Two plus two plus two equals 6. This equation can also be written as 2+2+2=6 and it still means the same thing although some might argue that the second way of writing the problem is much easier to read. When comparing the National Educational Technology Plan with the 2010 Michigan Educational Technology Plan and then the local school district plan, I found that documents that were closer to home were much easier to read.
The National Technology Plan is a wordy document that I’m sure contains all the information regarding technology that one would ever need to know. I’m also fairly sure that no layman understands what they are reading, that is if they even attempt to read it. I know it is probably “legal proof” and that every i has been dotted and every t crossed, but I’m not sure how much good that will do the average teacher.
The 2010 Michigan Educational Technology Plan was much more readable and in my opinion, much more specific. It outlines each of the goals in a broad way and then individually addresses each goal with a list of strategies and performance indicators to achieve each goal. In my assessment, it is a job well done by our State Officials and the Advisory Board Members.
In comparing this document with a local school district technology plan, I chose to use Rockford. The Rockford District’s Technology Plan is available at http://www.rockfordschools.org/Resources/PDF/RPS/RPS2007-10TechnologyPlan.pdf and is a great example of a readable, specific and realistic technology plan. The only area that I found in the Michigan Ed Tech Plan that I did not see specifically addressed in the Rockford plan was Goal 2, Strategy 2.
This section specifies that “MDE will work with and support other lead agencies to increase broadband access for all educators and students as a requirement of anywhere, anytime learning. It specifically states under Performance Indicator 1, that by 2015, every school district in Michigan will have a minimum of 1 Gigabyte per second (Gbps) connectivity to the Internet and every school building, library, and public school academy in Michigan will have a minimum of 100 Megabytes per second (Mbps) connectivity to the Internet.” [i]
I did not test this myself but know from talking to my daughters that they feel the internet connection currently is very slow. The standards say by 2015 and we are only in 2011 so there is still time to fix that aspect.
I also need to repeal my statement from my last blog that I don’t think that most of my daughter’s teachers have fulfilled the technology requirements at each grade level. After reading Rockford’s document, I see that they have indeed done what is outlined for each grade level here at Rockford. My expectations of how they would be using technology were different than those outlined in the technology plan, but I see that they have learned those skills. Kudos to Rockford and my daughter’s teachers (and my EDU 590 Instructor) as it was done so seamlessly that I was not aware it was happening.
Picture source:
http://th730.photobucket.com/albums/ww306/lengtarang/Technology/th_googlebot.jpg
Very good audit of those documents-I fell short on that. I had to break all that information down to simpler terms. I used the teacher and student model diagrams on the National Plan and surveyed the other documents to see if all the bubbles were covered. Give me some graphics - I'm a visual guy! I feel connected learning and support community is very important in each plan since some students have special needs outside of the school day. What we are doing now in EDU590 is what our secondary students at least should be doing. Give my blog a look http://Foye590blog.blogspot.com.
ReplyDeleteLori you did an excellent job of courteously saying the National Educational Technology Plan was written as a "justification" and not to read! You have a knack for eloquently stating the obvious. Good Job! Its unfortunate that all that hard work will go mostly unnoticed by those who could really use it. I struggled with the Michigan Educational Technology Plan. Although it was shorter, it still left me frustrated and wishing it could be revised to be "usable" instead of being archived someday for posterity. When will requirements be written so those who carry them out can understand what they are required to do? You did a great job!
ReplyDelete