engaging students with technology€¦ · •curriculum and instruction ... • a high level of...

46
ENGAGING STUDENTS WITH TECHNOLOGY Technology Advisory Committee March 25, 2015 1 Educational Technology Plan Recommendations

Upload: others

Post on 19-Oct-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

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