Running head: SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE

SVUSD Technology Plan Critique Dustin Ellis Azusa Pacific University

EDTC 520 Elisabeth Silver July 6, 2013

Running head: SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE Table of Contents

SVUSD Technology Plan Critique .................................................................................................. 3 References ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 12

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE SVUSD Technology Plan Critique Every segment of todays public education system has some kind of plan. These plans

range from short term to very long term. The typical district technology plan in California is for a four-year plan and is predicated on funding. The current Simi Valley Unified Technology Plan states on the cover page, This plan is for EETT and E-Rate.(Bejerano, 2012, p. 1) EETT stands for Enhancing Education through Technology and is a federal program whose primary goal is to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools.("EETT," n.d., para. 1) The E-Rate Program is a program that provides discounts on telecommunication costs to eligible schools.("E-Rate," n.d., para. 1) These two programs provide copious amounts of money to local school districts to fund technology, but is this the best reason for a technology plan? This paper will use a set of questions to drive an examination and critique of the Technology Plan for the Simi Valley Unified School District. 1. What is your districts vision or mission statement? Five years from now, would a visitor coming to your school see technology supporting learning and teaching? Would there be an improvement from today? After a careful examination of this plan it appears that there is no vision or mission statement. I believe that because this is a plan geared toward securing funding and for the general public or even the employees it serves there is neither of these statements. As further anecdotal evidence this plan will never be shared with the general employees of the district. I had to ask very diplomatically to obtain a copy, and have never seen a copy before this. 2. Has the district established levels of proficiency in technology by grade levels? If so, are these proficiencies woven into the academic

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE curriculum? Are they taught in separate stand-alone technology lessons/classes?

At first glance it appears that there are some clearly established levels of proficiency in this plan. Some of the goals (3f.1 digital citizenship, and 3g.1 Internet safety) appear to integrate into the curriculum, but in reality they are simply included to meet the requirements of CIPA, or the Childrens Internet Protection Act. CIPA has specific requirements that districts must meet in order to get E-Rate funding: The protection measures must block or filter Internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors). Schools subject to CIPA have two additional certification requirements: 1) their Internet safety policies must include monitoring the online activities of minors; and 2) as required by the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, they must provide for educating minors about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with other individuals on social networking websites and in chat rooms, and cyberbullying awareness and response.("CIPA," n.d., para. 2,3) One other goal 3e.1 aims to make students college and career ready. This is a noble and wonderful goal and it is segregated into different grade ranges, but it is really just a target to shoot at. The problem that arises is that there are no tools with which to meet the goal. It is not clearly integrated into the curriculum. 3 What are some of the classroom management strategies that work with the amount of technology actually available in the classrooms? In the SVUSD the policies are mostly unknown to teachers but the practical policy has been 3 student computers per room, and some lucky schools have a computer lab. In the instances of

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE having 3 computers per room teachers are forced to use them in creative ways. One of the most

popular is as a center. The computers are loaded with some type of software (often unsupported and illegally copied) and this becomes part of a centers rotation. The students would get to spend a set amount of time at the computers drilling and killing. Another method teachers use is a traditional rotation that can be used at any point in the day, or throughout the whole day. My observations have led me to believe that this type of rotation is also a means of drill and kill, where the computer is used to practice skills, whether they are needed or not. In both of these types of management there is very little teacher interaction and the activities are mostly selfcontained. Sadly when computer labs are used this is also the most widely observed usage of them. In elementary the labs serve as a sort of break or even prep time for teachers to grade papers or plan for other lessons. There are some teachers that do attempt to use innovative teaching practices and use web-tools to enhance learning in a new and novel way. At the secondary level the majority of the labs are in classrooms and are being used for primary teaching and learning activities, such as programming, digital design work, and print design among others. In the SVUSD we are just now beginning to experiment with a moderately scaled one-toone initiative. Each of our 21 elementary schools will have at least one classroom in the 20132014 school year that will be one-to-one with mobile devices. Our secondary schools have proven to be a challenge as far as the one-to-one initiative is concerned. Due to the nature of secondary it is very difficult to give one class a set of devices. This model impinges on other teachers and classes that may not be ready for such an endeavor. So for the coming school year we have decided on two separate approaches. One middle school will be given devices to distribute to each English teacher. This will allow a whole school to have access to these devices

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE

for at least an hour each day. At other schools they will be distributed to teachers that have more than one section of the same class, and to another teacher who also has more than one section of the same class. This will allow for organic collaboration and sharing of ideas. At this point the management is to provide each teacher with a basic set of tools (Google Apps, Evernote, Dropbox, and others) and provide training and ideas for use. Each teacher will be involved in the initial discussions for management of the devices as they will be unique to each teacher and class. 4. Does the district have an inventory system or does one need to be developed to track the type and age of hardware? Currently the only system for inventory is a physical hardware inventory done by the warehouse when each device is tagged, and a visual inventory done by each school site, which has proven to be very unreliable. Over this summer we are switching from a rather archaic Novell 4.11 file system to Active Directory. With AD we should have a much better ability to do an up to the minute inventory of all of the devices on the district network. As we roll out mobile devices we will also be able to use the Google Apps Administration Console to inventory mobile devices and even monitor and control which apps are currently in use on each device. 5. Are assistive technologies available to students with special needs as well as to other students, such as English language learners, who might benefit from the use of those devices and software? Although this Tech Plan does not expressly mention this, I am aware that there is assistive technology available to students who need it. As part of our one-to-one mobile device pilot

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE

we will be integrating iPads into special-education environments to research their usefulness and possible apps for assistive technology. 6. What replacement cycle has been built into the plan? Will adequate funding be set aside for replacements? Currently the only language that addresses this idea is based on obsolete equipment. Technology standards will be reviewed and revised periodically. Currently desktop computers are purchased with a three-year warranty. Depending on technological advancement, and available funds, obsolete equipment will be replaced and minimum supported hardware will be re-evaluated yearly to establish minimum standards. Computers that cannot run the district standard software will be considered obsolete. Obsolete desktop computers, also determined by manufacturers warranty, may not be supported by Information Technology. Obsolete equipment is decommissioned and recycled through contract with a company that specializes in an environmentally responsible method. Obsolete equipment will be replaced to maintain the ratio as outlined previously. The ability to attain this ratio is contingent on availability of district and site funds.(Bejerano, 2012, p. 71) From the language in the plan it appears that there will not be sufficient funding to accomplish this policy. I now know that the school district is preparing to put forward a Technology bond proposal to raise approx. one hundred million dollars over the next 20 years to fully fund district technology. If this passes then the possibility of developing a policy for replacement becomes more realistic, and no longer based on obsolescence but on staying current. 7. How does the tech plan address technology proficiencies and information literacy skills?

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE This is one area that this plan actually does address. Goal 3e.1 says, Students will acquire technology skills necessary to succeed in the classroom in order to be college and career ready.(Bejerano, 2012, p. 24) Goal 3f.1 says, Goal 1 of 2: Throughout all grade levels, students will understand responsibility inherent in the use of technology and apply that technology appropriately. Goal 2 of 2: All students will learn about information literacy,

copyright, and the appropriate and ethical use of information technology.(Bejerano, 2012, p. 33,34) Once again these goals are the result of meeting the requirements of CIPA, but they are very valuable skills that need to be taught so that students can get some perspective on why they need to use technology and why they should be careful in its use. 8. How will the school district know whether implementation of this plan has made a positive impact on teaching and learning? The plan relies heavily on the EdTechProfile System which was formerly called CTAP iAssessment. According to the California Department of Education this project, provides educational administrators with tools that guide their decisions about how to integrate technology into classroom instruction and how to create and evaluate effective teacher technology training programs.("EdTech Resources," n.d., figure 3) In most of the goals of this plan this is the tool that is to be used as the determinant if they were successful. 9. Does the plan address a time frame by which the district proposes to implement the various components of the plan? As this is a three-year plan there are specific targets aimed at each year. They serve as steps of progress to the stated goals that need to be met by 2015. Each goal provides a grid of desired results and stated goals for each year until the final goal in 2015.

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE 10. Do you think this plan has addressed issues such as equity for all students? Please explain your thinking. This plan attempts to address equity in section 3h. It reads, Description of the district

policy or practices that ensure equitable technology access for all students.(Bejerano, 2012, p. 36) It mentions access for differently abled learners and those with special needs including Gifted and Talented and English Language learners. I feel that there has been an attempt to be equitable. But in discussing this plan with its author there is currently no policy that will address the financial consequences for lost, stolen or damaged mobile devices as we move forward with one-to-one computing. Currently our AUP states that parents will be held financially responsible for lost or stolen devices. This poses a new problem as there may be those that cannot afford replacements or simply do not wish their students to participate as a result. These two problems immediately become equity issues that need to be dealt with.

11. Does this plan provide tools to help lower the achievement gap? Please explain your thinking. This plan does not implicitly provide the tools to help lower the achievement gap. As someone who has been using technology in our district for more than a decade this plan represents a status quo stance that attempts to keep things much as they have been for years. While one could easily win a game of buzzword bingo in perusing this plan, it is painfully obvious for those of us under its auspices that it is merely a continuation of the past using a renewed template. Students that struggle do have opportunities for improvement, but individual school sites have provided those opportunities. Each school site provides these according to its own plans, and almost completely independent of this plan. 12. If you could recommend some improvements to your district's technology team regarding this plan, what would they be and why?

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE This is a timely question as I am now a part of my districts technology team. I believe

10

that this plan is needed, but I truly believe that our district should have two separate Technology plans. One should be very formulaic as this one is, for the purpose of funding. The other should be human and holistic to speak to the different stakeholders of the School District and the Community. It should speak in real language about how technology will work to meet the needs of students and their families. It should speak loud and clearly to teachers about ways that technology can be used to improve the teaching/learning model for their own classroom. It should provide tools to help them become better-connected, collaborative educators. I think that if these two separate documents become living and useful then they might be able become one document in time. A document that is both living and active, and strategic and useful for funding and advancement.

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE

11

References Bejerano, R. (2012). Technology Plan, Simi Valley Unified School District. SVUSD: Author. Childrens Internet Protection Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internetprotection-act E-Rate Program. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ft/eratemain.aspx EETT Formula Grant Information. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov/is/et/ft/eettformula.aspx EdTech Resources. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.k12hsn.org/programs

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE Appendix

12

(Bejerano, 2012, p. 1)

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE

13

(Bejerano, 2012, p. 71)

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE

14

(Bejerano, 2012, p. 24)

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE

15

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE

16

(Bejerano, 2012, p. 33,34)

SVUSD TECHNOLOGY PLAN CRITIQUE

17

(Bejerano, 2012, p. 36)