I feel like this is a chapter where I can do a little more ranting and a little less repeating of the facts. Is this a dangerous feeling? Probably, but I'm going to do it anyway!!!!
First off, what teachers are getting free laptops, trips, or money for being a spokesperson for a product, and why has my wife never been offered these option? Not that she'd take it, and not that I'd take it either, but the most that I have seen offered is software to use with a specific book and a tote-bag (We all know how much teachers LOVE their tote bags!!!)
To those who say schools should be free of partnerships because just having and using the products becomes an advertisement, I say it is not that simple. Schools cannot afford everything that they need to make education accessible to everyone, especially when school officials are only getting a fraction of the money they asked for (Spotsylvania County)!!!
These partnerships allow schools to take money and move it from one high need area to another when a business partner helps them out. What I don't understand is why there are not better partners. What do I mean by better? Chick Fil A does a lot in Spotsylvania County from having special Spirit Nights(where money goes back to the schools) to regular donations of money and food, but where are the companies that could make a HUGE difference in a school? Where are Microsoft, Dell, HP, Gateway, Apple, and Toshiba? I am not trying to minimalize or disrespect Chick Fil A, and what they do, but schools need technology before they need chicken nuggets!
Since this class is about technology, why aren't these companies donating computers to states or selling NEW computers to them at extremely low prices-low enough for EVERY SCHOOL to be able to afford them for EVERY STUDENT????? Why is Microsoft not donating operating systems, servers, and internet service? I find it hard to believe that these companies could not find a way to furnish technology to every school and not come out with something: brand loyalty from the students, teachers, and community, free publicity, and GIGANTIC tax write offs-what more could they want?
Is my ranting a little over the top? It could be...but while I am sure all of the tech companies mentioned are donating to education and giving schools "deals" on technology, what I don't see are Washington DC (or any other high crime, high poverty, low income, urban area) schools getting computers for all of their students and their buildings wired for a network.
Let me make sure I state that I am not against these partnerships by any means. I would actually be for more of them, if the right companies were involved. Yes, it is easy for me to sit here and say what these companies should do, and no, I do not know everything that they do. As I said before I am sure that they all contribute massive amounts to education, but in this case I am hoping for a more public and concrete donation. I personally think that if one of the tech companies came out and donated computers to an entire school district (or state of school districts), the free publicity and the brand loyalty that would be generated (plus, don't forget the tax breaks), would pay off ten-fold...but I guess I could be wrong too...
Friday, March 30, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Technology in Urban Schools
Chapter three discusses the integration of technology into the urban classroom. I hate to be a spoiler, but there is none (at least not a lot!). These school districts have three major factors working against them when it comes to finding the monies necessary for integrating education, the buildings are old, the teacher turnover rate is astronomical, and the areas tend to be poor (describing them as anything else would not do them justice). When these factors are added together, the outcome is not positive.
Inner city (urban) schools tend to have some of the oldest school buildings. While the buildings may be steeped in history they are also filled with problems. In order to integrate technology correctly, schools need to be able to be wired to a school division WAN and then wired to create their own LAN. It is also good practice to wire in electrical outlets that are solely for the computers (Gallagher, 2001). This wiring alone will cause a large bill to appear, however, if any city is like the Northern Virginia area, once you go into a wall to improve the school you are obligated to fix all of the problems within that wall; problems that were probably overlooked due to the advanced age of some of the buildings (asbestos, faulty wiring, faulty plumbing, structural upgrades). Once all of these problems are solved, the schools are not out of the woods yet. They need computers and they need people who know how to use them properly. The actual tools and training for the people who are going to use them will also add onto a bill that is seemingly going to reach the sky (Gallagher, 2001).
The teachers create a problem that is two-fold. Money is necessary to train the teachers on the technology and teachers are not easily retained in urban schools. Why is it so hard to retain good teachers? Would you want to teach in an environment where there is little technology, where the students need to worry about getting money to help their families survive, where there is no technology, and the teaching tools you have are out dated? How about in schools where the air conditioning does not work on a ninety degree day, or the heat does not work on a day that does not reach freezing? The good teachers leave because of all problems they face in the school. What is left (and I do not believe this is always the case), is a group of teachers that are struggling to get by as much as the students are, because the teachers are not properly trained, they too begin to just do as much as necessary to get by-a teaching to the test mentality (Gallagher, 2001).
How do we fix these problems? Easy….MONEY!!!!!!!!!! Where is the money going to come from? That is not so easy to answer. Because urban areas tend to be poor, there is not a tax base that can support technology initiatives or school repair initiatives. The Federal government subsidizes some of the cost, but when there is still a percentage that has to be paid by the individual school….something is not getting any money, and in the shape a lot of these schools are in, it tends to be technology, because other issues are deemed more important, and I am not sure I disagree with that, within reason.
There is a quote in chapter three that I felt was extremely well put, and I thought, “If only everyone looked at education like this, I’m sure it would be a lot higher priority for our local, state, and Federal governments.” The quote is,
"Preparing all children for viable futures may seem expensive, but it
will be money well spent. The cost of graduating class after class
of students unprepared to meet the needs of today's and
tomorrow's workforce will be far more expensive"
(Gallagher, 2001, p. 41).
It made me think that if it is so hard to find capital to improve the schools and to include technology into the schools why not find sponsors for the schools or find other ways to improve the schools. In this month leading up to your taxes being due, why not give technology companies a tax break for donating USEFUL technology to a school division? Why not give teachers more than a $250 tax break if they have their own laptop with a wireless card for anytime access, or if they buy their own projector that they use in the classroom. I am not looking at this as a long term solution; I am looking at these suggestions as a bridge to allow today’s students to be successful until a long term solution can be figured out.
Reference:
Gallagher, E.M. (2001). Technology for urban schools: Gaps and challenges. In LeBaron, J.F. & Collier, C. Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Inner city (urban) schools tend to have some of the oldest school buildings. While the buildings may be steeped in history they are also filled with problems. In order to integrate technology correctly, schools need to be able to be wired to a school division WAN and then wired to create their own LAN. It is also good practice to wire in electrical outlets that are solely for the computers (Gallagher, 2001). This wiring alone will cause a large bill to appear, however, if any city is like the Northern Virginia area, once you go into a wall to improve the school you are obligated to fix all of the problems within that wall; problems that were probably overlooked due to the advanced age of some of the buildings (asbestos, faulty wiring, faulty plumbing, structural upgrades). Once all of these problems are solved, the schools are not out of the woods yet. They need computers and they need people who know how to use them properly. The actual tools and training for the people who are going to use them will also add onto a bill that is seemingly going to reach the sky (Gallagher, 2001).
The teachers create a problem that is two-fold. Money is necessary to train the teachers on the technology and teachers are not easily retained in urban schools. Why is it so hard to retain good teachers? Would you want to teach in an environment where there is little technology, where the students need to worry about getting money to help their families survive, where there is no technology, and the teaching tools you have are out dated? How about in schools where the air conditioning does not work on a ninety degree day, or the heat does not work on a day that does not reach freezing? The good teachers leave because of all problems they face in the school. What is left (and I do not believe this is always the case), is a group of teachers that are struggling to get by as much as the students are, because the teachers are not properly trained, they too begin to just do as much as necessary to get by-a teaching to the test mentality (Gallagher, 2001).
How do we fix these problems? Easy….MONEY!!!!!!!!!! Where is the money going to come from? That is not so easy to answer. Because urban areas tend to be poor, there is not a tax base that can support technology initiatives or school repair initiatives. The Federal government subsidizes some of the cost, but when there is still a percentage that has to be paid by the individual school….something is not getting any money, and in the shape a lot of these schools are in, it tends to be technology, because other issues are deemed more important, and I am not sure I disagree with that, within reason.
There is a quote in chapter three that I felt was extremely well put, and I thought, “If only everyone looked at education like this, I’m sure it would be a lot higher priority for our local, state, and Federal governments.” The quote is,
"Preparing all children for viable futures may seem expensive, but it
will be money well spent. The cost of graduating class after class
of students unprepared to meet the needs of today's and
tomorrow's workforce will be far more expensive"
(Gallagher, 2001, p. 41).
It made me think that if it is so hard to find capital to improve the schools and to include technology into the schools why not find sponsors for the schools or find other ways to improve the schools. In this month leading up to your taxes being due, why not give technology companies a tax break for donating USEFUL technology to a school division? Why not give teachers more than a $250 tax break if they have their own laptop with a wireless card for anytime access, or if they buy their own projector that they use in the classroom. I am not looking at this as a long term solution; I am looking at these suggestions as a bridge to allow today’s students to be successful until a long term solution can be figured out.
Reference:
Gallagher, E.M. (2001). Technology for urban schools: Gaps and challenges. In LeBaron, J.F. & Collier, C. Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Chapter 2 & 4
In chapter two, the successful integration of technology into the curriculum is discussed by LeBaron. Two important topics that were discussed are a need for an effective plan for technology as well as participation in the plan by everyone (LeBaron, 2001). LeBaron argues that we need to each take ownership in the use of technology in the curriculum for it to be successful. Goals and guidelines must also be in place to maximize effectiveness of technology integration (LeBaron, 2001). Two topics discussed by LeBaron, where I feel we sometimes fall short, are the appropriate integration of technology for each curriculum and that we need to assess its effectiveness properly (2001). In my opinion, this where school leaders need to “step up”, and not worry about the benefits of the technology first and not the budget, another point argued within this chapter. Is this realistic? I don’t know, I agree that the plan needs to be created without regard to budgetary issues, but I wonder how much it happens. Is there a school division out there where the budget is not a driving force; where budget meetings are not the most attended meetings; where money is not being fought for by many different departments? I understand that the integration plan and budget are connected, but I wonder how many of the tweaks LeBaron talks about are necessary become out and out changes due to funding or the lack there of?
In chapter four, Jarvela appropriately entitles the chapter "Getting the story out" (Jarvela, 2001, p. 43). Successes, in the schools, need to be shared with others in our school, in our school division, and in our community. Parents and politicians need to know how we are teaching and effectively using technology in our classrooms. These groups need proof that technology motivates and helps students enhance their learning (Jarvela, 2001), because they hold the proverbial purse strings for funding. If we enhance and document our uses of technology, our teaching for understanding and our authentic assessments we will be able to give parents and politicians the necessary documentation they need (Jarvela, 2001). This sounds like it is simply adding another task to the already overflowing plates of today’s teachers, however it is a necessary evil to get the desired funding, and more importantly-keep the funding. Chapter four reminds me of the saying, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” To me, this is what Jarvela is abdicating. If we want to gain more tools for our classrooms, we need proof, proof that we are effectively using the technology and how do we give them proof? Through our documentation and of course……through higher test scores on standardized tests. While the test scores seem to be what speaks the loudest to officials, it is the documentation that will benefit other teachers. So while it may be a pain to do, in the long run it could be beneficial to the ENTIRE WORLD OF EDUCATION!!!!!!! (or at least to yourself as you prepare for the same lessons in following school years!)
References
Jarvela, S. (2001). Technology and learning: Getting the story out. In Lebaron, J.F. & Collier, C.Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LeBaron, J.F. (2001). Curriculum planning for technology rich instruction. In Lebaron, J.F. & Collier, C. Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
In chapter four, Jarvela appropriately entitles the chapter "Getting the story out" (Jarvela, 2001, p. 43). Successes, in the schools, need to be shared with others in our school, in our school division, and in our community. Parents and politicians need to know how we are teaching and effectively using technology in our classrooms. These groups need proof that technology motivates and helps students enhance their learning (Jarvela, 2001), because they hold the proverbial purse strings for funding. If we enhance and document our uses of technology, our teaching for understanding and our authentic assessments we will be able to give parents and politicians the necessary documentation they need (Jarvela, 2001). This sounds like it is simply adding another task to the already overflowing plates of today’s teachers, however it is a necessary evil to get the desired funding, and more importantly-keep the funding. Chapter four reminds me of the saying, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” To me, this is what Jarvela is abdicating. If we want to gain more tools for our classrooms, we need proof, proof that we are effectively using the technology and how do we give them proof? Through our documentation and of course……through higher test scores on standardized tests. While the test scores seem to be what speaks the loudest to officials, it is the documentation that will benefit other teachers. So while it may be a pain to do, in the long run it could be beneficial to the ENTIRE WORLD OF EDUCATION!!!!!!! (or at least to yourself as you prepare for the same lessons in following school years!)
References
Jarvela, S. (2001). Technology and learning: Getting the story out. In Lebaron, J.F. & Collier, C.Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LeBaron, J.F. (2001). Curriculum planning for technology rich instruction. In Lebaron, J.F. & Collier, C. Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)