Technology Plan

I am not as dead-set against the technology expenditure request as some may assume. I am concerned that we are allowing the “perfect” to be the enemy of the “good.” It is a given that we would like to restore pay to teachers but it is clear to me that we can’t do that with our capital money.

I have spent the last couple of weeks researching technology, smart boards, etc.

Regarding Smartboards: A timely article was published in EdWeek this week: “Whiteboards Impact on Teaching seen as Uneven.” It has been suggested that at least 70 hours of professional development is required before a teacher can utilize Smartboards to their maximum. So – whether a teacher uses a Smartboard like a projector or with all of the bells and whistles that it is capable of, is dependent on the teacher’s desire to use the Smartboard and the training that the teacher has experienced. Since Smartboards are such a small part of the technology request, I don’t have a problem with the Smartboard expenditure.

Regarding Hardware: There are a multitude of opinions as to whether laptops, desktops, netbooks are the best option. It does seem to be best that the site administrator (principal with input from teachers and other stakeholders) make the decision as to what form he/she would like available computers to take. (This is my biggest problem with the request.) I think that the argument for the computer purchases as presented is that all schools need basic computer access now, and we can accomplish this most economically by purchasing the computers all at once. That is reasonable, so long as once basic tech needs have been met at each school, principals are given tech funds in the future to enhance their hardware as they see fit.

Regarding Software: As a parent of a student learning to write complex papers, I am all for the “MyAccess” Program. Teaching writing to young folks is tough, tough, tough. My kids had wonderful writing teachers in elementary and high school, but I can't help but think that more exposure to prompts, writing evaluations and such would improve their writing. I am not as enthusiastic about Study Island, but again, economy of scale seems to be reasonable.

Below are some of my thoughts about the request:

Cons

1. Usurpation of principal’s decision-making authority (Guidelines for Standards for School Executives, State of North Carolina Board of Education, 9-6-07)
2. Centralization of decision-making
3. Top- down decision – limited input from principals, teachers and other stakeholders
4. Huge expenditure/huge risk
5. Other capital needs (facilities) seem to be more urgent (Oak Hill, George Hildebrand Cafeteria)
6. Will not be a “huge morale boost” to teachers
7. Skeptical that the tech staff is large enough to deal with installation and infrastructure upgrade
8. Disturbed about rumor that principals told not to talk to board members
9. Approval may reinforce notion of centralized decision making – we need to discourage that as much as possible

Pros

1. Understand desire to have uniform tech at every school – this eases the burden on our tech folks and allows economic advantages
2. My experience is in centralized decision making, so I am sympathetic to the rationale
3. Even with a weighted formula, I don’t think that schools with lower ADM can achieve technological parity with larger schools, or schools with more wealthy population
4. Superintendent’s request seems to fall within Guidelines for Standards for Superintendents (State of North Carolina Board of Education, 9-6-07)
5. We have been told Principals are “on board” (however, see # 8 above)
6. Appears to be significant funding for professional development in the budget
7. The corporate world demands computer literacy from its workers
8. Important to support the new superintendent in his first major project in this school system
9. It is important that every child in Burke County have access to basic technology
10. Standing still is falling behind.

So, that is where I am. I haven't made a final decision.

See you tonight.