MLTI Thinktank notes Transcribed Clarifying Questions:

o How did choice of device become political? How can this be undone?

o MLTI Responsibilities or handbook o Where did SEED go? o How to leverage various learning avenues?

Tie to other state initiatives. o Can MLTI/LTT assist with device agnostic professional development? o How do we define equity? o How will DOE parcel or address device management to school structure? o Where is money coming from?

MLTI versus EPS money? o What is eligible for grant funds?

Grants are only available o Will SOM assume WIFI support in the future?

Or will this become a local cost? o What aspect of current MLTI will be non-negotiable? o What will “bridge year” look like?

Values:

o Equity: Same for all students o Early Professional Learning: SEED [spreading educator to educator development]

Driven by teachers Projects in units everyone can adopt

• Teaching and learning focus o Teaching and learning focus (not about device) o Promotes voice and choice for all students o Teach enhances T+L?

need belief from teachers o DOE open to meeting with groups such as METDA or AG team o Equality: no grants, let’s coordinate the money into one vehicle. Aev is important

One solution for all Singular WIFI: solution (maybe some different options) some flexibility No more individual grades, complete solution for one building

o Learning resources: PD marriage between curriculum, content, technology Infrastructure, support, and leave devices off the table K-12 capacity for K-12 Facilitate larger services with all contents (data, engine, ess…?)

o Sustainability:

CT and pricing yield to maintain funding Keep it under misc

• Most powerful way to move money Rebranding of MLTI. Can the DOE pull this off?

o Leadership buy-in New leaders to attend and participate in MLTI DO

• Doesn’t require physical presence • Partnership with groups to get leaders into training

o Economic Development Create a reason and capacity for students to…. Commitment to the program Device choice Technology support for VAMF Network infrastructure Support from MSLN Flexibility of PL ind teacher to larger groups depending on needs – responsive to

your needs Access for all students and staff to technology Devices, WIFI, software, etc at a level playing field Access to PL opportunities: MARTYL (and buddies) summer conference, dig

learning lab for all o Access to JAMF//management systems to maintain devices and to a repair depot

especially for schools without resources for this o PL at schools for staff versus traveling to PL apps o Level playing field for all o Statewide meeting opportunities o Web based platforms o Commitment to the program o Device choice o Tech support from VAMF o Network infrastructure o Support from MSLN o Flexibility of PL individual teacher to larger groups depending on needs – response to

your needs o Strong network of people who want the MLTI program to be successful

PD: utilizes Maine teachers relevant to many/any topic Beginning focus on technology in class rather than other options. Teachers used

it for many things For leadership/principles and super intendants, vendors, and DOE team makers

• Support Starr • Devices into schools in volume

Coordinated CT • Logistical project team between state and vendors • Pricing

• Value in MLTI community with common challenges • Uniform devices across the state lower and higher end

o Guarantee for teachers to have “teaon”? available o One solution removes barriers and can focus on learning one device o State stands between school and vendors

Balances between both, helps maintain ed. focus and learning o Guiding principles regardless of vendor, helps drive conversation based on education o Partnership between sale vendor o MLTI aspirational o Improvements in att. Rates o Drives areas of focus within the project o Always a sense of looking forward and being on the cutting edge o Trust

Trust with the DOE (MLTI team) Clear execution of vision between the whole team (vendors, districts, DOE)

o Constant communication o Visibility and [Lack of] school visits (DOE)

Entire team, PD, vendor, education o Regional meetings to instruct

Admin (superintendent, principle) Teachers, tech leaders and parents. (?) DOE

o Expectation of local leaderships involvement o How do we communicate?

Web communication around buying laptops, program us more than buying o Choosing out words and town

Tone of voice. What is MLTI? Partnership with vendors on communications MLTI as a brand

o Evaluation Need for this data Bright bytes aren’t the be all end all

o Strong network of people who want the MLTI program to be successful o Commitment to bringing technology and connectivity for all students in Maine o Current efforts of reach out/ transparency / from Maine DOE to get feedback o Broadband and WIFI connectivity o Digital citizenship / 21st century skills / effectivity of 4cs o Access to 1-1 devices o PC to support for student success / teacher success technology integration to improve

student outcomes o Device choice o Not just about the device o Equity – needs in different districts vary and we should be responsive / flexible to those

- one size does not fit all

Focus on fairness o PL addressing individualized needs of teachers / districts – with content and structure o More offerings o Classroom practice focused / best practice o Current / up-to-date o Teacher-led o Collaboration between teacher and tech director o Teachers connect across school districts o Connections virtually o Funding o Equality and access for 7 and 8 grade and begins the conversation for other grades o Enable classroom / teachers to stay current o Wireless support o Offers students and teachers opportunities to expand their classroom beyond the walls

of Maine o Technology integration with content areas o Support for teacher growth with device growth and innovation o Shifting mindset o Choice in device o Whole package that comes with device make it so 1-1 was manageable in a district o Everyone having the same device, everyone learned one device / system o Bring able to buy out devices at end of 4 years allowed districts to use them for other

grade levels o Regular updating of devices o Access to Apple distinguished educators (?) o WIFI in schools o Having devices focus the conversation about digital citizenship o Access to 1-1 devices for 7 and 8th grade o Platform agnostic PL o Technology in learning was useful o Buying power of the State o Equity of high equal quality (everyone gets same quality) devices and services o One device allows for uniformity o Classroom-based, specific, targeted, (on demand) PL o 1-800 for Apple – Direct line, on-demand o Participation is achievable by every district o Technical support and training for tech people regardless of location o Management and solution o Local repair depot – time saving / quicker turnaround time o Opportunities for input that is valued o Partnership with vendor is a benefit for buying power as well as program oversight and

quality o Network Maine o Student equity/access with tools and WIFI

Couldn’t do otherwise (655s -K-8) o Second WIFI/network Maine o Flexibility to purchase used devices

Being able to extend past 4 years, pass it down o Professional Development with colleagues: experts (MARTEL, teacher leaders, Apple,

ACTEM, PLN) With Teachers tech leaders and curricular labs Conformity = continuity

• Sharing ideas/practices o Planned release time to work with T’s or T’s and T’s

Ability to network Common set of tools

o Money for Subs o Central leadership – supported innovation leadership o Student Conference

Peer work passion/shared learning Leading the way seeing potential

o MLTI summer institute Professional Development/networking

o Fall/spring regional meetings Collaboration time/problem solving

o New Devices/refresh of a new cycle sustainability o Sense that Maine was leading the nation

Ego boost/reason to be proud o Radical change with purpose o Impacting kinds opening new opportunities o Tech access is expecting o Students can process info in their best modality o Equity of access for students everywhere o MARTEL and Professional Development Conferences Statewide/regionally

Access to this for all regions of the state (summertime most valuable) o Robust networking/wireless-incredibly helpful o Core of Technology – MLTI set the stage so schools have had a framework to work with o Helps in budget convo’s with admin/leadership regarding tech in schools o Improving tech and learning/teaching in schools and more effective o Infrastructure people/network/immediate feedback/ o Relationship with Apple: Day-long bootcamp where they come in and teach students o Device and accessibility/skill building o Apple involves students and student tech conference

Real world jobs o Access to Maine Virtual Library o Networking o State commonalities o Professional Development

Conferences MLTI teacher/leaders (the middle years) Networking/sharing regionally frequent - teacher involved/open Engage admin team

o Bulk purchasing power/supports solutions o Consistent process cross-districts o Quality infrastructure WIFI MS o MSLN

Speed, cost o Lil opportunity (ME leads) o Apple updates/best practices

Privacy plus No need to “reinvent the wheel” Consistent staff (ME specific) MDM solution implementation (current)

o Accountability at local level o Bright bytes o Student conferences o Access to broadband o MSLN o Allows for differentiated instruction and differentiated ways to demonstrate learning o Access to devices and all that come with it o Leveled playing field- all students o Equity o Student conference- introducing students to other students across the state

Getting to college campuses- Aspirations Student presentations- Student Agency

o P.L. for educators- device agnostic, build skills that transfer o Teacher Leaders who can bring information back to their schools o Teacher connections and collaborations

Suggestions:

o Network/device/management all grades to existing school infrastructure. o Guidance/Parameters for minimum implementation/planning to provide equity and

lead students to where they need to be o Offer teachers understanding of….? o Stay mindful of serving big districts and small districts and small districts

Prepackaged options Grant options for bigger tech departments

o Accountability on schools and on part of DOE o Bring back Bright Bytes-style data capturing

Helps Sea overview

o Look at SEED model and PD for teachers (ex. Ed camp of school) Ex. Design Thinking Grow relationships with other educators

o Teacher Lead/ money for incentive o Digital Citizenship component o Experts at School buildings o Money to cover pieces and/or aspects of teacher learning o Tie this initiative to other DOE initiatives o Way to promote great thins happening at school, celebrate success o Spend more time teaching cert. courses (spec. [about] teach in Maine) o Back to sustainability model? o SAMR Model – evaluate MLTA against this Still appropriate? o ISTE Standards as a model (evaluate student outcomes) o OURCOME versus output driven? What are our goals? o Change state graduation components for technology with standards around digital

world o Get students in on the discussion o Rebrand MLTI

Domain Key principles What is the brand? (revisit this) State tech plan – revisit and maybe build off that. Its still relevant today. Understanding why

o More about the classroom Not about device, “ride the back” MLTI in conjunction with computer science content Computer science curriculum is evolving, keep an eye on it Student success at college level – prepare them Be prepared for student life in a project-based environment DOE

o MLTI at DOE Tied to other programs and departments

o Digital citizenship Learning how to be good digital citizens Digital literacy

o Leadership and groups Involving everyone at every level Superintendent association Principle association Special education Science boards Curriculum director Invite everyone MLTI connected to other groups outside of schools

• Creating partnerships with lost of groups

• Across state and connecting it to the communities Solving problems collaboratively People forget about economic development Creating an innovative workforce Tie teachers together across the state

o Vision of learning with technology to support it o Device agnostic support o More access to broadband outside of school and library o More PR for program to build more buy-in o Develop incentives for companies in Maine who support program for students- through

employment? o Private partnerships for internships, etc for students o More opportunities for sharing between schools o Using student growth measures o More public/private funding o Demonstrate return on investment to outside stakeholders o Collect data around acquisition of essential skills for employment o Guidance from state around alignment of technology and MLRs o Guidance around how to interpret technology to meet MLRs in other content areas o Commitment from state around supporting Digital citizenship with PL, resources, etc. o Expand program beyond 7 and 8 grades PK-12 o Spend less on devices and more on ensuring equity o Program evaluation periodically o Seek out feedback regularly/ yearly and follow up o More and frequent communication from DOE to field o Identify most valuable solution with equity

Devices Infrastructure Professional development training for IT staff

o Identify level playing field who provides what o Flexibility in deployment and support and choices

Ex: Network and WIFI structure o Support students as they move from 12th grade

Ex: device buyout for seniors Rolling deployment

o Ensure exploration of ALL platforms available o Continue professional development in house / external for both students and staff o Continue some form of a student conference o Evaluation system to ensure full potential of devices / solution is being leveraged o Maintaining the forward movement in technology o Collective buy-in from multiple stakeholders

METDH ACTEM Maine DPE (?)

MPA MSSA…etc

o Require participation of administration or make a part of other meetings o More PL conferences / more offerings / more frequency o More coordination (plan together) PL should be technology and literacy, not

necessarily separate. o Bring together tech leads to share and collaborate o Use local tech experts do research early in policy decision around WIFI expansion o Personal WIFI to students without WIFI at home o Build capacity at Maine DOE o Work to make program more sustainable economically o More stakeholders involved in RFP process – unity and scoring o A division board – needs to be representative of Maine o Should be pk-12 o Earlier work on digital citizenship requirement o Provide support / guidance for digital citizenship o More regionalized PL offers (including MLTI conference) o More funding o More options for MOM solutions o Opt-out option o Continue conversations / brainstorming about what MLTI could / should look like o Options for districts who don’t have capacity

Packages (wireless in a box) o Mentoring between district TDs o Funding flexibility to hire tech coach o Using title II and III funding for tech coaching o Use Erate to support curriculum o Communication and timelines well in advance o All PL on occan (?) o Stretch device age beyond 4 years o Use buying power to help all o Collect data annual teacher perception of technology integration o Measure data around MLTI 6.R o DOE content specialist integrity reach in PL (?) o Training for new administrators to establish Buy in o List of qualitative stories about students with tech (?) o More local access and control of WIFI for those who want it o WIFI should be K-12 solution needed at all levels o Leverage buying power of the State for WIFI o Evaluating WIFI place in program – how best to serve schools o Should have option for those who want/need WIFI but not required for all o More open process/transparency in phases o Make decisions as quickly as possible – stick to timeline o 7-12 (include) staff and students

o Revisit/update if need be vision and mission o Single solution statewide o United/grade level solutions o Platform agnostic PL o PL linked to content areas o PL more conceptual and less application specific o PL provided by Maine Teachers o PL aligned to district priorities/state priorities o Grant program to select devices (choice) within set parameters to have

baseline/expectations 4-year grant $800-4000 and includes Professional Development Got a State contract to help small schools get price break Find a way to leverage buying power and noted concern about losing choice

o Tech director/infrastructure training/support/Professional Development Certification or credentials More technical instruction

• Update days = fall days • Bring back “deep dive”

o Funding for continued support if you “go alone” as opposed to funding for the “entire package”

o Professional Development (required) for admin/accountability for tech plans Admin Teachers Parents “And this how….” Integrating/not silos “what are the look fors?” Have teachers contribute to research about tech use

o Opt in document include “change management” o Better model to gauge effectiveness o Teacher leaders effective when paid for the effort o Identify specific gaps and fill them o Incentivize schools by making/likins to educator effectiveness (IE: what level of use is

reflected in classrooms?) o Consider stipend position @ admin level o Instead of a tech plan, create a technology use portfolio and submit various forms o Hold MLTI teachers conference as well as student conference (free) to instill value and

skill in teacher [need a critical mass] Identify ideal device to student ratio to support budget decisions in

communities program needs jolt-of energy o One more digital learning specialist may not be enough to support entire state. o If language in rule changes to most affordable (IE: MA) then value of most effective tools

may be lost

o Parent/community education: is there a difference between real-life citizenship and digital citizenship?

o Disconnect between home and school still exists (no access at home means device is a brick) Access is not universal

o We are providing access; are we providing equity? o Equity also involves teachers using the devices effectively-how do boost floor to elevate

ceiling? o How people learn is changing more rapidly than how people teach. Even in H.E. o ISTE

Adopt of adapt as part of MLR for students, staff, and administrators o Students are ready to advance sooner

Approach standards as progression to support continuous growth o Differentiate between computer science and technology use o Consider providing specific curricular guidance about computer science coursework. o MTLI: discuss role of cellphones in a student’s life and how to use this effectively o Leverage ACTEM or other organizations as an organization for Professional

Development and other relationships o Leverage vendors to provide Professional Development o Leverage social model better to demonstrate what schools are doing effectively o Use social media to network more

Model collaboration as a professional practice o Everyday actions need to be shared o Cookie cutter approach no longer works one size fits all 0 more options instead o Menu of limited choices (network/devices/ to allow for choices that fit a school district o More input from community on what apps WILL COME WITH PROGRAM o K-12 wireless support address at home WIFI as a state o Add Professional Learning/MARTLE for each building at schools o More elementary aspects with technology for all elementary schools o Mandating = equity for all (requiring training for admin/teachers/tech staff) o More direct campaigning for existence/funding of this program show why it is/how it is

working o Sharing stories of success o Badges for Apple district Educator: come with physical proof o More education and involvement with leadership

Show them HOW to implement tech Offer incentive IE: More to front of line for participation

o Restart of program will bring out vision and curiosity for staff to learn MUST have principal as part of the conversation

o Remote/virtual meetings/face to face video conference focus on leadership more than educators bring out passion and excitement

o Standard operating procedures for networks and WIFI and infrastructure and standard $ support for these as well for schools who need it

o Provide best practice solutions around safe apps for kids and guidelines … more conversations around what is appropriate offer this publicly

o Provide Professional Development… Engaging, in small bits, teacher promoted/led How to incorporate dig into classroom Resources for teacher leaders Timely Micro-credentialing Teacher-created instructional videos

• Keep updated Continual Regionalized and incentivized

o Vendor – single to provide complete solution, economies of scale for costs and supports o Uncouple WIFI from complete solution/ (MS can’t see inside network) products o Digital citizenship and staff buy-in

(needs Admin push) o Lack of support for teacher to implement dig citizenship without add-on of time o Re-Brand MLTI-

Need a coordinated marketing campaign, and senator King could help. Professional learning- empowering students to create with technology and tap

into potential. Community buy in for importance of technology SAMR model- help people understand full potential of devices and teaching with

it. o Tiered funding model- most needy schools would get more support for devices- Equity

but not equal for all. o Put more responsibility on success of the program into schools- need accountability or

incentives. o Districts could apply for additional funding for org. made with technology. o Device Agnostic o Shine light on the power/ potential of the devices and off of the devices too.

This is a guiding principal of MLTI

Concerns:

o Damage coverage, sustainability and waste o No digital citizenship component o Outdated policies and procedures (take home example) o How would it impact testing without devices? o Mixture of implementations (equality) throughout state/dictates success o Leadership/future to collaborate o Apple devices create expectations and financial burden on families o Difficult to open classrooms to change

Not unique to tech

o Does not want to be tied to a specific network, financial choices o PD doesn’t match current teaching practices through LTT

PD is not device specific o Leadership open to more/new models o 7th and 8th grade get expensive devices but none at the high school level *** o Standards-based teaching makes it difficult for teaching PD for teachers/needs

leadership? o Does it need to be 7the and 8th grade only o MLTI train leadership? o Communication:

Web • Hard to find • Search is not there • Broken links • Missing research on PD

o Too much policy and procedures From DOE

• Legislature only knows what we tell them. • Give more info

Laptop program: MLTI should be more, not just devices. • Can we go back to one device? • Feeling of MLTI at DOE “flies under radar”

PD: • Lack of PD, last audience, pushing the envelope, not everyone at the

level. • Should be different, at many levels • Worst in time away from schools • Communication of PD and what’s available • Lack of teacher leaders with a brand of PD • Leadership:

o At all levels, now is tern focused, should be everyone o Leaders at local level delegating to teon director and not be

involved themselves o “Tech meetings about device” (why leadership doesn’t go to

mailing offices) • State Coor CT RFF process

o Personel to manage the whole process ready and able to execute solution

o More than just the department in the room to review • School Size

o Smaller schools -TD wear many hats, must work for all schools. • Grades

o Not just 7/8 – too limited o Lack of content play in MLTI

o No baseline for content data o No keeping up with changing landscape of ed tech, stop

focusing on device o How is the program adapting to changes in technology – how can we build in ways to

ensure updating and changing with technology. Containment improvement. o Access to broadband at home for students o Buy-in from stakeholders o Sustainability o How we measure success of this program o What data should we be collecting? o Not enough focus on digital citizenship for both students and adults o Need more focus on how we use technology not best devices o Not enough work at State level to keep students in Maine for life – should be technology

base employment / connections o What teachers need for support / students need for learning will change o Planning is too static o Vulnerability to changing administration o Network Maine is not being fully utilized o Non MLTI goods style goods style when taking state exam o Economics who is responsible for funding? o Utilization of devices to their full potential

Increase / value How to incorporate in classrooms

o Rural areas – disparity of services / support at schools o What’s next after 12th grade for our students\

Supporting future needs going forward o Disparity/ divide throughout Maine o Accountability of how devices are leveraged/used o Buyout prices at end of MLTI contracts

Most schools want them at end at a reasonable price o Communication to schools for pre-planning o Lack of transparency

IE: Communication o Schools would like more local control with networks o How is the program adapting to changes in technology – how can we build in ways to

ensure updating and changing with technology continuum implement o Not enough focus on learning; too much on technology use o What teachers need for support / students need for learning will change o Planning is too static o Vulnerable to changing administration o Network Maine is not being fully utilized o Timelines for planning doesn’t line up with local districts o Moved from learning initiative to a technology initiative o Lack of buy-in for program as a learning initiative

o Not everyone needs the same device or training o Access to internet at home o Restricted by offerings – WIFI, device, ect. Either you buy in or you are on your own o Lack of transparency / sharing of information sooner o Too device-focused needs to be more student focused o Conference in spring and at Orono o Vision for future is not clear – data o Recognizing that student have been born into technology o Unknown / uncertainty o Timing: not enough time for districts to plan and adjust o Teacher hard to access to PL – hard to get out of class / building o PL not individualized enough o Not enough choice for districts to choose WIFI and device that suits them best o Not everyone has tech departments o WIFI infrastructure needs to be updated but not sure what’s happening with the state o Lack of public understand of what the program is and is not\ o Funding o Fracturing of solutions – giving more choice in solutions is taking away from quality of

solution o Choice takes away from buying power o Lack of opportunity for input o Timeline – not knowing what will happen in the future make decisions making difficult o WIFI – not knowing level of support from state o PL is not getting utilized o No WIFI access at home – equity o Lack of local access/visibility into the wireless networks.

Impacts students. o Differing levels (locally) of tech ability with expectation to maintain consistent level o Not recognizing expertise o Lack of credentialing to prove expertise to access

With flexibility not, requirement Need the Professional Development/ability to gain training (suggestion)

o Outdated equipment needs the money to support WIFI, state options/contract o Lack of timely communication about changes

Lack of follow-up/accountability o Lack of people at DOE to centralize support/leadership o Lack of info about/sharing of vision/long term plan o MLTI has lost its identity

Who to talk to? Where does it live? Fractured programs/support leaves local schools self-reliant

o Not aligned with MLTI guiding principles o Equity – see above concerns/who defines equity? o MLRs – tech is separate from content areas

What is integration? How are you measuring success?

o Sustainability o Hard to get a good laptop for $600

Small school struggled to get price break for quantity Money doesn’t support Professional Development/maintenance

o Lack of thoughtful research o Do we have time to catch up?

Dedicated Professional Development o Staff may be unwilling to be lifelong learner

Resistant to new technologies Struggle to use decides to maximum capacity and function

o Principals need to be leaders, model effective use o Buy-in

No common standards for technology or computer standards so there are no common benchmarks

Standards for effective use of technology should be embedded in content standards

o Tie GP for MLR to technology solution o Not enough access for Ed Techs to report, plan, assist students o Student teacher access eliminated but critical to support continuous entry o Then and now perceptions of MLTI

MLTI teacher/leader needed “sell” to staff New teachers see MLTI as device provider and admin

o Professional Development for preservice o Professional Development for new to ME teachers o Lack of skill/training to classroom management of lil o Repair costs o Lack of protective structure on device o Keeping student data private o WIFI only for MS creates equity o Issues (MS only with MLTI created equity issues) o One size fit all doesn’t fit all grades o What happens after 2020? 2021? (how soon will we know?) o Multiyear budget decisions need to be made with limited info o State assessment online without K-12 equipment/infrastructure accessibility o Lack of home internet/statewide broadband o Screen time o Digital citizenship and staff buy-in (needs admin push) o Lack of support for teachers to implement digital citizenship without add-on of time o Repair costs at and after buyout and parts/devices o Cookie-cutter approach-instead offer o MARTLE did not continue through it was incredibly helpful o Elem level is left out/missing everything such as training/network/devices

o Restrictions on some student devices because teachers and administration aren’t proficient and don’t understand tech

o Program taken for granted by ALL (teachers, admin, parents, students) So much could be lost/Entitlement

o Loss of years’ worth of resources, lessons, and info stored which staff have built over time

o Awareness of what is available to schools for resources/Professional Development o Old style testing doesn’t match current teaching methods o Communication: how to access professional learning o Confusing technology with computer science o School district won’t support devices if the state doesn’t provide them o Communities wont support/ buy in MLTI o Not all teachers/ administrators have bought in to importance o Teachers/ students are not tapping into the full potential of the devices in their hands. o Not all students have internet access at home, and you cant assign homework because

the students cant access it.