FPKSTech

The budget is coming to a vote very shortly and some decisions need to be made. After recognizing that many of the problems with the computers in the Middle School were not the fault of the computes or the servers, the Network infrastructure became the focal point. We asked for some assistance from Promedia who pointed to some problems both in the architecture of the network and the age of the equipment. They were not specific on where the problem was located, so we started by replacing the connection between our closets and the equipment that connect all computers, printers and wireless access points to the network. In addition to putting this in place we wanted to add security to who had access to the network, especially through wireless access. Thus as the installation and configuration of the switches took place we tried to reconfigure the access points to follow some security rules. It turns out our access point in the middle school are considered legacy and therefore there is no more support for them. We decided to go ahead with trying to reconfigure them with the setting that would enable some shaping of our traffic and limit who had access to what. In reality we started to blow up access points and they were no longer functioning on any level.

Wireless Network access

New Internet provider, greater speed

Reconfigure WAN -Fiber

New services provided in house

      a. email – Google or in-house server, archiving

      b. Firewall

      c. Content Filter (Cymphonix)

      d. Spam 

Web pages for teachers

Use of Wikis (ours or Wikispaces, PBWiki)

Use of Blogs (Ours, Edublogs, Blogspot, etc)

Moodle in the classroom and district

The state department is in the process of re-writing the standards for technology. They are posted on a wiki that Sue Sullivan, the commisioner for Technology is monitoring as they are passed in front of us for comment. They have asked that only one of us comment on the wiki per district so that they can respond to us in an organized manner.

Please take the time to read the standards over and comment here instead on their wiki. It is important that we take the time to read over the proposed changes as they are significantly different from what has previously been expected from us in the past. I believe we have been on the right path as a whole in the district, but we have been doing a much better job in some schools than in others. If you been feeling like we have been ahead of most or doing enough, think again.

http://draft8review.wikispaces.com/

Checklist<p>I would first like to thank each of you for being part of this committee. It was a lot of work to plow through in a short period of time and I appreciate the effort you each gave to help us get it done.</p>
<p>While writing the Tech Plan was our primary responsibilty, I really wanted to experiment with some technologies that are relatively new to most of us here in FP. Blogs and Wikis are familiar by name primarily and used mostly as a way to get information out to an audience. I wanted to use our opportunity to see how these tools worked for collaboration. My hypothesis was that more of you would feel more comfortable sharing and exploring from our own comfortable places. My hope was that we would have more sharing and interaction as some of us are shy or may feel less comfortable in the subject area. I was also hopeful that since YOU would get to choose the time to correspond that it would be easier on your schedule and therefore become more interactive in the discussions.</p><p>What were your thoughts about how this worked? If you were involved with another committee that used these tools would you have interacted more or the same? What were the advantages of running a committee like this? What were the disadvantages of running the committee like this? What suggestions would you make for using these tool for committee work in the future?</p>

kidcast_-epsode-8-international-greetings-student-safety-podcasting-as-authentic-reflection.mp3

<p>Thanks again.

We are winding down. This will be our last large topic to weigh in on, I believe, but our most important. I have a few items that I would like to address in this section of the plan and your input is the most important in this section.

1. The areas of staff development that will be pushed the hardest in this plan are those of integration in to the classroom instruction. Areas that I have identified to help teachers see ways to let technology impact instruction will be in the following areas

a. The LoTi (Levels of Technology Implementation) This training will focus on helping staff member recognize the difference of using technology for student motivator or to say they are using technology versus using technology in a way that promotes higher order thinking. This is a strategy to help an entire staff recognize technology integration that is beneficial to the process instead of is flashy and fun.

b. Problem-Based Learning – Training staff on an alternative method of instruction that places the teacher in more of a facilitator role and the student in an experiential position.

c. Training on the use of software, not on how it works, but in a way that show teachers the way it can be used within the classroom. It will be expected that if a teacher does not know how to use a program they will use the Atomic Learning site for their training.

d. Training on the use Web 2.0 tools for building collaboration and community. These tools would include instructional uses for blogs, wikis, podcasts, course management software(Moodle) and any other tools that may surface.

e. Can you thing of other areas?

2. With these areas of training to take place, what will be the best way to get the majority of our staff trained? We have offered summer training, after school training, In-service days, training during team time and some limited training during the day using substitutes. How do we best get teachers this information without them just putting in time. I am sure many will take a hard line and say that it should all happen with subs, if the district wants it, let them pay for it. This is not a reality. I need realistic ideas and suggestions.

3. Lastly, do you have any suggestions as to how we monitor teacher progress and keep them all progressing their teaching and technology skills. We had the levels of proficiency, do we keep them and modify that to be in-line with our updated goals? Do you have another suggestion that will hold teachers accountable and yet be reasonable? I am all ears on this one. I fluctuate between very hard and other times very understanding, I need help.

I apologize for hitting you with a number of posts in a short period of time. But time is what I am running out of. As we finish looking at the AUP and discussing the last issue I placed on the table, I also need to look at where our district is in need of improvement as it relates to technology issues, usage and professional development.

So on that note, what is your opinion on the following questions/statements. I will through some of my views in at the end of each statement. Please provide commentary, ideas, thoughts, etc of your own in as well.:

We need to Determine the current educational environment and barriers by describing how:

1. staff are assured access to technology to facilitate technology integration, (I believe this is true, in that in every building there are rarely times when there is no technology that can be signed out for use. Our sign-up logs prove that)
2. often students have access to technology in their learning environment, (This is teacher dependent, in that they are in control of making the technology available. technology is always available in K-2, There are machines in all the 3-5 classrooms, 6-8 is where it is most teacher dependent. I can only think of 3 teachers that have not used any technology this year, and I may be wrong, but that is still not the same as often having access to technology. Even with the classrooms with computers in them, if the teacher does not offer it as a avenue for gathering or intrepreting info, it is not really available)
3. the needs of staff are evaluated, (We do not have a tool for evaluating staff proficiency. We have your Profieceny checklist, which is self-reflective)
4. the needs of students are evaluated, (This is in development at the middle school and in discussion in the elementaries)
5. past professional development addressed the staff and students’ needs for technology integration, (I believe we have always offered staff development in a manner that promoted integration)
6. past professional development for all administrators was provided to further the effective use of technology in the classroom or library media center, (We have never offered specific administrator staff development)
7. ongoing, sustained professional development was provided in 2006-2007 for all staff to further the effective use of technology in the classroom or library media center,(We offered summer sessions again and the 1 day inservice in October. There have been no official after school offering this year, with the exception of what Nancy has done and what has been done at faculty meetings)
8. ongoing, sustained professional development was provided in 2006-2007 for administrators to further support the effective use of technology in the classroom or library media center,(no)
9. supports were provided for staff other than professional development, (support for staff has been provided in the elementaries by the technology facilitators and district technician. Support at the Middle school was provided by the tech coordinator, building experts and the district technician)
10. professional development needs and barriers related to using educational technology as part of instruction have been identified.( Please list what you feel are our barriers or obstacles……It is important to get varied views.)

We have covered many things in our new version of the AUP. However, we have not covered issues similar to the scenerios listed below. What is your opinion  on these kinds of events? Do we dare enter a district response on these kinds of issues? If so, any suggestions on how?
In the Middle School

The Chair of the English Department at your school barges into your office furious with what they have just found in a printer bin in a classroom. The printed page comes from RateMyTeacher.com and shows a long series of comments about her. The comments, posted during the previous four months, are terribly disparaging and embarrassing. Some are humiliating. None of the comments can be traced or identified as coming from a particular student. In fact, it isn’t clear how many students may be leaving the comments. None of the comments are threatening, but are simply in very poor taste.

Elementary School

Club Penguin, a game found at Miniclip.com has exploded in popularity amongst the third and fourth graders at your school. Students are spending hours each weekend and time most weeknights creating their igloos, decorating, trading, buying penguin knickknacks and socializing in the guise of their penguin.

On a Monday morning you get a call from your school’s Head. She has just received an call from parents of a child who was bullied and ridiculed on Club Penguin. The child claims that it was done through the Penguin avatars of 3 other fifth grade boys. The Head is looking to you to educate her about Club Penguin and the alleged harassment. She has a meeting scheduled at 1:00 pm with the distraught parents who are expecting the school to “do something”.

I am sure you have been wondering where I have been, I have not posted in a little while. Anyhow, I have been adding more content to the Wiki. I have been working on the Technology Overview section and the CyberSaftey area. I believe I have completed the technology Overview and you are welcome to take a look and see if missed anything. I have also been working on CyberSaftey. I have drafted a completely new Acceptable User Policy, that I think is a little more current than the one we have now. I will be including 3 more pieces to the AUP, two brief version and grade appropriate for both K-2 and 3-5 and one for teachers. Please review what is in the current AUP I have on the Wiki and see how you feel about what I put in there. If you find other AUP’s out on the web that have information that we should include, let’s see it. I hope to have this area done by the end of the week and enter into our needs assessment.

Where is the technology going? What do the kids need to know? What do you think jobs will look like? What kind of thinking is required in this new world that is developing? Can these kids do it? Are we giving them the tools to be able to perform in a changing time?

Check out this link that Seth provided. It will first make you head spin. Then it may make your head hurt when you think that this will be far from the prototypical or experimental very shortly, I am sure. Enjoy
Perceptive Pixel

I believe everyone or nearly everyone is satisfied with the Executive Summary including the Mission and Philosophy statements. We are now ready to move on. In the Goals and Objectives area we need to address (review) past G&O and evaluate their progress. I have done this in Italics print directly after each objective. If you have issue with how I have evaluated them, please bring the concern back here to this blog posting. That way we can hash it out.

Once we have finished evaluating the ’04-’07 G&O, we need to see which Goals and Objectives will move forward in the next 3 years. I will place an astrict next to any object that will move to the ’07-’10. Please feel free to append those astricts. I would ask that you post any additional Goals or Objectives that you feel are needed in this blog post instead of the wiki, so we can review them together before placing them in the document.

Thanks,

P

This section of the plan calls for a minimum of the Vision and Mission Statements. Do our statements in this portion of the plan call for review. Have we changed dramatically in our overall vision of how technology will affect learning. Please read over the existing statements and provide your opinion. You will find this written out in the Wiki.