Similarities:
The goals for connecting technology to education and teaching in a way that is best for the students.
We need to be able to adapt to an ever-changing world and this begins in our schools.
All students and teachers should have equal access to 21st Century learning.
There needs to be adequate support for teachers with tools and training.
The desire to prepare life-long learners.
The state and national plans used more statistics to base information of what is needed in regards to improving technology in schools.
Diagnose learning problems and provide effective and efficient learning methods of teaching and learning.
The national and state plans mention more about stakeholders and their influence on technology planning.
All agree that engaged learning and support is key.
Plans all areas of improvement...software, teacher support, community involvement, vision, goals, future planning and how we know we have achieved our goals.
Differences:
The national plan mentions education k-16 instead of just k-12. The national plan seems to have more of an emphasis on the future not only in education, but in life and the workforce. The national plan also mentions that education can learn from the business world. The national plan parallels technology in life outside of school with technology in life in schools. Students use technology more outside of school and we need to find a way to bring that technology into education for engaged learning.
I like how in the state plan, there is a section that mentions the role of everyone involved. There is a diagram that shows how everyone needs to be involved for the technology integration plan to be effective. Support needs to come from the system, the educator and administration. I also like how the state plan stated how to correctly implement technology and why is it important for our students future.
I like how the national plan looks at the whole picture and sees the need for technology growth and implementation not only in education, but in careers, everyday life and businesses. I also liked the diagram in the national plan, “Learning no Longer has to be One Size Fits All.”
After reading all the tech plans, I realized just how tiny my districts tech plan is. My school's tech plan does not go into as much detail as the state and national plans. It does not even go into as much detail and Cobb's or Cherokee's plans. I know my school is part of a smaller system...but I feel like we are behind! My school's plan includes a vision, current reality, gap analysis, goals and professional development.
AS I read you goal for diagnosing students with learning problems I began to wonder....... In DeKalb County, ESOL students can not be held back in grade level because they do not know or understand the language. I was just wondering how is it in your county. I ask this because it almost seems to be a waste of time (in my county) to attempt to diagnose a child because in the end the child will still go on to the next grade level... Even if they are failing ALL SUBJECTS (at least until 3rd grade CRCT results because it is a critical grade.) Sorry I went a little off topic.
ReplyDeleteThe state plan list who should be involved in the process of engaging students in education and technology, however I think this goes to show how the idea is there but implementing it is another story. Those individuals being involved need to be prepared and I think foundation is lacking somewhere.. Administrators, teachers, staff, community individuals need to be properly trained so that they can teach the children. The support needs to trickle down from the national to the state to the county to the systems to the schools to the principals, teachers and so on....
The plans make mention of being used to that students will become life-long learners. Incorporating technology into education the correct engages the children and helps to prepare them for the future in school and teaches them the basics for career life. Technology is the way of the 21st century and it needs to be learned. In these days and times, learning CAN NOT be one sizes fits all. I think that a lot of school systems are behind in technology; even the ones with the available technology.
I definitely agree with you that the county plans look tiny compared to the state and national plans. I found the state plan easy to read, but the national plan was a little overwhelming for me. There was just so much information there. I felt like there was no way that I would be able to read and absorb it all.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed the emphasis on engaged learning in each of the plans. I think this is really important because I'm not sure that many educators really understand that technology should be about engaged learning (and not just about equipment).
The national plans did include a lot of information about the future. It is really important that we are looking at life outside of the classroom especially in regards to technology. The national plan seems to really look at a bigger picture which can be helpful, but I, as mentioned earlier, I did find all of this information to be a little overwhelming.
You think your school is a little behind....at least yours HAD a tech plan. I find that pretty impressive. At the media/technology committee meeting we had on Tuesday I felt very smart having all this info on the plans at all the different levels, especially when our media specialist held up the county plan and said, "This is the plan we need to be following". The tech specialist and I looked at eachother with a knowing look and she explained that, "No, that is the county's plan. Not everything in there are things we can do anything about. Our school has to develop a plan specifically for us".
ReplyDeleteHaving looked at all the plans, I agree that the national one was certainly overwhelming. It was much easier to see the vision of the state and county plan as it related to me and the plans for the future.
I'm very excited to be an intregal part in the putting together of our school's plan.