To compare the three plans I used two models from the National Technology Education Plan as the tool to gauge the main points of emphasis at the two levels of implementation. Sorry I could not make a direct link to the pages by number. The student model is found on pages 10-11; the Teacher model on page 40 (using the Acrobat page window). Ctrl/Click on the link above, sentence one. Each plan lists and projects fulfillment of the Student and Teacher models, accenting the need for a community of learning. The second focus was the continuing development of teachers in the technology arena so that they can facilitate a cyber learning environment. The underlying premise seems to be the fact that if you are resistant to the new wave of technological instruction, you have no place. Graphic illustrations like the two in the National plan would have aided my cursory understanding of the Michigan and PGCS documents, though I found the table format for Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) to be easy to follow. The objectives begin on page 7 of the Google Docs link PGCPS Technology Plan 2008-2012. PGCPS projected a plan from 2008-2012; a long term commitment to growth of the technology with reviews each year. My last full-time teaching was in the PGCPS system and I can attest to the long strides the district made in the four years I was there; from a much simpler web grading and attendance system to online assessment data, for both in-school year and previous mandated assessment scores. It's probably just me, but I thought the National plan was more reflective of technology used to sell a technology plan. The Michigan and PGCPS plans could have used some technological sharpening to make their dcocument reflect the shine of the future technological aspirations. Each planning group seems to know its own goals, but these objectives have to be measured against dollars, meaning that each tier, national, state and local school will have to be ready to move at the same pace; or some child's computer will be left behind.
I think Michigan has done a nice job aligning their goals with the national goals. I agree that if you do not plan on using technology in your classroom, then you most definitely will be left behind. I also agree that financing such goals needs to be considered. Our county has adopted a plan that requires the software on our computers to be updated every five years if not before. Our county is also working toward getting enough computers in each school so that there is a computer to student ratio of 1:3. Of course the newer schools are better equipped with the most up to date technologies available. We are working diligently to make sure each school has access to the same types of technologies. Financing such lofty goals takes precedence especially in these difficult economic times. I know of several teachers that write grants to fund various types of technology used for classroom instruction. Also, we have to address how to update our veteran teachers so that they feel comfortable using technology on a regular basis. Hopefully more and more resources will be made available at no cost for educators and students to use.
ReplyDelete