Mainely Middle
Journal of the Maine Association for Middle
Level Education
|
|
|
|
2000/2001 |
Moving Our Schools into the 21st Century:A Challenge for the Maine Learning Technology Task ForceBy the end of December, 2000, the Maine Learning Technology Task Force will have presented a plan that will apply the income from a $50,000,000 learning technology endowment established by the Maine Legislature. The Task Force and endowment was created as a reaction to a proposal by Governor Angus King to place a laptop in the hands of every seventh grader in Maine &endash; in perpetuity. The creation of the endowment for the purpose of enhancing K-12 learning technology in Maine presents a tremendous opportunity for Maine students and teachers. The Task Force has a formidable charge which includes recommending an ongoing structure of oversight of the endowment, identifying appropriate professional development, recommending strategies for improving and equalizing access and use of technology in all schools, and coordinating all of the above with the Maine State Library Network, Maine public higher education, and the Maine State Learning Results. What follows are the thoughts of one voice on the Task Force, a voice that speaks from the perspective of a middle-level computer coordinator. In our school system, we have enjoyed considerable support by the community for the integration of educational technology in our buildings. Our budgets have not been as high as some neighboring systems, but they are certainly higher than those in many systems. As a result of this support, and this clearly includes the support of our administrators, we have steadily made progress toward providing both hardware and professional development for staff, as well as a high level of student access through use of computer labs and library stations. Hardware and professional development are the key elements to any integration of educational technology in the curriculum, assuming that there exists a mind-set that embraces the possibilities for its use. How successful have we been in transforming the way teachers teach? We certainly have not achieved any "transformation", but we have seen a steady growth in the number of teachers bringing educational technology into their programs in grades six to eight. An essential starting point for us was the establishment of staff receptivity to change. Eight years ago there were a few stand-alone computers in our building, some of which were networked to a printer. While there were some good things being done by the few who had the computers, there certainly was not a building mentality that everyone would necessarily need or use computers in their teaching. A crucial change in this resulted from the introduction of a basic building-wide network (LocalTalk) stringing together Mac Classics and linking them all with printers and, most importantly, an email server. E-mail was the catalyst for changing staff attitudes across the board. Everyone had/has an interest in communication with colleagues as well as family members. This was especially exciting as we certainly didn't have phones in our classrooms at the time, so e-mail was a way to reduce classroom isolation. The use of e-mail provided the "hook" which got our staff over the hump of dealing with technology for the first time. It was not a big step beyond that initial level of comfort before teachers were saying, "If I can do this, perhaps I could also...," which was the start of the curricular application of educational technology on a broad scale in our building. Crucial, I believe, at this point in the evolution of our staff's move to greater use of educational technologies was my job description. As the building computer coordinator, my job is to oversee the hardware base and network, but, more importantly, to work with teachers to integrate technology into their curriculum. I am to be an educator first, and technician second. I do not have assigned "computer" classes, something which is currently puzzling parents of students new to the school as they think we don't offer computer instruction. To the contrary, computer instruction is widely available, but it is not presented in a vacuum; instead it is integrated into curricular units that have been designed with input from multiple sources: the classroom teacher, the computer coordinator, and, frequently, the librarian among others. The team-teaching approach provides at least two teachers when the class comes to the computer lab during their regular class period for that subject, their curriculum teacher and the computer coordinator. I instruct on the use of the technology that we have identified for the unit, and the classroom teacher addresses the content aspect of the unit. This model has been very successful because it provides support for teachers in an ongoing manner, not just through a teacher workshop or other professional development activity. In addition, after some early teaming efforts, teachers increasingly are comfortable enough in their handling of the technology for a unit that I can be on call to leave the lab when they are there to trouble-shoot problems that may occur elsewhere in the building &endash; another example of on-site support for teachers using technology. The growth in the use of educational technology in most all course content areas in our building has still not transformed the way teachers teach and students learn, both key goals for achieving the potential that the use of technology can offer in the 21st century. Why is that? In our building we have achieved a Level 1 critical mass of computers. That means we now are fully networked at 10/100 Mhz, have internet capable computers in all classrooms, a mini-lab of internet capable computers in our library, and a computer lab with enough internet capable machines to accommodate the largest group in a particular subject with one machine for each student. It has taken us eight years to arrive at this point, and it has made a great difference in how technology is seen and used in the building, but it still hasn't been transformational. To do that we need to move to a Level 2 critical mass. The Level 2 critical mass is a 1:1 ratio of computers to students in all classrooms. How long will it take to reach a Level 2 critical mass in my building? A very long time, if ever, working with the budget numbers generally available each year. A very long time because those budget dollars will largely be spent in an effort to avoid obsolescence in the Level 1 critical mass; there just aren't enough local dollars to add to the pot to get to Level 2. Strong arguments have been presented that support the idea that only with a computer on each student desk - as well as the teacher's - is the critical mass of technology available for a true change in how we teach and learn, something we need to do to prepare students for the 21st century. We cannot continue to do as we have done for years and use technology tools simply to enhance what we have always done. Appropriate, 21st century use of technology will give students greater responsibility for their learning, with teachers acting as facilitators. Clearly the basics must be there, but with so much information now available to all, as well as the clear integration of technology into all aspects of our lives, we need to teach our students how to manage in such an environment. The 21st century will be distinctly different from the 20th, and our schools need to address and reflect that. "Wait!" one might say, "If the Task Force might even think of promoting a move to Level 2, what about all those schools which aren't even at Level 1?" I believe that we and other schools which have been making progress to, or arrived at, Level 1, have been working toward Level 2 all along, even if we haven't specifically voiced it. It is almost an unspoken goal, the 1:1 computer/student ratio. If it is possible that a proposal will come from the Task Force to start the process of moving all schools to Level 2, Level 1 is no longer an essential step along the way. One doesn't have to wait to arrive at Level 2 until they have gone through all the incremental steps some of us have been working through for a number of years. If a networking infrastructure is available that can accommodate wireless connections, a 1:1 ratio can be applied. Progress to Level 1 has not been a waste, however; we have done wonderful things getting there. It simply is not a rite of passage to the higher level. The Task Force has heard information supporting the idea that learning in the 21st century should be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week &endash; anywhere, anytime. Technology is the tool that can allow this to happen. I hope that recommendations from this group will include a plan for providing computers for all students at some middle school grade level. Providing them at this level will promote the skills and habits of use which will not only further how students learn during their middle school years, but will establish a strong foundation for their learning once they reach high school. The classroom environment with such a level of technology is exciting to imagine, especially as it can actually be observed in Guilford, Maine! When students have their own computer as readily available as their textbook (which may fade from the classroom picture of tomorrow) when they go to class, the opportunity is there, for example, for a teacher to build in a class activity where students all use their computer to access particular web sites for further instruction &endash; right there, in the classroom, when the moment strikes. If it is possible for students to access similar resources when they take their computers home, then the goal of 24 hours/7 days learning opportunities is attained. One might read the above and picture a classroom with a spaghetti maze of wiring in order for the computers to be connected to the network; however, the spaghetti is gone with the wireless technology that is already available! As the Task Force works to develop its recommendation, it will necessarily look at how teachers can be supported through professional development which heightens their awareness of how to integrate and take advantage of a technology rich classroom and become facilitators of student learning. It also needs to support them in their buildings/classrooms after they have had training. That level of support (on-site) will be one of the more difficult issues to address. In its absence, however, teachers are essentially left on their own. While some may have success in that environment, most will encounter problems or have questions which, unless answered quickly, will have a huge impact on that teacher's interest in using educational technology and changing the way of doing things. Such an environment must be avoided if we are to honor the intent of closing the digital divide; the "haves" (with on-site support) will surge ahead while the "have-nots" drop further behind. Students in the have-not classrooms will no longer have an equal opportunity to use the tools and access the resources used by students in other classrooms/schools. Developing a plan to move the use of learning technologies in K-12 Maine schools into the 21st century, to fully realize its potential in the classroom as well as outside it, is the work of the Task Force. One member, Seymour Papert, clearly outlined the challenge that is faced when he e-mailed Task Force members and described two approaches that might be used to answer the challenges facing them. One was "present-driven and incremental." The other is "vision-driven and transformative." He used a wonderful hockey analogy to illustrate the difference. "Don't skate to where the puck is; skate to where it will be." We too often work to change things using the first approach. After all, it's safe ground as we know what we are doing now. To act from a vision-driven approach involves risk as no one can really know what things will look like in the future. However, great actions were never achieved without risk. Given the inexorable move toward technology-permeation in all aspects of our life, including education, as well as the wonderful potential for learning and teaching that technology offers, it seems shortsighted not to reach out now and embrace the future with a bold plan for Maine schools. It is my hope that the Task Force will look to the future and what can be done to transform our classrooms into 21st century learning places, developing a plan to provide the additional resources to move all schools to a Level 2 critical mass of hardware combined with the ongoing professional development and support that will be necessary to achieve the potential of that technology. |