Coming into the course, I was hopeful that I would gain a greater understanding of the role and responsibilities an instructional leader has pertaining to the integration and application of technology use in a 21st Century learning environment. Throughout the course, I felt all information obtained in the readings, discussion posts and responses, video segments and assignments continued to contribute to my overall outcome, and as an end result, feel it was a positive course experience. I believe that the course exceeded my expectations that I had coming in, specifically because it introduced me to so much more that is required of an instructional leader in terms of integrating technology, and the standards and practices that we must follow and be aware of with increased technology integration.
Overall, I feel the course is one that will continue to provide great reflection and resources for me as an instructional leader.
I believe that the outcomes provide a greater significance to the work that I currently do as a teacher, coach and department head, solely based on the fact that I have a greater awareness of how technology can enhance the learning environment, and the many issues associated with increased technology usage. I firmly believe that because I have obtained more information and “education” regarding technology that I can be a more effective instructional leader in all avenues of the job I currently fulfill on a daily basis. Likewise, as stated in reflection 1, I believe this course will continue to provide continued reflection and resources as I move forward throughout the courses, and on to a position as a campus or District leader.
Concluding the course, I would have to say that I cannot completely think of anything specific that I failed to achieve directly related to my learning. I did however not achieve my direct goal of obtaining 100’s across the board on all assignments, but am still in a strong position to complete the course with an A, which was certainly a goal I set forth to achieve at the opening of the course. In terms of what potentially prevented me from achieving the goal of straight 100’s on all course assignments, I would have to say my confusion with some of the rubrics led to that, as well as my misunderstanding of some simple components associated with the rubric. All in all, considering the extensive work required in the course, and the rigor and relevance of the assignments and topics at hand, I am very pleased with my current position and looking forward to achieving my final goal of potentially recording an A in the course.
I was to a strong degree successful in carrying out all the course assignments; however, I did struggle with a couple of the assignments in terms of simple areas of the rubric that I failed to achieve. I think the course had a tremendous amount of rigor to it, and was extremely demanding, however, feel it was certainly necessary since we will be moving towards an increasingly rigorous environment as an instructional leader once we complete the program. I don’t recall ever feeling discouraged during the course, but perhaps overwhelmed at times with the amount of required readings, discussion board postings, and the length and depth of some of the assignments.
Certainly I feel I am a much stronger educator at the conclusion of the course and have a greater self-awareness about technology, its uses, its potential pitfalls and policies associated with successful integration.
I feel I gained a tremendous amount of useful information relating directly to technology standards, usage, integration and application. The areas I specifically think are going to be the most beneficial to me in my continued career as an educator would be a greater understanding of the Technology TEKS pertaining to both educators and students, the NET*S for Administrators, the usefulness of various technology related tools, and ensuring that we are providing a safe environment for our students as they utilize technology in the learning environment.
I have always considered myself a digital native, even though I may not fit all the requirements specifically, but feel that I further advanced this feeling throughout this course, as I became more and more aware of technology trends, its usefulness and importance. I was placed in a position where I had to explore using technology in ways that I have not necessarily done so since college and produce final products using technology.
I cannot really address how it has affected my leadership skills specifically, as I don’t feel the course was directly related to my individual leadership skills, but rather was designed to make me a more effective leader in the future, as I have increased knowledge about the above referenced items I found most useful.
I feel strongly that blogs can be a tremendous resource for all learners, as it provides essentially a forum where discussion can take place, as well as a source for students to submit and post assignments electronically and obtain feedback. Essentially, a blog is an active assignment, one that can consistently change and adapt, always fresh with new information and ideas, and provides an area for immediate reflection on previous statements, learning and information.
Blogs can be an effective tool for educational leaders, as they can extend the classroom beyond the traditional wall set forth on campus and allow students the opportunity to expand their knowledge base and directly integrate with technology 1 to 1.
Blogs can also serve as a great source of classroom information and course requirements, etc. if used correctly and efficiently by educators.
I do believe there are some great concerns with blogs and blogging in education, the most prevalent being ownership, safety and security of those who participate, and ensuring that we are conducting ourselves in an appropriate manner with our postings. Ownership of the information is key, as over the course we have become increasingly aware of copyright and right to use policies, etc. as it relates to the spoke, unspoken and electronic word. It is important that students and end users understand the policies associated with blogging and the use of the material collected from the blog.
Security of the users and safety to ensure that inappropriate material is not published or able to be obtained from the blog is also a major concern and it is important that we stay pro-active in reviewing any blogs that may be accessed by learners, and ensure our own blogs meet appropriate standards.
As we read in the courseware materials, we also want to ensure we are not the next PR nightmare, hence the reason I indicated the importance of conducting ourselves in an appropriate manner with our postings. We want to ensure our information remains educationally sound and appropriate and that we are not posting comments or information that would lead to a negative view of ourselves, our campus or our districts.
Blogs have the ability to serve as an integral part of the communication process and information exchange for instructional leaders. Just as we were able to utilize the blog throughout this course, as an educational leader we could utilize the blog in the same fashion by providing information to stakeholders in regards to many aspects affecting our campus or district. Additionally, the blog would allow for feedback to be obtained from stakeholders and allow us to update information and directly address the feedback in an open forum, continually informing all stakeholders in regards to a said topic.
Blogging can also be utilized by an instructional leader to communicate directly with faculty and staff; allowing one to essentially conduct a continual online campus meeting throughout an entire year.
In final reflection, the course provided a tremendous value to me as a current educator, and I feel it will provide an even better value once I achieve the goal of a campus or district leader instructional leader.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Action Plan
Part 1, Organizational Flow Chart
Description, Roles and Responsibilities
Technology Services Committee - A district committee that is very similar to a SBDM or a CPOC committee that includes a sampling of stakeholders including community members, staff, administration, and local business partners. The primary role is to review, evaluate and recommend potential changes to the District Technology Plan and provide recommendations to the Superintendent for implementation.
Superintendent of Schools – Responsible for evaluating and reviewing technology recommendations and presenting to the Board of Trustees the plan and requesting funding, etc. to fulfill the proposed recommendations. Has final approval on all technology programs and implementation. Serves as the connection between the Technology Committee and the Board of Trustees and communicates information back and forth.
Board of Trustees – Will approve/disapprove expenditures associated with any technology recommendations presented by the Superintendent of Schools. They are NOT involved in development of implementation of the plan, but simply approve funds required or recommend potential changes to the plan for approval.
District Associate Superintendent of Technology – Responsible for directing and leading all technology services and ensuring that any plan is implemented for including technology into schools. Department is responsible to make sure all the software and hardware section of the plan are addressed and to provide adequate resources to ensure campuses are in compliance.
Building Principal – Primarily responsible for reviewing any technology plan and presenting information in regards to campus needs in order to meet the program requirements. Is directly responsible for ensuring that the plan is adequately and accurately installed at the campus, and will provide feedback to the Associate
Superintendent of Technology and the Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the technology program. The Principal is the 2nd most important component behind teachers and students, as she must ensure that her campus needs are being met and promote any needs to the District level.
District Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction – Responsible for ensuring that all aspects of the pan direclty related to curriculum and instruction are carried out and understood. Responsible for evaluating effectiveness of instructional programs and developing technology rich course guidelines.
Associate Principal, Director of Instruction and Assistant Principals – Responsible for ensuring that all faculty and staff understand the importance of integrating technology and how to utilize the resources available. Assist the Principal in ensuring the campus is in compliance and to provide feedback to building principal based on PDAS evaluations and classroom visits.
Director of Campus Improvement and Research – Responsible for collecting and evaluating data collected through various means and developing a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and to make recommendations on changes/improvements.
Director of School Development – Responsible for ensuring schools are moving forward as 21st Century Learning Environments.
District Technology Support Specialist – Responsible for ensuring that everything “works” and responsible for getting any recommendations completed or changes done as stated by the Dir. Of Campus Improvement and Research.
Technology Helping Teacher and Technology Curriculum Coach – Ensures that faculty and staff have adequate access to professional development in incoirprating technology into lessons and instruction. These are individuals who have practical experience with the incorporating technology and can model best practices.
Building Technology Services – The maintenance group for technology. Esnures everything is working and provides service.
Director of Operations – Controls all funding and expenditures and manages the safety of the property and keeps track of inventory.
District Technology Training Specialist and Secondary Helping Teacher – Ensures that adequate staff development opportunties are available and they are meeting the needs of educators and addressing the SBEC Standards.
Technology Coaches – Available to assist and provide on the spot instruction to users without the need to wait for a professional development opportunity.
Teachers and Students – The most important element and the end users. Both are the integral part ot ensuring that a comprehensive technology program is a success or a failure.
Part 2, Professional Development Initiative
In any plan, it is necessary that Professional Development Activities address the SBEC Teacher Technology Standards and the integration of Technology Applications relating to student understanding. As learned in week 3, the ultimate goal of our increased professional growth is to make us a more effective educator while using technology, and in turn, to increase students mastery of the Technology TEKS relating to their learning. As we become more knowledgeable of technology and its uses, we can directly impact the classroom and further students learning.
In order to meet the ultimate goal of a more technologically literate staff population, it is important to establish a dynamic professional development plan that will provide growth opportunities for staff across a broad range of technologically literate levels. The goal is to provide activities that all educators can participate in, and those that will meet their needs. As we identified in week 1 of the course, much of the plan needs to be based on providing activities that will meet staff’s needs for all levels of the STaR Chart. It can also be useful to utilize the NET*S Standards as well, but again, the main focus needs to be on meeting the SBEC Teacher Technology Standards.
Areas that I would directly focus on in developing a professional development plan for our campus are below. This plan is developed after reviewing our responses on previous and current years STaR Chart data, the campus and district improvement plans, and the overall comments from students on technology use in the classroom.
I believe a STRONG emphasis needs to be placed on utilization of current software applications used on campus, specifically the operating system, spreadsheet and word processing, and a large focus on the use of presentation software. Professional activities need to focus on ensuring that all educators can completely navigate the OS and use the software in such a way that will allow them to create various electronic forms of documents or presentations that can then be used for presentation. With this, educators will then be able to better meet SBEC standard 1.3s select and use software for a defined task according to quality,
appropriateness, effectiveness, and efficiency, which should also show an increase in teacher response/performance on the STaR Chart in the area of EP1, EP3, TL1 and TL4. This segment would also include a strong understanding of the Districts grade software and student information software, i.e. COGNOS, and show teachers the access to information about student’s performance on HST and other state and federal markers that drive school accountability and funding.
As we better understand the inner workings of software, we also need to provide opportunities that will promote educators use of multiple input devices to further enrich the amount utilized in the teaching process. As identified in the week 3 report, teachers currently have access to whiteboards, smart boards, airliners, PDA’s, ceiling mounted digital projectors, etc, but all teachers may not have an understanding of how to utilize these. Opportunities need to be provided to get these in the hands of educators. Providing opportunities that would place these in the hands of all educators, and expecting them to demonstrate an ability to utilize these should increase the effectiveness and meet the needs of not only SBEC competencies, but show an increase in educator responses in EP3 and EP5 of the STaR Chart. I also believe the you would potentially see an increase INF 3, since more educators would have the understanding of the technology, they should be more inclined to use it, which would potentially justify more of specific items.
The technology plan must include effective use of the internet as an instructional resource, and should also model appropriate practices in understanding copyright and ownership of electronic media. In week 4, it was tremendously interesting to learn about copyright and then to see the lack of understanding that many on the discussion board. I think it clearly is an area that needs to be highlighted and incorporated into a section over usefulness of the internet and instructional resources avail through online media. Our campus improvement plan includes a specific area that indicates, “to provide increased educator understanding of the internet by providing professional development opportunities.” Opportunities in this area would directly provide more positive responses from educators in areas of EP3, TL4 and TL6 of the STaR Chart, and directly addresses the SBEC Standards of 1.14s, 1.15s and 1.16s.
Finally, I think it is important to include a segment that focuses directly on lesson planning and the integration and utilization of technology. We have many “digital natives” who have a strong understanding of technology, but may not fully understand how to directly incorporate it daily to enrich the learning environment. With this, we provide staff an opportunity to see models of lessons with extensive use of technology, which will increase our ability to make more effective lessons and include the use of technology in the plan.
Implementation of the Technology Plan can take place through individualized campus meetings including departmental and team Technology Meetings, by utilizing Video share sessions, active engagement tutorials where educators have to complete a series of steps to move forward in the development course, or by 1 to 1 face to face interaction in a traditional setting. Ideally, the plan needs to have a mix of ALL of these, and all levels need to have educators interacting with the technology throughout their learning. Just as we want students to have the ability to utilize the resources, we need to make sure that all educators have the actual resource to practice on while learning, which will increase their comfort with the mechanism.
We also need to ensure that we have an accountability standard on educators and require a minimum amount per year of their required professional growth to be technology related. This segment is part of objective 3 of the assignment and is discussed below.
Part 3, Evaluation and Plan
Data that is important in formulation of this action plan must be comprehensive, factual, and pertain directly to the needs of the campus. As highlighted in the week 2 assignment, the following sources of data are valuable in evaluating the effectiveness of current technology plans, and for potential changes, and are used in identifying the Priority areas later in the plan:
• District's current technology implementation
• State Long Range Plan for Technology
• Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Technology (TEKS)
• Texas School Technology and Readiness Chart (STaR)
• Comparative data from other school districts
• SBEC Teacher Technology Competencies
• Computer industry developments and forecasts
The plan must ensure we are taking into consideration increases in student enrollment and increase in faculty and staff, as well as current funding and future funding. Likewise, we must consider the importance of meeting the requirements set forth in the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology.
Evaluation must be done regularly and data must be reviewed and plans adjusted to continually meet the needs to teachers and students.
Professional Development needs to be mandated in areas of technology use, and staff must show successful completion of a set number of technology hours each year. Professional growth of ALL faculty and staff is integral to ensure a successful plan.
The plan is structured to identify areas of need in importance of priority. This allows a much more flexible way of addressing needs in a limited resource environment, and can serve to identify areas that are considered one of 4 specific areas. Priority 1, necessary to maintain programs and services. Priority 2, items that can enhance and enrich instruction and are becoming the norm in schools. Priority 3, items that can provide extensions or assistance to current programs. Priority 4, items that would be recommended for future considerations.
In reviewing all information and data affecting our school, the following areas would classify as follows:
In reference to our campus, items that would be considered Priority 1 and need to be given premium consideration are new computers, new software and improved network efficiency, power supplies, video conferencing capabilities, smart boards, airliners, PDA’s, interactive white-boards, digital projectors.
Priority 2 items would be increased online professional development system, printers, document scanners, telephone system, document cameras, wireless overlay.
Priority 3 items would be increased computer access to a 2 to 1 ratio and the ability to improve sound tables on network presentation.
Priority 4 items would be distance learning equipment and a stand-alone achievement management software system.
Although all of these are key, by identifying the most important resources, we can focus our plan on each element and ensure that we will be providing the most important items first that will provide the greatest benefit.
It is imperative that new data is collected each time a priority element is completed and becomes “operational”, so to speak, in the educational environment. From this new data, we can further evaluate and adjust the plan to continually meet the needs of an ever changing diverse population.
The plan is developed with the expectation that everyone will “buy into” integration, growth and development, which will ultimately benefit student growth and campus improvement.
Description, Roles and Responsibilities
Technology Services Committee - A district committee that is very similar to a SBDM or a CPOC committee that includes a sampling of stakeholders including community members, staff, administration, and local business partners. The primary role is to review, evaluate and recommend potential changes to the District Technology Plan and provide recommendations to the Superintendent for implementation.
Superintendent of Schools – Responsible for evaluating and reviewing technology recommendations and presenting to the Board of Trustees the plan and requesting funding, etc. to fulfill the proposed recommendations. Has final approval on all technology programs and implementation. Serves as the connection between the Technology Committee and the Board of Trustees and communicates information back and forth.
Board of Trustees – Will approve/disapprove expenditures associated with any technology recommendations presented by the Superintendent of Schools. They are NOT involved in development of implementation of the plan, but simply approve funds required or recommend potential changes to the plan for approval.
District Associate Superintendent of Technology – Responsible for directing and leading all technology services and ensuring that any plan is implemented for including technology into schools. Department is responsible to make sure all the software and hardware section of the plan are addressed and to provide adequate resources to ensure campuses are in compliance.
Building Principal – Primarily responsible for reviewing any technology plan and presenting information in regards to campus needs in order to meet the program requirements. Is directly responsible for ensuring that the plan is adequately and accurately installed at the campus, and will provide feedback to the Associate
Superintendent of Technology and the Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the technology program. The Principal is the 2nd most important component behind teachers and students, as she must ensure that her campus needs are being met and promote any needs to the District level.
District Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction – Responsible for ensuring that all aspects of the pan direclty related to curriculum and instruction are carried out and understood. Responsible for evaluating effectiveness of instructional programs and developing technology rich course guidelines.
Associate Principal, Director of Instruction and Assistant Principals – Responsible for ensuring that all faculty and staff understand the importance of integrating technology and how to utilize the resources available. Assist the Principal in ensuring the campus is in compliance and to provide feedback to building principal based on PDAS evaluations and classroom visits.
Director of Campus Improvement and Research – Responsible for collecting and evaluating data collected through various means and developing a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and to make recommendations on changes/improvements.
Director of School Development – Responsible for ensuring schools are moving forward as 21st Century Learning Environments.
District Technology Support Specialist – Responsible for ensuring that everything “works” and responsible for getting any recommendations completed or changes done as stated by the Dir. Of Campus Improvement and Research.
Technology Helping Teacher and Technology Curriculum Coach – Ensures that faculty and staff have adequate access to professional development in incoirprating technology into lessons and instruction. These are individuals who have practical experience with the incorporating technology and can model best practices.
Building Technology Services – The maintenance group for technology. Esnures everything is working and provides service.
Director of Operations – Controls all funding and expenditures and manages the safety of the property and keeps track of inventory.
District Technology Training Specialist and Secondary Helping Teacher – Ensures that adequate staff development opportunties are available and they are meeting the needs of educators and addressing the SBEC Standards.
Technology Coaches – Available to assist and provide on the spot instruction to users without the need to wait for a professional development opportunity.
Teachers and Students – The most important element and the end users. Both are the integral part ot ensuring that a comprehensive technology program is a success or a failure.
Part 2, Professional Development Initiative
In any plan, it is necessary that Professional Development Activities address the SBEC Teacher Technology Standards and the integration of Technology Applications relating to student understanding. As learned in week 3, the ultimate goal of our increased professional growth is to make us a more effective educator while using technology, and in turn, to increase students mastery of the Technology TEKS relating to their learning. As we become more knowledgeable of technology and its uses, we can directly impact the classroom and further students learning.
In order to meet the ultimate goal of a more technologically literate staff population, it is important to establish a dynamic professional development plan that will provide growth opportunities for staff across a broad range of technologically literate levels. The goal is to provide activities that all educators can participate in, and those that will meet their needs. As we identified in week 1 of the course, much of the plan needs to be based on providing activities that will meet staff’s needs for all levels of the STaR Chart. It can also be useful to utilize the NET*S Standards as well, but again, the main focus needs to be on meeting the SBEC Teacher Technology Standards.
Areas that I would directly focus on in developing a professional development plan for our campus are below. This plan is developed after reviewing our responses on previous and current years STaR Chart data, the campus and district improvement plans, and the overall comments from students on technology use in the classroom.
I believe a STRONG emphasis needs to be placed on utilization of current software applications used on campus, specifically the operating system, spreadsheet and word processing, and a large focus on the use of presentation software. Professional activities need to focus on ensuring that all educators can completely navigate the OS and use the software in such a way that will allow them to create various electronic forms of documents or presentations that can then be used for presentation. With this, educators will then be able to better meet SBEC standard 1.3s select and use software for a defined task according to quality,
appropriateness, effectiveness, and efficiency, which should also show an increase in teacher response/performance on the STaR Chart in the area of EP1, EP3, TL1 and TL4. This segment would also include a strong understanding of the Districts grade software and student information software, i.e. COGNOS, and show teachers the access to information about student’s performance on HST and other state and federal markers that drive school accountability and funding.
As we better understand the inner workings of software, we also need to provide opportunities that will promote educators use of multiple input devices to further enrich the amount utilized in the teaching process. As identified in the week 3 report, teachers currently have access to whiteboards, smart boards, airliners, PDA’s, ceiling mounted digital projectors, etc, but all teachers may not have an understanding of how to utilize these. Opportunities need to be provided to get these in the hands of educators. Providing opportunities that would place these in the hands of all educators, and expecting them to demonstrate an ability to utilize these should increase the effectiveness and meet the needs of not only SBEC competencies, but show an increase in educator responses in EP3 and EP5 of the STaR Chart. I also believe the you would potentially see an increase INF 3, since more educators would have the understanding of the technology, they should be more inclined to use it, which would potentially justify more of specific items.
The technology plan must include effective use of the internet as an instructional resource, and should also model appropriate practices in understanding copyright and ownership of electronic media. In week 4, it was tremendously interesting to learn about copyright and then to see the lack of understanding that many on the discussion board. I think it clearly is an area that needs to be highlighted and incorporated into a section over usefulness of the internet and instructional resources avail through online media. Our campus improvement plan includes a specific area that indicates, “to provide increased educator understanding of the internet by providing professional development opportunities.” Opportunities in this area would directly provide more positive responses from educators in areas of EP3, TL4 and TL6 of the STaR Chart, and directly addresses the SBEC Standards of 1.14s, 1.15s and 1.16s.
Finally, I think it is important to include a segment that focuses directly on lesson planning and the integration and utilization of technology. We have many “digital natives” who have a strong understanding of technology, but may not fully understand how to directly incorporate it daily to enrich the learning environment. With this, we provide staff an opportunity to see models of lessons with extensive use of technology, which will increase our ability to make more effective lessons and include the use of technology in the plan.
Implementation of the Technology Plan can take place through individualized campus meetings including departmental and team Technology Meetings, by utilizing Video share sessions, active engagement tutorials where educators have to complete a series of steps to move forward in the development course, or by 1 to 1 face to face interaction in a traditional setting. Ideally, the plan needs to have a mix of ALL of these, and all levels need to have educators interacting with the technology throughout their learning. Just as we want students to have the ability to utilize the resources, we need to make sure that all educators have the actual resource to practice on while learning, which will increase their comfort with the mechanism.
We also need to ensure that we have an accountability standard on educators and require a minimum amount per year of their required professional growth to be technology related. This segment is part of objective 3 of the assignment and is discussed below.
Part 3, Evaluation and Plan
Data that is important in formulation of this action plan must be comprehensive, factual, and pertain directly to the needs of the campus. As highlighted in the week 2 assignment, the following sources of data are valuable in evaluating the effectiveness of current technology plans, and for potential changes, and are used in identifying the Priority areas later in the plan:
• District's current technology implementation
• State Long Range Plan for Technology
• Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Technology (TEKS)
• Texas School Technology and Readiness Chart (STaR)
• Comparative data from other school districts
• SBEC Teacher Technology Competencies
• Computer industry developments and forecasts
The plan must ensure we are taking into consideration increases in student enrollment and increase in faculty and staff, as well as current funding and future funding. Likewise, we must consider the importance of meeting the requirements set forth in the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology.
Evaluation must be done regularly and data must be reviewed and plans adjusted to continually meet the needs to teachers and students.
Professional Development needs to be mandated in areas of technology use, and staff must show successful completion of a set number of technology hours each year. Professional growth of ALL faculty and staff is integral to ensure a successful plan.
The plan is structured to identify areas of need in importance of priority. This allows a much more flexible way of addressing needs in a limited resource environment, and can serve to identify areas that are considered one of 4 specific areas. Priority 1, necessary to maintain programs and services. Priority 2, items that can enhance and enrich instruction and are becoming the norm in schools. Priority 3, items that can provide extensions or assistance to current programs. Priority 4, items that would be recommended for future considerations.
In reviewing all information and data affecting our school, the following areas would classify as follows:
In reference to our campus, items that would be considered Priority 1 and need to be given premium consideration are new computers, new software and improved network efficiency, power supplies, video conferencing capabilities, smart boards, airliners, PDA’s, interactive white-boards, digital projectors.
Priority 2 items would be increased online professional development system, printers, document scanners, telephone system, document cameras, wireless overlay.
Priority 3 items would be increased computer access to a 2 to 1 ratio and the ability to improve sound tables on network presentation.
Priority 4 items would be distance learning equipment and a stand-alone achievement management software system.
Although all of these are key, by identifying the most important resources, we can focus our plan on each element and ensure that we will be providing the most important items first that will provide the greatest benefit.
It is imperative that new data is collected each time a priority element is completed and becomes “operational”, so to speak, in the educational environment. From this new data, we can further evaluate and adjust the plan to continually meet the needs of an ever changing diverse population.
The plan is developed with the expectation that everyone will “buy into” integration, growth and development, which will ultimately benefit student growth and campus improvement.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Texas Long Range Plan - Infrastructure for Technology
Potentially the most important area of the Texas Long Range Plan is Key Area IV: Infrastructure for Technology. Essentially, this area encompasses all funding, availability, accessibility and connectivity, and just about every single aspect that deals with the full integration of technology in a 21st Century Learning Environment.
Although I felt previously that this area was the most important of the Texas Long Range Plan, I know feel more than ever it has taken on increased importance, especially considering the state of school finance in Texas. In reviewing the plan, I feel the single most important area associated with Infrastructure is funding. Funding remains the single most important element to ensure that the plan can be fully followed and have the potential for achieving the ultimate goal: ensuring that all K-12 students in Texas have access to technology rich learning environments.
Over the past few years, local districts, such as Cy-Fair ISD, have had to cut numerous dollars from their individual District budgets, specifically on the order of over 50 million dollars in the past 3 years. Although all efforts are made at the District level to not cut services that are going to have a direct negative impact on students, it is unavoidable that eventually these cuts will affect the learning environment.
Although the state requires a specific WADA funding amount to be dedicated to technology spending, with increased costs of numerous technology items, as well as larger class sizes and an aging set of technology, as well as many other general operating items that exhaust any excess funds, it has become extremely difficult for Districts to provide everything that schools need to stay technologically advanced.
The State is aware of the funding deficiencies, and even under its own strain due to school finance, as the amount of dedicated technology funding was reduced in 05-06 from the previous level of $30 per student to $27.14. Although this doesn’t appear like a “large drop”, consider a district of 100,000 students that would have a net loss of dedicated funds in the amount of $276,000! With districts operating with budget shortfalls, funds do not exist to make up this deficiency. This is made even more difficult by the loss of dollars that came from the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. As stated in the Texas Long Range Plan, Districts are now funded by the State at levels consistent with those seen in 1990; equally funding for a 20th Century environment in the 21st Century.
Nationally, funding and adequate infrastructure is also a growing problem. The National Education Technology Plan 2004 discusses innovative technology funding; however, it doesn’t designate any more funding dollars to State Education other than those already being received as part of No Child Left Behind or current federal dollars. Essentially, it states what many States/Districts are already doing to increase the amount of technology resources available for learners.
The solution is simple in terms of what needs to be done in order to improve the area; increase funding! The problem is, how we increase funding with the limited dollars we currently are allocated, and without taking funds away from other programs. It is a complex issue that I think will involve districts potentially looking at increasing taxes in order to fund technology if the State doesn’t address the lack of funding. Likewise, I think you will see an increase in grant applications for technology funding from Districts, and potentially, increasing advertising options for businesses on district technology items as a measure to raise funds.
Although I felt previously that this area was the most important of the Texas Long Range Plan, I know feel more than ever it has taken on increased importance, especially considering the state of school finance in Texas. In reviewing the plan, I feel the single most important area associated with Infrastructure is funding. Funding remains the single most important element to ensure that the plan can be fully followed and have the potential for achieving the ultimate goal: ensuring that all K-12 students in Texas have access to technology rich learning environments.
Over the past few years, local districts, such as Cy-Fair ISD, have had to cut numerous dollars from their individual District budgets, specifically on the order of over 50 million dollars in the past 3 years. Although all efforts are made at the District level to not cut services that are going to have a direct negative impact on students, it is unavoidable that eventually these cuts will affect the learning environment.
Although the state requires a specific WADA funding amount to be dedicated to technology spending, with increased costs of numerous technology items, as well as larger class sizes and an aging set of technology, as well as many other general operating items that exhaust any excess funds, it has become extremely difficult for Districts to provide everything that schools need to stay technologically advanced.
The State is aware of the funding deficiencies, and even under its own strain due to school finance, as the amount of dedicated technology funding was reduced in 05-06 from the previous level of $30 per student to $27.14. Although this doesn’t appear like a “large drop”, consider a district of 100,000 students that would have a net loss of dedicated funds in the amount of $276,000! With districts operating with budget shortfalls, funds do not exist to make up this deficiency. This is made even more difficult by the loss of dollars that came from the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. As stated in the Texas Long Range Plan, Districts are now funded by the State at levels consistent with those seen in 1990; equally funding for a 20th Century environment in the 21st Century.
Nationally, funding and adequate infrastructure is also a growing problem. The National Education Technology Plan 2004 discusses innovative technology funding; however, it doesn’t designate any more funding dollars to State Education other than those already being received as part of No Child Left Behind or current federal dollars. Essentially, it states what many States/Districts are already doing to increase the amount of technology resources available for learners.
The solution is simple in terms of what needs to be done in order to improve the area; increase funding! The problem is, how we increase funding with the limited dollars we currently are allocated, and without taking funds away from other programs. It is a complex issue that I think will involve districts potentially looking at increasing taxes in order to fund technology if the State doesn’t address the lack of funding. Likewise, I think you will see an increase in grant applications for technology funding from Districts, and potentially, increasing advertising options for businesses on district technology items as a measure to raise funds.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Pre-K Technology Applications TEKS/Curriculum
Essentially, the Pre-K Technology Applications TEKS are designed to provide foundation for Pre-K students so that they may develop a greater understanding of the usefulness and functions of technology. Pre-K students are introduced to very basic elements, mostly associated with using a computer at a very early age, with the general understanding that they will continue to be exposed to these same elements substantially throughout the education process. These elements include understanding simple vocabulary and ibeing able to correctly identify parts of the computer, i.e. mouse, keyboard, monitor, etc.
Pre-K students are given the opportunity to interact with the computer by using various software that is age-level appropriate, allowing them to interact with the technology and enjoy the opportunity to apply their learning. The key of this is to allow them positive experiences with technology where they can gain a better understanding on which they can build increased knowledge and understanding in the future. All this is done in a very relaxed and stress free environment which allows students the opportunity to continue building on their previous knowledge and apply the basic skills achieved at each level to become more technologically proficient.
Spiraling and Scaffolding Curriculum
To simplify, technically in a spiraling curriculum students are not in a situation where they have to master specific content immediately, as they will have numerous experiences with it over time, and each time they get an increased amount of exposure to the concept. Through repetitive exposure at increased levels, we then expect students to gain a mastery of all the dynamics associated with the content. As an example, in mathematics, we expose Kindergarten and 1st grade students to some very general and basic algebraic concepts, i.e. what is on one side of an equation equals what is on the other side of an equation. Then we introduce them to a missing part, i.e. 5 + _ = 6. In a spiraling curriculum, if a Kindergarten or First Grade students does not show "mastery" of this concept, we do not let it reflect negatively on the curriculum and get overly stressed, as we know that they will see this again at different levels throughout the education process and have numerous opportunities to master it.
To clarify scaffolding, is essentailly saying we are building on prior knowledge to continue moving forward. Some examples would be with our ESL students, as we utilize what they do know in order to get them to understand a new concept, or in teaching a soccer player the process of kicking a football, i.e. they have prior knowledge of how to kick a soccer ball an we utilize those skills to help us be successful in a new area, football.
Since the Technology Application TEKS are built utilizing a Dynamic/Spiraling Curriculum, it allows students to reflect on previous knowledge and to have numerous opportunities to show mastery of concepts associated with the use of technology. An example of this would be students enrolled in grades 3-5 are afforded opportunities to experience a large amount of media, electronic information, data and manipulate various input devices, with the ultimate goal of students getting experience working with a variety of sources. Students were exposed to some of these same experiences in grades K-2, as outlined in the TEKS, and as they move on to Middle School and beyond, they are expected to show proficiency in utilizing these sources.
Pre-K students are given the opportunity to interact with the computer by using various software that is age-level appropriate, allowing them to interact with the technology and enjoy the opportunity to apply their learning. The key of this is to allow them positive experiences with technology where they can gain a better understanding on which they can build increased knowledge and understanding in the future. All this is done in a very relaxed and stress free environment which allows students the opportunity to continue building on their previous knowledge and apply the basic skills achieved at each level to become more technologically proficient.
Spiraling and Scaffolding Curriculum
To simplify, technically in a spiraling curriculum students are not in a situation where they have to master specific content immediately, as they will have numerous experiences with it over time, and each time they get an increased amount of exposure to the concept. Through repetitive exposure at increased levels, we then expect students to gain a mastery of all the dynamics associated with the content. As an example, in mathematics, we expose Kindergarten and 1st grade students to some very general and basic algebraic concepts, i.e. what is on one side of an equation equals what is on the other side of an equation. Then we introduce them to a missing part, i.e. 5 + _ = 6. In a spiraling curriculum, if a Kindergarten or First Grade students does not show "mastery" of this concept, we do not let it reflect negatively on the curriculum and get overly stressed, as we know that they will see this again at different levels throughout the education process and have numerous opportunities to master it.
To clarify scaffolding, is essentailly saying we are building on prior knowledge to continue moving forward. Some examples would be with our ESL students, as we utilize what they do know in order to get them to understand a new concept, or in teaching a soccer player the process of kicking a football, i.e. they have prior knowledge of how to kick a soccer ball an we utilize those skills to help us be successful in a new area, football.
Since the Technology Application TEKS are built utilizing a Dynamic/Spiraling Curriculum, it allows students to reflect on previous knowledge and to have numerous opportunities to show mastery of concepts associated with the use of technology. An example of this would be students enrolled in grades 3-5 are afforded opportunities to experience a large amount of media, electronic information, data and manipulate various input devices, with the ultimate goal of students getting experience working with a variety of sources. Students were exposed to some of these same experiences in grades K-2, as outlined in the TEKS, and as they move on to Middle School and beyond, they are expected to show proficiency in utilizing these sources.
Long Range Plan Analysis Review
Much of this information included items I was already aware that we were supposed to be doing, but I was not aware that it was so in depth and detailed. Additionally, I was pleased to note that our campus/district is currently doing a good job of meeting the needs of the long range plan and utilizing the data obtained for the STAR Charts to assist in meeting the goals of the Long Range Plan on a broader scale.
After reviewing the Long Range Plan, I realized that although I feel relatively technologically proficient, there is still much for me to learn, and continue learning, in order to fully meet the goals of the plan. Reflecting, I believe the most important areas of the plan for me to focus on as an instructional leader are:
* As teachers, we can no longer view ourselves as the sole source of all knowledge in the classroom and expect students to function well in a teacher centered environment. As teachers, we need to view ourselves as instructional leaders who are there to facilitate, mentor and serve as a co-learner in the 21st Century classroom environment. In doing this, we need to understand that technology is a valuable resource that needs to be used early and often to make instruction more engaging and purposeful for all learners.
* It is increasingly important to understand that a strong infrastructure with adequate funding for technology is earmarked each year to continue the trend of promoting a technology rich learning community. Likewise, we need to ensure that adequate professional development opportunities are available for all faculty and staff, to allow them to fully understand the elements of technology and realize all the benefits associated with incorporation into the classroom.
* On a personal level, I need to continue my own professional growth in incorporating the use of technology and modelt his practice as a future instructional leader.
As an Educational Administrator, I want to be certain to keep the importance of full integration of technology as a focus, and provide opportunities for professional growth, staff exploration and learning and allow faculty and staff to be involved as stakeholders in locating and applying for grants that can allow us to further increase resources available at our campus.
After reviewing the Long Range Plan, I realized that although I feel relatively technologically proficient, there is still much for me to learn, and continue learning, in order to fully meet the goals of the plan. Reflecting, I believe the most important areas of the plan for me to focus on as an instructional leader are:
* As teachers, we can no longer view ourselves as the sole source of all knowledge in the classroom and expect students to function well in a teacher centered environment. As teachers, we need to view ourselves as instructional leaders who are there to facilitate, mentor and serve as a co-learner in the 21st Century classroom environment. In doing this, we need to understand that technology is a valuable resource that needs to be used early and often to make instruction more engaging and purposeful for all learners.
* It is increasingly important to understand that a strong infrastructure with adequate funding for technology is earmarked each year to continue the trend of promoting a technology rich learning community. Likewise, we need to ensure that adequate professional development opportunities are available for all faculty and staff, to allow them to fully understand the elements of technology and realize all the benefits associated with incorporation into the classroom.
* On a personal level, I need to continue my own professional growth in incorporating the use of technology and modelt his practice as a future instructional leader.
As an Educational Administrator, I want to be certain to keep the importance of full integration of technology as a focus, and provide opportunities for professional growth, staff exploration and learning and allow faculty and staff to be involved as stakeholders in locating and applying for grants that can allow us to further increase resources available at our campus.
Response and Reflection, Technology Assessments
In reviewing the assessments pertaining to technology, I was pleased by the outcomes of each and the overall view that I seem to exhibit a strong degree of technological proficiency. On the Technology Applications Inventory I showed strong results in all of the 4 categories, with 2 of the categories grading in at an 88% or higher yes response rate, 1 category coming in at 83% and the lowest segment scoring in with 75% positive response.
Of the 4 areas, the one with the highest percentage of comfort was that of Information Acquisition, with Foundations, Problem Solving and Communications coming in 2nd through 4th respectively.
I was a little surprised to see the area I scored lowest in was Communication, as I feel that I utilize technology greatly in order to effectively communicate with students, parents and faculty and staff members. However, upon further review, the areas that I marked "no" in were more directly associated with my personal use of differing layouts, rubrics for evaluation and utilizing planners, calendars etc., elements that I currently don’t put much emphasis on.
I was pleased to see that all scores showed a strong use of technology and a familiarity with each area.In reviewing the SEDTA survey, I was again pleased with the overall result of the survey and my ability to show successful use of technology on a personal and professional level. I selected the "teacher" version of the survey, and in reviewing, noted these aspects below of technology being incorporated on a daily basis, as all of these are currently going on at our campus and require extensive use/understanding of technology:
-US History Laptop Project-all 11th grade students have a laptop checked out to them
-Computers on Wheels-a class set of 30 laptops all connected wirelessly to a printer
-Lesson Plans posted electronically and all must show integration and application of technology
-Ceiling mounted projectors in all non-portable classrooms that are connected to the desktop
-Airliners and Smartboards checked out to each department for use in the classroom
-Physical Education PDA project-incorporating PDA's in the PE environment for recording data
-Lobo Academy-a series of technology based professional development opportunities offered weekly during each semester
-Campus Improvement Plan-specific targets for incorporating technology in the classroom
-Campus Star Chart-outlining technological readiness of all faculty and staff in the building and an analysis tool in reaching the 2020 requirements
-LOTI
-COGNOS Training
-Heart Rate Monitors and Fitness Center with connectivity and analysis software
-EKG testing offered to all athletes on campus
-Internet access points in all classrooms and wireless student access throughout the building
-New computers on cycle where no computer in the building is ever in use that would be older than 3 years, which keeps technology up to date.
All of these contribute greatly to tremendous technology use by faculty, staff and specifically students and create a rich learning environment where the use of technology is seen as paramount in the education process.
If I had to pick an area where I would like to improve personally, that may also enhance the learning environment, it would have to be in the ability to integrate analog and digital technology together, in order to mix the "old" with the "new", as well as incorporating more virtual reality elements and simulations for students to immerse themselves in the content.
To close, I feel my overall results on the assessments and surveys were positive based on our districts commitment to utilize all funding sources to support increased use of technology. Our District continually is looking for ways to include technology funding for the schools, whether it be through bonds, donations or grants. I was pleased with the outcome of both assessments, and have a greater appreciation as a faculty member in regards to the variety of technology we have available to assist us in creating the best learning environment possible for our students. The assessments certainly made me fully aware of all the resources we are fortunate to have available in our District!
Of the 4 areas, the one with the highest percentage of comfort was that of Information Acquisition, with Foundations, Problem Solving and Communications coming in 2nd through 4th respectively.
I was a little surprised to see the area I scored lowest in was Communication, as I feel that I utilize technology greatly in order to effectively communicate with students, parents and faculty and staff members. However, upon further review, the areas that I marked "no" in were more directly associated with my personal use of differing layouts, rubrics for evaluation and utilizing planners, calendars etc., elements that I currently don’t put much emphasis on.
I was pleased to see that all scores showed a strong use of technology and a familiarity with each area.In reviewing the SEDTA survey, I was again pleased with the overall result of the survey and my ability to show successful use of technology on a personal and professional level. I selected the "teacher" version of the survey, and in reviewing, noted these aspects below of technology being incorporated on a daily basis, as all of these are currently going on at our campus and require extensive use/understanding of technology:
-US History Laptop Project-all 11th grade students have a laptop checked out to them
-Computers on Wheels-a class set of 30 laptops all connected wirelessly to a printer
-Lesson Plans posted electronically and all must show integration and application of technology
-Ceiling mounted projectors in all non-portable classrooms that are connected to the desktop
-Airliners and Smartboards checked out to each department for use in the classroom
-Physical Education PDA project-incorporating PDA's in the PE environment for recording data
-Lobo Academy-a series of technology based professional development opportunities offered weekly during each semester
-Campus Improvement Plan-specific targets for incorporating technology in the classroom
-Campus Star Chart-outlining technological readiness of all faculty and staff in the building and an analysis tool in reaching the 2020 requirements
-LOTI
-COGNOS Training
-Heart Rate Monitors and Fitness Center with connectivity and analysis software
-EKG testing offered to all athletes on campus
-Internet access points in all classrooms and wireless student access throughout the building
-New computers on cycle where no computer in the building is ever in use that would be older than 3 years, which keeps technology up to date.
All of these contribute greatly to tremendous technology use by faculty, staff and specifically students and create a rich learning environment where the use of technology is seen as paramount in the education process.
If I had to pick an area where I would like to improve personally, that may also enhance the learning environment, it would have to be in the ability to integrate analog and digital technology together, in order to mix the "old" with the "new", as well as incorporating more virtual reality elements and simulations for students to immerse themselves in the content.
To close, I feel my overall results on the assessments and surveys were positive based on our districts commitment to utilize all funding sources to support increased use of technology. Our District continually is looking for ways to include technology funding for the schools, whether it be through bonds, donations or grants. I was pleased with the outcome of both assessments, and have a greater appreciation as a faculty member in regards to the variety of technology we have available to assist us in creating the best learning environment possible for our students. The assessments certainly made me fully aware of all the resources we are fortunate to have available in our District!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)