1. How did the plan meet the existing needs in technology, funding, and management issues?
Technology:
“Navasota ISD supports the ongoing use of technology in the teaching and learning process and is committed to providing access to present and future technologies for empowering all students with the essential technology skills needed to be successful both in school and in the future workplace” (Gonzalez, 2010). The current technology plan is focused on improving technology through professional development, training teachers to use technology applications, provide students with hands-on technology applications and learning activities, distant learning programs for teachers and students, and incorporating a variety of technology hardware and software devices to each campus for use in the classroom. The biggest area of focus within the technology plan is providing professional development so teachers will be knowledge of new technology applications and feel confident implementing them in the classroom and with student learning.
Funding:
For each goal of the technology plan, a budget has been calculated and determined by the NISD Technology Committee and approved by the school board. In addition, NISD employs a full-time grant writer to seek additional resources for technology applications. The district encourages teachers and trains teachers on seeking out and obtaining grants to support their technology needs at the campus and classroom level. “Beyond the state technology allotment, the district has contributed local finds in the past for technology enhancements and will continue to do so in the future” (Gonzalez, 2010).
Management:
NISD determines and manages technology needs by evaluating and analyzing results of the Texas STaR chart, online surveys of all administration and instructional staff, teacher interviews, and focused surverys completed by administrative team leaders and tech support staff. Each campus within NISD has a technology committee to manage and determine campus needs. In addition, current technology resources are managed by the district wide technology department. The department manages funds, inventory, infrastructure maintenance, and software and hardware devices owned by the district.
2. How did the goals provide the measurable outcomes for future improvement?
2. How did the goals provide the measurable outcomes for future improvement?
The goals of NISD’s technology plan is “aligned with district, state, and national goals and standards” (Gonzalez, 2010). The goals are measured and assessed through the Texas STaR chart, online surveys of administrators and teachers, and interviews. In addition, the goals are to be measured by TA TEKS, NCLB documentation, E-rate application guidelines, and Technology Application Standards for Beginning Teachers. The “evaluation of the Navasota ISD’s Technology Plan will be a systematic ongoing process” and “all aspects of the plan will be evaluated formally two time each year” (Gonzalez, 2010).
3. How did the strategies defined to meet the proposed objectives?
3. How did the strategies defined to meet the proposed objectives?
When looking at strategies to meet the proposed objectives of NISD’s Technology Plan, I believe the district should use the ISTE TF/TL standards. “The TF standards are designed for lead teachers or instructional technology specialists who facilitate technology integration at the building level” (Williamson & Redish, 2009). In order to meet these standards, we must train faculty and staff to be knowledgeable of what the standards are and how to meet them. The technology plan and proposed objective for NISD already focus on technology operations and concepts, planning and designing learning environments and experiences, teaching, learning, and the curriculum, assessment and evaluation, productivity and professional practice, social, ethical, legal, and human issues, procedures, policies, planning, and budgeting for technology environments, leadership, and vision. Therefore, the strategies defined should very easily meet the proposed objectives for NISD.
References:
Gonzalez, R. (Director) (2010, March 29). Long-Range Technology Plan 2010-2013. Navasota ISD
Technology Plan. Lecture conducted from Navasota ISD School Board, Navasota, Texas.
Williamson, Jo; Redish, Traci (2009-02-01). ISTE's Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards: What Every K-12 Leader Should Know and Be Able to Do (Kindle Locations 376-377). International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Kindle Edition.
The views are different through some of the research I have read concerning how a school effective uses the information. It seems for most of our schools the biggest issue is the budget.
ReplyDeleteRather than concentrate on the many specific elements that are to be enumerated within a maximally-effective plan, the focus should be on major points. Later, after the "big picture" is conveyed and understood, a planner will be able better to address the minor, yet still important, elements. A receive article I read revealed the following:
"A technology plan often is a document, and nothing more. Thankfully, however, in effective schools, the plan is merely the physical manifestation of a major planning effort that focused on improving all segments of instruction, using technology in a natural infusion process. The plan, ideally, shows to the total community that the school is dedicated to a particular goal, or set of goals, that will benefit the learners affected. Every good plan will include an aggressive thrust that extends beyond the range of "the ordinary" into a level to which the entire community must strive. The plan will cause all concerned to "reach" for the good stuff" (Anderson & Perry, 1994).
Sometimes it seems that the technology plan within many schools os developed with good intentions but never goes farther than that.
Reference:
Anderson, L., & Perry, J. (1994). Technology planning: recipe for success. Retrieved (2012, April 16) from http://www.nctp.com/tp.recipe.html
I agree the biggest issues a majority of schools in Texas is facing at the current moment is budget issues. I believe technology plans so include realistic goals. With the current budget crisis, I do not believe many of these goals can or will be obtained.
DeleteIn looking at your comments on the goals and standards provided through the TEKS, NCLB documentation, and E-Rate guides it is important use these standards. But, it is important to ensure that these standards are reaching the desired instructional contexts of the required elements for the lesson being taught. “However, the importance of the ability to have individuals gain today’s ever changing contemporary competences and the ability to use technology for instructional purposes has increased. These two conditions reveal the need for different approaches to be presented in a wide spectrum that span from instructional strategies to techniques and from planning to evaluation. In this regard, it can be said that in the education field, instructional processes of evaluation, which show itself through the influence of understandings that have changed within the recent years and through the contribution of technology, will facilitate the creation of desired instructional contexts.” (Şengel, 2009, p.730) Take the standards and apply them to the content the district and students need to succeed.
ReplyDeleteŞengel, E. (2009). AN OVERVIEW FOR COMPUTER ASSISTED ASSESMENT. E-Journal Of New World Sciences Academy (NWSA), 4(3), 729-740.
Yes, I do believe the technology has to go hand in hand with the curriculum. If it does not, it's not really serving its purpose. Great advice on making sure the standards are applied to the content. Sometimes this is a forgotten, but very important and crucial element of the technology plan.
DeleteRobyn,
ReplyDeleteI like that each campus has a technology committee in order to best address their campus needs. Currently, have campus level technology committees but instead only one district level committee. I found this article School Technology Leadership: An Empirical Investigation of Prevalence and Effect to be very interesting since its findings are solely based on actual data. The most important piece noted is that technology infrastructure is not as important as technology leadership.
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (205). School Technology Leadership: An Empirical Investigation of Prevalence and Effect . The Journal of Leadership for Effective & Equitable Organizations, 41(1), 49-82.
In my opinion, technology leadership is very important, and probably more important than the infrastructure itself. If we have all the tools, but don't have a plan of action to achieve our goals, then it doesn't really matter that we have the tools. The district must know how to effectively integrate the tools into education to increase student learning.
DeleteRobyn,
ReplyDeleteI also like the fact that each campus has a technology committee to assist in helping teachers become more proficient in technology. We are a TAP school and I am amazed that this is our 2nd year of tap and the committees have not suggested that we have committees or at least an instructional technologist for support in the district. When you have a committee on each campus it is easy to evaluate the technology needs and address them in a timely manner.
Living in a digital world should motivate schools to seek funding through partnerships to ensure students are becoming lifelong learners.