In 2006, the Texas Education Agency issued a report to the legislature and the people of Texas outlining a plan for technology’s role and implementation in education. The resulting Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020, addresses for areas for technology: Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support; and Infrastructure for Technology.
It is the infrastructure that makes the other three areas possible. The plan itself says, “The infrastructure of a school is the critical element of support for all four areas of this plan: teaching and learning; educator preparation and development; leadership, administration and instructional support; and infrastructure for technology” (2006, p.35)
Investment in infrastructure pays dividends for many years. A robust, scalable infrastructure will allow students and teachers to access online information and research in new, exciting, and engaging ways. It will also allow collaboration with students and educators in their own school as well as in schools far away. The students’ world can broaden in real and significant ways. A strong tech infrastructure can bring all of this to our students and teachers in a very cost-effective way.
However, technology does not bring these benefits in a cost-free way. As schools across Texas have to wield the budget-cutting knife, technology infrastructure can present itself as among the first items to be cut. Texas has made strides in implementing a robust infrastructure, but it may be abandoned in the name of fiscal responsibility. Of course, this may not truly be a wise move as investing in infrastructure in the future may cost even more.
The cost of technology infrastructure also presents a challenge in insuring that all stakeholders have equitable access. Technology has a unique way of separating the “haves” from the “have-nots”. Care must be taken to make sure that the quality of the technology a student has is not solely dependent on his/her ZIP code.
Texas Education Agency, (2006). texas long range plan for technology, 2006-2020. Austin, Texas:
Who Do I Think I Am?
- David M. DeLuca
- I am pursuing a M. Ed. in Education Administration at Lamar University.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020
In 2006, the Texas Education Agency issued a report to the legislature and the people of Texas outlining a plan for technology’s role and implementation in education. The resulting Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020, addresses for areas for technology: Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support; and Infrastructure for Technology.
It is the infrastructure that makes the other three areas possible. The plan itself says, “The infrastructure of a school is the critical element of support for all four areas of this plan: teaching and learning; educator preparation and development; leadership, administration and instructional support; and infrastructure for technology” (2006, p.35)
Investment in infrastructure pays dividends for many years. A robust, scalable infrastructure will allow students and teachers to access online information and research in new, exciting, and engaging ways. It will also allow collaboration with students and educators in their own school as well as in schools far away. The students’ world can broaden in real and significant ways. A strong tech infrastructure can bring all of this to our students and teachers in a very cost-effective way.
However, technology does not bring these benefits in a cost-free way. As schools across Texas have to wield the budget-cutting knife, technology infrastructure can present itself as among the first items to be cut. Texas has made strides in implementing a robust infrastructure, but it may be abandoned in the name of fiscal responsibility. Of course, this may not truly be a wise move as investing in infrastructure in the future may cost even more.
The cost of technology infrastructure also presents a challenge in insuring that all stakeholders have equitable access. Technology has a unique way of separating the “haves” from the “have-nots”. Care must be taken to make sure that the quality of the technology a student has is not solely dependent on his/her ZIP code.
Texas Education Agency, (2006). texas long range plan for technology, 2006-2020. Austin, Texas:
It is the infrastructure that makes the other three areas possible. The plan itself says, “The infrastructure of a school is the critical element of support for all four areas of this plan: teaching and learning; educator preparation and development; leadership, administration and instructional support; and infrastructure for technology” (2006, p.35)
Investment in infrastructure pays dividends for many years. A robust, scalable infrastructure will allow students and teachers to access online information and research in new, exciting, and engaging ways. It will also allow collaboration with students and educators in their own school as well as in schools far away. The students’ world can broaden in real and significant ways. A strong tech infrastructure can bring all of this to our students and teachers in a very cost-effective way.
However, technology does not bring these benefits in a cost-free way. As schools across Texas have to wield the budget-cutting knife, technology infrastructure can present itself as among the first items to be cut. Texas has made strides in implementing a robust infrastructure, but it may be abandoned in the name of fiscal responsibility. Of course, this may not truly be a wise move as investing in infrastructure in the future may cost even more.
The cost of technology infrastructure also presents a challenge in insuring that all stakeholders have equitable access. Technology has a unique way of separating the “haves” from the “have-nots”. Care must be taken to make sure that the quality of the technology a student has is not solely dependent on his/her ZIP code.
Texas Education Agency, (2006). texas long range plan for technology, 2006-2020. Austin, Texas:
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Concluding Reflecting statement (Part 2 of the Week 5 Assignment
“Research”. The title of the course loomed ominously on the course calendar. The title does not really do much to describe what the course was going to be about. I assumed that we would be studying some educational issue and looking into its many different sources of information. I had no idea what I was really going to be getting into with this new course.
Since so little could be gleaned from the title, the course had to begin with a description of what would be studied. While research is clearly a central theme of the course, a more descriptive title might be “Administrator Inquiry”. Described by Nancy Fichtman Dana, “administrator inquiry refers to the process of a principal engaging in systematic, intentional study of his/her own administrative practice and taking action for change based on what he/she learns.” (Dana, 2009, p. 2) Dr. Elvis Arterbury explains further that administrator inquiry, or action research, “…involves adding something new to what is already known about your topic. Specifically, it means going beyond the current body of literature on a given topic, perhaps to answer a question as yet unexplored by those who have come before. (Arterbury, 2010, p. 2)
Now we have a framework for understanding. Action research is not simply a regurgitation of the literature regarding a topic. While a literature review is important, it is only the beginning of true inquiry. Action research must go further and explore new data or explore existing data in new ways. Furthermore, action research involves action. It is not enough just to study a topic. The data uncovered must support taking action.
Throughout this 5301 Research course, I have explored the concept of action research. I have considered the research in a new way. No longer is research the struggle of poring over books and journals in a library and compiling their information into a single document. Instead, research has become a means toward an end rather than the end product itself. I have been encouraged to consider practices at school and areas that can be improved or built upon. I have been encouraged to explore how to make those changes and how to measure the results. Most of all, my classmates and I have been encouraged to make our leadership data driven. Changes must be supported by data and evaluated.
Fortunately, action research can be a collaborative process. My classmates and I have been instructed to create an online blog as well as communicating through the class discussion board. This has proven to be an interesting way to share learning. It is exciting to post thoughts on the internet and allow other educators to post their comments. In addition, I hope that my comments have proven useful to others. Unlike the class discussion board, peers in other sections have been able to participate and comment on the blogs. This has brought in a whole new set of viewpoints that have been interesting to explore.
Finally, I have learned new ways to consider the action research of others and evaluate is applicability to my own situation. Dana recommends five quality indicators when examining action research: context, wondering and purpose, principal research design, principal-research learning (conclusions), and implications for practice. (Dana, 2009, pp. 179-184) This last bit was actually somewhat of a shock to me. This section of the Dana text explains using these indicators in one’s own research. However, and perhaps even more importantly, it explains how to assess the quality and transferability of research to one’s own situation. This is significant and a perspective I had not considered. We educators are bombarded with a wide variety of information about improving practices. Finally, there has been discussion of a systematic method of assessing the quality of that flood of information.
So, after a five-week course during the hottest part of a Central Texas summer, I am embarking on my action research study of performance based compensation plans. While this Texas
Arterbury, Elvis. Jenkins, Steven. (2010) EDLD 5301 week 1 lecture. Beaumont , TX : Lamar University
Dana, Sunday, August 1, 2010
Pitts: Nation's future depends on accountability in education
This is an op-ed piece that appeared in the Sunday, August 1 Austin American-Statesman. This, in my opinion, is exactly the image that we must fix. If even liberal columnists like Leonard Pitts see teacher unions as the problem, then we have a problem. Teachers unions must work toward being the solution, not the problem.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The merit pay research plan
INQUIRY: How can innovative compensation plans improve student achievement? GOAL: To improve student achievement by implementing innovative compensation plans for teachers. TIMELINE: If a new compensation plan is implemented, this project will take two years to complete. The plan will be developed during the 2010-11 school year and proposed during the spring budgeting process. The plan will be implemented during the 2011-12 school year and results evaluated for continuation or revision.
Finally, I think an important part of this process will be reassessing the performance-based compensation each year to make sure that it is achieving its goals and not causing conflict or distress among the teaching and support staff. |
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Education Research Report
I want to encourage everyone to follow this blog that I found:
It has hundreds of articles on a wide variety of education topics. It may be very useful as we work through our
action research projects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)