2. Spearman High School Technology Plan Melissa Eudy EDLD 5362

3. Vision Statement The mission of Spearman ISD is to effectively infuse technology into the process of education to produce students who use technology as a tool to accomplish meaningful work. In creating a well-educated workforce with technological literacy, schools will be providing an essential prerequisite for successful competition in this rapidly changing world (Spearman Technology Committee, 2011).

4. The Plan Goal #1 - All students and staff being served by the district will have access to technology Objectives: Objectives: 1. All staff and students will have access to technological equipment and facilities for successfully integrating technology into all areas of the curriculum. 2. All staff and students will utilize communications resources provided (Spearman Technology Committee, 2011).

5. Goal #2 – Administrative services will ensure transparent use of technology support in curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Objectives: 1. Technology support will be provided for district and campus adopted software. 2. District technology plan will be updated annually based on collective data (Spearman Technology Committee, 2011).

6. Goal #3 – All professional staff will meet new teacher SBEC standards and district technology proficiency standards through high quality professional development. Objectives: 1. Innovative technology usage will be encouraged for all staff through incentives, training, and community involvement. 2. District staff and community will be informed about district technology issues and progress (Spearman Technology Committee, 2011).

7. Goal #4 – All Spearman ISD teachers and administrators will incorporate technology to improve student academic achievement in all areas of teaching and learning. Objectives: 1. All classroom teachers and administrators will use software-based applications to efficiently make data-driven instructional decisions (Spearman Technology Committee, 2011).

8. National Education Technology Plan Overview of Categories 1. Assessment 2. Infrastructure 3. Learning 4. Productivity 5. Teaching (Nagel, 2010)

9. State Technology Plan Overview of Categories 1. Teaching and learning 2. Education preparation and development 3. Leadership, administration and instructional support 4. Infrastructure for technology (TEA, 2010)

10. Similar goals for educators and students Assessment Technology can be used to asses data and enable teachers to improve education (Kimball, 2005) National – use technology to make data driven decisions and for ongoing formative assessments (Nagel, 2010) State - integrate student performance data from district/state assessment instruments to inform and differentiate instruction for every child (TEA, 2010) Local – use DMAC for information about TAKS testing and project-based activities for formative assessments (Spearman Technology Committee, 2011)

11. Infrastructure Technology enables learners to access education anywhere at anytime (Beldarrain, 2006, p. 139). National - broadband for everyone (Nagel, 2010) State - anytime/anywhere access to technology-based learning for all students (TEA, 2010) Local - access to Internet through school equipment before, during, and after school (Spearman Technology Committee, 2011)

12. Learning Student engagement and empowerment should be the emphasis of learning activities (Nagel, 2010). National – create learner-centered environment (Nagel, 2010) State -support the use of technology to promote student- centered learning (TEA, 2010) Local – increase use of engaging student-centered, project- based lessons (Spearman Technology Committee, 2011)

13. Productivity Technology must be part of a coherent education approach in order for student learning to improve (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). National – rethinking how and why technology is used to aid student success, including learning, teaching, infrastructure, operational, and financial issues (Nagel, 2010) State - support the use of emerging technologies aligned with state standards (TEA, 2010) Local – assessing financial expenditures for technology, aligning use of technology with testing results (Spearman Technology Committee, 2011)

14. Teaching “Teachers are the agents of change in the integration of the effective use of technology in the classroom” (Pitler, 2005, p. A-1). National –institute collaborative professional learning through connected teaching (Nagel, 2010) State - support teachers in developing classroom websites and online resources to collaborate with other teachers, parents, and students (TEA, 2010) Local – increased opportunities for district-level professional development (Spearman Technology Committee, 2011)

15. Where does the local plan fall short? Web 2.0 tool use Teacher collaboration Inclusive SIS program

16. Web 2.0 tools can fulfill many of the requirements for learner-centered education set forth in both the national and state plans. Web 2.0 tools encourage engagement, problem solving skills, and project-based learning to help create a learner-centered environment (Solomon & Schrum, 2007).

17. Collaboration is necessary and addressed by both national and state plans. “Technology integration requires developing opportunities for teachers to discuss and work collaboratively with their colleagues or partners to develop, modify, and improve their own instructional use of technology” (Pitler, 2005, p. A-6).

18. Although new additions are being made to the technology plan, the SIS includes only attendance tools, the grade book, and scheduling. A way to meet NCLB requirements for parent involvement is to include test scores, disciplinary action, and even homework assignments and the school calendar (Darby & Hughes, 2005).

19. Overall, the Spearman ISD technology plan addresses all areas of the state and national educational technology plans. The majority of the local plan addresses financial considerations and allocation of equipment. Changes need to be addressed that involve the learner and teacher categories to enable students to become successful 21 st Century learners. Conclusion

20. References Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27.2, 139-153. Bransford. J. D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded edition). Ch. 9, pp. 194,218. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Retrieved on February 17, 2011, from http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=61608page=194 http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=61608page=194 Darby, R., & Hughes, T. (2005, October 1). The evolution of student information systems. THE Journal. Retrieved on April 21, 2011, from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2005/10/01/The-Evolution-of-Student-Information- Systems.aspx?Page=3f http://thejournal.com/Articles/2005/10/01/The-Evolution-of-Student-Information- Systems.aspx?Page=3fhttp://thejournal.com/Articles/2005/10/01/The-Evolution-of-Student-Information- Systems.aspx?Page=3f Kimball, B. (2005, July1). Using data systems to meet AYP: Vermont. THE Journal. Retrieved on April 21, 2011, from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2005/07/01/Using-Data-Systems-to-Meet-AYP-Vermont.aspx?Page=2 http://thejournal.com/Articles/2005/07/01/Using-Data-Systems-to-Meet-AYP-Vermont.aspx?Page=2 Nagel, D. (2010, November 9). National ed tech plan puts technology at the heart of education reform. THE Journal. Retrieved on May 6, 2011, from http://the journal.com/Articles/2010/11/09/National-Ed-Tech-Plan-Puts-Technology-at-the-heart-of-education- reform.aspx http://the journal.com/Articles/2010/11/09/National-Ed-Tech-Plan-Puts-Technology-at-the-heart-of-education- reform.aspx Pitler, H. (2005). McRel technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program final report (Contact Number ED-01-Co-0006). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED486684) Retrieved March 14, 2011 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch _SearchValue_0=ED486685&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED4866845 http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch _SearchValue_0=ED486685&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED4866845 http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch _SearchValue_0=ED486685&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED4866845 Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Spearman Technology Committee (2011). Spearman ISD technology plan for e-rate year 2014. TEA (2010). 2010 Progress report on the long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020. Retrieved on May 6, 2011, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5096&menu_id=2147483665 http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5096&menu_id=2147483665