Archive for the ‘Operations and Maintenance’ Category

One-to-Anything: Being Technologically Faithful

August 29th, 2012 by Jim Yeager

The letters NEW on springsA friend of mine called this week to see what I thought about my new Nexus 7 tablet.  My quick answer? “I love it!”  When we started talking about the Nexus 7 in schools, I gave a little more thoughtful reply:  “Would I trade my 200 iPads for 500 Nexus 7s?  Yes, in a second.”

The problem with my enthusiasm is that I am always ready to trade my previous favorite for next year’s new and better idea. In fact, it may not even be a year before Apple makes their own 7-inch iPad.  (They won’t dare call it an Ipad will they?)   What if the next Kindle offers a student-friendly device at an even more attractive price?  School leaders who make hardware purchases based solely on the “coolness” of the hardware may experience a severe case of buyer’s remorse.

When our fickle nature concerning educational technology hardware shows itself, I call it being “technologically unfaithful.”  We have a relationship with an attractive device.  We swear loyalty to.  Yet our faithfulness lasts only until the next cool innovation turns our heads.

What does this mean for technology leaders—and those administrators who write the checks to buy the stuff those leaders recommend?  It means that we have to refocus on student skills rather than hardware.

The Common Core Standards will require students to do what they know.  The National Educational Technology Standards for Students place the emphasis squarely on skills.  The new assessments we are so concerned about will not be device specific, nor require students to utilize a collection of apps to prove competence.  The new core curriculum will ask students to collaborate, think critically, and be creative.  Such skills are well served by technology, but not dependent on specific tools.

My new suggestion for the schools I work with is to adopt a “one-to-anything” approach.  Utilizing Web 2.0 tools, cloud-based resources, and a varied selection of hardware solutions, we can help students learn and practice common technology skills on whatever hardware they encounter.  For example, at Two Rivers School District we have wired labs, laptop labs, mobile netbook labs, Chromebook labs, and iPad labs.  Next, we’ll add a Nexus 7 lab.

The point is to focus on student skills that will enable our students to create, evaluate, and collaborate, regardless of the hardware they encounter. Our goal is technology-skilled students who will be able to use technology tools to perform relevant tasks, not operate specific devices.  After all, the next greatest thing is right around the corner.

Tech Equity: It’s not just for kids

November 28th, 2011 by Bob Price

Like most districts, we want our teachers to have access to powerful instructional technology.  And, like most districts, technology purchases for us have been made with a mix of limited district funds, some grants, and site categorical funds.  This has led to a situation where there are haves and have nots in terms of access to instructional technology.  A recent grant allowing for most of our math classes to have access to Promethean Boards caused our teachers of other subjects and grade levels to ask about access to these powerful technology tools.  When we took an inventory of the technological tools available to our teachers, we were surprised at the discrepancies across the district.  Our classrooms ran the gamut from full Promethean tools with document cameras to a single overhead projector sitting in a corner.  We realized we had a serious equity problem.

Our model of allowing sites to drive the educational technology available in classrooms had created a situation where student and teacher access technology varied dramatically.  A student could experience a relatively rich or embarrassingly poor access to technology tools depending on the luck of what teacher he/she was assigned to.  It was possible for students to spend their entire K-8 careers having only had access to teachers with an overhead projector.  Or they could be the lucky ones that had teachers with state-of-the-art technology.  This unacceptable situation led us to initiate our Tech Equity Project for teachers.

Utilizing a highly motivated Tech Vision Team, we developed minimum standards for technology for teachers.  After much discussion, it was decided that each classroom should be equipped with a teacher laptop, sound system, smart projector and document camera.  Funding for equipment would come from excess bond funds.  Sites agreed to pay for maintenance, repairs and supplies with the funds they were allocating previously to purchase hardware.  Our Tech Vision Team members offered to provide the necessary professional development at their sites in exchange for access to new technologies.  After much planning, meeting with vendors, and individual meetings with teachers and principals, our vision will be realized when teachers return from Winter break.

The next step in our vision will be the issue of equity of student access.  We have the same problem of haves and have nots with student technology.  Our goal will be to have all classrooms with an internet device available for all students within the next two years.  Whether that device will be a notebook, netbook, or tablet has yet to be decided.

The other big issue for us is whether our teachers will utilize all of this technology in powerful ways to improve student achievement.  One thing is certain.  No one will implement technology they do not have.  We are looking forward to the next steps in our journey.  Parent, teacher, and community support for our Tech Equity Initiative has been overwhelmingly positive.

Spring Axing

May 30th, 2011 by Tim Landeck

Every couple of years I see the lush, green field across from the picturesque, cliff-hanging lighthouse in my town brought to the city council for development.  Activists turn out in force and, with passion and voice, quell the development of this unique field for a few years until another developer sees the chance to triumph in the public forum, and the battle begins anew.

Like the environmentalist, our Technology Department never has the opportunity to trust that something is preserved forever.  This spring, as in so many others, the budget ax is on the upswing.  Faced with a dire financial situation, where can we chop into the bone even further?  As department heads scurry about like a recently disturbed ant hill, the question always comes up, “What does that tech guy do, anyway?”  The answer?  Whack!  The elimination of yet another K-12 technical position that is supporting site and/or district-wide access to innumerable resources.

What does anyone do? When I look around the district office and school sites, I see many positions that I don’t understand clearly.  What are their specific responsibilities?  What do they contribute each day?  Does my lack of understanding mean that the district can function just fine without these people’s daily activities? I don’t think so.

I am clear about the activities and productivity of those who report to me.  I trust that other department leaders also have a quality work ethic, are supervised appropriately, and do a fine job of overseeing their staff.

Unfortunately, when I deliver the repeatedly requested bullet list of technology department personnel job responsibilities and activities to my superiors, I know that the readers will not fully grasp the importance and significance of these activities.  If you don’t understand technology, you don’t understand technology; no bullet list will be sufficient to help you make informed decisions.

And there you have one more unique yet critical task of the technology department: educating non-technically minded educators and leaders about what we do.  Like the activists who fight to protect that green field across from the lighthouse, we must struggle to help our policy makers understand technology well enough to make wise decisions come budget time.

 

Taking the “Mist-ery” Out of Cloud Computing

May 17th, 2011 by Donna Hackner

During the late 1980’s, while working on my Masters in Educational Computing degree at Pepperdine University, I came across this quotation:

The next schism that will exist between those that have and those that do not have is access to information.

That schism has since become known as the “digital divide.”  This quotation has been the catalyst for me and my involvement in educational technology. Every student should have access to resources available on the World Wide Web, and countless debates and much energy have been put into providing access.  The solution is simple: cloud computing.  I call it the “great leveler” because it presents a solution for leveling the playing field and providing  access for students.

What is cloud computing?  And what are the implications for educators?  Cloud computing in education allows resources to be equitably accessible to students without worrying about the many technical aspects of technology. Basically, resources needed by students and teachers are maintained on a server elsewhere—i.e. the “cloud”—and are accessible through a portal.

The advantages to schools, especially charter schools, are great in terms of  savings in the cost of hardware, software and tech support.  Academically, cloud computing provides 24/7 access to students, parents and teachers.  And most importantly, as stated before, it levels the playing field and allows access to critical learning resources.

Learn more about cloud computing.  The video Cloud Computing Plain and Simple, by Santee School District,  does a good job at explaining it.

Critical Issues for 1:1 Programs

March 21st, 2011 by George Lieux

Looking to move to 1:1?  Learn from the experience of this Arkansas district.

Educators who promote the use of technology to improve learning almost always have visions of students engaged in exciting projects and solving challenging problems by collaborating and researching via the Internet. We in the Fort Smith (Arkansas) Public Schools have definitely had such visions in mind over the last six years as we have continued to expand our 1:1 Netbook Initiative.  In our excitement of putting new laptops in the hands of each child, however, we have realized that there are critical issues involved in making 1:1 initiatives successful.

Selection of hardware is surely a critical issue, but sometimes this is the easiest decision to make because budgets, bandwidth, and battery power limit and control our choices.  We have found the ASUS Eee PC best meets our needs and resources.

Choosing teachers

Since limited funds have not allowed us to make our 1:1 initiative a district-wide program, a more complicated issue has been the selection of teachers, grades and schools to participate. We began our 1:1 effort with the introduction of Palm handheld computers in selected elementary schools.  In our first year, we selected one elementary school for our maiden voyage.  We based our choice mainly on the number of faculty members who viewed technology as a learning aid and not an obstacle.

The following year we received a grant to continue our handheld initiative and tried having vertical teams in schools apply to participate.  We created an application process and selected teams based on the strength of their applications. We were not totally satisfied with this method of selection.

In the third and final year in our handheld program, we expanded to individual teachers based on the strength of their individual applications. We scored applications with a rubric that included points for the number of technology workshops the applicant had attended and a description of the applicant’s favorite tech tools and how each was used. Also, the applicant’s principal was required to rate the applicant on scales related to innovation, self-motivation, problem-solving, collaboration, and “doer.”

After the third year of our handheld computer program, we shifted to netbooks for the expansion of our 1:1 initiative. We have continued to select teacher participants based on individual applications. We find this method results in the best use of our funds.

Professional development

Perhaps the most critical issue with our 1:1 initiative has been the required professional development we provide. Our teachers agree to five days of training and monthly participation in district-led webinars during their first year in the program. Those aspects of our training have remained the same; however, the method and content of our 1:1 professional development continue to evolve with each group. Four days of the training focus on pedagogy and one day on technical troubleshooting, accessioning and imaging their laptops.

As stated earlier, our goal for our 1:1 classrooms was to transform worksheet and end-of-the-chapter-question classrooms to project-based learning environments. Since our first group of netbook teachers were all high-risk takers, everything we promoted in our trainings was understood and adapted by the participants. As we have moved beyond high-risk takers to more minimal-risk takers, we have adjusted our trainings.

We now design our professional development to reflect the levels described by Bernajean Porter in Grappling’s Technology and Learning Spectrum.  We introduce a tool and have the participants use the tool as if they were a student. They learn how to use the tool and then create a simple activity for their classroom using the particular tool. The number of tools used is determined by the speed our teachers learn to use and adapt the tool. We are now working on more advanced professional development for our 1:1 netbook teachers that will focus on the Transforming Uses described by Porter.

Technical support

Technical support has been a critical issue.  As we have moved to netbooks, our 1:1 program has almost doubled the number of computers in the district.  For our program to work, teachers are required to do almost all troubleshooting themselves. We use training time to teach teachers appropriate techniques for solving technical issues. Technology specialists are the next level of support.  Only when these procedures have not resulted in a resolution to the problem are the technicians in the Technology Department contacted.

Informing the community

As in all effective educational initiatives, the public must understand why and how a new program is implemented. We have met that challenge by providing a Learning and Technology Showcase each year. Each teacher in our program selects a project for one to four students to display in a fashion similar to a science fair. The Showcase is held on the campus of the University of Arkansas Fort Smith and for many who visit the Showcase, this is the first time they see K-12 students use a computer for something other than for games and texting.

As is indicated in our showcase title, learning is the true focus of our 1:1 initiative. We promote learning over the use of technology for the sake of technology. We stress that how technology is used is more important than if technology is used. Our program continues to grow and evolve as we continue to address all of the critical issues involved in such an initiative.

For copies of our application, scoring rubric, showcase forms, or training agenda write George Lieux.