Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Web Conference Reflection
I was one of the first 100 people to log on the very first web conference for this class which took place on Sunday, February 27th from 5:00-6:00. I was also able to take place in Dr. Cummings web conference that took place on Wednesday, March 9 from 6:00-7:00. Although I have all of the required hardware and am able to easily operate the software for an interactive web conference, I did not actually use my camera at either conference. I wasn’t given “presenter” permissions at the first conference given that there were 100 people involved. The conversation was chaotic at best, and as someone who already knew how to operate a web conference I didn’t feel it was beneficial for me. It was more frustrating than anything else, when people’s questions were quickly passed over and lost without ever being answered. I think it would help if people were trained in “netiquette” and understood the need for only asking and answering questions that are relevant to the class. What I believe Lamar’s online program really needs is a weekly web conference that can address more general questions about things such as the internship portfolio, graduation requirements, TK20, etc. It is obvious that we need guidance in these areas more so than with our weekly assignments which come with a well thought out rubric that can be used to guide students in their assignments. I had a much more positive experience with Dr. Cummings web conference as there were only 28 participants which is a much more manageable number. As before, people were way off topic, and often completely distracted from the task at hand, which detracted from the questions of the people who were participating in the web conference to gain needed information about assignments. I have participated in web conferences for other classes where the professor presents a question or topic at the beginning that guides the discussion and then questions about the assignments are asked intermittently. I like this format much better than randomly allowing everyone to say whatever pops into their head (Just like we try to prevent out students from “blurting out” whatever pops into their head in a regular classroom). I was also shocked to realize just how many of my peers had never participated in a web conference before, or even participated in a chat. I consider myself a digital native as I have been using chat rooms to communicate with friends since I started high school. I graduated in 2003, but even so, many of the newer technologies that my 7th grade students are using are even new to me. So I can understand how lost some of the older candidates feel as compared to their students! I only hope that I can keep up as I know that technology will even be changing the way I do my job in the near future, both as a teacher and as a future administrator.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Action Plan
Part 1: Development of an organization chart integrating technology
• School District Superintendent: Manages responsibility for the technology director/department and ensures efficient delivery of information system services and technology resources for users district wide. The Superintendent must guarantee that computers and technology efforts are consistent with the DIP’s goals as they relate to effective delivery of quality educational services for the students, parents, and the community.
• Technology Director: Responsible for the district-wide direction, coordination, integration and implementation of technology.
• Director of Curriculum: Responsible for the implementation and coordination of technology integrated and standards based instructional programs in classrooms, supervision of certificated and classified technology based professional development to ensure the ongoing implementation of high standards of instructional practice, services and assistance.
• Campus Principal: As the instructional leader of the school, facilitates the process through which instructional and technology personnel cooperatively plan and implement the educational program to meet learner needs. This process combines the technology and instructional programs as the school community moves toward common goals.
The principal, as instructional leader, is able to see all aspects of the district’s organizational plan for technology integration. He is able to monitor and assess the use of technology in his campus’s classrooms, library, and computer labs. He is responsible for providing teachers and integration specialists with the time and safe environment needed to collaborate and integrate technology in the classrooms. He is also responsible for ensuring that there is funding for technology, and that his campus is running as efficiently as possible with the resources available. In making this assessment, the campus principal will begin to understand how district policies and procedures are enriching/inhibiting quality instruction in the classroom. He will be able to make suggestions to the superintendent, technology director, and curriculum director to ensure that all parties are working together for student success.
• Technology Assistant/Help desk: Provides technology training and support; perform a variety of clerical duties in support of district technology goals; organize and coordinate office activities and communications.
• Network Administrator: Performs duties relating to the maintenance and support of the Instructional computer networks and related courseware at various school sites; assures maximum operational effectiveness of these networks by assisting in correcting operational problems; and does related work as required.
• District Computer Support Technician: Manage the installation and configuration of campus computer software; coordinate the installation and configuration of personal computer hardware and peripheral devices; perform related work as required.
• Technology Integration Specialist: Provides technology and curriculum just in-time and group support to teachers, students, parents and district support staff in the implementation of technology integration, project–based learning, collaborative instruction, information literacy, etc.
• Data Analyst/Assessment: Inputs, prepares, collects, and verifies data and refines a variety of computer generated reports.
• Campus Computer Technician: Provides first-level hardware and software technical support to school site and administrative personnel including classroom teachers and aides; query staff on various technological problems, analyze the responses and assist with the solution; research hardware and software problems/questions and respond to campus staff; effectively communicate step by step instructions; perform related work as required.
• Librarian: Ensures that students and staff become effective users of ideas and information; helps students acquire an appreciation of literature; works to establish a resource-based learning program in which the students are actively involved in their own learning; collaboratively plans and teaches information literacy skills alongside teachers.
• Attendance Clerk: Prepare and maintain student attendance data. Operate a computer with speed and accuracy to post student-related data and generate required reports. Provide back-up support to school office staff as time permits. Communicate with district staff responsible for other attendance-related functions, such as scheduling, testing, special programs, state reporting, truancy, etc.
• Teachers: Responsible for all aspects of the instructional process to ensure the success of all students. Implement the district curriculum, assess student mastery of concept objectives, and innovate/integrate technology as a way to individualize instruction and meet the needs of 21st century learners.
Part 2: Professional Development Planning
Based on the Week 3 report, it becomes apparent that my Campus Improvement Plan (CIP) is lacking in goals for successful technology integration. Related to this is the fact that my campus STaR chart data from the 2009-2010 school year shows weakness in patterns of classroom use, online learning, access to professional development (including professional development for online learning), and students per computer. In order for the CIP to be successful in improving student learning, it must take all sources of data into consideration including the STaR chart.
To address this issue, the district should develop on online course that can be used to inform all stakeholders in the analysis and use of the most common resources for school performance data. These resources should include AEIS, AYP, and STaR chart reports. Members of the SBDM committee should be required to take this course as a prerequisite for developing the CIP to ensure that state and district technology goals are being addressed at the campus level. In addition, the district should purchase an online professional development system, such as PD360, to further develop and achieve the DIP goal of “Providing seamless integration of technology through just-in-time training and support to all personnel.”
Another DIP goal, which should therefore somehow be included in a CIP, is “to provide 21st century technology tools for teachers and administrators.” As a part of the professional development plan, teachers should be required to complete at least one training in the “technology” domain a year. Again, with a program such as PD360, this type of professional development could be ongoing, collaborative, and relevant to teacher’s individual needs/level of experience. It would also be valuable to develop a campus technology team that consists of teachers who are “digital citizens”. This team could be responsible for identifying useful technology tools and resources for their colleagues, and coach the “digital immigrants” in their implementation. This team should attend educational technology conferences and bring new information back to share with their campus. This team would be responsible for informing the principal of technological needs on the campus and of organizational breakdowns that require immediate attention (such as outdated Acceptable Use Policies).
Before teachers are able to integrate technology tools and use Web 2.0 in their classrooms, they have to possess the necessary hardware. My campus scored very low in this area, as I mentioned before, the student to computer ratio is unacceptable. As I referenced in my report, Dr. Abernathy summed it up when she said in the week 3 round table interview that principals need to fund teacher’s technology ideas. For this reason, I believe that administrators should receive professional development in the area of financial resource gathering and financial data analysis for technology. This training should address related issues including the rapid development of new technology/outdating of old technology, grant writing, and development of local partnerships as a form of gaining technological software and hardware support.
Part 3: Evaluation Planning for Action Plan
At the end of the current school year, the new STaR chart data will be analyzed with the expectation that there will be improvement in the classification areas of patterns of classroom use, online learning, access to professional development (including professional development for online learning), and students per computer. A list of professional development courses offered throughout the year should be gathered and analyzed for courses that are offered online, improve the gathering, analysis, and use of data from a variety of sources, and a professional development plan that maintains technology training requirements for teachers. All campus’s SBDM members must possess certificates proving that they have completed a course on data collection and analysis for campus improvement. The number of professional development opportunities offered online should be at least 25% for the first year, and 50% the second year. Each campus should have a “technology cadre” by the end of the first year. This cadre must provide monthly minutes of topics covered and campus technology issues addressed. These minutes must also be submitted to the principal of each campus. The main responsibility for the technology cadre’s first year of existence will be to develop a comprehensive technology action plan for the campus that aligns with the campus action plan and district technology plan. The principal’s management of technology resources will also be analyzed. Principals will be expected to encourage teachers to write grants for desired classroom technology and to begin to build relationships with community businesses to focus on integrating career based technologies into the classrooms. District policies (including cell phone and acceptable use) must have been reviewed and updated, and continue in this fashion on an annual basis. Achieving each of these goals should result in an increase in AEIS and AYP data, and if nothing else will ensure that 21st century students are receiving more of the type of technology integration that they crave.
• School District Superintendent: Manages responsibility for the technology director/department and ensures efficient delivery of information system services and technology resources for users district wide. The Superintendent must guarantee that computers and technology efforts are consistent with the DIP’s goals as they relate to effective delivery of quality educational services for the students, parents, and the community.
• Technology Director: Responsible for the district-wide direction, coordination, integration and implementation of technology.
• Director of Curriculum: Responsible for the implementation and coordination of technology integrated and standards based instructional programs in classrooms, supervision of certificated and classified technology based professional development to ensure the ongoing implementation of high standards of instructional practice, services and assistance.
• Campus Principal: As the instructional leader of the school, facilitates the process through which instructional and technology personnel cooperatively plan and implement the educational program to meet learner needs. This process combines the technology and instructional programs as the school community moves toward common goals.
The principal, as instructional leader, is able to see all aspects of the district’s organizational plan for technology integration. He is able to monitor and assess the use of technology in his campus’s classrooms, library, and computer labs. He is responsible for providing teachers and integration specialists with the time and safe environment needed to collaborate and integrate technology in the classrooms. He is also responsible for ensuring that there is funding for technology, and that his campus is running as efficiently as possible with the resources available. In making this assessment, the campus principal will begin to understand how district policies and procedures are enriching/inhibiting quality instruction in the classroom. He will be able to make suggestions to the superintendent, technology director, and curriculum director to ensure that all parties are working together for student success.
• Technology Assistant/Help desk: Provides technology training and support; perform a variety of clerical duties in support of district technology goals; organize and coordinate office activities and communications.
• Network Administrator: Performs duties relating to the maintenance and support of the Instructional computer networks and related courseware at various school sites; assures maximum operational effectiveness of these networks by assisting in correcting operational problems; and does related work as required.
• District Computer Support Technician: Manage the installation and configuration of campus computer software; coordinate the installation and configuration of personal computer hardware and peripheral devices; perform related work as required.
• Technology Integration Specialist: Provides technology and curriculum just in-time and group support to teachers, students, parents and district support staff in the implementation of technology integration, project–based learning, collaborative instruction, information literacy, etc.
• Data Analyst/Assessment: Inputs, prepares, collects, and verifies data and refines a variety of computer generated reports.
• Campus Computer Technician: Provides first-level hardware and software technical support to school site and administrative personnel including classroom teachers and aides; query staff on various technological problems, analyze the responses and assist with the solution; research hardware and software problems/questions and respond to campus staff; effectively communicate step by step instructions; perform related work as required.
• Librarian: Ensures that students and staff become effective users of ideas and information; helps students acquire an appreciation of literature; works to establish a resource-based learning program in which the students are actively involved in their own learning; collaboratively plans and teaches information literacy skills alongside teachers.
• Attendance Clerk: Prepare and maintain student attendance data. Operate a computer with speed and accuracy to post student-related data and generate required reports. Provide back-up support to school office staff as time permits. Communicate with district staff responsible for other attendance-related functions, such as scheduling, testing, special programs, state reporting, truancy, etc.
• Teachers: Responsible for all aspects of the instructional process to ensure the success of all students. Implement the district curriculum, assess student mastery of concept objectives, and innovate/integrate technology as a way to individualize instruction and meet the needs of 21st century learners.
Part 2: Professional Development Planning
Based on the Week 3 report, it becomes apparent that my Campus Improvement Plan (CIP) is lacking in goals for successful technology integration. Related to this is the fact that my campus STaR chart data from the 2009-2010 school year shows weakness in patterns of classroom use, online learning, access to professional development (including professional development for online learning), and students per computer. In order for the CIP to be successful in improving student learning, it must take all sources of data into consideration including the STaR chart.
To address this issue, the district should develop on online course that can be used to inform all stakeholders in the analysis and use of the most common resources for school performance data. These resources should include AEIS, AYP, and STaR chart reports. Members of the SBDM committee should be required to take this course as a prerequisite for developing the CIP to ensure that state and district technology goals are being addressed at the campus level. In addition, the district should purchase an online professional development system, such as PD360, to further develop and achieve the DIP goal of “Providing seamless integration of technology through just-in-time training and support to all personnel.”
Another DIP goal, which should therefore somehow be included in a CIP, is “to provide 21st century technology tools for teachers and administrators.” As a part of the professional development plan, teachers should be required to complete at least one training in the “technology” domain a year. Again, with a program such as PD360, this type of professional development could be ongoing, collaborative, and relevant to teacher’s individual needs/level of experience. It would also be valuable to develop a campus technology team that consists of teachers who are “digital citizens”. This team could be responsible for identifying useful technology tools and resources for their colleagues, and coach the “digital immigrants” in their implementation. This team should attend educational technology conferences and bring new information back to share with their campus. This team would be responsible for informing the principal of technological needs on the campus and of organizational breakdowns that require immediate attention (such as outdated Acceptable Use Policies).
Before teachers are able to integrate technology tools and use Web 2.0 in their classrooms, they have to possess the necessary hardware. My campus scored very low in this area, as I mentioned before, the student to computer ratio is unacceptable. As I referenced in my report, Dr. Abernathy summed it up when she said in the week 3 round table interview that principals need to fund teacher’s technology ideas. For this reason, I believe that administrators should receive professional development in the area of financial resource gathering and financial data analysis for technology. This training should address related issues including the rapid development of new technology/outdating of old technology, grant writing, and development of local partnerships as a form of gaining technological software and hardware support.
Part 3: Evaluation Planning for Action Plan
At the end of the current school year, the new STaR chart data will be analyzed with the expectation that there will be improvement in the classification areas of patterns of classroom use, online learning, access to professional development (including professional development for online learning), and students per computer. A list of professional development courses offered throughout the year should be gathered and analyzed for courses that are offered online, improve the gathering, analysis, and use of data from a variety of sources, and a professional development plan that maintains technology training requirements for teachers. All campus’s SBDM members must possess certificates proving that they have completed a course on data collection and analysis for campus improvement. The number of professional development opportunities offered online should be at least 25% for the first year, and 50% the second year. Each campus should have a “technology cadre” by the end of the first year. This cadre must provide monthly minutes of topics covered and campus technology issues addressed. These minutes must also be submitted to the principal of each campus. The main responsibility for the technology cadre’s first year of existence will be to develop a comprehensive technology action plan for the campus that aligns with the campus action plan and district technology plan. The principal’s management of technology resources will also be analyzed. Principals will be expected to encourage teachers to write grants for desired classroom technology and to begin to build relationships with community businesses to focus on integrating career based technologies into the classrooms. District policies (including cell phone and acceptable use) must have been reviewed and updated, and continue in this fashion on an annual basis. Achieving each of these goals should result in an increase in AEIS and AYP data, and if nothing else will ensure that 21st century students are receiving more of the type of technology integration that they crave.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Summary/Reflection of the U.S. Department of Education draft National Educational Technology Plan
The 21st century is completely unique in nature. It has affected everyone’s lives in the form of globalization, a new economy, and access to technology which previously did not exist. For the students of today, education is going to be more critical to their futures and the future of America as a nation. Being able to work with people from other cultures and backgrounds will be a must as most creative problem solving will take place over a computer. The careers in which America’s students will one day find themselves do not even exist yet due to the rapid growth and ever changing needs of new technology. For this reason, there have been two goals expressed in “The Plan” to address 21st century learners needs. The first goal is that 60% of Americans hold a 2 or 4 year degree. The second goal is to close the achievement gap, by improving equity in education, so that more students will be college ready once they leave high school. These goals will come to fruition through a model of 21st century learning where technology is used to individualize student’s education based on their needs. Teaching will become even more collaborative and data collection/analysis will remain a critical tool in meeting student’s individual needs. Teachers will find online learning an invaluable resource not only as a way to improve their professional practices, but also for students to gain experiences that aren’t possible in their school’s location. The biggest concern with The Plan is funding and access to the technology necessary to maintain these new models of learning and teaching. With budget cuts currently taking place in the education field and with future budget shortfalls looming ahead, simply obtaining the necessary technologies seems like an insurmountable challenge.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
2008 LRPT Progress Report Reflection
I was actually impressed to see some of the progress that was made during the short time span of September 2006 to August 2008. Although, if the state expects to accomplish everything outlined in the plan, then even more progress is going to have to be made at a faster rate. The report highlights two different programs that were implemented by state legislation, the Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) and the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN). The report also provides data analysis of each of the four original key areas in the LRPT: Teaching and Learning, Educator Preparation and Development, Leadership, Administration, and Technical Support, and Infrastructure for Technology.
TIP seemed to be a very successful program and in my opinion has started to address the number one need of America’s students today…a laptop. In all of the survey’s that were conducted and presented in the report, students of all grade-levels overwhelmingly agreed that they need laptops in order to learn in the 21st century. I couldn’t agree more as I look at how quickly everything is moving into the “digital world”. Our students will need to develop computer literacy/learning before they graduate so that they are prepared for the universities and careers they will be entering into.
The TxVSN directly fulfills a large portion of the “Teaching and Learning” area of the LRPT, that addresses online learning, differentiation, and equity. This key area of the plan is still in the Development Tech stage, which isn’t suprising. The only key area in the report that has moved beyond the Development stage is the “Leadership, Administration, and Technical Support” area. Even this area is still split between Development and Advanced. I would hope that the state is looking at the lowest scoring district’s on the STaR Chart and is working on supporting them financially as long as with legislative programs such as TIP. I believe it is important to work from the bottom up and to make sure that those 20% of kids who don’t have access to a computer get access as quickly as possible. That in itself will hugely impact the next progress report.
To access the 2008 LRPT Progress Report use the link below.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
TIP seemed to be a very successful program and in my opinion has started to address the number one need of America’s students today…a laptop. In all of the survey’s that were conducted and presented in the report, students of all grade-levels overwhelmingly agreed that they need laptops in order to learn in the 21st century. I couldn’t agree more as I look at how quickly everything is moving into the “digital world”. Our students will need to develop computer literacy/learning before they graduate so that they are prepared for the universities and careers they will be entering into.
The TxVSN directly fulfills a large portion of the “Teaching and Learning” area of the LRPT, that addresses online learning, differentiation, and equity. This key area of the plan is still in the Development Tech stage, which isn’t suprising. The only key area in the report that has moved beyond the Development stage is the “Leadership, Administration, and Technical Support” area. Even this area is still split between Development and Advanced. I would hope that the state is looking at the lowest scoring district’s on the STaR Chart and is working on supporting them financially as long as with legislative programs such as TIP. I believe it is important to work from the bottom up and to make sure that those 20% of kids who don’t have access to a computer get access as quickly as possible. That in itself will hugely impact the next progress report.
To access the 2008 LRPT Progress Report use the link below.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
Opinion Piece: TLRP - Teaching and Learning
http://http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
Use the link above to access the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020.
One of four areas of technology development being monitored in the public school system is the area of teaching and learning. This area focuses on using technology as a way to expand student’s exposure from their immediate surroundings to cultures around the world. By doing so, all students will receive a more equitable education as technology can be used to individualize the learning based on student’s specific needs. For teachers, this means being able to change curriculum, instruction, and assessment to better incorporate technology. Teacher and student roles will change as students begin to direct their own learning and teachers simply provide them with the tools they need to make progress in their endeavors.
Locally, forward progress is being made in this area of the plan. My own campus has not reached target goals in this area, but is very close. This is unfortunately not the case for the state at large. Most districts are lagging far behind in simply acquiring basic classroom technologies. Compared to the nation at large however, Texas is doing well and has a workable plan in place.
For improvement in this area to take place, I believe that more teachers need to be trained in online learning and need to begin to incorporate this intentionally into their district’s curriculum. I also believe that the state needs to look at adding technology into each individual subject’s Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, because unless teachers are required to incorporate technology, there is always going to be persistent resistance to change.
Use the link above to access the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020.
One of four areas of technology development being monitored in the public school system is the area of teaching and learning. This area focuses on using technology as a way to expand student’s exposure from their immediate surroundings to cultures around the world. By doing so, all students will receive a more equitable education as technology can be used to individualize the learning based on student’s specific needs. For teachers, this means being able to change curriculum, instruction, and assessment to better incorporate technology. Teacher and student roles will change as students begin to direct their own learning and teachers simply provide them with the tools they need to make progress in their endeavors.
Locally, forward progress is being made in this area of the plan. My own campus has not reached target goals in this area, but is very close. This is unfortunately not the case for the state at large. Most districts are lagging far behind in simply acquiring basic classroom technologies. Compared to the nation at large however, Texas is doing well and has a workable plan in place.
For improvement in this area to take place, I believe that more teachers need to be trained in online learning and need to begin to incorporate this intentionally into their district’s curriculum. I also believe that the state needs to look at adding technology into each individual subject’s Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, because unless teachers are required to incorporate technology, there is always going to be persistent resistance to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)