In exploring a comprehensive methodology for the implementation of an EA program, all four phases of the EA plan are important for planning and for decision-making. In terms of which of the four phases will provide the greatest challenge for my school district, it is difficult to select only one phase. The first phase which serves to establish an EA program appears fairly clear. The only challenge in this phase might be creating an EA governance capability that integrates with other IT management processes and a communication plan that is clear for all stakeholders and transparent. This seems less of an issue now that my district has reorganized many of its departments and the structure is clearer and more transparent than previous years. Phase II, which is designed to select an EA framework, components, and software applications to automate documentation of EA components will be a bit more challenging for larger school districts such as SDUSD. Particularly Step 7—Identifying the EA components to be documented. There are several older systems that are not part of the enterprise and a previous existing enterprise that appears to be in the process of being revitalized so it may involve additional steps. This will be much more involved and time consuming. And these steps also would have to be completed prior to Step 9—Selecting software applications/tools to support automated EA documentation. Phase III, which involves documenting the current and future state of the architecture and the development of the plan will not be as challenging, at least in terms of documenting the current state. With larger districts, documenting the future state is where the benefit lies to help avoid potential pitfalls and to allow more work to get done. Often it is the case that not enough planning goes into this phase or the updating piece in Phase IV falls through. Phase IV—Use and maintenance of the EA system, where the EA is used to support planning and decision-making and regular updates are performed is an area that will be challenging for my district, probably the greatest challenge given the size of district. This will probably need to done at least twice a year, maybe reviewed more often if there is a lot of employee turnover, a change in superintendent, or changes to the infrastructure. One of the challenges that SDUSD faces is aligning the EA plan with the vision and goals of the district and communicating updates to stakeholders when needed. Often EA links to other management processes are not well defined or integrated, and need to be adjusted to meet additional needs within the framework. Therefore, having a comprehensive plan in place that includes ongoing review and updates is necessary and perhaps time well spent. I see this as a challenge because the district is involved in several implementation projects over the next several years and I see EA links to these other processes critical. In terms of additional steps that can be taken to improve the success of Phase IV, having procedures in place that insure ongoing review, monitoring, reporting, and updating of the current and future state components, and a degree of control and oversight of each of the steps will help insure the EA plan is valuable for planning and decision-making.
Given issues of interoperability, the need to automate educational processes, the growing need for components within the Enterprise to work together, as well as educational demands for student achievement, emphasis on big data, compliance with privacy laws, the need to reduce redundancy in applications, and the accountability piece (LCAP), the district educational plan needs to be integrated with the technology plan and not in isolation from it. In terms of SDUSD, there is starting to be improved communication and transparency between these departments (see Integrated Technology Support Services chart above), which is necessary both from a cost and efficiency standpoint and to avoid potential pitfalls as old systems are retired or modified and new systems are deployed. A recent area where I am observing an increase in communication and an attempt to integrate education and technology plans in the district is the alignment of the district’s vision 2020 and LCAP. The SDUSD development of the LCAP, the process involved, and its implementation appears to provide an opportunity for more groups/stakeholders to get involved and appears to be more transparent. The monthly updates on its implementation, which I mentioned in a previous post, are definitely refreshing. From what I can tell, there still needs to be better alignment between i21Now and the LCAP. In terms of curriculum and instruction, the Curriculum Office of Leadership and Learning is just now beginning to look to those from the Educational Technology Team for assistance. This was definitely not the case at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year.
References: Education Enterprise Architecture Guidebook, Section 1 (p.15, pp.21-26) and Appendix B Resources for Documentation of Current and Future States. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/education-architecture-guidebook.pdf This week I worked through the process of creating a “brick” for Web Conferencing. The brick process is useful for technologists to document the current and future states of technology in order to best meet the technology architecture needs of an organization. Just like the brick process is useful to assess current and future technology needs, knowing what products or technologies to recommend for immediate use, over a five year period, or knowing what products or technologies need to be retired or are emerging, this same process could be used to improve instructional practices for teachers. This is particularly the case with educational technologies and the integration of these into lessons or units. For example, teachers can revamp lessons or units to better integrate new technology tools to impact teaching and learning. One model that is currently being used is the SAMR Model (The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition Model), which demonstrates how teachers can use technology to impact teaching and learning.
In the original lesson or unit, a teacher might have used computer technology to perform the same task that was done before the use of computers, such as printing out a worksheet for students to complete. Here there is no functional change in teaching and learning. Teachers instead might have students collaborating using a Google Doc online or taking a quiz using a Google Form in place of pencil and paper. This has the impact of immediate feedback in terms of the quiz, paper is saved, students are more engaged and collaboration becomes necessary to accomplish the task in a more meaningful way. Here the new technology tool is helping this to occur. Teachers could also use the brick process to determine which instructional practices are no longer working and which strategies might be better to deploy, as well as a timeframe of when they might add additional strategies to their toolbox. In terms of program improvement, a brick would also allow teams of educators to create a plan over a five-year period for improving student achievement. For example, which student groups to target, what strategies teachers will deploy, which practices might be retired, and what technologies might be needed to improve student engagement. References: National Institute of Health Enterprise Architecture (2012) retrieved on Thursday, April 9 from https://enterprisearchitecture.nih.gov/Pages/WhatIsBrick.aspx and from https://enterprisearchitecture.nih.gov/Pages/listing.aspx?Section=Artifact&Category=Brick |
AuthorDesire for knowledge and insight Archives
May 2015
Categories |