1 / 34

Committee on Technology in Education (COTE)

Committee on Technology in Education (COTE). Presentation to: Maryland State Board of Education Meeting March 22, 2005 Baltimore, Maryland. Presenters: June Streckfus, Executive Director, MBRT Bob Marshall, CEO, AWS Convergence Technologies, COTE Chairman

senona
Download Presentation

Committee on Technology in Education (COTE)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Committee on Technology in Education (COTE) Presentation to: Maryland State Board of Education Meeting March 22, 2005 Baltimore, Maryland Presenters: June Streckfus, Executive Director, MBRT Bob Marshall, CEO, AWS Convergence Technologies, COTE Chairman Jayne Moore, Director of Instructional Technology, MSDE

  2. Where Do We Stand in 2005? A Progress Report on Technology Resources in Maryland Schools

  3. Focus of Existing ’02 Plan… Seamless and meaningful integration of technology tools and digital content with the Content Standards as the foundation

  4. ’02 Technology Plan Pillars

  5. ’02 Technology Plan Pillars

  6. ’02 Technology Plan Pillars

  7. ’02 Technology Plan Pillars

  8. ’02 Technology Plan Pillars

  9. ’02 Technology Plan Pillars

  10. Where We Are Today… The promise of educational technology is in jeopardy and risks being unrealized if steps are not taken to insure higher level uses within our classrooms

  11. md.ontargetus.com

  12. Student-to-Computer Ratio State Target

  13. Student-to-Computer Ratio

  14. Classrooms connected to the Internet State Target 100%

  15. Classrooms connected to the Internet

  16. Teacher Knowledge and Skills State Target 100% Intermediate level for Internet use: able to design classroom or homework activities for students, which require the students to use the Internet as an information resource

  17. Data on Use of Technology by Students: • How frequently is technology used by students in your school to…(Examples of activities listed) • Perform measurements and collect data • Plan, draft, proofread, revise, and publish written text • Gather information from a variety of sources (e.g. Internet)

  18. Student Use of Technology % of students who regularly* use technology to: 2004 2003 2002 40% 42% Plan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text Gather information from a variety of sources (e.g., web) Communicate/report information, conclusions or results of investigations Manipulate, analyze and interpret information or data Perform measurements and collect data from investigations or lab experiments Remediate for basic skills 34% 51% 49% 36% 26% 24% 21% 9% 6% 9% 4% 7% 6% 39% 31% 41% • * Regularly use means every day, or almost every day.

  19. Teacher Use of Technology % of teachers who regularly* use technology to: Communicating with staff members and other colleagues Maintaining attendance and/or grades Maintaining data on students (e.g. via a student information system) Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement data (e.g. using instructional and curriculum management systems) Creating instructional materials/visuals/presentations Accessing curriculum/school improvement material from the Internet 2004 2002 2003 78% 85% 64% 58% 63% 52% 38% 40% 35% 17% 16% 15% 59% 62% 46% 24% 29% 32% * Regularly use means every day, or almost every day.

  20. Administrator Use of Technology % of administrators who regularly* use technology to: 2004 2003 2002 90% Communicating with staff members and other colleagues Communicating with parents and guardians of students Posting/viewing/accessing school and district announcements or information (e.g., via a school web site) Maintaining student data (e.g. via a student information system) Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement data Researching educational topics of interest 78% 92% 56% 53% 36% 75% 79% 63% 65% 70% 71% 16% 22% 21% 39% 29% 38% * Regularly use means every day, or almost every day.

  21. Digital Divide Review

  22. Digital Divide in 2005 - InfrastructureStudent to Computer Ratio… Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

  23. Digital Divide in 2005 - Infrastructure% of Classrooms Connected to the Internet… Low Poverty High Poverty Digital Divide % FARMS

  24. Digital Divide in Student Use % of students who regularly* use technology to: High Poverty Low Poverty 30% Plan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text Gather information from a variety of sources (e.g., web) Communicate/report information, conclusions or results of investigations Manipulate, analyze and interpret information or data Perform measurements and collect data from investigations or lab experiments 65% 45% 70% 15% 45% 10% 20% 15% 5% • * Regularly use means every day, or almost every day.

  25. Digital Divide in 2005 – Student UsePlan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS % FARMS

  26. Digital Divide in 2005 – Student UseGather information from a variety of sources Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

  27. Digital Divide in 2005 – Student UseCommunicate/report information and conclusions Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

  28. Digital Divide in 2005 – Student UseManipulate, analyze and interpret information to discover relationships… Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

  29. Digital Divide in 2005 – Student UsePerform measurements and collect data in investigations and lab experiments Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

  30. Digital Divide in 2005 – Student UseRemediate for basic skills – drill and practice Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

  31. Summary… • Infrastructure in place • Teacher knowledge and skills flat • Classroom usage showing no increase over previous year. • Little or no progress with higher level, critical thinking activities • Digital Divide still exists – particularly in effective use

  32. Where We Are Today… The promise of educational technology is in jeopardy and risks being unrealized if steps are not taken to insure higher level uses within our classrooms

  33. Recommendations A revised state Technology Plan and revised district Technology Plans, aligned with the State Plan and local master plans, be completed. The Plans should focus on the tight and seamless integration of technology tools into existing curriculum, with particular emphasis on the use of technology to foster higher-level critical thinking skills - January, 2006. Technology requirements/assessments be incorporated into all teacher and administrator re-certification programs and in pre-service teacher preparation programs - Fall, 2006. MSDE require local master plans to incorporate an analysis of data from the Online Technology Inventory Report - Fall, 2006. MSDE review and document the effectiveness of professional development activities related to technology integration - Summer, 2005.

  34. Recommendations (continued) MSDE review state and local organizational structures within educational systems to insure that such structures are compatible with and conducive to effectively integrating technology into the curriculum and daily instruction - Spring, 2006. MSDE investigate why progress is not continuing, through ongoing dialogue with school systems - Summer, 2005. MBRT reconstitute the Committee on Technology in Education to include a membership comprised of leading business and IT executives that will review and make recommendations to MSDE regarding the State Plan and convey effective corporate technological practices used in the transformation of companies that are applicable to education - Spring 2005.

More Related