Maureen

media type="custom" key="5728721"media type="custom" key="5598603" //Maureen,

ALL of your reflections are impressive, thorough, and interesting to read. I am enjoying all of your insight and feel you have a good handle on the issues that accompany technology integration. It seems that this book is really getting your gears turning. I hope that it is helping to shape your vision, commitment, and focus in terms of school leadership. Your questions about fair use are legitimate, and your intent to inquire further is admirable. I hope you found the fair use materials interesting. Thanks for all your hard work.

David //

Assignment 5 Fair Use (alternative to "The Technology Fix") I was glad to have this information to read as I was confused about the term "Fair Use". The problem is that I have read it and still feel unsure about how educators can in fact breach "Fair use". It is comforting to have learned that this author has never heard of an educator having been sued for a fair use violation although they can be made to desist use. On the flip side, since our entire faculty was given an In-service by our solicitor this year about this very issue, I cannot say that I am relaxed about the implications for trouble within Wissahickon. So, fair use is about best practice, and there are no absolute rules. Fair use is about the ability to use copyrighted material in some cases without payment or permission. According to the author, "Fair use is situational and content is critical" as is the reason for use, and the amount of the original content used. It is a "tool to balance the rights of users with the rights of owners".

Fair use begins with media literacy, which is everywhere that information and/or entertainment exists. It can exist in traditional education and education to teach how to make media. Since the media is so influential and filled with hidden messages, opinions, and purposes it is important to be responsible about repeating or copying it. So, fair use is a sort of guide to make users responsible about their choices.

Under Section 110 of the Copyright Act there are specific exemptions for teachers that protect them against copyright infringement. But, still there is a bigger issue that of transformative uses of copyright materials. When we discussed this in class I tossed with whether the Obama photo had infringed any copyright or not. It seemed to me it had not according to this transformative use. But, I'll be anxious to see how it all comes out in court. This case will come down to really minute details and I believe it will change the face of the future in regard to transformational use.

I still have a question in regard to the author's feeling that educators would be more likely to receive special consideration and if the restricted access defense would hold up. Since there have not been important cases to test this, I am skeptical. If "Fair Use" is the User's Right then what are the originator's rights? I get the connection to the First Amendment and freddom of speech. I would hate it if I could not quote someone famous nor show my students someone's work of importance.

What helped me to clarify a bit was the author's list of four considerations mentioned in the law: the nature of the use, the nature of the work used, the extent of the use, and its economic effect. It sounds like judges have handled this by stating that the purpose of the user must be different from the originator and was the amount a certain portion of the original. I'm guessing that the user can't harm the originator financially nor take away the revenue due. In the case of the Obama photograph I'm wondering if the photographer was harmed financially in any way or just jealous. Had this been in an educational setting I wonder if it would have gone to court. It is interesting that this author sees educators as leaders who need to assert their own rights and make their own decisions with or without approval. As an Instructional leader I would encourage my staff to get approval if even a hint of doubt exists concerning copyright.

In place of summing up the five principles of "Fair Use" in regard to media literacy education I would like to say how they would apply to me as an Instructional leader. As a Principal I would encourage my teachers to use all form of media as they may use these materials for entertainment and persuasive or advoacy purpose. They apply in after school programs and camps too. So, they can be used all year. I would encourage teachers to always give credit when quoting. Teachers do not need to be licensed under fair use laws to use media literacy; they just need to be honest and in good faith when getting it. The exception would be the unlawful use of a licensed item that the school purchased. The last rule seems to be the most important and the most vague and open to interpretation. Who determines the portion of the material needed to accomplish one's goal or purpose? There are no rules here and that is concerning. I think a key to this is to keep the audience small so it is given consideration. It is our responsibility as educators to teach kids and model for them what we know of fair use. Since I still have questions and concerns I think I will follow up with administration to be sure of the district's expectations. I would hate to be thrown under the bus as they say because of this great big vague topic. It is too important and too sensitive in this digital age.

Week 4 Assignment Part 3 Hit or Miss Commitment "The Technology Fix" I decided to focus specifically on what is determined to be a lack of focus and haphazard commitment on the part of the faculty and administration in the schools in Part 111. Could it really be that this is the reason that school's scores don't improve. Springdale High School in Ohio has 2,400 students, four computer labs, one each for writing, graphics, math, and business. Each class has a teacher work station with a 34" TV monitor. The problem began for Springdale in 1998 when a huge technology initiative was planned and teachers were encouraged and then left to their own devises. One day trainings were the distsrict's attempt to say they did something. Ever since it has been like the title indicated, "Hit or Miss". No further training was mandated. Some teachers use videoconferencing, a few students took and completed online courses and ultimately the whole online system was offline. It stayed that way for 2 weeks. In my district this would cause an uproar from students, tax payers, teachers and parents. The assumption that wiring the buildings and buying powerful computers would be the springboard for improvement. But, technology never became integrated into the curriculum and the leaders did nothing about it. In Wissahickon it is expected to be integrated into the curriculum and not just be used as a tool. As an administrator looking at Sprindale's scenerio, I would inisist upon it and provide ample opportunities for staff development and ongoing monitoring of its use. We are required to attend monthly Smartboard sharing meetings, for example, to allow teachers to bring their successes into view for peers.

Harrison Elementary School in California houses 36 classrooms and a lab with computers and a projector. It utilizes a computerized reading program similar to others mentioned in past chapters. Every student reads for one hour per day and still they are behind the norm. The teachers actually believe that this deficiency is because "People don't read today". Although the teachers seem to be committed, there is no developed technology curriculum and no plan. Teachers have been asked to integrate it, but the fundamentals have not even been mastered. In one forty-five minute period per week every student is supposed to gather enough information and skills to move ahead. Unfortunately, this is too little time and too little of a plan to make a difference. I think Harrison needs leadership to develop a comprehensive plan for a technology committee and curriculum writing. Training needs to be enhanced during every In-service and faculty meeting if it is ever to be intergrated. Teachers in all of these schools need to be given the time to learn, the timeline to implement it, and the time for students to practice if change is ever to happen. I'd like to get my hands on Harrison Elementary as an Instructional leader. With no discipline problems and seemingly ample resources all that is missing is a vision, a motivator and hard working leader.

Woodvale Middle School has teachers who seem to get the idea, but who need to be made believers. When 7th grade teacher, Rosemary, said, "I am a very good teacher. I'm not a facilitator", I believed her. In my line of work I am more of a facilitator then purely an instructor, Instruction can be boring and technology is surely not boring unless one is only talking about typing or researching to fill out worksheets. What Woodvale seems to need is modeling. Can you imagine having only one computer per 250 kids? I'm feeling pretty spoiled as we are way ahead of that curve. The tech coordinator at Woodvale spends most of her time on keyboarding and little on content. But then another LA teacher, Stuart Lawson, went the extra mile and found community members to be online mentors for his students. He believes this has been responsible for improving his lowest functioning students. Woodvale's supposedly motivational reading program is actually thought by some to be repetitive and boring So, I think the word, motivational needs to be set aside in the district's description. Teachers do use technology, but it appears that is mostly for their own use in planning, researching, and administrative tasks. It is a shame that the veteran teachers cannot be used to inspire others including their students. But, like the other schools in this category leadership and planning is lacking.

When I first saw the name Citi Academy I had hope that this school might be an urban model or magnet school that had improving technology initiatives. But, it turned out to be a K-12 public school who had hope, but then their demographics changed and with it so did the good intentions. Citi enlisted the help of "New American Schools Program" to fund new model of schooling. The school was planned to be a student centered project based initiative. The core technology was originally TV production and videoed student projects, but that gave way to computers. Parents missed the presentations and complained. The computer model was for whole group instruction and the use of CDs and audio tapes. Motivation was a problem and kids fooled around a lot. The project based TV production was working well and Citi experienced testing scores at or above similar socioeconomic profiles. So, what must have been the problem was once a gain a lack of clear vision, leadership and planning. The constructivist pedagogy where learners create their own knowledge as they explore, invent, question and create was working. So, Citi's problem is simple really. Find a way to recreate that ideology using all forms of technology and why on earth would they abandon that which is working?

As I read about Emerson Elementary School I could not understand why it was struggling. It seemed to have good teachers and all the tools necessary to successfully integrate them into the curriculum. By the end I understood however. The school was in transition because a new building was being built and still all classroom had computers. The tech coordinator seemed to do a better job then in the other schools in that she say students twice a week and not just once. She used websites, and taught word processing, Kid Pix, and graphics. But, once again this was about the computer mechanics and what was needed was computers in regard to content. The school seemed to be struggling with finding ways to use the computer to replace manipulative already in place. As an administrator I believe that I would have my teachers access student learning styles and then assign some to learn concepts with manipulatives and others to do so online. It just isn't that important to give every learner the same time on the computer. It is that important to give every learner enough time to learn using the proper tool. At Emerson much time was spent on the low level learner, which is great. But, that should not be at the expense of others. Once again the instructional leader should have stepped in to help access and offer suggestions for remediation and planning.

Testing seemed to be a big focus at Lambert Elementary. Today, where isn't that true? Teachers at Lambert even received bonuses because of their student's high testing outcomes. The problem at Lambert is that they are only interested in having students follow standards and meeting performance goals. Students are asked to take practice test after practice test and guess until all are correct. How is that real learning I ask myself? Of course if students guess on multiple choice tests until they are correct, they will ultimately succeed. But, that doesn't feel like learning to me. In the computer lab students take math prep tests instead of learning to keyboard or use other applications. Students also use another supposedly motivational reading program. In one class Powerpoint is taught. The end project with all of it's glitz is the coveted prize and parents loved it. Yet, the content is not as highley regarded by anyone. I wonder if Powerpoint will help those students do well on their SAT tests. The same is true of a class where Spreadsheets are taught and come out beautifully. But, the real-life application of Spreadsheet use and content is lost. In this school and the others in this section paid more attention to the "how" not the what; thus content was secondary. Reading this made me reflect a bit upon my current Powerpoint Project with third graders. I'm going to have to go back and score the content separate from the glitz.

Carter Elementary in Northern California seemingly had it all except for the fact that most classrooms were portables as they awaited the opening of its new school. It was a school situated in an upper middle class area filled with new homes and it has a low student to teacher ratio, a lab with 3 computers, a 32" monitor attached to each teacher computer and yet none of this was a priority for teachers. Half of the student computers within classroom were usually turned off. Only 12 of the computers in the building were hooked to the Internet at one point, but the following year that was better in grades 5-6. Can you imagine that around here? The computers are old and a combination of macs and PCs. Students do use a math practice program with little success. Teachers have very antiquated and skeptical views of the benefits of computers. The Principal feels that he problem at Carter in regard to technology is that there is just not enough space to utilize it properly. It is an interesting question, but I feel it is just a bit of a cop out. I'd rather see a few computers utilized properly then a whole lab set up haphazardly. It would be my goal to supply at least one well set up lab with proper wiring and enough computers for a class and then a station in each classroom with 4-6 computers. If teachers are able to project from their computer then they are able to meet the needs of the visual learner. Perhaps when Carter moves into its new building it will figure out that space is not their primary problem with regard to technology.

Week 3 Assignment Part 2 Commitment, Less Focus"The Technology Fix"

The introduction to Part 2 "Commitment, Less Focus" made me wonder if I might find schools similar to those here in Southeastern PA. The first, St Johns, a private all boys Catholic High School probably resembles a La Salle or St Joes High School. In this MIdwest school of 950 laptops are mandatory for all incoming freshman. A media center with sloppy wiring is utilized mostly for note taking and essays that are submitted online. Teachers use the computers to create Powerpoints and web- based test making. Electronic books are available for biology, chemistry and algebra. Strong leadership is evident in Principal Jim Snyder, who has been there for eleven years, however although technology exists the school was designed for students with books not computers. Some advantages exist however. For example, world history students had a wealth of resources for their reports and students who submitted English essays received more productive feedback. Computer-based tests were self-correcting, which saved time. Still, teachers were not regularly incorporating technology into their instruction. Principal, Jim Sneider, had a vision eleven years ago when he took over the school. His strength as a leader not the computers clearly changed the school for the better. But, he took steps in the right direction. With simple changes to classrooms, furniture and software they will be moving in the right direction.

Longfellow Elementary School in New England is a K-8 school with 19 classrooms and one computer lab containing 28 computers. Computers have solved with cursive writing, making frequent revisions and enthusiasm. Some classrooms use computers for centers with CDs. Programs are not used in the lab; instead computer basics like keyboarding are taught. Other uses for computers exist like for making worksheets, taking notes, creating audobiographies. There is a math computer driven program used like in other schools highlighted in Part 1. Powerpoints are created by teachers for teaching and spreadsheets are used for teaching family finance. Still, little evidence was provided that even hinted at using computers to determine success. Constraints on time, money, space, and immature systems limit technology value in the schools. I had expected that a wealthy New England School might provide more support for the use and acquisition of technology.

Ludlow Springs School District in PA was n interesting prospect for me to hope to gleen positive data for the use of technology as an improvement tool. This district looked a lot like that in which I teach. Dynamic leadership is present as is a dedicated faculty, community support, and a strong tax base. Their web site was well-developed for this district of 2,300 students. The elementary lab was equipped with 31 computers, a printer, digital camera, computer projector, cable TV, and whiteboard. Impressive! Each class had 5 computers, a printer, digital camera, and large screen monitor. Even more impressive! The tech teacher taught teachers and students. Teachers learned excel and Special Education teachers learned how to create IEP plans. Software was purchased to improve problem solving, but there was no effective way of measuring it. This is unfortunately the story of our district all too often. How do we measure the effectiveness of tech tools? Surveys just give opinions. The middle School also was well equipped with a lab of 30 computers and two carts of 20 laptops. Claire Davis, the technology coordinator, confirmed my suspicians as to the effectiveness of the tech tools when she said, " Kids are immersed in technology, but how do we know they are learning"? Rubrics are developed but there are no "rea;" numbers. What they do know is that 75% of their teachers use technology regularly, and 60% use it a lot. Their problem is similar to ours in that younger teachers do not have the experience to integrate it into the curriculum and older teachers, who have taught 25-30 years resist it for some time before embracing it. The high school has 4 business labs with 30 computers each. The labs are always busy. In ninth grade keyboarding is required and tenth graders study data bases and spreadsheets. There is a language lab with 29 computers and the library has 26. Each classroom contains 1-6 computers. So, they are well equipped and it gets used pretty much, but it appears it is used as a tool after the learning. All three school's tools were new, but the methodologies were not. They were used for writing reports, vocabulary, and projection screens. Where teachers tried to facilitate the learning versus direct it change was evident. The author suggests that at this time computers will not transform schools nor have measurable effects. There are too few computers, too little time and space and they cost too much. Transformation will depend upon future technological advances.

The last district, Western Hills School District, is located in southern California and has 32,000 students. I would feel lost there. Still, they are a blue ribbon district that wins awards for technology, planning, and implementation. Their big push to replace the insufficient data system makes a lot of system. The new one will determine what is working and what needs to be fixed. They do not employ full time tech coordinators, which is surprising and the elementary schools do not even have labs. All, however have wide area network, mobile TV services, video conferencing, curriculum guides and a central data system. Sagebush Middle School Principal said, "Technology allows kids to be the drivers". I like that because it keeps them engaged. It is my feeling that that is one of technology's greatest strengths. At Sunset Hills HS there is a 3 year plan to use technology as a service to do what they do and not to be used as an add-on. It will also supply teachers with the data they need. Along with this they are following guidelines by the National Associal of Secondary Principals in California to have: So, although their vision may be ambitious and they are installing a substantial system they have district leaders who support teachers and administrators who are not adversaries. Their vision is based on the true understanding of the "real world classroom" and not driven by noneducators. So, they may have a chance at greatness. But, I'm not sure if its because of the technolgy. They have a lot of productive top down leadership that seems to be very much based on people rather then machines.
 * smaller learning communities
 * interdisciplinary teams
 * efficient use of time