By Dr. Ramiro Zuniga
Since the mid to late 90s, many school districts have been paying out stipends to individuals selected to serve as campus technologists, sometimes also as instructional technologists or another similar title. In essence, a campus technologist serves as an intermediary between a teacher wanting to integrate technology into the classroom and a computer technician.
Make no mistake, a campus technologist is neither a computer technician nor a network specialist. The intent of this position is not to repair computers, printers, and the like. Their mission is to assist teachers in trying to integrate technology into the daily curriculum. In most cases, the stipend is paid to a teacher, which makes sense because a fellow teacher can “speak the same language.” Of course, it is always easier for teachers to learn from a colleague than “some trainer” from Central Office or “some consulting firm.”
Stipends vary from one district to another but I have seen stipends ranging from $ 1,000.00 to more than $ 5,000.00 per year. This is where a potential dilemma can originate.
Unfortunately, I have seen firsthand how these stipends and positions can be misused. I have also heard many similar stories from my graduate students, teachers and administrators from various school districts.
These stories all seem to follow a similar plotline. A principal decides that “his friend” or “his favorite teacher” will serve as the campus technologist. It is a good way to give someone a raise without really increasing their duties. After all, “you can always call the IT department” if a task is beyond the capabilities of the campus technologist.
Too many times, little consideration is given to the requirements of the position. Technology integration is a gray area in which it is hard to determine how much of the integration can be attributed directly to the campus technologist and how much can be attributed to someone else.
On the other hand, many campus technologists are making a real difference. These technologists understand that their role is an important one. They know that many of their colleagues are resistant to using technology due to lack of training, fear, and other reasons. Many technologists push themselves to learn how to perform basic troubleshooting of computer hardware. Others learn how to install software packages onto classroom computers. Many work before school, after school, during the conference periods, and even during their lunch hour. They understand that they are on a mission.
So I call on principals and other campus leaders to think about the successes that a campus technologist can bring about. I understand that principals want to “reward” their best teachers, but surely, there has to be an alternative to this practice. No Child Left Behind requires that schools produce computer literate students by the time they leave eighth grade. More importantly, technology is here! Let’s do what we can to bring technology into as many classrooms as possible.
In Part II, I will discuss the skills and traits that I feel are essential in a candidate being considered for a campus technologist vacancy. I will also present what I think is a unique idea in relation to the position of campus technologist.
For P-20 schools, appointing a campus technologist can prove a winning strategy. First in a series. http://ow.ly/3mMDE
This is very true Dr. Zuniga. I agree with your post, because we have employed a full time technician at our new campus. It is a necessary element to any campus, because in year’s prior, we had to share our technician with other schools in the district, but with our sole tech it is a totally different story. They are very beneficial to have around. I agree that they are misused, though. Many teachers and administrators merely see them as people who fix computers and nothing else. They should be there to instruct teachers and administrators in new software and things they do not understand. The BCIS students can fix computers. Look forward to Part 2, Dr. Happy Holidays
Thanks for your comments Adrian. Many campuses really need to realized that a technologist should integrate and not simply repair.
Campus Technologists – A Winning Strategy – Part I http://bit.ly/hiSzLm
Campus technologists can be a real asset for teachers, if the right person for the job is chosen. It seems reasonable that, at a minimum, general standards to guide the selection process should be in place to help ensure that quality technologists are chosen for this important position.
Unfortunately, each district has their own selection guidelines. Some of them are very basic. Of course a lot of campuses don’t even use standards. These districts simply ask the campus principal to select their technologists.
After reading this article, I have come to realize that campus technologist are not computer technicians. Time after time I have witnessed computer technologist assisting teachers in setting up projectors, document cameras, or assisting in technical difficulties. At our campus, the school librarian is the campus technologist. I believe she was chosen for this job because she is responsible for ordering computers, ink, and updating teacher’s technology equipment. On the other hand, I have also seen where the campus technologist is a teacher who also serves as a computer technician for the school. Also, these individuals hold tight to this position until they are retired or transferred to a different school. These jobs should be for a year or two in order to give others an opportunity to become a campus technologist. Even though these campus technologist due a phenomenal job serving as computer technicians, I have yet to see an individual assisting on how to integrate technology into the curriculum.
Exactly David, technologists should integrate and not repair.
Dr Zuniga, I don’t believe enough pressure is put on the “technoly” tech to produce. Just like teachers prove their worth in test results, technology techs should be given a time frame to produce. Also, it is the job of the administrator to monitor this growthat his/her campus.
I agree that technologists should be held accountable as you suggest. At the very least, I would expect a technologist to review the district and campus technology plan and identify what can be accomplished in a years time and then periodically update the principal on progress.
I have experienced this dilema. The principal appointed the librarian as our campus tech. She claimed that she did not have the time or the resources to assist the teachers with technology. She also was offended when a teacher would call central office for help. she never made it a point to ask teachers for thier opinion. she always wanted teachers to figure it out by themselves. I believe her stipen was a waste of money and someone with computer skills should have been appointed. Someone who was qualified should have been appointed not someone with the intrest of money or someone who had to do it just because he or she was appointed.
Unfortunately, what you have experienced is very common. This is an example of why I wrote this article in two parts. I wanted to make sure I devoted enough energy toward changing this practice. Please feel free to share my views with others.