Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Planning into Practice for RESD Reviewers
Helping Districts Create Effective Technology Plans
National Themes
Technology alone doesn’t sell Red Herring article CoSN response USA Today laptop editorial
Searching for a link to student achievement NCLB/ESEA funding
Technology submerged within other state education programs TLCF was a stand-alone program New NCLB title funds are more integrated
Reflected in state tech plans Tech plans are more integrated with district-
wide reform plans
The tech plan document at the same time is both more and less important The goals need to be much the same as non-
tech, reform, plans The annual reports are often little more than
inventories of “things” done to support broad goals (e.g., staffing, ratios, etc.)
But the policy-makers have created an implied “so what” You are expected to show that the data you
collect ultimately relates to the big goal… Student achievement!
There do not appear to be any answers to this impending train wreck Questionable expectations Inappropriate data
Basic Problem…
“Technology” and “Curriculum” continue to exist as separate camps in most districts
New requirements are a top-down forced marriage
Without an equal effort from the bottom-up to build consensus, someone’s going to lose
…my guess is that it’ll be technology!
Observed Themes
Lack of administrative support Evidenced by who came to the sessions!
No actual time to plan Very much related to lack of admin support
Need more up-to-date equipment Frustrations related to purchasing
“Integration” message is rather well established with most technology planners The difficulty is in communicating this message to the
larger school community
The Big Challenge
How does this plan communicate to the broader school and district community?
Will technology continue to be an invisible, yet expensive, part of the background?
“Transparent” is not always such a good thing
How do we raise the profile of technology without creating unrealistic expectations?
Keys to Effective Planning
Comprehensive committee of stakeholders with meaningful administrative support and good representation by rank-and-file teachers Broad membership (pg. 27)
Keeping the vision focused on teaching and learning Vision answers “Why technology?” (pg. 38)
Data-based decision-making Needs survey (pg. 33)
Understanding the true definition of “strategic” Time bound Action plan templates (pg. 44)
Evaluation Plan
Most plans do not have a realistic evaluation component
But it is exactly this component that offers the greatest hope for “saving” technology efforts!
How Do We Know…
…that technology is having a positive impact on student achievement? [email protected]
…that teachers are using technology tools effectively? [email protected]
Page 181 in Planning into PracticeBenchmarks IndicatorsData collectionScoring and discussionOften, this process leads to increased clarity on
goals and visions…and thus, would ideally be a good place to start instead of end.
What to Look For
Obviously, the required MI elementsBeyond this…
Committee membership Goals that relate to vision (and vice versa) -- use
chart on pg. 47 Statements of specific roles and responsibilities
among more than a single person! Actual community engagement (pg. 137)
One or two people cannot write a credible plan that encompasses these elements.
Providing Feedback
Find out what the author thinks of the plan They probably know how bad it is! Let them explain their own problem and let that be
the start of a solution.
Ascertain the environmental conditions Is this a one-person plan? Why? Is there any hope of gathering additional input? What’s the position of the author?
Provide specific feedback Reference page and paragraph. But don’t let the feedback deteriorate to a simplistic
tit-for-tat. The real problem is probably a lack of big picture
vision, focusing on the “little picture” won’t cure that. Involve administrators
