Technology Standards for School

Administrators: An Analysis of
Practicing and Aspiring
Administrators’ Perceived Ability
to Perform the Standards
Chien Yu, Vance A. Durrington

This study investigated practicing and aspiring school administrators’

perceived level of proficiency related to the Technology Standards for
School Administrators adopted by the International Society for
Technology in Education. Based on the mentor-mentee relationship, the
study found there were no significant differences between mentors and
mentees in their perceived ability to meet any of the Technology
Standards for School Administrators. However, there was a significant
difference between mentors and mentees on the social, legal, and ethical
issues standard, with mentees showing a greater desire to pursue pro-
fessional development in this standard area.

Keywords: technology standards; technology integration; mentoring; profes-

sional development; school administrators

Rapid innovations in technology help drive educational reforms that affect how
schools are managed. As society increases as a technology-rich environment,
school leaders are faced with how to support the integration of technology into mean-
ingful learning activities and how to evaluate the use of technology within their schools.
School leaders need to recognize their teachers’ needs and support them in effectively
using technology in their classrooms (Holland, 2000). To effectively support their
teachers, school leaders often need to feel knowledgeable about technology, which
includes a thorough understanding of when and how technology can be effectively used
to enhance student learning in their schools.

Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to: vad12@colled.msstate.edu.

NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 90, No. 4, December 2006 301-317

DOI: 10.1177/0192636506295392
© 2006 by the National Association of Secondary School Principals
http://bul.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

301
 Today’s innovations in technology have provided valuable instructional tools for
education. School leaders/administrators play an essential role in whether these inno-
vations are being used effectively in their schools. Many state departments of educa-
tion have developed technology plans intended to promote the effective use of tech-
nology and to aid administrators in implementing technology strategies that will
improve their school’s efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity. To emphasize the
administrators’ role in implementing technology into the schools, one state’s technol-
ogy plan underscores the need for administrators to initiate, promote, and support the
effective use of technology into their educational environments. It is a positive sign to
see the administrators’ role being addressed in plans such as the one previously men-
tioned, but there is a lack of emphasis in identifying the technical competencies admin-
istrators need to fulfill this role. The Technology Standards for School Administrators
(TSSA; Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative, 2001) have
been developed to assist administrators in identifying the technical competencies they
need to fulfill their role as it relates to technology. This study investigated the TSSA
from the perspective of practicing school administrators and the aspiring school
administrators they mentor. It examined both groups’ (practicing and aspiring admin-
istrators) perceived ability to meet these standards and examined which standards they
wished to pursue further in terms of professional development. The findings from this
study can inform other educational leadership programs as they prepare administrators
in their role as technology leaders. The findings of this study can also provide a frame-
work for further studies that expand to the regional and national levels. This study is
important because the findings from this study have the potential to

• identify the perceived ability of practicing and aspiring administrators to meet tech-
nology standards, such as those advocated by TSSA;
• identify if there is a gap between the perceived and actual technological abilities and
skills of practicing and aspiring administrators;
• identify the self-assessed technological professional development needs of practicing
and aspiring school administrators; and
• identify the components of technological instruction that need to be addressed in edu-
cational leadership programs.

Research Questions
The Technology Standards for School Administrators used in this study were col-
laboratively developed by the Technology Standards for School Administrators
Collaborative (2001) and were adopted by the International Society for Technology
in Education (ISTE) as the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for
Administrators (Appendix). The following questions guided the study:

• What were the self-perceived proficiency levels of practicing and aspiring adminis-
trators with relation to the TSSA?

302 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

 • Was there a significant difference between practicing administrators’ and aspiring
administrators’ perceived TSSA proficiency levels?
• Which standard indicators did practicing and aspiring administrators indicate as areas
they wished to pursue for personal improvement?
• Was there a significant difference between practicing administrators and aspiring
administrators in the standard indicators identified as areas they wished to pursue for
personal improvement?

School Administrators as Technology Facilitators

School administrators play an important role in facilitating technology use in
schools (Ertmer et al., 2002), and they are one of the keys to successful technology
planning and integration (Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). MacNeil and
Delafield (1998) found that when administrators act as technology leaders, the
teachers and students integrate and use technology more successfully. Yet many
school administrators are novice technology users and have little experience or train-
ing in the knowledge and skills required to be effective technology leaders (Ertmer
et al., 2002). To help teachers integrate technology, the school leaders need to keep
up with the latest technology. Without this knowledge, administrators find it difficult
to help teachers understand the use of technology in the classroom.
Paben (2002) indicated that school leaders’ vision for their schools must include
technology. So, what exactly do administrators need to know to be effective tech-
nology leaders? Schmeltzer (2001) indicated that administrators need a broad set of
experiences; they need to develop an understanding of how technology can improve
instructional practices and a repertoire of strategies for supporting teachers’ efforts
to use technology in the classroom.
The International Society for Technology in Education has adopted the TSSA for
administrators, which cover the following six critical areas:

• Leadership and vision: Educational leaders inspire a shared vision for comprehensive
integration of technology and foster an environment and culture conducive to the real-
ization of that vision.
• Learning and teaching: Educational leaders ensure that curricular design, instruc-
tional strategies, and learning environments integrate appropriate technologies to
maximize learning and teaching.
• Productivity and professional practice: Educational leaders apply technology to enhance
their professional practice and to increase their own productivity and that of others.
• Support, management, and operations: Educational leaders ensure the integration of
technology to support productive systems for learning and administration.
• Assessment and evaluation: Educational leaders use technology to plan and imple-
ment comprehensive systems of effective assessment and evaluation.
• Social, legal, and ethical issues: Educational leaders understand the social, legal, and
ethical issues related to technology and model responsible decision making related to
these issues (Appendix).

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006 303

 At the state level, many state departments of education have also drafted technol-
ogy standards for administrators to initiate, promote, and support the effective integra-
tion of technology into the educational environment. For example, one state depart-
ment of education in the southeast has standards very similar to the TSSA, which include

• Standard 1 (vision): Communicates to all stakeholders a vision of the role of tech-

nology in teaching and learning.
• Standard 2 (funding and long-range planning): Develops, implements, and monitors
a long-range technology plan.
• Standard 3 (professional development): Initiates and supports professional develop-
ment processes that produce effective uses of technology in teaching and learning.
• Standard 4 (model user): Models the effective use of technology in support of teach-
ing, learning, and administrative functions.
• Standard 5 (learning environment): Creates a learning environment that empowers
staff to infuse technology into teaching and learning.
• Standard 6 (student learning): Ensures the implementation of district, school, and
classroom strategies that prepare students to be successful in a technological world.
• Standard 7 (legal, ethical, and security issues): Communicates the legal, ethical, and
security issues related to technology (Mississippi Department of Education, n.d.).

These national, or state, technology standards for administrators tend to guide the
redesign or development of new courses and training experiences. However, most
professional development efforts have focused on the needs of the classroom teach-
ers, with little attention paid to administrators’ needs (Ertmer et al., 2002). Most
school administrators have acquired their technology knowledge and skills on the
job, with occasional training provided by assorted vendors, professional organiza-
tions, colleges, and universities (Mehlinger & Powers, 2002).
Educational leadership is increasingly recognized as a key ingredient to effective
schools and is increasingly becoming a more complex and difficult job to carry out
(Daresh, 1992). Mentoring has become an accepted and desirable part of the preser-
vice preparation of educational administrators (Daresh & Playko, 1995). Mentoring
is mutually beneficial, and protégés develop higher levels of credibility, gain greater
confidence, and develop human resource skills and competence in their work as prac-
titioners (Restine, 1997). Crow and Mathews (1998) noted that mentoring not only
provides aspiring administrators with specific ideas and strategies, it encourages them
to be more reflective and analytical about their practice The mentoring relationship
also benefits the mentors, providing them insights into their craft and enthusiasm
about their profession. In addition, mentoring provides means for testing fundamen-
tal assumptions and beliefs concerning the nature of power, authority, and leadership
(Restine, 1997). Practicing administrators need to have a sound vision of emerging
technology and to mentor their mentees to effectively and efficiently use technology.
Aspiring administrators need to be aware of the possible administrative applications
of computer technology for their future practice. In their role as leaders, practicing

304 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

school administrators also need to recognize when teachers need coaching on the
effective use of technology and provide for the necessary coaching.

Method
The target participants for this study consisted of in-service teachers who were
enrolled in the educational leadership graduate program at a southeastern university
and their mentors who served as school administrators in public and private schools
within the state of Mississippi.
To investigate the perceived ability of practicing and aspiring administrators to
meet the Technology Standards for School Administrators (Appendix), a survey was
mailed to the participants. The participants were asked to indicate

• their perceived ability to perform the technology standards (from 0 to 5, none to very
competent) and
• the standards they wished to pursue for personal professional development (from 0
to 5, none to greatest need).

In addition, the participants were asked to provide their demographic (background

and situational) information in the survey.

Demographic Information
There were 57 aspiring administrators (mentees) and 16 practicing administra-
tors (mentors) who responded to the survey. In many cases, the researchers found
that an individual school administrator had more than one mentee. Therefore, the
relationship between the mentors and mentees in the study did not necessarily indi-
cate a one-on-one relationship but could also be a one-to-many relationship. The
one-to-many relationship is the reason for larger number of aspiring administrators
compared to practicing administrators.

Description of Mentee Participants

There were 57 aspiring administrators who participated in the study. When
asked to indicate their current position in the schools, 50 (88%) of the 57 participants
were practicing teachers, 6 (10%) were currently nonadministrative professional
staff (e.g., coach, librarian, etc.), and 1 participant (2%) did not respond. The mentee
respondents ranged in age from 24 to 56 with a mean age of 36. Most of the respon-
dents were Caucasian (77%) and African American (21%). Of the aspiring adminis-
trators, 25 were currently working in elementary schools (44%), whereas 9 indicated
they were working in junior high schools (16%), and 6 were working in high schools
(11%); the remaining respondents identified working in K-12 (23%) schools, and
2 participants did not indicate the level of the school where they were working. When
indicating their years of service in education, the majority of the mentee respondents

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006 305

had less than 10 years of service (79%). The majority of the respondents were cur-
rently working in rural schools (90%).

Description of Mentor Participants

There were 16 practicing administrators serving as mentors who participated in
the study. Among the practicing administrators responding to the survey, 10 (64%)
were school principals, 2 (12%) were assistant principals, 2 (12%) were counselors,
and 2 (12%) did not indicate their current administrative positions. The mentor par-
ticipants ranged in age from 30 to 60 with a mean age of 47. Most of the respondents
were Caucasian (81%) and African American (13%), with 1 nonresponse listed rela-
tive to ethnicity. The majority of the practicing administrators were working in ele-
mentary (63%) or K-12 (25%) schools. The highest percentage (81%) of mentors had
less than 10 years of service in the schools and were working in rural schools (88%).

Data Analysis
The data analysis mainly focused on two elements: (a) participants’ perceived
ability to perform the TSSA and (b) which standard participants wished to pursue for
further professional development. A t test was used to determine if there was any sig-
nificant difference between the two groups’ ability and interest related to the TSSA.

Perceived Ability to Perform Standards

When the two groups were asked to rate their perceived ability to perform the
TSSA, the aspiring school administrators (mentees) rated their perceived ability
(1 to 5 Likert scale) to perform the learning and teaching standard the highest (M = 3.78)
and the support, management, and operations standard as the lowest (M = 3.21).
Practicing administrators (mentors) rated their perceived ability to perform the
social, legal, and ethical issues standard the highest (M = 3.75) and rated the support,
management, and operations standard the lowest (M = 3.32). The results indicate that
both groups perceived their ability level as average based on their indicated ability
to perform the TSSA. In addition, both groups indicated their performance in the
support, management, and operations area as their lowest area. In Table 1, t tests
revealed that there were no significant differences between mentors and mentees in
their perceived ability to meet any of the standards.

Interest to Pursue Opportunities to Improve Their

Ability to Meet the Standards
In Table 2, results from the survey revealed that aspiring school administrators
(mentees) indicated they were most interested in the learning and teaching standard
(M = 4.14) and least interested in the leadership and vision standard (M = 3.99). For

306 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

Table 1. Perceived Ability to Meet Standards t Test

Standard M SD Significance

Leadership and vision

Mentora 3.60 .781
Menteeb 3.58 .586 .900
Learning and teaching
Mentor 3.66 .721
Mentee 3.78 .671 .546
Productivity and professional practice
Mentor 3.55 .849
Mentee 3.75 .622 .385
Support, management, and operations
Mentor 3.32 .876
Mentee 3.21 .781 .631
Assessment and evaluation
Mentor 3.53 .896
Mentee 3.69 .654 .541
Social, legal, and ethical
Mentor 3.75 .853
Mentee 3.65 .755 .694

a. n = 16.
b. n = 57.

the practicing administrators (mentors), they rated they were most interested in the
learning and teaching standard (M = 3.88) and least interested in the social, legal,
and ethical issues standard (M = 3.37). Both groups rated their highest interest to
pursue opportunities to improve their ability to meet the learning and teaching stan-
dard. A t test revealed (t = 2.75, p = .012) a significant difference between mentors
and mentees on the social, legal, and ethical issues standard, with mentees showing
a greater desire to pursue professional development in this standard area compared
to their mentors.

Detailed Items of the Standards

When the researchers analyzed the detailed items for each standard, there were
no significant differences between mentors’ and mentees’ perceived ability to the cri-
teria for each standard. When analyzing the criteria for each standard in reference to
which areas they wished to pursue for personal professional development, significant
differences were found between mentors and mentees for criteria in the leadership
and vision, productivity and professional practice, and social, legal, and ethical
issues standards.
Leadership and vision. With response to the item “Educational leaders foster
and nurture a culture of responsible risk taking and advocate policies promoting

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006 307

Table 2. Interest in Pursuing for Professional Development t Test

Standard M SD Significance

Leadership and vision

Mentora 3.63 1.01
Menteeb 3.99 0.711 .192
Learning and teaching
Mentor 3.88 0.757
Mentee 4.14 0.738 .229
Productivity and professional practice
Mentor 3.70 0.921
Mentee 4.11 0.752 .116
Support management and operations
Mentor 3.81 0.872
Mentee 4.09 0.638 .245
Assessment and evaluation
Mentor 3.63 1.06
Mentee 4.00 0.772 .221
Social, legal, and ethical
Mentor 3.37 0.868
Mentee 4.06 0.843 .012*

a. n = 16.
b. n = 57.
*p < .05.

continuous innovation with technology,” in Table 3 t-test scores revealed a signifi-

cant difference (t = 2.28, p = .034) between the practicing and aspiring administra-
tors’ desire to purse further professional development in this area. Aspiring adminis-
trators (M = 4.14) expressed a significantly greater desire to gain further knowledge
in meeting this criteria than practicing administrators (M = 3.47).

Productivity and professional practice. With response to the item “Educational

leaders create and participate in learning communities that stimulate, nurture, and sup-
port faculty and staff in using technology for improved productivity,” in Table 4 t-test
scores revealed a significant difference (t = 2.18, p = .040) between the practicing and
aspiring administrators’ desire to pursue further professional development in this area.
Aspiring administrators (M = 4.00) expressed a significantly greater desire to gain fur-
ther knowledge in meeting this criteria than practicing administrators (M = 3.38).

Social, legal, and ethical issues. In Table 5, t-test scores revealed significant
differences between aspiring and practicing administrators’ desire to pursue personal
professional development on three of the criteria.
With response to the item “Educational leaders identify, communicate, model, and
enforce social, legal, and ethical practices to promote responsible use of technology,”
a t test revealed a significant difference (t = 2.84, p = .011) between the practicing and

308 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

Table 3. Leadership and Vision: Desired Criteria to Pursue for Professional
Development

Educational Leaders: M SD Significance

Facilitate the shared development by

all stakeholders of a vision for
technology use and widely
communicate that vision.
Mentora 3.44 1.32
Menteeb 3.96 0.906 .148
Maintain an inclusive and cohesive
process to develop, implement,
and monitor a dynamic, long-range,
and systemic technology plan
to achieve the vision.
Mentor 3.73 1.03
Mentee 4.00 0.824 .366
Foster and nurture a culture of responsible
risk taking and advocate policies promoting
continuous innovation with technology.
Mentor 3.47 1.06
Mentee 4.14 0.841 .034*
Use data in making leadership decisions.
Mentor 3.40 1.24
Mentee 3.96 1.06 .123
Advocate for research-based effective
practices in use of technology.
Mentor 3.40 1.12
Mentee 3.93 0.863 .105
Advocate, on the state and national levels,
for policies, programs, and funding
opportunities that support implementation
of the district technology plan.
Mentor 3.87 0.915
Mentee 3.96 0.823 .710

a. n = 16.
b. n = 57.
*p < .05.

aspiring administrators’ desire to pursue further professional development in this area.

Aspiring administrators (M = 4.11) expressed a significantly greater desire to gain fur-
ther knowledge in meeting this criteria than practicing administrators (M = 3.13).
With response to the item “Educational leaders promote and enforce environ-
mentally safe and healthy practices in the use of technology,” a t test revealed a sig-
nificant difference (t = 2.34, p = .026) between the practicing and aspiring adminis-
trators’ desire to pursue further professional development in this area. Aspiring
administrators (M = 4.02) expressed a significantly greater desire to gain further
knowledge in meeting this criteria than practicing administrators (M = 3.47).

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006 309

Table 4. Productivity and Professional Practice: Desired Criteria to Pursue
for Professional Development

Educational Leaders: M SD Significance

Model the routine, intentional,

and effective use of technology.
Mentora 3.75 0.856
Menteeb 4.09 0.880 .177
Employ technology for communication and
collaboration among colleagues, staff,
parents, students, and the larger community.
Mentor 3.88 1.15
Mentee 4.13 0.833 .426
Create and participate in learning communities
that stimulate, nurture, and support faculty
and staff in using technology for
improved productivity.
Mentor 3.38 1.03
Mentee 4.00 0.972 .040*
Engage in sustained, job-related professional
learning using technology resources.
Mentor 3.56 0.964
Mentee 4.05 0.961 .085
Maintain awareness of emerging technologies
and their potential uses in education.
Mentor 3.81 1.22
Mentee 4.27 0.820 .177
Use technology to advance organizational
improvement.
Mentor 3.81 1.05
Mentee 4.13 0.935 .293

a. n = 16.
b. n = 57.
*p < .05.

With response to the item “Educational leaders participate in the development

of policies that clearly enforce copyright law and assign ownership of intellectual
property developed with district resources,” a t test revealed a significant difference
(t = 3.06, p = .005) between the practicing and aspiring administrators’ desire to
pursue further professional development in this area. Aspiring administrators (M =
4.00) expressed a significantly greater desire to gain further knowledge in meeting
this criteria than practicing administrators (M = 3.27).

Discussion
Geer (2002) indicated, “Administrators have many responsibilities when it
comes to technology” (p. 56). Maurer and Davidson (as cited in Geer, 2002) stated
that these responsibilities may include initiating communication about technology

310 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

Table 5. Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues: Desired Criteria to Pursue
for Professional Development

Educational Leaders: M SD Significance

Ensure equity of access to technology

resources that enable and empower
all learners and educators.
Mentora 3.47 1.19
Menteeb 4.11 0.916 .067
Identify, communicate, model, and enforce
social, legal, and ethical practices to
promote responsible use of technology.
Mentor 3.13 1.25
Mentee 4.11 0.896 .011*
Promote and enforce privacy, security, and
online safety related to the use of technology.
Mentor 3.47 0.743
Mentee 4.02 1.01 .026*
Promote and enforce environmentally safe and
healthy practices in the use of technology.
Mentor 3.57 0.938
Mentee 4.05 0.931 .100
Participate in the development of policies that
clearly enforce copyright law and assign
ownership of intellectual property developed
with district resources.
Mentor 3.27 0.799
Mentee 4.00 0.903 .005*

a. n = 16.
b. n = 57.
*p < .05.

and instruction and leading the school community through the financial, bureaucratic,
and political obstacles that arise with technology. To achieve their schools’ technology-
oriented goals, school leaders need comprehensive higher education, or professional
development courses, to learn the required technology skills and knowledge.
Using the TSSA, the purpose of this study was to investigate the technology
standards/competencies school administrators needed to be effective leaders and the
level of importance school administrators placed on these competencies. On the
basis of the mentor-mentee relationship, this study also investigated whether there
were differences in the perceived ability of aspiring administrators and their mentors
to meet these standards. Finally, this study investigated if there was a difference
between aspiring administrators’ and their mentors’ level of desire to pursue further
educational opportunities related to the standards and the criteria that make up the
standards. In Tables 6 and 7, a summary of the perceived ability and interest levels
are shown ranked according to the means.

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006 311

Table 6. Ranking of Perceived Ability to Perform Technology Standards
for School Administrators: Mentor/Mentee

Mentor (n = 16) Mentee (n = 57)

Social, legal, and ethical issues (3.75)
Learning and teaching (3.66)
Leadership and vision (3.60)
Productivity and professional practice (3.55)
Assessment and evaluation (3.53)
Support, management, and operations (3.32)
Learning and teaching (3.78)
Productivity and professional practice (3.75)
Assessment and evaluation (3.69)
Social, legal, and ethical issues (3.65)
Leadership and vision (3.58)
Support, management, and operations (3.21)

Table 7. Ranking of Technology Standards for School Administrators to Pursue

for Professional Development: Mentor/Mentee

Mentor (n = 16) Mentee (n = 57)

Learning and teaching (3.88) Learning and teaching (4.14)

Support, management, and operations (3.81)
Productivity and professional practice (3.70)
Assessment and evaluation (3.63)
Leadership and vision (3.62)
Social, legal, and ethical issues (3.37)
Productivity and professional practice (4.11)
Support, management, and operations (4.09)
Social, legal, and ethical issues (4.06)
Assessment and evaluation (4.00)
Leadership and vision (3.99)

In our findings, we discovered that there was not a significant difference between
aspiring administrators’ and their mentors’ perceived ability to meet the standards.
Despite this lack of difference, it is interesting to note that both groups perceived their
ability to be slightly above average on a 5-point Likert-type scale (mentees = 3.61;
mentors = 3.58). This would indicate that even though there was little difference
between the two groups’ perceived ability to meet the standards, there is still room for
improvement for both groups related to their ability to meet the standards.
Interestingly, when asked to indicate their level of interest in learning more to meet
the standards, there again was not a significant difference overall between the two
groups (mentees = 4.05; mentors = 3.66). When going deeper and examining each stan-
dard individually, the only significant difference between the two groups was found on
the social, legal, and ethical standard where the aspiring administrators indicated a sig-
nificantly greater interest in learning more about how to meet this standard than did their
mentors. Finally, an analysis at the individual criteria level indicated that aspiring
administrators were more interested than their mentors in pursing the following criteria:

• Educational leaders foster and nurture a culture of responsible risk taking and advocate
policies promoting continuous innovation with technology (leadership and vision).
• Educational leaders create and participate in learning communities that stimulate,
nurture, and support faculty and staff in using technology for improved productivity
(productivity and professional practice).

312 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

 • Educational leaders identify, communicate, model, and enforce social, legal, and ethi-
cal practices to promote responsible use of technology (social, legal, and ethical issues).
• Educational leaders promote and enforce environmentally safe and healthy practices
in the use of technology (social, legal, and ethical issues).
• Educational leaders participate in the development of policies that clearly enforce
copyright law and assign ownership of intellectual property developed with district
resources (social, legal, and ethical issues).

These five criteria have two themes in common, communication (nurturing, model-
ing, etc.) and policies/practices. The significant differences identified between aspir-
ing administrators and their mentors seem to indicate that aspiring administrators
desired to personally improve in their ability to communicate, nurture, and model an
environment that promotes and uses technology effectively. In addition, aspiring
administrators are concerned about developing practices and policies that create an
environment that allows for the ethical use of technology. Unfortunately, this desire
to pursue professional development in ethics is not matched with educational oppor-
tunities for administrators (Beck & Murphy, 1994). Edmonson and Fisher (2002)
stated that “Perhaps one of the greatest gaps present in the training of educational
leaders is that of ethics. . . . With increasing levels of accountability and complexity
for school administrators, these gaps in ethics training must be addressed” (p. 3).
Having educational administrators who are ethical is critical to our education.
Ethical standards have thus been implemented by many professional educator orga-
nizations for each level of school administrators, such as the American Association
of School Administrators (AASA), National Association for Secondary School
Principals (NASSP), National Association for Elementary School Principals
(NAESP), National Middle School Association (NMSA), and Interstate Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) (Edmonson & Fisher, 2002).

Conclusions
Effective leadership is critical to providing a successful and sustainable technology-
enriched learning environment (Knezek, 2002). Integrating the use of computer tech-
nology into the classroom and curriculum are critical necessities for educators and
administrators (Testerman & Hall, 2001). When administrators act as technology
leaders, teachers and students use and integrate technology more successfully (MacNeil
& Delefield, 1998). Therefore, academic institutions with educational leadership
programs and the associated professional organizations have a responsibility to
develop effective leaders who are able to meet the TSSA.
Leadership plays a key role in successful school reform (Grabe & Grabe, 2004).
Because of this changing role of school leaders, many organizations have crafted
standards and indicators for school leadership. For implementing technology into

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006 313

schools, the TSSA are indicators of effective leadership and can be used to guide
the redesign and/or development of new graduate courses for school administration
programs (Ertmer et al., 2002). The findings of this study can serve as a guide in
assessing aspiring administrators’ ability to help prioritize and develop curriculum
and training programs to support technology requirements and competencies for
school leaders and administrators.
The effective 21st-century administrator is a hands-on user of technology
(Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative, 2001). Although
the standards challenge almost every school administrator in some area or areas,
school leaders should know about and be able to optimize the benefits of using tech-
nology in schools. Mehlinger and Powers (2001) stated, “It is no longer possible for
administrators to be both naïve about technology and be good school leaders”
(p. 218). The Technology Standards for School Administrators provide a framework
that school administrators may use for self-assessment of their ability to meet the
standards and a framework for higher educational leadership programs as they pre-
pare aspiring administrators.

Appendix
I. Leadership and Vision:
Educational leaders inspire a shared vision for comprehensive integration of technology
and foster an environment and culture conducive to the realization of that vision.
Educational leaders:
A. facilitate the shared development by all stakeholders of a vision for technology use
and wisely communicate that vision.
B. maintain an inclusive and cohesive process to develop, implement, and monitor a
dynamic, long-range, and systemic technology plan to achieve the vision.
C. foster and nurture a culture of responsible risk-taking and advocate policies promot-
ing continuous innovation with technology.
D. use data in making leadership decisions.
E. advocate for research-based effective practices in use of technology.
F. advocate, on the state and national levels, for policies, programs, and funding oppor-
tunities that support implementation of the district technology plan.
II. Learning and Teaching:
Educational leaders ensure that curricular design, instructional strategies, and learning
environments integrate appropriate technologies to maximize learning and teaching.
Educational leaders:
A. identify, use, evaluate, and promote appropriate technologies to enhance and
support instruction and standards-based curriculum leading to high levels of student
achievement.
B. facilitate and support collaborative technology-enriched learning environments con-
ducive to innovation for improved learning.
C. provide for learner-centered environments that use technology to meet the individual
and diverse needs of learners.

314 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

 D. facilitate the use of technologies to support and enhance instructional methods that
develop higher-level thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving skills.
E. provide for and ensure that faculty and staff take advantage of quality professional
learning opportunities for improved learning and teaching with technology.
III. Productivity and Professional Practice
Educational leaders apply technology to enhance their professional practice and to
increase their own productivity and that of others.
Educational leaders:
A. model the routine, intentional, and effective use of technology.
B. employ technology for communication and collaboration among colleagues, staff,
parents, students, and the larger community.
C. create and participate in learning communities that stimulate, nurture, and support
faculty and staff in using technology for improved productivity.
D. engage in sustained, job-related professional learning using technology resources.
E. maintain awareness of emerging technologies and their potential uses in education.
F. use technology to advance organizational improvement.
IV. Support, Management, and Operations:
Educational leaders ensure the integration of technology to support productive systems
for learning and administration.
Educational leaders:
A. develop, implement, and monitor policies and guidelines to ensure compatibility of
technologies.
B. implement and use integrated technology-based management and operations systems.
C. allocate financial and human resources to ensure complete and sustained implemen-
tation of the technology plan.
D. integrate strategic plans, technology plans, and other improvement plans and policies
to align efforts and leverage resources.
E. implement procedures to drive continuous improvements of technology systems and
to support technology replacement cycles.
V. Assessment and Evaluation:
Educational leaders use technology to plan and implement comprehensive systems of
effective assessment and evaluation
Educational leaders:
A. use multiple methods to assess and evaluate appropriate uses of technology resources
for learning, communication, and productivity.
B. use technology to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate find-
ings to improve instructional practice and student learning.
C. assess staff knowledge, skills, and performance in using technology and use results
to facilitate quality professional development and to inform personnel decisions.
D. use technology to assess, evaluate, and manage administrative and operational systems.
VI. Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues:
Educational leaders understand the social, legal, and ethical issues related to technology
and model responsible decision-making related to these issues.
Educational leaders:
A. ensure equity of access to technology resources that enable and empower all learners
and educators.

(continued)

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006 315

Appendix (continued)
B. identify, communicate, model, and enforce social, legal, and ethical practices to pro-
mote responsible use of technology.
C. promote and enforce privacy, security, and online safety related to the use of
technology.
D. promote and enforce environmentally safe and healthy practices in the use of
technology.
E. participate in the development of policies that clearly enforce copyright law and
assign ownership of intellectual property developed with district resources.

Source: This material was originally produced as a project of the Technology Standards for
School Administrators Collaborative (2001).

References
Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1994). Ethics in educational leadership programs: An
expanding role. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Crow, G. M., & Mathews, J. L. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can
lead to dynamic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED414263)
Daresh, J. C. (1992). Mentoring programs to support beginning school leaders.
Colorado Springs: Colorado Association of School Boards. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED354582)
Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1995). Mentoring in educational leadership
development: What are the responsibilities of the proteges? Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED381874)
Edmonson, S., & Fisher, A. (2002). Creating ethical administrators: A challenge
for both professor and practitioner. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470756)
Ertmer, P. A., Bai, H., Dong, C., Khalil, M., Park, S. H., & Wang, L. (2002).
Online professional development: Building administrators’ capacity for tech-
nology leadership. Eugene, OR: National Education Computing Conference.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED475930)
Geer, C. (2002). Technology training for school administrators: A real world
approach. TechTrends, 46(6), 56-59.
Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2004). Integrating technology for meaningful learning
(4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Holland, L. (2000). A different divide: Preparing tech-savvy leaders. Leadership,
30(1), 8.
Knezek, D. (2002). Preparing school administrators to be technology leaders. In
Proceedings of the SITE 2002: Society for Information Technology and

316 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006

 Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 497-498). Norfolk, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED472231)
MacNeil, A. J., & Delafield, D. P. (1998). Principal leadership for successful
school technology implementation. In S. McNeil, J. D. Price, S. B. Mehall,
B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual, 1998
(pp. 296-300). Norfolk, VA: AACE.
Mehlinger, H. D., & Powers, S. M. (2002). Technology and teacher education:
A guide for educators and policymakers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Mississippi Department of Education. (n.d.). Mississippi technology standards
for administrators. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from http://teacherexchange
.mde.k12.ms.us/new/Announcements/mississippi_technology_standards_
administrators.htm
Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the
connection (OTA-HER-616). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Paben, S. (2002). What’s in it for the busy leader?: Show administrators how tech-
nology works toward their vision. Journal of Staff Development, 23(1), 24-27.
Restine, N. (1997). Learning and development in the context(s) of leadership
preparation. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 117-130.
Schmeltzer, T. (2001). Training administrators to be technology leaders.
Technology and Learning, 21(11), 16-24.
Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative. (2001).
Technology standards for school administrators (TSSA). Retrieved October 6,
2004, from http://cnets.iste.org/tssa/pdf/tssa.pdf
Testerman, J. K., & Hall, H. D. (2001). The electronic portfolio: A means of prepar-
ing leaders for application of technology in education. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 29, 199-206.

Chien Yu is an assistant professor in the Department of Instructional Systems, Leadership,

and Workforce Development at Mississippi State University. Her research agenda includes
distance education, technology integration, educational leadership, instructional design, and
media development.

Vance A. Durrington is an assistant professor in the Department of Instructional Systems,

Leadership, and Workforce Development at Mississippi State University. His research
agenda includes distance learning, computer-mediated communications in online instruc-
tional environments, and technology integration in the K-12 learning environment.

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 4 December 2006 317