MLTI Advisory Board Meeting #8 July 15, 2020 Beth Lambert, Team Lead Deb Lajoie, Project Manager Jordan Dean, Office Specialist Brandi Cota, Management Analyst Jon Graham, Elementary Digital Learning Specialist Emma Banks, Secondary Digital Learning and Computer Science Specialist
AGENDA SWOT protocol of potential plans Break Implications
SWOT Protocol S trengths W eaknesses O pportunities T hreats Everyone will get a chance to contribute and we will continue in each round until everyone has shared what they have.
Potential Plan Student Agency Platform Plan • Devices for Grades 7th and 8th ( and 6th if budget allows. ) Building from the years of statewide institutional knowledge and expectations of student devices at the middle level, it would be traumatic for schools to have those taken away. The move to 6th grade would expand the program completing 1to1 for some schools while introducing devices to others for the first time. Without the ability to fulfill 1to1 for all grades 9-12, secondary devices become problematic. • Additional Peripherals and Equipment. While the 6th-8th grade section includes device management, cases and peripherals. Secondary schools would receive portable carts of hardware. This might include items like, cameras, 3D printers, robotics, and various tools. The purpose is a direct extension of utilizing devices beyond initial productivity. Roughly put, K-5 students learn introductory computing while 6-8 are advancing productivity. By high school students should be about creation. Not only virtually, but physically as well. And portable hardware setups are a low cost option to remove the issue of access for high schools.
Student Agency (con’t) • Lead learner at each MLTI school. An educational representative that teachers and students can reach out to for support. The lead learner acts as a MLTI liaison and mentors the student tech team. They comprise a statewide network of educators providing peer support as well. • Student Tech Support. At least two students per grade level who work with the Lead Learner to support their school. The actions of the student group are determined locally but students are included as part of the overall solution. They will be present and participate in the regional PD events for students and teachers. • Consistent PD Events. Two day regional events. The first day is for students showcasing the possibilities their devices provide followed up by educator professional development on day two. The first day sets the bar of what students can do and provides a platform for the best exemplars from around the state. The second day helps teachers, now motivated by student expectations, engage with the learning all through a positive framework.
Student Agency Plan S trengths Student Agency Plan O pportunities Similar to current program, marketable Gives opportunity for student agency and students to show ● ● novelty that focus on students, focus on PD what they can do. ● maintains consistency at middle school level Structure to be able to share/learn more ● ● less effect on local budget empower students ● ● tech leader in school adds accountability Plan for expansion as we look at distance learning ● ● student tech teams in each school Direct tie to our guiding principles ● ● focus on intro level, middle level and high school level Event and the opportunity for students to plan ahead of ● ● hardware at highschool level won’t be an issue as far as tools etc… time. ● lead learner familiarity can be an opportunity for people to know what ● ● comprehensive, took elements we talked about and addressed this means and it will be less stressful. ● them all Student tech is a chance to create student aids that are ● including grade 6 helping peers with educational needs. ● reestablishing the lead teacher Extension into 6th grade ● ● student tech teams with tech leader Get beyond the screen and talk about other hardware and ● ● all middle school students would have an MLTI device. tools. ● PD involves students and teachers Expect more from teachers ● ● Building out the notion of 2 students and tech leads and ● W eaknesses leveraging students to help us with the tech Clearer integration for computer science especially in the ● Relationship between lead tech is not well defined ● lower levels Variety of PD, would need more to be a solid plan ● Focus more on active learning instead of passive learning/ ● Cost is an issue with including th grade and high ● more creativity High schools might not react like we want, they want devices not ● Push for more budgeting in other grade levels/we can ● cameras/ 3-D printers expand and we should More PD opportunities ● Leverage an economy scale ● More of the same ● Lacks a burning platform or problem T hreats ● No reference to connectivity in the community/ Lack of ● PD needs seem very broad Optional 6th grade and asking for more money ● ● High school adding other equipment when not 1:1 Not innovative enough ● ● What is the accountability for High School Equipment being used, Complacency, especially for 7&8th grade ● ● would this be the lead learners responsibility? Low bare for student work at the middle level, middle level ● Hard to apply to different situations can be at the creating level. ● Too many variables hard to measure Extra tech at high school could muddy the waters without ● ● Seems to have a tech focus rather than learning focus clear framework. ● Opting out or doing it yourself is more like original Tech leaders, how do we get teachers to buy in? ● ● Need define as lead tech is a teacher or student? Traditional may be a harm ● ● 2 day regional event is a concern Having added a few pieces which comes at a cost/ budget ● ● Student Tech Support/ 2 students per grade level is a lot/ to much is a threat ● for some school and not enough for others Hard to define what is successful/value/how we spend ● Seems to prioritize peripherals in the high school money ● Elements of Creation in the earlier grades as well as in the High Ignoring present situation ● ● School To much for on equipment and not on connectivity ●
Potential Plan Pedagogical Needs Approach Plan • Focus on supporting a specific statewide pedagogical strategy or approach (k-2 literacy, active remote learning, project-based learning) • Tiered supports based on need and capacity – PD, resources and tools, learning devices, support for or access to a pedagogical coach (RFPs for each of these) • SAUs could choose 2 contiguous grade levels • One year commitment – SAUs can opt out or SAUs can be ineligible for non fulfilling program participation requirements in the previous year. • Funding – combination of local and state funding so that all SAUs receive the same level of provisioning and support. – Higher tiers of support would be based on several criteria such as: f/r lunch rates, % of Title 1 students, demonstrated financial need, challenges in capacity due to small size. Details of a fair system of assigning tiered supports based on need would have to be worked out.
Recommend
More recommend
