There are a number of components to the Teacher Technology Points System. Please read all of the sections of the page and make sure you understand how the system works before trying to use the chart. Near the bottom of the page I explain how the points work and are awarded and taken back. The first component is the chart itself.

Below you will find an html version of the chart that I used on the web site. The actual file that is sent to the teachers is an Excel file. The teachers have the choice of printing out the chart and filling in the dates of the integration during the six weeks with a pen. Many teachers with paper lesson plans preferred this method. They just kept the form with their lesson plans and jotted down a date when an activity took place. Using this format, a teacher has almost no work involved in tracking their technology use.

For teachers who electronically file lesson plans there is the Excel file. They can just load it and put the dates in as they create their lessons. Again there is almost no work for the teacher to document their integration.

This does not mean the chart will work for your school. Before you can use the chart you must have your teachers redesign it for the technology you have at your school. Yes - I said have the teachers or a teacher committee redesign it. I used the campus technology committees and sent out rough drafts to all the teachers with a list of the members of the committee. This gives every teacher an opportunity to have input. I strongly recommend using both technologically advanced teachers on the committee and technologically challenged teachers. If this is to be a tool that increases the quality and quantity of  integration in your school, then the committee needs to truly represent your staff. The administration needs the teachers to buy in to how they are being measured.

This process is not very difficult and after a while will catch on. The big problem with the system is providing enough money for technology replacements so that teachers can see the benefit of using the system. My recommendation is to have enough money to replace all the teachers' computers in a four year period, although it will work with five if the equipment purchased is of high quality. Projectors and other technology may be able to have a six or an eight year cycle. A good technology coordinator/director can deliver the cost for a replacement cycle in no time. Of course the technology coordinator/director, and other administrators, need to stick to the plan also. They can not deliver new equipment or upgrades to their "friends" or the system will not work. Remember, if your district does not have this equipment now, you will need extra money the first four years to get the system up and running.

This funding issue ties in to Special Education and Special Programs also. All of these program must be onboard. You may wish to keep the Special Education/Special Programs teachers on a separate list. That way they still follow the system, but their money is separate and so are their points. Once again, if the funding for the regular education teachers is inadequate, they will soon get discouraged as the Special Education/Special Programs teachers "get it all" and they receive next to nothing.

The second catch to the system is that the computers being replaced must come out of the teachers' rooms. If the teachers are allowed to "accumulate" more and more equipment, that will throw your replacement cycle out the window and greatly increase the need for computer repair technicians and parts.

The good part of all this is that those districts who are handling technology properly will already be doing this in one way or another. This system will then allow more control over cash flow and create a wonderful incentive for those technology integrators to maintain their good teaching habits. This will also encourage the middle ground technology integrators to step things up a level.

When you collect and award points the fairness of the system is always in question. The basic plan is to take points away when the teacher receives an incentive, such as having their teacher computer replaced and to award points for technology integration. As with any award system, the better job you do with the presentation, the more perceived value the award has.

The mechanics are simple. Each six weeks the teachers turn in their points to the technology committee. The committee accumulates the points and posts them. At the end of the semester the totals are finalized and the top teachers are announced. The budget for the system is split in half and each semester half of the money is spent purchasing teacher computers, projects, etc. Your replacement schedule/budget determines how many will be awarded each semester and the system determines which teachers receive the equipment.

Once a teacher receives the equipment their points are set to zero and their old equipment is removed from their room. This equipment will now go to replace the oldest equipment that any teacher has. This prevents the teachers who do not wish to participate as intently from ending up with useless equipment. It does need to be noted that those teachers who refuse to do anything will always have the oldest equipment.

All the rest of the teachers continue to accumulate points. That way a teacher who only integrates a small amount of technology will be able to accumulate enough points eventually to receive new equipment. This also allows the teachers who are aggressively integrating technology to regularly receive new equipment that will help keep them on the edge.

Resistance

Where will resistance come from? There are always some staff members who feel that if someone else got something they should get it too, no matter what they do. This group is usually the one that resists the most. The second group that resists is the teacher who is afraid that the administration will use this information in their teacher evaluation. The principals usually do not. However, I believe that is is a good thing if they do. There is a technology section on the evaluation and the principal should be differentiating between the technologically challenged teacher and the one with mastery. In both of these cases I believe that the system is going to be a positive force. It is time that some people have to accomplish a certain level of work to receive benefits. I also feel that technology is critical to educating a child today and therefore the principal needs to have this on the evaluation.

This system is like most other great education ideas. It sounds great and works even better if properly administered. It also will not show the benefits discuss if it is not implemented completely. If certain teachers are still receiving new equipment outside the system, if it is not properly funded, or if the teachers do not have enough input on what receives points then it will just be another great education idea that seems to find a way not to work. If you do it right, there will be a large improvement on technology integration in a short time.

Good Luck!

Excel File for Chart

Credit needs to be given to Crane ISD and the administrators there who contributed so much without the project ever being finished. (Mr. Hailey, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. McWhorter, & Mr. Dillard) I also wish to thank those at Bandera ISD who added to these ideas and moved forward with the technology committees in this direction while I was there. (Dr. Schulze, Ms. Howell, Mr. Nesbit, Mr. Bitzkie, Mr. Grill & Ms. Thayer) In Corsicana the system came together with help from many administrators. (Dr. Dickson, Mr. Denbow, Ms. Orsak, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hall, Dr. Schneider, Mr. Davis, Ms. Jackson, Mr. Smith, Mr. Brownlee, & Ms. Cottar)  Corsicana actually started using the system and I was able to deliver some awards as we tweaked the system during its first year. I need to give large amounts of credit and sympathy to the teachers on the technology committees at Corsicana ISD. These are the teachers who worked with me to hammer out the final rules, the layout and the points themselves. Any of you who wish your name included here - email me at dirk@dykstra.com.

Since that time, a number of districts have reviewed the system and are using it in one form or another. The district I am at now has been operating the system for over a year and we awarded twenty percent of the teachers this past school year with new wireless laptop computers. We hope to increase that to thirty percent this year along with adding some projectors and other technologies.