Purpose and Process
During the fall and winter of the 2002/2003 school year, staff from Sun Associates, an educational consulting firm based in N. Chelmsford, MA, worked with a small committee of Katonah-Lewisboro staff and administrators including the District's Assistant Superintendent and Administrative Services, the K-12 Instructional Technology Specialist, and a small district-wide evaluation committee to consider the following basic questions:
·
How effectively has Katonah-Lewisboro allocated
district technology resources so that teachers can meet the needs of today’s
learners?
· How has technology improved Katonah-Lewisboro student work/learning?
Key to this evaluation are the two rubrics developed by the District during the 2000/2001 school year . These rubrics organize a set of benchmarks, or performance indicators, that relate to the District's two technology evaluation questions. Data independently collected by Sun Associates was used to score district performance on the two rubrics.
For the Impact on Teaching (first) evaluation question, the Committee scored district performance as a Level 2. Level 2 performance is characterized as:
Teachers are familiar with the basics of instructional and
information technology and recognize its importance to teaching and personal
productivity. The district provides staff development for fundamental
technology skills that may link to classroom applications. Technical support is provided but limited. Hardware and software are provided and are
generally adequate.
While overall district performance
was deemed to be Level 2, the Committee felt that there was strong movement
toward Level 3 and that there were in all likelihood many more individuals who were operating at Level
3 (or higher) than was the case in the 2000/2001 school year. Improvements in the area of professional
development would push performance solidly into Level 3.
For the Impact on Student Achievement (second) evaluation question, the
Committee scored district performance also as Level 2. Level 2 performance
in the student impact rubric is characterized as:
Use of technology is primarily teacher directed. Students
use productivity tools with structured guidance from their teacher. Many
students demonstrate mastery of the state and district technology standards.
District performance was found to
be solidly in Level 2. The primary
barrier to improved performance is the fact that the vast majority of student
use of technology is teacher-directed.
(continued)
·
Move beyond basic
productivity
-- The district should structure its professional development to help teachers
move develop more integrated uses of technology within the student learning environment. Teachers should be trained in the use of
technology tools that can catalyze instructional practices supporting
student-centered, engaged, learning.
This goes well beyond the use of technology tools to augment or replace
existing practices and instead positions technology as a mechanism for true
curriculum and instructional reform.
·
Take a different approach to
training --
District teachers need more concentrated instructional
support for integrating technology within the curriculum. Under the current budget conditions, this
support might come from the development of building-based curriculum study
groups that leverage existing resources such as exemplary technology-using
teachers and the current Instructional Technology Specialists/trainers.
·
Build training around
standards
-- The K-12 technology mappings should serve as a framework around which the
recommended curriculum study groups and Instructional Technology Specialists
can build their embedded professional development.
·
Tie together existing
initiatives
-- Technology integration should be actively positioned as a mechanism for
achieving a variety of curriculum initiatives.
·
Establish a clear “vision”
for effective technology integration – The evaluation rubrics establish a strong vision
for how technology is to positively impact teaching and learning. This vision needs to be articulated for
teachers and administrators across the district.
· Institute an actual strategic planning process for technology -- We recommend that the district establish (or re-establish) a district-wide technology committee for the explicit purpose of creating a long-range strategic technology plan.
·
Continue current levels of
technical support
·
Improve and increase
technician accountability
·
Define a replacement cycle
for hardware
-- The district should make clear its intentions for replacing equipment, even
if budget concerns result in the district not being able to meet its
replacement goals.
Continue
current configurations of classroom and lab computers -- We recommend that the
district make no changes in regard to the existence of classroom and laboratory
computers.
·
Teacher laptops -- We believe that JJMS and
JJHS teachers would be better served with portable computing devices (i.e.,
laptops) which could replace the existing classroom computers as these
computers reach the end of their useful lives.
· More technology for special area teachers -- We continue to feel that the district should provide more technology for special area and special education teachers.