After reading The Technology Dilemma (available in the Off Week Assignments folder on Blackboard), post a 150-250 word post about your choice, answering the questions included in the assignment.
After posting your own choice, find at least two posts from other class members who chose a different option. In an incredibly kind, gentle, and collegial manner, post comments for these two classmates explaining to them why you believe their choices may be problematic. If you wish, you may respond to anyone posting a critique of your choice, but you are not required to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
The option that I choose was option 2. I felt that option two gave me the best chance to improve test scores at my school the most. Do I think the others will help? Yes, but this option gives me the opportunity to help my teachers improve and bring this information back to the school. I think this option will help me get the most information back in the building than any other option.
I believe my choice is right because this option could impact all teachers and not just a few teachers. If I was to get smart boards, projectors, or laptop carts I would be influencing a few classrooms at a time. The more classes that I can impact with the limited resources I have the better my money is spent.
The thing that may limit the ability for this plan to work is the teachers buying in to the idea. Some teachers do not want to put in the time to take classes outside of work. They may feel that this not going to make a very big impact on their classroom. If teachers do not put the effort into this program it will be ineffective
I would choose the web-based learning program (option 2). There appears to be some data to indicate that this program has had some success in other school districts in raising proficiency rates. The school has a good proficiency scores now, but the economically disadvantaged students are the achievement gap that the school faces. I would put the resources into trying to help that cohort of students.
I feel that if the money is used on the other three options, the students that are already doing well will continue to get a good education, but there is no focused attempt to improve scores for the economically disadvantaged students. I don’t see how the other three options target a specific goal within the school. Option 1 identifies a particular population within the school and allows a specific measurable goal to be established in order to use and evaluate the technology program. Option 2 allows teachers the opportunity for professional development, but there is no guarantee that teachers will use the professional development or that it will have an impact on the classroom. Option 3 seems to tell me that the English teachers will create really cool lessons that are still not focused on the economically disadvantaged students. Option 4 would target 50 students as without regard to cohort.
Using my best judgment I would elect to do choice #2. I would choose this option because it includes all of my teachers and therefore, has the potential to impact all of my students.
I think this choice is the right one because #1 is only targeting economically disadvantaged students and only 100 of them. This leaves out the majority of my students. Choice #3 does not seem to be the correct choice because it only targets 7th grade language arts. It excludes two other grades and the other subject areas within the grade level. This is not the most for your money. I do note that this would be a great addition to 21st century students and learning. I feel choice #4 is completely unacceptable. This option is only geared towards a half-time TA and 100 foreign language students. Again, the majority of the students would be disregarded.
There are a few factors that may inhibit the success of my chosen initiative. The first is the fact that there are no checks and balances in place to ensure all teachers take advantage of the online courses. Another potential problem is that there are no “specified” courses. You take whatever is offered. The needs at the school may change and no options are offered.
I could ensure the success of my technology initiative by setting clear expectations and guidelines for my staff. I could also allow my teachers to chose their needed courses and require at least one per semester. I could also implement a system where the learned material was “shared” in PLC study groups.
After much deliberation, I chose option #1.
I considered several factors while making this choice.
One is the fact that this school has a proficiency rate of 85-90%, yet, there is a CORE GROUP of economically disadvantaged students who consistently do not do well.
I also thought about my experience with Online Professional Development (Option #2). We have access to online courses in my school district and the fact of the matter is, that, many teachers do not have the time to complete the coursework.
Option #3 targets one grade level and leaves out the other two. If the option included a plan to share the SmartBoards and LCD projectors across the grade levels, I would be interested in this option.
Funding a part-time TA, and an online Spanish course for up to 50 students in Option #5, will not have a significant impact on the school as a whole either.
One factor that could inhibit the success of this technology initiative is the fact that the subscriptions are expensive and the money allows for the purchase of only 100. Another problem may be the limited number of teachers included in the onsite professional development.
I believe the Web-based curriculum package could help to move this particular group of students and this school as whole further along in acquiring 21st Century Skills. The group that’s being targeted, (economically disadvantaged students) may not have access to computers at home. It is quite possible that this group of students could move beyond remediation into enrichment with the curriculum. This option speaks to equity and it is relevant to students while giving them some of the necessary skills to compete globally.
For lack of a better option, I would get the SmartBoards and LCD projectors (option #3). I see problems with each of the options, but based on the information provided, I feel that this option would be the optimal in assisting that group of economically disadvantaged students.
Option #1 would have been the most appealing if it were not for the $3500 per year renewal rate. With no information regarding how feasible a commitment like that is to next year’s budget, it seems wrong to spend a large sum of money for only a year’s worth of remediation.
Having no knowledge of my staff, it would be difficult to know whether they would follow through with the online staff development discussed in option #2. Despite the correlation of content to those listed in the SIP, there might need to be more supervision to the staff’s development.
Option #4 does not address any of the concerns described except for the parents disappointment in the Spanish elective no longer being offered.
While the purchase of the technology mentioned in #3 might seem unnecessary, when properly applied these tools can adequately modify student work that would assist the economically disadvantaged students mentioned. The staff would have to be fully trained in using these educational tools, and there might be additional money spent in the upkeep of such devices. If properly used, it could lead to increased funds from the district to help provide these type of tools to teachers in all content areas.
I would choose option #1 and purchase web based curriculum package to assist with remediation. I believe this is an important step for the school because it is assumed that the economically disadvantaged students are not meeting the expectations on different state test and they are also a focus in our school improvement plan. The web-based curriculum package would provide students with another resource that was more interactive with detailed objectives to complement the teacher. In an EduTalk article entitled “Fighting Dropouts” it was stated that poor analysis on school’s side and boredom on the student’s side were problems with growing drop out rate. Students would be engaged with hands-on activities. YES Prep Public Schools in Texas have documented success in using computers to reinforce core curriculum lessons. In “The K12 Approach” research shows the traditional classroom is either too slow or too fast for students, so the program would allow our at-risk students opportunity for individual sessions. To support the primary goal of student achievement, availability of computers and time will have to be established as a priority. Opportunities before school, during lunch, afterschool, or during class time will need to be mandated. As a result of purchasing the program, we would have provided a strategy to help reduce the achievement gap and improving our school’s overall proficiency rate.
The only problem I have with antonyb's choice is it is another resource for the teachers to utilize. The problem is not the teachers but the need for disadvantaged students to reduce the achievement gap. Then there is no number to mention who gets the smartboards/LCD projectors. It may engage students, but not the students who need it the most.
I would have to disagree with eddie on the idea of web based curriculum even if a study has shown that it raises scores. I believe that it could raise scores but with certain population of students. I did not hear in his response what type of population it helped raise the scores with. We have to be aware of what will help the populaton we are serving.
I struggle with anthony's comment about using LCD projectors and smartboards. The reason I say this is the limited amout of studnets these products will reach. These items are expensive and require upkeep of these items. Bilbs fo projectors can be ver expensive. These are great tools to have in class, but when you have limited resources it is tough to justify having them when we can use overhead projectors.
Anthonyb mentions choosing option #2, in order to assist economically disadvantaged students. I don't see how this option targets that population. According to the information given, the 7th grade language arts teachers are requesting the equipment for the purpose of further engaging their students and to model for their colleagues how to effectively integrate technology into instruction. The use of SmartBoards and LCD projectors does enhance classroom instruction. However, this particular choice will probably benefit all of the students in the those 7th grade Language Arts classes and not just the students who are struggling.
I, too, am concerned about the expense involved in the upkeep of this kind of technology. When making decisions about technology, administrators must consider how those decisions will effect the school budget over the long term.
As the principal, I would choose option #4. Students need to have the opportunity to study a foreign language in middle school. Students are already required to take a foreign language in high school and college, why not make this a requirement in middle school? It is imperative students are exposed to foreign languages before 9th grade. Research indicates the earlier students are exposed to a language the better. Students who have studied Spanish will not only have a step above other students when applying to high school programs and colleges, but will also be more qualified to be hired for many jobs they may want to pursue in high school and beyond. Creating the opportunity for students to take Spanish is also a political move because it would appease many of the parents who were displeased the elective was removed. Having the opportunity to hire a Spanish speaking TA can be beneficial because he/she can also assist the ESL students within the building. The TA may also be a good contact for our Spanish-speaking parents. Although, the option states only 50 students are able to take the year-long course, creative thinking may allow for 100 students to take the course for a semester. Offering a foreign language can help create a climate within the school which values various cultures, for example the students in the Spanish class can promote Hispanic Heritage month as a class project. The value of speaking Spanish is extraordinary asset in today’s society.
Alright, time to defend myself.
First off, I knew I chose the least popular choice when choosing that option, but each scenario seemed to have more negatives to me than positives.
I did state the financial burden of upkeep on such technology. This was the only option that seemed guaranteed to be correctly carried out. Options 1 and 4 require adding personnel to run these programs. Finding a strong and qualified Foreign Language teacher is hard to comeby. This leaves potential for programs without qualified teachers running them.
The online professional development listed in #2 makes sense, but having completed my licensure online I can testify to the ineffectiveness of such practices. I do not trust these online programs, and would rather spend $10,000 on something I can put my hands on.
While the LCD's and SmartBoards are only being supplied to a limited group of teachers, they have already established a plan for using the technology. These pieces will work to further engage students, and are great tools for modifying work for low achieving students.
I feel as if none of the options were well developed and appropriate, but that #3 already had a plan in place for action.
It appears option #2 is the most popular choice so far. Personally, I believe option #2 is an ineffective way to spend
$10,000. As Anthony mentioned, I have also taken online courses and can testify to the uselessness of many online classes. Many of the courses I have taken consisted of reading articles online and answering surface level questions. The classes did not offer an opportunity to interact with my classmates or professor, taking away from the learning experience. I recognize there are many worthwhile online courses that utilize discussion boards, blogs, voicethread, etc. however, I still believe without having face to face interaction it is difficult to have the same level of commitment and learning from students. Taking an online course is very time consuming, therefore the staff would have to be invested in the topics in order to participate. Although the topics include areas targeted in the School Improvement plan, that does not necessarily mean teachers will be willing to put in extra time and effort to complete the courses. Depending on the make-up of the staff, many teachers may be hesitant to take online classes due to their inexperience with technology. Online classes are a relatively new concept and some older staff members may be uncomfortable with the idea. Another issue is that many teachers may want to complete the courses at home, but do not have the proper internet connections needed for the courses. A final problem I identified with this option is purchasing a two-year subscription for all teachers. If teachers do not buy into the online courses after a year, it is a waste of money to be required to purchase another year if the staff is not invested in the professional development program.
This was a tough decision because each of the four options has its own merit but I would have to choose option #2. Teachers have such a difficult time getting to all of the professional development workshops that will benefit them. This appears to be a viable option making professional development extremely convenient. This choice is superior because it will ultimately benefit all of the children in the school whereas the other options are limited to a specific group of people. The biggest obstacle that I see is that teachers actually have to use it to get any benefits from it. In order to verify use, I could make certain to get copies of the CEUs that teachers log and to have the teachers present what they have learned and how it has benefitted them in their classroom instruction. The one item that was not a factor in my decision was the knowledge that central office preferred that choice.
I thought that Sarita made some interesting points in wanting to work with the small group of students that aren't where they need to be and that helping them learn 21st century technology skills is an added bonus.
Hillary made a great argument for foreign language but my biggest reason for not choosing it was that the graduation requirements are getting ready to change and foreign language will be suggested for college bound kids but not required. However, knowing Spanish is almost a requirement no matter what path you choose after high school.
I think the key for any option is making sure that it is being used. It is useless if no one benefits.
I would like to preface my choice by saying that as a school principal, I would most likely solicit the input of the entire staff before making this decision completely on my own. However, in doing so I would express my support for option 2. In reviewing the choices, I was looking for the option which would impact the most students while being relatively easy to use and maintain. Moreover, I was searching for a tool which might garner the most teacher support. Taking these issues into account, I feel as if option 2 has the most potential to impact the most students. Improving teaching practices all around would improve student performance across the board while not targeting specific student populations, as was often the case in the other options. Teacher follow-through would be the biggest hurdle to tackle in implementing this initiative. Additionally, I feel there is always the possibility of technical issues with any technology initiative (from accessibility issues to glitches). To ensure its success, I would request a handful of teacher volunteers to familiarize themselves with the program and allow them to guide others in using the tool for effective professional development. My IRT would also be responsible for monitoring the use of the service and accumulating data as to its effectiveness.
In response to votes for option 1, I struggle personally with the financial comittment. An additional $3500 per year seems rather expensive when I know little of how effective the program will be in our school. Granted, data suggests its success in other districts, but that won't guarantee its success in our school. Even if it isn't effective in tis first year, I would feel vested in the program and almost obligated to purchase another subscription.
I agree with Hillary in that foreign languages and studies therein could very well prove invaluable for any student to be successful in a global community, yet so many other posts (including one of Hillary's) argue the effectiveness of online coursework. The online Spanish course would have to tackle these issues as well, and providing services for 50 (of 1000) students does not strike me as the most effective use of $10,000.
I understand Anthony’s reasoning for choosing option #3 and purchasing SmartBoards and LCD projectors for the 7th grade Language Arts teachers; however, I think there are some issues with spending $10,000 on this type of technology. One of my concerns is the high rate turn-over in education. If these tools are purchased and the next year there is a whole new group of 7th grade Language Arts teachers, who is to say the new teachers will want to use LCD projectors and SmartBoards while delivering instruction? I also think an issue of fairness may arise among staff members. The 6th and 8th grade teachers may also want money for technology, creating a problem if there is not other funding available for their grade levels. Finally, these technology tools will require upkeep and possibly repair. There would need to be an identified person, possibly the media specialist, who could oversee the use of this equipment. I think technology can be a very valuable tool; however, there are many considerations that must be thought about before purchasing expensive equipment for schools.
Based on the information provided I would select option #2. I feel that this is the best option because it would allow the teacher’s to grow as professionals, focus on the SIP and potentially affect more students. This option would possibly have the most lasting affect. Teachers would be more prone to stay in the field because they could gain graduate school credit for free that could result in greater pay and more effective instruction. Since all teachers are able to participate in this option, it would have the potential to positively affect more students. This option has the most potential for lasting long-term affects on the school.
I feel that option #2 is better than choice #1 because it only has the potential to reach a small pocket of students, but this was my second choice. There is also the possibility that this program would only last for one year if there is not enough money in the budget to keep it going. Teacher training is also an issue. Since there are only 2days of professional development, some teachers may not feel comfortable using the program. Option #3 would only benefit a small number of teachers and students and would not make the most impact for the money being spent. Smart boards could also require maintenance which could end up costing more money from the school’s budget. Option #4 would only affect 50 students and would do very little to benefit the school overall.
One factor that could inhibit this option is teacher buy in. If teachers don’t see the benefits of this option, it is possible that they will not commit to it. I also think that time could be another issue with this option. Teachers might feel overwhelmed with having to complete these courses along with the duties that they already have.
To ensure that this plans success, I would make sure that teacher’s understand how to use this resource through continuous professional development that would assist them in understanding how to use the program and all of its benefits. I would also make sure that teachers had time built into their schedules to participate in this plan so that they would not become overwhelmed. It would also be important to put expectations in writing so that teachers would be clear on what they are being asked to do.
I would choose option number one. While this option does not affect the greatest number of students it does affect a population of students who consistently do not perform well on tests. This option does not impact the most students, but it could have the greatest amount of impact.
Option 2 is in place in our county now, and I don't know many if any teachers who utilize it. Most hours that are logged through this resource come from staff developments that our IRT gives us credit for. Option 3 puts too much of the money in to one grade level, and does not tell how they will become a model for other teachers or how those same resources will be aquired. It also does not factor in future costs for maintenance and repairs of this technology. Option 4 is a nice option, but does not affect enough students, and I would worry that the students involved would not be getting a quality learning experience.
In order for my choice to be successful teachers would need training and guidance in implementing the software. Too often we are given technology and expected to figure out how to use it and how it can be best utilized in the classroom. Future use of this software would depend on teachers knowing how to use the software, how to collect and use the data, and ways to integrate the tool so that it can best benefit the targeted group.
In regards to Lisa's comment, the online classes that are offered are usually not all that valualble. Even if you could get a teacher to take even more time away from their day to take one of the trainings/classes, most teachers I know who have done them feel completely lost with what they have done. I have never actually heard a teacher come out of one saying anything completely positive.
Anthony does bring up a really good point that option 3 is the only one that has a plan already in place for using the technology. Like I stated in the defense of my choice, I have a really hard time figuring out how I will implement the technology that is put at my disposal. By the time I have figured out how to use it I usually give up on it before I can figure out how to effectively implement it in to my instructional day.
I would choose Option 1. The targeted group that this curriculum supports was chosen because of the data (proficiency rates) of state tests. The remedial activities are in the core areas of reading and math. There is a way to track students’ progress and there has been reported success in other districts in the state.
It will help to improve the scores of the economically disadvantaged students, which will improve the overall school scores. The assessment tracking will allow students and teachers to see if there are truly improvements in reading and math for students. This tracking system will also help to see if these improvements will translate in finding money to renew the subscriptions. In addition, other districts have seen raises in tests scores of disadvantaged students.
None of the other choices will necessarily improve the school as a whole. Staff development for teachers, integrating technology in language arts classrooms, and offering Spanish as an elective will not have in monumental benefits for the entire school
Teacher buy-in, scheduling, significant enough improvement in test scores, what 100 students of the subgroup should participate, and if success, where would the money for renewal are all inhibitors.
I need to guide staff into wanting this web-based curriculum. It would be ideal to have representatives and data from other districts showing the improvements that their schools made. After, my school buys-in to using this program; a team needs to be assembled to plan how to choose what students from the subgroup need to participate. Next, how will this work in the students’ school day? Finally, discussing with the district if this program is successful, could it be funded by the district.
Regarding Hillary's decision to go with option #4:
I also believe in the importance of foreign language study for middle school students. However, I don't think that a $10,000 grant spent purchasing an online course is the way assure that 7th and 8th graders get a foreign language program. Many adults have a difficult time with online coursework. One has to be a self-starter to do well in these types of programs. I'm sure that there are some middle schoolers who fit that description. But, I would be careful about expecting twelve and thirteen year olds to complete an online course independently.
As a principal, I would think long and hard about solving this problem too quickly at the building level. This might be one of those problems that you have to allow to get worse so as to call attention to it. The system needs to work out a plan to get foreign language back in this middle school, and they may just find additional funds to do that if parents get angry enough.
I would choose option three. I would like to improve the classrooms and engage the students. Smart boards and projectors are one way to get all students involved in the classroom. I would also support giving the teachnology to the Langauge Arts 7th grade teachers because they can get the students actively engaged before they arrive in 8th grade for the state EOGs. Langauge Arts (reading and writing)is extremely important and it would be helpful to teachers to have the best technology to reach all students. Teachers can trade classrooms once in awhile if other teachers would want to use this technology so the entire school can share the technology. The first two choices sound great but I would not want to invest in remedial areas before investing in proactive areas. Using smartboards, teachers can get instant data results to correct students right away on missed problems. The factors that may inhibit my choice would include other departments not receiving the same technology, or teachers who receive the technology, not utilizing it completely. This option is superior to the other options because options 1 helps 100 students and out of 1,000 middle school students, there may be a core of about 150 students. What happens to the 50 that are left out? The second option sounds like a great deal for the teachers. I like direct help for the students so I would rather get the tools in the classroom where the learning takes place. I would choose option four before options one and two because I would support foreign languages any way I could.
The steps that I would take to ensure that option three works would be to first train the core teachers on the technology. I would also set up each month throughout the year, training for all teachers to use as scheduled. I would set up weekly meetings with the curriculum facilitator to help with any aid the teachers might need for their tech classrooms. for that first year. Lastly, I would plan for the next few years to budget money for another department to receive smartboards and LCD projectors.
I am also going with option 3. Option 1, in my opinion, would be cost prohibitive. I considered option 2 and decided It would benefit a limited number of teachers and frustrate the majority as one more thing they have to do. Option 4 is good in theory, but I've seen the way high school kids treat online classes and can only imagine how well this would go with middle school kids. Option 3 would be superior if implemented as part of a greater goal. I would like to see every class in my school with Smartboards and LCD projectors as a bare minimum as far as technology is concerned. This option would be a start. It would have to be considered just the beginning of a broader implementation of technology in the classrooms. I can see everyone's point as far as their choice goes, but I think that the Smartboards, as an initiative to change the culture at my school, would benefit more students. getting teachers to learn how to use the technology would be the biggest drawback. I would require all teachers to check-out a Smartboards and utilize it in lessons throughout the year. The goal would be to get every teacher to want a board in their room. I want them to help 21st century learners by being 21st century teachers. Remember CHALK?
• Which option did you choose?
Option 1
• What factors did you consider in making your choice?
There were a few factors that I considered. One was with such a large population of students not economically disadvantaged I believe it is important to distribute more resources to the ones who are in order to provide a more level playing field. I also believe the data that suggested this program has worked with other schools which provides validity to using the money for this purpose. It also fits the needed population approximately 100 students.
• Why do you believe your choice is the right one? What makes it superior to the other choices?
The only thing that makes my choice seem right to me is the fact I believe in providing more to the disadvantaged to try and create equal learning opportunities as much as possible. The other choices are good options; I do not thing the one I chose to be superior.
• What factors may inhibit the success of your chosen technology initiative?
There may be outcry from parents of students who would benefit from one of the other options.
• What steps will you need to take to ensure the success of your technology initiative?
I will need to make sure our school has the resources to place 100 students in web-based coursework. Without the computer hardware in appropriate learning environments the software will prove ineffective.
I agree with some of the comments about option 2. Online professional development is just not that effective. Like many online classes for students, it take self-motivation. If the teachers are told to do this online professional development I doubt it will prove effective.
It is interesting to see what we found important. I see fault in all of the choices, however, my decision was based on which choice would “touch” the most students. I also see a lot of contradiction. I saw a few people who found major fault in #2 due to the online uselessness, however, choose #4 another online program. If we feel #2 is ineffective for adults, then how will it be effective for children?
Excellent discussion, and I like the fact that there are a wide variety of opinions and choices.
In my experience, any one of these could be an effective choice or a waste of money. To a large extent, the impact that technology can have on teaching and learning depends less on the technology and more on the people and the process. Although Christesen might argue that, in 10 or 15 years, the technology will be so good that the people and the process won't matter as much.
I feel that Option 3 has several factors that make it an undesirable choice. This option only targets one grade level. While Smartboards and LCD are very interesting technologies, one must think, can I teach the same curriculum without them and have the same results in learning? The money could be used in a more porductive manner that could target more students and money could be spent more efficently.
I also think Option 4 is not worth the money. While it is important for students to have a foreign language program; but this program will only serve 50 students for one year. Yes, it will provide for a TA to assist with the program but I would rare have that TA providing support for teachers and students in core areas. What happens next year? The parents of the loney 50 will be disappointed again if the school does not have $10,000 to provide instruction for their children in Spanish.
I would buy the SmartBoards and LCD projectors. Although this will initially affect only one grade, over time it’ll impact every student as they pass through LA. I believe that using the money in this way will have a more meaningful impact on the 10-15% of struggling economically disadvantaged students. It can help expose these students to exciting ideas, places, and concepts they would not see otherwise. If we expect these students to become successful members of the 21st century, we need to motivate them with the exciting new directions in which they can go. While the web-based remedial activities targets them more directly, I doubt that those activities will motivate students to become enthusiastic learners; something that is imperative for students who need to work extra hard to make up more ground. Finally, because the 7th grade team is already enthusiastic about this technology, they’re likely to utilize it productively, which cannot be said for any of the other options.
It’s true that future turnover might make this option less optimal. However, I think this can be solved by making the SmartBoards mobile. They can still be used by the teachers the same as the permanent set-up, but they can also be wheeled into different classrooms to share with other teams, and in the event of turnover, can be given to the teachers who will use them most effectively. There’s also the issue of future costs in repairs and materials like light bulbs. However, there are opportunities for technology based grants that we can use to help keep the Smart Boards running.
To ensure the success of this technology I’ll provide this team with the training and the time to learn how to effectively utilize this technology.
I really like Sarita’s point about letting the foreign language situation get worse before it gets better. Part of looking into the 21st century is recognizing the importance of a global society. Compared to socio-economically equivalent European countries, we do a terrible job of teaching our children another language. It is critical that the district do more to solve this problem than let us educate a mere 50 of our 1000 students for one year (only 5% of the population, at any given time). In the end, I think the benefit of option 4 is outweighed by the detriment of a) excluding 95% of the student population and b) potentially postponing a more permanent fix by the district.
I think that Kendra painted an ideal picture of the use of option number 2, but I think that picture would be hard to achieve in reality. To require teachers to complete one online course per semester would be to incite a rebellion, at least from part of the staff. You would have many teachers who would be “creatively insubordinate” and do the bare minimum, negating the benefit of this option to all students. I believe the money is better spent on an option in which there is already teacher buy-in and interest.
To me, me option #2 seems to be the most reasonable given the circumstances. It is the only option that seems to benefit the most people. Assuming that the teachers buy into this new initiative that requires them using their own time to take these online classes, I believe that they could receive beneficial training in a variety of areas that target the school’s improvement plan. Option #2 seems to be the right choice because it benefits the whole student population, instead of just a particular group of students, which was the deciding factor when making my decision. Another factor was that it’s not only benefiting the students, but it could also benefit the teachers through the professional development and add to their existing strengths as teaching professionals. I do realize that this might be the most risky choice because of the assumptions and expectations of the program and from the teachers. One key component of this plan is making sure that the teachers buy into it and realize that this is an investment into their student’s education. Teachers must realize that they will be sacrificing their time taking these classes, but will be receiving CEU credits and/or graduate school credit, which could possibly entice them to do so. Of course, as a building administrator, I want to make sure that this initiative works to ensure that our money is being spent wisely. I would provide either extended planning periods every so often or incorporate this idea into the school’s staff development plan every month to give teachers the opportunity to do their training to eliminate them having to do it on their own time. I believe that they are more willing to buy into it if they know that they will not be required to complete these courses outside of school. Also, at monthly faculty meetings, presenting some of the information to the whole staff that would benefit everyone. I would also like the school improvement committee to use the targeted areas within our SIP to come up with ways to assess, on a regular basis, whether the program is working or not so we will know what we need to do to make the program worthwhile.
While option #3 might sound quite reasonable, Anthony, $10,000 is not going to get you very far. Plus, the upkeep on those things is what gets you. They are terribly expensive. They are very nice and I have loved mine for the past year, but they haven't been that beneficial, in my opinion. I'm not saying that option #3 is not the best solution because if the staff is trained well enough and knows how to use them, then the disadvantaged students could benefit from the experience.
While option #2 might not sound realistic since we're asking the teachers to participate in online professional development, I do think that if the teachers bought into the plan, that it could benefit all involved. If the teachers knew that they would receive credit for their training they are more than likely to do it. I do think, like I stated before, that there should be some other kind of professional development that coincides with the online training to make it more meaningful. Like Kendra stated in Wednesday's class, develop PLC's where teachers meet and discuss what they learned from the training and develop ideas on how to make it work for them in their classrooms. The idea of just doing the online training alone is not going to get the job done. I do believe that by choosing option #2 that we would be making the most of our money.
I do like Kimberly's take on foreign language. I will agree that this country seems to be behind when it comes to teaching foreign languages. If we are teaching 21st century kids, then we do need to prepare them for the future and motivate them to learn new and exciting things. Kimberly made me think about the foreign language option in a whole other way. Maybe those teachers would do more to implement the technolgy since they were already invested in the idea.
Several of my classmates have chosen option #3. Once again, I can see a great deal of merit with this plan. Language arts will be a class that will allow all 7th grade students to be impacted by the purchase. I would like to see more information from the teachers as to how SmartBoards and the LCD projectors will be used in class. Are they simply going to be really cool overhead projectors or are the teachers going to fundamentally alter how they are going to teach. I would not want this to become electronic "chalk and talk" work.
Sarita mentioned the upkeep of the equipment. $10,000 gets this equipment into the building, but a total-cost-of-operation analysis needs to be done. What kind of training needs to be done to get all of the 7th grade teachers up to speed with the equipment? How much will it cost to run the equipment over time? How much is the upkeep of the equipment?
I chose option #1. It does require require a future expenditure of $3500/year. But, I know that cost. I am not sure of the total cost or the long-term cost of the new equipment.
Option #3 to purchase SmartBoards and LCD projectors is my choice. The 7th grade Language Arts teachers have created a high-performing professional learning team and have been interested in identifying ways to integrate technology into their classrooms, and further engage their students. The teachers have pointed out that, with this new technology, they could become a model for other teachers in the school on how to effectively integrate technology into instruction. They have all agreed to provide a series of workshops in the following year to other teachers in the building to demonstrate to them how to use technology effectively.
As a principal I am committed to providing the best possible education for every child. Education depends on quality teachers, and the 7th grade Language Arts teachers have formed a partnership in order to share the knowledge, experience, and insight that teachers gain in the classroom. As a principal I am interested in helping teachers become partners in school reform rather than objects of reform. By supporting teachers as they become leaders, principals can lay a foundation for teachers to become partners in education efforts. I strongly agree that teachers leading the way echoes with the voices of teachers as they take steps toward leadership. Their ideas and their concerns are evidence of their commitment to the children in the school. Principals can learn much from listening to teachers.
Today, principals and teachers are being asked to communicate more with families how we can help students reach higher academic standards, integrate technology into instruction, and help improve assessments and use the results to improve teaching and learning. I don’t necessarily know that there is a choice superior to the other; but choice #3, is my choice as the principal.
The only factor that may inhibit the success of this plan will be the reception of the new teachers as well as veteran teachers to integrating technology in the classroom. Veteran teachers can usually provide needed support and advice to colleagues who are new to teaching.
The first step I will take to ensure the success of my technology initiative is to create partnerships with the community and business organizations by encouraging teachers to take the lead in forming partnerships with businesses and other organizations. As the result of these partnerships, schools and teachers can gain everything from financial resources to business and other specialized expertise. Business and organizations gain high school graduates who are better prepared for the workplace.
To add support to option 3 that I chose, I feel that technology right in the front lines for all students to engage in works wonders. This is the first year that our department received LCD Projectors since purchasing new social studies books and they work wonders. On the day after the elections, I was able to post yahoo's dashboard of election results that displayed the entire country. As students asked me to move the mouse over each state and they could see the results of each candidates votes for that state. It was awsome. I could not do something like that with a dead transparency and overhead projector. The students were happy and asking great questions about the election (engaged). I do not know 7th grade LA curriculum but with the LCD projector alone, there would be more active learners from all student who pass through 7th grade.
Candance,
You are right concerning the cost of SmartBoards. They can be very expensive. The one problem I have while using it in my classroom is that the picture is very small for distant viewing. I use my projector and project on my mounted pull down screen where the picture is larger and better for all to see. When this is done, the board is no longer interactive.
In the past week I have had some interesting comments made to me by some interesting people that has kind of altered some of my perspectives on this issue.
First: My superintendent said that if he had the money his first priority would be to get foreign language into the elementary schools. He is disgusted that the first time kids get any foreign language is in high school. This bodes for option #4.
Second: My AP told me that we were out of professional development money. What?!?! We are only 9 weeks into the school year! Can you say #2
Option 4 was my second choice. I support any program that brings in a foreign language to a school.
As for options 1 & 2, they sound like great ideas but I would not choose them. I would not want to use $10,000 on Web-Based remedial activities and continue to pay $3,500 each year to continue supporting them especially if several teachers may not be on board. Also, option 2 allows for a limited two-year subscription with CEU rewards for teachers who take the prescribed courses also hinting that all teachers would be on board and have the time.
Matt,
I agree that Smartboards and LCD projectors are great assets to education. My students enjoy presenting their PowerPoint presentations by tapping the board and going from slide to slide. I enjoy being able to demonstrate computer skills from my computer to everyone in the class simultaneously. I really think they are well worth the money. My Smartboard has been in place for probably four years and I have not had any problems with the equipment.
Deborah,
Thanks, I am glad that there is one person who agrees. I have never used a smartboard yet but the teachers that get to use them at our school love them as well. We have had them for two years now and there have been no complaints from the staff or students.
I am blogged out.
Option 5: There is no reason to select strictly one or the other, especially as we are just introducing technology and exploring its implementation.
I would spend five thousand dollars on Option 1—instead of providing the full complement of professional development for 20 teachers, I would engage 10 teachers that are particularly interested in the opportunities the curriculum would provide their students for remediation, looking at tested areas, concentrations of struggling students, and engineer creative space in the school day to provide this instruction to them. I would enroll 50 students, rather than 100 to pilot the program with that smaller cohort of teachers. This sort of reciprocal innovation provides these non-consumers with more opportunities. It may not work for everyone, which is why the pilot group will determine its effectiveness for students at the school and allow teachers to explore its functionality.
The other half of my money would outfit one of the Language Arts classrooms (Option 3) as a technology center with a Smartboard, pre-hung LCD projector, stereo equipment and laptop with replacement bulbs and a good warranty. Teachers on the already effectively collaborating PLC collaborative team would rotate through the classroom, sharing the resources and experimenting with the functionality it provides. As they are able to demonstrate its usefulness and the innovations they are exploring for engaging student learning, future funding could be allocated to expand the technology’s use.
This blend provides broader access, while focusing on specific student needs. Rather than wastefully providing infrastructure without programming, the technology classroom would provide space for innovation and experimentation that can begin to expand as its limits are explored. With targeted professional development on its uses, while still maintaining budgeting to keep the materials in good working order and troubleshoot problems, this could become a valuable asset that would expand to other areas as the PLC team masters its uses. With limiting the online curriculum to a test-group in year 1, it avoids the outlay of too many resources where they will be unused initially—20 teachers will not use the materials, meaning their training will lapse and they will have wasted their time and the money involved. 100 students is a significant commitment of time and students to an untested program. We need to first explore it through implementation with students and teachers that are excited about it early rather than over-enrolling the program. Every teacher will not use the expensive technology everyday, but with planning specific lessons, in rotation, the technology can be used most efficiently--getting the most bang for the buck.
Anthony, Matt, Dave, Kimberly and Deborah--and anyone else who said they thought the hardware would be good, indicating we had a strong functional team that would utilize the resources and it would target a broad spectrum of students--1. You are the best. I love you guys and think you are brilliant. A few things on your points that I'd like to consider with you, that you may not have known about the school in question--2. Those teachers are about to retire, they are so good working together because they are best friends and have been at the school for 20 years together, in the tough economic times Central Office is forcing them into early retirement to save money and get some young blood fresh out of college. 3. The new blood doesn't know what technology is and writes on the Smartboard with a chart-paper marker, thinking it is a dry-erase marker, and that they are writing on a dry-erase board, ruining it forever (fools!). Money gone. 4. Everyone is jealous and revolts, demanding Smartboards in their rooms that I can't provide. 4. The teachers walk out chanting "Favoritism, Favoritism" just because there was a rumor that I was dating one of the Language Arts teachers, when in fact it was just a few drinks before the Friday night football game and nothing ever really happened.
There are many mandates to decrease the achievement gap between the economically disadvantaged students and those who typically do very well, academically. However, there are not many programs that cater to the economically disadvantaged students, which is why I chose option #1. It is a program that is designed exclusively for these students to assist them in improving academically.
The choice was very difficult to make because options 2 and 3 could be just as effective. I did not choose option #2 because I feel that with the current mandate to participate in PLC’s and other on and off-site professional development, the chance teachers would actually complete the online course were very slim. Option #3 was sketchy because it is directed towards only one grade level.
Thanks for sharing this amazing article
Admission in RV College of Engineering
Post a Comment