Putting
Leadership in Front of Technology: A Call for Action
Jayson
W. Richardson
Associate
Professor, University of Kentucky, USA
School
leadership is nothing new. Schools have always had leaders.
Technology is nothing new either. Societies
have
always adopted
technologies
(albeit digital, analog, or physical) that improve one’s quality of
life. However, linking digital technology and school leadership often
creates quite the conundrum for teachers, leaders, researchers,
educational preparation programs, policy makers, funding agencies,
international development agencies, parents, and students. If we look
around the globe, it is difficult to find examples of school leaders
who ‘get it.’ Yet, there is a cornucopia of examples of leaders
and schools that are failing miserably with regards to technology.
With that said, the challenge moving forward is to understand what
works with regards to school technology leadership and help schools
better prepare students for the uncertain, technologically suffused
world that lies ahead of them.
Foci
of CASTLE
Digital technologies have irretrievably
changed our lives. They are fostering upheavals in how we think,
play, and work. They are transforming the world around us. This is a
societal shift on the scale of the Industrial Revolution - only
quicker. It is therefore vital that school leaders make this shift
effectively, efficiently, and more importantly, do it now. As such,
the Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in
Education (CASTLE) is the United State’s (possibly the world’s)
only center dedicated to the technology side of school leadership.
The center is housed at the University of Kentucky in the United
States and is a dedicated center for the University Council for
Educational Administrators (UCEA). UCEA is a consortium
of higher education institutions that prepare educational leaders. In
short, UCEA is the professional organization for research
universities and CASTLE is the research center focused on the field
of school technology leadership. CASTLE’s reach is well beyond just
the United States. CASTLE has collaborated with universities and
faculty members from countries around the world, including but not
limited to Malaysia, Cambodia, Peru, Thailand, Japan, South Africa,
Turkey, China, Finland, and India.
Researchers
who work in the field of school technology leadership are ardent
about school reform that is driven by technological advances. McLeod
(2011) sums up this passion when he said:
In the end, it’s
not about us. It’s not about our personal or professional
priorities and preferences, or our discomfort levels, or any of the
other stuff that has to do with us. It’s about our students: our
children and our youth who deserve at the end of their schooling
experience to be prepared for the world in which they’re going to
live and work and think and play and be. That’s the obligation of
each and every one of us. No educator—or preparer of educators—gets
to disown this. (p. 4)
Further, McLeod
(2011) emphasizes the need for systemic change.
If we are to
accomplish these goals—if we are to treat seriously the task of
graduating school leaders who can create school environments that
prepare students for a digital, global era—we must recognize that
there is a significant difference between our traditional educational
leadership coursework (that occasionally is delivered online) and
coursework that puts technology and 21st-century skills and
leadership at its core. (p. 4)
Thus the onus is on
all of us, starting with professors of educational leadership and
school administration programs, to change the status quo and be
agents of the change we want to see in our schools. This is a core
driver of CASTLE’s work.
CASTLE
is co-directed by four leaders. Dr. Scott McLeod is the founder of
CASTLE and is the Director of Innovation for Prarie Lakes Area
Education Agency in Iowa. Dr. Jayson W. Richardson is an Associate
Professor of Educational Leadership Studies and the Director of
Online Teaching and Learning at the University of Kentucky. Dr. John
Nash is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership Studies and
the Director of the dLab at the University of Kentucky. Dr. Justin
Bathon is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership Studies at
the University of Kentucky and focuses his work on legal and policy
issues in the field.
Research
Says . . .
In
short, leadership matters. Fullan
(2002) notes that educational change is only possible with a shared
vision and a common goal. Further, Fullan (2001) reminds us that
educational change involves adults who are actively engaged in their
own learning process. For school leaders, understanding this element
is essential for educational change to succeed. Thus, the burden is
on the school leader to understand how to set a goal, how to coalesce
stakeholders around a common vision, and how her actions can impact
the desired change state. Given these elements, the space for
innovation to blossom is created.
Researchers
have demonstrated that the school leader is the most impactful
school-related factor on student learning after the classroom teacher
(Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Vitaska, 2008). Research has shown that
the school leader accounts for approximately one-fourth of all
school-related effects on learning outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Thus, the leader is in a powerful place to initiate educational
change that can impact the educational experiences of teachers as
well as
students.
Fullan
(2001) said “the main problem is not the absence of innovation in
schools, but rather the presence of too many disconnected, episodic,
fragmented, superficially adorned projects” (p. 21). Fullan further
stated that “educational change is technically simple and socially
complex” (p. 69). Thus, to navigate any educational change process,
the school leader is at the core. School leaders are the key to
sustained, district wide and school wide reform efforts. In the
United States, it is the role of the superintendent to lead district
wide reform. In most countries, it is the role of the principal or
head teacher to navigate school-level educational reform efforts. It
is
therefore
vital to understand school technology leadership at both levels
(district and building) of leadership. Perez and Uline (2003) noted,
The
ways in which school leaders think about computer technology may
determine their effectiveness as instructional technology leaders and
administrative technology users. Yet, how a leader thinks involves
more the content of thought, the manner of thought, the cognitive
processes that create the cognitive and behavioral product. (p. 146)
It
is CASTLE’s belief that district leaders and building leaders have
unique technology leadership needs. Addressing these needswill help
states, universities, and professional organizations move forward.
McLeod (2011) noted,
If
it is difficult to overstate the technological disruptions that are
occurring around us, it is equally difficult to understate the lack
of progress that most schools have made in response to these
overarching societal changes. The reluctance of school personnel to
adopt modern technologies and significantly alter existing
pedagogicaland organizational practices has long been catalogued. (p.
3)
Where
to Start - CASTLE Resources
CASTLE’s
mantra has always been “build it then give it away.” As such, the
directors have made strides in offering manyresources to help school
leaders navigate modern technological shifts. CASTLE provides
resources such as blogs, social media, websites, professional
development, and research.Many resources from CASTLE are free for use
and reuse under Creative Commons Attribution –ShareAlike 4.0
International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).What
follows are resources focused on the field of school technology
leadership.
Blog
and Twitter
When
asked where to begin, I always point people to the thought leaders in
the field. Arguably, one of the best starting points to understand
school technology leadership is the Dangerously
Irrelevant
blog (http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/)
written by Dr. Scott McLeod, the founding director of CASTLE. McLeod
regularly posts about issues that matter to schools, technologists,
school leaders, and teachers.
Some
of McLeod’s most popular posts include titles such as “Don’t
teach kids this stuff. Please?”, “Do most educational games
suck?”, and “Struggling with educators lack of technology
fluency.” In “We can’t let educators off the hook,” McLeod
(2010) argues that we have to hold teachers accountable to prepare
students for the modern, digitally suffused world. He wrote:
The
reason many of us now ‘get it’ is because we realized that the
world is changing, we recognized our responsibility to our students
and schools, and we
dived in and learned as we went along. Changing inertia
into momentum, not waiting for someone to hand us the answer, taking
responsibility ourselves rather than blaming others for our own
inactivity –that’s
what life-long learners do. That’s what effective educators
do. That’s what we owe our children.(para.
11)
In
addition to providing insight and information, McLeod often shares
valuable resources. He has shared things such as videosof students
using cell phones in the classroom, useful apps for school leaders,
reviews of books for leaders and teachers, research on Internet
filtering and blocking, and activities for setting school visions. If
you are looking for a starting place to understand the field of
school technology leadership, Dangerously
Irrelevant is
a must read. If you are on Twitter, feel free to follow thesethought
leaders too: @mcleod, @jaysonr, @edjurist, @jnash, @uceacastle.
CASTLE
Website
CASTLE
hosts a robust website (http://schooltechleadership.org)
dedicated to highlighting resources, projects, research,
affiliations, and current events. The website is organized around
blogs, scholarship, teaching, projects, and people. The blog section
offers a front page for all blogs affiliated with CASTLE. The
scholarship section details most publications (articles, books, and
white papers) that have been written
by
CASTLE directors and affiliates. The teaching section details the
programs as well as courses taught by the directors that are focused
on school technology leadership. Our projects page offers details on
endeavors in which we are currently involved such as the technology
leadership interview series.
Professional
Development Resources
CASTLE
offers professional development to schools, universities, government
agencies, Ministries of Education, and learning organizations. CASTLE
maintains a wiki where many resources are
hosted(http://uceacastle.wikispaces.com/).
Additionally, Dr. Scott McLeod shares his resources on his personal
site (http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/workshops).
Both sites offer a plethora of resources for leaders, academics, and
teachers to engage in activities germane to school technology
leadership.
Going
Deeper – Samples of Research at CASTLE
CASTLE
is an active research center dedicated to building the literature
around school technology leadership. Although not complete, what
follows is summary of some of the projects in which we have
undertaken. To see a more complete list of research, please visit our
research page on the CASTLE website.
Technology
Savvy District Leaders
Richardson, Sauers, and McLeod (in press)
and Sauers, Richardson, and McLeod (in press) conducted a study on
district leaders who were national awarded technology leaders. The 11
award winners were each peer identified as a superintendent who
demonstrates a clear understanding of what it means to lead today’s
technology-suffused schools. The authors of these articles focused on
dispositions and challenges.
Richardson, Sauers, and McLeod (in press)
analyzed dispositions of technology savvy superintendents. They found
that these leaders held four core dispositions including
understanding change, being a risk taker, having a vision, and
engaging in ongoing personal learning. These four themes are explored
next.
Understanding
the Human Side to Technology.
Each superintendent understood and embraced the notion that
innovation adoption involved real people with real needs. The
superintendents highlighted the importance of considering the unique
needs of individuals when implementing various initiatives; setting
expectations for their teachers, themselves, and other school
leaders; and accounting for the individual needs of staff
members. Being a Risk
Taker. A core disposition that
emerged in the interviews is that the superintendents in the study
were risk takers. This disposition was reiterated by almost all of
the superintendents in the study. Personal
Learning. Each participant was
a lifelong learner who strived to constantly enhance his or her own
learning. Participants talked about how they learned from other
educators and how they used technology tools to help themselves
learn. Although the ways in which they learned were not all the same
(i.e., conferences, peers, personal learning networks, etc.), each
discussed their commitment to ongoing learning. Vision.
Although all of the participants in the study did not hold the same
vision for technology leadership, they each clearly articulated a
vision. They used their vision as a driving force for the various
technology initiatives that they implemented.
Sauers, Richardson, and McLeod (in press)
focused their article on the
successes and challenges faced by these same 11 superintendents
identified as technology-savvy.The
superintendents described their experiences overcoming common issues
integrating technology into their district. Themes that emerged were
related to shared vision, infrastructure, communication, and
professional development.
Large
Scale 1:1 Computing Initiatives
Richardson, McLeod,
Flora, Sauers, Sincar, and Kannan (2013) researched all large scale
1:1 computing initiatives around the world. In this study, the
authors systematically compiled an open access database of all 1:1
initiatives noting device type, grade levels, number of initial
units, program, funding levels, and professional development. The
authors found that: 1) the XO and the Classmate PC dominate
large-scale 1:1 initiatives; 2) if professional development was
conducted within a 1:1 initiatives, it was done at the onset of the
project by vendors of the hardware; and 3) funding for 1:1
initiatives appears to be provided initially but not as a reoccurring
expense.
ICT
and Peace
CASTLE
researchers have also looked at how technology has been used for
peace and reconciliation. Using Cambodia and Tibet as starting
points, Brantmeier and Richardson (2009) created a model for how ICTs
can been used to catalyze peaceful conflict resolutions. The model
includes domains of consciousness raising, political mobilization,
dialogue, reconciliation, and renewal. In a later article, Richardson
and Brantmeier (2012) test the model in the case of Egypt after the
2011 revolutions. Here the authors conclude:
The
model does shed light on a pressing need to understand how ICTs
shiftthe locus
of
power from governments and other entities that might intend to
control the ebb and flow of information, into the hands of ordinary
citizens.
The
distance from head to hand to global community has been significantly
decreased through ICTs and their power to
achieve
a counter-narrative. (p. 264)
Legal
Issues Associated with Technology in Schools
Justin
Bathon, a co-director of CASTLE, focuses his work on legal issues
surrounding technology in school. For example, Bathon (2012) wrote
about the rights of school employees with regards to expression. Bon,
Bathon, and Balzano (in press) focused their work on teachers who use
social media and the implications on human resource management. Brady
and Bathon (2012) summarizededucation law as it pertains to issues of
open access. Finally, Bathon and Brady (2011) wrote a legal analysis
of teacher free speech in a digital age. In addition to legal issues,
Baker and Bathon (2013) also wrote a guide for financing online and
virtual schools.
Technology
in Less Developed Countries
CASTLE
researchers have published a series of articles focused on technology
in less developed countries. Richardson’s work in Cambodia has been
particularly prolific. For example, Richardson (2008) analyzed
Cambodia ICT in education policy through the lenses of policies,
problems, and politics. Richardson (2008) found that in this specific
context, the political will was lacking with regards to implementing
technology in education.
Richardson worked on various ICT in
education projects in Cambodia and wrote extensively about this work.
For example, Richardson (2009) provided a project summary of outputs
and achievements related to a national teacher training and
technology project. Richardson (2011a) also analyzed the challenges
faced by teachers when adopting technology in Cambodia. Additionally,
Richardson (2011b) quantitatively measured adoption rates by teachers
in Cambodia using the Diffusion of Innovations theory. These projects
have spawned tangential research projects including work in India and
Malaysia.
Coverage
of School Technology Leadership
McLeod
and Richardson (2011) wrote an often cited article on school
technology leadership simply because they empirically demonstrated
that the field has been understudied at professional conferences and
in the journals most likely read by educational leadership faculty
members. In “Dearth of Technology Leadership Coverage,” the
authors found only 43 articles with a focus on school technology
leadership were published from 1997-2009 in the top 25 most often
cited journals in the field.
Additionally,
McLeod, Bathon, and Richardson
(2011) summarized a special issue of the Journal
of Research on Leadership Education that
was dedicated to technology and the preparation of school leaders.
These authors found that the literature has tended to focus on three
intersections. First, authors focus on using digital technology to
teach traditional educational leadership content. Second, authors
focus on training school leaders to use technology better. Third,
authors focus on preparing leaders to be better school technology
leaders. The authors concluded:
Unfortunately,
it is the third domain—preparing school administrators to be better
technology leaders—that is most significant. It is this third
domain that will be most impactful on students, schools, and society.
While it is appropriate and desirable to transform the technology
tool usage of both our students and ourselves as faculty, neither of
those specifically target one of the most critical educational issues
of our time: the
need to create and facilitate learning environments for P-12 students
that prepare them for the digital, global world in which we now live.
(p. 292)
Preparing
School Leaders in Online Environments
CASTLE directors have conducted research
on the acceptability of online credentials for school leaders.
Richardson, McLeod, and Garrett Dikkers (2011a) published one article
on how school districts treat K-12
principals and principal candidates with online credentials and
another on the perceptions of
online credentials for school principals (Richardson, McLeod, &
Garrett Dikkers, 2011b). By analyzing 105 surveys from human resource
directors, the authors were able to determine if school principals
with online degrees could get a job and how districts would treat
current principals who tried to get an online degree. This topic was
later explored by Richardson (2010) who wrote“Online Credentials: A
State of Wariness” for theThe
School Administrator. The
results of the study indicate that school districts are quite
hesitant to hire administrators with online credentials.
Fostering
a Technology Vision for School Leaders
In educational leadership, vision
statements set objectives to improve the quality of education that
are both appealing and distinctive. Pekarsky (1998)
wrote a “well conceived vision is an informing idea that is shared,
clean and compelling” (p. 280). Pekarsky further detailed that a
vision statement coalesces people and efforts. A vision statement,
however, should be responsive to modern digital technologies.
To
help administrators define and understand what technology leadership
looks like, the International Society of Technology in Education
(ISTE) developed the first set of National Educational Technology
Standards for Administrators (NETS-A). Limited research has been done
on how school administrators develop mastery of these technology
standards. Conceptually based on these standards,Richardson, Flora,
and Bathon (2013)conducted a study to understand how future school
leaders create meaning with regard to school technology leadership.
In the study, 20 pre-service school leadership students wrote a
pre-course and post-course vision statement for school technology
leadership. The authors analyzed the statements according to the
NETS-A to determine the extent to which shifts occurred in how these
future leaders incorporate technology into their visions of teaching
and learning.
A
Call to Action
School
leadership directly impacts how technology is used for teaching and
learning (Byrom & Bingham, 2001; Granger, Lotherington, Oweston,
& Wideman, 2002; Han, 2002). This finding is relevant not only to
the United States but globally as well. In fact, various
international studies have mirrored the findings described above
(Afshari, Bakar, Luan, Samah, & Fooi, 2009; Banoglu, 2011;
Brooks, 2011). The research literature indicates that the need for
school technology leadership is real, lasting, and grave.
Researchers have noted that if school
leaders do not get technology leadership, successful technology
innovations will not happen (McLeod, Bathon, & Richardson, 2011).
Leaders are the lynchpin to successful technology innovations. For
example, Levin and Schrum (2012) researched eight award-winning,
technology-rich schools. The authors found that the leaders of these
schools each had a clear vision, enacted distributed leadership,
planned for changes, secured an adequate level of funding, created
structures of professional support including ongoing professional
development, focused on the school culture, revised the curriculum to
meet modern needs, and collaborated with stakeholders. These findings
have been mirrored in others studies such as that of Anderson and
Dexter (2005) who studied five laptop schools.
Prensky (2010) eloquently noted that
“there is a huge paradox for educators: the place where the biggest
educational changes have come is not our schools; it is everywhere
else but our
schools” (p. 1). Additionally, Schrum
and Levin (2009) quipped,
If
you think about the changes that occurred in the 20th century and
consider the pace of change that occurred in the last half of that
century, it is easy to see how difficult it is to predict what lives
will be like for the students we are educating in today’s schools.
(p. 6)
This
call for change is evident. School leaders no longer question the
value of the pencil, the blackboard, the book, or desks. Yet, digital
technologies remain in question to many leaders. For those leaders
who do not proactively address technology, they will soon find
themselves irrelevant to the needs of students and teachers.
References
Anderson,
R., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An
empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational
Administrator Quarterly, 41(1),
49-82.
Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S.,
Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Technology and school
leadership. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 18(2),
235-248.
Baker,
B. D., & Bathon, J. (2013). Financing
online education and virtual schooling: A guide for policy makers and
advocates.
National Education Policy Center, Boulder, CO. Retrieved from
http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/lb-pb-onlineedfinancing-policy_0.pdf
Banoglu, K. (2011). School principals’
technology leadership competency and technology coordinatorship.
Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice, 11(1), 208-213.
Bathon,
J. (2012). Expression and association rights of school employees in
electronic environments. Journal
of School Leadership 22(6),
1155-1176.
Bathon,
J. M., & Brady, K. (2011). Teacher free speech and expression in
a digital age: A legal analysis. NASSP
Bulletin, 94(3),
213-226.
Bon,
S. C., Bathon, J., & Balzano, A. M. (in press). Social media
[mis]use by teachers: Looking to the courts for human resource policy
guidance. Journal
of School Public Relations.
Brady,
K. P., & Bathon, J. M. (2012). The state of education law
research in a digital age: The implications of the open legal access
movement. West’s
Education Law Reporter,
277, 589-607.
Brantmeier,
E., & Richardson, J. (2009). ICT for peace and reconciliation:
Constraints and possibilities in Cambodia and Tibet. In C. Vrasidas,
M. Zembylas, & G. Glass (Eds.), ICT
for education, development, and social justice
(pp. 213-236). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Brooks, C. (2011). Locating leadership:
The blind spot in Alberta’s technology policy discourse. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 19(26),
1-23.
Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001).
Factors influencing the
effective use of technology for teaching and learning: Lessons
learned from SEIR*TEC Intensive Site Schools (2nd ed.).
Greensboro, NC: SERVE.
Fullan, M. (2001). The
meaning of educational change
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan,
M. (2002, May). The change leader. Educational
Leadership, 16-19.
Granger, C. A., Lotherington, H.,
Oweston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to
teachers’ successful implementation of IT. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 18,
480-488.
Han, C. (2002). Leadership roles of a
pre-school principal in the use of ICT. Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood, 3(2),
293-297.
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003).
What we know about successful
school leadership.
Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.
Leithwood, K. A., Louis, K., Anderson,
S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning.
New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2012).
Leading technology-rich
schools: Award winning. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
McLeod, S. (2010, September 29). We
can’t let educators off the hook.
Retrieved from
http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2010/09/we-cant-let-educators-off-the-hook.html
McLeod, S. (2011). Are we irrelevant to
the digital, global world in which we live? UCEA
Review, 52(2), 1-5.
McLeod, S., Bathon, J., & Richardson,
J. W. (2011). Studies of technology tool usage are not enough: A
response to the articles in this special issue.
Journal of Research in Leadership in Education, 6(5),
288-297.
McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W.
(2011). The dearth of technology coverage. Journal
of School Leadership, 21(2),
216-240.
Pekarsky, D. (1998). Vision and
education. In H. Marantz (Ed.), Judaism
and education (pp. 277-291).
Beersheva, Israel: Ben-Gurion University of the Negeu Press.
Perez, L. G., & Uline, C. L. (2003).
Administrative problem solving in the information age: Creating
technological capacity. Journal
of Educational Administration, 41(2),
143-157.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching
digital natives: Partnering for real learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Richardson, J. W. (2008). ICT in
education reform in Cambodia: Problems, politics, and policies
impacting implementation. Information
Technology for International Development, 4(4),
67-82.
Richardson, J. W. (2009). Providing ICT
skills to teacher trainers in Cambodia: Summary of project outputs
and achievements. Journal of
Education for International Development, 4(2),
1-12.
Richardson, J. W. (2010, September).
Online credentials: A state of wariness. The
School Administrator, 18-22.
Richardson, J. W. (2011a). Challenges of
adopting technology for education in less developed countries: The
case of Cambodia. Comparative
Education Review, 55(1), 8-29.
Richardson, J. W. (2011b). Technology
adoption in Cambodia: Measuring factors impacting adoption rates.
Journal of International
Development, 23(5), 697-710.
doi: 10.1002/jid.166.
Richardson, J. W., & Brantmeier, E.
(2012). From head to hand to global community: The role of ICTs in
catalyzing conflict transformation in Egypt. Education,
Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 5(4),
254-266.
Richardson, J. W., Flora, K., &
Bathon, J. (2013). Fostering a technology vision for school leaders.
International Journal of
Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(1),
144-161.
Richardson, J. W., McLeod, S., &
Garrett Dikkers, A. (2011a). How do school districts treat K-12
principals and principal candidates with online credentials?
International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 14(3),
351-368. doi:10.1080/13603124.2011.560284
Richardson, J. W., McLeod, S., &
Garrett Dikkers, A. (2011b). Perceptions of online credentials for
school principals. Journal of
Educational Administration, 49(4),
378-395.
Richardson, J. W., McLeod, S., Flora, K.,
Sauers, N., Sincar, M., & Kannan, S. (2013). Large-scale 1:1
computing initiatives: An open access database. International
Journal of Education and Development using Information and
Communication Technology, 9(1),
4-18.
Richardson, J. W., Sauers, N., &
McLeod, S. (in press). Technology leadership is just GOOD leadership:
Dispositions of tech-savvy superintendents. AASA
Journal of Scholarship & Practice.
Sauers, N. J., Richardson, J. W., &
McLeod, S. (in press, 2014). Technology-savvy superintendents:
Successes and challenges. Journal
of School Leadership, 24(6).
Schrum, L., & Levin, B.B., (2009).
Leading 21st century schools:
Harnessing technology for engagement and achievement.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vitaska, S. (2008). Strong
leaders strong schools: 2007 state laws.
Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
