April+20,+2010

Agenda (12:30 - 4:00):
 * We reviewed data/notes from our March 24th meeting and refined our thinking about the process for unblocking internet sites, creating a two tier approach (for short term and long term access) as well as suggesting that there be a listing of sites that are blocked but frequently to expedite short term requests. A draft of this procedure and a draft of the long term request form will be shared at the next meeting.
 * //Chris checked with Chrissy about the capability of unblocking for a specific IP address on campus, and found that sites can be unblocked universally only (not for a specific area).//
 * We worked in pairs to create some exemplars for ed tech integration using ...
 * our prioritized list of ISTE/NETS student standards and possible approaches for each age cluster.
 * //Stephanie questioned what state standard indicators we might use to match up with these tech. standards - we noted that this would be something for to follow up on.//
 * We discussed what we recommend for future professional development with respect to our prioritized list of ISTE/NETS standards for teachers, including:
 * that workshops/training be specific to each cluster with built in project/practice/honmework that connects with participants' teaching/planning,
 * that we create a list of staff who can serve as a resource around specific aspects of ed. tech., and/or that each team have at least one ed tech support person identified.
 * that we use the PLP survey results to guide topics for training
 * that we encourage the use of periodic team/department meetings to share ideas - reconvene subject area teacher discussions for high school
 * tie the PLP "tool of the month" to trainings
 * that we consider "tech credits" earned by participating in trainings ->toward some type of prize (e.g., extra planning time, thumb drive)
 * that we increase certain expectations of staff, such as that Spring Fling must have a wiki, that lesson plans must be posted on g.docs, that there must be pictures in all parent letters, etc.)
 * that we host a display of ideas across clusters (akin to a "show and tell", or on the PLP wiki)
 * that ed tech. be connected to the ECC use of Work Sampling (WSS)
 * We dreamed BIG and proposed a wish list of technology needs, including MAC laptops for each cluster, portable storage systems when technology has to be shared across classrooms (ECC), mounted LCDs in each ECC room, Smartboard in Kindergarten rooms, document camera and faster computers for each life skills class, purchase of "In Synch" for the mobile labs, wireless airport and laptop for the library, DVD burner and etcher, a "Media Room", and ipodcast capability. Once Marcia knows if/how much equipment funds will be available, then she will ask for some prioritizing.
 * We reviewed the ISTE/NETS Standards for Administrators/ Leaders and expressed these thoughts:
 * there appears to be no clear shared administrative vision - it feels fragmented (Power School, IEP Writer, printer changes, etc.) which trickles down to staff feeling fragmented,
 * it would be better to have greater transparency regarding the when and why of technology decisions between administrators and faculty,
 * we need to balance how fast we can make progress with going too fast for the stakeholders' comfort,
 * how can we gain greater consistency around policies and approaches across users (for example, with the mobile laptops across age groups),
 * it appears that "access" and follow-up are sometimes driven by who you know and therefore feels inequitable,
 * prior to any school-wide training, let's be sure to assess each staff person's skill before offering a "one size fits all" approach (e.g., Power School),
 * as a school we need to be more clear about our perspective regarding digital citizenship for students and staff (e.g., Facebook).
 * Our homework is to revisit our list of initial obstacles and comment on how we are doing so far in addressing them.


 * Excerpts/Comments**
 * 1) from an article that Jan posted - "Recent research on "new literacies" suggests that such [web 2.0] tools are important not only because they are technology-based but because they facilitate participatory, collaborative, and distributive forms of learning." "...new literacies are more participatory and collaborative. Here, students can work with others across time and space to learn more about themselves and the world around them." This wording might be something we want to include in our recommendations for PSD's new technology plan.