Educational researchers have begun to investigate influences on teachers' technology integration practices; however, few studies offer insight into how changes in school contexts interact with teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning over time to facilitate or hinder constructivist technology integration practices. Drawing on aspects of open systems theory (Scott & Davis, 2007), Hoy and Miskel's (2005) model of schools as open systems, and activity theory (Engestrom, 1987), I offer a conceptual framework of school districts consisting of networks of inter-connected and dynamic systems that can link in a variety of ways to influence classroom practices. Over the course of conducting this study, a complex representation of school systems emerged that can offer new insights into our current conception of school organizations. In order to examine how school systems nested within a school district interacted with teachers' beliefs and practices to shape their technology integration practices, I conducted a longitudinal case study of a school district that attempted to plan and implement a 1.1 laptop program that administrators hoped would result in teachers adopting constructivist pedagogy. Study participants included school and district administrators, technology personnel, and four teachers. There were four key study findings regarding the ways in which school systems appeared to influence teachers' technology integration practices. First, school systems interacted with teachers' existing beliefs and practices to facilitate, and in some instances impede, their technology integration efforts. Second, teachers working within the same organizational context were affected differently by school systems depending on whether the systems interacted with teachers' in ways that complemented or contradicted their individual goals for technology integration. Third, the school systems were dynamic and thus influenced changes in teachers' technology integration practices over time. Fourth, technology personnel carried out planning and implementation activities through multiple organizational levels, which suggests that school structures may in some instances, be more realistically characterized as heterarchical (Ehrenreich, Crumley, & Levy, 1995 in Scarborough, 2003) as opposed to hierarchical. This shift in thinking suggests that future research is needed that further investigates the nature of heterarchical school structures and their implications for various educational outcomes.