Universal Service Fund & The Campus Technology Plan

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

E rate unversal service fund

View more presentations from Sabotbob.

National Educational Technology Plan

The plan has set goals to improve education with technology to better equip American children skills for lifelong learning and economic success.  Technology with respect to teaching, “Recommendation: Revise, create, and adopt standards and learning objectives for all content areas that reflect 21st century expertise and the power of technology to improve learning.”(Page 39) The overall goal for learners is put forth on (page 25)  “Goal: All learners will have engaging and empowering learning experiences both in and outside of school that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable, and ethical participants in our globally networked society.” The key encompassing goal for professional development will be connected learning, and have teacher educators experience that themselves.  My reflection on the National Education Technology Plan is that one has to search through 75% of the material that is of little or no consequence to retrieve the 25% that truly useful information.  This document is 114 pages and in my opinion it could be reduces to 30 pages and convey the ideas and principles that technology will play in the future of public education in American.  We all know the issue when committees meet, egos must be stroked and all parties have to have their say in the final document. I can only wonder just how large this document was before it was revised down to 114 pages.  I conclusion, there is no doubt we need a plan going forward with technology and its key role in education, but make it one that every stakeholder no matter their current education level can understand.

School or District Technology Plan

School or District Technology Plan

I find myself struggling to find a formal District Technology Plan, because there is not one published on the school district web site, and two it is a holiday week and there is absolutely no one at the administration offices to retrieve a copy. I had to be a problem solver. I found the published version of District Improvement Plan, what I have done is place it in a table for easy viewing. In the table are all the parts of 2009-2010 District Improvement Plan that pertain to technology, Strategies/Initiative/Actions, Resources, and Implementation. I have taken the simple logic that if the school district would trouble itself to publish this material in the DIC Plan, then it must be part of or in compliance the District Technology Plan. The information in the DIC Plan shows what resource allocated for a strategy and who is responsible for implementation. In my opinion on what I have found is undetermined, I have found insufficient information to form a informed decision about adequate financial and time resources to ensure staff is kept up to date in learning about new technologies.

Strategies/Initiatives/Actions Resources Implementation

Provide expertise and assistance to ensure that the intent and purpose of Title II, Part D are met at the campus and district level. Expenditures will include the following:

• Training for technology- TCEA conference/NECC (NCLB2,4,9,10)
• Dir. of Student 8/09 8/10
• Acceleration Coor. Of Instructional Technology Title II, Part D
• Allocations Campus Supplies $9,633,
• Training Costs $1,500,
• Travel $15,165
• Training schedules
•  Sign-in sheets

Ensure that industry standards are maintained in the computer labs, shops, and classrooms

• - Up-to-date equipment
• Up-to-date software and technology
• Up-to-date textbooks and/or resources Local Funds?
• Carl D. Perkins Grant?
• Tech Prep Grant?
• What are the amounts?
• CTE Coordinator 8/09 6/10
• CTE Staff
• CTE Advisory Board

Assess campus administrators on ISTE technology standards

•  Staff Time
• Coordinator of Instructional Technology 9/09 5/10

Provide on-site staff development for teachers/administrators on the effective use of the HP2140 in the classroom

• Staff Time
• Coordinator of Instructional Technology 9/09 5/10

Provide on-site staff development for teachers/administrators on the effective use of the Promethean Activboards

• Staff Time
• Coordinator of Instructional Technology 9/09 5/10

Upgrade Synergistic labs which reinforce math and science concepts at AJH and MJH.

• New system will be compatible with district upgrade to Windows7 operating system
• Title I, Part A ARRA $27,284
• Title I, Part A $27,284 Coordinator of Instructional Technology 9/09 5/10

As this moment, I have plans to attend the Business & Marketing Teachers Conference. In past years, the district has sent representatives to the Model Schools Conference. This year when I attend the conference I will be selective about which breakout session I will attend. The breakout session I plan to attend will concentrate on technology its uses and application in classroom. One can only hope that there is breakout session on blogs, wikis, and podcasts, but I do not place much hope in that reality. With the lack of a real District Technology Plan it’s hard to analyze it against the five criteria of the set forth in the Universal Service Administration Company for E-rate funding.

Reference:
Alvin ISD, District Improvement Plan for fiscal year 2009-2010

Technology Assessment

It is my opinions that the value in assessing the educator’s technology knowledge and skills is that all the other stakeholders in education receive a adequate return on their investment in the educator.  First, has the other entire stakeholders invested adequately in the educator? Has the school district administrator’s allotted adequate time and money to meet the short-term goals for Texas Long-Range Technology Plan by 2010?  The standard set by TLRTP is that 30% of the districts technology budget be devoted to professional development. That exceeds the standard established by NCLB Title II Part D that 25% technology formula and grant funds are dedicated to professional development. To maximize the states and district’s investments, professional development must be sustainable, ongoing, high quality, and accessible 24/7; therefore, it must be provided for in the Technology Allotment and the local technology budgets. Who is making sure accounting tricks are mot done when accountability comes to the Texas Education Agency or to U.S. Department of Education?  I may have missed that in my reading and hope my esteemed colleagues will politely direct me to the answer. At this point, the only assessment of educator’s technology knowledge and skills is the STaR Chart, which we all know is a self-assessment tool.  The educators in Alvin School District approach the competition of the STaR Chart as another burden with absolutely no understand of the ramifications it will have on funding.

When it comes to assessing the technology knowledge and skills of the student, there is this vague and ambiguous statements made in the TLRTP and NCLB Title II Part D that all students must be technology literate by the end of 8th grade. The Alvin School District, answer to this is issue a netbook to all Junior High students in the 6^th grade, and to best of my knowledge, student receive little if any instruction on ethical use of the netbooks for research purposes. There is a interesting statement in the TLRTP under Accountability, “Require reporting of student Technology Applications proficiencies for appropriate grade levels as required for No Child Left Behind and state accountability.” The question is who is responsible for reporting and I like to see a copy of this report. I fully agree with students needing technology skills and literacy for 21^st century, but how to do assess this knowledge and skills when Information Technology doubles in capability and performance every 18 to 36 months.

Welcome Classmates

I had this blog before the I started grad school, but I have never put it to use before now.  Again I welcome to my blog, and I will post a real post you can commit on soon.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving