Posts Tagged ‘support’

The Professional Development Dilemma

September 27th, 2011 by Tim Landeck

All K-12 employees need to receive professional development in their field. Teachers need to learn about new and better ways to deliver instruction. Classified staff needs to learn about the new programs and district initiatives. Administrators need to learn about ways to manage their staff and facility in a more effective and efficient manner. Technical staff needs to learn about the new technology developments to select and implement the systems that will assist in making everyone’s life easier and more effective in education.

Can any of these job areas do without their trainings and if so, for how long? When will the lack of funding to support forward movement in professional development be felt by the students and community? It seems that professional development funds are usually cut soon after the funding for the district grant writer. In other words, it is one of the first items cut from the budget.

In these lean times in education the technical staff is faced with a large dilemma.  We need to keep up with the latest and greatest in technology for the K-12 arena; however, there are not funds available to send staff to trainings where they learn about ways to do more with less and improve the technical workings of the school site, district or county. These individuals are already highly skilled and trained personnel but we need to keep them this way. With limited, or no professional development funds available, how can we keep our staff up to speed with the ever changing world of technology?

The technology staff is expected to integrate the latest technical innovations as they are released.  It seems to me that the technical staff’s lack of continued professional growth would be felt sooner by their “clients” than the other groups. Everyone needs to continue to grow and model being lifelong learners, but when we cut the training to the technical staff, there is no opportunity for growth in the technical department and this equates to stagnant progress that affects everyone in the organization, from staff to students to community members.

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.

 

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.

A Creative Partnership for Success

January 17th, 2011 by Skip Johnson

Last November, as we were revising our Tech Plan, we noticed that the amount of hardware and software available in our district had increased fourfold during the previous four years, yet there was not much change or innovation in the types of software being used in the classrooms.  We decided to make the creation of a timely and quality professional development program the number one goal of our new plan.

For help we turned to a unique program in a nearby community college district.  The Krause Center for Innovation (KCI), located at Foothill College campus in Los Altos Hills, California, has for more than a decade provided a first-class, technology-focused professional development program supporting the usage of all types of technology in K-12 schools.  I approached KCI Executive Director Gay Krause with the notion of replicating the KCI vision in our district.  The result is a partnership between our school district and KCI that may serve as a model for other districts.

El Crystal School, where I am principal, was chosen as the site of our new center for three reasons: it’s already a demonstration school for implementing technology, it had an empty classroom, and yours truly offered to serve as the new center’s director.  We’ve dubbed it the Danford Center for Innovation in recognition of the Danford Foundation, which has donated thousands of dollars to support technology at our school.

How it works

The partnership between KCI and the San Bruno Park School District is defined in a memorandum of understanding that specifies responsibilities for both institutions while offering a great deal of flexibility as well.  District responsibilities include providing the facility, IT support, all technology equipment, and the director.  KCI provides faculty, determines the fee structure, advertises course offerings, and gives enrollment preference to district employees.  Working in unison, we are responsible for creating a Certificate of Technology Competency, based upon ISTE standards for teachers, that participants can earn through participation in the new center’s classes.

Once the Certificate of Technology Competence is designed and implemented,  KCI instructors will teach the specific courses in the Danford Center.  Teachers who enroll will pay tuition, which allows them to receive immediate credit on the district salary schedule.  A great advantage of this arrangement is that, since KCI is part of the community college system, tuition is very affordable.

The Danford Center will not serve only our school.  Our district will use the Danford Center to offer workshops as needed—such as a recent one on ways to use Thinkfinity—to meet  educational goals.  In addition, courses at the center will be open to all teachers in our county.

This venture is bold.  However, we believe it is our  task to give our students the essential skills, knowledge, and learning experiences they need to thrive and succeed in the 21st Century.  Learn more about:

View teaching through a new lens—literally!

March 31st, 2010 by Stephen Vaughn

What’s quality teaching?  Depends on your point of view.  When you ask a teacher, “Are you doing a good job?” they answer, naturally, through their filter of reality.  Ask me the same question and I’ll do the same thing: answer through my own filter.  We all do this; that is the point.  To determine the true answer to the quality question for teaching, or any performance-oriented occupation, we need another point of view, a different perspective.

A video camera is the best different perspective.  Historically, we have depended on other humans—principals, supervisors, peer coaches and the like—to provide the different perspective.  One problem with this solution is that our perspectives are filtered by past experience and prejudice.  Research has proven that eye witnesses are not very reliable because everyone “sees” what they have been trained to see.

Another problem with human observers is that their presence has an effect on the environment in which they are observing. It is hard for an outside observer to become unobtrusive, let along invisible.  The small, digital cameras of today, however, can disappear quite easily.

Wait a minute!  Am I suggesting we put cameras in classrooms? The answer is yes, but not in the Vegas camera-in-the ceiling, pervasive manner (though that’s an interesting topic for another blog!).   I’m suggesting that teachers will be better teachers if they can see themselves teach through the unfiltered lens of a video camera. Think about it. Just about every other performance-oriented occupation uses video to improve effectiveness.  For example, a benchmark behavior of professional athletes is their ability to consistently and critically evaluate their performance as recorded on a video.

Here is how I suggest a teacher get started.

  1. Be sure to communicate with the parents and the students that you are recording your class and the reasons you are doing it.
  2. Place the camera in a location where both you and the students are in the picture. (Sometimes the most important learning for a teacher is what the students are doing or not doing.)
  3. Videotape a lesson.
  4. Watch the video tape alone and take notes of things you “see” that are new.
  5. Watch the video with someone you respect as a teacher and listen to what they say they see and compare it with what you saw.
  6. Develop a plan to adapt your teaching to what you saw.
  7. Implement the plan and video tape a new lesson.
  8. Watch the video to see if you have made an effective change.

From my personal experience, I can guarantee that if a teacher follows these steps, better teaching will result.  Since the most effective way to improve student learning is to provide good teaching, why not? It’s inexpensive.  It’s easy.  Pair the process with a comprehensive, research-based instructional strategy training program and you’ve got an even more effective way to improve teaching.  Try it.