Vision For Education 2017

Mary TulloEDU 505

Dr. Sandra Foster

Educational Context of PHS

• Public high school grades 9-12 (NEASC, 2009)– Small (9.6 sq miles) blue-collar (86%) town– Predominantly Caucasian (86.6%)– Median income below state average– 15% below poverty level

• Building renovation completed in 2008• New leadership – New principal 2010– New superintendent and assistant superintendent 2011

Fulfilling a Mission

• Academic: variety of courses at various levels including AP, Math Center, Writing Center, Homework Club, Freshmen Academy,

• Social: clubs, sports, Student’s Rock Award, Super Senior Night

• Emotional: counseling groups, Connections program, mentoring, PBIS

• Civic: Community Service Fair, community service required for graduation, “Be the Change” community service awards

Futuring Technique• Current understanding of purpose of education in Plainville• Scanning (current conditions in Plainville)

– Education budget– Average income– Technology available– Policies regarding spending– Current attitude and values of stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, administration)

• Projections (future conditions in Plainville)– Education budget– Average income– Technology available– Policies regarding spending– Current attitude and values of stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, administration)

• Development of scenarios• Choose one scenario as “most likely”

Scenarios

projections•Education budget•Average income•Technology available•Policies regarding spending•attitudes and values

purpose of education

Scanning (current)• Education budget• Average income• Technology available• Policies regarding spending• Current attitude and values

Scenario

Educational Technology Trends

• tablet computing– Portable– Preloaded with software such as digital textbooks (Johnson, L, Adams, S., and

Cummins, M, 2012)– Relatively inexpensive– Can aid learning analytics (Johnson, et. al. 2012)

• online learning– Self directed– “popular” with students and parents (Blackboard K-12 & Project Tomorrow,

2009)– Teacher training needed– May be less expensive (Missal para. 12)

• learning analytics– Personalize learning – Tailored learning could be cost effective

• Peer based learning – Engage students in conversation about concepts (Becta, 2008)

Economic/Budgetary and Public Policy Trends

• data driven decision making– Attempt to streamline decision making for

economic reasons (Missal para. 12)– Attempt to personalize instruction

• lack of school funding– Will drive what technology will look like in the

classroom– Desire to include technology and economic

commitment often do not match

2017 Vision for PHS• Teacher exposure to on-line learning

– Professional development• Introductory on-line courses available

– Pairs or groups of teachers– Students work at own pace

• Tablet computers provided to students• Game based learning in some classes• Peer based learning in some classes• Learning analytic expanded

– Possible due to tablets• Increased parental involvement• Basic school format not drastically altered

– Minors– Require adult supervision

Challenges

• Teacher training – Technology processes– Pedagogy

• Teacher support• Hardware and software• Physical space

– More open spaces preferable– Not likely due to recent remodel

• E-safety curriculum – Including monitoring – Including enforcement of AUP

Opportunities

• Increased student engagement• Personalization of education • Students of all levels• Prepare students for demands post high school• Focus on being adaptable• Greater understanding of expectations– Teacher– School-wide

A Failure to Change

• Decline in student engagement• Decrease in digital literacy• Needed for jobs of the future• Increase in education gap– Due to differences in access to technology

• Inability of education system to provide instruction to meet individual needs (individualized education)

Preparing• Obtain money for tablet computers and software• Teacher training• Increase technology support staff

– Personnel– Hours

• Prioritize method of introduction– Importance– Time

• Pilot programs– Willing and able teachers– Use differently in different areas– Use differently with different groups

• Skills• maturity

Call to Action • Technology committee

– On line forum for communication– Teachers

• Different skill levels• Different perspectives

– Technology experts– Administration– Students– Parents

• Begin to expand use of technology in the classroom– Require use in all classes

• Different depending on subject• Dependent on current availability of technology• Facilitate student and teacher exposure to processes and expectation of on-line

learning

References

• Becta. (2008). Analysis of emerging trends affecting the use of technology in education.Retrieved from

http://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/courses/EDU505.901285009801/MasterCourseEDU505_ImportedContent_20120413093916/MasterCourseEDU505_ImportedContent_20111014102022/Unit%204/Unit%204%20%20%20Trends%20%26%20Forecasts/embedded%281%29/Analysis%20of%20Emerging%20Trends%20Research%20Report.pdf

• Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC horizon report: 2012 Highereducation edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

• Missal. (2009) 12 eLearning predictions for 2009: eLearning technology by Professor Missal. Retrieved from

http://post.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_28271_1%26url%3D

• New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Public Secondary Schools (2009). Report of the visiting committee for Plainville high school.

• Plainville High School. (2011). “Mission statement”. Retrieved from <https://sites.google.com/a/plainvilleschools.org/phs/aboutus/missionstatement>