TECHNOLOGY Technology Advisory Committee Educational Technology - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ENGAGING STUDENTS WITH TECHNOLOGY

Technology Advisory Committee

March 25, 2015

1

Educational Technology Plan Recommendations

Goal #5: We will innovate our educational practices and become leaders in technology integration.

Two Paths Converge…

Comprehensive Planning

• We must continue to excel in

these areas:

• Student Achievements and Awards
• Curriculum and Instruction
• Student Services
• High Quality Learning Environment
• Even in challenging financial

times we value academics, athletics, arts, and activities

Technology Advisory Committee

March 25, 2015

2

• We must continue to excel in

these areas:

• Curriculum and Instruction
• High Quality Learning Environment
• We are obligated to provide our

students a technology-rich environment which is reflective of the world beyond the walls of our school buildings

WE WANT TO BE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO EMULATE.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Cat 6A Wiring – Cisco Switches

Wireless Network Digital Classrooms IP Based Phone System

Wireless Devices Improved Classroom Instruction Voice Integrated Applications (i.e., E-Mail)

Future Technology Development

Disaster Recovery

Network Stability and Security

Maximum Network Uptime

Blended Learning Asynchronous Learning E-Learning Adaptive Learning

The Starting Point: NASD Information T

echnology Plan

March 25, 2015 3

Technology Advisory Committee

March 25, 2015 4

Parents & Community Members Ken Doerbacker Community Member Tony Berarducci MMS & MES Parent Marcel Bergerman NASH & IES Parent Suzanne Filiaggi-Bridges IMS & MCK Parent Allyson Minton MCK Parent Melissa Simon IES Parent Kevin Conner AIU Liaison District Leadership Maureen Grosheider School Board Member Scott Russell School Board Member Tammy Andreyko

• Asst. Superintendent of

Academic Advancement Katherine Curran Coordinator of Academic Technology Brendan Hyland Principal NAI Katherine Jenkins Principal CMS Amanda Mathieson Principal HES Bill Phillips Senior IT Manager Robert Scherrer

• Asst. Superintendent of K-12

Education Raymond Gualtieri Superintendent (ex-officio) Teachers Rachel Brown PES - Grade 3 Sheila Dattilo MMS - Grade 7 Science Sarah Diehl FES - Library Kristen Ericson IES - Grade 4 Jan Graner MCK - Grade 4 Bernadette Marshalek BWE - Grade 4 Dana Oliver NASH, MMS - Tech. Integrator Eric Robertson IMS - Grade 8 Science & Math Laura Senneway BWE, FES, IES, PES - Tech. Integrator Bob Tozier NASH - Music, Dept. Chair Kristen Zaccari MES - Grade 5

Focus of the Committee

How can:

• technology enhance, support, and transform the classroom?
• new technologies foster communication, collaboration, critical

thinking, and creativity (the 4 Cs)?

• we successfully implement educational technology?
• we prepare recommendations for an educational technology plan?
• we be advocates for the District’s educational technology vision and

communicate it to the North Allegheny community?

March 25, 2015 5

Strategy: Divide and Conquer

March 25, 2015 6

With a broadly-focused series of goals, the committee chose to divide into three subcommittees to develop recommendations:

• Curriculum – Curriculum should always drive technology
• assured experiences; the 4 Cs; preparation for future success
• Digital Classroom – Looking at what resources we have; what

resources we should have; how we can accomplish equity in resources District-wide

• Professional Development – No technology implementation is

successful with a solid program of professional development

• If teachers do not know how to use the resources and feel excited about

the potential of them – technology will not be utilized as it can be

Process / Research

• BrightBytes™ Survey Data – March 2014
• Students (grades 3-12)
• K-12 Teachers and Administrators
• Research
• Survey of Allegheny County schools with regard to use of technology
• College and career competency requirements
• Professional journals and studies
• Site Visitations
• Mars Area SD; South Side Area SD; Elizabeth Forward SD
• Professional Consultants
• Hardware Demonstrations
• Professional Conferences & Seminars

March 25, 2015 7

Three Components of this Presentation

The committee has submitted a written report to the Board. This presentation provides a brief summary of what we consider to be the ‘heart’ of the work, including:

• Highlights of what we learned
• A summary of committee recommendations
• An overview of the financial implications of our recommendations

We believe we have met the challenge presented by the Board – and along the way encountered some surprises, not the least of which has been our shared passion for the recommendations we are proud to bring forward tonight.

March 25, 2015 8

What we have learned

March 25, 2015 9

• Teaching, learning, and technology
• The Four C’s of Education
• Current technology access in NA schools
• What NA students and teachers think about technology in schools
• What other school districts are doing about technology

An overview of

March 25, 2015

10

Best instructional practices require students to use the

“Four C’s of Education”

to meet learning goals.

March 25, 2015 11

What are the “Four C’s”

March 25, 2015 12

…and how does technology help students to develop these skills?

• Communication
• Collaboration
• Critical Thinking
• Creativity

What is the current status of technology access for NA students and teachers?

• Limited or no access to computers on a daily basis
• Limited access to instructional technology in the

classroom (e.g., mounted interactive projectors, document cameras, mobile devices, building-based video production resources)

• In some cases, current available devices have reduced

functionality due to age and/or condition

• Limited access to Wi-Fi in various buildings (targeted

completion May 1)

• Limited access to Technology Integrators for professional

development

March 25, 2015 13

What is the strongest argument for implementing a 1:1 initiative?

• Currently using technology in our classroom is an event

and it should be a seamless interaction between students and learning.

• Individual devices offer the potential for students to

engage in the real work of mathematicians, scientists, composers, filmmakers, authors and engineers.

• We have an obligation to build upon the technological

fluency the students bring to us and guide them towards being responsible digital citizens.

March 25, 2015 14

Feedback from Elementary Students via BrightBytes™* survey

March 25, 2015 15

Students in grades 3-5 report they have limited access to technology during the school day. Current ratio of student to computer in K-5 is approximately 11:1.

52 25 23

Elementary student-reported frequency of computer use in the classroom

Weekly Monthly Never

*Source: BrightBytes teacher survey, March 2014

March 25, 2015

16

Click Here: Fifth Graders Create Biome Project and Shine

Feedback from Middle School Students via BrightBytes™* survey

March 25, 2015 17

Students in grades 6-8 report they have limited access to technology during the school day. Current ratio of student to computer in 6-8 is approximately 3:1.

*Source: BrightBytes teacher survey, March 2014

16 28 35 16 4

Middle School student-reported frequency

• f computer use in the classroom

Daily Weekly Monthly Every few months Never

A School Project

presentation by Jack Lopuszynski

Eighth Grade – Carson Middle School Student Council President Honor Student

March 25, 2015 18

Feedback from High School Students via BrightBytes™* survey

March 25, 2015 19

Students in grades 9-12 report they have limited access to technology during the school day. Current ratio of student to computer in 9-12 is approximately 2:1.

*Source: BrightBytes teacher survey, March 2014

33 31 25 9 4

High School student-reported frequency of computer use in the classroom

Daily Weekly Monthly Every few months Never

90.35% of the NA Class of 2014

Planned to attend College/University

March 25, 2015 20

TAC studied college and career computer competency/readiness profiles for graduating seniors. Technology expectations of college freshmen include:

• A fundamental understanding of computer technology – ideally on dual platforms
• A high level of competency in system software for word processing, spreadsheet

management, file and database management, presentation graphics, search engines, collaborative learning management systems, and email

• Understanding of hardware and networking
• Understanding of computer ethics, security, and professional responsibilities of

technology use

• Understanding of appropriate and acceptable time / place for various patterns of

communications; i.e., texting vocabulary vs. formal language for essays and research papers, etc.

March 25, 2015

21

“We want students who are creators not just consumers

• f technology.”

~ David D. Carbonara, Ed.D.

Duquesne University

Feedback from North Allegheny Teachers via BrightBytes™* Survey

March 25, 2015 22 *Source: BrightBytes teacher survey, March 2014

96% of North Allegheny teachers believe that

technology use in the classroom can enhance student learning.

TAC believes…

NASD teachers will embrace and enjoy the implementation of a 1:1 technology initiative, if these four key components are present to ensure the success of the project:

1.

Stable and secure network and wireless capabilities

2.

Comprehensive professional development

3.

Equitable access to technology in schools and classrooms

4.

Ongoing support from Technology Integrators for instructional implementation and from the IT Help Desk for device maintenance

March 25, 2015 23

A Look at Some Data on 1:1

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE:

• In the next three years more than 75% of districts across

the nation plan to move towards 1:1 computing*:

• 80% of High Schools will be 1:1 in three years
• 83% of Middle Schools will be 1:1 in three years
• 73% of Elementary Schools will be 1:1 in three years

*Market Data Retrieval‘s 2014 K-12 Market Report

LOOKING TO THE PAST:

• The first 1:1 laptop program was initiated 25 years ago

(1990) at Methodist Ladies’ College, an independent K-12 girls’ school in Melbourne, Australia

March 25, 2015 24

March 25, 2015

25

Fail fast, fail often, but – fail forward.

Let’s get into the race!

TAC Recommendations

• Equitable distribution of technology for students and staff
• 1:1 technology for students in 1-12 within two years
• Expand staff appropriately to support success
• Deployment plan
• Insurance fee

March 25, 2015 26

March 2015

Recommendation #1

• Create an equitable technology environment for all

students and teachers.

Classrooms

• Teacher laptop (elementary teachers would have a second device

to mirror student device)

• Wi-Fi access
• Mounted projector
• Interactivity with whiteboard in identified spaces
• Document camera

Buildings

• Specialty labs as needed (e.g., Technology Education labs, music)
• Carts of laptops in elementary schools
• Carts of iPads in secondary schools

March 25, 2015 27

Recommendation #2

• Over the next two years, adopt a one-to-one (1:1)

computing environment in Grades 1-12, supplemented with specialty computer labs and shared mobile devices as necessary.

• Grades 1-5: iPads supplemented with Windows devices
• Grades 6-8: Windows laptop or hybrid Windows/tablet device
• Grades 9-12: Windows laptops supplemented with carts of iPads

March 25, 2015 28

Recommendation #3

Expand staffing appropriately to support success.

• Expand the number of Technology Integrators
• Create a two-year position of Technology Support Liaison

to assist in the program implementation

• Expand IT staff to support additional devices
• Create a Help Desk presence in school buildings

March 25, 2015 29

Deployment

• Devices will be leased.
• Devices will be refreshed every four years.
• Existing inventory of devices will be cycled down in year
• ne and phased out as their life cycle comes to a natural

end.

• Grades 3-12 devices would go home with students.
• Grades 1-2 devices would stay in school.

March 25, 2015 30

Insurance Fee

The fee is for grades 3-12

• This fee covers normal wear and tear and component

failure.

• Insurance covers accidental damage.
• Fee is waived for students on free and reduced lunch.

March 25, 2015 31

Financial Plan

• Five-year cost projections
• Includes devices, software, additional staff

March 25, 2015 32

2015-2016 Projected Costs

March 25, 2015 33

Year 1 Cost of a 1:1 Initiative Description

# of Units/ Personnel Unit/Personnel Cost Total Cost Total Budget Cost

• f Initiative

9th - 12th Grade Laptop Deployment 2,837 $ 1,035 $ 2,936,295 $ 734,074 Elementary Teacher iPad Deployment 241 $ 637 $ 153,517 $ 38,379 5th Grade Student iPad Deployment 693 $ 637 $ 441,441 $ 110,360 Spare Equipment to Support 1:1 $ 47,477 $ 11,869 Software Licensing $ 257,900 $ 64,475 Additional Software Expense $ 28,090 $ 28,090 Anticipated Computer Refresh Savings $ (200,000) $ (200,000) Technical Support Liaison 1 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 IT Technical Support 3 $ 75,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000

TOTAL COST OF 1:1 INITIATIVE $ 1,072,247

2016-2017 Projected Costs

Cost of a 1:1 Initiative

# of Units/ Personnel Unit/Person nel Cost Total Cost Total Budget Cost

• f Initiative

Description Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Leased Cost 1st - 4th Grade Student iPads 2,427 $ 637 $ 1,545,999 $ 386,500 iPad Classroom Carts for Charging and Storing 54 $ 2,800 $ 151,200 $ 37,800 6th - 8th Grade Laptops 1,965 $ 1,035 $ 2,033,775 $ 508,444 Year 2 Spare Equipment to Support 1:1 $ 47,001 $ 11,750 Additional Software Expense $ 62,047 $ 62,047 Anticipated Computer Refresh Savings $ (376,943) $ (376,943) Year 1 Financing Expense $ 959,157 $ 959,157 Technology Integrators 3 $ 85,000 $ 255,000 $ 255,000 Tech Integrators and Technical Support Liaison 2 $ 60,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 IT Technical Support 8 $ 75,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000

TOTAL COST OF 1:1 INITIATIVE $ 2,563,755

March 25, 2015 34

2017-2018 Projected Costs

March 25, 2015 35

Year 3 Cost of a 1:1 Initiative Description

# of Units/ Personnel Unit/Person nel Cost Total Cost Total Budget Cost

• f Initiative

Year 1 Financing Expense $ 959,157 Year 2 Financing Expense $ 944,494 Additional Software Expense $ 62,047 Anticipated Computer Refresh Savings $ (376,943) Technology Integrators 4 $ 85,000 $ 340,000

$ 340,000

IT Technical Support 8 $ 75,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000

TOTAL COST OF 1:1 INITIATIVE $ 2,528,755

2018-2019 Projected Costs

March 25, 2015 36

Year 4 Cost of a 1:1 Initiative Description

# of Units/ Personnel Unit/Person nel Cost Total Cost Total Budget Cost

• f Initiative

Year 1 Financing Expense $ 959,157 Year 2 Financing Expense $ 944,494 Additional Software Expense $ 62,047 Anticipated Computer Refresh Savings $ (376,943) Technology Integrators 4 $ 85,000 $ 340,000

$ 340,000

IT Technical Support 8 $ 75,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000

TOTAL COST OF 1:1 INITIATIVE $ 2,528,755

2019-2020 Projected Costs

March 25, 2015 37

Year 5 Cost of a 1:1 Initiative Description

# of Units/ Personnel Unit/Person nel Cost Total Cost Total Budget Cost

• f Initiative

Year 1 Financing Expense $ 1,000,000* Year 2 Financing Expense $ 944,494 Additional Software Expense $ 62,047 Anticipated Computer Refresh Savings $ (376,943) Technology Integrators 4 $ 85,000 $ 340,000

$ 340,000

IT Technical Support 8 $ 75,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000

TOTAL COST OF 1:1 INITIATIVE $ 2,569,598

* is an estimated cost

Conclusions

• How to make this decision
• Why this decision deserves support
• When to make this decision

March 25, 2015 38

After six months of research and study, we offer our…

Making Our Decision

March 25, 2015 39

• There is no definitive research or data to drive us or anyone

else to one perfect decision.

• This is a complex issue with many variables.
• School districts are unique.
• Technology is constantly changing.
• The TAC believes a 1:1 initiative would best serve the needs of the

students of NASD – the sooner the better.

• Curriculum and instruction should drive technology decisions

and we know that technology implemented well can significantly enhance the learning environment.

• While finances are important, they should not be the sole

factor when making decisions related to technology. This District has always found a way to fund what is best for students.

Making Our Decision

March 25, 2015 40

• The NASD Comprehensive Plan clearly states that this

community and this Board wants our District to be a school district to emulate.

• The research and site visits of the TAC have shown that if we want to

attain and become leaders in technology integration we must make some difficult decisions right now.

• Our students need technology and 21st Century skills that

the use of technology in the learning environment can help to develop in order to be successful in their future lives.

• Each student – including our graduating seniors and our students with

special needs and our children in primary grades who are just learning to read and every one in between – each one stands to benefit tomorrow from having personal access to technology at his or her fingertips in the classroom…just as soon as we can provide it.

Making Our Decision

March 25, 2015 41

Timing is everything…and NOW is the time.

• The network and Wi-Fi is in place.
• The funding issue will never be easier.
• The need will never be less.
• Hardware purchasing in a timely and cyclical manner is critical to the timeline
• f this plan.
• The technology will always be changing/improving/etc. Students and staff

skills will build and transfer to new options.

• Every day students miss out on opportunities because they do not have

access to technology.

Sometimes you do your due diligence, work your numbers, gather your research, and generate your surveys…and the last step is led by the intangible factors of URGENCY, PASSION, AND COMMITMENT.

March 25, 2015

42

Dear School Board Members: I wish I could be with you tonight to deliver my thoughts in person. Unfortunately, a business commitment prevents me from attending. However, because this issue is important and I feel so strongly about it, I have submitted this statement to be read on my behalf as a part of the presentation. Thank you for taking time to thoughtfully consider all of the information our committee has put before you. I had the opportunity to attend a recent robotics competition called the First Lego League Regional Robotics Championship. A team of three Ingomar Middle School students participated in that competition with a project that proposed a novel way to learn history. They envisioned a virtual reality environment in which teachers can "dial in" a historic event and students can "walk through" it, talking to the people involved in the event and even participating in the real action.

March 25, 2015

43

The premise the students put forth was that this technology-based, immersive, hands-on approach would be much more conducive to learning than the current instructional methods. They also showed how such environment can be built using existing technology and produced a video demonstrating how one could take part in a "live" Boston Tea Party. While this idea upon which our Ingomar Middle School team’s project was built sounds futuristic – and maybe even unrealistic to some – I believe they were describing a reality we will all experience very soon. People in our world are designing, developing and commercializing technology-based products and services at younger and younger ages. Today, children in some elementary schools are building and programming robots, creating their own video games, programming micro-controllers, and building electronic circuits. These are all activities that required a college-level education in the past.

March 25, 2015

44

As one of the top ten school districts in the country, we want our children to become the creators of new technologies, not merely savvy users of it. To help them achieve that level of expertise, we need to give them the tools and the knowledge that will make them leaders in technology as opposed to technology slaves. The proposed plan to make NA a 1:1 school district is but a necessary first step. It will accomplish the important goal of making our students intimate with computing and communication technology. Once that first step has been successfully taken, then opportunities can be expanded to educate students about creating their own technology and imagining how technology can best be applied to those things that they are most interested in – whether it is languages

• r social studies, or math, or sports, or music, or the environment, or politics, or

something no one has yet considered.

March 25, 2015

45

The past belonged to people who could read and write and do simple calculations. The future belongs to people who master technology and its application to solving societal problems. Going “one-on-one” will pave the way for the first NA graduate who will run a Fortune 100 company; or the first NA graduate who will earn a Nobel prize; or the first who will become the President of the United States. Thank you, Marcel Bergerman, Ph.D.

Marcel Bergerman is a Senior Systems Scientist with the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, from which he received his Ph.D. in 1996. He is also co-founder of the GreenE Academy, a technology education outfit, and Near Earth Autonomy, a local robotics company. Marcel and his wife Maria Yamanaka are the happy parents of Rafael (NA class of 2015) and Felipe (NA class of 2022).

Questions?

March 25, 2015 46