| Schools of the Future | Site Map | Search
Appendix L: Meeting Minutes | |
|
Educational Technology Task Group Schools of the Future Committee Meeting Minutes Date: October 25, 1999 Place: Mozart Room, Instruction Department Eugene School District 4J Education Center 200 North Monroe, Eugene, OR Facilitators: Bill Kentta, Tami Walkup and Marilyn Husser Attendees: Faye Creed, Tom Layton, Tammy Christensen, Tish Shepard, Mike Scolla, Bill Fletcher, Joe St Sauver, Craig Smith, Lucas Carlson, Milo Mechum, George Towe, Cerise Roth-Vinson, Jane Harrison, Les Moore (coordinator), Katie Allgood, Henry Luvert, and David Brewer (visitor) Recorder: Les Moore (Faye Creed will record Nov 17; Milo Mechum December 1) Future meetings: November 17, December 1, December 15, 4:30-6pm, place to be announced. Listserv: sfcedtech@4j.lane.edu Handouts: Open meeting laws, Charge to Task Groups, Group Agreements, Calendar and Work Plan for SFC/CCA Items for Follow up: Establish listserv for all Task Group members Distribute draft minutes of this meeting Arrange room for future meetings Distribute Five Year District Technology Plan prior to Dec. 17 meeting Introductions and welcome Overview of structure, purpose, timelines, public meeting law compliance and charge to Task Group by the Schools of the Future Committee The Task Group agreed, by consensus, to follow a set of Group Agreements consisting of the following items: Decision making, Confidentiality, Directness and Openness, Survey, Ownership and Commitment to group decisions and actions, Attendance, Assessment techniques, and Debrief. See attached handout The group also adopted the following statement concerning revisiting of an issue: Members will limit revisiting an issue once consensus is reached. An issue can be re-raised when there is consensus that subsequent events or discussions warrant re-examination of the issue. The group identified Hopes, Fears and Expectations for the work of the Educational Technology Task Group, i.e.: Hopes:
Fears:
Expectations:
Next meeting agenda items:
NOTE: If/when participants come across a (research) article they would like to share with other task force members, please try to write a one paragraph (or no more than one page summary) of the gist of the article. Question for consideration at our next meeting: What is the timeline we are creating recommendations for: 5 years or 30 years? Question: In one sentence, what is the purpose of our group? Answer: We are to establish a vision for technology in the school district by identifying trends and their implications for the educational process. Homework assignment for our next meeting: Read: Geoffrey E. Meredith's "The Demise of Writing," The Futurist , October, 1999. Next Meeting: Wednesday, November 17, 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. at Whiteaker Elementary School ( yes Marilyn?). Call or mail Les Moore if you are unable to attend (687-3549; moore@4j.lane.edu).
November 17 Minutes: Educational Technology Task Group Time: 4:30 - 6:00 pm Location: Whiteaker Elementary School Present: Les Moore (Coordinator), Sheryl Steinke, Tom Layton, Patricia Shepard, Mike Scolla, Milo Mecham, George Towe, Faye Creed, Alexandra Horn, Katie Allgood, Lucas Carlson, Lisë Stuart, Bill Fletcher, Greg Bothun, Tammy Christensen, Jane Harrison, and Cerise Roth-Vinson. Guests: Susan Ban (CoChair, Schools of the Future Committee) and Evie Matthews (Coordinator, Schools of the Future). Facilitators: Bill Kentta, Marilyn Husser, and Tami Walkup
Absent: Gary Henderson, Lynn Lary, Henry Luvert, Craig Smith, and Joseph St. Sauver. Notetaker: Faye Creed (Milo Mechum will record December 1) Future meetings: December 1 and December 15 (both meetings to be held at Whiteaker Elementary School, 4:30 - 6:00 pm). Dates for January and February meetings will be determined and posted by e-mail. [December 14: A report to the Schools of the Future Committee by Milo Mecham, Cerise Roth-Vinson, Les Moore, and Sheryl Steinke] Handouts: Group Agreements, Minutes of October 26 meeting, Membership Directory, and Handouts: 1) "Future Trends Affecting Education" (ECS 1/99) and "Have We Got a Job for You" U.S. News and World Report (11/01/99). Agenda Items: Introductions, Review of Oct. 26 meeting (membership, minutes, and group agreements), Review of Purpose, Defining the Future, Discussion of present Five Year District Technology Plan, and Identifying Trends and Implications - Part I. Vision Statements and Guiding Principles: Les Moore reminded members that the vision statements and guiding principles established by the Schools of the Future Committee were distributed via e-mail and should serve as guides for the work of the Educational Technology Committee. Feedback from the Educational Technology Committee: A panel was selected from the Ed Tech committee to report to the Schools of the Future Committee on December 14th. Members include: Milo Mecham, Cerise Roth-Vinson, Les Moore, and Sheryl Steinke. Defining the Future: There was discussion as to whether our plan should be developed for 5 years or 10 years out. No decision was made; however, Bill mentioned that our tasks should be: 1) Define technology, 2) Identify trends and implications, 3) Surface values/assumptions, 4) Create a vision, and 5) Develop proposals and recommendations. A review of the district’s present technology plan will serve as a starting point. Five Year District Technology Plan: Les gave an overview of the district’s Five Year Technology Plan (1998-99 through 2002/03) and mentioned that it needs to be updated every five years. He reviewed key pages in the document and suggested that members pay careful attention to them: Page 6 Current status (Les mentioned that we currently have a student to computer ratio of eight or nine to one instead of the recommended four or five to one ratio). He also reminded us there is a constant need to replace obsolete technology and that Measure 47 / 50 does not allow go bonds to be used for this purpose. It was also pointed out that the staff needs assessment that was to be done in the spring of 1999 has not happened but that it will be done at a later date.
Page 7 Technology Design. Les mentioned that the district is presently searching to purchase a new Student Information System and is also updating its Business Information Systems wth in-house staff. Page 15 Overview of Information Technology Planning Process. Les stated there are Teaching and Learning with Technology (TLT) plans for every school. Page 32 Information Technology Implementation Action Plan. This page identifies the four key directions for the district to follow: Access, Knowledge Creation and Representation, Ease of Use, and Networking. Page 55 Addendum B (Eugene District 4J Computer Goals)
Page 56 Allocation of 1992 GO Bond monies. Identifying Trends and Implications - Part I: Bill asked members to write definitions of technology. Then, working in groups, the following four definitions were shared. Technology is –
Process to Identify Trends and Implications: Task force members worked in groups brainstorming trends and implications. Initial results are included below and need to be clarified/expanded. Announcements: An e-mail address will be added to District 4J’s Schools of the Future website so that there will be a way that people of the community can ask questions and gather information. Les will let task force members know of the dates for the January and February meetings. Next meeting Time and Place: December 1, 4:30 – 6pm, Whiteaker Elementary School December 15, 4:30 – 6pm, Whiteaker Elementary School January 12, 4:30 – 6pm, Whiteaker Elementary School January 26, 4:30 – 6pm, Whiteaker Elementary School February 15, 4:30 – 6pm, Whiteaker Elementary School Next meeting Agenda Items: To be determined Identifying Trends and Implications - Part II: Bill Kentta and Tami Walkup led us through the combined paper of trends where we made clarification and corrections. These changes are included below. Information + Process = Decisions (mileposts): InformationThe common knowledge base that task group members consider important to be aware of include:
Process (Paradigm)Decisions (mileposts)
Discussion Comments by Task Group Members: Mental Models: Ideas presented by Tami, Bill and Les. Refer to handouts from meeting. Group decided to generate vision statements first then decide on the format for presentation. Ideas for panel discussion on Dec. 14 meeting with SFC: Recycling of technology through upgrades – decisions for old hardware Don’t think about how to fit technology into the current way we teach but instead think of a huge opportunity to reshape education. The first way is okay but not a paradigm shift Partner with EWEB and other community initiatives. Incremental change won’t cut it and, if we don’t change, someone else will provide the solution. Who controls/manages the change (public educational system or someone else?) Create a vision of what is a student like in the 21st century. Evolutionary versus revolutionary process (We need a revolution but have funding for a n evolution) Homework: Bill will email a couple of questions to stimulate the creation of a vision statement(s) for the technology school of the future. Announcements: An email address (tg_edtech@4j.lane.edu) is now available for use by anyone to provide input and feedback to our task group. This address is posted on our website. Messages will go to Les and be distributed to the listserv. Next meeting Agenda Items: Review of Dec. 1 meeting Review of Dec. 14 panel presentation with SFC Vision statements (Clarification and clustering) Develop rational/explanations for vision statements Process to research and provide documentation around vision statements Comments from Evie Matthews (Schools of Future Coordinator): The job of task groups is to create a vision of what they want for our 4J students. Your recommendations to the Schools of the Future Committee are your committee's vision -- their dream of the desired state. Following the recommendation is a paragraph or two elaborating on that recommendation: Why did you select this; why is it important; what are the trends you have identified that lead to that; what factors in the culture of the Eugene school district enhance or inhibit its happening. You can cite comments from members of your committee, the public and/or past studies or district documents. This is the point that you will want to revisit the Schools of the Future Vision Statements and Guiding Principles. Weave those into your discussion. For example, what are the issues of equity that need to be overcome? Remember your audience. The Schools of the Future Committee and the Council of Community Advisors take the first look at your recommendations, but the ultimate audience is the Board of Directors. The job of the task groups is to deliver to them their vision for our students. Then it becomes the job of the board to figure out how we get there. As they deliberate on technology issues or curriculum or engaging the community, etc., they can look back on the report and hear again the vision the community presented to them. Tami’s Mental Model IdeaBreak overall technology plan into segments and develop 3 year and 5 year plans for each segment. Possible segments and are show below: Hardware (e.g. computers, satellite dishes, phone lines, video cameras) Replacement plan 3% of total operating budget allocated to technology maintenance & change every year Software Site licenses District licenses Leasing Staff Development Need extensive user support network & internal training capacity – work towards critical mass of expertise Curriculum & Instruction Shift from one-size-fits-all to small group instruction. Coaching versus lecture Differentiated classroom & integration of visual a& verbal thinking Computer based activities require larger blocks of time Assessment Shift away from test performance to assessments based on products, progress, etc. Other Surveys, wiring, student to computer ratio of 4 to 1
about the vision statements. Joe St.Sauver offered to set this up on a University of Oregon server.
Public Input discussion (Les) A proposal was presented to create a panel composed of UO personnel, 4J teachers, students and private business that would respond to the vision statement created by the task group and then take questions from the audience. Ideas for advertising this public forum included a newspaper ad, inclusion in school newsletters or flyers to parents, committee invited guests, and others. Another possibility would be to present to the other task groups and receive their input which should be a good cross section of the general public. Small group development of SFC recommendations (Tami) We divided into three groups of four members each attempting to get as much occupational diversity as possible and brainstorm on recommendations to take to the Schools of the Future Committee. Share Proposals in large group (Marilyn) The following recommendations were presented:
Don’t forget the technology is not just computers (i.e. copiers) Maybe we can get "free" computers if we are willing to accept advertising on screens With special populations, maybe use teacher’s aides instead of buying computers to handle lagging/gifted students (drive down the student to teacher ratio) Proposition: Rich kids will always have access to technology – what about poor kids? Use of technology to enable traditional listening and participation (4) Should we spend money on teachers rather than computers? (4) Next Steps (Tami) Public Input proposals – facilitators and coordinator will create proposals and distribute via email for review and comment prior to January 26 meeting Review Schools of the Future Ed Tech Vision Statement – especially the bolded comments through email – What parts do we keep – what parts needs condensing – sort the vision statement from recommendations Specific proposals for recommendations Future Meetings Wednesday, January 26, 4:30-6pm, Whiteaker ES Tuesday, February 15, 4:30-6pm, Whiteaker ES Public Input: Date and Time to be determined
Review of Draft Ed Tech Report
Proposed vision statements Students will use technology to access, retrieve and use information school-wide, community-wide, nationally and internationally Information technology and tools will be integral to teaching and learning. Information technology and tools will be used as an opportunity to change the teaching/learning dynamic.
Voting on which one we would support. Scale (5 – most acceptable 1-least) Proposal number 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 0 2 9 3 2 0 5 3 5 3 3 0 10 5 0 1 Proposal 3 was considered the best of these three proposals. The word "change" produced some controversy so Greg Bothun and Jane Harrison were asked to work on a resolution. Les Moore offered a list of what 4J needs for guidance purposes and this list was accepted by the task group as an organizer for our recommendations. Cerise Roth-Vinson, Garry Henderson, Tom Layton and Les Moore will use this organizer and our list of recommendations. The organizer list follows:
Action Items Organize the document around the "What 4J Needs …" list If page 2 as "Vision" i.e. Network technology & tools will be used as an opportunity to change the teaching/learning dynamic. Components will include etc. etc. Is it feasible to assume students will have access to "information appliances" or "network access points" Recommendations need to be specific Page 5 3rd bullet – example of well stated recommendation 4th from bottom – example of poorly stated recommendation Future Schedule Feb. 8 – Draft of revised document Feb. 9, 4:30-6pm, Whiteaker ES – Task Group will finalize document Feb. 15 – Public Forum 4:30-6pm auditorium March 7 – Target for completion March 14 – Presentation to SFC
Adopted Vision Statement: Information technology and network tools will be used to change the teaching/learning dynamic. Recommendations: 1-Standards of teacher proficiency
2-Standards of student proficiency
1 & 2-Standards for staff and student technology proficiency
3-Methods or styles of curriculum/technology integration
4-Types of technology
5-Quantities of technology
6-Currency of technology
7-Types of software/information sources
8-Availability to students & teachers
9-Reliability of technology
10-Technical Support of technology
11-Support of teaching & administrative staff
12-Interaction with community
13-Equity (equal access) to technology Although students will have access to technology in school, we need to develop strategies for providing access during non-school hours. Therefore: On an annual basis, the District will survey student access to technology in and out of the classroom, Based on the survey, we, in cooperation with community partners, will develop strategies to equalize student access. 14-Funding To be determined Public Input: We postponed our public input session and scheduled our next meeting for Feb. 15 to continue our work on the recommendations
Refinement of Vision/Recommendation: Opening Statement on Staff Development The Educational Technology task group recommends that representatives from other appropriate Schools of the Future task groups meet to craft recommendations about staff development needed to implement the recommendations contained in their collective reports. Vision Statement Teachers and students will use information technology and network tools to change the teaching/learning dynamic.
Recommendations 1-Standards for Staff and Student Technology Proficiency Embrace the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) student standards (see attached), teacher standards (see draft documents), and non-certified staff standards (to be developed by a school district 4J task group in 2000/2001). There will be ongoing technology training for staff to meet ISTE standards. We will consider the ISTE standards when hiring new staff.
2-Methods or Styles of Curriculum/Technology Integration Teachers will focus on individualized instruction and on project-based learning. Students will use technology for exploration and discovery (e.g. through simulations and interactive learning). Technology will promote student collaborative learning. Students will have access to distance learning. Students will use technology to access, evaluate, use and create information. 3-Type of Technology Teachers will have technology and software equivalent to that used by professionals in industry. 4-Quantities of Technology Each teacher will have a networked access device in his/her classroom for his/her use. As a minimum we embrace the recommended ratio of one networked access device to every four students (see reference). Each school will have technological tools sufficient for teachers and students to use, including networked printers, faxes, presentation devices and digital cameras. 5-Currency of Technology Information technology and network tools and software will be replaced and/or updated as needed to maintain functionality and currency at least every three years. The Technology Steering Committee (see Recommendation 13 below) will be responsible for conducting an annual review of district 4J replacement needs. 6-Student Information Systems Teachers, parents and youth-serving agencies will have electronic access to student information as permitted by public information laws (e.g. student progress reports, attendance data …). 7-Availability of Information Information will be accessible from home as well as school. District 4J will continue to make available networked information resources (e.g. World Book, Encyclopedia Britannica). District 4J will provide and receive web-based information about the district. The school will provide and receive web-based information about the school. The teacher will provide and receive web-based information about the classroom. Students will have in-school and remote access to space on file servers, web servers and email. 8-Technical Support of Technology Broken equipment will be repaired or replaced with 48 hours. District 4J will provide the technical support needed to maintain its technology. Our goal is for technology to be operational 99.5% of the time.
9-Support of Teaching and Administrative Staff
10-Interaction with Community
11-Equal Access to Technology
12. Technology Steering Committee The district 4J will establish an ongoing Technology Steering Committee to guide the implementation of technology throughout the district. Membership on this committee might include: teachers, administrators, students, parents, and representatives from the private sector. 13-Funding Sufficient funding will be provided to implement the recommendation of this report (see appendix xx for sample estimated costs).
| |
| Schools of the Future | Site Map | Search
Eugene School District 4J