DC Public Schools funded 11 Technology Instructional Coaches
(TIC) for the 2014 -2015 school year. This represented the first time that DCPS
has funded this position in multiple schools.
This move was prompted by the city council and was aimed at helping the
District’s children to become more technologically proficient. As standardized
testing moved to an online platform, DCPS threw money at a last second,
disorganized effort, to catch up with other districts. This program was
disorganized from the start, and spent the last year dealing with some serious
growing pains. First, the positive, the coaches that were hired are all experts
in technology integration and all are already notably accomplished in this
arena. All but two were hired from outside the district and a manager was
brought in from Arlington, VA. The coaches were quickly frustrated as they
learned that the technology integration models that are successfully
implemented in other districts were not copied or even considered. DCPS chose
to take its already existing Instructional Coach program and tack on the word
technology. The existing coaching program aims at providing scripted and overly
structured support to teachers mainly in the areas of reading and math. It is the insistence by a few people at
central office, to adhere to this suffocating format that will sink the TIC
program. It is set up for failure and already, some talented people are
abandoning what is sure to be a sinking ship.
The IC model, as it is written, is geared towards coaches
spending many hours a week with a small group of teachers working through
scripted plans which are supposed to improve their teaching. The existing ICs focus
on one particular subject such as math or small group literacy. Anyone who
knows anything about true technology integration should be quick to shout
“Technology is not a subject!” True technology integration is present in all
aspects of teaching. It is something that is authentic, and often student led.
When working with a coach, a teacher is to lay out a specific student data
point to be improved. Example: 80% of students will increase their words read
per minute by 10 words. A coach will
identify where this skill should be taught, and help the teacher to improve
their teaching to achieve this data point increase. The coach and teacher will
work on nothing else for a full six weeks. If true technology integration is
the goal, the focus can not be that myopic. Tech integration is not a data
point, although it can be measured, it is not a program or a teaching method,
it is a tool. Let me say that again, technology is a tool.
I recently tried to explain the concept of technology being
a tool, and not a content area, to someone, it went something like this: I can
hand you a pencil. The pencil is the tool. The pencil will not make you a
better speller, although you can now show the teacher you are a better speller.
The pencil cannot make you learn math, but it can help you practice your math
problems until you can work them successfully. The pencil can be used for math,
and reading, and writing. The pencil can help you communicate and progress in
school. If everything was verbal before, and now you have pencils, your
teaching may look different, but will be better. If I measure usage of the
pencil, that will tell me nothing about spelling, only that you used the pencil.
A good TIC will give a teacher lots and lots of different kinds of metaphorical
pencils. They will help to provide tools to enhance teaching and learning. This
can be as simple as sharing a new resource with a teacher, or as complex as
helping a teacher figure out that the internet is more than just Google. The
goal is not to get teacher simply using technology, but utilizing it to really
show measurable growth in student learning.
In ten years, my current second graders will be graduating
high school. I can only imagine the world that they will be entering. Whether
they choose to go to college, or into the work force, I can be sure of one
thing, technology will play a large and important role in their lives. They
will need to have the skills to navigate a digital world. The process in which
they attend college or focus on a career will be drastically different than it
is even now. They need the technology skills to be able to compete in a market
where their suburban counterparts have had an iPad since birth. How can DCPS even
begin to have its students come close to having the technological skills to be
ready for this future world? It is not the current TIC model. The current model
focuses only on one skill, with a small group of teachers, for six weeks. This
is limiting and does not allow for the rigorous work that needs to be done to
close an ever increasing technological achievement gap.
I am a TIC in DCPS. When I attended the first training for
this new position, I was handed the same manual that is handed to a coach
working in the realms of math or reading. Our next meeting, they forgot to give
us a room and told us we could move some boxes and sit in a closet. The manager
who was brought in from the successful program in Arlington, VA, was getting
increasingly frustrated with the constraints put on the TICs. The TICs were
getting frustrated as well. We all had the same goal of student learning, but
the path to get there was no twisted, it was preventing us from reaching our
destination. The leaders at central office did not understand the true idea of
technology integration, that it is a tool. At our most recent meeting we were
told that our frustrations, our concerns, and our expertise in this area were,
and I quote “not special.” Rather than listen to the decades of experience in
the room, rather than listen to the concerns of the experts in this field, even
more restraints would be placed on the TIC program next year. The TICs came up
with a list of very specific, and reasonable changes that could be immediately
implemented at no cost, and would save time and paperwork. They were
immediately dismissed without consideration. Also, instead of a person who had experience
in tech integration overseeing the coaches, they would now report to someone
who has had zero experience with integration because it would be more
convenient. I was sitting in the meeting
with the head of Instructional Coaches, where we pleaded, presented evidence,
shared our experience and sang in one voice that this program will fail, unless
changes are made. We were told, without explanation that if we would not fit a
square peg into a round hole, we should think about finding new employment. We
are being set up to fail, and will be blamed for sinking the ship. Our training, experience and common sense tell
us, that this plan is wrong and doomed to not succeed. We were asked to list
the accomplishments that we had achieved this year. All of us looked at the
list and could not help but noting that we could have done so much more. We
were hampered by the confines of a system that is meant for math and reading.
The IC program is likened to a bathroom scale. It is a great bathroom scale
that works perfectly. However, you are asking us to measure how tall a person
is, not how much they weigh. We need the tools and support to build a tape
measure, not the blueprints for a functional bathroom scale. I must accuse DCPS
of doing what is convenient and familiar instead of listening to experts and
doing what is right for the students of DC.
The changes pleaded for by the current TICs are simple and
reasonable. First, we would like shorter or more flexible coaching cycles. The
current coaching cycles are fixed at six weeks. Throughout the year, we found
that we needed longer or shorter time spans to accomplish our goals. We could
still be accountable for working with the same number of teachers, at any given
time, but this simple and no-cost change would allow us to work with a greater
number of teachers, and tackle a greater number of small changes that can
account for a huge difference. We asked that the successful coaching models in
other states, and they are plentiful, be considered as models for shaping the
TIC program in DCPS. The District is late to the game in terms of technology
integration, and should not waste time trying to figure out ideal
implementation, successful models exist, DC should be learning from them. Every Instructional Coach in DC is given a
pie chart saying how they should spend their time. The TICs asked that some of
the percentages on the chart be adjusted for the extra technology repair and
planning time that is demanded of them.
The last request was, that the TICs have more frequent and meaningful
collaborative planning and professional development time. Again, all of these
changes cost DCPS absolutely nothing. They simply require the head of the
Instructional Coaching Program to be willing to admit that the integration of
technology in the District does not fit perfectly within an already existing
system. By trapping technology in this
system, the District’s children are being cheated out of the technological
skills that they will need to become the citizens that DC deserves.
