Whitehead (2013) defines, “future proofing means
that a facility anticipates and supports educational change without extensive
remodeling. It is inherently a flexible building that can be used as appropriate
today, but it also allows future interpretation and reassignment of programs
and functions” (p. 200).
About a half mile down the road from my house, the
local high school has been under construction for the past four years. The
school system received a huge grant from the Ohio Department of Education and
spent 73 million dollars on a new facility for this high school. The virtual
tour is nothing short of spectacular. However, technology, integration, a
digital network and 21st century learning is not discussed. There is
this beautiful building with a new gymnasium, swimming pool, theatre complete
with scene shop and fabulous lighting and sound bells and whistles, but there
is no WiFi access, limited amounts of devices for students to use, and some teachers
that do not know how to integrate technology in their classrooms. These are
just some of the barriers that Whitehead says stand in the way of effective integration
of technology in schools today. The major barrier in the way is funding. In my
area, we have access to fiber optic cables which allows for the best speed and
most bandwidth for a network. However, we lack funding for an IT department to
run and monitor the network. We also lack the expertise of individuals who are
qualified to run such a massive program such as a PLN and district wide network
for digital learning. Therefore, in
order to “future proof” this school, I would first seek aid from the E-Rate
program. The funding for the E-Rate program is found by the Universal Service
Administrative Company (USAC), a not-for-profit corporation, in charge of
securing funds from telecommunications companies to support the E-Rate program
(U.S. Department of Education, 2013). Since
Akron is considered an urban school system, they could receive discounts on
devices, internet services, and software of up to 90%. Another way I would “future
proof” the school is to ensure that there is a district wide technology plan
with an IT department that can run, support, and monitor it. This is a huge
undertaking as we have all been realizing through the group project we have
been working on. However, in order to be relevant in today’s society and particularly
in the future, our students must be able to use and create with technology, they
must be able to learn online through the internet, research, connecting with classrooms
and others through video, social media, and blogs. These technological skills
will help them realize their future goals, no matter what they are.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013, August 21).
E-rate program- discounted
telecommunications
services. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/oii/nonpublic/erate.html
Whitehead, B. M., Jensen, D. F. N., & Boschee,
F. (2013). Planning for technology: A guide for
school
administrators, technology coordinators and curriculum leaders (2nd ed.).
Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Rebekah,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post! As you stated, this topic is very relevant to the collaborative technology plan that we have been working on. We have come across many aspects that are critical to a school/school district having and maintaining technology and devices. One of the best resources is the E-Rate program which makes it possible for many schools, especially schools in need, to have the opportunity to have access to and acquire educational technology. Since, many rural and inner city schools lack funding, the E-Rate program is an awesome resource that should defiantly be taken advantage of. I also think your mention of a school IT department is a very important aspect to “future-proofing” a technology infrastructure for a school district. Without it, devices would not stay updated and serviced. Additionally, the IT department could serve to train teachers on the best updated methods to teaching with technology, offering professional developments and tech support. It saddens me to know about the new high school that is being rebuilt near your home. I pray that they will incorporate some sort of technology system for both the teachers and the students in such a great building. I know that you home school your children and I am interested in know your “technology infrastructure” in your home. I can imagine that it is very different than an entire school district, but may have its’ similarities. Overall, all that you mentioned are necessities for a well-functioning and “future-proofed” technology system. I think that staying on top of a school’s plan is also very important. Once a school has access to technology, that the technology does not go over-looked. Therefore, I would have to say that setting up a good plan, sticking to it, and maintaining it is key to keeping everything running. Thank you for your insight!
Rebekah,
ReplyDeleteWhat a great observation this week about the school being constructed near you. It is a shame that districts build school buildings, but don’t build technology. While technology is expensive, it is much less expensive than the multi-million dollar building construction. Technology funding is an issue, maybe THE issue, and E-rate is a solution for the technology piece. Additionally, educators need to learn how to effectively use the technology. It has to be integrated into lesson plans, and not simply present in the classroom. At a minimum, though, in this day and age, IT could be treated like a utility. That is, at the same time architects and structural engineers are designing a building with electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems, why not consider IT infrastructure a fourth utility that have to build in from the outset.
If the school near you is to meet President Obama’s stated goal when he spoke on June 6, 2013 at Mooresville Middle School in North Carolina (Obama, 2013), the school will need to move out by 2018. In that speech, the President established a national goal to connect 99 percent of students to high speed Internet within five years. I assure you the remaining 1 percent where implementation would be difficult was not intended to mean students in areas where high speed Internet via fiber-optic cables was readily available (such as yours), but intended for very remote schools where such expensive infrastructure is difficult to cost-share amongst a wide customer base that would subscribe to it. The President’s challenge manifested in the United Stated Department of Education (2014) program called ConnectED, which is all about private funding and affordable capability. For example, one challenge is for devices that rival the cost of text books.
The goal of ConnectED is “providing high-speed broadband and wireless to 99 percent of students and improving the skills of teachers—providing every educator in America with support and training to integrate technology into classroom lessons” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, p. 1). In my view, it is the impetus for the plans that we have been doing in this course, and the plan that every district America should be developing. Among the many things ConnectED does is create the industry partnerships that provide the tools teachers can use to build those 21st Century skills that we’ve talked about so much this semester. I hope your school is planning to go there!
References
Obama, B. (2013). Remarks by the President at Mooresville Middle School -- Mooresville, NC. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/06/06/president-obama-speaks-technology-schools#transcript
U.S. Department of Education (2014). Future ready schools: Building technology infrastructure for learning. Retrieved July 31, 2016 from https://tech.ed.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Future-Ready-Schools-Building-Technology-Infrastructure-for-Learning-.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2016). ConnectED: Learning Powered by Technology. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/connected
Hi Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post this week. I think you mentioned some issues that are common to school districts and other organizations. I have noticed in the district I work in that funding is often available, but not allocated to meet specific needs. This is often because the grants associated with technology and programs like E-rate that offer funding require districts to spend money to receive money. Starting with a solid technology implementation plan is a good way to future proof a school district. The plan must consider not only the funding available, but also the price of receiving that funding.
When districts do not calculate the cost of implementing the programs required by foundations and government programs, the outcome is rarely positive. Some of those costs are financial, but often times the cost is time and documentation for teachers. Creating more work for teachers does not usually lead to buy in. So districts end up with technology that is not effectively used as a result.
My district is in the middle of a blended learning initiative. I think blended learning is great. As a teacher I am encouraged to provide my students with opportunities to use technology in the classroom and also do hands on project based learning. The problem, that I face personally, is that the district spent a lot of money on the implementation of a one-to-one computer program and did not allocate any funds to cover the materials required to do active learning activities. On a teacher salary, I am certainly not capable of shouldering the financial burden of providing materials for my 130 students each year. I can make a suggested materials list for my students, but cannot hold students accountable when they do not bring materials.
As a parent of two children in the same district, I spend about $250.00 a year for each of my children on suggested supplies. By high school, my children will have 8 teachers each and I cannot imagine purchasing each teachers suggested list. Responsible parents get frustrated that they are constantly being asked to provide supplies that will be used by children whose parents do not provide. I think these are just some of the costs that are overlooked.