(Part 1)
Within the district, there are the six district Instructional Technology Specialists and fifty-four campus technology liaisons. Originally a certified teacher or librarian, campus technology liaison agrees to perform eighty hours of campus technology staff development. This development must be outside the regularly scheduled workday. They are not assigned any technical duty; however, those at my campus are always willing to assist. The responsibility of training the campus technology liaisons falls to the district Instructional Technology Specialists. The way their “territory” is divided is into high school strands (the high school and all intermediate and elementary schools that feed to that high school).
Currently the District Based Personnel:
Executive Director, Instructional Technology
6 Technology Trainers
The person who is the District Instructional Technology Trainer is responsible for training our Campus Instructional Specialists or Liaisons. This role is supported within the CIP. The CIP steps further in insisting that the liaisons will also attend technology conferences to broaden their expertise. It is their experiences that will help create and refine the campus technology professional development.
Currently, it is one of our Assistant Principals who is the administrator with the duty assignment including coordinating the “technology needs and budget” and “Instructional Focus” (staff development). A primary duty of this coordination also includes keeping the campus principal appraised. As a member of the Site Based Management Team which developed the current CIP, she is in charge of the “technology team.” It is her responsibility to implement the all professional development and especially those with a focus on technology.
Other members of her Technology Team include include the campus liaisons or Technology Instructional Specialists. They are our campus technology “gurus” and are willing to assist with technical difficulties, software problems, and provide professional development during teachers’ conference periods or after school for their convenience.
There are other District based technology departments such as Technology Services.
The technology services 8-20-08 personnel chart shows an Executive Director. This area deals primarily with service and repair. Unless the problem cannot be solved by the campus technology team and a work order must be issued, they are not directly associated with a particular campus.
(Part 2)
The 2007-2010 Pasadena ISD Learning & Technology Plan was created to reflect those portions of the Strategic Plan (the district’s name for the District Improvement Plan) that are directly related to technology. “This plan also uses the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, No Child Left Behind, Erate, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, APQC’s Process Classification Framework and researched based best practices as frameworks for this plan.” (2007-2010 Pasadena ISD Learning & Technology Plan, 2007) Needs assessment was based on the Texas STaR Chart:
Most districts use the Teacher STaR Chart as a needs assessment for determining needs before creating their technology plan. Also, most principals use the compiled Teacher STaR Chart scores as consideration before submitting the Campus STaR Chart. Campus STaR Charts are required before the submission of the district technology plan. Therefore, there may be a local decision driven by the technology plan needs that will require Teacher STaR Chart submission before a certain date.
If a district applies for E-Rate discounts, technology plans must be 'written" prior to submission of the E-Rate Form 470. Campus STaR Charts must be submitted prior to the submission of technology plans in the Texas e-Plan system. (TEA Texas Education Agency, 2007-2010)
Teacher STaR Charts are not an option in our district. By the fall of 2006 every teacher and every campus in the district had completed their respective STaR Charts. This data is used to provide determine what areas of technology professional development that addresses are most needed by each individual campus.
In the discussion of technology there are two basic categories. First is the area of instructional technology and the second is of organizational technology. Even though it is generally listed second, most administrators and faculty are exposed to and learn to work with organizational technology first.
This is the area of record keeping, grade books, absentee records, curriculum assignments, lesson plans, and the thousands of other thing which facilitate both faculty and administration. One of the greatest assets has been the ability to assimilate and disaggregate data. Data-driven decisions are a must on all levels. Just as the Administration utilizes the results of the STaR Charts to analyze campus and district needs, educators need to be able to access, analyze, and use a variety of data in order to serve the individual needs of our students. The verbiage of the various Vision and Mission Statements all converge at what is best for the whole child.
One of the first areas listed in the CIO is training on the Eduphoria Suite for all new faculty and staff with follow up training as needed. This training is essential because it is in this suite that data pertaining to assessment scores are maintained. A student’s data can be used to pinpoint areas of strengths and weaknesses. Spreadsheets can be made of entire classes or of all students as a single group. This is possibly the most time efficient method of teaching.
There are other very important data based district sites which should also be given professional development opportunities. Mizuni and Chancery allow for student history data. For example: attendance records, schools attended, discipline history, etc. At one point, I was able to access the students’ credits to assist them in planning their next year. It was very helpful with the At Risk students.
During the course of this Master’s Program, I have been exposed to other forms of data which I have been able to use in the evaluation of my own students. The AEIS and AYP reports are furnished through the District; but, a professional development discussing the information covered would have been extremely helpful prior.
Possible Professional Development activity: Core teachers use this information to work with diverse learners and subpopulations. This same data is relevant in all subjects; however, many non-core teachers never avail themselves of its use. Part of that may be time restraints or not having been guided to do so.
The second aspect, which is instructional technology training, can of itself be separated into two categories which need professional development in order to be the most effective. The actual use of the hardware made available to educators and administrators; the infrastructure of “thingies.”
The CIP includes “Teachers will attend training for instructional technology that is provided for their classrooms, this includes Promethean Boards, document cameras, and software.” In addition to the original training, “Continue the Promethean user group “30 Minute Thursdays” as a forum to provide opportunities for training, lesson development and problem solving for campus Promethean board users.” (CIP, J Frank Dobie Campus Improvement Plan, 2009-2010) I must admit that at the time of the original training, even though I attended, it had little meaning for me. I did not have a Promethean board.
Possible Professional Development Activity: I believe each new teacher should be allowed a private or small group professional development on all equipment at their disposal. It should be part of the new teacher orientation. By doing so individually and on the equipment they will actually be using, they would learn better, learn faster, and retain more. A follow-up during a conference period at a later date should also be scheduled.
The second part of instructional technology is where we are going. This is the level that the district refers to as:
Integration - skills needed to provide teachers with resources and modeling on how to infuse the technology and the Internet into the curriculum and instruction (2007-2010 Pasadena ISD Learning & Technology Plan, 2007)
This is the level that the Texas STaR Chart labels as Target Tech. In Key Area I, Teaching and Learning, “The teacher serves as facilitator, mentor, and co-learner. Students have on-demand access to all appropriate technologies to complete activities that have been seamlessly integrated into all core content areas.” (TEA Texas Education Agency, 2007-2010)
Recently, the District offered a face-to-face professional development seminar. I have included one of the descriptors and, in this case, the relevant objective.
OBJECTIVE 2.7:
Technology will be integrated into the core curriculum to support an increase student centered learning, rigor and relevant instruction, and increase students' 21st Century learning skills. (2007-2010 Pasadena ISD Learning & Technology Plan, 2007)
It from here that the conference may have derived it's name:
21st Century Leadership Academy
Saturday, Feb. 5, 2011
9:00-3:30
Dobie High School
Strand: Professional Development
Session Title: "Technology Integration"
Presenter(s):
Session Description: Today’s students come from a world where technology is pervasive and instructional leaders play an important part in facilitating the campus and district vision for utilizing technology to turn kids on, instead of turning them off. Come and learn about how utilizing technology supports an effective curriculum for the district, campus and classroom.
Target Audience: Middle/Intermediate School
Time: 1-1:45 and 2-2:45
This is the type of professional development which actually involves technology as curriculum support. What made this particular workshop so unique was that each of the presenters was an administrator. The superintendent even presented the opening address and a session. This is the type of professional development offered by the district and is just a single example of the many professional development opportunities in which educators learn to correlate core curriculum with technology.
Overview of Draft: Proposed professional development:
Activity: A similar all day conference grade level specific at a technology rich campus
Begin: Continental style breakfast and registration
Short Opening address: Superintendent or Technology Specialist or Technology Guest
Session Choices: Presenters from various software or district technology specialists
Examples: Digital Cameras and their use
New TI computer interactivities
District forum on Safe Sites, emails, and cell phones as a resource
RSS
How to keep students safe on the Internet
Plato
Virtual schools, student courses and educator professional development
Technology Integration
Technology and the Diverse Learner
Voting and answer devices (Gadgets)
Subject specific technology or software
Using the same format as above – 45 minute sessions with 15 minute passing
Lunch furnished or at a minimal charge – Possibly a student fund raiser
If the expense is too great in this day of budget cuts, a small registration fee $5 or $10 which in turn would be used for door prizes or to defray speaker cost.
Please see Professional Development Chart Below:
Professional Development (All Day Conference Modeled from 21st Century Leadership Conference)
Goals: 1. Improve the gathering, analysis and use of data from a variety of sources
2. Improve decision making in the integration of technology with instructional leadership
3. Improve decision making in the integration of technology with organizational leadership
The chart will be listed as:
Activity
Person Responsible
Evaluation
Introduction Guest Speaker
Evaluation Sheets given to each particpant
STaR Chart Powerpoint
S. Smith
Improved responses in Key Areas I and II the following year
Evaluation Sheet
AEIS and AYP Disaggregation
J. Early Data Specialist
Improved performance in subpopulations with below average scores
Evaluation Sheet
Texas Instruments Online
TI presenter
Integration of technology in core subjects Mathematics and Science
Evaluation Sheet
What’s in my room? Target: New Teachers
Technology Coordinator
Increased Technology usage / Integration of Technology in instruction
Evaluation Sheet
Eduphoria Training (2 sessions Basic and Advanced)
Intro to Mizuni and/or Chancery if time allows
Technology Specialist
Increased usage of special features of Eduphoria with emphasis on AWARE
Data Source for large number of Benchmark Assessments both Formative and Summative in
all core subjects Student history with attendance, school, and disciplinary records
Evaluation Sheet
District Web Site and Intranet VPN Access 24/7 Home Access
District Technology Specialists
Increased usage of available information for organizational technology
Evaluation Sheet
Plato Plato
Representative
Integration of technology for advanced learners, credit recovery, diverse learners
Evaluation Sheet
Netiquette / Internet ethics
Technology Liaison
Proper usage of Internet and skill level resulting in increased integration of technology in classroom
Evaluation Sheet
Online Safety
H. Adelman
Increased usage of Internet in the classroom and for instruction
Evaluation Sheet
District Virtual Schools and free classes through the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN).
M. Allen
Increased enrollment from teacher recommendation
Evaluation Sheets
Closing
Door Prizes if funds allowed
Evaluations of individual activities attended
**These are only possible activities
Others would be offered as interest or need dictates The true evaluation would be in the form of increased use of technology in organizational (data usage) and instructional technology
(Part 3)
“Evaluation must become an integral part of staff development.” (Guskey, 1998)
There are three categories of evaluation. The first occurs during the planning stage of the professional development. It outlines to presenters what the purpose of the development is and what the desired outcome will be. The second is the formative evaluation which actually takes place during the event. The third is the summative evaluation and can be termed as the results. Did the Professional Development actually achieve the goals which it set out to accomplish?
My proposal for a professional development conference was to achieve 3 basic goals.
Goal 1. Improve the gathering, analysis and use of data from a variety of sources
This first goal was presented in the form of the Professional Development sections: STaR Chart PowerPoint, AEIS and AYP Disaggregation, and Eduphoria workshop. All three of these are data usage related and would satisfy:
For this to work, relevant data must be made available to the right people at the right time and in the right form. Educators and leaders at all levels of our education system also must be provided with support – tools and training – that can help them manage the assessment process, analyze data, and take appropriate action. (NETP, 2010)
Provide on-going quality professional development for educators to ensure proficiency in using technology tools to personalize instruction and in using data effectively to inform instructional practice (TEA, 2006)
Educational Administrators provide digital-age leadership and management to continuously improve the organization through the effective use of information and technology resources. Educational Administrators: collaborate to establish metrics, collect and analyze data, interpret results, and share findings to improve staff performance and student learning. (ISTE, 2009)
Goal 2. Improve decision making in the integration of technology with instructional leadership
My second goal was to present a sampling of programs which would introduce the instructional technology for the classroom. Such programs as Plato offer the opportunity for teachers to choose between advancement, remediation, credit recovery or reinforcement. There are others, less well known, which are also available. Many educators have themselves participated in Distance Learning; but, do not know the basics of what is offered by their own campus, district, or state. As this concept becomes more widely used, they will be receiving students in their classrooms who have participated in this type of learning. It is my intention that by offering “District Virtual Schools and free classes through the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN)” they will have a better understanding of prior learning. Furthermore, as instructional technology is being used, Online Safety and Ethics must be taught, reinforced, or stressed in the controlled environment of the classroom to protect our students when they venture out alone.
All educators, PreK-12 through higher education, are well prepared throughout their careers to use current digital tools, digital resources, and modern, effective teaching-learning processes to mentor, monitor, and motivate students. (TEA, 2006)
Educational Administrators model and facilitate understanding of social, ethical and legal issues and responsibilities related to an evolving digital culture. (ISTE, 2009)
Goal 3. Improve decision making in the integration of technology with organizational leadership
While this is my third goal, the use of organizational leadership technology has generally been the first level of achievement. If we are to use technology to expand the learning capacity of our “digital natives” we “digital immigrants” must first learn to speak the language and use the tools. If our students are to be learning from technology, we as educators and leaders must be proficient in its use. Furthermore, it is our responsibility to not become stagnant in its use.
Educational Administrators promote an environment of professional learning and innovation that empowers educators to enhance student learning through the infusion of contemporary technologies and digital resources. Educational Administrators: stay abreast of educational research and emerging trends regarding effective use of technology and encourage evaluation of new technologies for their potential to improve student learning. (ISTE, 2009)
“Planning, formative, and summative evaluation all involve collecting and analyzing information.” (Guskey, 1998) Several conferences I have attended requested that the participants evaluate the individual presentations immediately following. This insures a “fresh” take on the program and not one given in hindsight. For this reason, I have included the “Evaluation Sheet” as evaluation for each. This will serve for both formative, giving an individual response during the conference, and a summative, compiling the data following the conference.
The model for evaluation of professional development gives five levels:
1. Participants’ Reaction
2. Participants’ Learning
3. Organizational Support and Change
4. Participants’ Use of New Knowledge and Skills
5. Student Learning Outcome (Guskey, 1998)
Understandably, the conference mode of professional development may seem like a “shotgun” effect. However, when discussing the “digital” level of a campus or district, the variation in skills and knowledge range from the “native” to the alien.
Works Cited
(2007). 2007-2010 Pasadena ISD Learning & Technology Plan. Pasadena, TX: Pasadena ISD.
Guskey, T. R. (1998). The age of our accountability. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4) , 36-44.
ISTE, I. S. (2009). The ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators for Administrators (NETS*A). U.S. & Canada: ISTE.
NETP. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, D. C.: US Department of Education, Office of Education of Technology.
TEA. (2006). Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
(2007-2010). Retrieved April 23, 2010, from TEA Texas Education Agency: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index.aspx
(2009-2010). CIP, J Frank Dobie Campus Improvement Plan. Pasadena, TX: Pasadena ISD.
PISD. (2010). Pasadena ISD 2010 Strategic Planing Action Plan. Pasadena, TX: Pasadena ISD.
TEA. (2010). 2010 Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-202. Austin, TX: Texas Educational Agency.
