Web Conferencing - I See The Potential

Tonight I took part in Dr. Cindy Cummings Web Conference.  This was my first experience with Web Conferencing, and I must say there was both positive and negative aspects of the experience. 
I can definitely see the potential for on-line collaboration between campuses, students who are out sick, experiences with speakers in non-local places, or even virtual fieldtrips.  The many options of chat, video and audio allow for different experiences and skills.  There was a lot of information that was shared.  As we got into a discussion on Web 2.0 tools, it was amazing the number of websites and software that was being shared across the chat board.  Though there were many questions about some of Lamar's procedures regarding graduation and certification, there were also some about the state budget and funding for technology which allowed for some great information to be shared regarding the governments stand on the budget. 
I thought there were a few down sides to the conference.  With 99+ participants, it made it somewhat difficult to keep up with the chat, and much of the audio was not accessible.  I could see how a smaller conference size would make better use of these options.  I also didn't think there was a lot of opportunity to learn about some of the button options, as most of the discussion was done on chat. 
I definitely like the idea, and am trying to think of ways I might use this in my class room, or planning with other teachers horizontally.  I am sure it will hit me in the middle of the night as I wake from my slumber.

Action Plan for Technology Integration

Technology Professional Development Action Plan
Goal: To survey needs, offer and evaluate Professional Development on Smartboards which are being incorporated into the campus infrastructure for core classrooms beginning in 2011-2012.
Action Steps(s):	Person(s) Responsible:	Timeline:	Needed Resources	Evaluation
Survey Teachers for needed training opportunities on Smartboards, specifically looking for different levels of knowledge in reference to.	Melizza Hull-Frederick (Technology Committee)	March - April 2011	Surveys, electronic if possible.  See Surveymonkey. Campus STaR chart results for determining level of improvement in technology incorporation	Review of Survey results – End of April.
Upload of Smartboard Software to campus profiles	Dr. Susan Rice – Principal, David Paz – Assistant Principal (CampusTechnology), District Operations Division for Technology.	March – April 2011	Software, Software licences	Follow up and accountabil-ity of upload.  Use teachers as a checking method via e-mail voting button
Coordinate and offer initial software training for beginners	David Paz – Assistant Prinicipal	April – May 2011	Survey results, Star Chart data, training aids, ITS or proficient staff to train	Compare survey data to attendance.
Budget and prepare for installation of Hardware per Bond and Budget.	Dr. Susan Rice – Principal,  Technology Operations Division	Summer 2011, by EO July	Hardware	Walkthrough of campus, evaluate cost to budget expenses
Training on Hardware	David Paz – Assistant Principal	August 2011	Hardware, software, training aids, ITS or proficient staff	Mandatory attendance sign in for In-service days before school year starts.
Training on Instructional Use of Smartboards	David Paz – Assistant Principal	August 2011	Software, hardware, training aids, KMAC lesson plan, staff to train	review of KMAC lessons
Post training Evaluation	Tim Chesser – Technology Committee	August 2011	Survey – electronic if possible; surveymonkey; STaR Chart	Evaluate results of survey; Evaluate changes in STaR Chart for 2011
Incorporate instruction using Smartboard	Administrative Staff	Ongoing 2011-2012 school year	Instructional Evaluations	Walkthrough evaluation forms as part of conferencing and development of staff
Continue use of technology use incentive drawings each six weeks	Administrative Staff	Ongoing	Gift cards, jeans passes, etc.	Evaluate classrooms for use of technology, Survey teachers for use of technology
Continue Technology Committee Meetings Monthly	Dr. Susan Rice – Principal	Monthly	Committee meetings	Evaluation of all things technology on an ongoing basis, including the successful implementa-tion of Smartboard initiative

Reviewing Our Nation's Plan

In reviewing the National Educational Technology Plan 2010, It is clear that our nation is moving towards an education system that supports the needs of learners in the future.   This can be seen in this plan in many ways. This plan opens with an executive summary, explaining the needs of several education areas including Learning, Teaching, Infrastructure and Production.  It also spells out specific goals of the plan for each category. 

In the plans introduction, it is clear that our nation’s leaders have a concern for the direction of education.  This concern is centered on relevancy.  As students spend their afterschool hours with cell phones and laptops, why should they not use those same tools for education?  These leaders recognize the need for the US to be the leader in education, and are pushing for this technology to be used, not only for increased learning, but equity as well. 

In learning, it is important that we provide students with real learning opportunities.  Real, meaning, relative, applicable and progressive.  The future of technology in careers is forever developing.  Students must learn to prepare themselves for this type of world through technology education.  Students will learn using media based projects, networking and collaboration.

In addition, our Assessment techniques must change.  The standardized test must be phased out and replaced with technology based production assessments that illustrate problem solving and critical thinking.

Teachers will be moving from an isolated, facilitator role to a connected, networking role in this plan.  Teaching will be tied to immediate feedback, data, an opportunity to analyze a students learning.  With the use of technology, teachers will have students gain access to whole new levels of information; thus, increasing the critical thinking level of the student.  With the recent change in technology, and the ever-changing state of it in the future, professional development will be key.

Infrastructure will also be key.  Providing students the opportunity to access wireless and broadband connections at their own campuses on their own devices will drive what infrastructure is all about.  Access to information on the web will be vital.  Consolidating and upgrading equipment and servers will increase efficiency. 

When it comes down to it, Productivity is what really matters.  As the President has challenged education to increase college graduation rates to 60%, it is important for educational leaders to analyze their processes and budgets, as well as the effectiveness of technology.  As the business world has used technology to streamline results and productivity, so must the world of education; this will not be something that occurs overnight.  Districts and States need to take their time and use sure fire analysis in making decisions on how to improve productivity.

In conclusion, I found this national plan to be quite comprehensive and well thought out.  As technology continues to advance, so must education.  If our future will be dependent on these and new technologies, then it is vital that our education system embrace it for the benefit of our future citizens.

Are We Really Moving In the Right Direction?

After taking a look at the 2008 Report for the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, it was interesting to see where we stood as a state.  The Data which was shared from the NetDay Speak Up 2007 definitely put into perspective where our students technology capabilities lie.  Based on those survey results alone, it is promising that Texas is doing something about setting our studnets up to be functional and successful citizens of the digital age.
But are we?  As you view the state programs, it appears that there are many campuses around the state, in several different districts, that are highly advanced thanks to their involvement in the Technology Immersion Pilot.  These campuses seemed to be a minority though.  Not to say that starting off small is a bad thing, but, I would think that you would have multiple campuses at each grade level from every district in the state that was taking part in this pilot.  You will definitley have districts that are not in the Pilot falling behind. 
Another thing that was a bit distrubing is that many campuses appear to be at the developmental stage.  Now considering this report is three years old, I would imagine that this would change.  However, I know from my own campus results, that we too are in Developmental Ratings in a couple of the STaR chart catagories.
I know change doesn't happen overnight.  I was just a little thrown off that more campuses and districts would not be operating at an Advanced Tech Level.  In fact, in some cases, there seemed to be a regression in the numbers of higher performing schools.  I realize that technology is changing constantly, so we could verywell become overwhelmed with new applications; thus, taking a step or two back in order to move forward.

The texas star chart

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

The texas star chart

View more presentations from c0503497.

Campus Infrastructure Must Be Priority One

The Texas Long Range Plan for Technology 2006-2020 is a vital vision and document for the well being of Texas Education.  And if there is one thing that the state must make a priority, it is ensuring that the vision of infrastructure is supported fully.  An organization, such as Texas Education, cannot be fooled into thinking that all of the advances and continuous change in technology will be effective for our education system, if the tools to supply that effective and efficient technology are not regularly updated and available to districts and campuses. 
My understanding is that the state stresses the importance of district and campus budgeting for infrastructure in the plan.  However, state leaders must recognize that state allocated funds, especially for poorer school districts, must be made available in order to provide what they call "equitible" education for all students in the state.  This concept did not to be stated very clearly.  It seems that verbally they support the idea for improved and updated infrastructure; but, it appears that principals will be at the mercy of their own traditional programs to fund such infrasturcture.  Sacrifices will need to be made in the budget, but will education as a whole be able to handle the cuts of programs and/or staff that will have to be made since the state does not appear to be recognizing the need to increase the budgets for such an expensive task.