engaging students with technology€¦ · •curriculum and instruction ... • a high level of...
TRANSCRIPT
-
ENGAGING STUDENTS WITH
TECHNOLOGY
Technology Advisory Committee
March 25, 2015 1
Educational Technology Plan Recommendations
-
Goal #5: We will innovate our educational practices and become leaders in technology integration.
Two Paths Converge… Comprehensive Planning
• We must continue to excel in
these areas:
• Student Achievements and Awards
• Curriculum and Instruction
• Student Services
• High Quality Learning Environment
• Even in challenging financial
times we value academics,
athletics, arts, and activities
Technology Advisory Committee
March 25, 2015 2
• We must continue to excel in
these areas:
• Curriculum and Instruction
• High Quality Learning Environment
• We are obligated to provide our
students a technology-rich
environment which is reflective of
the world beyond the walls of our
school buildings
WE WANT TO BE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO EMULATE.
-
INFRASTRUCTURE Cat 6A Wiring – Cisco Switches
Wireless Network
Digital Classrooms
IP Based
Phone System
Wireless Devices
Improved Classroom Instruction
Voice Integrated
Applications (i.e., E-Mail)
Future Technology
Development
Disaster Recovery
Network Stability and Security
Maximum Network Uptime
Blended Learning
Asynchronous Learning
E-Learning
Adaptive Learning
The Starting Point: NASD Information Technology Plan
March 25, 2015 3
-
Technology Advisory Committee
March 25, 2015 4
Parents & Community Members
Ken Doerbacker Community Member
Tony Berarducci MMS & MES Parent
Marcel Bergerman NASH & IES Parent
Suzanne Filiaggi-Bridges IMS & MCK Parent
Allyson Minton MCK Parent
Melissa Simon IES Parent
Kevin Conner AIU Liaison
District Leadership
Maureen Grosheider School Board Member
Scott Russell School Board Member
Tammy Andreyko Asst. Superintendent of Academic Advancement
Katherine Curran Coordinator of Academic Technology
Brendan Hyland Principal NAI
Katherine Jenkins Principal CMS
Amanda Mathieson Principal HES
Bill Phillips Senior IT Manager
Robert Scherrer Asst. Superintendent of K-12 Education
Raymond Gualtieri Superintendent (ex-officio)
Teachers
Rachel Brown PES - Grade 3
Sheila Dattilo MMS - Grade 7 Science
Sarah Diehl FES - Library
Kristen Ericson IES - Grade 4
Jan Graner MCK - Grade 4
Bernadette Marshalek BWE - Grade 4
Dana Oliver NASH, MMS - Tech. Integrator
Eric Robertson IMS - Grade 8 Science & Math
Laura Senneway BWE, FES, IES, PES - Tech. Integrator
Bob Tozier NASH - Music, Dept. Chair
Kristen Zaccari MES - Grade 5
-
Focus of the Committee
How can:
• technology enhance, support, and transform the classroom?
• new technologies foster communication, collaboration, critical
thinking, and creativity (the 4 Cs)?
• we successfully implement educational technology?
• we prepare recommendations for an educational technology plan?
• we be advocates for the District’s educational technology vision and
communicate it to the North Allegheny community?
March 25, 2015 5
-
Strategy: Divide and Conquer
March 25, 2015 6
With a broadly-focused series of goals, the committee
chose to divide into three subcommittees to develop
recommendations:
• Curriculum – Curriculum should always drive technology
• assured experiences; the 4 Cs; preparation for future success
• Digital Classroom – Looking at what resources we have; what
resources we should have; how we can accomplish equity in
resources District-wide
• Professional Development – No technology implementation is
successful with a solid program of professional development
• If teachers do not know how to use the resources and feel excited about
the potential of them – technology will not be utilized as it can be
-
Process / Research • BrightBytes™ Survey Data – March 2014
• Students (grades 3-12)
• K-12 Teachers and Administrators
• Research
• Survey of Allegheny County schools with regard to use of technology
• College and career competency requirements
• Professional journals and studies
• Site Visitations
• Mars Area SD; South Side Area SD; Elizabeth Forward SD
• Professional Consultants
• Hardware Demonstrations
• Professional Conferences & Seminars
March 25, 2015 7
-
Three Components of this Presentation
The committee has submitted a written report to the Board.
This presentation provides a brief summary of what we
consider to be the ‘heart’ of the work, including:
• Highlights of what we learned
• A summary of committee recommendations
• An overview of the financial implications of our recommendations
We believe we have met the challenge presented by the Board – and
along the way encountered some surprises, not the least of which has
been our shared passion for the recommendations we are proud to bring
forward tonight.
March 25, 2015 8
-
What we have learned
March 25, 2015 9
• Teaching, learning, and technology
• The Four C’s of Education
• Current technology access in NA schools
• What NA students and teachers think about technology in schools
• What other school districts are doing about technology
An overview of
-
March 25, 2015 10
-
Best instructional practices require students
to use the
“Four C’s of Education” to meet learning goals.
March 25, 2015 11
-
What are the “Four C’s”
March 25, 2015 12
…and how does technology help students to
develop these skills?
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Critical Thinking
• Creativity
-
What is the current status of technology
access for NA students and teachers?
• Limited or no access to computers on a daily basis
• Limited access to instructional technology in the
classroom (e.g., mounted interactive projectors, document
cameras, mobile devices, building-based video production
resources)
• In some cases, current available devices have reduced
functionality due to age and/or condition
• Limited access to Wi-Fi in various buildings (targeted
completion May 1)
• Limited access to Technology Integrators for professional
development
March 25, 2015 13
-
What is the strongest argument for
implementing a 1:1 initiative?
• Currently using technology in our classroom is an event
and it should be a seamless interaction between students
and learning.
• Individual devices offer the potential for students to
engage in the real work of mathematicians, scientists,
composers, filmmakers, authors and engineers.
• We have an obligation to build upon the technological
fluency the students bring to us and guide them towards
being responsible digital citizens.
March 25, 2015 14
-
Feedback from Elementary Students via
BrightBytes™* survey
March 25, 2015 15
Students in
grades 3-5 report
they have limited
access to
technology during
the school day.
Current ratio of
student to computer
in K-5 is
approximately 11:1.
52
25
23
Elementary student-reported frequency of computer use in the
classroom
Weekly
Monthly
Never
*Source: BrightBytes teacher survey, March 2014
-
March 25, 2015 16
Click Here:
Fifth Graders
Create Biome Project
and Shine
https://drive.google.com/a/northallegheny.org/file/d/0B7GzumY9LjYlbWRHdllhcV9EWE0/view?usp=sharinghttp://www.northallegheny.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=26746&ViewID=94B66785-F3F0-41A8-8414-1E55691D3E9E&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=34005&PageID=22673
-
Feedback from Middle School Students
via BrightBytes™* survey
March 25, 2015 17
Students in
grades 6-8 report
they have limited
access to
technology
during the school
day.
Current ratio of
student to
computer in 6-8 is
approximately 3:1.
*Source: BrightBytes teacher survey, March 2014
16
28
35
16
4
Middle School student-reported frequency of computer use in the classroom
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Every few months
Never
-
A School Project presentation by Jack Lopuszynski
Eighth Grade – Carson Middle School
Student Council President
Honor Student
March 25, 2015 18
-
Feedback from High School Students via
BrightBytes™* survey
March 25, 2015 19
Students in
grades 9-12
report they have
limited access to
technology
during the school
day.
Current ratio of
student to
computer in 9-12 is
approximately 2:1.
*Source: BrightBytes teacher survey, March 2014
33
31
25
9 4
High School student-reported frequency of computer use in
the classroom
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Every few months
Never
-
90.35% of the NA Class of 2014 Planned to attend College/University
March 25, 2015 20
TAC studied college and career computer competency/readiness
profiles for graduating seniors. Technology expectations of
college freshmen include:
• A fundamental understanding of computer technology – ideally on dual platforms
• A high level of competency in system software for word processing, spreadsheet
management, file and database management, presentation graphics, search engines,
collaborative learning management systems, and email
• Understanding of hardware and networking
• Understanding of computer ethics, security, and professional responsibilities of
technology use
• Understanding of appropriate and acceptable time / place for various patterns of
communications; i.e., texting vocabulary vs. formal language for essays and research
papers, etc.
-
March 25, 2015 21
“We want students who are
creators not just consumers
of technology.”
~ David D. Carbonara, Ed.D. Duquesne University
-
Feedback from North Allegheny Teachers
via BrightBytes™* Survey
March 25, 2015 22
*Source: BrightBytes teacher survey, March 2014
96% of North Allegheny teachers believe that technology use in the classroom can enhance student learning.
-
TAC believes… NASD teachers will embrace and enjoy the
implementation of a 1:1 technology initiative, if these
four key components are present to ensure the
success of the project:
1. Stable and secure network and wireless capabilities
2. Comprehensive professional development
3. Equitable access to technology in schools and classrooms
4. Ongoing support from Technology Integrators for instructional
implementation and from the IT Help Desk for device maintenance
March 25, 2015 23
-
A Look at Some Data on 1:1
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE:
• In the next three years more than 75% of districts across
the nation plan to move towards 1:1 computing*:
• 80% of High Schools will be 1:1 in three years
• 83% of Middle Schools will be 1:1 in three years
• 73% of Elementary Schools will be 1:1 in three years *Market Data Retrieval‘s 2014 K-12 Market Report
LOOKING TO THE PAST:
• The first 1:1 laptop program was initiated 25 years ago
(1990) at Methodist Ladies’ College, an independent K-12
girls’ school in Melbourne, Australia
March 25, 2015 24
-
March 25, 2015 25
Fail fast, fail often,
but – fail forward.
Let’s get into the race!
-
TAC Recommendations • Equitable distribution of technology for students and staff
• 1:1 technology for students in 1-12 within two years
• Expand staff appropriately to support success
• Deployment plan
• Insurance fee
March 25, 2015 26
March 2015
-
Recommendation #1 • Create an equitable technology environment for all
students and teachers.
Classrooms
• Teacher laptop (elementary teachers would have a second device
to mirror student device)
• Wi-Fi access
• Mounted projector
• Interactivity with whiteboard in identified spaces
• Document camera
Buildings
• Specialty labs as needed (e.g., Technology Education labs, music)
• Carts of laptops in elementary schools
• Carts of iPads in secondary schools
March 25, 2015 27
-
Recommendation #2
• Over the next two years, adopt a one-to-one (1:1)
computing environment in Grades 1-12, supplemented
with specialty computer labs and shared mobile
devices as necessary.
• Grades 1-5: iPads supplemented with Windows devices
• Grades 6-8: Windows laptop or hybrid Windows/tablet device
• Grades 9-12: Windows laptops supplemented with carts of iPads
March 25, 2015 28
-
Recommendation #3
Expand staffing appropriately to support success.
• Expand the number of Technology Integrators
• Create a two-year position of Technology Support Liaison
to assist in the program implementation
• Expand IT staff to support additional devices
• Create a Help Desk presence in school buildings
March 25, 2015 29
-
Deployment
• Devices will be leased.
• Devices will be refreshed every four years.
• Existing inventory of devices will be cycled down in year
one and phased out as their life cycle comes to a natural
end.
• Grades 3-12 devices would go home with students.
• Grades 1-2 devices would stay in school.
March 25, 2015 30
-
Insurance Fee
The fee is for grades 3-12
• This fee covers normal wear and tear and component
failure.
• Insurance covers accidental damage.
• Fee is waived for students on free and reduced lunch.
March 25, 2015 31
-
Financial Plan • Five-year cost projections
• Includes devices, software, additional staff
March 25, 2015 32
-
2015-2016 Projected Costs
March 25, 2015 33
Year 1 Cost of a 1:1 Initiative
Description # of Units/
Personnel
Unit/Personnel
Cost Total Cost
Total Budget Cost
of Initiative
9th - 12th Grade Laptop Deployment 2,837 $ 1,035 $ 2,936,295 $ 734,074
Elementary Teacher iPad Deployment 241 $ 637 $ 153,517 $ 38,379
5th Grade Student iPad Deployment 693 $ 637 $ 441,441 $ 110,360
Spare Equipment to Support 1:1 $ 47,477 $ 11,869
Software Licensing $ 257,900 $ 64,475
Additional Software Expense $ 28,090 $ 28,090
Anticipated Computer Refresh Savings $ (200,000) $ (200,000)
Technical Support Liaison 1 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
IT Technical Support 3 $ 75,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000
TOTAL COST OF 1:1 INITIATIVE $ 1,072,247
-
2016-2017 Projected Costs
Cost of a 1:1 Initiative # of Units/
Personnel
Unit/Person
nel Cost Total Cost
Total Budget Cost
of Initiative
Description Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Leased Cost
1st - 4th Grade Student iPads 2,427 $ 637 $ 1,545,999 $ 386,500
iPad Classroom Carts for Charging and Storing 54 $ 2,800 $ 151,200 $ 37,800
6th - 8th Grade Laptops 1,965 $ 1,035 $ 2,033,775 $ 508,444
Year 2 Spare Equipment to Support 1:1 $ 47,001 $ 11,750
Additional Software Expense $ 62,047 $ 62,047
Anticipated Computer Refresh Savings $ (376,943) $ (376,943)
Year 1 Financing Expense $ 959,157 $ 959,157
Technology Integrators 3 $ 85,000 $ 255,000 $ 255,000
Tech Integrators and Technical Support Liaison 2 $ 60,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000
IT Technical Support 8 $ 75,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000
TOTAL COST OF 1:1 INITIATIVE $ 2,563,755
March 25, 2015 34
-
2017-2018 Projected Costs
March 25, 2015 35
Year 3 Cost of a 1:1 Initiative
Description # of Units/
Personnel
Unit/Person
nel Cost Total Cost
Total Budget Cost
of Initiative
Year 1 Financing Expense $ 959,157
Year 2 Financing Expense $ 944,494
Additional Software Expense $ 62,047
Anticipated Computer Refresh Savings $ (376,943)
Technology Integrators 4 $ 85,000 $ 340,000 $ 340,000
IT Technical Support 8 $ 75,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000
TOTAL COST OF 1:1 INITIATIVE $ 2,528,755
-
2018-2019 Projected Costs
March 25, 2015 36
Year 4 Cost of a 1:1 Initiative
Description # of Units/
Personnel
Unit/Person
nel Cost Total Cost
Total Budget Cost
of Initiative
Year 1 Financing Expense $ 959,157
Year 2 Financing Expense $ 944,494
Additional Software Expense $ 62,047
Anticipated Computer Refresh Savings $ (376,943)
Technology Integrators 4 $ 85,000 $ 340,000 $ 340,000
IT Technical Support 8 $ 75,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000
TOTAL COST OF 1:1 INITIATIVE $ 2,528,755
-
2019-2020 Projected Costs
March 25, 2015 37
Year 5 Cost of a 1:1 Initiative
Description # of Units/
Personnel
Unit/Person
nel Cost Total Cost
Total Budget Cost
of Initiative
Year 1 Financing Expense $ 1,000,000*
Year 2 Financing Expense $ 944,494
Additional Software Expense $ 62,047
Anticipated Computer Refresh Savings $ (376,943)
Technology Integrators 4 $ 85,000 $ 340,000 $ 340,000
IT Technical Support 8 $ 75,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000
TOTAL COST OF 1:1 INITIATIVE $ 2,569,598
* is an estimated cost
-
Conclusions • How to make this decision
• Why this decision deserves support
• When to make this decision
March 25, 2015 38
After six months of research and study, we offer our…
-
Making Our Decision
March 25, 2015 39
• There is no definitive research or data to drive us or anyone else to one perfect decision.
• This is a complex issue with many variables.
• School districts are unique.
• Technology is constantly changing.
• The TAC believes a 1:1 initiative would best serve the needs of the students of NASD – the sooner the better.
• Curriculum and instruction should drive technology decisions and we know that technology implemented well can significantly enhance the learning environment.
• While finances are important, they should not be the sole factor when making decisions related to technology. This District has always found a way to fund what is best for students.
-
Making Our Decision
March 25, 2015 40
• The NASD Comprehensive Plan clearly states that this
community and this Board wants our District to be a
school district to emulate.
• The research and site visits of the TAC have shown that if we want to
attain and become leaders in technology integration we must make
some difficult decisions right now.
• Our students need technology and 21st Century skills that
the use of technology in the learning environment can help
to develop in order to be successful in their future lives.
• Each student – including our graduating seniors and our students with
special needs and our children in primary grades who are just learning
to read and every one in between – each one stands to benefit
tomorrow from having personal access to technology at his or her
fingertips in the classroom…just as soon as we can provide it.
-
Making Our Decision
March 25, 2015 41
Timing is everything…and NOW is the time. • The network and Wi-Fi is in place.
• The funding issue will never be easier.
• The need will never be less.
• Hardware purchasing in a timely and cyclical manner is critical to the timeline of this plan.
• The technology will always be changing/improving/etc. Students and staff skills will build and transfer to new options.
• Every day students miss out on opportunities because they do not have access to technology.
Sometimes you do your due diligence, work your numbers, gather your
research, and generate your surveys…and the last step is led by the
intangible factors of URGENCY, PASSION, AND COMMITMENT.
-
March 25, 2015 42
Dear School Board Members:
I wish I could be with you tonight to deliver my thoughts in person. Unfortunately,
a business commitment prevents me from attending. However, because this issue
is important and I feel so strongly about it, I have submitted this statement to be
read on my behalf as a part of the presentation. Thank you for taking time to
thoughtfully consider all of the information our committee has put before you.
I had the opportunity to attend a recent robotics competition called the First
Lego League Regional Robotics Championship. A team of three Ingomar Middle
School students participated in that competition with a project that proposed a
novel way to learn history. They envisioned a virtual reality environment in which
teachers can "dial in" a historic event and students can "walk through" it, talking to
the people involved in the event and even participating in the real action.
-
March 25, 2015 43
The premise the students put forth was that this technology-based, immersive,
hands-on approach would be much more conducive to learning than the current
instructional methods. They also showed how such environment can be built
using existing technology and produced a video demonstrating how one could
take part in a "live" Boston Tea Party.
While this idea upon which our Ingomar Middle School team’s project was built
sounds futuristic – and maybe even unrealistic to some – I believe they were
describing a reality we will all experience very soon. People in our world are
designing, developing and commercializing technology-based products and
services at younger and younger ages. Today, children in some elementary
schools are building and programming robots, creating their own video games,
programming micro-controllers, and building electronic circuits. These are all
activities that required a college-level education in the past.
-
March 25, 2015 44
As one of the top ten school districts in the country, we want our children to
become the creators of new technologies, not merely savvy users of it. To help
them achieve that level of expertise, we need to give them the tools and the
knowledge that will make them leaders in technology as opposed to technology
slaves.
The proposed plan to make NA a 1:1 school district is but a necessary first step.
It will accomplish the important goal of making our students intimate with
computing and communication technology. Once that first step has been
successfully taken, then opportunities can be expanded to educate students
about creating their own technology and imagining how technology can best be
applied to those things that they are most interested in – whether it is languages
or social studies, or math, or sports, or music, or the environment, or politics, or
something no one has yet considered.
-
March 25, 2015 45
The past belonged to people who could read and write and do simple calculations.
The future belongs to people who master technology and its application to solving
societal problems. Going “one-on-one” will pave the way for the first NA graduate
who will run a Fortune 100 company; or the first NA graduate who will earn a Nobel
prize; or the first who will become the President of the United States.
Thank you,
Marcel Bergerman, Ph.D.
Marcel Bergerman is a Senior Systems Scientist with the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon
University, from which he received his Ph.D. in 1996. He is also co-founder of the GreenE
Academy, a technology education outfit, and Near Earth Autonomy, a local robotics company.
Marcel and his wife Maria Yamanaka are the happy parents of Rafael (NA class of 2015) and
Felipe (NA class of 2022).
-
Questions?
March 25, 2015 46