Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Web Conference
I sat in on the web conference on 3/22/2011 with Dr. Attaway. At first i thought i might not get anything out of the web conference and was proven wrong. The discussions students had were about questions i myself had. The web conference was like we were sitting in the classroom and chatting amongst ourselves. Was something i truly would enjoy doing again in the future. There were some difficulties with the video and audio but nothing that was not resolved. Definitely something that enhances the online experience.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Harlem Elementary Technology Organizational Chart
Roles/Responsibilities:
Matt Flood (Technology Services)- Making sure day to day operations are met in Technology operations, LAN/WAN Services, Computer Services and making sure Campus Tech and Principals needs are met.
Frankie Jackson(TMS Management Oversight)- Making sure day to day operations are met in Technology Access, Technology Procurement, Student/Business Services, and making sure Campus Tech. and Principals needs are met.
Steve Koester (Educational Technology Director)- Making sure day to day operations are met in Technology Procurement, Educational Technology, and making sure Campus Tech. and Principals needs are met.
Andrew Masterson (Technology Operations)- The performance of a technology operations manager is typically measured in terms of their overall effectiveness in providing timely support and maintaining productive, operational and dependable systems.
Dane Morris (LAN/WAN Services Elementary School) - The job of LAN/WAN Support Technician is done for the purpose/s of monitoring the Local and Wide Area Network,
including assisting in the planning, security, analysis, design, development, implementation, configuration, modification, installation, integration, maintenance testing, and the management of networked systems for the transmission of voice, data and video.
Terry Araujo (Computer Services Elementary School) - Making sure Elementary School Tech. and schools computers software and internals are running correctly.
Ian Patton (Computer Services Elementary School) – Making sure Elementary School Tech’s. Schools Wires, Peripherals and printers are up to date and running correctly.
Alan Boudreaux (Campus Technology Specialist) – Making sure campuses computers and all Technology is up to date and working for teachers and administrators and Students. Also keeps principal and administrators informed with the latest information regarding campuses overall HEALTH with regards to technology on Campus.
Louise Reitmeier(Technology Access)- Making sure Districts network and e-mail is working correctly for district.
Joan Dubiel (Technology Procurement)- Technology procurements are reviewed prior to the actual purchase transaction to ensure compliance to IT standards, consistency with enterprise architecture, conformance to agency IT plans, and adherence to procurement best practices.
Diana Wilson (Student/Business Services)- Making sure Students and Business
Services are met with regards to Technology.
Cindy Allen (Technology Procurement)- Technology procurements are reviewed prior to the actual purchase transaction to ensure compliance to IT standards, consistency with enterprise architecture, conformance to agency IT plans, and adherence to procurement best practices.
Terri Rhodes, Rebekka Gabino, Mary Gill, Robyn Sewell (Educational Technology) - Making sure the latest technology is understood and integrated into the classroom via Instruction to personnel and Teachers.
Role of the Principal in making sure Organizational Chart is followed- The role of an administrator is to understand the capabilities and limitations of the technology at their school and around them. It is only then that they can budget money for technology needed, professional development needed, and replacement of technology best suited for the campuses needs. They must hire a good Campus Technolgy Specialist for their school in order so that he/she can report back to them what is and is not working with regards to technolgy on campus. The principal must make sure that the Districts Technology plan is followed so that goals and objectives can be implemented into the Campus improvement plan. The STaR chart is also a great way that a principal can find out in what areas his/her Students and Teachers can and must improve on. If all above data is not used and or implemented there will be failure among ALL on campus with regards to technology.
Professional Development Plan for Integrating Technology:
Staff development should be focused on teaching the existing curriculum with technology. Because of this curriculum and instruction will continue to build because of the use of this technology. This technology will be used to collect data and to analyze it to best serve each student's individual needs. All Classrooms should have connectivity for laptops, interactive white boards, classroom performance systems, document cameras, and more.
Reference analysis and lessons learned about the technology needs report from week 3:
After reviewing both technology plans, I think our District has a great outlook on what is needed for our students with regards to technology. As stated at the round table interview with Dr. Abernathy, Dr. Jenkins and Cindy Cummings, our District GCCISD has the following in their plan that was mentioned in their discussion:
1. They have been using the StaR Chart to find out the needs of teachers, although as
A teacher, I think our Campus can do a better job in letting teachers know what
EXACTLY we use the Star Chart for.
2. Our district is working towards Curriculum and Campus Improvement for
Technological integration. Using technology some may think of as the enemy but I
think our District realizes, as do Dr. Abernathy, Dr. Jenkins and Cindy Cummings,
that we need to embrace the technology our students already possess and use it for
good. This takes all working with stakeholders to get policy changed to allow cell
phones and other tools thought of as taboo to be utilized in the classroom.
3. In our Districts technology plan, they made reference to providing “Staff
Development sessions on Digital Citizenship and validation of Internet resources
have been added”,
which, as Dr. Abernathy, Dr. Jenkins and Cindy Cummings pointed out, is something
our Administrators must lead the way in. Hopefully in these development sessions
they will utilize Project Tomorrow, which gives input as to what is happening
technology -wise across our nation.
Professional Development designed to improve the gathering, analysis and use of data from a variety of sources:
Staff Development session on how to enter benchmark assessments and CBA's for all students that are in the SchoolNet system that way it is accessible to ALL Teachers/Personnel that need to know on campus.
Have a Staff Development session on the significance of STaR chart and the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology.
Staff Development session on how to benefit from the use of TEA’s AEIS data reports.
Professional Development to improve decision making in the integration of technology:
Students and teachers will receive training in Internet safety and digital citizenship.
There should be a Staff development session on multimedia for administrators, teachers and students.
There should be SchoolNet training for all stakeholders.
Have a Staff Development session on the significance of Distance learning via the internet.
Have a Staff Development for teachers on the significance of Electronic portfolios.
References:
Miller, Geraldine. State Board of Education, Texas Education Agency. (2006). Long-range technology plan, 2006-2020 Austin, Texas: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
International Society for Technology in Education, (2007). Nets for students 2007. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students/nets-student-standards-2007.aspx
Jim Shelton, Mike Smith, Karen Cator, and Bernadette Adams Yates, . National Educational Technology Plan Technical Working Group, Office of Educational Technology U.S. Department of Education. (2009). learning powered by technology
Ancess, J. (2000). The reciprocal influence of teacher learning, teaching practice, school restructuring, and student learning outcomes. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 590-619.
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 153-224.
Kubitskey, B. (2006). Extended professional development for systemic curriculum reform. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Scott, Robert, . Texas Education Agency, Texas Education Agency Executive Management. (2008). Progress report on the long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020 Austin, Texas: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
GOOSE CREEK CISD, . (2009). Goose creek cisd technology plan for e-rate year 12. Retrieved from http://schools.gccisd.net/docs/38-Tech%20e-Plan%202009-2012.pdf
Evaluation Planning for Action Plan- Progress of this plan will be monitored by Campus Administrators, Superintendent, and School Board as well as other members of the Flow chart not mentioned. Evaluations regarding effectiveness will not only come from tested materials but from Teacher evaluations determined by observation of student interaction with the Technology. Information will then be given to Stakeholders regarding progress of student mastery of specific Technology. District Technology e-plan will serve as a guide to make sure goals and objectives are integrated into Campus CIP and into future decisions based off of the STaR chart and Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology.
Assessments for measuring professional development designed to use technology to improve the gathering, analysis and use of data from a variety of sources:
Staff Development session on how to enter benchmark assessments and CBA's for all students that are in the SchoolNet system that way it is accessible to ALL Teachers/Personnel that need to know on campus.
Assessment- Reports and surveys on the ease of use and possible improvements that are needed regarding School Net systems.
Have a Staff Development session on the significance of STaR chart and the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology.
Assessment- Make sure ALL teachers are surveyed on knowledge of both the STaR chart and Texas Long Range Plan for Technology making sure that the data from the two is implemented into our CIP Plan.
Staff Development session on how to benefit from the use of TEA’s AEIS data reports.
Assessment- Teachers lesson plans and planning sessions will be used and looked at to gauge whether AEIS data reports are being used for the betterment of our students.
Assessments for evaluating professional development to improve decision making in the integration of technology with instructional and organizational leadership:
Students and teachers will receive training in Internet safety and digital citizenship.
Assessment- Teacher survey gauging knowledge as to whether internet safety and digital citizenship development was effective.
There should be a Staff development session on multimedia for administrators, teachers and students.
Assessment- Make sure technology is integrated into the curriculum via survey and/or reports and lesson plans.
There should be SchoolNet training for all stakeholders.
Assessment- Making sure timelines are met for implementation and thru our Campus Technology Specialist.
Have a Staff Development session on the significance of Distance learning via the internet.
Assessment- Make sure technology is integrated into the curriculum via survey and/or reports and lesson plans. STaR chart data.
Have a Staff Development for teachers on the significance of Electronic portfolios.
Assessment- Make sure technology is integrated into the curriculum via survey and/or reports and lesson plans. STaR chart data.
References:
Miller, Geraldine. State Board of Education, Texas Education Agency. (2006). Long-range technology plan, 2006-2020 Austin, Texas: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
International Society for Technology in Education, (2007). Nets for students 2007. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students/nets-student-standards-2007.aspx
Jim Shelton, Mike Smith, Karen Cator, and Bernadette Adams Yates, . National Educational Technology Plan Technical Working Group, Office of Educational Technology U.S. Department of Education. (2009). learning powered by technology
Ancess, J. (2000). The reciprocal influence of teacher learning, teaching practice, school restructuring, and student learning outcomes. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 590-619.
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 153-224.
Kubitskey, B. (2006). Extended professional development for systemic curriculum reform. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Scott, Robert, . Texas Education Agency, Texas Education Agency Executive Management. (2008). Progress report on the long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020 Austin, Texas: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
GOOSE CREEK CISD, . (2009). Goose creek cisd technology plan for e-rate year 12. Retrieved from http://schools.gccisd.net/docs/38-Tech%20e-Plan%202009-2012.pdf
Friday, March 4, 2011
2009 2010 STaR chart summary powerpoint
Teaching and Learning Key Area total has remained same for the past 3 years with no increase towards Advanced Tech. Educator Preparation and Development Key Area total in the past 3 years has moved up from 10 -14. Leadership, Admin., Instructional Support Key Area total has move up from 14-15 placing us into the Advanced Tech category. Infrastructure for Technology has risen from 14-16 over the past 3 years and placed us in the Advanced Tech category as well. We have done an excellent job in moving towards our goals of Target tech but can still do better!!
2009 2010 s ta-r chart summary powerpoint
View more presentations from mikespy13.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Blog Posting #3 National Educational Technology Plan summary
The National Educational Technology Plan Technical Working Group has 2 specific and clear goals that are outlined within the draft and they are:
• We will raise the proportion of college graduates from where it now stands [39%] so that 60% of our population holds a 2-year or 4-year degree.
• We will close the achievement gap so that all students – regardless of race, income, or neighborhood – graduate from high school ready to succeed in college and careers.
To achieve these goals the draft also states that our education system:
• Be clear about the outcomes we seek.
• Collaborate to redesign structures and processes for effectiveness, efficiency,and flexibility.
• Continually monitor and measure our performance.
• Hold ourselves accountable for progress and results every step of the way.
With regards to Learning, the plan asks that we focus how we teach to match what people need to know, how they learn, where and when they will learn, and who needs to learn.
With regards to teaching, the plan asks that we use technology to help build the capacity of educators by enabling a shift to a model connected teaching. No more teaching by oneself but as a team of which we are connected to tools of technology 24/7.
With regards to professional development, the plan asks all institutions involved in preparing educators should provide technology-supported learning experiences that promote and enable the use of technology to improve learning, assessment, and instructional practices. This will require teacher educators to draw from advances in learning science and technology to change what and how they teach, keeping in mind that everything we now know about how people learn applies to new teachers as well.Educators can be engaged in professional learning not only when attending formal workshops or other activities outside the classroom, but also in the very act of teaching,which can offer a rich source of information to inform professional growth.(Ancess, 2000; Borko, Mayfield, Marion, Flexer, & Cumbo, 1997; Kubitskey, 2006).
After review of the plan i found it to be pretty sound. It did not seem to posses anything that seemed to difficult to achieve. It was pretty vague with regards to how these goals/actions were to be specifically carried out but then again it is still in draft form. I think that it would be wonderful if we could get 60% of our population to possess a degree of some kind. It is a bit startling to find that only 39% do currently. All in all a great plan in my opinion.
References:
Jim Shelton, Mike Smith, Karen Cator, and Bernadette Adams Yates, . National Educational Technology Plan Technical Working Group, Office of Educational Technology U.S. Department of Education. (2009). learning powered by technology
Ancess, J. (2000). The reciprocal influence of teacher learning, teaching practice, school restructuring, and student learning outcomes. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 590-619.
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 153-224.
Kubitskey, B. (2006). Extended professional development for systemic curriculum reform. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
• We will raise the proportion of college graduates from where it now stands [39%] so that 60% of our population holds a 2-year or 4-year degree.
• We will close the achievement gap so that all students – regardless of race, income, or neighborhood – graduate from high school ready to succeed in college and careers.
To achieve these goals the draft also states that our education system:
• Be clear about the outcomes we seek.
• Collaborate to redesign structures and processes for effectiveness, efficiency,and flexibility.
• Continually monitor and measure our performance.
• Hold ourselves accountable for progress and results every step of the way.
With regards to Learning, the plan asks that we focus how we teach to match what people need to know, how they learn, where and when they will learn, and who needs to learn.
With regards to teaching, the plan asks that we use technology to help build the capacity of educators by enabling a shift to a model connected teaching. No more teaching by oneself but as a team of which we are connected to tools of technology 24/7.
With regards to professional development, the plan asks all institutions involved in preparing educators should provide technology-supported learning experiences that promote and enable the use of technology to improve learning, assessment, and instructional practices. This will require teacher educators to draw from advances in learning science and technology to change what and how they teach, keeping in mind that everything we now know about how people learn applies to new teachers as well.Educators can be engaged in professional learning not only when attending formal workshops or other activities outside the classroom, but also in the very act of teaching,which can offer a rich source of information to inform professional growth.(Ancess, 2000; Borko, Mayfield, Marion, Flexer, & Cumbo, 1997; Kubitskey, 2006).
After review of the plan i found it to be pretty sound. It did not seem to posses anything that seemed to difficult to achieve. It was pretty vague with regards to how these goals/actions were to be specifically carried out but then again it is still in draft form. I think that it would be wonderful if we could get 60% of our population to possess a degree of some kind. It is a bit startling to find that only 39% do currently. All in all a great plan in my opinion.
References:
Jim Shelton, Mike Smith, Karen Cator, and Bernadette Adams Yates, . National Educational Technology Plan Technical Working Group, Office of Educational Technology U.S. Department of Education. (2009). learning powered by technology
Ancess, J. (2000). The reciprocal influence of teacher learning, teaching practice, school restructuring, and student learning outcomes. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 590-619.
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 153-224.
Kubitskey, B. (2006). Extended professional development for systemic curriculum reform. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Blog Posting #2 Texas long-range plan for technology reflection
The Texas long-range plan for technology annual report went in depth in each section. The basic breakdown is as follows: In infrastructure for technology, there were 107 more schools that were rated Target Tech in 2007-2008 than there were the school year prior. That means that students have more access and direct connectivity for computers at all times. All these classrooms or schools had a Wide Area Network or WAN and were equipped with the appropriate technology. Data also shows that in 2007-2008 about 250 more schools moved up from Target tech to Advanced Tech. Also, in 2007-2008, 500 or so fewer campuses were rated Developing tech. Early Tech also dropped by about half, from 174 down to 94. What this basically states is that the State of Texas's actions towards implementing a solid plan for Technology improvement is working. I know that just at our campus i see more teachers in school talk about or ask about new technology that will help them teach children in the newest and most exciting ways possible. Three years ago our campus had ratings in some areas in the single digits (a very early developing tech) and now in Leadership, Admin., Instructional Support and in Infrastructure for Technology we rank in the Advanced Tech category. I think (at least at my district) we are taking the STaR chart and Technology aspect of our job seriously. I think teachers in district realize that if they don't learn the latest and greatest technology they may get left behind or even worse replaced. I think Texas has taken huge strides in the Technology department and although much is a monetary issue, i think as compared to the rest of the nation we are on the right track.
Reference:
Scott, Robert, . Texas Education Agency, Texas Education Agency Executive Management. (2008). Progress report on the long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020 Austin, Texas: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
Reference:
Scott, Robert, . Texas Education Agency, Texas Education Agency Executive Management. (2008). Progress report on the long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020 Austin, Texas: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
Blog Posting #1 Educator Preparation and Development
Educator Preparation and Development is part of the four areas of the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020. It is to ensure that teachers graduate from an educator preparation program that models current technology in instructional and administrative practices PreK-12. It also makes sure teachers exit educator preparation programs knowing how to use technology effectively in the teaching-learning process as demonstrated by the SBEC Technology Applications Standards. Additionally it develop new learning environments that utilize technology as a flexible tool where learning is collaborative, interactive and customized for the individual learner and is set in place to ensure full integration of appropriate technology throughout all curriculum and instruction.
In this area we have made progress in the past 3 years increasing in 2 increments slowly progressing towards Advanced Tech. We have made the biggest stride in EP4 which is Access to Professional Development. According to the 2009-2010 STaR chart data our campus has progressed nicely in the area. We were at an EARLY Developing Tech status in this area 3 years ago with a total of 10 points but now are closing in on Advanced Tech as of late with a total of 14 points. We fit the majority of Texas's population with around 70% fitting the Developing tech category. Although 27% of the state is in the Advanced Tech category.
I think that our district has been providing better staff developments as of late in regards to technology but can and should still improve on them. Many teachers at times fret when they find out there is something new they must learn with regards to new technology but must learn to embrace it so we can teach to our children when presented with the opportunity. I think one of the biggest areas we must improve on is Online Learning for both teachers and students. We can and should learn as much as we can from people of ALL cultures and apply the best of that to teaching.
In this area we have made progress in the past 3 years increasing in 2 increments slowly progressing towards Advanced Tech. We have made the biggest stride in EP4 which is Access to Professional Development. According to the 2009-2010 STaR chart data our campus has progressed nicely in the area. We were at an EARLY Developing Tech status in this area 3 years ago with a total of 10 points but now are closing in on Advanced Tech as of late with a total of 14 points. We fit the majority of Texas's population with around 70% fitting the Developing tech category. Although 27% of the state is in the Advanced Tech category.
I think that our district has been providing better staff developments as of late in regards to technology but can and should still improve on them. Many teachers at times fret when they find out there is something new they must learn with regards to new technology but must learn to embrace it so we can teach to our children when presented with the opportunity. I think one of the biggest areas we must improve on is Online Learning for both teachers and students. We can and should learn as much as we can from people of ALL cultures and apply the best of that to teaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)