Technologically Literate

I have been away for awhile.  The more I thought about blogging the less I felt I had to say.  I like the simplicity of the Tips blog I keep for the district, but in that blog I kinda stepped into it deep.

While I was on paternity leave I posted the Scott Mcleod rant about Margaret Spellings and her, let’s say, less than thorough exploration of how the government should position itself on technology in the classroom.  I applaud Scott because according to his new post Ms. Spellings would like to hear from the rest of us.  Since I re-posted and since I am genuinely hoping this is not just an appeasement tactic, I feel the need to offer my two cents.  (Not associated with David Warlick or his two cents blog)

Here is my email, tell me what you think, and then send your own:

Secretary Spellings:

I teach 7^th grade communications at DuBois Area Middle School in DuBois, PA.  I have three years of classroom experience and I am actively working on my master’s degree in technology integration.  Technology has improved our schools and classrooms immeasurably.  The consistent and concise flow of information has allowed both administration and staff to have what is necessary to make decisions about individual educational needs.  Paper costs have gone down due to the use of an electronic database and student engagement is on the rise due to learning occurring in context. 

In my opinion, as an educator and technology coach, the integration of technology has dramatically increased my efficiency and effectiveness.  An access to current data through professional networking along with online organizational tools has provided me with the most precious gift in education, time.  I use that extra time to develop engaging material and to connect with 120 students on a personal level. 

Technology on its own does not have the power to prepare our students for the future or come close to meeting the 100% proficiency goals set by NCLB.  However, a knowledgeable educator, with access to the right information, can help build a foundation that will give students the tools they need to be successful in any avenue they may choose.  I am not usually in the business of telling the federal government how to operate, but in my opinion, if you want globally competitive students that are meeting the lofty goals set by NCLB then you need to invest in district specific support systems.  Do not try to mandate an across the board position, but give the districts the support and resources they desperately need to develop and implement specific plans that benefit their situation.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to voice my opinion.

Sincerely,

Kenneth B. Pruitt

Educator

  It looks like the time has come to meet the boy that has already changed my focus on so many things.  Like I said before, waiting bites, but it’s the waiting that has allowed my wife and I to explore our lives in relation to his.  We have discussed religion, politics, education, and of course love.  Late last-night we came to a conclusion that all of these things have common threads.  We figured, after the need for power, the strongest thread is that when you involve human beings in any of them you often end up with more problems than solutions.

Take your pick on religion and politics, but I am continually taken back by problems public education creates for itself.  I am realitivly new to education and I cannot count how many times we have killed an idea because it didn’t work previously.  I also, cannot begin to tell you how many knee jerk reactions I have witnessed when the “newest” idea or education savior comes rolling into town.   

Let’s face it, we are all different.  Our communities and school all require specialized attention that only we can give.  So why do we keep mucking it up with the past?  If you read or listen at all, you know that education will shift and that we will all be okay.  The only thing left is us and the transition.  Only we have the power to dictate how that shift will occur.  Will it be a long and drawn out fight with hurt feelings and lost jobs or will it be a community effort where some professional (or ego) sacrifices are made for the good of the student?

Not to long ago, Jim Gates made a simple yet powerful statement.  I was venting some professional frustration to him and what he said gave me an “ah-ha” moment like I haven’t had in sometime.  He said, “Eventually you have to ask (teachers/administrators) is this as far as we are going to go?”  Is this it?  Are you at the peak of your professional practice?  Can we honestly say we are reaching out to our students and they are making the connections that will help them be successful?  Or, are we telling ourselves that this generation is lazy and stupid and there is no hope for them. 

Do you think the kids say the same about us?             

“Whatever kind of technological programs educators decide to develop, the primary consideration should be the purpose of using the technology.” -Gary Burnett 1994

As I work my way through a graduate degree, I get the opportunity to page through some interesting research on the value of educational technology.  Being the great procrastenator that I am, I sometimes spend time perusing older publications that technically, shouldn’t apply to my fancy on-line degree.  After all, this is the 21st century and technology has changed the way we live and work.  Information and social interaction are just a click away.  Schools have technology standards the must adhere to.  We have come along way in 13 years right? 

In 1994 Gary Burnett was studying how technology could improve urban schools.  Burnett was aware that the landscape was changing and that all of the research of the day pointed to the importance of technology skills.   He did not dispute the facts, however; he saw the need for some forethought.   See if this sounds familar.

(Burnett 1994)”The methods and purposes of computer use often differ radically from school to school and from district to district: sometimes computer use enhances learning for all students and sometimes it simply confers a new technological sheen on the low-level programs…In some cases, they are present in the schools but are not being used for any clear purpose at all.”

 As we start to leave the 2006-2007 school year behind (state test are done, we’re done, right?), I wonder, how far have we really come in 13 years.  Sure the tools are changing, and access to information is changing, but where are we really?

Is it really now or never?

I sent Scott McLeod’s recent post to a group of educators that have a tough decision to make.  The group, including teachers, administrators, and librarians, are charged with writing a technology grant that has the potential of bringing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of new technology into their classrooms.  No brainer right?  But what is involved in receiving such an enormous award?  Can a school just make a decision like this?  Does the message really have to be adapt or die?

Many problems, few solutions

If a school accepted such an award here are a few of the possible problems that they face.  First, who gets it?  By that I mean which classrooms are going to be updated.  The grant requires volunteer coaches.  How many teachers will be willing to commit to more time consuming coursework on top of a leadship role within their department.  What do you do with the teachers that will not buy in?  Second, what will an influx of technology like this do to the current infrastructure?  When do you start looking for qualified new techs to maintain the system?  Thirds, and for the sake of brevity, last, how does any of this improve student learning?

One, unqualified, solution

For me, slow and steady still wins the race.  Yes, other districts around you are gobbling up awards and your local news is featuring their kids looking directly at laptops live at 6, but that should not signal a new arms race.  It’s my opinion that time and a solid support system is the key.   Follow me for a second…A tech specialist helps interested teachers to update their skills.  Those teachers become more comfortable and willingly accept leadership positions knowing that they still have a place to go for answers. The staff becomes more savvy and frees up techs to focus on infastructure and less on printer ink.  Hardware works smoothly, consistently.  Communication between people, departments, grade levels, and other buildings increases.  That results in a better progression of skill K to 12.  New technology and equipment is purchased and implemented eventually resulting in huge savings on paper, ink, and text books.  New found money is used to continue training, provide better “hands on” learning activities and possibly cut taxes, gaining huge support within the community.

Gasp!              

Sounds logical, but it all depends on leadership giving ample time (and money) for a solid support system to work.  It could take two or three school years to build the relationships necessary to make this work.  It could take longer to realign curriculum to ensure an effective skill progression that provides students with 21 century skills.  Scott McLeod called for solutions.  Patience may not be popular, but being impulsive could be disastrous.

What do you think?