1

Running Head: ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT

Administrative Systemic Improvement

Adam Jernigan

Coastal Carolina University

EDIT 760, Section D1

July 6, 2019
 2
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT

Introduction

Improvements within an educational body are one of the responsibilities of an

administrative unit. The question that must be answered is how to ensure that the changes made

have positive effects rather than negative. The focus of NETS-A Standard 4 is based on ensuring

that administrators incorporate this concept into the technology implementation of the school.

Horry County Education Center has an administrative unit that has completely changed

the educational model of the school to one that infuses technology into nearly every facet of the

educational process. The focus of this paper will evaluate their attempt to measure these changes

and the impact that they have had on teachers, students, and education. NETS-A Standard 4

includes the following indicators:

• Lead purposeful change to maximize the achievement of learning goals through the

appropriate use of technology and media-rich resources.

• Collaborate to establish metrics, collect and analyze data, interpret results, and share

findings to improve staff performance and student learning.

• Recruit and retain highly competent personnel who use technology creatively and

proficiently to advance academic and operational goals.

• Establish and leverage strategic partnerships to support systemic improvement.

• Establish and maintain a robust infrastructure for technology including integrated,

interoperable technology systems to support management, operations, teaching, and

learning.

Indictors
 3
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT

The primary indicator states that the administrator implements changes that incorporate

adequate technology and promote a positive change in educational structure. Most of the

administrative team of Horry County Education Center have been in place for two years. In

that time the team has transitioned the educational body from that of a traditional educational

model to a technologically rich educational model that is online based. Per conversations

and interviews it was made apparent that the purpose of this change was to provide a more

complete educational experience that provided students with the opportunity to acquire more

credits while at Horry County Education Center rather than losing credit due to the lack of

course offerings under the previous model.

Secondly, the indicator states that the administrator is responsible for creating metrics

that produce data to effectively evaluate staff performance and student learning. Data

collection is constantly being conducted at Horry County Education Center, but the best

example that explains compliance with this indicator can be found during the reintegration

process that students undergo upon achieving the opportunity to return to their base schools.

Part of this process incorporates a data collection routine that provides opportunities for

parents and students to provide feedback about the experience at Horry County Education

Center. These questions include questions that provide student and parent perspectives on

the effectiveness of the program.

The third indicator refers to the acquisition of new personnel that meet the high-quality

technology personnel required to keep up the newly designed program. Given the change in

the educational model the administrative team found that it was important to change the

interview process to make sure that the candidates being hired meet the higher qualifications
 4
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT

needed for the program. This was achieved by allowing for questions that reflect the

applicants ability to manage a classroom effectively that relies so heavily on technology.

Indicator four states that the administrator leverages strategic partnerships to support the

systemic improvements. Making such changes as have been made in Horry County

Education Center requires several sustained partnerships to make the change happen. The

biggest partnership that Mr. McCullough established was between the district office and the

educational body. This partnership was a meeting that allowed for both sides to openly

discuss what needed to take place at the educational body. Another partnership that

developed was between the administrative team and the staff, with them on board it validated

the change and its need. The most needed partnership was with the community as they

needed to help to create a positive atmosphere for the change and needed to see the change’s

value.

Lastly, the final indicator refers to the ability to maintain a robust infrastructure that

continues to meet the standards set by the systemic improvement. Given the correlation of

the program at Horry County Education Center with the base schools within the district it is

important to solidify the infrastructure of the model to maintain compliance from students,

staff, and other schools. Accomplishing this is met by constantly meeting with the Edgenuity

representatives to ensure updated compliance with all new software changes, as well as,

meeting with other schools to address concerns and changes. The key here is flexibility to

positive change to better affect the lives of the students at Horry County Education Center.

As described in Bergh’s evaluation of measuring change, “the most basic approach to

conceiving and measuring change is as a simple difference between multiple measures of the

same variable” (Bergh, 2002). Throughout this evaluation of standard 4 of the NETS-A it is
 5
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT

important to recognize the processes of data collection and analysis that have taken place at

Horry County Education Center by the administrative team to help promote the changes in

the academic model. These points of data have been used to better facilitate the hiring of

new personnel and the building of partnerships within the educational body and those outside

of it.
 6
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT

Resources

Bergh, D. D., & Fairbank, J. F. (2002). Measuring and testing change in strategic

management research. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), 359-366.