Committee on Technology in Committee on Technology in Education (COTE) Education (COTE) Presentation to: Presentation to: Maryland State Board of Education Meeting Maryland State Board of Education Meeting March 22, 2005 March 22, 2005 Baltimore, Maryland Baltimore, Maryland Presenters: Presenters: June Streckfus, Executive Director, MBRT June Streckfus, Executive Director, MBRT Bob Marshall, CEO, AWS Convergence Bob Marshall, CEO, AWS Convergence Technologies, COTE Chairman Technologies, COTE Chairman Jayne Moore, Director of Instructional Jayne Moore, Director of Instructional Technology, MSDE Technology, MSDE
Committee on Technology in Education (COTE) Presentation to: Maryland State Board of Education Meeting March 22, 2005 Baltimore, Maryland Presenters: June.
Jan 21, 2016
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Committee on Technology in Committee on Technology in Education (COTE)Education (COTE)
Presentation to:Presentation to:
Maryland State Board of Education MeetingMaryland State Board of Education MeetingMarch 22, 2005March 22, 2005
Baltimore, MarylandBaltimore, Maryland
Presenters:Presenters:June Streckfus, Executive Director, MBRTJune Streckfus, Executive Director, MBRTBob Marshall, CEO, AWS Convergence Bob Marshall, CEO, AWS Convergence
Technologies, COTE ChairmanTechnologies, COTE ChairmanJayne Moore, Director of Instructional Jayne Moore, Director of Instructional
Technology, MSDETechnology, MSDE
Where Do We Standin 2005?
A Progress Report on Technology Resources in
Maryland Schools
Focus of Existing ’02 Plan…
Seamless and meaningful integration of technology tools and digital content with the Content Standards as the foundation
Improved Student LearningU
niv
ers
al A
cc
ess
Un
ive
rsal
Ac
ces
s
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
into
A
dm
inis
tra
tive
Fu
nct
ion
sS
eam
less
Inte
gra
tio
n in
to
Ad
min
istr
ati
ve F
un
ctio
ns
Eva
luat
ion
an
d A
sses
sm
en
tE
valu
atio
n a
nd
Ass
ess
me
nt
Kn
ow
led
ge
able
an
d S
kill
ed
E
du
cato
rsK
no
wle
dg
eab
le a
nd
Sk
ille
d
Ed
uca
tors
State Content StandardsMaryland Learner Outcomes (MLO’s), Core Learner Goals (CLG’s), Skills for Success
’02 Technology Plan Pillars
Improved Student LearningU
niv
ers
al A
cc
ess
Un
ive
rsal
Ac
ces
s
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
into
A
dm
inis
tra
tive
Fu
nct
ion
sS
eam
less
Inte
gra
tio
n in
to
Ad
min
istr
ati
ve F
un
ctio
ns
Eva
luat
ion
an
d A
sses
sm
en
tE
valu
atio
n a
nd
Ass
ess
me
nt
Kn
ow
led
ge
able
an
d S
kill
ed
E
du
cato
rsK
no
wle
dg
eab
le a
nd
Sk
ille
d
Ed
uca
tors
State Content StandardsMaryland Learner Outcomes (MLO’s), Core Learner Goals (CLG’s), Skills for Success
’02 Technology Plan Pillars
Improved Student LearningU
niv
ers
al A
cc
ess
Un
ive
rsal
Ac
ces
s
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
into
A
dm
inis
tra
tive
Fu
nct
ion
sS
eam
less
Inte
gra
tio
n in
to
Ad
min
istr
ati
ve F
un
ctio
ns
Eva
luat
ion
an
d A
sses
sm
en
tE
valu
atio
n a
nd
Ass
ess
me
nt
Kn
ow
led
ge
able
an
d S
kill
ed
E
du
cato
rsK
no
wle
dg
eab
le a
nd
Sk
ille
d
Ed
uca
tors
State Content StandardsMaryland Learner Outcomes (MLO’s), Core Learner Goals (CLG’s), Skills for Success
’02 Technology Plan Pillars
Improved Student LearningU
niv
ers
al A
cc
ess
Un
ive
rsal
Ac
ces
s
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
into
A
dm
inis
tra
tive
Fu
nct
ion
sS
eam
less
Inte
gra
tio
n in
to
Ad
min
istr
ati
ve F
un
ctio
ns
Eva
luat
ion
an
d A
sses
sm
en
tE
valu
atio
n a
nd
Ass
ess
me
nt
Kn
ow
led
ge
able
an
d S
kill
ed
E
du
cato
rsK
no
wle
dg
eab
le a
nd
Sk
ille
d
Ed
uca
tors
State Content StandardsMaryland Learner Outcomes (MLO’s), Core Learner Goals (CLG’s), Skills for Success
’02 Technology Plan Pillars
Improved Student LearningU
niv
ers
al A
cc
ess
Un
ive
rsal
Ac
ces
s
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
into
A
dm
inis
tra
tive
Fu
nct
ion
sS
eam
less
Inte
gra
tio
n in
to
Ad
min
istr
ati
ve F
un
ctio
ns
Eva
luat
ion
an
d A
sses
sm
en
tE
valu
atio
n a
nd
Ass
ess
me
nt
Kn
ow
led
ge
able
an
d S
kill
ed
E
du
cato
rsK
no
wle
dg
eab
le a
nd
Sk
ille
d
Ed
uca
tors
State Content StandardsMaryland Learner Outcomes (MLO’s), Core Learner Goals (CLG’s), Skills for Success
’02 Technology Plan Pillars
Improved Student LearningU
niv
ers
al A
cc
ess
Un
ive
rsal
Ac
ces
s
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
of
Dig
ital
C
on
ten
t in
to t
he
Cla
ssro
om
Se
amle
ss In
teg
rati
on
into
A
dm
inis
tra
tive
Fu
nct
ion
sS
eam
less
Inte
gra
tio
n in
to
Ad
min
istr
ati
ve F
un
ctio
ns
Eva
luat
ion
an
d A
sses
sm
en
tE
valu
atio
n a
nd
Ass
ess
me
nt
Kn
ow
led
ge
able
an
d S
kill
ed
E
du
cato
rsK
no
wle
dg
eab
le a
nd
Sk
ille
d
Ed
uca
tors
State Content StandardsMaryland Learner Outcomes (MLO’s), Core Learner Goals (CLG’s), Skills for Success
’02 Technology Plan Pillars
Where We Are Today…
The promise of educational technology is in jeopardy
and risks being unrealized if steps are not taken to insure higher level uses within our
classrooms
md.ontargetus.com
Student-to-Computer Ratio
State Target
Student-to-Computer Ratio
Classrooms connected to the Internet
State Target100%
Classrooms connected to the Internet
Teacher Knowledge and Skills
Intermediate level for Internet use: able to design classroom or homework activities for students, which require the students to use the Internet as an information resource
State Target100%
Data on Use of Technology by Students:
How frequently is technology used by students in your school to…(Examples of activities listed)
• Perform measurements and collect data • Plan, draft, proofread, revise, and
publish written text • Gather information from a variety of
sources (e.g. Internet)
Student Use of Technology
% of students who regularly* use technology to:
Plan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text
Gather information from a variety of sources (e.g., web)
Communicate/report information, conclusions or results of investigations
Manipulate, analyze and interpret information or data
Perform measurements and collect data from investigations or lab experiments
Remediate for basic skills
2002
34%
36% 21%
6%
4% 31%
* Regularly use means every day, or almost every day.
2003 42%
49% 26%
9%
7% 41%
2004
51%
40%
24%
9%
6% 39%
Teacher Use of Technology
% of teachers who regularly* use technology to:
Communicating with staff members and other colleagues
Maintaining attendance and/or grades
Maintaining data on students (e.g. via a student information system)
Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement data (e.g. using instructional and curriculum management systems)
Creating instructional materials/visuals/presentations
Accessing curriculum/school improvement material from the Internet
2002
64%
52%
35%
15%
46%
24%
* Regularly use means every day, or almost every day.
2003
78%
58%
38%
17%
59%
29%
2004
85%
63%
40%
16%
62%
32%
Administrator Use of Technology
% of administrators who regularly* use technology to:
Communicating with staff members and other colleagues
Communicating with parents and guardians of students
Posting/viewing/accessing school and district announcements or information (e.g., via a school web site)
Maintaining student data (e.g. via a student information system)
Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement data
Researching educational topics of interest
2002
78%
36%
63%
65%
16%
29%
* Regularly use means every day, or almost every day.
2003 90%
75%
53%
71%
21%
38%
2004
92%
56%
79%
70%
22%
39%
Digital Divide Review
Digital Divide in 2005 - Infrastructure
Student to Computer Ratio…
LowPoverty
HighPoverty% FARMS
Digital Divide in 2005 - Infrastructure
% of Classrooms Connected to the Internet…
LowPoverty
HighPoverty% FARMS
DigitalDivide
Digital Divide in Student Use
% of students who regularly* use technology to:
Plan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text
Gather information from a variety of sources (e.g., web)
Communicate/report information, conclusions or results of investigations
Manipulate, analyze and interpret information or data
Perform measurements and collect data from investigations or lab experiments
Low Poverty
65%
70% 45%
20%
15%
* Regularly use means every day, or almost every day.
High Poverty
45%
30%
15%
10%
5%
Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use
Plan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text
LowPoverty
HighPoverty
% FARMS
% FARMS
Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use
Gather information from a variety of sources
LowPoverty
HighPoverty
% FARMS
Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use
Communicate/report information and conclusions
LowPoverty
HighPoverty
% FARMS
Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use
Manipulate, analyze and interpret information to discover relationships…
LowPoverty
HighPoverty% FARMS
Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use
Perform measurements and collect data in investigations and lab experiments
LowPoverty
HighPoverty
% FARMS
Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use
Remediate for basic skills – drill and practice
LowPoverty
HighPoverty
% FARMS
Summary…
Infrastructure in place
Teacher knowledge and skills flat
Classroom usage showing no increase over previous year.
Little or no progress with higher level, critical thinking activities
Digital Divide still exists – particularly in effective use
Where We Are Today…
The promise of educational technology is in jeopardy
and risks being unrealized if steps are not taken to insure higher level uses within our
classrooms
Recommendations
A revised state Technology Plan and revised district Technology Plans, aligned with the State Plan and local master plans, be completed. The Plans should focus on the tight and seamless integration of technology tools into existing curriculum, with particular emphasis on the use of technology to foster higher-level critical thinking skills - January, 2006.
Technology requirements/assessments be incorporated into all teacher and administrator re-certification programs and in pre-service teacher preparation programs - Fall, 2006.
MSDE require local master plans to incorporate an analysis of data from the Online Technology Inventory Report - Fall, 2006.
MSDE review and document the effectiveness of professional development activities related to technology integration - Summer, 2005.
Recommendations (continued)
MSDE review state and local organizational structures within educational systems to insure that such structures are compatible with and conducive to effectively integrating technology into the curriculum and daily instruction - Spring, 2006.
MSDE investigate why progress is not continuing, through ongoing dialogue with school systems - Summer, 2005.
MBRT reconstitute the Committee on Technology in Education to include a membership comprised of leading business and IT executives that will review and make recommendations to MSDE regarding the State Plan and convey effective corporate technological practices used in the transformation of companies that are applicable to education - Spring 2005.
Related Documents
