When I first ran for trustee I got a lot of input from my "campaign team." Basically these are all of the educators and parents that encouraged me to do it. This group includes my husband (a secondary teacher), friends and family who work for the school district, and parents and teachers that I met when we organized in 2010 to challenge the board to make changes to the Sustainability Report.
This group had a few things in common like a focus on transparency, accountability, strength of families and the need to rethink technology in our school district. I really valued their input and these became themes for me as a trustee. I have kept these values close by with almost every conversation and board discussion I have had. Our work as trustees always has the students in mind but along the way I think we have to pay more attention to how we get there and this means advocating for educators be that policy, funding, support, or technology.
Along these lines, I have a few motions to bring to the board in the next few weeks and I would love some feedback about the wording and also possible rationale. Some of these are a long time coming but I think the timing is right. I can update on a new post as I get more ideas and I will add my rationale. Please be honest this is just a draft at this point and you can leave a comment below or email me at trusteecooke@gmail.com.
Motion 1:
That the board receive information on transfers from schools (old to new school) per month from March to Sept 2013.
Motion 2:
That senior administration bring together a working group made to examine and assess AspenEsis and OpenStudent student information systems.
Motion 3:
That the school district conduct an anonymous employee survey every three years to understand the technology needs in our school district to help set technology goals and identify challenges.
Motion 4:
That district staff be directed to draft a new technology vision and policy in conjunction with our partner groups to reflect our immediate and future technology needs.
Motion 5:
That the school district allow district schools to purchase media tablets and mobile technology of their choosing in accordance with their own technology planning.
5 comments:
Holy cow... that's an ambitious list, some ones one there I quite enjoy seeing to be honest. I know you wanted to get your motions in to your board ASAP so I hope this input is not too late to be useful.
1. Not sure if this will actually be useful info... not that you shouldn't have access to it, but you probably need a lot more if you wanted to establish trends.
2. You might want to get someone to contact them both to see if they have people that can come up... might be good to time two half-day demos for when they are actually here to explain their products. This is important -- with BCeSIS we were sold on the total package -- teacher modules, parent modules, interactive features that we never ended up using (but probably paid for?). Let's not make the same mistake, let's be clear about what we want to use it for, and make sure it does those jobs very well. Also, the folks that make this decision (senior admin, I suppose) should know that BCeSIS looks and works very differently when you log in as a teacher than when you log in as a secretary or admin. That's a nice way of saying that the user experience is brutal. IOW, any new system should be tested from multiple logins.
3. I suppose that could be cool... lots of beefs, not many bouquets, that's how these things go. So, there needs to be an "out" -- something positive to do with the information that is gathered. Making it public would help... less games played with the data that way. The "out" should relate to #4 a tech plan. The motions might depend on each other, mind you, a survey is easy enough to put together. Get one of your committees to sift through the results instead of making district staff do it.
4. Not sure how useful a tech plan is unless other things change, but no harm in trying. Take note of that long email I sent to trustees and senior admin a couple of weeks ago -- a tech plan was committed to in April 2010 and we have not seen it yet... maybe the timing is right, now.
5. Myself and others have flailed this one a few times, maybe you'll have better luck. Lots of local case studies that relate to why pockets of innovation need to be given the tools and permission to experiment otherwise their work does not spread, it remains underground. The one from my school was interesting. The principal was working with teachers, students, and in particular the librarian on what the Learning Commons should look like -- layout, minor renovations, open spaces, technology, practices, etc. As part of the total picture, he co-developed a plan for mobile technology that included a pack of 6 iPads that the librarian and teachers wanted to use for some cool student projects -- part e-reader, part creative tool, part flex-text, part virtual field station, etc. It was cool to see him excited by the collaboration; this kind of thinking and project was unique in our school and for him. The result? Board Office said no to his purchase order (no discussion about it as far as I knew) and the whole scheme died. This did not make financial sense, or educational sense, or morale/team-building sense, etc. Guess what? Excitement for this kind of thinking and collaboration goes away and we're back to "normal," back to settling for what we can do within the box. In the whole scheme of things, life goes on and we worry about other things, but this was an unnecessary move and not based on any real policy that I can find. BTW, this was not my project, I've had plenty others rejected. To be fair, plenty more accepted, too. Averaged over a career, I have to say I've been well supported even as I tried to push a staff and school and students to explore more meaningful use of tech than powerpoints and youtube. It's that last mile, though, and in 2011-2013 that means tablets. It does not make sense that our district has no strategy for complimentary purchase (with BYOD) and that innovation plans that are common across BC are turned down in PG. Given the price-points and established use, this is not a cost issue, either.
Good luck with all this. I'm proud that you have come far enough as a trustee that you have the confidence to take this on. Tech is often a hot topic -- we do some things well and others not, but we are dragging our collective feet on key aspects of edtech (e.g. compared to other districts) and staff and students feel it.
Forgot to add -- Chris Kennedy has a new post that I hope all the trustees read: http://cultureofyes.ca/2013/10/23/byod-how-to-walk-before-you-run/
Excellent reading at the beginning of what could be a creative change. Late to the game, but we can learn from others.
Motion 2:
That senior administration bring together a working group made to examine and assess AspenEsis and OpenStudent student information systems.
This is an excellent idea. A test group that reports on functionality, challenges, and advantages is important. I agree with Glen regarding the BCeSIS roll out. The findings of the group should be transparent with the understandable caveat that this is a testing phase. Vital elements of the SIS are functionality from teacher grade book needs, to parent web-accessibility, security, and remote use (ex. accessibility from school and home for educators entering grades, parents checking marks, etc.) Understandably, security will be paramount. Does the SW work with any browser, any system? These are critical questions.
Motion 3:
That the school district conduct an anonymous employee survey every three years to understand the technology needs in our school district to help set technology goals and identify challenges.
This is a great idea. It allows educators to state their goals, which helps formulate the basis of a support plan. How can SD57 help / encourage what educators envision in the classroom? This helps create a foundation for the purpose of education technology. It also facilitates examining what other jurisdictions / districts do to support similar requests. It sets the table for growth as well.
Motion 4:
That district staff be directed to draft a new technology vision and policy in conjunction with our partner groups to reflect our immediate and future technology needs.
Again, this is an excellent motion I'm glad to see put forward. Determining what educators and students wish to be doing and planning for means to achieve these goals directs the purpose of educational technology support. This could encompass cloud computing support, tablet applications, video networking & conferencing, online application support, social media for education, and much more. Web 2.0 will soon become Web 3.0. Are we ready? A plan is needed that is future flexible and annually responsive that also empowers grassroots, innovating technology usage. Our students are already in the cloud with FB and more. How will we promote safe digital citizenry - as bystanders or wise parental contributors and guides?
Motion 5:
That the school district allow district schools to purchase media tablets and mobile technology of their choosing in accordance with their own technology planning.
I support this motion. Computing has shifted left from desktops and even laptops to low-cost devices. There is a scaleable opportunity to promote the use of education technology for learning while reducing costs of what the District is acquiring. The cost savings could potentially be reinvested in other educational areas that require funding. Moving to a more heterogenous computing environment simply reflects where our students are - they have many devices. Supporting multiple devices might seem a daunting task, but implementing a common computing element such as online cloud storage and tools allows different devices to access a common area. It's a Venn-diagram scenario where devices can vary, but a common storage and application universe exists. Google drive & documents is such an example. Given that, there are means to address FOIPPA available. It will require discussion and planning, but careful consideration always does.
Post a Comment