Web Discussion

On Sunday, March 20, 2011 I had the opportunity to participate in an on-line web discussion with my fellow peers. The discussion allowed me the chance to communicate with many different people who are going through the same things as I am. I really enjoyed being able to know that I am not the only person who thinks that this program is becoming more difficult as I go. Many of my peers expressed that they too feel overwhelmed as I am, but feel that they will be able to get through all of their courses alright. The majority of the discussion was about the different expectations that are required to complete the Lamar Principal program successfully. Many people were asking about the LCE and the course that should be taken. One question that I found helpful was should the course be taken face to face or online. The most common answer was that the face to face class was the best option. The other parts of discussion were about posting different pieces of work to our blog. I found the web conference to be helpful to me as I am approaching my ninth course in the program. I would like to have more opportunities to participate in web conferences as I work through my last few courses in the program.

Chart and plan

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Chart and plan

View more documents from jamiejjc.

Chart and plan

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Chart and plan

View more documents from jamiejjc.

Reflection on the Draft of the National Educational Technology Plan

The draft plan of the National Educational Technology Plan lists the two major goals that have been outlined by the Obama Administration to be achieved by the year 2020. The goals are to raise the proportion of college graduates from where it now stands [39%] so that 60% of our population holds a 2-year or 4-year degree and to close the achievement gap so that all students – regardless of race, income, or neighborhood – graduate from high school ready to succeed in college and careers. To achieve these goals the NETP has set forth goals and recommendations geared towards the 21st century learner. These goals and recommendations are divided into 5 different categories including: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. The plan provides a list as to what is believed to be the assumptions as to what the set-backs or issues are for the 21st century learner. The goal for learning is that all learners will have engaging and empowering learning experiences both in and outside of school that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable, and ethical participants in our globally networked society. The plan continues on to outline what learning should look like and includes that all instruction should be individualized, personalized, and differentiated. I do believe in the fact that instruction should be individualized, personalized, and differentiated, but there are several topics discussed in the plan that as an educator I have an issue with. I do not believe that professionals from the government have any right outlining how people need to learn, what they should be learning, and even who needs to learn. As far as teaching is concerned the plan states that “The best way to prepare teachers for connected teaching is to have them experience it. All institutions involved in preparing educators should provide technology-supported learning experiences that promote and enable the use of technology to improve learning, assessment, and instructional practices”. I agree that we as teachers if expected to teach certain ways and topics should be trained and prepared in that area.

Progress Report on the Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology

The progress report for the Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology provides an update on the state’s progress towards addressing the needs of education in Texas. A secure future in education is a system in which students and teachers have access to and can learn from technology 24 hours a day 7 days a week, parents have equal opportunities to participate and grow in their technology skills and knowledge, school stakeholders and leaders can have more fiscal resources. Overall the report is broken down into two different parts. Part one focuses on the four key areas of the Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology 2006-2020. Part two focuses on a summary of the services that are provided by the twenty regional education service centers in meeting the recommendations of the Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology. The STaR chart is used throughout the entire progress report as a guideline for data to show progress made or areas in which improvements need to be made. For example the StaR Chart was used under the Teaching and Learning key area to show the percentages of growth between the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years. Recommendations are made that the state of Texas continue to implement Pre-Kindergarten technology guidelines as well as the K-12 Technology Application TEKS in order to need the needs of our 21st century learners. Several programs and grants have taken place in order to support the recommendations made to accomplish the goals of the Long-Range Plan. Technology Immersion Pilots(TIP), Vision 2020 Grant, Target Tech in Texas( T3) Grant, Connections Grant, Rural Technology Pilot Program, Distance Learning, Texas Virtual School Program (TxVSN), and Electronic Course Program are among the several service programs that aim towards the Long-Range Plan goals.

Texas STaR Chart Presentation

All about the Texas STaR Chart and what we should know about it.

STaR Chart

View more presentations from jamiejjc.

Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology

I have decided that the most important and controversial area of the Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology 2006-2010 is Infrastructure for Technology. This is a great area of concern for my district and more specifically my campus. The area of Infrastructure for Technology is overall a reflection of teacher’s perceptions of the instructional environment within his/ her school or district. This area is divided up into six different categories. The different categories that are rated by teachers include; Students per Computers, Internet Access Connectivity Speed, Other Classroom Technology, Technical Support, and Distance Learning Capacity. Over the last three years my campus overall total in this area has fluctuated greatly from year to year. In the 2007-2008 school year the total was 14, in 2008-2009 the total was 17, and then in 2009-2010 the total was 10. These ever changing numbers reflect that from the teachers’ perspectives there has been no stability or progress made in the area of Infrastructure for Technology. The average total scores for the district over the past three years are 15 in 2007-2008, 17 in 2008-2009, and 16 in 2009-2010. The first two years my campus was almost exactly in line with the district average rating. However, the last year my campus rated this area much lower than the district average. On a national level the largest number of teachers rated Infrastructure for Technology in the advanced technology classification all three school years. The most obvious and most commonly heard of recommendations made to improve the area of Infrastructure for Technology on the national, district, and campus levels are to increase funding for technology across the board. In order for improvements to be made more funds are almost a necessity.