S Ta R Chart
View more presentations from barren.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
STaR Chart
The Educational Preparation and Devolpment is an area of great concern. This area is a measurement of SBEC criteria for teachers, technology centered education for educators and students, Technolgy TEKS compliance and amount of budget dedicated to technology. To reach the Target rate the following must be achieved: regular and consistent use of technology in the learning process, 100% SBEC compliance, and 30% of the budget must be dedicated to technology.(STaR Chart)
On my local campus and at the state level only modest gains have manifested. My campus has maintained an Advanced Tech rating for three years. We have posted a two point Key Area Total gain. Even more modest gains were recorded at the state level. In 2006-07, 8.2 percent of measured schools were rated as Early Tech. A year later the percent had dropped to 5.4. In actuality, the number of Developing districts regressed over the years. In keeping with the theme of modest gains, according to the Department of Education the regression was negligible at .2%. This area continues to be a challenge. In keeping with that theme modest gains were reported by the US Department of Education in the area of NCLB. According to their 2008 data 70% of schools made Acceptable Yearly Progress and student gains were present. There was significant monetary cost attached to NCLB, $24.4 billion. (ED.gov)
Educational Development and Preparation is so vital. Steps to foster development in this area is critical. Factors that could foster improvement would include: priority in budgeting, up to date technology, and relevant teacher training. Budgets are often tight. The local, state, and national policy makers must embrace the need to fund technological development among educators. Naturally, the twenty to thirty percent discussed in the STaR Chart is an expensive outlay. However, educators must not only have access to technological resources but also the training and know how to use those tools effectively. The impact this will have on today's techno-learners is well worth the cost and the effort. Technology advances at such a rapid pace. Today's cutting edge computer is tomorrow's paper weight. Districts must understand that technological improvement is not a once and done proposition. It is ongoing and is never completed. Educators must be flexible and open to new advancements that will enable greater student success.
On my local campus and at the state level only modest gains have manifested. My campus has maintained an Advanced Tech rating for three years. We have posted a two point Key Area Total gain. Even more modest gains were recorded at the state level. In 2006-07, 8.2 percent of measured schools were rated as Early Tech. A year later the percent had dropped to 5.4. In actuality, the number of Developing districts regressed over the years. In keeping with the theme of modest gains, according to the Department of Education the regression was negligible at .2%. This area continues to be a challenge. In keeping with that theme modest gains were reported by the US Department of Education in the area of NCLB. According to their 2008 data 70% of schools made Acceptable Yearly Progress and student gains were present. There was significant monetary cost attached to NCLB, $24.4 billion. (ED.gov)
Educational Development and Preparation is so vital. Steps to foster development in this area is critical. Factors that could foster improvement would include: priority in budgeting, up to date technology, and relevant teacher training. Budgets are often tight. The local, state, and national policy makers must embrace the need to fund technological development among educators. Naturally, the twenty to thirty percent discussed in the STaR Chart is an expensive outlay. However, educators must not only have access to technological resources but also the training and know how to use those tools effectively. The impact this will have on today's techno-learners is well worth the cost and the effort. Technology advances at such a rapid pace. Today's cutting edge computer is tomorrow's paper weight. Districts must understand that technological improvement is not a once and done proposition. It is ongoing and is never completed. Educators must be flexible and open to new advancements that will enable greater student success.
Sources:
Mapping Americas Progress 2008, Retrieved November 28, 2009, from ED.gov, US Department of Education
starchart.esc12.net
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
PK-K TEKS and Spiraling Curriculum
The TEKS Technology Curriculum is spiraling. An analysis of the Pre K-8th TEKS readily validates that point. Pre-K requires knowledge of basic terminology, multi-media outlets, use of a variety of software, and integration of learning through technology. The requirements clearly prepare students for the secondary level.
From the onset alignment is readily visible. Even before reading and evaluating individual TEKS the four major strands are consistent from kindergarten on. The strands include: Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. These four strands share common verbage and build upon each other. Though the strands are not specifically mentioned in Pre-K their presence is almost implied. The organization of the Pre-K TEKs would comfortably fit into the strands model used beyond Pre-K.
Though alignment is readily visible in all four strands, I focused my attention on Foundations. The phrase "basic terminology" is found in Pre-K, K-2, and 3-5. This provides not only a cohesive alignment but opportunities to reteach. The terminology does imply that new terminology is added. It is not solely a review. Proper use of the keyboard and mouse is discussed in Pre-K, K-2, and 3-5. Though Pre-K focused primarily on the mouse, following levels broaden to the keyboard. As the years progress other computer accessories and adds-on are covered as well. Again, cohesion and reteaching is present. Further all the levels discuss multi-media incorporation. Beyond Pre-K students were to use multi-media inputs and outlets. In Pre-K the primary goal was exposure. Yet again, cohesion, reteaching, and spiraling construction.
Source: CH 126. Texas Knowledge and Skills for Technology, Retrieved November 25, 2009. http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/ch126toc.html
From the onset alignment is readily visible. Even before reading and evaluating individual TEKS the four major strands are consistent from kindergarten on. The strands include: Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. These four strands share common verbage and build upon each other. Though the strands are not specifically mentioned in Pre-K their presence is almost implied. The organization of the Pre-K TEKs would comfortably fit into the strands model used beyond Pre-K.
Though alignment is readily visible in all four strands, I focused my attention on Foundations. The phrase "basic terminology" is found in Pre-K, K-2, and 3-5. This provides not only a cohesive alignment but opportunities to reteach. The terminology does imply that new terminology is added. It is not solely a review. Proper use of the keyboard and mouse is discussed in Pre-K, K-2, and 3-5. Though Pre-K focused primarily on the mouse, following levels broaden to the keyboard. As the years progress other computer accessories and adds-on are covered as well. Again, cohesion and reteaching is present. Further all the levels discuss multi-media incorporation. Beyond Pre-K students were to use multi-media inputs and outlets. In Pre-K the primary goal was exposure. Yet again, cohesion, reteaching, and spiraling construction.
Source: CH 126. Texas Knowledge and Skills for Technology, Retrieved November 25, 2009. http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/ch126toc.html
Long Range Plan
The Long Range Technology Plan offers a vital planning guide for administrators. A summary of its uses might include answers to four pressing questions. What should we do? Who is responsible for implementation? Who will pay for all this? Where can I find help?
What should we do? The answer is multi-faceted. SBEC mastery for all staff must be a priority. Further, TEKS adherence is the law. Leaders must supply current technology to their teachers and students. Finally, at least $50 per student must be allocated to technological needs. Phase I is well defined and helpful. However, Phases II and III leave much to be desired. A proactive district may already have exceeded these goals. They may need new direction.
Who is responsible? That is a very complex question. Obviously, School Boards, Central Office, and Administrators are responsible. Additional TEA, Service Centers, Local Agencies, State Board of Education, Texas Institutions of Higher Learning, and local Parents and Community members all have a vital role.
Who will pay for all this new technology? Answer, all of the agencies and groups listed above. Each entity must contribute to the process. STaR Chart standards maintain that to be a Target campus 30% of the budget should be allocated to technology.(STaR Chart) Further, NCLB outlines funds availability. (ED.gov)
Where can I find help? Answer, all of the agencies and groups listed above. Each agency is responsible for various areas. Local Service centers are to provide service. State Agencies should provide guidance and funding. Local districts and community stakeholders should provide implementation and guidance.
Sources:
NCLB: ED.gov
starchart.esc12.net/
tea.state.tx.us/teachnology/lrpt/lrpt_lrpthtml
What should we do? The answer is multi-faceted. SBEC mastery for all staff must be a priority. Further, TEKS adherence is the law. Leaders must supply current technology to their teachers and students. Finally, at least $50 per student must be allocated to technological needs. Phase I is well defined and helpful. However, Phases II and III leave much to be desired. A proactive district may already have exceeded these goals. They may need new direction.
Who is responsible? That is a very complex question. Obviously, School Boards, Central Office, and Administrators are responsible. Additional TEA, Service Centers, Local Agencies, State Board of Education, Texas Institutions of Higher Learning, and local Parents and Community members all have a vital role.
Who will pay for all this new technology? Answer, all of the agencies and groups listed above. Each entity must contribute to the process. STaR Chart standards maintain that to be a Target campus 30% of the budget should be allocated to technology.(STaR Chart) Further, NCLB outlines funds availability. (ED.gov)
Where can I find help? Answer, all of the agencies and groups listed above. Each agency is responsible for various areas. Local Service centers are to provide service. State Agencies should provide guidance and funding. Local districts and community stakeholders should provide implementation and guidance.
Sources:
NCLB: ED.gov
starchart.esc12.net/
tea.state.tx.us/teachnology/lrpt/lrpt_lrpthtml
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Surveys
Overall technology is an acquired strength for me. When I arrived in my current district, I was certainly technologically deficient. Through a combination of necessity and personal desire I have come a long way in the past ten years. The surveys reflect that improvement.
The first survey addressed Foundations, Information Acquisition, Problem Solving, and Communications. I answered in the affirmative in all the categories more than the negative. My greatest strength was in Problem Solving, sixteen positives and only two negatives. Foundations and Information Acquisition finished second and third respectively. My greatest area of weakness proved to be Communication, six affirmatives and six negative answers. This was a profound shock to me. I had expected to find this was the area of greatest strength for me. With the advent of e-mail as a primary mode of work place communication, I assumed my constant use of e-mail qualified me as technologically savvy. Prior to reading the articles I was largely unaware of the shifting direction of communication. Further, after reading the articles I heard a radio program this week. Much of the radio program's focal topic was dedicated to the death of e-mail use among teenagers and those in their early twenties. E-mail lacks the immediacy of tweeter, IM, and text. Blog also offers the opportunity to communicate in greater depth of dialogue than e-mail.
The SETDA assessment revealed an interesting personal anomaly for me. I both work to acquire understanding of technology and use technology with great frequency. Rarely does a day pass when I don't use technology in class. Even now as I pursue my Master's Degree I have defered to technology rather than face to face instruction. However,the key word from the previous statements is "I." I use technology. I work with technology. I don't often extend that to my students. I am failing to allow my students to use technology with regularity.
Both assessments are extremely beneficial. I agreed with the results. The assessments focus the attention of administrators and teachers on their technological strengths and weaknesses. As a hopeful, future administrator I had not given great thought to the role of a Principal or Assistant Principal in the arena of technology. However, technology is mandated by TEKS. Administrators must understand technology in order to expedite its implementation. Further we must be student centered to be successful. Today's students are predisposed to cyber learning. We must embrace that change or we will fail to reach today's learner.
The first survey addressed Foundations, Information Acquisition, Problem Solving, and Communications. I answered in the affirmative in all the categories more than the negative. My greatest strength was in Problem Solving, sixteen positives and only two negatives. Foundations and Information Acquisition finished second and third respectively. My greatest area of weakness proved to be Communication, six affirmatives and six negative answers. This was a profound shock to me. I had expected to find this was the area of greatest strength for me. With the advent of e-mail as a primary mode of work place communication, I assumed my constant use of e-mail qualified me as technologically savvy. Prior to reading the articles I was largely unaware of the shifting direction of communication. Further, after reading the articles I heard a radio program this week. Much of the radio program's focal topic was dedicated to the death of e-mail use among teenagers and those in their early twenties. E-mail lacks the immediacy of tweeter, IM, and text. Blog also offers the opportunity to communicate in greater depth of dialogue than e-mail.
The SETDA assessment revealed an interesting personal anomaly for me. I both work to acquire understanding of technology and use technology with great frequency. Rarely does a day pass when I don't use technology in class. Even now as I pursue my Master's Degree I have defered to technology rather than face to face instruction. However,the key word from the previous statements is "I." I use technology. I work with technology. I don't often extend that to my students. I am failing to allow my students to use technology with regularity.
Both assessments are extremely beneficial. I agreed with the results. The assessments focus the attention of administrators and teachers on their technological strengths and weaknesses. As a hopeful, future administrator I had not given great thought to the role of a Principal or Assistant Principal in the arena of technology. However, technology is mandated by TEKS. Administrators must understand technology in order to expedite its implementation. Further we must be student centered to be successful. Today's students are predisposed to cyber learning. We must embrace that change or we will fail to reach today's learner.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)