Recently I developed a professional development presentation to use with staff. It focuses on the primary ways a campus can increase proficiency by including all stakeholders. I have worked in several districts across three states, and when I saw successful growth, I always saw a culture of collaboration first. Schools without partnerships will not see significant growth--they are islands without support--and we need support in education. During the next two years, we may see even less financial support for schools, and we need to prepare for meeting the educational needs of our students with less resources. If we have the right PEOPLE as resources, we will still see increased proficiency on our campuses.
0 Comments
Schoolwide systems of support, especially in today’s climate of potential school emergencies, have become an important issue for campus communities. Bullying contributes to episodes of violence on most campuses, regardless of the types of violence, and providing proactive methods of support for all staff and students, which make all stakeholders feel like valued members of the learning community, have been shown to develop campuses where violent episodes are less likely and less life-threatening when they do occur. Less violence of physical and verbal natures allows administrators and teachers to develop strong cultures of learning where “students receive a continual message that nothing is as important--or as engaging--as learning” (Bambrick-Santoyo & Peiser, 2012, p. 164). A school culture focused on learning will already help students proactively keep their focus away from both physical and verbal violence, especially if part of their curriculum approaches historical and fictional nonviolent practices. My previous district in New Mexico implemented a safe schools program in 2006, over a decade before most Colorado districts changed to safe school programs. Their decision followed the hostage crisis in Bailey, Colorado, which inspired significant discussions across the nation, but changed little policy about actual safety in schools. The incident in Bailey, Colorado, resulted because several people saw a suspicious man, but did not report the man to proper authorities (Alfano, 2006). He overtook a classroom of students, held four female students, assaulted them, and killed two of them before killing himself when police began to break down the door of the classroom (Illescas, 2006). His behavior leading up to the incident was also troubling (gun collecting, ammunition collecting, and indicative of suicide). This incident inspired Northern New Mexico to invite police officers to place SRO staff members in their schools for the first time to ensure a police presence on campuses before incidents began as part of safe schools (Mettler, 2016); when I moved to Farmington, New Mexico, I felt safer because I had an SRO on my campus for the first time. The students agreed that having a police officer on campus, who they could tell their concerns, made them feel safer. Our SRO staff members stopped 623 threats of life in 2014 alone by being informed ahead of time by either staff or students so they could prevent incidents through the safe schools and safe-to-tell program in Farmington, New Mexico (Harris, 2014). My current campus has just begun the No Bully program under a federal grant to train teachers, students, and administrators about developing a culture of safe schools in Pueblo, Colorado. These trainings have not effectively changed the climate or culture in our schools. I recently witnessed a harassment incident in my classroom during which a male student called a female student an “ugly, Asian boy.” I immediately wrote the boy up for harassment because the female student is a lesbian, a Latina, and because his behavior was legal harassment of a protected group. I also verbally addressed his behavior immediately as harassment, which would not be tolerated or repeated in my presence ever again. What was most upsetting about this incident was that the female student came back to thank me because I “actually did something about it. The other teachers just ignore it.” I doubt ALL the other teachers ignore this type of behavior, but this student’s experience is that for her, they do. Obviously, the trainings are not working, yet. Any initiative takes time to enact true change. I moved to Farmington, New Mexico in 2009 when that district had undergone three full years of trainings to implement their safe schools program. Hopefully, Pueblo will see effective change by 2021 with their No Bully program so students from all backgrounds and genders will find tolerance in the public schools of our community. References
The increasing number of school shootings, which have begun to affect all stakeholders in education, beg the question of educators can work with stakeholders to provide safe and secure schools for our students. Students can only do so much. They can report concerns when they hear or read disturbing information if they are trained to “see something, say something” by their educators, but they can’t change their school’s policies about safety. Parents, like students, can only do so much. They can elect school board members, who are willing to address safety in schools, and they can support professional development for their school’s staff and students; however, they can’t change their school’s safety policies. Teachers can join safe school committees and seek professional development on reacting in an emergency, but they really can’t change campus policy as individuals. While teachers can be responsible for the safety and security of students within their own classrooms (and in the hallways between passing periods), only administrators can change policies to ensure a higher level of safety and security for their staff and students. Building administrators can only work within their parameters of their district policies when changing their building procedures regarding safety and security. They can bring new concerns and desires for change to district-level administrators when they see a problem, but they cannot change district policy regarding safety and security for their own campuses. District-level administrators bear the highest level of responsibility to ensure their district policies are based on the newest, best professional development available, that their campuses are kept up-to-date in every way possible for safety and security, and that building administrators are well-trained to implement security measures at their campuses. Recent studies have shown that “increased policing of schools, the use of metal detectors, and punitive disciplinary measures” on campuses with “full-time law enforcement” have not “served as an effective deterrent for problematic behaviors” (Kwong & Davis, 2015, p. 69). District-level administrators must, therefore, seek out more effective measures and provide training on these measures to their building staff members. District Administrators also bear a high level of responsibility to listen to feedback from their building administrators when problems arise so they can address those problems with necessary revisions to district policy. Building administrators must also stay abreast of recent professional trends in safety and security to ensure their buildings are as safe as possible. Most professional development on bullying still trains teachers to stop bullying instead of trying to prevent it, and building administrators can provide better trainings on actual prevention, not only for bullying, but for other safety issues, as well (Side & Johnson, 2014, p. 222). And like district-level administrators, they must seek and listen to feedback from their teachers as problems arise so they can revise their campus policies as needed. If district and building administrators work together to seek meaningful trainings and to revise policies as needed, they will ensure much safer campuses where learning can be the focus. Kwong and Davis (2015) argue that “climate is an important factor in academic achievement and performance,” and if teachers want students to focus on learning, then they must provide safe and secure classrooms when focusing on learning is easy, not challenging. Teachers bear the highest level of responsibility for implementing safety and security measures for students because they are in direct contact with students. They need to be experts in safety and security policy regarding not only the multiple emergencies, which might occur on a school campus, but also in smaller matters like bullying, depression, and other socioemotional issues that affect students’ safety and security on a daily basis. Between 50-80% of school-aged children are affected by bullying each year, increasing their risk of depression and suicide (Side & Johnson, 2014, p. 217). Teachers are the “front lines” for their students and need to seek their own professional development when it’s not necessarily available from their campus administrators. Providing a culture of learning, safety, and security “makes sure students building the habits of mind and heart that allow their learning to fly” (Bambrick-Santoyo & Peiser, 2012, p. 168). A lack of well-planned trainings does not excuse teachers from educating themselves and trying with all diligence to meet the learning needs or the safety needs of their students. They cannot change building policies, but they can change their own mastery of safety and security issues. More than anything else, all stakeholders need to work together to improve safety and security for all students. Providing for the safety and security of our students ensures they will focus more effectively on learning, which should be the primary focus of all educators. Parents and students can advocate for their own needs and lobby for better funding and better policies through local and state governmental channels. They can also volunteer at their local campuses to ensure a strong presence of all stakeholders. No one is excused from helping educators find better answers to the growing crisis of unsafe schools, and if all of us work together, we can provide much safer campuses for our learners. References:
During the Pueblo District 60 strike, I had the opportunity to interview one of our financial officers officers district, who will remain anonymous for obvious reasons. I cannot even say what specific position this employee holds because our department of finance is so small, that divulging the specific position or even the specific area would inform the other employees almost immediately (by process of elimination) who had shared this information with me. Several media outlets reported last night that teacher salaries decreased this year while human resource salaries and administration salaries increased, not only this year--but over the last three years (Howland, 2018). The numbers reported by media, however, were not completely true, and they do not reflect the seriousness of the budget crisis in District 60 . . . because District 60 is not being run properly to improve financially. If the district does not improve its revenue sources and its ability to retain students, it will fail financially within the foreseeable future and be taken over by the state of Colorado for mismanagement.
According to my source, the head financial office for the district has overseen investments from the reserves for the district for some time, and these investments have failed miserably during the last two years. In spite of recognizing changes in the market, no changes were made to the investment plan, and the district’s portfolio has crashed, which is why the district is now in a financial crisis. To add to the growing crisis, the district chose to increase spending by hiring more administrators during the crisis, increasing their administrative budget between 17% and 27% depending on who does the math. My anonymous source states “the increase in administrative spending this year is actually 27%” (McCay, 2018). In spite of the growing financial crisis, our financial team are not seeking better investment plans or diversified revenue streams like bond elections and levies. To make matters worse, the team do not follow a written budget policy, which might guide decision-making during a crisis. Instead, they began their planning this year with the previous year’s budget, and then they amended as needed for immediate fiscal needs (Pueblo City Schools, 2018). Their reactionary budgeting required that they cut from line-items, which they saw as expendable and added to items, which they thought would benefit the district . . . and they made these decisions without the input of stakeholders, ensuring their decisions would meet opposition (Schilling & Tomal, 2013, pp. 38-41). Pueblo is currently in a reactive budgeting cycle, and as we move forward, our district leaders MUST begin planning for the future, not the immediate crisis. Right now, the budget team for district consists of eight people: the board members, the superintendent of schools, and the district treasurers. The decisions of these eight people have cost the district 1000 students in three years--1000 students have literally left the district in only three years because of their dissatisfaction with Pueblo District 60 (Koen, 2018). OBVIOUSLY, the current form of budgeting is not working for us, and we must change. We have put fires out in our living room while the entire house is burning down around us. My inside source has recommended change several times--change to our investment portfolio, change to our budgeting system, change to our hiring practices. All of these recommendations are ignored. If our highest administrators cannot listen to wise suggestions about necessary change, we will lose another 1000 students THIS YEAR. The students are participating in the strike with their teachers, and they will not return to schools where change is denied again. To improve not only our budgeting process, but also our culture as a district, we need to seek input from responsible third parties, listen to their advice, and plan an ideology for our long-term budget, which will help us meet some necessary change goals. If we will not change, we will die. We need to diversity our funds. We need to change our leaders--immediately. And we need to close buildings to save money, not cut salaries. If we won’t make wise decisions for the future of Pueblo, then the future of Pueblo will LITERALLY go to District 70 for an education. In the wake of our strike and our current budget crisis, I developed a Knovio presentation suggesting why we need reforms in our budgeting process:
https://view.knowledgevision.com/presentation/176e3b10d32749ab87421cfe69143d6d Pueblo District 60 has no published budget policy. A review of their public budgets suggests that they follow a systems approach to budgeting, and that as they begin their planning year, they begin with the previous year’s budget, which they amend as needed for immediate fiscal needs (Pueblo City Schools, 2018). Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks to this model of budgeting is possible reactionary budgeting, where each crisis is dealt with on an annual basis, and long-term cultural shifts in program-planning and funding don’t necessarily take place (Schilling & Tomal, 2013, pp. 38-41). Pueblo is currently in reactive budgeting cycle, and as we move forward, our district leaders MUST begin planning for the future, not the immediate crisis. Right now, the district board members, along with the superintendent of schools, develop the budget with advice from the district treasurers. Eight people move through a fiscal planning cycle on the behalf of the district. The budget is presented after its adoption each year at the final board meeting. Stakeholders may present concerns and complaints at the next public board meeting, but stakeholders’ concerns do not factor into the budgeting process. The district is required to present the budget for financial transparency; they are not required to change it because of community concerns. Their financial transparency is barely met by posting the budget under a link so far down their front page that most viewers would never find it; if our leaders truly wanted transparency and feedback, they would “create an online environment where budgets and emerging school plans can be easily accessed and readily shared” (Perry, 2013, p. 9). For the last three years, our district has experienced student loss to nearby districts and budget cuts to most budget items as a result of those losses; yet, we have not moved aggressively toward solutions. We have put fires out in our living room while the entire house is burning down around us. To improve not only our budgeting process, but also our culture as a district, we need to seek input from responsible third parties, listen to their advice, and plan an ideology for our long-term budget, which will help us meet some necessary change goals. If we will not change, we will die. Our current climate of frustration, exhaustion, and disillusionment will only increase our student losses this year, and we have taken NO progressive steps toward fiscal change. Every levy proposed in the 2017 election in Colorado passed. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Our district did not propose a bond or a levy in 2017, and we have not begun to campaign for either one, which we desperately need to do, for the 2018 election. Especially after a significant tax CUT on the federal level, most Pueblo residents would invest in their own future as a community if the campaign were solid and the purpose for the taxes were valid; but we aren’t even asking for tax payers to take responsibility in the midst of our financial crisis. We’re continuing to plan exactly how we’ve been planning, which means we’re making a conscious decision right now to get the same results--and our FUTURE will move to the district next door if we cannot do better. References
An open letter responding to the “Governor’s Speech” from Illinois: Introduction: Governor: I categorically disagree with most of your plan to increase education revenue during the current crisis; especially your decision to cut property taxes, to increase individual income tax, and to institute a pension tax. These measures will significantly hurt lower income families, whose children already enter the education system in an equity deficit, and your measures will not provide the $7 billion you estimate (Schilling & Tomal, 2013, pp. 30-31). Your other ideas of taxing corporations and consumer service industries, depending upon which industries you mean, may not work, either. The affected community, if it does not support your idea, will ensure it does not work. Cutting Property Taxes Instead of increasing them with a Bond or Levy The public education system receives a significant portion of its support from property taxes, including businesses within a school tax base, and cutting those taxes provides a tax cut to the tax payers, who can MOST afford to support the education system. We can creatively distribute that tax funding similar to funding in Texas to ensure the funds are used equitably for all stakeholders across the state rather than overfunding some districts and underfunding others (Schilling & Tomal, 2013, p. 20). All stakeholders in society bare a responsibility to support public education because we all benefit from its product: adequately educated citizens. If the state and local governments remove property taxes—a responsibility paid toward the school—then the government is also de facto removing the moral obligation of schools to provide adequate education, returning that obligation to the private sector. Furthermore, impoverished families, who don’t own property, will have their income and service taxes raised to offset these lost revenue sources—which is not morally appropriate or even sustainable. Increasing Income Tax Increasing income taxes on corporations usually results in layoffs, which significantly hurt lower-middle class families. “The idea is to put the least burden on the fewest people without disadvantaging any specific group,” especially those in poverty (Ikpa, 2016, p. 471). These families already struggle to meet their financial expectations and spend quality time with their children, who usually have educational deficits as a result. More of these families will find themselves in poverty as an immediate consequence of increases in corporate income taxes. So the increase in funds will not actually help educational facilities in any way, as we find our impoverished stakeholders increased in a direct correlation, and an immediate need to spend that money to alleviate their needs in school. Instituting Pension Tax Instituting a tax on pensions will hurt retired pensioners, many of whom are the caregivers and guardians of their grandchildren, and taxing their limited income will once again only hurt already impoverished students. Taxing pensioners will also be one more deterrent from young graduates considering trades and careers with pensions, increasing shortages in those careers (Mulvahill, 2018). One such career is teaching. Taxing pensions in a field where a shortage is at such a critical crisis will not help improve the overall problem, even while it will all half a million dollars into the revenue stream. When half a million teachers leave and we spend 2million on recruiting, that half a million will actually have been part of a 1.5 million total loss. Taxing Corporations As mentioned earlier, any taxation added to corporations in this economy will result in layoffs. These layoffs will directly result in an increase of lower economic student demographics—so a direct increase in student failure. Poverty directly results in student failure (Della Sala & Knoeppel, 2015, p. 12). So taxing corporations to fund schools will not actually fix education in the long run until taxing corporations and penalizing them for passing their profiteering onto their employees go hand in hand. Profiteering is what has to be fixed before taxing corporations will ever fix anything in America. Taxing Service Industries No, sir, taxing luxuries, especially service industries, might actually work, because it doesn’t unfairly tax the poor. If you want to put a 50% tax on boats, then you are only going to tax boaters. If you want to put a 10% tax on marijuana, then you are only going to tax pot smokers. However, if your community refuses to support your measures, hates the increases, votes you out of office, and then calls for a special measure to vote the tax change down, they will win. You have to know your voters and what they care about—if they don’t support the increase on the luxury, then it won’t stand in your community of voters, whether it’s reasonable or not—so you can’t lower property taxes. Conclusion: Protect Your Clients and Know Your Community More important than any of the points I’ve made is my advice to know your clients, sir. Most children in education today are impoverished, so worrying about their parents’ taxes is laughable. Their parents get earned income credits and make less than $20,000 a year. You are far removed from the reality of MOST parents involved in public education, who don’t own property, and if you cut taxes in the community, who WANT to educate the children growing up around them so they don’t wind up in prison, you will ENSURE they wind up in another cycle of poverty and a lack of education (Della Sala & Knoeppel, 2015, p. 12). You increase their risk of incarceration, which costs over twice as much as an appropriate public education. I would love for you to solve corporate greed for our nation so we COULD rely upon corporate taxes for once, but you haven’t. They will pass the buck to anyone but themselves. They are the pirates of the 21st Century, and until we invent our modern version of the Royal Navy to check their avarice, you’d better ask ANY administrator if your ideas would help a real school or just increase its number of students in poverty almost overnight. Administrators are desperate for more funding, but not if it hurts the children we serve every day, and your plan would certainly do that. You can add fairly well; I hope you can listen, too. References
Funding in education, especially in Colorado, is a hot topic of discussion. With half a million teachers on the march in Denver on April 26, 2018, and possibly a million marching on April 27, how the state will fund education in the future is a huge issue for voters. Primarily, we all want education to happen in “a school that has low cost and produces high achievement” (Schilling & Tomal, 2013, p. 2), but this pipedream of efficiency is almost impossible to find in the real world because the model requires nearly perfect students, perfect teachers, and perfect administrators. What we can achieve with outstanding teachers and administrators is an adequate public education. An adequate education will provide students will essential skills and knowledge for either their choice of a career or a college education; this goal is not only attainable, but it’s affordably attainable as long as all stakeholders take responsibility for their role in the model and collaborate for the success of the students in their diverse community. In any given community, diverse students will enter the school at tiered levels of knowledge and skill; their playing field is NOT equal; they have neither social, financial, nor opportunistic equity prior to their experiences in school. “Some students may be under-prepared and must play ‘catch-up’” to be successful “because inadequate funding made them ‘resource disadvantaged” (Ikpa, 2016, p. 469). The school can differentiate their education, which also costs a different amount for certain students, in order to ensure EQUITY for those students, providing enriched experiences for those, who need them, to equalize their playing field. An outstanding teacher will provide an equitable lesson within one classroom by differentiating her explanations and even her time per student. She will not provide an equal lesson. An equal lesson would be ridiculous to the genius, who already understands the lesson and is talked down to during even a challenging lesson. An equal lesson would be ridiculous to the ELL student, who does not even speak the same language; Colorado has one of the highest number of English Language Learners in long-term studies, a factor commonly correlated with inequitable education and with long-term poverty in the future of a child (Della Sala & Knoeppel, 2015, pp. 16-18). An equitable lesson would provide these two students with entirely different lessons so they can receive challenging content, too, and continue to learn, while most of the group receive a group lesson, work together to engage as small teams as they inquire into their new learning, and help each other discover new ideas about their knowledge. Nothing about this model works, however, if the rest of the community beyond the walls of the school won't help, as well. Parents MUST engage daily with their children about their education. Otherwise, their children will fail to thrive educationally, and they won’t receive an adequate education. Professionals in the private sector must volunteer as mentors and guest speakers; they must share their expertise, or students won’t receive an adequate education. Legislators must pass beneficial laws and provide proper funding, or students won’t receive an adequate education. The model won’t work, period, without EVERYONE doing their required part, and if anyone doesn’t take personal responsibility for their part in public education, then the model will fail. Blaming others for what they are doing wrong is like drowning in a sinking boat instead of saving your own life. I’m a swim coach, and I’ve been a lifeguard for nearly 30 years. I’ve seen drowning victims nearly kill their rescuers a number of times in an emergency. We’re in a sinking boat today in Colorado, and a lot of victims are pointing fingers at teachers while they’re bailing water; those fingers could plug holes. When we’re all in the water, a lot of those same finger pointers will be choking lifeguards to death in the water. Here’s the thing about lifeguards. We’re experts. We’re trained to push drowning victims away and save ourselves. When all the schools close--when the ships go down--we’ll survive. But adequate education may be gone forever. Every other career on the planet will disappear without the lifeguards in the model. We can educate ourselves to do something else. We know that one essential skill--how to teach anyone anything, even ourselves. As so many tired teachers head to the capital in Colorado this week, maybe thankful members of the community, who remember good teachers, should head with them, so we can continue to work on this model of adequate education, and fix what’s broken in the boat together before it really does sink completely. References
Introduction Technology is an essential tool in 21st century education. I have actually had moments of panic as a teacher when my Wifi went down because I’ve become so accustomed to teaching with online tools, I could not adjust “in the moment” and imagine how to teach without my essential tools without some serious think time. I’ve taught on a variety of campuses, from one-to-one campuses with broadband and sliding walls to open classrooms during blended units to entirely traditional, closed internet campuses without any classroom devices for students and one small computer lab in the library. The campus where I currently serve as an administrative intern is moving into the 21st century as quickly as possible, in spite of poor funding and failing building, which does not support broadband Wifi. Our district administration do not feel safe spending reserves to fund building updates or staff raises to improve our building needs, our staff needs, or our technology needs at this time, and our only hope is to pass a bond election, which is gaining support with community stakeholders. In the near future, we hope to improve our campus failures in the areas of providing equitable access to devices for every student, for all staff members (to use during instruction), and for use during professional development (especially for the use of PLE-based digital professional development). We know we are not perfect, and we’d like to become a more progressive model to others instead of reading about the exciting models we’re following. Technology for Equitable Learning The 21st Century provides unique and simple methods for differentiating instruction in every classroom, regardless of funding, through the creative use of available technology. The USDE goal for this area states that “[a]ll learners will have engaging and empowering learning experiences in both formal and informal settings that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable, and ethical participants in our globally connected society” (Thomas, et al, 2017, p. 9). Grouping students when a one-to-one device system is not available and ensuring that equitable time using the actual device (through assigned job sharing) provides time for collaboration, group problem-solving, and the use of technology to build fundamental 21st Century skills (Crockett, Jukes, & Churches, 2011, p. 19). We can trust students to engage in the content more than we realize when they have a team and a device. “Give students the chance to take charge of activities, even when they may not quite have all the content skills. Students are accomplished education consumers” (McCarthy, 2015). During my internship, I have noticed many classrooms allowing students to use their cellphones as the shared devices to allow digital learning in classrooms, and this model works well with appropriate directions and classroom management. On my campus, devices are reserved for daily instruction in English classes because we have no funding for textbooks, so cellphones are the only alternate devices other teachers can use, and the entire model is not equitable for the instructors in the building. The USDE guideline recommends that institutions “develop and implement learning resources that embody the flexibility and power of technology to create equitable and accessible learning ecosystems that make learning possible everywhere and all the time for all students” (Thomas, et al, 2017, p. 25). We hope to establish a more equitable process through grant funds in the future, but because of our district budget crisis, we cannot hope for district funds at this time to alleviate our textbook issue or our technology issue, and therefore, our lack of equity will continue. Technology for a Community of Thinkers The technology boon of our current world offers limitless human resources and creative e social networking platforms for all types of communicators, ensuring that all teachers can share their expertise, their data, and their challenges for professional growth . . . as well as for the benefit of their students. Teachers across continents can share information on a daily basis and develop strong, supportive bonds in cyber PLC teams and PLE (personal learning environments) of their own making, bringing their unique learning back to their buildings for the benefit of their entire campus staff. According to the USDE, administrators and to ensure that instructors “will be supported by technology that connects them to people, data, content, resources, expertise, and learning experiences that can empower and inspire them to provide more effective teaching for all learners” (Thomas, et al, 2017, p. 28). To do so, principals need to provide all instructors with personal devices, up-to-date training, and ongoing professional development in digital trends (especially trends outside of education) to ensure that their creative thinking about technology for sharing information and for teaching students about how to prepare for their futures in a technology-based world centered around digital information sharing will be appropriate. Professional development should ALWAYS model these trends. Administrators should provide “professional learning experiences powered by technology to increase” staff members’ “digital literacy and enable them to create compelling learning activities that improve learning and teaching, assessment, and instructional practices” (Thomas, et al, 2017, p. 40). The campus where I serve as an intern does not model innovative trends in professional development except for using PLE-based development as a pilot program for two PLC teams, a program my mentor asked me to develop as my fall project. Our campus hopes to expand this program and to develop a digital teaching channel in the future to improve our use of technology for professional use in the future. Technology Innovation from Education Leaders One disparity across all levels in education, including preparatory programs for new teachers, is the use of emerging technology in useful and creative ways to ensure quality education, professional development, fiscal responsibility, and success for all stakeholders within growing educational systems. The USDE has set an innovation goal asking educational leaders to “Embed an understanding of technology-enabled education within the roles and responsibilities of education leaders at all levels and set state, regional, and local visions for technology in learning”(Thomas, et al, 2017, p. 42). The USDE further suggest that “local authorities are uniquely suited to understand the needs and resources available within their local education ecosystems” to make this goal attainable (Thomas, et al, 2017, p. 53), but finding any educational ecosystem successfully implementing resources for the good of all stakeholders and setting an example for others to follow is rare. We should expect to see new teachers using technology and models like TPACK more often in their instruction, but they are no more likely to integrate technology in the classroom after their programs than veteran instructors in spite of “faculty modeling, building technical proficiency, and developing technology integration experience through design projects” (Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012). A review of the longitudinal studies from 1987 to the present only calls for more research, and the writers of the article conclude that “technology integration [for pre-service teachers] may require a relatively sophisticated and interrelated understanding of the technology, pedagogy, and content of their instruction, resident within the TPACK construct and supported by a strong teacher preparation program” (Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012). My concern is that exhaustion, a lack of mentoring, and a severe lack of funding in actual buildings is preventing real teachers, especially first-year teachers, from utilizing their training effectively for the benefit of students. Assessment Technology for all Stakeholders Using technology to improve assessment is literally a no-brainer. Technology-generated and run assessments are faster and easier. The data is also a goldmine for savvy instructors and administrators, who know how to analyze information, and it’s immediate. The NSDE asks that “our education system will leverage the power of technology to measure what matters and use assessment data to improve learning” (Thomas, et al, 2017, p. 54). My campus does an outstanding job of using technology at every level to assess student learning and to use that information to adjust instruction, improve instruction, and therefore, to improve student success. All schools need to ensure they follow strict FERPA protocols as they’re “enabling a model of assessment that includes ongoing gathering and sharing of data for continuous improvement of learning and teaching” (Thomas, et al, 2017, p. 67). Most institutions follow a reactionary model, putting out fires for their lowest testing group each year to ensure they show nominal growth for that group in order to avoid poor grades from their state board, staff cuts, reprimands, or financial consequences. My campus is facing ALL of these issues this year, in spite of having shown growth for all student demographics during a year of uncommon change and stress, including a teacher strike, a superintendent turnover, and new testing rollouts. We will lose 25% of our building staff in spite of our successful student ratings at the start of the year and student growth performance in every category over the course of the year. Our data did not save us. I will personally be cut and had to continue with my state testing duties as a classroom teacher, knowing that a week later I would have to resume my duties as an instructional coach and intern, which included firing colleagues, without affecting the performance of my students due to my own stress. No amount of technology, creative or otherwise, could have prepared me for that week; however, having lived it will forever make me a stronger educator, and I will always remember how to face stress with grace for the stakeholders under my care and how to juggle too many tasks when disaster strikes---as it always does—for administrators. Wagner (2012) charges the business leaders of America with changing this problem since their pockets buy the legislative leaders of our nation, who really can change what’s happening in American education (252-259). Supportive Infrastructure A supportive infrastructure, both within the school system, and also from with the larger community, is essential for student success in the 21st century. In order to be successful, the USDE mandate that “All students and educators will have access to a robust and comprehensive infrastructure when and where they need it for learning” (Thomas, et al, 2017, p. 69). Digital learning requires access to the internet, and students need that access wherever they are. Most communities now offer low income internet packages for families with students enrolled in local school districts, but schools need to provide that information to all families: “Working with federal programs such as E-rate through the FCC, as well as with nonprofit partners such as CoSN, EducationSuperHighway, EveryoneOn, and others, states, districts, and postsecondary institutions should make sure technology-enabled learning is available for all students, everywhere, all the time” (Thomas, 2017, p.83). Local libraries need to provide fast connectivity to their students, as well, to ensure that families, who cannot afford any package, can at least provide their students with library access. My current campus partners well with stakeholders to provide broadband access all day to every student, including after-hours access. We have learning labs before and after school with ample devices to ensure students can complete assignments and even take courses online to retake failed credits on their own time. City busses also provide free rides for students with school IDs to ensure they can access their campus broadband of the broadband of any public library from 6:00 am to midnight in our community. These programs ensure success and equity of access for all learners regardless of economic status or housing status within the community. Any community can collaborate with stakeholders to provide similar programming to ensure all students have access to the digital learning tools they need for learning success. The best next step is to obtain funding for a one-to-one device model for each student, ensuring device access at all times, as well. Conclusion: Equity vs. Equality All students need equitable access, not equal access, to the digital learning tools of the modern era, to ensure they have equal footing in the 21st century. Many students come to school equipped with ample tools for success in the digital age and do not need their taxed schools to provide those tools. Equitable access mandates that WE provide those tools to students, who actually need them. My son has a laptop, a kindle, a Samsung 8, three modern gaming systems, unlimited data, and no need for a device from his school whatsoever. He has ample opportunity to engage in digital learning wherever he goes. He can actually tip the learning scales in his classroom when the school Wi-Fi goes down by opening a hotspot and sharing his data to ensure learning continues for the entire group. Creative, equitable access requires creative solutions, which often ask those WITH access to share it with those WITHOUT. And it always asks for innovation. “Individual teachers, grade-level, school-specific factors, demographics, culture, and other factors ensure that every situation is unique, and no single combination of content, technology, and pedagogy will apply for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching” (Koehler, 2012). As we move forward without appropriate funding, access, or support from those with these essential assets, we must continue to do so with creativity, collaboration, and innovation to ensure that our ability to use digital assets (and creative disruption with/of those assets) will benefit the students and instructors under our administrative care. References
|
AuthorA blog about developing collaborative relationships with all stakeholders--and using 21st century communication to do so. Archives
January 2024
Categories |