Information systems are a key development measure in our current economy. They were initially developed to enhance better decision-making, planning and monitoring. Use of information appears to be appreciated and incorporated within many systems of work (Parman 2008). Many professions have transformed into intensive use of distinctive information systems. This is as a result of the notion that it will influence better decisions which are much more effective. Furthermore information systems are believed to hasten execution of the policies implemented in these departments.
Despite the fact that information systems are highly appreciated, there lies a great danger when they are used inappropriately. Use of information systems in decision making can lead to nonuse, underuse, misuse or even premature use of information. Data recorded cannot effectively influence decision before undergoing cognitive transmission (Parman 20080). For example, in Florida among other member states, the use of data collected at the regional level does not rhyme with that which is at the ground. The Florida department of Education’s staff database as of 21st September, 2012 does not rhyme with that of the schools’ real tally of staff. In different districts within Florida, the data consisting salary schedules is established. However, when salaries are made, the salary information on the DOE staff register database does not replicate.
First, use of information system gathered at national level or regional level to make decisions at district level leads to incompetence solution. There is the problem of ownership and relevance of data in the information system. Citing states like Virginia, Texas Arizona or even California, there is different data collected. In Arizona, there is a system of incentives for teachers. This does not have to influence the activity of another state to behave the same way. Information ought to be collected and effective enacted within the same source (Parman 2008). However, using information system based at the national level without considering the lower levels leads to ineffectiveness
Secondly, the validity and reliability of the information system to be used is also a point of concern. Users of the data are supposed to acquire assurance that data should be of appropriate quality. Data collected nationally or regionally tends to harmonize requirement of different member states, provinces or districts (Besikof 2004). For example, if the data collected nationally about the task forces in all the states is distributed uniformly, not all states will benefit effectively. Some workers in some of the states where the turn-out is high will fail to acquire revenue.
Third, availability of non tailored data within the information system is also a determining factor. The data maintained at the national level is not considered available at the local state or even district level. This is because the information may not rhyme with the actual data within the states. This means that the decisions and judgments that will be made will not reflect the actual concern (Parman 2004).
A state that offers interesting data that addresses salary options and viable alternatives for its work forces is desirable. That kind of state or district creates an option for restricted reimbursement programs which enable the task force handle up to date disputes. For example, the alternative that provides a platform for programs like career ladders, performance based-pay and even knowledge and skills pay acts as a source of encouragement. It is preferable to be part of a state that has own framework.
A county that has effectively assessed its ability is attractive to work in. For example, the average salary of a teacher in Virginia in year 2009 was $52,309. This was far much different from Grayson which ranges at $38,179. In such circumstances, the presence of incentives would enhance a decision to move a county or state that offers them (Besikof 2004). A State Board of Education that offers hope in future increment of salaries is suitable and preferable. Moreover, a State Education board that implies that the salary of a teacher is accrued the status of a professional is also an appropriate option. There are stipulated states that fail to pay the teacher like personnel with equivalent educational qualification. This acts as a discouraging factor towards the employee.
A State Education Board that encourages workers is also preferable when making choice of the board. Besides professional development and incentives for growth, teachers need to receive encouragement from the employer (Besikof 2004). A board that remains dump towards issues pertaining teacher retention are discouraging to join. This means that one follows up on the Education board that reciprocates enough. An effective and attractive career ladder is attractive (Besikof 2004). It is impressive that any time that one is given attractive incentives, the learners also reap. For example, a study in Arizona shows that the career ladder program in the State has encouraged better student performance.
Conclusively, information systems that contain data which is less effective can only lead to poor strategy-making in the State or Districts. Reliable data within the member states encourages better strategy. A well organized Educational board is able to compete against the other for more qualified staff leading to better performance.
Foundations of education. (2014). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Besikof, R. J. (2004). The role of the community college president in fundraising: A best practices study.
New Jersey (2006). Committee meeting of Joint Legislative Committee on Public School Funding Reform: Testimony from representatives of the Department of Education on school district accountability, transparency, and monitoring : [September 26, 2006, Trenton, New Jersey]. Trenton, N.J: The Unit.
Parman, J. (2008). The private and public effects of school reform: Educational investment, human capital spillovers and intergenerational mobility during the expansion of public schools in the United States. (Dissertation Abstracts International, 69-11.
Thompson, C. L., & Carolina Institute for Public Policy (2010). The impact of the first two years of The Collaborative Project: An interim assessment. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Carolina Institute for Public Policy.