Susan




 * Week 4 Relflection, Technology Fix, Parts 3 and 4 (April 8, 2010):**

__Hit-Or-Miss Commitment__ //Springdale High// Pflaum's quote "Install the technology and they will come" really resonated with me. Sprindgale sounds typical of many districts that have money. They spend it on equipment, and think that is all that needs to be done. As we all know, and as Pflaum pointed out with this school, that is hardly ever the case. Without proper training, time, and personnel, the technology is useless. //Harrison Elementary// I also agree with Pflaum's recognition through this school that technology is often not carefully integrated into a curriculum, and therefore tends to be used superfluously. Teachers sometimes just use the computer for the sake of using it, and students may not really be getting much out of it. And again, Pflaum observed here as everywhere, time is a huge constraint on what can be accomplished. //Woodvale Middle// I was intrigued by the language arts class that has online mentors, who are community volunteers. The students send their work to the mentors through e-mail, and the mentors give them feedback. What a unique and creative way to use technology. I would love this! I often feel as though I don't have enough time to give all my students proper and adequate feedback on their work. This would relieve some of that burden. And it is a great way to involve members of the community. //City Academy// Part of Pflaum's viewpoint on City Academy is, "The tension that teachers felt sprang from conflicting calls to use constructivist-inspired computer activities within a behaviorist-driven, high stakes environment." I think a lot of teachers feel this way in today's environment. We are trained to teach contstructively, but neither our curriculum or the testing environment we are in lend itself to that type of teaching. I agree with Pflaum, that "theory and reality clash"...often. //Lambert Elementary// Lambert is very similar to many of these other schools...technology is not being used in great depth mostly because teachers haven't had the proper training. When asked what would be the one thing she needed to make technology more effective, the technology coordinator said "another coordinator". Districts need to start spending more money on personnel. //Carter Elementary// It surprises me that in an upper-class district such as this one, their tech coordiator is a voluntary position that is paid through money raised by the PTO; and that she is off this term, and there is noone to replace her. Pflaum makes an interesting point about how schools were not designed to fit computers, and that new schools are not necessarily being built differently to accomodate for technology. However, even since this book has been written, much has changed with technology that make it better apt to fit into already built schools (wireless technology, laptops, smaller computers, networked printers, etc.)

__Too Troubled To Focus__ //Alexanderville SD// Alexanderville is an example of what we often see in school districts, where you have high administrative turnover. The problem is that one set of administrators puts together a technology initiative for the district, but they are never around long enough to see it through. I see that in my district, where the turnover in the technology department alone is huge, not to mention a constant shifting of principals. I don't think we could expect much to get accomplished in this type of environment. //Porter Elementary// It is interesting that both at Porter and Alexanderville, the schools decided to switch from macs to pcs. A huge shift like that, without money or support can de very detrimental. It is also interesting that someone in the district decided to make the switch from macs to pcs, but them it seemed like there was no money spent on actually purchasing pcs. The last paragraph in Plfaum's viewpoint of Porter is insightful. I think now, just 6 years after this book was published, we are seeing a lot of what he was saying. Simpler technology is here, and schools (some schools) are slowly starting to embrace it. //Fisher High// Again, as Pflaum reflects on Fisher High, he emphasizes concern that schools are focused on the mechanics of the computers and not the content. I agree that is what he has observed at several of the schools he has visited. Many students and teachers seem to be using them superficially. I do however, think that was were many schools were even just 6 years ago, and that there are many schools who have moved beyond just using computers for the mechanics of it, or are at least starting to. //Lincoln Elementary// My first thought, how does a school even function with 70% turnover. I think in schools like this, it is very difficult to put technology needs at the forefront, when there are so many other overwhelming needs from the students. I completely agree with Pflaum's last thought, "But computers did not-and I believe they cannot-make up for underlying social inequity. Neither technology nor federal and state-required testing programs will make up for that."

//**Susan,

These are all excellent points. A very insightful reflection for Week 3. Each district definitely has the commitment and resources, but lack the focus and follow-through to deliver on the technology "fix". Thanks for your hard work.

David**//


 * Week 3 Reflection, Techonolgy Fix, Part 2 (March 25, 2010):**

//St. Johns High School -// This part confused me, because Pflaum is saying this set of schools had strong leadership but less focus on defined outcomes. However, it seemed to me that St. Johns was making a lot more use out of technology then any of the first set of schools. I guess because they hadn't yet measured student growth, or didn't have a specific goal for their students is why he believes this school is less focused. I agree with him that the functionality of the technology could use improving, but I think it is a positive that this school didn't let that stand in the way of them moving forward.

//Longfellow Elementary School-// Again, it seems that this school has a good technological foundation. I'm surprised that they don't have more, considering the wealth of the town. They seem a little behind in their technological knowledge. I feel like the special ed department had a very clear focus for their use of technology. I can see where the rest of the school doesn't seem as focused. It does seem like many of the teachers use technology 'in addition' to their regular instruction, instead of embedding into what they already do. Their class size is admirable.

//Ludlow Springs School District-// There was nothing too exciting that caught my eye in this chapter. The district seems like its' use of technology is mediocre, probably similar to what you would see if many suburban districts at this time. It reminds me a little of my district in that 'on paper' it looks 'top-notch', but without sufficient follow through and teacher training, many of its intentions are not reaching the classroom level, and purchased technology is not being utilized as effectively as it could be. I was thinking about Pflaums viewpoint that "computers are new tools for schools, but they are unlikely to transform schools into radically different institutions. The fundamental rules are likely to remain the same." Then I think about the dangerously irrelevant videoclip we watched in last week's class. If we don't transform schools into radically different institutions, and the fundamental rules do remain the same, then will we be preparing our students to be successful, productive adults?

//Western Hills School District-// I liked Western Hills vision for their new high school, and their intention to use data to drive their instruction. I didn't get the sense that they had really figured out how they were going to do that. All that was mentioned was that curricular teams would develop common assessments to be given 3 times a term (which seems like a lot to me), and then that data would be used to help students and teachers. I am wondering how the district will get that data. Is there a program they plan to use to input the assessments that will then analyze the student results for the teachers? How much of this burden will be put on the teachers? The administration stated that they wanted to serve the teachers and give them timely information about student performance. This is all well and good if there is actual follow through on that statement. Like Pflaum, I would be interested in visiting the high school after it is up and running for a couple of years to see how technology is actually being put to use.

The schools presented in this part of the book I think represent a majority of middle to upper income school districts, that have the knowledge, the money, and the vision to implement technology effectively, but often fall short of doing so because of inadequate teacher training, and therefore inefficient use of time.


 * Week 2 Reflection, Technology Fix, Part 1 (March 18, 2010):**

In reading Part 1, Commitment and Focus, of __The Technology Fix__, I guess I was a little surprised by what the author, William Pflaum, found in what he thought were the 'best' schools in terms of technology. To me, it did not seem like some of these schools were very advanced in terms of the possibilities and opportunities that technology offers. However, there were a few things that stood out in each of these schools that seem to be having the greatest impact on the success of the students. In each of these schools you have a principal or school leader who is committed to the success of their students despite the obstacles they face (mostly inadequate funding). Second, you have teachers who have bought into the programs offered by the shcool, and they have shown strong investments in them (being involved in the design of your building, or actually assembling the computers your students will use, for example). Pflaum points out that without teacher buy-in, technology just won't work, and I agree with that. He also points out that teachers have to be able to understand the programs they are implementing, and I also agree. Third, you have students who are motivated to succeed and learn, whether it be through incentives offered by the shcool (as at the Harriet Tubman School, where a student earned enough points for tickets to a baseball game) or through self-motivation (as at Longworth High School, where students are there by choice, and believe that the programs they are learning will allow them to get a job and make a living). All 3 of these things really have nothing to do with technology, but I believe are necessary if you are going to have an impact on the success of a school. Technology is just a tool that offers different ways of getting there. The 4th idea that Pflaum discusses is the possibility of data. As mentioned with the superintendent of the Washington-Connors district, data has endless possibilities, and computers give us the capability to produce all sorts of data. However, in order for it to meaningfully impact students and their instruction, the data needs to get in the hands of the teachers, and it needs to get to them in a timely manner, so that they can use it to meet the current needs of their students. I think that many of the districts we currently teach in believe in the power of data, but I do not think we are at a point where it is getting into the hands of the teachers, and definitely not fast enough. I also think teachers need to be able to understand and put to use the data that they are given. All of this involves time, training, and money...3 obstacles which are very difficult to overcome. Below are just some brief notations from each chapter, as a reminder to myself:

//St. Marys Elementary// -parent support -teachers put together computer lab -keyboarding -teacher buy-in

//Harriet Tubman Elementary// -summer session -computer-based reading program -teacher with small groups/data driven instruction -incentives to motivate students -connections with students and staff

//Longworth High School// -technology magnet school -students there by choice -real world applications -teacher support -teachers well-versed in software

//Washington-Connors Elementary// -poor district, but school has lots of money -teachers involved in design of the building -also invested in reading program -math program, immediate data -superintendent data driven (data needs to get to classroom level)

//Mitchell Elementary// -very poor district -use reading program in labs -computer's have greatest results for low-end students

I am glad we have this resource, as I was not aware of ISTE or the NETS before reading this. I think as a principal, or a leader in your district, it serves as a good foundation from which to build your technology curriculum. The NETS for students, teachers, and administrators are quite comprehensive. As stated in class, it would be almost impossible to successfully implement every single one of the NETS. On the ISTE website, it is stated that the United States along with many other countries have 'adopted' the NETS. However, they are very different from our other standards in that schools are not necessarily held accountable for them. Do you think this is something that may happen down the line? I appreciated in the NETS for students the 'Digital Citizenship' component. Although broad, I think these standards are absolutely necessary for students to understand and be held accountable for. I was also intrigued by the statement "troubleshoot systems and applications" under 'Technology Operations and Concepts'. I think as teachers, we do need to be teaching students how to be able to figure out and solve problems related to technology, and not just the learning of different programs and applications. The NETS for teachers are very closely aligned with the NETS for students. I think the biggest concern we face as educators is our own knowledge and comfort level with the technology that we are presenting to our students. Adults in general (not just teachers) have a difficult time keeping up with the pace of technology (//obviously I am stereotyping here and this is not true of everyone//, but the older you are, the harder time you have adapting to new technology, as you are more removed from the all the technological innovations that have happened over the last 2 decades). As Administrators then, I think a big concern is figuring out how to properly and adequately keep your teachers and staff knowledgable and comfortable with technology. We discussed in class, that most teachers barely have enough time to do the basic essentials of their job, let alone new ways to implement their teaching/facilitate student learning. However, as educators I think we are all responsible for giving our students the best education possible, and today that is heavily weighted in technology. Students need to be able to access and use technology efficiently and effectively to compete in today's global market. As a nation, I think the toughest job is somehow meeting those "essential conditions" set forth in the NETS for adminstrators. Especially these middle 5 conditions: -Consistent and Adequate Funding -Equitable Access -Skilled Personnel -Ongoing Professional Learning -Technical Support I think even in the best of districts you will be hard pressed to find all of these conditions being met. So what about the districts in which there isn't even enough funding for computers? What about the districts in which students are not even meeting the very basic standards? If we are still struggling to figure out how to get our poorest students to be able to read and write; how, as a nation, can we begin to implement these standards and meet these essential conditions in every school in our country?
 * Week 1 Reflection, NETS (March 11, 2010):**