March 1, 2000 4:30-6:00
Panelists: Jack Turner (OPEN, CyberSchool Principal), Mark Horney (UO – CATE), Joanne Hugi (UO – Computing Center), Randy Kolb (City of Eugene), Linda Loft (LCC – Computing Department), Bill May (ISTE), David Moursund (UO – College of Education), Jeff Schimmer (Sony Disc Manufacturing), Paul Selby (Symantec)
Introductions: Les Moore
The meeting opened with an overview of the Educational Technology Committees task and process to this point in time. An explanation of today’s process and agenda was given.
Facilitator and Timekeeper: Bill Kentta
Vision Statement:
- Keeps the "teacher" as the centerpiece of the curriculum. Should be the "student."
- Technology will facilitate students with common interests to work together and form a
learning community. (Please add) Without regard to the location of the participants
Recommendation 1:
- We will "consider" ISTE standards when hiring new teachers is too weak. Needs stronger
verbiage.
Recommendation 2:
- Technology will promote student "collaborative learning" …technology can’t do this
by itself.
- "Industry will drive" - Schools should not only be a training ground for industry.
Recommendation 4:
- Some computer applications are a standard now in the working world. Therefore, these standard applications should be the ones taught in the schools.
- Industry will train the new employee but it is a problem when new employees have no Windows experience.
Recommendation 13:
- Leasing machines concept is missing….easier to get "cutting edge" machines i.e. Gateway
- Why aren’t schools getting free equipment opportunities without getting advertisements?
- Schools should always look at "state of the art" machines. PC Windows based machines need to be looked at more closely in 4J.
General:
Recommendation 2:
- Should be approached from a point of view of "what is needed"
- Project based learning helps people get ready for collaboration in the workforce.
- The schools need to look at what packages are out there. What do we really need? Software? Hardware?
Recommendation 4:
- Macs give the students a base….they ultimately need PC training.
Recommendation 6:
- Three-year hardware turnover policy. What are the options for schools? Suggestion: put the latest and greatest in the school labs and older equipment in the classrooms.
Recommendation 10:
- Support for each school to have a skilled technology person is essential.
Recommendation 12:
- Availability of information " haves vs. have-nots" at home is a major issue.
General:
- GREAT PLAN!
- Teachers need the training, knowledge, in-services, and integration in the curriculum.
- The plan doesn’t push hard enough on liberal arts versus technical training.
- There appears to be no clear integration between the task groups.
Things to think about:
- What should come first? The technology that is needed to accomplish what you want to teach in the curriculum or the curriculum that is needed to teach the technology?
- Students are able to learn at much higher standards than they are now. Technology applications and tools in the classroom will facilitate this ability to solve higher-level problems. (Bloom’s taxonomy)
- "Me and my machine" can function at higher order thinking skills than those without a machine can. If I am allowed to learn with my machine, why can I not be assessed using "my machine?"
- Benjamin Bloom: 1960's experiment looked at how individual students were doing in the classroom; then intervened with tutoring; after intervention, student performed at much higher standards. But can't afford to tutor everyone. How about computer-assisted instruction. Significant improvement. Looking at whether students can solve problems easier with machines, than without machines. A student to computer ration of 4:1 may not be good enough.
General:
- Good Plan!
- Technology does not mean only computers; it is much broader i.e. video, audio, photo manipulations. Students and teachers need to be skilled in all technology, not just computers.
Recommendation 2:
- Suggest striking the word "student" from collaborative learning. It should be both teachers and students collaborating.
Recommendation 10:
- Improve and focus on staff development. It is not the hardware or software but rather the support for teachers and the learning process.
General:
- Very good; right on target
Recommendation 2:
- Technology promoting student learning is a misnomer — Technology is a piece of what should be in the background of learning that is actually happening. Focus needs to remain on the integration of technology into the curriculum and not just equipment.
- We need to have students learn to analyze information especially the information on the WWW.
Recommendation 4:
- What industry are we preparing students for? Why do teachers need "industry standard" equipment?
Recommendation 6:
- Three-year replacement/turnover ideas need to be strongly considered.
General:
- Good report but concerned about resources needed to sustain over time
- What is 4J doing about security …firewalls, privacy protection?
Recommendation 4:
- 4J needs to consider a lot more PC equipment in the schools.
Recommendation 5:
- "Networked access device" is really a PC.
Recommendation 6:
- Equipment replacement every three years is a good goal. Buy less equipment so you can more frequently replace it.
Recommendation 7 & 8:
- Web pages are ease to put up but harder to keep the information current. It is better to have less information and keep it current.
Recommendation 9:
- Help desk support needs to be "beefed up." Problems need to be solved within four hours.
- Standardization of software applications in the schools would be helpful for help desk and technicians.
Recommendation 12:
- Work with City of Eugene to get funding for community resource labs.
- Steering committees can be helpful but not always. Their role needs continual revisiting.
Recommendation 13:
- With the limited budget, what are the funding priorities?
General:
- Good Plan! Especially liked having standards for all incoming staff.
Recommendation 2:
- Focus on higher order problem solving. Teachers need to be able to facilitate and emphasize technology tools in the classrooms that will help solve problems.
Recommendation 3:
- Technology steering committee is important at the beginning of an implementation plan but after that it is not really helpful or time efficient.
Recommendation 6:
- For the school district, three-year replacement is too aggressive. It would be nice but not reality. Free equipment is not out there! Public sector generally gets hand-me-downs.
Recommendation 8:
- Access to information should be available to everyone.
- Echoed Randy Kolb’s concern about keeping current.
Recommendation 10:
- More support staff for teachers. More FTE devoted to technical support in the school. Teachers need more time for training on equipment, applications, and integration. How can they keep up to date if they are not given time for training?
Recommendation 11:
- Continue working with the community.
Recommendation 13:
- Budget does not reflect enough money for ongoing training or substitute time for teachers.
General:
- Glad there is a plan!
- Training is important if not crucial.
- What level of access are you trying to get in the schools?
Recommendation 4:
- Teachers need to have equivalent equipment but not necessarily the same as public industry. Students certainly don’t need equal…i.e. Alphasmarts.
- Questions adoration of Microsoft
What is Missing:
- One LARGE Thing is left out…TEACHERS NEED TIME FOR TRAINING!
- Appendix E - Item 5 in the budget speaks to tech support. It speaks to trainers and training…. But where is the money (line item) for substitutes for teachers to get the training?
- Spend ALL your money on training NOT equipment. People need to be trained to use the hardware that they already have in their classroom. On demand access for every student.
- Ongoing need for staff development. There is so much competition for state development time especially with the state standards.
- Students need training on how to evaluate data on the www.
- Kids need to understand how to set up to solve a problem and how the technology can help
- Teacher training will never be enough; cannot keep up with kids who are on computers many hours a day; important to teach kids to solve problems
- Question posed to the task force…Did you consider security, filtering software…. Etc…
- In Recommendation 10, what does "locally deterministic" mean?
- Talking to teachers around the nation, teachers universal cry is "not enough training"…the technology has got to work! We need more training if it is going to be used.
- Students need to be assessed in a "hands on mode" I learn with my computer. Why am I not assessed as to what I can do (problems I can solve) with my computer?
Question posed to Mark Horney: How might we accomplish more effective training for our teachers if they do not have the equipment? We need to spend money on both.
Reply: This is a chicken and egg problem. You can get more "bang for your buck" if you spend your money on training the teachers on the equipment they already have. If you have to choose between training and equipment….choose training.
Is the SFC aware of the costs, implications?
Clarification on Recommendation 4 that education shouldn't strive for a lower hardware and software standard than industry.
Emphasized that staff hiring should include explicit technology competency requirements.
Comment:
What "industry standard" should education be aspiring to? Business or Education?
Staff Development and technical support
Funding concern/ strategies
Curriculum: analysis of data and problem-solving
Included below are comments received via email from a parent of a 4J student. The task group had insufficient time to truly examine these comments for inclusion – so they are included here to be preserved for future evaluation.
I was pleased to be able to attend the Public Forum on March 1, 2000. These are some comments I generated off of the information posted at the website. One of the experts suggested that the continual updating of websites was a very important aspect of Recommendation 8. I second this as the information on the website was nowhere as complete as the information available at the meeting. You will have to filter the comments here because of this. I will try to generate some other comments off of the handout and send them on in another email.
The vision statement as presented is not up to snuff. It reads, "Teachers and students will use information technology and network tools to change the teaching/learning dynamic."
My first rewrite was, "Teachers and students will be able to use information technology and network tools to improve the teaching/learning dynamic."
Still not good. And doesn't provide for the changing technology. And probably doesn't provide for the newer fields of teaching computer maintenance and programming, etc. Or for things like the role of technology in shop classes (automobile OBD II and cad/cam). Start over.
How about:
Information technology and networks have become a major component of education and society. It is imperative that our educators and students, citizens and future citizens understand and utilize this dynamic something(whatisit anyway?).
Or this:
(Vision statement of 4J - perhaps condensed to, "The purpose of education and 4J is to ..."). Information technology and networks are a major component of this (process). Our students and teachers will be able to understand and utilize (or participate in) these dynamic technologies.
Or something else. But I think we can do better. And I think it is important.
May need to explain who ISTE is.
1-b There will be "sufficient" ongoing...
2-c huh? explain and compare with 2-a
8-b needs some thought. Centralized or decentralized? Outsourced?
It seems to me that we should teach how to use, repair, build, program, network, etc the computers as well as how to access information off of them. And we should say so somewhere in here.
It seems to me that we should be using the technology to make our students attractive and successful employees, citizens and people. And we should say so.
It seems to me that we need to start with educating the teachers - that is paramount. And we should say so. And we may need to involve the union as a one-day inservice program is way insufficient.
The type of technology and currency of technology in Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 are very important and probably not as strong as they could/should be.
We need to be concerned about the price. It will be expensive to do it, but more expensive not to. We need to spend what it takes. We need to devise a funding strategy and involve those people who can help make it happen. A stable funding structure is necessary. And we should say so.
Here are some further comments off the thick handout of recommendations available at the March 1st Public Forum.
Right off I noticed there was no real mention of parents here. Do you figure to involve/train or anything else the parents? I can help my kid with his homework at this point. Wouldn't mind being able to do this all the way through, but I probably don't have the ability in this area.
#2 is very nice.
There was much talk by the experts about training teachers. This is obviously critical. This will in most cases take a couple of weeks at least. But I think this may not be enough. I think we may need to inspire the teachers. Many are not computer literate. Indeed, many think of them with the same affection some of us reserve for needles, cliffs and broccoli. They need to 'want' to use the skills and knowledge.
3 I think this could be a good idea for an entity like 4j. Don't meet too often - meetings are expensive. However it is hard to continuously implement #3 without meetings to figure out what is going on in the real world. It is important to establish goals and list accomplishments each year for this committee.
5a I would probably delete "in his/her classroom". Many teachers work at home. In addition, it should be for the teacher's sole use, as students will often mess up the computers in the classrooms. Maybe we should even give them a laptop. Most businesses do if they think the employee would be more efficient.
5b I would add a statement of a preferred ratio of 1:2. I am curious as to whether this would be in classrooms or labs?
13 I would like to see the phrase "sufficient and stable funding strategy (or source)" in there. As we all know, when you rely on donations and volunteers, you are getting exactly what you pay for. Indeed, you are often worse off.
Appendix A is a remarkable document. Is that "Digital Child" the goal? Or just an unavoidable eventuality that we must be prepared to deal with? The document is unclear.
Appendix E is the most fiscally conservative strategy option. This should be seen as the minimum level of financial support. Especially in components one and five. Improving the ratios would be desirable over time as the digital education becomes more integrated into the schools. This leaves out the interesting question of where we would put the workstations. I am pretty sure that my child's school has insufficient square footage for the workstations. Does the curriculum committee determine whether the workstations go into computer labs? Or into the classrooms with perhaps 6-12 in each? Is this left up to the schools? I foresee fistfights here.
Appendix E's Fifth Component suggests a support ratio of 250:1. My guess is that the teachers and principals will be will be wanting one "in building". My son's building (Edgewood and Evergreen elementary schools combined) has about 370 students. So one "in building" might sound cheaper until we remind ourselves of the network guys in the central office.
Two components seem left out of the costs. First, the cost of training the teachers will be verrrrrry expensive. A couple thou per teacher? And also, the 5a recommendation of one workstation per teacher is unmentioned. These two will add up to something.
One last note. The support staff who require a workstation to perform their tasks currently have one. Usually Mac. Is it safe to assume that these workstations have not been added into the equations? And that they will be updated and networked into the school's new systems? Some additionally cost here I suspect.
During the public input session there was also the suggestion that one or another of various "free" computer deals might also be an option for 4J. I would suggest the following response to that concern:
It was suggested by one of the participants that 4J should investigate whether it can receive 'free' computers from one of the various 'free' computer promotions that are one often hears about in the media.
We believe that the so-called 'free' computer promotions can be broken down into three categories:
- Advertising Supported Computer Systems: In this model, computers were provided for free provided that consumers receiving the systems agreed to view promotional items periodically displayed while the system was in use. For an example of this sort of model, see: http://pcglobe.com/
This 'deal' has a number of interesting requirements, however, including requiring you to pay $699 up front to receive your free system, and requiring you to use it for 900 hours within 30 months of receiving the system, during which time you will be subjected to a steady stream of ads. If it breaks, you pay to fix it. If you bypass, defeat or disable the software, you lose your ability to receive your $700 "rebate" after the 900 hours or required use. You must provided detailed personal information. You must be at least 18 years old. You must pay $85 for shipping and handling. They get to use your money for up to thirty months. If you intentionally or accidentally violate the terms of the contract, they keep your initial fee.
Clearly this is yet another case of 'there is no free lunch.' 4J should also have serious concerns about the potential impact of exposing impressionable juvenile audiences to a sustained barrage of advertising, to say nothing of the disruptions that advertising can cause when students are attempting to use the computer to complete an assigned academic task.
- Rebates on Systems In Exchange for Purchasing Multi-Year Dialup Service: Under this model, the purchaser contracts for a multi year dialup service contract with CompuServe or another provider, and gets a rebate that typically is sufficient to cover a bottom tier system. See, for example: http://www.e4me.com/rebate.html -- a $790.20 obligation for dialup network services over a three year period, in exchange for $400 in rebates (e.g., enough to pay for an e-machines eTower 466is w/o the video display). Hardly free, and hardly applicable to a networked environment where dialup access to a third party provider is unneeded.
- Lotteries: Some sites promise to give away a number of free PCs, with your odds of getting one being typically quite low. It is unlikely that such a strategy would be a feasible way of
providing computers for 4J, any more than 4J could expect to meet its personnel expenses with proceeds from picking winning Oregon Lottery tickets.
Some references on the "free PC" deals:
http://onlineshopping.about.com/shopping/onlineshopping/library/weekly/
http://www.idg.net/crd_1999_84821.html
http://www.koin.com/sh/technology/consumernews/national-technology-consumernews-990819-152339.html
| 
| Schools of the Future | Site Map | Search