week 5 Reflections

Linking Learning and Reflections
I envisioned learning the knowledge and skills needed to prepare and enable me to be an efficient and capable school leader. The beginning of the course allowed me to gain knowledge of the expectations and standards required for a campus leader through the assignments to peruse the Long-Range Technology Plan: 2006-2010, Texas STaR Charts, District Improvement Plan, and the Campus Improvement Plan. I used this information to promote student success by facilitating improvement and communication on my campus with equity and efficiency by identifying areas of need and developing plans to meet those needs. I anticipated learning and practicing skills for communicating and researching information using current technology. Hands-on activities engaged me in real-world learning as I explored equipment, “best practices” strategies, and programs that meet the identified campus needs. Expecting to help improve my campus throughout this course motivated me to use the information I learned to create and build lessons and units to prepare my students for post-graduation in the 21st century. Because of my students’ enthusiasm and motivation for learning with technology, other teachers became interested in our activities.
The outcomes of my learning in this course definitely make relevant the experiences employed in my current position as teacher leader and mentor and as a college dual credit facilitator. Training teachers to integrate the technology already available to us was as easy as showing the students. My collaboration on the Campus Improvement Committee should contribute more knowledge to guide the development of goals that integrate technology. One campus goal envisions accelerating learning for special populations and diverse learners using technology, and another objective identifies the process of determining the best way to meet diverse technology professional development needs.
I expected to promote student success by facilitating improvement and communication on my campus with equity and efficiency by identifying areas of need and developing plans to meet those needs. Although my grades indicated success with the assigned coursework, and I feel confident that I have acquired valuable information, I was somewhat discouraged by the number of readings and postings, which took time that I deem better spent collaborating with teachers and administrators on my campus, since there was not enough time to plan and set the goals for improvements leading to technology integration. My teaching duties, the end of semester activities, and expectations for my position as ESL Campus Coordinator with two SE/ESL December graduates combined with those assignments deterred me from meeting my personal expectations of success.
The stress and amount of time required to complete assignments of this course taught me that I can survive with very little sleep, deadlines, and expectations of multi-tasking. I believe proficient technology and leadership skills require both practice and experience, which this course provided. Before this class, I considered myself technologically challenged, I now realize that technology skills appear relative to the tasks one wants to accomplish and the contexts of the situations, so “digital immigrant” (Prensky, 2001, p. 4) better describes me. Every day, unexpected issues occur such as administrative directives, parent conferences, student discipline, technology disruptions, and staff concerns. I learned to handle those situations professionally, and whether I agree or not with other viewpoints, I must accept the value of those points in cooperating to keep the vision of student achievement as the ultimate goal.
Information and education using technology in the 21st century instantly and constantly changes, a truly dynamic anomaly in instruction. Blogs, or “web logs,” provide a means of keeping pace with instant forms of communication. There is never a reason to miss information with Internet access and blogs or “wikis.” Students reflect and post to online journal blogs, while teachers post assignments and projects. Administrators provide training in posts, and committees collaborate. Engaging and motivating students naturally ensues, guaranteeing increased learning and decreased discipline referrals. Students’ accountability for formal English writing using blog postings builds confidence. The benefits of these potential outcomes of blogging make integrating technology enticing.
There are concerns to implementing technology, and the safety and security of our students alarm us most about the Internet and Web 2.0 tools. Bloggers, people who write and create web logs, develop relationships with their readers and may give out information that could be used to harm by dangerous people, such as child predators and identity thieves. Monitoring students’ posts proves a daunting task if substantial posting is required. Misinformation causes confusion and erroneous research results from unmonitored blogging. Students may think blogging is informal, causing teachers to find more incidences of misspelling, grammatical errors, and slang usage. Another issue faces the infrastructure required to support technology needed.
Blogging takes the concept of sending letters home to a whole new level. Parents have “real time” access to announcements, classroom activities, and information concerning their children. As an administrator, blog posts could be used to communicate and collaborate with staff. For example, posting school calendar updates and weekly activities, along with training summaries could save time at faculty meetings. Professional development activities could be accessed and shared by school blogs. Teacher recruits could access a school’s blog to read the “inside” story about a school, so the school could write and post a blog to entice teachers to the area.
My vision of totally integrated technology to promote academic achievement for all stakeholders, may not be fulfilled this course, this semester, or this year, but the possibilities implanted in my mind continue to grow as we learn in the 21st century.


References
“Campus Improvement Plan, 2008-2009”. Dalhart High School. http://www.dalhart.k12.tx.us/pdfs/08-09/CIP_DHS_08-09.pdf
“District Improvement Plan, 2008-2009”. Dalhart Independent School District. http://www.dalhart.k12.tx.us/pdfs/08-09/DIP_DISD_08-09.pdf
“Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020”. Texas Education Agency.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/lrpt/LRPTCompleteDec06.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

week 4 Technology Action Plan

This is week 4 assignment Proposed Action Plan for Integrating Technology.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ASLYjpi7VButZGQ2NGNqYnpfNWQ0ZjdmZmZ0&hl=en

Organizational Chart and Roles for Technology Integration

This document has not been approved by DISD as an adopted policy or process. This is only my understanding and interpretation used for week 4 assignment.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0ByLYjpi7VButMDc4MDYyNDAtOTkyYS00Mzc2LWEwOGItMWY5ZjQ5NTdiYWI1&hl=en

Texas STaR Chart Presentation (click here)

This presentation summarizes the Texas STaR Chart results for Dalhart High School. It is part 3 of Week 2 assignment.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0ByLYjpi7VButNDA0ZWY1YmEtYWU3MC00YTczLWJhMTQtMmQ4MTQ4ZTIyZGYw&hl=en

Week 2 Texas STaR Chart

Leadership, Administration, & Instructional Support appears to be the area of greatest weakness on our campus. The STaR Chart indicates that our campus remained at the Developing classification for two of the last three years surveyed. I do agree that the assessment was accurate; however, I believe teacher perceptions responsible for the lack of progress in this area were skewed by circumstances. In 2007-2008, we moved to a new building. The Technology District Department located in the former campus building remained. Moving equipment, setting up new equipment for three new computer labs, changing from WinSchool to RCCCS and updating PEIMS, along with preparing for the first year of online TELPAS contributed to a lack of time for communication and collaboration about many issues, including technology and hindered progress. The trends in this area mirrored those that occurred at the state and district levels and, in my opinion, for some of the same reasons. The revised Long-Range Technology Plan and Progress Report submitted to TEA and SBEC in December, 2008, revealed that 47% of campuses rated at Developing while only 42% rated at Advanced in the L1 Area of Leadership and Vision. In Area L2, Planning, only 31% are rated at Advanced Tech while 59% are rated Developing Tech. Sixty-seven percent of campuses are rated Developing Tech in the L3 Area Instructional Support. My guess is that the first year, 2006-2007, for submitting the online Texas Teacher STaR Chart, teachers received training and information about the survey and the Long-Range plan. For the next two years, teachers were informed to take the survey, but little or no information was reviewed, so teachers “forgot” or did not realize the connections or nuances of the survey questions. My recommendation is for leaders to make a deliberate effort to inform teachers about the Long-Range Technology Plan, the progress that the campus has made and areas of concern, and review the Campus Improvement Plan goals regarding technology. The CIP committee could collaborate to provide strategies and “best practices” for implementing and supporting instructional and online learning.

References
Lanclos, P. (n.d.). Texas StarChart. In Technology Application Inventory. Retrieved from Technology, Texas Education Agency website: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/technology/techapp/assess/teksurv.pdf

“Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020”. Texas Education Agency.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/lrpt/LRPTCompleteDec06.pdf

Week 1 Pre-K Technology Applications TEKS

The Pre-K Technology Applications TEKS are part of the voluntary “Texas Prekindergarten Guidelines” provided by TEA to reinforce the importance of creating a foundation for life-long learning as early as possible to spiral curriculum for continued student achievement. The Pre-K guidelines recognize that families are “first teachers” and are important to the students’ cognitive, emotional and social learning. The guidelines support diverse learners such as English Language Learners and Children with Special Needs with strategic “best practices” and stress a “team approach.” Learning environments which play a critical role in student learning promote concepts and relationships that scaffold future learning. Assessments and feedback facilitate timely interventions. Within this context, the Pre-K Technology Applications TEKS address five learner outcomes and examples as follows: open and navigate software programs by following basic oral or visual cues and listen to storybooks and information in electronic forms; use and name a variety of computer input devices by moving and clicking the mouse and using computer terminology; operates voice/sound recorders and touch screens by inserting and playing CD to listen to songs; use software to create writings and drawings and expresses own ideas using a variety of audio, video, and graphics thereby increasing phonological awareness and improving vocabulary; and recognizes and interacts with information that is accessed through the use of technology. The Pre-K Technology “learner outcomes” basically require the same skills as all grade level cluster Technology Application TEKS require. This dynamic, spiraling curriculum provides multiple opportunities to access, interact, and create using technology.

Reference

“Texas Prekindergarten Guidelines.” The University of Texas System and Texas Education Agency. 2008. http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ed_init/pkguidelines/PKG_Final_100808.pdf

Week 1 Long-Range Technology Plan Learning

The urgent need to enable our diverse Texas student populations to participate in our global society brings educational technology to the forefront of academic discussions and forms the beginning of my new learning. Along with this moral obligation, I learned that NCLB mandates updated educational technology plans to qualify for Title II Part D funds and E-Rate discounts. Texas meets this requirement with the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020, which includes the Teacher and Campus STaR Charts and Texas ePlan system.
The Long-Range Plan addresses all stakeholders including students, parents, educators, administrators and community members by providing examples of some of the potential outcomes of the plan such as technology proficiencies including access to technology, professional development guided by the Teacher STaR Chart identified needs, and time for implementation. I gained knowledge about the time frame for meeting goals, which will be implemented in three phases: Phase I 2006-2010, Phase II 2011-2015, and Phase III 2016-2020. By 2020, learners, educators, leaders, and the infrastructure should be in place to create a global system for education that addresses the funding, equipment, digital tools and collaborative network needed to “support the education system of the 21st century.”
Beyond learning about the plan’s components, the focus on vision by a leader’s example and support impresses me with the enormity of the tasks required by campus leaders. Understanding these issues is the first crucial step in the process of developing, implementing, and monitoring an equitable, accessible, and effective campus learning environment for all stakeholders.

Reference
“Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020”. Texas Education Agency.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/lrpt/LRPTCompleteDec06.pdf

Week 1 Technology Survey Reflections

As I reflect on the survey assessments of my personal educational technology leadership qualities, I agree that the surveys present a fair and detailed view of my abilities. Both the TEA Technology Applications Inventory and the SETDA Teacher Survey revealed my strengths in using the computer and accessories throughout my daily routines in professional and personal settings. Being the dual college credit facilitator gives me incentive and training towards personal productivity as surveyed in the SETDA. (T37, g-h) Both surveys show the same area of technology which requires more development-terminology. Although I comfortably use technology, there were many terms that I could not identify, or I confused terms and acronyms. Common vocabulary usage means that funding requests and teacher expectations match, an important skill for principals and educational technology leaders. The SETDA assessment identified a weakness in assessing student learning using technology.(T9-T14) This survey also addressed aspects of instructional technology, such as student accessibility issues, alignment with “best practices”(T28) and leadership incentives for acquisition and use of technology.(T51) I believe there are “enthusiastic” (SETDA, 2004) pockets of informal expectations of technology uses; however, as an administrator, I envision professional development that creates, through collaboration, stated expectations and high standards of reliable and available technology. Personally, I must acquire more proficiency in using spreadsheets and programs to “design and implement procedures to track trends, set timelines and review/evaluate progress…” (Lanclos) I must lead in learning and using technology for the success of all students in the 21st century. (SETDA, 2004, T45-T47)

References
SETDA/Metiri. (2004). SETDA Teacher Survey. In Profiling Educational Technology Integration (PETI). http://www.setda-peti.org/tools.html Lanclos, P. (n.d.). Texas StarChart. In Technology Application Inventory. Retrieved from Technology,
Texas Education Agency website: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/technology/techapp/assess/
teksurv.pdf