“Finally, the agency proposes a $15 million agency administrative budget reduction and small reductions to the following programs: Funding for Education Services Centers, Technology Allotment, and Communities in Schools.” (Scott, 2010)
The expectations of the Texas Long-Range Technology Plan, 2006-2020 were well underway at my campus. Unfortunately, part of the plan for Phase 1 2006-2010 may not be realized for a considerable length of time.
Increase the Technology Allotment to at least $50 per student per year and fund from the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TEA, Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020, 2006)
The financial difficulties which the face the state of Texas have already begun affecting the technology plan. In the report for the 82nd Regular Session, Texas Education Agency Submission, Version 1, dated 8/30/2010 concerning Item 26 Technology Allotment, Strategy: 2-2-1 Technology and Instructional Materials.
“Item Comment: Base level funding results in a reduction of per ADA allotment from $29.33 in BY11 to $28.38 in BY 12/BY13 due to projected student growth. This reductions result in an ADA allotment of $ 27.85 for each year of the 12/13 biennium.”
My campus has been extraordinarily fortunate to have administrators who realized the value of technology before this time of economic crisis in our educational system. Whether it was due to foresight on their part or simply their innovative spirit, the result is the same. We have achieved an “Advanced Tech” rating on our Texas STaR Chart in all Key Areas: Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support; and Infrastructure for Technology.
Below is a graphic representation of our STaR chart results for the past 5 years.
( at this point I tried to paste the graph from my Power Point. It did not transfer.)
Our greatest strides began in the Key Area III, Leadership, Administration and Structural Support. Due to the foresight of our administration and their willingness to fund technology, we were able to acquire such items as interactive whiteboards in every classroom, digital cameras, advanced calculators, active vote, and document cameras. They have not only been supportive in the acquisition of Technology, Key Area IV, but in the professional development necessary for our faculty and staff to become proficient in its use, Key Area III. This can be done in the traditional before or after school setting. However, technical training can also be done during the day during a teacher’s conference or online. Faculty meetings are often accomplished online, although not without “technical difficulties,” sometimes. That is fine, however, as it shows that technology does not always work the first time but is worth persevering.
This trend has established our position in the forefront of the district in all 4 Key Areas of the Long-Range Technology Plan, 2006-2020.
(I tried to paste the second graph from the power point with no success.)
“The recommendations for Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support; and infrastructure for Technology implemented together will help realize the overarching vision of the plan by 2020.” (TEA, Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020, 2006)
At least this was the goal prior to the 82nd Legislative Session.
Despite the cuts in the state funding, my campus is proceeding with the integration of technology into the classroom and into the instructional makeup of student learning. For the past several years, Pasadena ISD has been involved in the Virtual Schools programs at the campus and state levels. Our Webpage explains that PISD students are eligible for free classes through the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN). Of course, this must be with counselor approval. This area of technical development and the technical advancement to accommodate individual technology devices is heavily stressed in Strategy VII of the District Strategic Plan. Students are also offered the opportunity of taking courses for remediation and credit recovery in the staffed Plato Labs or for credit on grade level. An affiliation with the neighboring community college allows students to earn credits towards high school graduation and simultaneously receive post secondary credits towards an associate’s degree, as well.
Pasadena ISD has two management plans which work in correlation with one another. The first is the District Strategic Plan and the second is the 2007-2010 PISD Learning & Technology Plan. Although I have been employed by my district for a cumulative total of over 15 years, I must admit that I have never taken the opportunity to actually read the two documents before I was required to do so for this course of study. Nor did I realize how closely the Goals and Strategies outlined in the two documents parallel my own campus’ CIP and how engrained technology is in every aspect of each.
Take for example:
Campus Improvement Plan: Goal 4 Strategy 1
Technology will be integrated into curriculum and utilized in instruction and monitoring for all students.
District Technology Plan: Goal 1 Objective 1.1
All teachers and administrators will utilize technology and information systems to support the development, management, delivery, analysis and monitoring of the written curriculum, instructional and assessment, to improve and maintain alignment to TEKS-based instructional Targets and increase rigor and relevance of instruction.
District Strategic Plan: Strategy VII
We will embed appropriate technologies throughout the district to support both instructional and administrative needs.
As we are all aware, the AEIS reports concerning the TAKS has always been of vital concern in determining areas of strengths and weaknesses within a District or Campus. This report organizes data in such a manner as to enable educators and administrators on all levels to analysis the area of strengths and weaknesses of the diverse groups of learners. All three plans reflect the value of using technology to meets these learner specific needs with emphasis on LEP and Special Education.
As the STaR chart indicates, the campus has made significant advancement in the Key Area II, Educator Preparation and Development. This is also addressed in each of the plans:
CIP: Goal 4 Strategy 3 Professional Development
All faculty and staff will be provided with technology focused professional development.
District Strategic Plan: Strategy VII: Specific Result 8:
Administrators, teachers, and staff will have necessary skills to effectively integrate technology throughout the district.
Technology Plan: Objective 1.1 Strategies 1.1.2 and 1.1.3
Administrators, including Principals and Asst. Principals, will complete a technology leadership program.
Teachers will complete a technology leadership program (using data in instruction).
The District’s Technology strategy of having each Principal and Assistant Principal complete a technology leadership program is a point which Dr. Abernathy discussed in the round table interview. The leading must come in the form not just of personal knowledge or encouraging the faculty and staff; but, in the ability to model the use of technology. The philosophy of “see me” and “you can do it, too” works on all levels of society. It is not enough to say “use the technology.”
The five ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators have long been illustrated in the plans used by the campus and district especially on the Administrative level.
1. Visionary Leadership is evident in the STaR score of 20 for Key Area III placing the campus in Advanced Technology rating. The investment of funds in technology prior to the budget crunch shows great forethought and planning for the future.
2. Digital-Age Learning Culture model and encourage the frequent and innovative use of technology. The campus boasts student based Web sites, campus news broadcasts, a student newspaper which available in both paper and digital form. Faculty meetings and even District wide meetings are often available on school intranet rather than face-to-face.
3. Excellence In Professional Practice has been the area of greatest benefit to the faculty. Key Area II is the current target for the campus and district. We are offered such a varied scope of opportunities for professional development. A large number involve online training. Many are offered on campus either during our conference periods or directly after school. It is not enough to just buy technology. Without sufficient training, there cannot be effective use of technology.
4. Systemic Improvement on my campus is the Administrative willingness to support and maintain the infrastructure they have invested in so heavily. Our on campus technological support has double for this year. Response time to the teachers is minimal. Training is ongoing and extensive. Personal guidance is available any time and to any member of the faculty or staff.
Currently, the administrator whose duty assignment it is to coordinate the “technology needs and budget” is Ms. Melissa Allen. In addition to her myriad of responsibilities, she also served on the Site Based Management Team developing the current CIP. As a digital native, Ms. Allen is very sensitive to the need of the older digital immigrants. As “Instructional Focus” (staff development) is also on her list, I asked about the technology training which is currently being offered. She believes in coordinating professional development in such a manner as to accommodate all levels of proficiency. I am not occupying space in a training that is over my experience level while the “kid” next to me is bored to snoring.
5. In the area of Digital Citizenship, we as a faculty and examples to our youth are encouraged to discuss the “social, ethical, and legal issues and responsibilities related to an evolving digital culture.” (ISTE, 2009) We are kept abreast of the latest trends and our Administration is ever vigilant in trying to foresee difficulties and keep us, as educators, adequately informed. They model these traits and expect us to do the same. The stress is on the fact that this is the world our children were born into. They are digital citizens and it is not sufficient to just catch up, we must excel in order to be their guides. Through technology each of us has the opportunity to become lifelong learners and we are strenuously encouraged to do.
I took the opportunity to show the portion of the round table discussion during which Dr. Cummings advocates the use of individual student cell phones as a source of instant information. After viewing the segment, I asked the students for their opinion. After the initial response, the serious discussion began.
First: Yes, they would be tempted to use their phones more for personal texting than legitimate reasons.
Second: The exposure of their individual equipment on such a regular basis would be more likely to result in theft or breakage. Many do not have the capabilities on their phones of instant information and would need to share. No one wanted to share or be responsible for someone else’s equipment.
Third: At this point, (these are 9th grade repeaters) they do not believe they need the advantages of instant information.
My next question and one that seemed to recur frequently in both the Technology Plan and the District Strategic Plan was that of individual computers. “The missing technological element is true one-to-one computing, in which each student has a device he or she can work on, keep, customize, and take home. For true technological advance to occur, the computers must be personal to each learner.” (Prensky, 2008) This is where their answer was not what I would have expected. They did not want the responsibility of a computer 24/7. Their first concern was cost. Not the initial cost but the “what if something happens” cost. We discussed warranty versus accidental breakage. It was decided that the only way they would accept a computer was if it was issued daily. This makes perfect sense when you take into consideration that these are majority Economic Disadvantaged students and realists. Many do not have internet access in their homes.
The next point, and this is the one I also asked my principal’s opinion, was “How about computer based learning? Would you prefer a computer, a teacher assisted curriculum, or teacher directed instruction?” What must be considered is that these students are 9th grade repeaters. They were not successful last year and are being offered the option of credit recovery. The program in which they are involved has a mandatory Plato Lab for one of their class periods. The general consensus was that for any “new” curriculum, teacher driven instruction with some technological integration was best. For credit recovery, technology based instruction was adequate. They could concentrate on the areas they were weak in and skim the ones they already knew. My principal’s response was parallel with those of the students. The point he stressed was “relationships.” Students who are not yet self motivators would not have the skills necessary to work independently. They need the “guidance” which comes from a teacher becoming involved with their learning.
Pasadena ISD and especially my campus have long realized the future of education. “Strategy II: We will provide flexible learning environments, structures and schedules that meet the needs of all 21st century learners.” (PISD, 2010)
Works Cited
(2007). 2007-2010 Pasadena ISD Learning & Technology Plan. Pasadena, TX: Pasadena ISD.
(2009-2010). CIP, J Frank Dobie Campus Improvement Plan. Pasadena, TX: Pasadena ISD.
ISTE, I. S. (2009). The ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators for Administrators (NETS*A). U.S. & Canada: ISTE.
PISD. (2010). Pasadena ISD 2010 Strategic Planing Action Plan. Pasadena, TX: Pasadena ISD.
Prensky, M. (2008). Adopt and Adapt: Shaping Tec for the Classroom. Edutopia: The George Lucas Educational Foundation .
Scott, R. (2010). Texas Education Agency Administrator's Statement, 2012-2013. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
TEA. (2010). 2010 Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-202. Austin, TX: Texas Educational Agency.
TEA. (2006). Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
