications
of a federal plan on the potential innovations in technology use in schools. The ETIO
director stated,
You know what, that's a conversation I don't worry too much about. I'm more
focused about you know just doing what we can; I think that the federal
government will take its time. It's great to have their support, but at the end of
the day a lot of this has to be a grass-root movement at this point, until we get
to the tipping point, right? That's when you need to have federal government
coming in or whoever the body is that says here are the best practices. Right
now, I think a lot of it could get in the way of innovation happening -in the
sense that maybe lots of projects are left out of that plan because, you know,
you can't talk to everyone. But by not mentioning them, are you leaving them
out? Right?

The ETIO reiterated the point that districts function under a different climate
where compliance takes precedence and their organization seeks innovation over
anything else. The ETIO director stated,
The district does a good job of being compliant with a lot of the requirements
that you know are from either the state or national level. I think they're doing
a really good job of trying to keep up. In conversation they may have
mentioned the NETP but I don't remember myself paying much attention to
it.

Infrastructure Barriers to the Plan
One of the components of the NETP plan seeks to provide access to technology
and information to students outside of the school walls, thereby extending the
76
infrastructure needs of schools. When asked about their readiness for implementing
the aspects of the NETP, USDX technology director responded,
We have been fairly progressive in the last few years setting up a baseline
infrastructure and implementation policies and procedures which were very
classroom and system oriented. This was helpful in some ways but also
hindered us in our new focus on the student individually and the
infrastructure they need.
The expanded view of educational technology in the NETP has implications
to the social infrastructure of teacher training. To this point, USDX’s instructional
technology director stated,
In this environment I think that many (teachers) are unprepared as they were
trained for the 20
th
century and not the 21
st
. We have had to rely on thought
leaders as well as students to help us rethink our policies and procedures.

While minimizing the plan’s impact, the ETIO director reported agreeing
with aspects of the NETP’s infrastructure plan and proposed goals, “For me the most
important part was the infrastructure to do, you know there isn't any infrastructure.”
The need for infrastructure is reported paramount but does not end there as it extends
to devices as well. USDX sought out advanced infrastructure for their students but
found that devices needed to have the appropriate capabilities. The SPIO account
executive explained,
The need for four G devices. Fortunately, they were able to get the devices
for free with a service contract. He (USDX instructional technology director)
basically said I need free devices because he said that it was the way they
wrote the grant. That any funding that they would receive would be used
100% for services, for monthly services. And that the way the grant was
written they said that they couldn’t use any money for equipment purchases.
And so he almost -I don’t know if you want to call it an ultimatum but he
kind of set the standard that if SPIO wanted to work with USDX that we
would have to provide the free devices.

77
This opportunity was reported possible because the partnership was mutually
beneficial. SPIO was getting to test the market and add to their service solutions
marketing, while USDX received free four G devices.
Case Study B (USDY, CIO, and VIO)
Varied Interpretations of Plan’s Utility
The second case provides another version of the varied levels in which the
district and their intermediaries working with them include the NETP. The
instructional technology director at USDY responded, “Yes, I know the NETP. I first
read about it online. We used it because it has good steps for moving forward toward
greater technology integration.” However, the inclusion of the NETP is not
overwhelmingly prevalent in their district technology plan. The instructional
technology director continued, “We relied more heavily on NETS (National
Education Technology Standards from the International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE)).” These standards have outlined teacher and student goals which
can be inserted into the district’s plan more readily because they support existing
structures and goals while the NETP is geared toward creating new structures and
goals.
Founder and director of the CIO found no need to include the NETP in the
work they do with USDY. The CIO director stated, “These types of plans are funny.
I think they’re black marks on white paper.” Even though the district has cited the
NETP in their plan, the director of CIO asserted that in their interactions and
meetings, “It’s not part of the dialogue.” Likewise the VIO personnel had the same
78
views, “Yeah I know about the NETP, but not really on the specifics. I know it
exists, but it doesn’t really guide the work I do with USDY.”
Lack of Alignment Between Organizations
USDY chose to adopt the NETP’s direction on providing professional
development to teachers. An excerpt from USDY’s technology plan reads,
Of the five recommendations from the National Educational Technology Plan
(2010), under Teaching and Learning recommendations one and two involve
professional development: Recommendation: Design, develop, and adopt
technology-based content, resources, and online learning communities that
create opportunities for educators to collaborate for more effective teaching,
inspire and attract new people into the profession, and encourage our best
educators to continue teaching. Recommendation: Provide pre-service and in-
service educators with preparation and professional learning experiences
powered by technology that close the gap between students’ and educators’
fluencies with technology and promote and enable technology use in ways
that improve learning, assessment, and instructional practices.

Paradoxically, both the intermediaries connected with the district provide
various professional development services yet neither works under the NETP’s direct
guidance. VIO teaching and learning consultant explained,
The purpose of the plan is long term classroom planning and I don’t really
get to do much of that- there is a couple different reasons why. If VIO had
their way, I wouldn’t be in classrooms as much as I am. I wouldn’t be
working with teachers as much as I am. They would prefer that I stay higher-
level planning instead of hands-on. So there’s not a lot of support from (VIO)
for trying to use those structures, or plans like ISTE or NETP. Not a lot of
encouragement to use it. Plus a lot of what I end up doing is … Not triage,
but um, more just-in-time, oh my, we need this. There’s not as much long-
term planning as would be ideal. I am not hearing much from the district side
as well (about the NETP).

While it is not a part of the dialogue between district and intermediaries, it
was suggested that the NETP may serve another purpose. CIO director contended,
79
I think the school will pretend to use it in order to write their strategic plan so
that they can qualify for grants. So you write a plan like that. You use a plan
like that, pick up the language, write to the plan in order to show somebody
that you really care about it and you’re really following the plan. And most of
its not relevant, in my opinion.

Competitive grants play an integral role in technology integration activity in
public education and may impact the NETP’s citation in plans without the full
realization of its implementation.
Infrastructure Barriers to the Plan
The impact of the NETP on the goals and action of USDY are significantly
decreased due to numerous infrastructure needs that must be in place for technology
to be viable. According to the technology director, “USDY’s greatest struggle
continues to be with the infrastructure necessary to implement all of the goals of the
NETP. Teachers and students have to rely on unstable machinery and network
connections. They are discouraged.” CIO founder agreed,
The first priority for many schools is the stuff has got to work. That’s the
biggest detriment to using computers during the day is we (teachers) can’t
use it – if we can’t rely on it, we can’t build our lesson plans around it. So it’s
got to work. That’s always a strain with the financial restraints on the school
district, (technology support) staff shrink.

CIO is not very confident that this will change anytime soon. The CIO
founded stated,
The IT Department’s priority is not instructional, it’s back row. Keep the
administrators’ stuff working- so that’s always their first priority. They’ve
got to get, you know, attendance done and payroll out because that’s where
the IT guy loses his job.

80
Infrastructure on the instructional side is a major factor toward the
effectiveness and participation of teachers use.
Case Study C (USDZ, UIO, and GIO)
Varied Interpretations of Plan’s Utility
A part of USDZ’s decision making process to include the NETP was the fact
that it matched some of their preexisting beliefs and goals. According to USDZ’s
technology director,
The NETP align instruction, assessment, infrastructure and learning. The
technology plan, whether it is a school, district, or national plan, must focus
on what knowledge students will gain by using the technology. I believe the
NETP have the correct focus. Our focus on student learning has left us in a
favorable position to implement the learning, teaching, assessment goals of
the NETP.

However, in much of the interactions around technology, the UIO manager
explained, “I mean from my perspective I think it (NETP) would be a small role in
the work with USDZ.” The manager went on to say, “I am familiar with it because
it’s included in our course outlines but I don’t know all of the details of it. We focus
more on their district technology plan.” The GIO coordinator described it as follows,
I think it's (NETP) a little bit isolated. I think it has some good components.
Ah, the fact that it was written before common core came out makes it
essentially a silo document at this point. It's got good broad spectrum goals.

Overall, the impact of NETP is not widespread and is not being used in the
majority of interactions.

81
Lack of Alignment Between Organizations
USDZ’s technology plan states that the district used the NETP as a resource,
along with a few others, to guide the curriculum goals for their plan. Of the many
other aspects of the district’s technology plan, NETP only appears in the curriculum
section. The GIO coordinator supported the development of the USDZ’s technology
plan and recalled,
USDZ included it in their technology plan after a meeting at the beginning of
last year. I believe it was when we shared the National Ed Tech Plan and the
National Broadband Plan at one of our regional meetings. Not in any kind of
detail. We just basically said this exists. Here's what's in it.

After viewing USDZ’s plan, the GIO coordinator found, “My feeling is they
used it (NETP) as like a guidepost in terms of, are we on track? Maybe not a goal
setting kind of thing but more-is our plan headed in the same general direction?”
GIO coordinator expressed that the recent adoption of the “common core” standards
may increase technology integration due to the fact the standards are less prescriptive
than state standards.
GIO has not made any efforts to align their actions and goals with the NETP.
According to the GIO coordinator,
Our organization is not aligned to the NETP because the legislation that
funds us sets our goals. I mean, clearly the professional development goals of
integrating technology in meaningful way to improve student achievement
are consistent with the National Ed Tech Plan, but we don’t talk about the
plan itself.

Conversely, UIO has made some efforts to align themselves with the NETP.
The UIO manager stated, “Our course goals have been aligned with the NETP. That
82
was the instructor committee (who made that decision) that we pull together when
we design our courses who made those decisions.”
Infrastructure Barriers to the Plan
Instructional technology director described the challenges USDZ faces in
relation to the NETP, “An area that we recognize is a weakness is our infrastructure
or access. Quite often the costs associated with infrastructure make it difficult for
personnel to set and prepare, especially with the current budget strains.” Even with
the influx of grant monies, districts report trying to balance the costs of devices
(hardware) and infrastructural needs. As technologies advance, so will the need for
more robust and complex infrastructures.
Summary of Research Question 1
There are distinct inconsistencies when it comes to the impact of the NETP
on district and intermediary organizations. First, there is a significant variance of the
plan’s impact even among the three districts. Commonly, districts in all three cases
were compelled to at least include the NETP (i.e. as a references source) to support
aspects of their own district’s technology plan. The driver behind that decision was
based on the need to include the plan for increased grant opportunities. Technology
grants played a critical role as the main source of funds districts were able to allocate
for technology integration initiatives and intermediaries sought out these districts
based on the published award recipients. Less common was USDX’s use of the plan
to guide their vision statement and drive the majority of their actions. All districts
used other technology plans to formulate their district plans which added to the
83
inconsistencies. As far as the impact of NETP on intermediary organizations, it was
relativity minimal. Most intermediaries expressed that their work was focused on
helping schools in the present and set their goals based on expressed needs by the
districts. Furthermore, many of the intermediaries in the study were guided by
entrepreneurs and non-profit community leaders who function under their own
purposes and missions. While most were aware of the plan’s existence, they were not
inclined to use it in any way or to any significant degree. Where many of the districts
and intermediaries agreed was the feeling that the NETP is overly ambitious in
relation to where the infrastructures of schools are today. Overall, this decreased the
NETP’s impact on goals and actions of the participants as they were more disposed
to focus on improving the existing technology structures and goals.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked: What strategies and functions are intermediary
organizations deploying to increase technology integration in California K-12 public
schools? This research question was asked to better understand the actions of
intermediary organizations as they partner with districts implementing new
technology into classrooms. Johnson and Chrispeels (2010) concluded that practices,
policies, and organizational arrangements of each participating group are critical for
reform efforts. Each case has been analyzed using Boleman and Deal’s (2008) Four
Frames (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) to illuminate the nature
of the organization’s functions and strategies. The three cases are presented
individually followed by a cross-case analysis summary. The cross-case summary
84
findings will be presented as lessons learned from each theoretical frame. “The use
of multiple frames permits leaders to see and understand more….they are able to
employ the different logics that accompany diverse ways of thinking” (Bolman &
Deal, 2008, p.437).
Case Study A (USDX, ETIO, and SPIO)
Structural
One core assumption of the structural frame is that organizations exist
primarily to accomplish goals (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Intermediaries in this case set
goals based on district-developed technology plans and initiatives. SPIO described
how they approach districts,
I usually ask the customer what their goals are. And my role is really to fulfill
their goals. To make sure that what I’m presenting and what I’m talking
about is relevant to what they want to accomplish and so really I don’t come
in with any set of goals.

When asked about the process with USDX, SPIO explained,
Uncovering all the information, asking all the questions, seeing what
direction they (USDX) want to go, so multiple meetings set up for that- face
to face meetings. Realized funding was an issue so I informed USDX about
some pilot money that was gonna become available and what districts needed
to do to apply to get some of this pilot money. And I the district know what
needed to be done and they went ahead and wrote that grant and they were
one of twenty districts chosen nationwide to receive the funding and they
received more funding than any other district through that pilot program.

SPIO demonstrated their ability to function and address the unique goals
particular to USDX.
Another core assumption of the structural frame is that coordination and
controls are essential to effectiveness (Bolman & Deal, 2008). A major strategy for
85
districts and intermediaries is the use of “pilot classrooms” to try something new
with technology integration. ETIO partnered to co-develop a “flex book” curriculum
initiative and SPIO supplied a mobile network to a “netbook” pilot program where
students had access beyond the school walls. The use of pilots allow for more
specialization and control, hallmarks of structural frameworks. ETIO provided the
following example,
We did a little bit of brainstorming. Then we did a couple of pilots with them,
we had somebody working directly with them in our organization supporting
them, in creating material and working with that material, as a pilot. For
example, we worked with them with an interactive pilot in two of the middle
schools and the results were pretty phenomenal with our flex math. So some
of our staff did training with them on the system. Now doing professional
development is a huge issue especially with technology. Teachers are not up
to the part of being able to use any technology in the most efficient manner
that it should be. You know -it's a new tool and is pretty complex. So, it's
easier to keep continuing to do what you do because you're used to it- unless
we can get them trained and that's what we try to do.

Human Resources
A primary core assumption of the human resource framework is the charge of
organizations to fulfill needs (Bolamn & Deal, 2008). Intermediaries focused on
discovering the needs of the district. USDX explained how the intermediaries
initially functioned in this way, “They determine our district needs largely by talking
with us and surveying our students and teachers.” The SPIO account executive
described the process from the organization’s perspective,
We have an internal education team as well that educates us a lot about
different processes like grants to know or customers. And then you really
have to go to the customer and have meetings, have discovery type meetings
where you ask them what are you trying to accomplish? What is your
technology plan? What kind of technology are you currently using? Where
86
are you and where would you like to be? Those types of questions that are
just facilitated by a face to face meeting and it does take time to build up
rapport that they’re going to listen and trust me.

The SPIO account executive went on to state,
My primary responsibility is to hit quota. To sell. We definitely take a
consultative selling approach so we’re not trying to ram phones and devices
down people’s throat, but really want to understand their organization a little
bit better. And then be able to present solutions to them.

When asked, “how are you getting these needs from teachers?” the SPIO
account executive responded, “I don’t have any interactions with teachers. Just with
the district office are the only formal relationships.”
Human resource frame also assumes that the fit between organizations and
their people is core to their partnership (Bolman & Deal, 2008). USDX seeks out
opportunities to create mutually beneficial relationships between their schools and
innovative intermediaries. “We provide that testing lab (for our intermediary
organizations) as we have students and teachers to test theories and ideas. They have
helped us identify new approaches and schemas for this new environment.” The key
is having a teaching staff that is willing to experiment with new methods of
instruction using technology.
The ETIO director explained how they find individuals who fit their
organization,
It's really hard to get teachers who are technologists. Just recently we’ve
gotten a computer science major, who went into teaching. And now he
wanted to make a new wave of change. So those kind of change agents we try
to get into this quickly. Our employees are passionate and many are highly
skilled in technology.

87
The organization is able to provide these highly-skilled individuals as
capacity builders for districts. They provided collaborative (as they seek input from
implementers about their needs) training sessions and support to district technology
leaders, school administrators and teachers.
Political
The political framework views the act of bargaining and negotiations as the
drivers from which goals and decisions emerge (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Bargaining
and negotiations proved to be an important accomplishment between numerous
parties in this case. For example, USDX technology director used negotiations and
bargaining position to secure devices for the technology initiative. SPIO provided the
following example,
We do partner as we see fit. For example, we worked with a device company
to be able to offer free devices to USDX in order to secure their service
contract. Also we connected USDX to a warranty service and imaging
company to help get the device ready for delivery.

The benefit to partnering intermediaries is reputation. USDX explained,
“Strategies used to promote the goals was working on media releases, white papers,
etc. so by being successful we help them tell their story and ultimately sell more of
their product.” In this way, both organizations create interconnections between their
personnel. USDX brings power of reputation to SPIO while USDX uses that to
create a power position with SPIO, eventually getting them devices at no cost.
A core assumption of the political frame is that conflict exists over the
scarcity of resources (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This leads to competition between
88
organizations that serve districts like USDX. Each intermediary expressed what
made them distinctive as a way to be better positioned to partner and secure
resources (even if the resource was time or usage). To this point, ETIO director
stated,
The foundation was founded because we felt there was not innovation, five
years back but not much innovation is happening in online content for kids.
And the reason we went after content is because we felt like the textbook
hadn't been evolved. It was still the same format, it was you know - limiting
and all that. And that the online presence felt like, we could evolve it to be a
more into a living document rather than just a static, fixed document,
unchangeable, and costly. And so, we wanted to help because we realized
that CA textbooks kind of directed the way we teach students and what we
teach students. And so we thought you know, this would be a great place to
see if we could change the way we teach students. The publishers are you
know kind of stuck with fifty different states with fifty different requirements
and, it's too costly for them to provide everybody their own content and make
it a business; it is a business at the end of the day. And so I believe, access to
information for K-12 at least, for all education is very important. Public
funded information gets into the private hands and it’s not available, so
you’re double paying for public things you already paid for, and then you
have to pay for it again to get access to it. That's a little bit ridiculous. So that
was one of the reasons we went into trying to help create a place where we
could create tools as well as content to support each other.

Symbolic
Organizations need a strong culture for change to occur and public education
is no different. ETIO has found that having a cultural hero is the best strategy. ETIO
director explained,
The most successful model that works, what I've seen so far in the last five
years in working with public schools is somebody championing something-
somebody owning that process. If you have somebody you make responsible
for whatever that, you're going to do, chances of them being successful are
much, much, much higher than not. Because that somebody has to believe in
the cause and push the cause and understand how that fits into the whole
structure.
89
Furthermore, districts and their intermediaries report finding meaning and
value to the actions and functions as they move toward change. ETIO director
elaborated,
Our culture is we will go out of our way to learn and do stuff. So that, that's
the kind of culture we have. Most people in here are not in here for the
money. So money is never an issue; they're here to make a change. So, they
work very hard to bring in whatever they can.

This is not uniform to all intermediaries working with USDX. Conversely,
SPIO stated,
The culture of the company, in general, is very structured. Very performance
based. Very fast paced. Extremely results oriented. In dealing with education,
I think that there has been a lot of improvements internally made to do a
better job learning more about the customer and I think it has yielded great
results. USDX is a great example of results that this has yielded. And I think
going after I guess realizing the value, the business value that partnering with
education can bring has been a great realization as our world gets more and
more technology savvy. People in school districts see the value of technology
and educating students about technology and getting them familiar with using
technology. And I think that they see it as the inevitable future. And I think
SPIO will see this to be profitable for them as a business. Education is a big
untapped market where we can partner with them and of course help them
achieve their objectives and at the same time maintain profitability.

The symbols of success are markedly different, change focus verses business
profit. Nevertheless, they both are symbolizing the success of the partnering district
as their own.
Case Study B (USDY, CIO, and VIO)
Structural
CIO demonstrates the critical roles intermediaries can play toward technology
integration and extended learning opportunities. For example, USDY had recently
90
seen a reduction in their instructional technology staff, and CIO had the workforce to
provide a unique strategy for integration that would have otherwise not been
implemented. CIO founder explained,
One service we provide is, it’s a partnership, a home computer program for
students in local schools. By partnership I mean we run classes here every
week that anybody that’s in USDY schools can sign up for, come and get a
free home computer that’s Internet-ready, year’s tech support, and some
information on how to use. And it’s an application-rich computer; it’s a very
good computer. So, that’s with the school district, but we’ve now opened it
up to parochial schools and private schools; we don’t care where the kids go.
If they live in the area, come here and get a computer. We also run parent
classes, for example, recently 40 families came, got the training, got their
vouchers; they’re going to get free computers, and it was done on their
(USDY) campus.

This pilot partnership between the district and CIO provided a new distinctive
role that extends beyond the school walls. While the partnership starts with the
district, it encompasses more than just technology integration in the classroom. As
the CIO founder explained,
We have our own goals and our big goal is eliminate the digital divide in the
area and basically enable all residents from children to adults to be able to
exploit computers and the Internet. That’s our bottom line goal.

These goals were established by the intermediary before the inception of the
partnership in contrast to the first case.
VIO’s relationship with USDY is closely tied to the goals of the district, and
they are responsive as to secure the partnership. The VIO account executive stated,
“Goals tend to be established based on what either a principal or district personnel
want.” Coordination was critical, and their strategy was fostered by on-going
meetings to reevaluate goals as needed. According to the VIO account executive,
91
They had gotten a pretty good system going of, ‘bout once a month, every six
weeks, they would have after-school user groups. And I was coming in and
supporting those by either presenting or being there to do troubleshooting.

VIO has a singular focus of technology use but demonstrates a more
complete understanding of the environment in which it operates. The VIO account
executive stated,
On the ground, I think, the goals are more- let’s improve our test scores so we
can keep our jobs. And keep our school from being shut down. And
technology is not being used as an engagement tool as much as a ‘practice for
the test’ tool.

Human Resources
Leaders functioning under the human resource framework must find
strategies to facilitate individual productivity (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Another way
that CIO adjusts their strategies is by providing individualized solutions. According
to USDY, “They (CIO) met our district needs by meeting directly with school sites
and discussing unique needs at each site.” A pressing need at the sites was
infrastructure. CIO explains, “You have to have an engineer. You have to have an
engineering mentality to put together a system.” There is a dichotomy between the
administrative infrastructure and the classroom infrastructure. CIO provided the
following explanation,
I think it’s (administrative / network-side) is well-engineered because they
have an engineer that’s engineering it. On the classroom side, I think the
engineering has been lousy, non-engineered. Just ask the tech support
manager about engineering and how important it is to engineer what you put
out there, and you have to engineer it for maintenance to survive. CIO had
the skill set (the director came from a major computer manufacturing
company) to provide such engineering and has begun to partner more in this
92
way to help facilitate change on the instructional technology side of things at
USDY.

This provides a strong illustration of an intermediary organization that
showed an in-depth knowledge about the specific needs of sites and sought to
address them.
Political
The political frame places emphasis on coalition building (Bolman & Deal,
2008). USDY was active in this way. According to USDY, “Our strategy is to create
full-service community-based schools. Working with intermediary organizations is
very important to that mission.” However, conflicting interests between multiple
stakeholders proved to create tension, especially when it came to the allocation of
funds. CIO director described the technology spending as,
Site-based budgeting was brought in- where the principals are going to get a
lot more authority over what they can buy and spend. Just make your deals
with them. So ignore this guy, make your deals with them. It’s under a lot of
pressure right now because it’s got a lot of problems with it in terms of the
funding mechanism. Does every school …? You know, you get money based
on your ADA, but does every school have the same needs? Do some schools
have more poverty that they have to deal with? And should it be equal –
should it be even or …?

To further complicate the matter, many of the organizations provide the
information needed to make decisions about technology purchases. USDY
technology director stated, “These organizations help provide careful selection of
purchasing and resources including free resources.” While they provide resources at
low to no-cost, some of these intermediaries are businesses certainly seeking profit.
When asked about this, VIO consultant responded,
93
The company comes first. Even though they like to say they’re an education
company, they’re a company, and they’re a business. Their (VIO) vision of
success is selling more. And if you sell more, there are bonuses and
commission and all that kind of stuff. Measuring success in terms of student
achievement or teacher implementation is not genuinely evaluated.

Symbolic
One of the core assumptions of the symbolic frame is that in the face of
challenge people must have passion and purpose to find meaning (Bolman & Deal,
2008). Each intermediary presented a focus and mission. CIO sought to increase
technology advancement to eliminate the digital divide based on community needs.
VIO focused on providing consultation to teachers and leaders to improve the usage
of their products and services. CIO director passionately described,
I would like to be part of this because I know these schools, I’m in this
community, I’m already doing a lot with them, and I’ve got some expertise
that I would like to offer. I won’t charge you anything. So I go to the
meetings and participate. Some good things have come from that.

The need for charisma is critical. VIO’s consultant agrees and works to find
such heroes/heroines at school sites. When asked “are heroes/heroines present in
USDY?” the VIO consultant responded,
Some school sites have people that are really obviously good candidates to
lead technology. They have, you know, the ‘technology person’. Other sites
it’s not as obvious and people have to be begged to do it. I think, stems from
the, the attitude on campus, which has a lot to do with the leadership. Is there
support for that kind of person? And then sometimes you get someone who’s
really eager to do it that really shouldn’t be.

94
Case Study C (USDZ, UIO, and GIO)
Structural
Division of labor and coordination of activities is a key structural frame
process (Bolman & Deal, 2008). USDZ used various strategies to collaborate with
intermediaries. According to USDZ, “Collaboration with both (intermediaries) have
included face-to-face meetings, web-based communications, and video
conferencing.” These meetings were described as very collaborative. UIO manager
elaborated,
Our meetings generated new ideas and new goals as well. We discuss the best
practices for using technology in the classroom and they change. That’s one
of the fastest changing areas and it impacts what we do here is how do we
train our teachers to become proficient because the students are there. And
some of that you know veteran teachers aren’t there and I think that was the
focus of their grant that they had as well. So that the grant, the technology
plan, and the training all converged together.

GIO coordinator agreed that goal-generating meetings were focused on
coordinating the professional development needed to increase teacher technology use
during pilot programs focused on integration.
Human Resources
In this case, the intermediaries worked to be a part of the technology plan and
initiatives from the beginning of the process to have a clear sense of direction and
needs. USDZ stated,
As far as determining our needs, they both (UIO and GIO) were a part of our
technology plan from the beginning of the planning stages. They have an
understanding of our district instructional and professional development
goals. Both the organizations work collaboratively with us to identify what
95
our teacher needs to meet the goals of the grant based on where the teachers
are starting. Together we develop a professional development plan.

This co-authorship of professional development established lasting
relationships.
Strategically, the established relationships fostered security and reputation for
the intermediaries. GIO coordinator reported,
I think partly there was a sense of trust, because in a lot of ways we were a
vendor of professional development. But coming from the county office, our
rates were lower because we were operating on cost recovery. We had no
need to make a profit. Everybody on staff is an educator. Everyone on staff
has taught in a classroom. Everyone on staff has hands on experience with
working with students, curriculum expertise and access to a team. So I think
that, for many districts, if they compared us to another professional
development provider, we were the one that made the most sense in terms of
knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of educational theory, knowledge of
pedagogy. And by that time, many of them had had some experience
attending our professional development, so they already had a sense of
quality.

Both the intermediaries found skilled individuals to fit the needs of USDZ.
UIO manager described their strategy for employing professional development
instructors,
They’re instructors by agreement. They’re kind of like adjunct faculty; we
don’t classify them as that but they’re classroom teachers or they could be
district technology specialists. We had some people that were teacher on
special assignment. They have a master’s degree or higher and extensive
experience with instructional technologies. And so we’d have all of our
instructors come together and that’s how we develop our curriculum. We
have instructor meetings and were they you know this is-this is what the
research says, this is what I’ve seen works while in the classroom and they’re
really using the technology in their classrooms ahead of the curve you know.
So they can see what works and what doesn’t.

96
Similarly, GIO coordinator described their personnel,
Everyone has come from the classroom, however, everyone also has a
master's degree. My master's is in educational technology. I think we have
one other person with a master's in educational technology. Many people
have curriculum in leadership or administrative services.

Finding the right people is a high priority strategy. Contrary to popular belief,
in the cases presented, human resources have an instructional base.
Political
Coalition building was present in this study as well. USDZ technology
director stated, “We became familiar with GIO through professional associations
since 1999. The connection with the UIO was through a past colleague who worked
with them on another project.” UIO manager explained how they lend their time to
build partnerships, “We also understand ‘in-kind’ contribution too. So you know a
lot of times like my time or the director’s time going to the sites and working on
technology and planning - that’s all ‘in-kind’ contributions.” Along with time, UIO
offered access to their existing networks, as stated by the manager, “So we’re pretty
linked in there which is good. We have many connections to accreditation
organizations.” While these networks are useful in many ways (e.g. grants,
credentialing, etc.), the connection to state-funded intermediary organizations does
come with some additional pressures related to state test accountability measures
verses intermediaries with the singular focus of technology integration. For example,
GIO coordinator explained, “Most of the technology goals have raising test scores as
97
a subtext. Sometimes it's literacy and English language development is more the
driving force, but it is almost always linked to language arts and math test scores.”
Scarcity of resources within the state has also adjusted some of the
intermediaries’ functions and strategies deployed. GIO coordinator stated,
When the EETT grant first came out, which was ten years ago, we put out a
proposal of here's a professional development program we can provide for
you, so we marketed that as a comprehensive three year professional
development program that would meet the requirements of the EETT grant
program to districts. Over the past, I would say five years, as our numbers
have dwindled, we don’t market. We flat out do not market. We just
experienced a 40 percent cut. We don’t have enough staff. As a state-funded
agency, our mission, our charge is to serve all districts in the region and we
had a larger staff, the funding that we received from districts we contracted
with offset, allowed us to have additional staff that would then allow us to
continue doing our core mission.

The lack of capacity for integration is not only associated with districts, but
intermediaries also struggle to find proper funding and support to handle the
monumental tasks of educational reform focused on 21
st
century skills and
instructional technology.
Symbolic
Each of the intermediaries in this case had a strong sense of culture that
provided beliefs, values, and practices that are symbolic for the work they do. UIO
manager asserted,
Our (UIO) culture is very teacher centered and student focused. Our goal is to
help teachers so that they can have a deeper understanding of the content area
they’re teaching and be able to increase their student achievement. That’s our
mission. I mean the unit as a whole not just the education department is
focused on lifelong learning and um for teachers specifically. You know
there used to be that teachers would have to do a hundred and fifty hours of
professional development every five years. That’s no longer the case so um
98
you know we want teachers to stay current and we want them to come back
and add credentials and make themselves more marketable and learn new
strategies for teaching kids. And so you know we try to offer things that are
going to make a difference in the schools and help the teacher personally
advanced in their career by um you know moving on the pay scale, being able
to teach other subjects.

Likewise, GIO described how culture impacts the organization functions as
follows,
We are absolutely a service organization. Our outcomes, our goals are to
make sure that districts are able to meet their goals. Our culture is very
collaborative- a learning culture. We do a lot of face to face planning and
brainstorming and things like that. We're collaborative in terms of different
regions might develop a product, a research-based program and we share it
with everybody else.

Summary of Research Question 2
The cross-case summary findings will be presented as lessons learned
organized by each of the theoretical frameworks: (a) structural, (b) human resources,
(c) political, and (d) symbolic. Table 4.1 provides examples from the cases for each
of the themes that emerged from the results.

99
Table 4.1: Research Question 2 Cross-Case Analysis Matrix

Theoretical
Frames
RQ2 Themes Examples from Case Studies
Structural Individualized
Goals
Case Study A
- Intermediaries set goals based on district-developed technology plans
not large-scale plans (e.g. NETP)
Case Study B
- Goals addressed by each school site not district-wide
- Regular meetings to set on-going goals
Case Study C
- Goal-generating meetings held (e.g. collaborative)
Structural Pilot Programs Case Study A
- Flex book pilot
- Mobile netbook pilot
Case Study B
- Home computer program
- Technology classes for parents pilot
Case Study C
- Pilots are stated as preferred model
Human
Resources
Understand and
Address Needs
Case Study A
- Surveys used to better understand needs
- Face-to-face discovery-focused meetings to learn about the district needs
Case Study B
- Focus on individual site needs (e.g. engineering needs)
Case Study C
- On-going trust through meetings, co-planning activities, and open
communication
Human
Resources
Establish
Relationships
Case Study A
- Relationship built on mutual benefit (e.g. sites provide labs for
technology experimentation)
Case Study B
- Focus on individual site needs based on discussions with principals and
teachers
Case Study C
- Co-development between intermediaries and district to provide
professional trainings
Political Build Coalitions Case Study A
- Negotiated free hardware for service contract exchange
Case Study B
- Full-service community-based schools
Case Study C
- Professional Associations (e.g. credentialing)
- “In-kind” contributions
Political Specialized
Resources
Case Study A
- Web-based textbooks offered by intermediary
- 4G wireless services offered by intermediary
Case Study B
- Site-based solutions and services
Case Study C
- Grant compliance and access to networks
100
Table 4.1, Continued

Structural
Individualized Goals
All districts required the intermediaries working with them to take an
individualized approach to their partnership. Districts begin with an overall plan of
their goals but, often, as a result of the work they do with technology-focused
intermediary organizations, they are able to refine and actualize those goals. The
most common function among the intermediaries, present in all three cases, is a
profound interest in assisting districts with their goals. While the motivation behind
that interest may vary (e.g. financial verses community concern), it is imperative that
the interest be deeply-rooted in the intermediary’s ability to help achieve the district
goals. Intermediaries must operate as supporters and/or service providers with the
intent of co-constructing solutions. Therefore, intermediaries’ primary strategies
Symbolic Have and
Maintain a
Focus
Case Study A
- Service solutions (e.g. SPIO)
- Web-based solutions (e.g. ETIO)
Case Study B
- Community-based approaches (e.g. CIO)
- Consultation (e.g. VIO)
Case Study C
- Grant knowledge and services (e.g. GIO)
- Professional development (e.g. UIO)
Symbolic Committed
Individuals
Case Study A
- ETIO director describes organization members as “passionate change
agents”
- USDX technology director described as a “trailblazer”
Case Study B
- Community-service focus toward equality vision
- Site leaders valued and employed
Case Study C
- Teacher-centered and student focused
- Research-orientated approaches
101
used to increase technology use in schools are to inquire and fully understand the
partnering district’s technology plan and goals.
Pilot Programs
Intermediaries and districts readily use pilot programs as a strategy to
increase technology use in schools. Three main reasons this strategy is used include:
(a) costs, (b) buy-in, and (c) control. First, districts and intermediaries are struggling
to allocate and subsidize the needed funds for large-scale reforms, so they are
forming small groups of teachers in order to control costs. Second, implementers are
selected based on interest and enthusiasm for the program with disclosures that
additional tasks will be expected. Finally, pilots provide a scale that is easy to
control especially as it relates to infrastructure.
Human Resources
Understand and Address Needs
The intermediaries deployed various needs assessment strategies in order to
find and offer solutions. The nature of this function is capacity building. Districts
have significant technology needs, especially if they are working toward greater
levels of integration, and lack the capacity to address the plethora of challenges. As
capacity builders, the intermediaries functioned to provide a multitude of solutions
including: (a) skilled personnel, (b) information, (c) infrastructure, (d) hardware, (e)
software, (f) certification, and (g) technical support. The common strategy used to
address needs was the offering of professional development opportunities centered
around teacher use of technology integration. The professional development was also
102
customized to the needs of the district and, in some cases, to individual school sites
or teachers.
Establish Relationships
In all three cases, relationships between district personnel and intermediary
personnel were critically important. In the majority of cases, the relationships were
initiated with the intermediaries’ willingness (and/or proposals) to tailor their
approaches to the individual needs of the districts. Communication was continuous
with face-to-face meetings being valued as productive in promoting an attitude of
partnership. A secondary characteristic to the relationship was based on rapport and
expertise. The intermediaries took measures (e.g. public relation releases, websites,
attending conferences, case study reports, building professional networks,
presentations) to build rapport and worked to be viewed as experts within their
respective fields.
Political
Build Coalitions
Intermediaries in the study were adept at building coalitions when needed.
These coalition are useful in that they provide access to: (a) institutional structures
(e.g. credentialing), (b) bargaining opportunities (e.g. free and low-cost devices), (c)
negotiating power (e.g. strength in numbers), and (d) resources to resolve conflict
(e.g. vendor consultant). Intermediaries have access to extensive professional
networks that would normally not be accessible for districts. Many of the
intermediaries make partnership with others service organizations as it makes sense
103
to support their own functions (e.g. SPIO partnering with a device company to
provide netbooks to the districts in order to secure the service contract), but many did
report a sense of competition among these groups because of the scarcity of funding
resources.
Specialized Resources
The survival of each intermediary organization hinged on its ability to offer
something unique or specialized. The services included: (a) web-based curriculum
content solutions, (b) reduced-cost hardware, (c) hardware and software training, (d)
credentialing support, (e) technology integration planning, (f) professional
development planning and courses, (g) technical support, (h) infrastructure services,
(i) community technology education, and (j) web resources. Each intermediary had
its own niche as to differentiate itself from other organizations as a way to facilitate
capturing the scarce resources in instructional technology. While some overlap
existed between organizations, each had something unique that was their calling
card.
Symbolic
Maintain Focus
Technology efforts in the cases were numerous and moving rapidly in many
directions. The intermediaries were very intentional about maintaining their focus on
the services they provide as a way to avoid identity crisis. While few were eager to
be working on the fringe of innovation, many were focused on dealing with the “here
and now.” This is indicative of instructional technology as infrastructure barriers and
104
funding keep the pace relatively sluggish. The majority of the intermediaries wanted
to stay “close to the ground” where they could make a more immediate impact,
especially on assisting teachers on current integration needs.
Committed Individuals
Integrating technology in K-12 schools is laden with a myriad of challenges.
Initiating technology change in schools takes a vision and the determination to
achieve lasting integration outcomes. Intermediaries function under the guidance of a
vision (albeit formally articulated as an organization or personal) and find it essential
to partner with individuals who share a passion for changing technology integration
in schools as it energizes the efforts of fellow implementers. Before they partner,
these heroes and/or heroines must be identified and confirmed, otherwise the
partnerships have been reported to fail and lose momentum. The most convincing
finding was the expressed need for a “technology champion” who will help to
energize the reform efforts and bring a determination needed to overcome the
numerous obstacles integration presents. If the champion becomes displaced or
moves on, then the effort begins anew causing strain on implementers.
Results for Research Question 3
Research question three asked: How are K-12 district technology leaders
collaborating with intermediary organizations to implement their district technology
plans and other technology reform efforts in California public schools? Intermediary
organizations are uniquely positioned in as much as they occupy the space between
policy (or plan) and implementers. By opening up the district to external support
105
providers and other intermediaries, the schools increase their capacity to change
toward more technology integration. Intermediary organizations increase a school’s
capacity to change by providing power, information, reward, knowledge, and skill
(Wohlsetter et al., 2003). Effective leaders build networks to connect organizations
or individuals with expertise, skills, and knowledge who otherwise would not be
interfacing (Burch & Spillane, 2004). The Four Frames (Boleman & Deal, 2008)
themes will be used to show the findings. The three cases are presented individually
followed by a cross-case analysis summary. The cross-case summary findings will
be presented as lessons learned from each theoretical frame. “The use of multiple
frames permits leaders to see and understand more….they are able to employ the
different logics that accompany diverse ways of thinking” (Bolman & Deal, 2008,
p.437).
Case Study A (USDX, ETIO, and SPIO)
Structural
During implementation, adaptability of structures proved to be important in
this case study. USDX technology director stated, “Each partner has had to change
its infrastructure and existing policies to strive to provide and meet the needs of our
students.” For example, ETIO customizes their web-based content to fit the needs of
a district. ETIO director provided additional explanation as followed, “Scope and
sequence we (ETIO) have to fit into theirs (USDX), we're not forcing them to stick
to our scope and sequence, so we specialize it to their needs.” A benefit to that
adaptable approach proved to give way to innovation because the relationship has
106
been established based on that ability to handle change within the context of USDX’s
needs. ETIO contended, “And in many case I think we were so in sync. Moving
toward innovation, but staying within the framework they have to stay with.”
Along with adaptability, many logistical aspects needed to be considered with
the technology integration initiatives they started and clearly defined roles and
procedures. When asked “where do you start?” SPIO explained, “Logistical
concerns. How do you want us to deliver them to you? Do you have a warehouse?
What kind of assistance is needed? Because we do have deployment technicians who
can go out and help in deployments.” SPIO also offers more support along the way.
SPIO account executive stated,
So we actually appoint a person to follow that pilot. So they keep notes, we
expect the teachers keep notes and we catch up every week or whatever the
time period we provide, there’s you know, at the end of the project there's an
interview with the teachers and all the staff they've learned, and you know
data so we collect all that.

Human Resources
The human resource frame assumes that organizations must be able to fit
people into specialized roles for optimal performance (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
USDX technology director described, “Initially many hindered us by using a one-
size-fits-all approach but then as they began to understand what we are trying to
accomplish they tailored their approach which allows for high buy-in at each site.”
This sort of specialization demanded personnel who are highly skilled. ETIO reports
having such skilled individuals with the “know- how” to see this through to
implementation. ETIO director asserted, “We provide the skill to get it off the
107
ground.” The dedication to providing special approaches and materials increased
buy-in from the sites.
Another added benefit to USDX working with ETIO was they are funded by
donations, providing these skills with no added expense. ETIO director goes on to
say,
What is attractive about us (ETIO) for a lot them is the fact that we're free.
You know even with the EETT grant, USDX was really quite pleased
because they wouldn’t really have to pay us anything. We had their (USDX)
curriculum people come out here and we worked them here with our
curriculum people so we get a common understanding of what they might
need. Teachers and administrators attended.

Political
USDX functioned with great purpose and direction during the
implementation beginning with discussions about expectations. The USDX
technology director stated, “Decisions about roles and responsibilities were done at
the highest levels of each organization with decision-makers capable of making the
changes that were necessary.” The political framework set out by the district
organized these interactions, as suggested by the USDX technology director,
“Primarily, by having a clear understanding up front in terms of what was expected
from both sides and being revisiting those agreements as needed.” Not only was the
framework implemented, the district had to be skilled in negotiations. The
technology director went on to say, “I would describe the intermediary personnel as
generally entrepreneurs who have a very much can-do attitude. Along with that,
coming from different areas of business, they sometimes can be stubborn and set in
108
their ways.” USDX’s technology director expressed the value of these partnerships
to increase the capacity to implement technological change in the district, “This
endeavor requires us to collaborate and work with many different partners in order to
achieve our goals.” SPIO account executive agreed stating,
USDX’s technology leaders were not going to let anything get in their way. I
think a lot of the districts that I talk to are much more cautious. They want to
tread very lightly. There’s lots of checks and balances and many people are
afraid to step out on the fringe at all or move ahead at all and so I think that
would be, that’s probably the thing that holds most schools back from doing
something like this.

Symbolic
The symbolic frame emphasizes the need to provide direction and establish
hope (Bolman & Deal, 2008). And in this case, USDX’s technology director was
reported as playing this critical role by both intermediaries. ETIO director reminded
us, “The most important resource in implementation is having a champion, someone
who really wants to do it.” In addition, a sense of vision keeps the implementation
on course as ETIO director explained,
It is about the vision, so you know you articulate the vision, and then
everything else fits into that vision, it's the implementation at that point then.
So lots of conversations, lots of brainstorming, and coming up with common
goals.

A shared vision fostered conversations toward richer integration and
innovation.

109
Case Study B (USDY, CIO, and VIO)
Structural
The structural frame emphasizes the need for an organization to establish
formal roles and coordinating functions (Bolman & Deal, 2008). CIO director
provided this prospective, “The most formal role is that you’re recognized as a
legitimate either vendor or partner, and you’re allowed to do business in the school
district. That’s the first and foremost one.” CIO director went on to say at the start of
implementation,
We had a big meeting because about two months ago where we committed
that we were going to do this. At that meeting we agreed on a lot of standards
and I had a lot of input in that meeting.

The coordination piece with the school administrator proved to be critical to
site implementation. CIO director stated,
Well the most critical thing is the Principal gets it, you know, and it’s the
principal’s plan. So the principal talks to the teachers, you know, gets their
buy-in, tell them this is what’s coming, tell them how to prepare for us
coming into their rooms and all that. And sometimes the principal will send
me to the vice principal or a lead teacher, and sometimes they say -Let me
bring in this guy. He’s the only one that knows anything about technology in
this school.

VIO consultant agreed that having a point person during the course of
implementation is important by stating,
Having somebody there who’s able to show them how to mesh the
curriculum and the technology. Sometimes, it’s someone in the district,
sometimes it’s me. But having that person there and showing them that
they’re not separate entities. Having the person on-site I think is probably the
one I would like to see utilized more. Making that happen is difficult because
teachers have so much on their plates right now; asking them to take on one
more things is difficult.
110

On the technical side of implementation, CIO director explained,
The school needs this stuff installed and working. We need it installed against
a technical plan. In other words, we need everything networked. We need it
to be a maintainable configuration. We need everybody to have access to
printers. We need the printers to be consistent so we can have a consistent
support plan. So it’s extremely logistical.
Policies and procedures were not consistent in this case study, leading to
numerous technical concerns. CIO has taken on new roles to help solve some of
these issues present in USDY. The CIO director explained, “Engineering work to
engineer the computer models, so that’s a partnership thing that’s going on right
now.” The VIO consultant takes a different approach and uses the web to reach more
teachers. As the VIO consultant stated, “The most important aspect of
implementation is web resources and professional development opportunities.”
Human Resources
Specialization continues to be a theme that reoccurs also during
implementation in this case. USDY technology director stated, “Individual schools
work closely with CIO by holding regular meetings and discussing the unique needs
for each site.” CIO provided the following description of how this collaboration
looks at school sites,
Principals are a big part because a lot of the real decisions are made at the
schools. The way I see it pragmatically, you have two types of principals;
tech-savvy principals few, and logistic principals many. The tech-savvy
principals are the ones that want to use technology to improve what they’re
doing. So the partnership there begins with educational needs and moves
toward how can technology help achieve those educational needs. Logistical
principals, the conversation starts – and I don’t know that this one’s a bad one
– it starts with we have a lot of stuff, but most of it doesn’t work.

111
The VIO consultant explained it a bit differently,
I think one key role (during implementation) would be the district
technology expert or experts- someone that’s the go-to person that all the
teachers know, hey, if I’ve got a question about this, this is the person I talk
to. And that person may not have all the answers, but they’re gonna know
where to go to get the answers. Unfortunately, that person has been cut from
most of the districts. But I think that is key in successful districts.

The VIO consultant does not limit this role to principals, stating,
Finding teacher leaders is also very helpful, finding that person who knows
both the district curriculum and the district instructional strategies along with
the technology piece. So I know the technology piece, I know generic
instructional strategies, but every district has its own focus techniques.

Political
The USDY technology director reported, “Responsibilities and roles are
negotiated by the sites individually at USDY.” USDY has given more personal
power to principals to make technology integration judgments based on school site
decision-making policies previously described. Being that it is a large district, USDY
technology director stated, “The intermediary personnel I work with are numerous
with various modes of operation and personalities.” CIO director described some of
the conflict that can occur with this structure,
The district doesn’t share information about how pilots are working at
various sites in the district. I’m never involved in those conversations, and
that’s what we should be doing, because right now often the schools- they
buy what a salesman sells them. Good demo, good salesman, they buy.

CIO director suggested strengthening the infrastructure and operational side
of things stating,
Simplify implementation by saying no support unless it’s Web-based, period,
end of story. We will maintain good workstations that have a good browser,
112
end of story. That’s number one. This is not 1995, end of story. I would
communicate that very clearly as to why to principals. Here are some
products that salesmen will come to you and try to sell, and here’s been their
history, and here’s the problem with them. Do not buy these. We will not
support these.

Symbolic
The variance of ceremonies and rituals during implementation are evident in
this case. USDY technology director stated, “Successes are celebrated at each site
but I am not sure.” CIO director contended,
Celebrations are real personal and not – and not enough. You know, they get
a lot of positive feedback from me, but it’s not enough. They don’t make
enough money. And right now I’m hanging on. I don’t want to let anybody
go because times are tough, but I haven’t given any raises for a while.

Conversely, VIO consultant gave a different account,
They will never pass up a good PR opportunity. For example, we released a
new product and USDY schools were one of the pilot schools. They worked
that as much as they could. They had someone come in and do an interview
and put it in press releases.

Case Study C (USDZ, UIO, and GIO)
Structural
USDZ used the structure of their grant in many ways to shape the structure of
the work they do around the implementation of technology integration in the district.
According to the USDZ technology director, “Roles and responsibilities were
outlined in the program for grant documentation prior to the implementation of the
professional development programs.” The USDZ technology director clarified,
GIO has provided ongoing support for several of our EETT grants. They do
this by listening and taking time to understand the district's current
professional development initiatives. They have assisted implementation of
113
research-based instructional technology strategies aligned to the district
overall instruction and curriculum goals. Likewise, UIO has offered their
support in the area professional development through grants and instructional
technology PD workshops, many conferences and courses.

During implementation at USDZ, teachers attend professional development
courses on instructional technology and by doing so obtain their technology
authorization credential. UIO’s expertise supports this process, as stated by the UIO
manager, “We know the formal structure (of accreditation)-so we help teachers in
going through the process to get their supplemental authorization in technology. The
UIO manager described the process,
Coordination starts with a lot of questions. Okay how many teachers are we
training? How many classes do you want us to offer or how many do you
want the same class offered for multiple groups? Do you want one group to
go through as a cohort through a series of courses? Do you want a one-time
training? How are we going to schedule that training? Is it going to be during
the week? Is it going to be during the evening? Is it going to be on Saturdays?
Is it going to be a hybrid or will it be online? I mean there’s multiple ways
and there are considerations that have to be taken into effect as to the
teachers’ work hours, the contracted work day, the union requirements for
professional development, the district professional development calendar
already. So there is a lot of logistical things to work out and when that
follow-through is there you can you know things happen.

GIO coordinator described their implementation process which has some
variance compared to UIO,
At the start of an implementation we form a team. Usually it's a team of
maybe two to three on the district side. It's usually a principal or somebody
who is pushing this program. It's rarely the director of technology that is
pushing their program. It is almost always somebody down below, more of a
grassroots kind of thing trying to make this happen. And so then I or other
staff help them clarify their goals, clarify their needs, look at total cost of
ownership, total cost of implementation with you know, with the professional
development included. Be-, if they're going to do a pilot, be very clear about
the expectations because teachers who get into this needs to know, this is
114
what I get and this is what I must do. Once they have all that put together,
they're in a far better position do it.

The GIO coordinator went on to explain other strategies for implementation,
As we move forward we do a primary needs assessment. With USDZ, we do
a lot of on the fly needs assessment as we're talking to that group of teachers.
We know we're going to see them again within the next two months, and so
we start asking the informal questions during that training; What's bugging
you? What's frustrating you? What isn’t working properly? And that, then
guides at least a portion of the professional development we provide next
time.

Human Resources
The human resource frame gives consideration to the functions an
organization goes through to find the right people to address the needs based on
interpersonal relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2008). USDZ technology director has
done that in seeking partnerships to address the overwhelming responsibility. The
technology director stated,
Our district has only one person responsible all aspects of instructional
technology, so there was and continues to be a need for additional expertise
and support in the area of instructional technology. The intermediate
organization personnel were very professional and always helpful and aware
of the challenges teachers face when implementing technology in the
classroom.

UIO manager explained that open communication is prevalent during
implementation as follows,
Because we have such a good relationship. We can call and they can call us
and ask to questions like- you know this is what we’re working on- what do
you think? can you help me? or can I help you?

GIO described the process of finding teachers to join the implementation as
follows,
115
Teachers (implementers) are typically selected by interest and the
understanding these are what the expectations are so that they are clear. We
form a pilot team which allows you to have small implementation group
(with the understanding)-I'm getting the stuff, but there are also additional
duties that go with this in terms of data collection or reporting.

Political
UIO manager reported that establishing formal roles between partners at the
onset of implementation is vital to their organization. The roles are formalized
through a system of protocols for establishing partnerships. UIO manager explained,
Formal roles include the approval protocols through the university which let
you know the director’s approval of the partnership. The dean understands
that we’ve generated a partnership. And any curriculum approvals are
required; those are very formal. And the instructor dedication to teaching and
also understanding that they have to teach what the approved curriculum is.
That’s all formal roles. The informal are I think probably the communication;
you know open communication and being able to call each other and say hey
here’s a question I have, what’s the best way of working on this. Or how can
we help this teacher? This rapport comes from the extensive networks we
have with teachers.

GIO accounts the effort made to empower teachers during implementation by
establishing a teacher coaching program. The GIO coordinator stated,
We are providing, multi-year, comprehensive professional development in
coaching and integration of technology. The coaching side of it involves,
questioning, cognitive coaching, listening skills, how to mentor, how to
guide, collaborative conversations. So at every site, there's a coach and we
provide that extra training for the coaches. I think through the grant, they
maybe get a bit of an extra stipend to have coaches. Most of them are
selected already because of their curriculum expertise. People look up to
them and so in the early days of doing this with USDZ, we actually had a ten
day coaching program over two years.
As previously mentioned, GIO has experienced some funding cut backs and
this program has been impacted. The GIO coordinator continued,
116
We are now, because money is so tight, doing a much scaled back version of
that, but the intent is still to support teacher leaders on the site so that they
have the skills needed to support teachers as they implement new technology.

When asked, “what resources are most important to implementation?,” the
GIO coordinator responded,
The most critical resource during implementation is teacher time. Whether
that is release time or paid afterschool, weekend or summertime. Other
resources are decided on by the requirements of the EETT grant program.
You focus on a classroom by classroom thing, which means I need to put
together a package of hardware and professional development, figure out how
much that costs, and then divide that into how much money I have, and that
tells me how many classrooms I can do, so it is better to do two classrooms
well than to do eight classrooms poorly.

Symbolic
Attaching meaning to activities is something that the GIO coordinator
described in detail about the approach they take when it comes to implementation
strategies. GIO coordinator described the organization’s culture as follows,
We read. We read a lot and it's not just our regional GIO information. We
have committees who share research that they have developed. Different
groups have done research about different topics, which they then share out.
We are not conducting research. We are finding research. We are gathering
the various pieces that we find out there. We are not doing any sort of meta-
analysis or anything that high level. We're essentially trying to interpret the
research that we find. I mean, you can't deliver quality professional
development without knowing what the research says. It’s a culture thing in
our office. Every single person reads and every single person researches.
Summary of Research Question 3
The cross-case summary findings will be presented as lessons learned
organized by each of the theoretical frameworks: (a) structural, (b) human resources,
117
(c) political, and (d) symbolic. Table 4.2 provides examples from the cases for each
of the themes that emerged from the results.
Table 4.2: Research Question 3 Cross-Case Analysis Matrix

Theoretical
Frames
RQ3 Themes Examples from Case Studies
Structural Logistical Policies and
Procedures
Case Study A
- Adaptability of partnership structures needed
- Clearly defined procedures toward technology
deployments
Case Study B
- Meeting at the onset of any initiative to get input
- Installation and deployment schedules and procedures
- Plan for professional development and resources
Case Study C
- Align coordination procedures to goals
- Open communication to ensure follow-through
Structural Clear Roles and
Responsibilities
Case Study A
- Defined personnel responsibilities
- Lead person assigned tasks
Case Study B
- Coordination between sites and intermediaries
Case Study C
- Formally outlined through grant process
- Get buy-in through upfront requirements from
implementers
Human Resources Skill and Talent Case Study A
- Highly-skilled intermediary expertise
- Assigned tasks to match skills
Case Study B
- Skilled personnel to engineer systems
- Instructional technology ‘know-how’
Case Study C
- Increasing capacity and personnel through
intermediaries
Human Resources Meaningful Relationships Case Study A
- Intermediaries willingness to be flexible
- Adaptability increases buy-in
Case Study B
- Intermediaries working closely with principals
- Focused on instructional practices and needs
Case Study C
- Establish informal relationships that foster open
communication
Political Shared Power Case Study A
- Joint meetings where leaders negotiated roles and
responsibilities
Case Study B
- Site-based negotiations and bargaining
Case Study C
- Teacher-led coaching models for implementation
- Formalize partnerships and protocols
118
Table 4.2, Continued

Structural
Logistical Policies and Procedures
The intermediary organizations had to have a keen understanding of the
logistical process to facilitate a successful implementation. They had to have a well-
designed plan yet remain flexible as each school site presented unique challenges
and goals. This adaptability stems from the intermediary getting to know the district
technology landscape through inquiry and systems of communication. The
communication was most efficient with face-to-face meetings with regularity and an
open dialogue policy with minimal agenda use. Communication structures had
variance among the cases but typically district technology directors and intermediary
organization lead personnel (most often directors) held the majority of meetings
Political Resource of Time Case Study A
- Creating systems of communication for organizing
numerous stakeholders and intermediaries
- Providing extensive training opportunities
Case Study B
- Streamlining implementation to web-based supports and
systems reducing response times and maintenance
Case Study C
- Providing release time for implementers
- Reduce number of implementers at a given time
Symbolic Vision and Leadership Case Study A
- Clearly articulated vision
- Champion (or hero/heroine) to lead the implementation
Case Study B
- Recognize the efforts of individuals
Case Study C
- Share information between leader groups
Symbolic Develop Culture Case Study A
- Innovation through conversations and brainstorming
Case Study B
- Report and celebrate success
Case Study C
- Read and use research-based methods
119
together as to centralize the implementation plans. The plans are formalized for the
most part but must have the flexibility to sustain the partnership as challenges and
obstacles present themselves.
Clear Roles and Responsibilities
Roles and responsibilities were clarified at the onset of the implementation
process. These were negotiated and revisited throughout the process in order to
ensure each group was working in their assigned capacities. While formal roles were
established based on contractual agreements and/or grant policies, the informal roles
between intermediary and individual school sites (typically principals and sometimes
teachers) proved to be just as critical to the success of the implementation. These
informal roles were established based on the intermediaries’ efforts to listen to the
needs as they arose during implementation and to respond to those needs (if it was
not their organization directly, they would help to makes sure that responsive
structures where in place through other measures). This established a collaborative
atmosphere that permeated each case study.
Human Resource
Talent and Skill
Highly skilled individuals are needed to implement new technology
integration in K-12 schools. A one-size-fits-all approach has proven not to work,
even within a singular district itself there will be a myriad of differences.
Intermediary organizations provide the skilled personnel needed to handle such
complexities. A common theme in all the intermediary personnel working with the
120
districts, in all three cases, is their high level of education (typically a master’s
degree or higher) and exceptional talent. The intermediary personnel were effective
in implementing something new when their talent and skill matched the need.
Meaningful Relationships
Interpersonal relationships played a key role in increasing the school’s
capacity to change. During implementation, intermediaries and districts reported that
things like follow-through, accountability, and problem-solving were vital functions
of the partnership. Relationships based on collaboration and shared responsibility
proved to be most effective. The relationship between the intermediary and district
needs to be mutually beneficial, both to bring increased technology use in the district
and to serve a purpose for the intermediary whether that is an exchange of capital
(i.e. vendor) or access to schools in order to fulfill organizations’ mission (i.e. non-
profit) to provide the lab for their innovations.
Political
Shared Power
Many layers of power are present in each case study: (a) authority, (b)
information, (c) personnel, (d) control, and (e) networks. Most operated under the
pretenses of shared authority and delegated authority. Decision-making was
centralized at the district level but power was given to school site leaders to make
selections based on local needs. The intermediary organizations were at a
disadvantage in some ways because authority and control are limited being that they
operate as external support providers. In other ways, intermediary organizations have
121
an advantage because they have access to valuable information and networks that
schools need. In this way, the relationship is symbiotic.
Resource of Time
The scarcity of resources is evident throughout each case, starting with the
financial restraints. However, districts and intermediary organizations are becoming
craftier in accessing funds to advance technology integration. The key resource is
time. Technology integration is not a simple task. It involves many stakeholders and
requires them to move in sequence for the realization of large-scale reforms.
Ironically, technology moves so fast that the approach must be just as fluid or
adaptable enough to respond adequately. When districts open up their schools to
intermediary organizations, their capacity to change increases dramatically by adding
more resources of time and effort than would otherwise be present. All the districts
gave credit to the great work intermediaries do and contend that integration will not
happen without their key contribution and involvement.
Symbolic
Vision and Leadership
Although implementation seems more deeply rooted in pragmatics, the cases
relied heavily on vision and leadership. The need to have a “champion” to lead the
way gets people enthusiastic about creating change. It is essential because change
takes effort and motivation had to be readily available for implementation to be
sustainable in each case. Without such a champion, implementations lose their way
or stop all together. This can lead to an “endless cycle” of ideas that never really
122
reach their goals or purpose before they are abandoned to start something different at
the expense of teacher buy-in and political will.
Develop Culture
Intermediaries who have a well established culture of service and professionalism
are positioned to have the greatest impact on changing the ways in which schools use
technology. While motivators behind the service-orientation may differ, each case
demonstrates that it must be present in order to create meaningful change. Likewise,
professionalism looks different in each situation, but it too must be present as it
demonstrates a willingness to learn, to problem-solve and to serve. Districts are
partnering with intermediaries whose organizational cultures value empowering
teachers and improving student learning of 21
st
century skills.
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented and synthesized the qualitative data from three case
studies. The first research question elicited three themes as to the impact of the
NETP on the goals and actions of districts and intermediary organizations. The
themes included: varied interpretations of NETP plan’s utility, lack of alignment
between organizations, and infrastructure barriers to the plan based on the findings
presented above. The second and third research questions on the functions and
implementation actions were presented based on Bolman and Deal’s (2008) Four
Frames. Findings were presented through the various lenses as to deploy “multi-
frame” thinking, providing the most comprehensive view of the multiple
stakeholders present in each case. The next chapter contains a discussion of the
123
findings, implications for practice, and recommendations for future research based
on the evidence discussed from this chapter.
124
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Integrating technology has proven to be elusive and complex for many K-12
school districts. For this change to occur, districts must look beyond their own school
leaders in order to spur on systemic reform (Elmore, 1999). Schools have begun to
do this by increasing their capacity to change with the support and services of
intermediary organizations. Intermediaries provide services and support beyond the
skill set present in schools and serve as critical capacity builders between policy
(NETP and/or district technology plans) and implementers. The way in which these
partnerships work is paramount. For technology integration to succeed, building a
coherent system that is cohesive is vital (Cohen, 2010). If schools fail to do so they
risk the continued marginalization of technology at the cost of not adequately
preparing this digital generation with much needed 21
st
century skills (Collins &
Halverson, 2009).
This study was designed to identify the impacts of the NETP and if it
provided direction to the goals and actions of the school districts and their supporting
intermediaries. Moreover, the study was designed to examine what functions
intermediary organizations provide and what their collaborations with schools look
like when implementing technology integration initiatives. The following three
research questions guided this study:
125
1. How does the large-scale technology reform efforts of the NETP 2010
impact, if at all, the goals and actions of intermediary organizations and K-12
district technology leaders in California public schools?
2. What strategies and functions are intermediary organizations deploying to
increase technology integration in California K-12 public schools?
3. How are K-12 district technology leaders collaborating with intermediary
organizations to implement technology integration initiatives and other
technology reforms in California public schools?
Qualitative research methods were deployed to conduct a cross-case analysis
of three case studies, each consisting of one district and two partnering intermediary
organizations. The case studies included open-ended questionnaires for district
technology directors, transcriptions from one-on-one semi-structured interviews with
intermediary personnel, and document analysis (district technology plans, proposals,
communication materials, website content), thereby creating multiple data results
that allowed for triangulation. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) Four Frames theoretical
framework was deployed for analysis. Specifically, “multiframe thinking” was used
as it provides the most accurate portrayal of organizations through a multitude of
viewpoints (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Summary of Findings
The first research question resulted in three findings. First, there are
significant variances in the utility and interpretation of the NETP. Secondly, there
existed a clear lack of alignment between schools and intermediary organizations in
126
the use of NETP for goal setting measures. Lastly, the absence of adequate
infrastructure has created barriers to the implementation of the plan.
The second research question resulted in eight findings which have been
organized by the Four Frames (Bolman & Deal, 2008) theoretical framework and
are discussed further in the question’s subsequent section. First, intermediaries were
adept at addressing individual goals (structural frame). Second, pilot programs are a
strategy that lends themselves to partnerships being established (structural frame).
Third, it was critical for intermediaries to understand the districts’ technology needs
and offer viable solutions (human resource frame). Fourth, relationships were
established based on needed expertise and rapport supported by face-to-face
meetings (human resource frame). Fifth, intermediaries build coalitions if it aids
them in improving delivery of services and/or quality of supports (political frame).
Sixth, intermediary organizations possess specialized resources which provide them
unique position power for valuable resource allocation and/or participation (political
frame). Seventh, schools and their intermediaries value maintaining clear sense of
direction and focus (symbolic frame). Eighth, intermediaries provide individuals who
are committed and view themselves as change agents and look to partner with
districts who share a similar vision, about technology integration, as it increases
success rates (symbolic frame).
Likewise, the third research question resulted in eight findings organized by
the Four Frames (Bolman & Deal, 2008) theoretical framework and are discussed
further in the question’s subsequent section. First, implementation is chockfull of
127
logistical needs making organization, communication, and plans critical yet not
overly rigid and capable of handling emergent challenges (structural frame). Second,
at the onset of implementation, contractual roles were formalized while value was
placed on the informal roles established with implementers (structural frame). Third,
intermediaries provide the highly-skilled individuals who have the ‘know-how’ to
get the job done (human resource frame). Fourth, relationships based on
collaboration and shared responsibilities were most effective (human resource
frame). Fifth, power took many forms in each case yet the willingness to share power
was vital to the complex nature of the implementation process (political frame).
Sixth, time was the most valued and scarce resource among participants (political
frame). Seventh, implementation requires an articulated vision to guide and a
champion to lead (symbolic frame). Eighth, intermediary organizations should have
a culture that values service and professionalism (symbolic frame).
Findings for Research Question 1
The participating districts tended to use the NETP to help support the overall
direction of their own district-developed technology plans. Throughout the study
more emphasis was placed on district-developed technology plans than the NETP.
This may be problematic, as Childress et al. (2006) asserts that large districts
struggle to create coherent organizational plans toward reform. Most of the district-
developed plans cited numerous other technology plan references as they fit closely
into existing structures. Waters et al. (2004) refers to these as “first-order” changes
which only attempt to make small adjustments without challenging existing values
128
and norms as compared to “second-order” changes that are more innovative and
challenge the status quo. It is clear that the NETP will require the latter.
As far as the impact of the NETP on intermediary organizations, it was
relativity minimal. This is to be expected as intermediary organizations occupy the
space between policies (or plans) and implementers (Honig, 2004a). As service and
support providers, intermediaries respond to the goals of the districts which they
articulate through discovery meetings and dialogue. The majority of these
conversations were focused on the district-developed technology plan, therefore, the
intermediaries saw no need to align their goals to the NETP and opted to concentrate
on learning about the districts’ plan instead. While this helps to foster the
partnership, it may be at the determent of future successes. Plans harbor much of
technology integrations chances of success and if ill-designed will disappoint
(Butzin, 2001).
Where many of the districts and intermediaries did agree was the feeling that
the NETP is overly ambitious in relation to where the infrastructures of schools are
today. In many cases, the teacher confidence in the infrastructure has been lost which
impacts the integration of technology as described in the NETP. Cuban et al. (2001)
contends that technology use has little to do with infrastructure and more to do with
teacher pedagogy. It remains to be seen if infrastructure is made more robust and
stable will schools work toward the goals set out in the NETP.

129
Findings for Research Question 2
Structural
The intermediaries were adept at addressing individual goals of the schools
they supported. The district would set the overall goals for technology integration but
each site has contextual considerations that need to be addressed in order to make
progress toward district-directed (external) goals. In order for plan coherence to
occur, “bottom-up” school-based solutions must be utilized (Honig & Hatch, 2004).
Intermediaries used this strategy of situating their work with individual school-site
goals to advance technology integration. All districts required the intermediaries
working with them to take an individualized approach to their partnerships. The
results showed that a common function, among the intermediaries, for establishing a
productive partnership was a profound interest in the achievement of the district
goals while having the capacity to handle inconsistency from site to site.
Another finding includes the strategy of pilot programs to establish
partnerships between districts and intermediaries. Three main reasons this strategy
was used included: (a) costs, (b) buy-in, and (c) control. First, districts and
intermediaries are struggling to source the needed funds for large-scale reforms, so
they formed small groups of implementers in order to control costs. Second,
implementers are selected based on interest and enthusiasm for the proposed
technology integration program and are willing to put in the extra work needed for
the program to work. Finally, pilots provide a scale that is easy to control, especially
as it relates to infrastructure which allows for change to occur quickly. Bodilly et al.
130
(1998) remind us that change is slowed when multiple actors have different levels of
authority and commitment. Pilots work to counteract this experience by reducing the
number of implementers, providing shared authority, and recruiting committed
individuals.
Human Resources
The data showed that intermediary organizations go to extensive measures to
understand the needs of the district. First, regular “business-like” meetings provided
face-to-face interactions that allowed for increased knowledge of site needs and
potential obstacles (Honig, 2004a). This strategy proved to be critical in the
alignment of the service and/or support services offered to the district and school
sites. The most common way they addressed the needs was providing professional
development opportunities for teachers focused on technical skills. When teachers
increase their technical skill, they are more likely to integrate technology with more
effectiveness (Hennessy et al., 2005).
Relationships between intermediaries and districts were based on needed
expertise and rapport built through collaborative meetings. Communication was
ongoing with face-to-face meetings being valued the most. The value of the
communication was that it was on-going, had an attitude of formal and informal
collaboration, and happened both at the district level and at individual school sites.
A secondary characteristic to the relationship was based on rapport and expertise.
The intermediaries took measures (e.g. public relation releases, websites, attending
conferences, case study reports, establishing professional networks, and
131
presentations) to build rapport and worked to be viewed as expert within their
respective fields. Intermediary organizations were found to be at an advantage
because they exist outside of the hierarchical authority present in schools, creating
unique opportunities to interact with participants. The opportunities allowed them to
serve as negotiators and increased communication between district leaders and
school personnel. Lastly, outsiders were able to help initiate change based on
perceptions of shared beliefs and expertise (Coburn et al., 2008). Long-term
relationships built trust between schools and intermediary organizations which in
turn increased their impact toward generating change.
Political
The results of the study indicated that networks are useful in that they
provide: (a) access to institutional structures, (b) opportunity to bargain, (c)
negotiating power, and (d) resources to resolve conflict. Networks provide flexibility
based on mutual supportive actions (Powell, 1990). Districts increase their capacity
to change by creating a network of intermediaries to address the myriad of
challenges associated with technology integration. Successful capacity building
occurs when services and resources have been communicated, coordinated, and
developed collaboratively (Huberman & Poland, 2008). The findings support these
principles between districts and intermediaries, although at various times the
intermediaries were indeed seeking profit. However, organizationally speaking, they
often function much more like a network then a market. Networks focus on
reciprocity and relational aspects of interdependence (Powell, 1990).
132
Many of the studies’ intermediary organizations possess specialized
resources which makes them indispensable in many ways. Intermediary
organizations increase the school’s capacity by providing power, information,
rewards, and knowledge and skill (Wohlstetter et al., 2003). Each intermediary had
its own niche as to differentiate itself from other organizations as a way to facilitate
capturing the scarce resources in instructional technology. While some overlap
existed between organizations, each had something unique that was their calling
card. The survival of each organization hinged on its ability to offer something
unique or specialized. For example, the combined services for the three case study
sites included: (a) web-based curriculum content solutions, (b) reduced-cost
hardware, (c) hardware and software training, (d) credentialing support, (e)
technology integration planning, (f) professional development planning and courses,
(g) technical support, (h) infrastructure services, (i) community technology
education, and (j) web resources. Even though the intermediaries have positional
power (or authority) based on these specialized skills and /or access, it proved
important that they be willing to bargain with other partners as well. Bolman and
Deal (2008) describe this “principled bargaining” where interests and mutual gains
play a critical function.
Symbolic
The intermediaries were very intentional about maintaining their focus on the
services they provide as a way to avoid being irrelevant to the districts they aim to
serve. While few were eager to be working on the fringe of innovation, many were
133
focused on dealing with the “here and now” because that was the message they are
hearing from the school sites. Intermediaries made the decision to meet teachers
where they are as innovation takes a shared ownership approach (Hennessy et al.,
2005). This is indicative of instructional technology as infrastructure barriers and
funding keeps the pace relatively sluggish. The majority of the intermediaries
focused on working with individual school sites based on their agreed focus of the
partnership. Defined responsibilities are essential to the change process (Hennessy et
al., 2005).
Intermediaries provide committed individuals who are passionate about
initiating meaningful changes in the ways schools integrate technology. Change in
K-12 schools is laden with numerous obstacles, and intermediaries play an important
role that supports and energizes the process (Honig, 2004a). The study indicated that
intermediaries play this role with the direction of a personal and/or organizational
vision and actively seek out individuals to champion and energize the
implementation. These roles are important to the symbolic framework that views
actions centered on creating and promoting a common vision toward organizational
change (Bolman & Deal, 2008). These champions need strong leadership with the
impeccable timing and the “know-how” to get the job done (Waters et al., 2004)
Findings for Research Question 3
Structural
The findings showed that intermediary organizations had to have a keen
understanding of the logistical process to facilitate a successful implementation. The
134
organizations had well-designed plans yet remained flexible to respond to emergent
challenges that arose at each site. They clearly planned for such obstacles as to be
expected. This adaptability stems from the intermediary getting to know the district
technology landscape through inquiry and systems of communication. The
communication was most efficient with regular face-to-face meetings and an open
dialogue policy with minimal agenda use. Communication structures had variance
among the cases, but typically district technology directors and intermediary
organization lead personnel (most often directors) held the majority of meetings
together as to centralize the implementation plans. “Increasing the communication,
coordination, and collaboration both within and across agencies’ and levels can
decrease competition and break down silos” (Huberman & Poland, 2008, p. 7).
The data showed that typically at the onset of implementation contractual
roles were formalized while value was placed on the informal roles established with
implementers. Roles and responsibilities were clarified at the onset of the
implementation process. Coburn et al. (2008) states, “Clear authority relations
actually enabled productive working relationships” (p. 377). Establishing the status
of relationships, working with organizational structures, and using partnerships to
leverage change (Coburn et al., 2008) were negotiated and revisited throughout the
process in order to ensure each group was working in their assigned capacities.
While formal roles were established based on contractual agreements and/or grant
policies, the informal roles between intermediary and individual school sites
(typically principals and sometimes teachers) proved to be just as critical to the
135
success of the implementation. Emergent authority that fosters a co-construction
attitude toward reform supports shared leadership and relationship building (Coburn
et al., 2008). These informal roles were established based on the intermediaries’
efforts to listen to the needs as they arose during implementation and being
responsive to those needs (if it was not their organization directly, they would help to
makes sure that responsive structures were in place through other measures). This
established a collaborative atmosphere that permeated each case site.
Human Resource
The findings indicate that highly-skilled individuals are needed to implement
new technology integration in K-12 schools. Intermediary organization impact was
strongest when they were perceived as highly skilled and trustworthy by school
leaders (Marsh et al., 2005). They were able to provide practical tools that supported
implementation of the reform ideas and concepts. A one-size-fits-all approach has
proven not to work; even within a singular district itself there will be a myriad of
differences. Intermediary organizations provide the skilled personnel needed to
handle such complexities. A common theme in all the intermediary personnel
working with the districts is their high level of education (typically a master’s degree
or higher) and exceptional talent. The intermediary personnel were effective when
implementing something new when their talent and skills matched the needs--a
hallmark of the human resource framework (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The findings identified that relationships based on collaboration and shared
responsibilities were most effective. Interpersonal relationships played a key role in
136
increasing a school’s capacity to change. During implementation, intermediaries and
districts report that things like follow-through, accountability, and problem-solving
were vital functions of the partnership. Relationships based on collaboration and
shared responsibility proved to be most effective. The relationship between the
intermediaries and districts was adept at bringing people together that under
“normal” circumstances would have no need to interface, showing that effective
leaders create connections with people who have expertise to share but little contact
(Burch & Spillane, 2004).
Political
Political power took many forms in each case, yet the willingness to share
power was vital to the complex nature of the implementation process. The findings
showed the following layers of power presented in each case: (a) authority, (b)
information, (c) personal, (d) control, and (e) networks. Most operated under the
pretenses of shared authority and delegated authority. Shared ownership is required
for real organization change to occur (Hennessy et al., 2005). Decision-making was
centralized at the district level, but power was given to school site leaders to make
selections based on local needs. The intermediary organizations found their role to be
limited in some ways because authority and control are restricted being that they
operate as external support providers. Yet in other ways, intermediary organizations
have an advantage because they have access to valuable information, networks, and
technology expertise that schools needed. The symbiotic relationship allows both
parties new opportunities. Schools need skilled services and supports to increase
137
technology use and intermediaries need users to explore their capabilities for
advancing 21
st
century teaching and learning.
The findings showed that time was the most valued and scarce resource
among participants. Implementers’ (teachers’) time is the valued resource in the face
of numerous stresses that impact efficiency (Butzin, 2001) Technology integration
has proven to be no simple task. It involves many stakeholders and requires them to
move in sequence for the realization of large-scale reforms. Ironically, technology
moves so fast that the approach must be just as fluid or adaptable enough to respond
adequately. When districts open up their schools to intermediary organizations, they
increase their capacity to change dramatically by adding more resources of time and
effort that would otherwise not be present.
Symbolic
Articulated vision agreements and strong leadership help facilitate a
successful implementation. This study shared some similarities to the research by
Keller and Bichelmeyer (2004) which found that a clear vision broadens the scope of
teaching, thereby engaging more implementers. Although implementation seems
more deeply rooted in pragmatics, the case studies show that they relied heavily on
vision and leadership. The need to have a “champion” to lead the way gets people
enthusiastic about creating change. A champion was found to be essential because
change takes effort and motivation had to be readily available for implementation to
be sustainable in each case. Without such a champion, implementations lose their
way or stop all together. This can lead to an “endless cycle” of ideas that never really
138
reach their goals or purpose before they are abandoned to start something different at
the expense of teacher buy-in and political will (Datnow, 2005).
Intermediary organizations showed the presence of a strong culture that
values service and professionalism. Intermediaries who have a well established
culture of service and professionalism are positioned to have the greatest impact on
changing the ways in which schools use technology. While motivators behind the
being service-orientation may differ, each case demonstrated the importance of
culture. Leaders must make changes to existing systems while simultaneously
fostering a culture of sustenance and growth (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). Districts
are partnering with intermediaries whose organizational culture values empowering
teachers and improving student learning.
Implications for Practice
District technology directors will undoubtedly need to find innovative and
productive ways to partner with intermediary organizations to increase 21
st
century
teaching and learning. Furthermore, intermediaries must move toward a shared
vision and responsibility with schools to increases their capacity to change and
advance technology integration. The viability of plans like the NETP is reliant on
the successes of these partnerships.
Findings from this study identified three important implications for practice.
First, the realization of technology integration reform efforts requires the work of
intermediary organizations. Second, there are clear strategies and functions that
foster mutually beneficial partnerships. Third, implementation requires a structured
139
approach that expects and is capable of handling individualized needs and emergent
challenges.
Regardless of the plan being used, technology integration requires many
moving parts to come together. Schools simply do not have the capacity to organize,
support, and design the complex structures and innovations needed to integrate
technology to support 21
st
century teaching and learning. Therefore, districts must be
prepared and ready to work with intermediaries and increase their roles in
educational reform. The evidence from this study suggests that schools benefit
immensely from the networks of talent and vision that are poised to bring technology
into schools like never before.
The symbiotic nature of the relationships between school districts and their
intermediaries creates an environment focused on a mutual understanding of success.
The success of the partnerships hinges on the reciprocity of the strategies used
between district and intermediary organization leaders alike. Strategies technology
leaders must consider include: (a) locating and matching skilled personnel to
articulated goals and needs, (b)developing and fostering “shared responsibility”
through face-to-face interactions and dialogue, (c) understanding and address site-
based needs, (d) aligning support and services with precision, and (e) developing and
championing a vision for technology.
Implementation of technology integration initiatives in schools requires
deliberate actions aimed at consistency and maintaining focus while having planned
flexibility when faced with obstacles. Formal roles should be established at the start
140
of the implementation process as well as opportunities for informal roles of
implementers to emerge as frontline workers. Communication and coordination
accompanied with a maintained focus, tailored to address individual needs in relation
to overarching goals, are paramount for sustainability of the implementing process.
Leaders have to work to develop a culture that understands the value of technology
and presses onward in the face of challenges. Finally, we need leaders who will
adopt a continuous improvement attitude supported by professional development in
order for our education system to reflect the skills this digital generation will need in
the 21
st
century.
Recommendations for Future Research
The research discussion exposes many key issues in school reform and
technology integration that will require ongoing research as well as a few new topics
to be investigated. Continued research will be necessary to see the full realization of
the utility of the NETP as a reforming agent. Research that has a district using the
NETP as its sole source of technology integration guidance may provide a clearer
understanding of the plan’s value to school reform. In addition, further research is
needed to compare the effectiveness of the numerous types of intermediaries (i.e.
market-driven verses non-profit) working with K-12 school districts to increase
technology integration. Finally, new research is warranted to explore the
infrastructure needs of schools and the intermediary organizations working to create
more reliable and dynamic systems that make way for greater technology integration.
141
How are the technology-based intermediary organizations working to improve
infrastructure of K-12 schools?
Conclusion
This study examined three aspects of technology integration reform efforts in
California K-12 school districts and the work of technology-focused intermediary
organizations. First, the utility of the NETP was not prevalent and the interpretation
of the plan’s viability was viewed as not being pragmatic relative to where
technology is with schools today. Second, intermediary organizations function with
plasticity in order to address the diverse needs of K-12 schools with solution services
and supports. Lastly, intermediary organizations rely on talent, leadership, and
culture to sustain technology integration implementation. Symbiotic relationships
and adaptability are the drivers that bind effective partnerships between
intermediaries and the schools they serve.
142
REFERENCES
Anderman, E. M. (2011). The Teaching and Learning of Twenty-First Century
Skills. Draft Proceedings from: National Research Council Board on Testing.
Irvine, CA.

Becker, H. (2000). Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey: Is
Larry Cuban Right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51).
Bodilly, S. J., Keltner, B. R., Purnell, S. W., Reichardt, R., & Ikemoto, G. S. RAND
Education. (2005). Lessons From New American Schools’ Scale-Up Phase.
RAND Corporation.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2002). Leading with Soul and Spirit. School
Administrator, 59(2), 21-26.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice,
and Leadership- 4
th
Edition. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Burch, P. (2006). The New Educational Privatization: Educational Contracting and
High Stakes Accountability. Teachers College Record, 108(12), 2582-2610.

Burch, P., Spillane, J., & Cross City Campaign for Urban School, R. (2004). Leading
from the Middle: Mid-Level District Staff and Instructional Improvement.
Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
Butzin, S. M. (2001). Using Instructional Technology in Transformed Learning
Environments: An Evaluation of Project CHILD. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 33(4), 367.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1999). The Development of Authentic Educational
Technologies. Educational Technology, 39(2), 5-16.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A Guide to Selecting
the Right Performance Solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Christensen, C.M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting Class: How
Disruptive Innovations Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to Manage Urban School
Districts. Harvard Business Review. 0611, 55-68.
143
Coburn, C. E. (2005). The Role of Nonsystem Actors in the Relationship between
Policy and Practice: The Case of Reading Instruction in California.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23-52.

Coburn, C. E., Bae, S., & Turner, E. O. (2008). Authority, Status, and the Dynamics
of Insider- Outsider Partnerships at the District Level. Peabody Journal of
Education (0161956X), 83(3), 364-399.

Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology:
The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America. New York, NY: Teacher
College Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among
Five Approaches- 2
nd
Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High Access and Low Use of
Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-34.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in changing
district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly. 41(1), 121-
153.

Elmore, R. F. (1999). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. American
Educator, 23(4), 6-13.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the Gap between Standards and Achievement: The
Imperative for Professional Development in Education. Washington, D.C.:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 6-
10.

Fullan, M. (2009). Large-Scale Reform Comes of Age. Journal of Educational
Change, 10(2-3), 101-113.

Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, Accountability, and
School Leadership. In Murphy & Datnow (Eds.), Leadership Lessons from
Comprehensive School Reforms. (57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.

144
Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on
integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and
change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155-192.

Hentschke, G. & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). K-12 Education in a Broader Privatization
Context. In K. Bulkley and L. Fusarelli (eds.), The Politics of Privatization
in Education: The 2007 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association,
pp. 297 – 307. Published as a special issue of Educational Policy, 21(1).
Honig, M. I. (2009). "External" Organizations and the Politics of Urban Educational
Leadership: The Case of New Small Autonomous Schools Initiatives.
Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 394-413.
Honig, M. I. (2004a). The New Middle Management: Intermediary Organizations in
Education Policy Implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 26(1), 65-87.
Honig, M. I. (2004b). Where's the "Up" in Bottom-Up Reform? Educational Policy,
18(4), 527-561.
Honig, M. I. (2003). Building Policy From Practice: District Central Office
Administrators' Roles and Capacity for Implementing Collaborative
Education Policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292.
Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting Coherence: How Schools Strategically
Manage Multiple, External Demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.
Huberman, M., & Poland, L. (2008). Building Regional Capacity to Support Schools
and Districts in Need of Improvement Under NCLB. WestEd.

Johnson, P. E., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2010). Linking the Central Office and Its
Schools for Reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 738-775.

Keller, J. B., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2004). What Happens When Accountability
Meets Technology Integration. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to
Improve Learning, 48(3), 17-24.

O'Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(3), 293.

145
Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R. W.,
& Barney, H. (2005). The Role of Districts in Fostering Instructional
Improvement Lessons from Three Urban Districts Partnered with the
Institute for Learning. RAND Corporation.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A., (2005). School Leadership that
Works: From Research to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mayer, R.E. (2008). Learning and Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.

Montgomery, K. C. (2007). Generation Digital : Politics, Commerce, and Childhood
in the Age of the Internet. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods- 3
rd
Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Powell, W. M. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 295-336.
Roblyer, M.S. (2006). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002).
Managing in the Middle: School Leaders and the Enactment of
Accountability Policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Education Technology Plan 2010:
Transforming American Education- Learning Powered by Technology.
(Contract No. ED-04-CO-0040). Washington, DC: Office of Educational
Technology.
Waters, J., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership That Sparks Learning.
Educational Leadership, 61(7), 48-51.
Wehling, B., & National Commission on Teaching and America's, F. (2007).
Building a 21st Century U.S. Education System. National Commission on
Teaching and America's Future.

146
Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Chau, D., & Polhemus, J. L. (2003). Improving
Schools through Networks: A New Approach to Urban School Reform.
Educational Policy, 17(4), 399-430.

Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Hentschke, G. C., & Smith, J. (2004). Improving
Service Delivery in Education Through Collaboration: An Exploratory Study
of the Role of Cross-Sectoral Alliances in the Development and Support of
Charter Schools. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited),
85(5), 1078-1096.
147
APPENDIX A

SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Name:
Job Title:
Job Responsibilities:
History with Organization:

SECTION I

Q1) What is the nature of the intermediary organization?

Q2) What is your assessment of the NETP?

Q3) How does your organization align with the goals of the NETP?

Q4) To what extent have you been a part of the implementation process at schools
with NETP?

Q5) How are schools responding to the NETP? What are you seeing and hearing?

Q6) What aspects of the NETP are most important?

SECTION II

Q1) What formal roles and relationships are critical to form with schools?

Q2) How are goals established and disseminated?

Q3) What coordination and communications are most critical during
implementation?

SECTION III

Q1) How do you establish the needs of the school?

Q2) How do you increase skills in the areas of need?

Q3) How do you establish relationships at the school?

148
SECTION IV

Q1) What resources are most important during implementation?

Q2) How are resources negotiated?

Q3) How are coalitions established?

SECTION V

Q1) What is the culture of your organization?

Q2) How are successes identified and celebrated?

Q3) Describe the vision of your organization. How do you relate your vision to
schools?

Q4) Is there anything I missed
149
APPENDIX B
OPEN-ENDED WRITTEN RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE

Name:
Job Title:
Job Responsibilities:

SECTION I
Q1) How did you become familiar with the NETP?

Q2) What are your impressions of the NETP?

Q3) What was your initial feeling when presented with the NETP?

Q4) How did your previous education/experiences prepare or not prepare you to
work toward meeting the goals of the NETP?

Q5) What has been the reaction by fellow colleagues regarding the NETP?

Q6) What aspects of your school history have provided opportunities or barriers
in regards to implementation of the NETP?

SECTION II
Q1) What coordination has occurred between the schools and intermediary
organization?

Q2) What implementation strategies have the intermediary organization provided?

Q3) How did you collaborate and communicate with the intermediary
organization?

SECTION III
Q1) How has the intermediary organization specialized their efforts to meet
individual needs of the school?

Q2) How would you describe your relationship with the intermediary
organization?

Q3) How did the intermediary organization determine the needs of the school?

150
SECTION IV
Q1) How did the intermediary organization enable or hinder buy-in at the school
sites?

Q2) How were roles and responsibilities for implementation negotiated between
schools and the intermediary organization?

Q3) If conflicts were present, how were the handled by the intermediary
organization?

SECTION V
Q1) What strategies did the intermediary organization use to promote the goals of
the implementation?

Q2) If successes were present, how did the intermediary organization celebrate
with school sites?

Q3) How would you describe the personalities, culture, and people skills of the
intermediary organization personnel?

Q4) Is here anything other important information that was not discussed? If so,
feel free to include that information below.
151
APPENDIX C

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOL

The third phase of the study will entail a review of relevant background school
documents. A review and analysis of the documents will involve processing the text
and making sense of its meaning, checking for truthfulness, understanding the
purpose and audience of each document, and connecting the documents to other data
supplies (Patton, 2002).

1. Type of document:

2. Date of document:

3. Author (or creator) of the document:

4. What is the primary purpose of the document?

5. Who was the document written for?

6. Document Information: (Write a list three main things the author said that are
important):

1.
2.
3.

7. What other data (interview, observation) can you link this document to?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract As educators work to advance 21st century teaching and learning in schools, numerous reforms are needed but none greater than the necessity to integrate technology. Technology integration presents complex challenges because numerous changes must take place. The National Education Technology Plan 2010 (NETP) provides a road map for these necessary changes. Schools must find ways to increase their capacity to change in order to make technology integration a reality. Intermediaries are uniquely positioned to fill that need lending their skills and talents. Intermediary organizations have begun to increase their role in the process of reforming education by providing critical technology services and supports. ❧ Three qualitative case studies of California unified school districts and their supporting intermediary organizations were conducted to examine the impacts of the NETP, functions and strategies of intermediary organizations working with districts, and actions taken during technology integration implementations. Among the major findings, it was discovered that the NETP has minimal impact on the actions of districts and their intermediaries mostly due to infrastructure barriers. It was also found that intermediaries network with schools based on relationships built on reciprocity. In addition, district technology integration initiatives proved to be problematic and partnering with intermediaries was imperative and must be on-going to bring schools into the 21st century.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The social media dilemma in education: policy design, implementation and effects

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

The role of leadership in the implementation of technology in mathematics at the community college

PDF

The impact of globalization and multinational corporations on education in Costa Rica

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study

PDF

Outsourcing technology and support in higher education

PDF

The impact of globalization and multinational corporations on higher education in Costa Rica and implications for educational leaders

PDF

21st century teaching and learning with technology integration at an innovative high school: a case study

PDF

Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...

PDF

Embracing globalization and 21st century skills in a dual language immersion school

PDF

Expanding educational access and opportunities: the globalization and foreign direct investment of multinational corporations and their influence on STEM, project-based learning and the national ...

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district

PDF

The role of the school district toward preparing students for the 21st century

PDF

Hawaiʻi public school principals' level of technology use and the meaningful integration of technology in their school

PDF

The role of globalization; science, technology, engineering, and math education; project-based learning; and national science fair policy in creating 21st-century ready students in Costa Rica

PDF

The impact of globalization, economics and educational policy on the development of 21st century skills and STEM education in Costa Rica

Asset Metadata

Creator Forthe, Darrell (author)

Core Title Technology, policy, and school change: the role of intermediary organizations

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/26/2012

Defense Date 03/12/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag educational technology,intermediary organization,NETP,OAI-PMH Harvest,school change,Technology,technology integration

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Burch, Patricia E. (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member)

Creator Email forthe@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-14738

Unique identifier UC11289274

Identifier usctheses-c3-14738 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FortheDarr-664.pdf

Dmrecord 14738

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Forthe, Darrell

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA