technology mission statement - north carolina public … · technology mission statement ......

Technology Mission Statement

Create an environment where students and teachers will feel supported with 21st

Century tools, training, and leadership.

CCS Technology Plan 2012-2014

of 31

Last Updated: 4/2/2012 Last Updated: 4/2/2012

Chatham County Schools Technology Plan

Technology Plan 2012-2014

Technology Plan Roster

District Leadership

• Derrick Jordan – Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services

Instructional Services Executive Directors

[George Gregor-Holt, Kelli Hulsey, Carrie Little, Keith Medlin]

Principals [Chris Poston, Kim Taylor, Mitch Stensland, Tracy Fowler, Mattie Smith, Beverly Browne, Martin

McDonald, Justin Bartholomew, Kaye Clark, Charles Aiken, Chris Blice, Janice Frazier, Dale Minge,

Bobby Dixon, Angie Brady-Andrew, Chad Morgan, Allison Buckner]

Media Specialists [Kathy Gaines, Sheila Harrell, Bonnie Angelacci, Mary Lee Moore, Susan Mayer, Melinda

Humphrey, Rose Pate, Amber Norman, Lynne Crankshaw, Betsy Kreutzberg, Debbie Minor, Martha

Swift, Cheri Klein, Nonya Brown-Chesney, Susan Hunnicutt, Kim Johnson, Lindsay Shore-Wright,

Jane Rogers]

K-8 Lead Technology Teachers [Autumn Oldham, Brian Shoup, Cheri Klein, Erin Denniston, Jenny Burris, Joseph Babyak, Justin

Sudol, Kathy Gaines, Lynne Crankshaw, Rachel Garnett, Susan Hunnicutt, Susan Mayer, Tori

Mazur]

High School Technology Facilitators [Ruby Jones, Leslie Jones, Beth Little, Bunnie Brewer]


of 31




Strategic Priorities

Overview:

Chatham County Schools believes there are five components to a strong

instructional technology program that facilitate engaging, high quality, 21st Century

classrooms.

1. Curriculum Support – This includes curriculum driven technology support

and purchases. This also includes a focus on developing resources to

support classroom instruction that reinforces and structures the use of

technology resources across the curriculum.

2. Professional Development – Chatham County Schools shares the state’s

focus on providing rich face-to-face and online self-paced training. Providing

teachers and staff with on-demand professional development resources,

which can quickly be accessed, will support daily technology needs.

Standards

Curriculum Support

Professional Development

Fiscal Sustainability

Enterprise Management


of 31




3. Fiscal Sustainability – Given the economic realities facing school

technology it is more important than ever that technology is purchased in a

flexible and strategic manner. Creating a fiscal sustainability model for

technology helps shape these decisions ensuring consistency in the

instructional technology infrastructure and device availability environment.

4. Enterprise Management – Technology Services needs to develop solid

practices for the standardization and management of infrastructure, and end-

user technology, while creating common procedures for the implementation

of technologies across schools to ensure easier transitions for new

technologies.

5. Standards – Common standards are at the core of providing engaging,

equitable, instructional technology resources help. They inform each of the

other components of a successful 21st Century Learning environment. This

includes providing regular reinforcement of standards and support for tasks

done infrequently.

Chatham County Schools began a 1:1 personal teaching and learning device

program six years ago with teachers and has expanded the program to include high

school students. This program is in its third year of implementation at all four high

schools. The transition to this high quality, and equally accessible, technology for

high school students means that the district needs to now focus on how to scaffold

information technology skills in grades K-8 so students are prepared for the

learning environment they will transition to when they reach high school.

Chatham County Schools recognizes and agrees with the state’s assessment that

“for all students to be future ready, they must possess equal opportunities for taking

full advantage of information and technology resources and tools, and must be

taught in a way that maximizes the effective use of these technologies.” To that

end, we have structured our technology plan around the same strategic priorities

set by the state of North Carolina.


of 31




Strategic Priority 1: A Statewide Shared Services Model Essential Questions for Chatham County Schools

Current Status and Moving Forward… The Statewide Shared Services Model, referred to as S3M hereafter, aligns most

closely with our local fiscal sustainability and enterprise management priorities.

S3M provides LEAs with an opportunity to leverage common services without

encumbering the full financial burden of both paying the initial setup and integration

costs, but also the ongoing support and maintenance costs in terms of both

personnel time and contractual fiscal obligations. At a high level, this provides

stability to the core technology services allowing Chatham County Schools, referred

to as CCS hereafter, to focus on aligning those technologies with curriculum

integration teams to ensure their substantive use with students.

One example of how Chatham County Schools intends to take advantage of the

S3M is in regards to our content filtering and firewall obligations. NC ITS has

provided an opportunity for us to take advantage of a no-cost alternative to our

current solution that provides not only equivalent functionality, but also some

improved management tools. This will allow CCS to realize a $42,000 annual

savings on licensing costs for the content filtering device alone. In terms of fiscal

• How will we leverage collaborative purchasing to pay substantially less for technology

services and platforms?

• How can a Statewide Shared Services Model assist in shifting primary support from infrastructure to instructional needs?

• How can a Statewide Shared Services Model enable increased infrastructure and

technology efficiency and sustainability?

• How can a Statewide Shared Services Model provide higher service reliability?

• How can a Statewide Shared Services Model facilitate more strategic budgeting models

for our LEA/Charter School?


of 31




sustainability, this allows us to refocus that funding source on addressing equity of

access to computing technologies within CCS.

This overall shift from technology provider to service provider means CCS can

dedicate itself to the following initiatives:

1. Development of rich online professional development resources for the use

of technology.

2. Collaboration with curriculum development at the district level and school

level to advise and co-develop appropriate integrated technology curriculum

resources for schools.

3. Refocus technology staff on the standardization, documentation, and cross-

training of support that is required to ensure consistent support throughout

the district.

CCS recognizes the challenge with the S3M will be a loss of some control over the

daily configuration and management of hardware, which can create issues. For

example, should a partner provider lose service, we’re unable to provide regular

and detailed problem updates to our stakeholders and are at the mercy of another

organization’s ability to quickly fix the issue and provide timely updates. CCS does,

however, also recognize that as you lose some of that control you’re also losing the

other financial burdens that come along with it such as providing for Business

Continuity & Disaster Recovery services to be in place for those technologies. This

is, in fact, one area that CCS is weak that the S3M will address in addition to

helping standardize the services that are provided to teachers, students, and staff.

The acceptable risk associated with the S3M is that while temporarily this frees the

LEAs of some financial burden, it does leave questions about the long-term

sustainability model at the state. Where an LEA can often set its own strategic

financial and funding priorities, when the S3M is relied upon it has the potential to

create a situation where the state legislature, DPI, or ITS stop having the means to


of 31




support the S3M which would immediately put the burden back on LEAs who have

shifted their funding priorities under the revised model the state has supplied. This

means that core services must be identified within the LEA which are accounted for

at all costs and a priority model is created and maintained within CCS that provides

contingency plans should funding realities change at the state level that affect the

S3M.

Core Connectivity & Data Services:

• Metro-Ethernet connectivity between the schools and the district office.

• Direct Internet Access connectivity between the district office using NCREN.

• Digital Telephone, Voice over IP, and Plain Old Telephone Systems (POTS)

to provide fixed location voice communication services.

• Wireless Voice communication for administrative and select itinerant staff

along with bus drivers and other key communication stakeholders that are

identified as programs evolve.

• Wireless Data connectivity for traveling personnel that require data as a part

of their jobs.

• AS/400 Financial Services Hardware and Data required for the operation of

payroll, budget, PO operation, and related fiscal/business systems including

HRMS.

• Wired and wireless networking systems within each administrative and

school location.

• Content Filtering & Firewall appliances and service.

These services are ones that will always need to receive fiscal priority from our LEA

regardless of which services in this list can be handled through the S3M so that any

changes in the S3M funding can quickly be re-addressed locally.


of 31




Alignment to other plans and initiatives

Strategic Priority 1: A Statewide Shared Services Model

Chatham County Schools will utilize and align with the following initiatives/plans to

reach for the vision and complete the strategic priorities of our plan...

ACRE / CEDARS

Career and College Ready, Set, Go!

Race to the Top Local and State Scopes of Work AdvancED Accreditation Requirements

School Improvement Planning & Implementation

Online EOC & EOG Testing Implementation

Safe Schools Plans


of 31

Last Updated: 4/2/2012



Statewide Shared Services Model Targets Year 1 Year 2 Yearly Evaluation

Expand Wireless Access Finish Wireless upgrades at all

locations.

Provide supplemental wireless

access to areas in schools

where there may still be

connectivity issues.

Yr. 1 – All schools with high-density

wireless connectivity.

Yr. 2 – Network maps and

operational installation of high

density wireless

Refocus operating costs by condensing

unnecessary services and equipment.

Deploy VMWare Virtualization

environment. Implement a

network shared storage system to

support data stewardship.

Complete migration of all

virtual-possible servers and

applications.

Transition school-based servers

and services into the centralized

virtual environment.

Facilitate a more strategic budgeting model

utilizing blended funding and reducing

isolated programmatic spending

Work with Instructional Services

Directors to identify areas where

we can eliminate duplicate

software / subscription services to

provide balanced inter-

departmental funding of

technology resources.

Evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of

each internally hosted

classroom technology (ex.

Scholastic Math Inventory) vs.

paying to have another vendor

host the service on our behalf.

Standards documentation

regarding the selection of specific

instructional technology spending

that identifies where isolated

programmatic spending was

reduced.

ACRE Benchmarking via ClassScape & other

online testing like IXL Math

Implement district-wide

benchmarking testing schedule.

Begin data-drive decision-making

training at the district level to

ensure that ISD Directors are

consistent in their understanding

of taking action on collected data.

Provide resources related to the

implementation of data-driven

decision-making in a train-the-

trainer model to ensure schools

receive information on how to

use the data they are collecting

from their benchmarking.

Training agenda, supporting

materials, and school-based

supporting documents (agenda +

sign-in sheets) to demonstrate

delivery of training.


of 31




Strategic Priority 2: Universal Access to Personal

Teaching and Learning Devices Essential Questions for Chatham County Schools

Current Status and Moving Forward: Chatham County Schools currently supports personal teaching and learning

devices for all teachers and for all high school students. The roll-out of a 1:1

Student Laptop Program began five years ago and has been realized at all our high

schools for the past three years. A teacher 1:1 laptop program began seven years

ago and has been fully implemented for the past five years.

Students in grades K-8 currently do not have 1:1 access to a personal learning

device. We have, however, investigated various methods for the provision of this at

a variety of grade levels including iPad/tablet distribution for our lower elementary

grades and lower price-point MacBook Air devices for our middle grade students.

Chatham County Schools would like to see 1:1 personal computing access for all

students in grades 6 through 12. In our Elementary school grades we believe the

ideal setup is broad access to laptop / personal learning device carts blended with a

variety of in-classroom technologies providing students multiple technologies

through which they can explore content and gain mastery of the Common Core and

Essential Standards curriculum.

• What is universal access to personal teaching and learning devices?

• Why do our teachers, and students, need access to personal teaching and learning devices?

• How will we provide ample access to individual teaching and learning devices?

• What models can be used for implementing universal access to personal teaching and learning devices in our LEA?


of 31




The model for growth and sustainability for technology is foundationally related to

standards. Our current personal device infrastructure is overwhelmingly Apple-

centric. Roughly 95% of all personal teaching and learning devices are Apple

products in the Apple MacBook & MacBook Pro product lines.

The standardization of Apple means that our growth plan includes looking at iPod

Touch, MacBook Air, & iPad deployments for our students in grades K-8. Chatham

County Schools previously evaluated an iPad implementation at the Margaret B.

Pollard Middle School, which opened in January 2011, but found that the district’s

ability to provide support and manage the devices was a barrier for adoption. This

barrier, however, has been overcome with our Casper Suite adoption for computer

and iOS device management.

The remaining hurdles to begin this type of implementation are funding, a clearly

expressed vision for curriculum integration, and a model for professional

development to support the devices. The enterprise management component,

which was lacking in 2010, has been found in our move to incorporate the Casper

Suite into our enterprise management application portfolio.

The best evidence that teachers and students need access to personal teaching

and learning devices has come from our High Schools where we have found that

teachers are collaborating more frequently within PLCs regarding student data.

Students are more engaged in the classroom, and have equitable opportunities to

create, investigate, and learn outside the classroom. The 1:1 Student Laptop

Program is a cornerstone of our teaching and learning, yearly schedule, and

student evaluation process. This has included teachers using laptops and

electronic testing methods during semester and end of year testing which provides

an authentic environment in which Chatham County Schools students are prepared

to become productive in the 21st Century workforce.


of 31




Last year, CCS Technology Services developed a sustainable computing refresh

model that addresses the student laptops in grades K-8. This program, however,

requires greater funding than the state provides and cannot be sufficiently

supplemented locally to ensure year-to-year consistency.

It is imperative that this plan be revised to take into account different technologies

that will still support learning in our Apple-centric computing environment. The

costs to change from Apple to Windows or Linux based computing solutions would

be far greater than simply addressing the hardware changes. Chatham County

Schools has been Apple-centric for a quarter-century and teachers, students, and

families have adopted this technology which means the cost to re-train and equip

all stakeholders would far outstrip any imagined savings associated with a change

in core OS infrastructure. Likewise, we’ve not seen a model for computer

purchases that provide substantial savings over the pricing that we’re already

receiving as a part of our 1:1 Student Laptop lease program, or from our individual

purchases.

There are, however, a variety of devices that offer substantially lower investment in

capital to bring on board. For example, iPads are roughly half the price of a

traditional laptop. Another example is the iPod Touch device, which would be

appropriate for many lower grade implementations where students are native users

of devices in that form factor.

Another option that Chatham County Schools is entertaining is looking at how a

Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) program might work. We are aware that a few

North Carolina districts will be implementing such a program this year and we’re

interested in how they perform. This is in response to community feedback and

parent requests regarding students and technologies purchased for them at home

for use in the classroom.


of 31




We anticipate that this will mean our network security infrastructure need to be

increased, but more importantly, that our teachers will need new kinds of

professional development to help them deal with facing a multitude of personal

learning devices ranging from laptops to smartphones and even e-Reader or tablet

devices. This shift in philosophy from a model where we have a narrow definition of

supported devices to one in which we facilitate creative use and implementation of

devices that are, in some cases, lead by student-experts is one that reflects the

new 21st Century classroom very well.

The two years covered in this plan are catalyst years for us that we hope will allow

for investigation of technology and models to prepare for our next push in creating

21st Century professionals and students who are prepared to be productive in a 21st

Century workforce.


of 31





Strategic Priority 2: Universal Access to Personal Teaching and Learning Devices



Student 1:1 Student Laptop Plan

Race to the Top

LEA School Improvement Plans


of 31




Universal Access to Personal Teaching and Learning Devices Targets Year 1 Year 2 Yearly Evaluation

Develop a minimum benchmark for school

technology access across the district.

Create standards documentation

framework with PTMAC.

Create a sub-committee to

review and fill in the standards

documentation to ensure

access.

Year 1 – Standards Document

created.

Year 2 – Review processes in

place for collection of key metric

data identified in standards

document.

Increase overall access to personal learning

devices.

Line item in County Capital Outlay

for refresh of non-leased

instructional computers.

Line item in County Capital

Outlay for refresh of non-leased

instructional computers.

AMTR Evaluation of increased

computer counts.

Implement professional development

promoting the use of personal learning

devices for both employees and students

Survey Faculty/Staff about topics

they’d be interested in learning.

Deliver train the trainer sessions

to ensure local training is

available on topics discovered

in year 1 survey.

Year 1 – Survey delivered.

Year 2 – Training model revisions

based on survey results.


of 31




Strategic Priority 3: Access to Digital Teaching & Learning Resources,

Including Digital Textbooks

Current Status and Moving Forward: One of the most important aspects of a technology implementation is how the

physical devices are used to access teaching and learning resources that exist only

in electronic formats. The implementation is what separates a gadget or computer

from a teaching and learning device. In Chatham County Schools, digital teaching

and learning resources includes a wide variety of formats and media including:

• “Instructional” Software (eBook CD/DVDs, Thinking Maps, Riverdeep)

• Websites (Discovery Streaming Education, SchoolFusion Content Management System)

• Web Applications (Google Apps for Education, SkyDrive, Prezi)

• Support Tools (Easy Grade Pro, Interwrite Tablet Software, SMART Tools)

There is currently no consistent process for the evaluation, selection, and training in

the use of these resources. Likewise, the diverse fleet of computer, models, OS

versions, and hardware configurations creates challenges for the deployment of

common tools across the district.

This is something, however, that the Principals’ Technology Media and Technology

Advisory Council (PMTAC) would be ideally suited to address. The PMTAC was

formed during the 2010-11 school year and has only begun to form as a group.

• What are digital teaching and learning resources?

• What are digital textbooks?

• Why do teachers and students need access to digital teaching and learning resources?

• What are the benefits of digital textbooks?

• What are open educational resources and how can they be used?

• How can access to these resources be increased in Chatham County Schools?


of 31




The PTMAC will continue to be one of the central IT governance structures within

Chatham County Schools in order to shape the strategic direction of technology

implementation.

One of the challenges facing the district is how to fund future traditional textbook

purchases and rollouts. Any time instructional materials change the costs with that

transition can be incredible because of the training, selection, and actual material

costs involved in the decision. CCS believes that digital textbooks only encompass

one option for the inclusion of digital reference materials.

The eTextbook movement seems to suggest immediately a 1-to-1 conversion of a

traditional print textbook into a digital format. This leads to questions of the efficacy

of such a conversion and how it affects students who have been trained in specific

reading comprehension strategies bound to print publications. Certainly, the re-

training of affected students and teachers would be a substantial component of any

digital textbook conversion. The real issue, however, is that this flat view of what a

digital textbook might be is too narrowly focused to take into account access via

digital learning devices to a wide variety of learning tools. In some cases, a digital

textbook may come from several sources and only be collected together as a part

of a curriculum framework website. This model is referred to as an “open source”

textbook. In other cases, a digital textbook may be a supplement to a physical

counterpart that contains specific examples while the digital components provides

supportive instructional strategies, practice, pre & post assessment activities as

well as a benchmarking component to evaluate student progress.


of 31




It is more valuable to have in place evaluation methodologies that provide a

framework within which digital instructional support materials can be evaluated

based on their curricular purpose. Standardizing on specific software, websites,

web applications, and supporting tools creates a baseline from which schools can

plan and provide relevant instructional support for teachers.

The first step in this direction is to determine the instructional support for pre-

existing digital instructional resources. If tools are un-used or underused,

evaluating them will not have the payoff that evaluating better used and integrated

tools. Evaluation should be based on three main factors:

• Teacher perceived value – The value of the tool based on what they can do

with the student achievement data or performance enhancements they find

when using the digital resource.

• Instructional support – What resources exist to support the use of the

digital resource for teachers and is there a possibility to expand that support

while ensuring teacher use remains.

• Student success – Isolating the student success to a digital resource is

always incredibly difficult and we believe firmly that the success of students

is dependent upon high quality teachers. That said, continuous student

improvement while using the digital tool suggests that it is at least a

significant component in determining student success.

The development of this evaluation instrument can therefore be used as selection

criteria for existing digital resources and for future pilot tests that may lead to

purchases. Furthermore, the teacher perceived value and instructional support

scores suggest whether or not a tool has the appropriate access for teachers. This

metric can then be used to scale infrastructure, licensing, and training to ensure

that proven tools can be delivered to teachers and students.


of 31





Strategic Priority 3: Access to Digital Teaching and Learning Resources, Including

Digital Textbooks



Student 1:1 Student Laptop Plan

Race to the Top


Development of Digital Resource Evaluation Instrument Principals Media and Technology Advisory Council


of 31




Access to Digital Teaching and Learning Resources, Including Digital Textbooks Targets Year 1 Year 2 Yearly Evaluation

Develop a K-20 partnership with a Higher Ed.

Institution begin looking at our current digital

resources.

Establish contact with a professor

at a Higher Education Institution to

discuss our interests.

Survey Results from a

developed instrument that helps

us evaluate digital resources.

Survey Results

Begin investigation of digital replacements for

print resources where appropriate.

Textbook Review Committee to

include Technology Services

Review

Evaluate eBooks as possible

alternative to print-based books.

List of new access to digital

replacements for print inventory.

Incorporate procured resources such as NC

WiseOwl, NCLive, and other open

educational resources into curriculum guides.

Provide Professional

Development District-wide for

owned resources.

Survey teachers about which

resources they’re finding most

valuable and revise purchasing

based on feedback.

Percentage of teachers who have

received training and are using

available technology resources.

Provide professional development to

principals regarding the integration, use, and

procurement processes for digital resources

at their schools.

Build PTMAC Participation. Scoring Rubric for Principals

with regard to technology

components in their

walkthroughs. Technology

integration as a new component

of LEA required School

Improvement Planning process.

PTMAC Membership & Technology

incorporated directly into School

Improvement Plans.

Use the Principals’ Media and Technology

Advisory Council to help shape the transition

plan to more digital resources K-12.

Build PTMAC Participation. PTMAC will submit a

recommendation to the

Superintendent regarding

expanded use of digital

resources.

PTMAC Membership &

Superintendent recommendation

document.


of 31




Strategic Priority 4: A Districtwide Model of Technology-Enabled

Professional Development

Current Status and Moving Forward: Districts across the country are facing the realities of severe budget constraints. In

most cases, this has meant a reduction in capacity for face-to-face training as staff

development budgets and departments are cut. This places an increased focus on

providing high quality technology-enabled professional development for all

employees.

This requires a number of skill set changes for our employees including the ability

to adapt learning styles to incorporate technology facilitated learning. In addition,

the development of online resources requires training in a variety of new tools like

Camtasia for screen-cast based tutorials, audacity for audio recording, iMovie for

producing movies of training sessions, and the use of cameras, mics and other

tools used in digital content creation.

• What skills are needed to transition to digital teaching and learning resources?

• How can these skills be delivered and sustained to our LEA teachers and

administrators?

• How do teachers, administrators, and staff work with colleagues to guide our LEA toward more effective uses of 21st Century tools for teaching, learning, and managing

instruction?

• How are teachers, administrators, and staff prepared to understand, implement, and

assess the span of skills and processes that students need to succeed in the 21st

Century?

• How are teachers, administrators, and staff prepared to apply 21st Century assessment systems to inform instruction and measure 21st Century knowledge, skills, performance,

and dispositions?


of 31




In addition, a central warehouse for this professional development will need to be

created, maintained, and organized so that it becomes a singular destination for

employees. This will reduce the overall channel conflict that can occur when every

group of trainers is undertaking their own initiatives for the creation and delivery of

training.

The asynchronous training opportunities will also need to be supplemented by

distributed synchronous training models using a variety of tools like GoToMeeting,

TelePresence Systems like Lifesize/Polycom, and Skype in some cases. Every

teacher is issued a laptop computer, which makes Skype & GoToMeeting viable

tools to provide synchronous training. Employees will, however, need training and

support in the use of these tools because many do not currently use them in their

classrooms.

Finally, a blended learning approach can be taken for everything from meetings to

professional development. This model takes advantage of using Moodle or

WikiSpaces as a centralized asynchronous learning environment, which has

supplemental synchronous events via Skype or Tele-Presence tools. This model

provides the best of both worlds and gives ongoing support to adult learners who

may need access to a variety of formats to suit both their schedules and learning

styles.

At the heart of this effort will be reflective data-driven management of the

resources. Some strategies to ensure that these efforts are providing the return on

investment we hope are:

• Usage Tracking – The ability to see whether or not a resource or topic has

interest so that future tutorials or staff development sessions can be planned

based on actual interest rather than perceived interest.

• Surveying – Asking employees what topics and formats most interest them

to determine the most effective way to ensure that training is provided.


of 31




• Accountability Model – The development of a process through which

employees are evaluated on their effective use of required training.

Essentially, how can we certify that training has been delivered, understood,

and was effective.

• Outcomes Evaluation – Polling to see how provided professional

development is being implemented. This can include topical evaluations

such as the number of teachers who use a particular instructional strategy

that was provided or subject based such as looking at if there’s an increase

in the usage of an electronic tool like Discovery Education after training has

been delivered.


of 31





Strategic Priority 4: A Districtwide Model of Technology-Enabled Professional

Development.



Video Conferencing (Synchronous & Asynchronous solutions)


Common Core & Essential Standards District Curriculum Development

Curriculum Mapping

Moodle & WikiSpaces


of 31




A Districtwide Model of Technology-enabled Professional Development Targets Year 1 Year 2 Yearly Evaluation

Consolidate online asynchronous training in a

single location.

Technology & Media Governance

Groups along with Instructional

Services identify the location and

begin a pilot to test how it works.

Promotion as a pilot to gauge

teacher feedback.

Migrate all asynchronous

training materials to the

centralized location selected in

year 1. Promotion to teachers

as a single destination for

training.

Year 1 – Select single location and

set up initial pilot.

Year 2 – Migration of content

completed.

Prepare School-based technology leaders to

support technology-enabled professional

development methods.

Ensure school-based technology

personnel and curriculum support

leaders have had face-to-face

training covering the use of

synchronous and asynchronous

tools.

First full year of widespread

technology facilitated

professional development in

asynchronous and synchronous

environments.

Year 1 – Sign in sheets & CEUs

issued.

Year 2 – Usage tracking statistics

for online training.

Train the Trainers in the use of digital content

creation and online instructional design

practices to ensure high quality internally

created resources are available.

Train trainers on the synchronous

tools like Skype & Lifesize so they

can begin immediate use of those

tools.

Train trainers on asynchronous

tools like Moodle, WikiSpaces,

for hosting and Camtasia for

content creation.

Year 1 – Trainers will use

synchronous training tools at least

once.

Year 2 – Trainers will develop at

least one asynchronous training

module for hosting within

WikiSpaces or Moodle.


of 31




Strategic Priority 5: 21st Century Leadership for All School and District

Leaders

Current Status and Moving Forward: The Principals’ Media & Technology Advisory Council, referred to as PMTAC

henceforth, was created in the Spring of 2011 to provide Principals an opportunity

to shape a 21st Century vision for schools. The original charge was to provide a

governance structure that provided Principals an opportunity for:

• Professional Development – Providing principals with direct professional

development skills on everything from leading technology change in schools

to how to use a SMART Board.

• Centralized Updates – A way to not only disseminate news and events

within both the Media & Technology programs, but also to have discussions

related to media and technology issues.

• Governance & Guidance – Provide a standardized way to receive

feedback, input, and guidance on what schools are most needing in terms of

technology and media program support.

• Are Principals and Central Office leaders prepared to lead and create a vision for 21st

Century Education?

• Are mechanisms in place for school leaders to create 21st Century learning cultures?

• Are professional growth programs/opportunities available to prepare teachers and

administrators to lead 21st Century learning environments?


of 31




The issue with this is that we currently don’t have ways to solicit and incorporate

student voices in the governance discussion of technology & media education. The

Executive Director of Technology & Media Education meets with the following

groups on a monthly basis:

• Instructional Services Directors – The monthly instructional services

division meetings provide an opportunity to collaborate about instructional

technology challenges at a district-wide level.

• Principals – PMTAC

• K-8 Lead Technology Teachers – Teachers who also wear the hat of

instructional technology specialist within their schools that serve any grade

K-8.

• High School Tech Facilitators – All High Schools have a full-time Tech

Facilitator that acts as a collaborator, trainer, and instructional specialist for

all things technology related.

• Media Coordinators – Each school has a full time media coordinator

through which technology and media projects are often coordinated. These

are also the frontline advocates for technology and information skills in

schools serving any grade K-8.

This provides a broad representation of school cultures from the district level

through school administration and down to the granularity of teachers. It does not,

however, incorporate the student voice in the governance of technology. In effect,

this excludes the most central stakeholder group in the district. By including

students in the governance structure of technology the district can help focus

professional development and look at what is effective through the eyes of the

group most directly accountable for taking advantage of what a collaborative 21st

Century learning environment has to offer.


of 31





Strategic Priority 5: 21st Century Leadership for All Principals and District Leaders



Video Conferencing (Synchronous & Asynchronous solutions)


Common Core & Essential Standards District Curriculum Development Principals Media and Technology Advisory Council

School Media and Technology Advisory Councils

Data Warehousing & Dashboard from SAS


of 31




21st Century Leadership for All Principals and District Leaders Targets Year 1 Year 2 Yearly Evaluation

Create a vision of 21st Century education that

can be implemented in Chatham County

Schools.

Build PTMAC Participation Outline the specific 21st Century

skillsets required of all teachers

to be successful 21st Century

Professionals.

Year 1 – PTMAC Participation.

Year 2 – Skillset Document.

Provide School Administrator focused

professional development at Administrative

Meetings and through the PMTAC.

Survey Principals to discover

topics that are most relevant to

their experience that will provide a

benefit for leading in a 21st

Century school setting.

Provide short and specific

Principal Media & Technology

professional development as a

component at each

Administrative Team Meeting.

Year 1 – Survey Results

Year 2 – Training Agendas

Add a Student-centric governance structure

and group for technology & media education

in Chatham County Schools.

Survey Students about technology

in Chatham County Schools to

gauge interest and attitudes

related to technology.

Convene quarterly student-

centric governance group.

Year 1 – Survey Results.

Year 2 – Sign In Sheets & Agendas


of 31




Appendix B: Policies and Procedures


Policy, Procedure, & Guidelines Implementation Chart

Policies, Procedures, & Guidelines LEA Policy Code or

Procedure

LEA Adoption,

Implementation

or Revision

Date REQUIRED POLICIES:

Materials Selection Policy Policy 3200

Procedure 3200

11/26/2007

Disposal of Equipment / Replacement of Obsolete

Equipment

Policy 6560 9/14/2009

Hardware and Software Procurement Policy 3220 11/26/2007

Copyright Policy Policy 3230-7330 7/9/2007

Acceptable Use Policy Policy 3225-7320

Regulation 3225-7320

7/9/2007

Equipment/Materials Donation Policy Policy 5010 8/6/2007

Data Privacy Policy Policy 3225-7320 7/9/2007

Inventory Control Policy Policy 8351 12/10/2007

Access to Services Policy Policy 4001 8/26/2006

Student Discipline and Liability Policy Policy 4300 8/8/2011

Remote Access Policy Policy 7325 8/28/2006

Virus Protection Policy Policy 7325 8/28/2006

NC WISE ID & Password Workstation Policy Regulation 3225-7320 7/9/2007

Security Awareness Policy Policy 3220 11/26/2007

Network Security Policy Policy 3220 11/26/2007

Advertising and Commercialism Policy Policy 5240 8/6/2007

Internet Safety (CIPA) Policy 3225-7320 7/9/2007

Bullying & Harassment Policy 1710-4021-7230 1/14/2011


of 31




Policies, Procedures, & Guidelines LEA Policy Code or

Procedure

LEA Adoption,

Implementation

or Revision

Date

SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES & GUIDELINES:

Hardware and Software Deployment Policy 3220 11/26/2007

Outdated Resources Policy 3200 11/26/2007

Disaster Recovery Policy 3220 11/26/2007

Assessment Policy 3410 12/5/2011

Web Page Development Policy 3227-7322 7/9/2011

technology mission statement - north carolina public … · technology mission statement ......

Documents