by Scott McLeod | Sep 18, 2006 | Leadership and Vision, Management and Operations, Planning and Funding, Research and Evaluation, Tech Integration, Tech Tools |
This eSchoolNews article discusses the recent Wall Street Journal article criticizing one-to-one laptop programs and contrasts it with ISTE’s new book highlighting successful laptop programs. Here’s the problem…
The article title says that educators and parents are "split on the effectiveness of one-to-one learning." The concerns stated in the article, however, are not with the effectiveness of the learning that is occurring but rather the effectiveness of the teaching that is occurring and/or the lack of appropriate supervision / security measures by schools. Framing the issue incorrectly leads to incorrect solutions.
For example, if the laptops aren’t being used well instructionally by teachers, isn’t it a wrongheaded solution to give the laptops to them instead of the students? Aren’t there better (and fairly obvious) solutions to the actual problem? Similarly, if students are using laptops inappropriately, isn’t that an indictment of the school’s acceptable use policy and enforcement thereof? If we’re going to raise issues with one-to-one computing, we should at least be clear and fair about what the real issues are (e.g., like cost).
As Don Knezek, CEO of ISTE, notes in this article, and as David Warlick has noted elsewhere, soon the idea of students having to "go somewhere" (e.g., to the computer lab or to get a laptop from the cart) rather than having the technology with them 24/7, is going to seem awfully antiquated. Anyone else feel that this article, which actually spent very little verbiage on the supposed issue of student learning, was a little sloppy?
by Scott McLeod | Sep 18, 2006 | Management and Operations, Tech Integration |
A nation’s economy can be divided into different sectors.
If you took away technology from the primary sector (raw goods) of our economy – agriculture, mining, forestry, farming, fishing, quarrying – the work of most employees in most locations would shut down immediately. The sector would be at a standstill.
If you took away technology from the secondary sector (finished goods) of our economy – automobiles, textiles, chemicals, engineering, aerospace, energy, breweries, construction, shipbuilding – the work of most employees in most locations would shut down immediately. The sector would be at a standstill.
If you took away technology from the tertiary sector (service industry) of our economy – retail and wholesale sales, transportation and distribution, entertainment, restaurants, clerical services, media, tourism, insurance, banking, health care, law – the work of most employees in most locations would shut down immediately. The sector would be at a standstill.
If you took away technology from the quaternary sector (intellectual activities) of our economy – government, culture, libraries, scientific research, information technology – the work of most employees in most locations would shut down immediately. The sector would be at a standstill.
If you took away technology from K-12 or postsecondary educators, who are part of the quaternary sector, the work of most employees in most locations (i.e., teachers and professors) would remain fairly unaffected. Although there would be a few hiccups or inconveniences, the core work of core employees – teaching – could proceed, business as usual.
The only industries that I can think of that would remain similarly unaffected are the custodial and residential construction industries – folks with mops and hammers.
by Scott McLeod | Sep 12, 2006 | Assessment, Management and Operations, Tech Tools |
In addition to the white paper that I wrote for Microsoft that summarized essential data-driven decision-making concepts for teachers and principals, I also wrote a second white paper that summarized the various technology tools that school districts are using to manage summative and formative data.
Technology Tools for Data-Driven Teachers is only seven pages long and is a brief overview of data management and analysis (DMA) systems (i.e., data warehouses) and instructional management and assessment (IMA) systems. DMA systems are primarily used for management and analysis of summative data, such as those from yearly state assessments, and typically interface with districts’ student information systems, electronic gradebooks, and other district databases. IMA systems typically are not integrated with DMA systems and are used to separately store and analyze data from ongoing progess monitoring efforts. I also briefly discuss in the white paper some other options that school districts have if they can’t afford these often-expensive data systems.
Technology Tools for Data-Driven Teachers is a nice overview for educators who are unfamiliar with the technology options available for storing and analyzing student and school data. The white paper is deliberately written in non-technical language to facilitate easy understanding by administrators and teachers who probably are not technology wonks. Whether your district is reexamining existing tools for managing data or is looking for new solutions, the white paper can help give your educators get the big picture of what’s out there as they try to make sense of different vendor offerings.
Two other resources that may be helpful are my ongoing lists of DMA system vendors and IMA system vendors. School districts often don’t have the ability or inclination to do a full market scan of possible products and thus often miss vendor solutions that may better fit their needs. I don’t claim that my categorization is perfect – sometimes products blur the lines between categories. If you have a vendor to add to one of these two lists, please comment on this post!
by Scott McLeod | Aug 25, 2006 | Leadership and Vision, Management and Operations, Research and Evaluation |
A few years back I did a nationwide study of district technology coordinators for NCREL, with help from CoSN and QED. Although our response rates were much lower than we hoped, those we did get were fairly representative of our sample and the nation at large. Some of the key findings of the study (360 respondents) were that:
- nearly a fifth of the respondents had more than one formal title in their district (can you effectively do the job of tech coordinator as a part-time job?);
- nearly a third of the respondents said that they were the only person providing technology support for their district (even in a small district, can one person effectively do the job of tech coordinator?);
- although nearly all of the respondents were considered to be district-level employees, barely half were on an administrative contract (which raises issues related to power and authority);
- rural technology coordinators made significantly less than their urban and suburban counterparts (thus raising recruitment and retention issues);
- average salaries were lower than those paid by business and industry (again raising issues of recruitment and retention when competing against the corporate world for talented people);
- respondents received, on average, a paltry 35 hours of training per year (and most of that was likely technical in nature, not leadership-oriented); and
- large proportions said that they probably would leave for a job with the same responsibilites but better pay (59%) or a job with the same pay but fewer responsibilities (34%) (again raising recruitment and retention issues).
In addition to the report, I also wrote up a short article on this for Scholastic Administr@tor.
Although the results are from 2003, my personal experience is that things haven’t changed much. We have seen a trend, particularly in larger districts, toward more CTO-/CIO-like positions and/or hiring people with experience in business and industry.
What do you think? Are these findings still relevant and/or important today?
