Is anyone else experiencing a direct conflict between budgeting and technology expectations? The Boston Globe has a front page story today, Schools bracing for deep cutbacks. It talks about cutting “into the marrow of the classroom,” cuts in recent years having been supplies, texts and infrastructure, and this round of reductions being more personnel-based. Against that economic picture, overlay the incredibly high expectations that school districts have of technology. With very few people (staff) we:

• Maintain computers, printers, and networks
• Upgrade computers, printers, and networks
• Conduct professional development
• Coach and support teachers
• Oversee a huge variety of data entry and data projects
• Teach people how to use the data warehouse (a Massachusetts data initiative)
• Create and manage budgets
• Model and assure adherence to purchasing regulations, software licensing, & copyright laws
• Write grants
• Lead technology planning
• Communicate with all stakeholders
• Ensure CIPA compliance
• Oversee (and sometimes design and update) the school web site
• Direct and coordinate use of electronic communications
• Make sure we are archiving those communications
• Constantly update our skills to provide leadership about using cutting edge technology
• Move our districts and teachers toward green computing and virtualization and blogs and wikis and …

…. the list can go on and on.

And yet, when the budget is being created, discussed, cut, presented, and finalized, is there a widely held recognition about the key role technology plays in your district? And if your budget does get cut, what goes?

I worry that the first things that get cut are professional development and instructional support. These are critical elements in school technology programs. Without them, technology integration suffers. The next thing is usually replacement hardware. Massachusetts has technology plan guidelines that suggest schools keep computers for five years only. I know many schools that have 8 and 9 year old computers, and budget cuts usually impact this replacement cycle in a negative way.

I think we all need to have a script – we need to figure out what makes technology critical to our core mission (in our district or in our school) and we need to be able to explain it – we need to be ready with that script to explain and defend the role of technology in education and the budget requests that need to support that role. Here are some ideas that I like to keep in mind when I am developing my budget talking points.

How are Computers Like Police Cars?
Barry Haskell, recently retired superintendent, Plymouth Public Schools, conducted a workshop of this title at a conference I attended. He had successfully campaigned for a sizeable capital allocation for Plymouth Public Schools. He shared some of the strategies he used. One was to explain to all who would listen that computers were as critical to schools as police cars were to the Public Safety Department. Schools can no longer function without computers; they are not optional; they are fundamental to our business; they are “like police cars.” This is so true. Our colleagues and students expect technology to work – everywhere, all the time. It is like plugging in a lamp – I don’t have to wonder whether the light bulb will turn on – it just does. It would help our cause if we can explain to stakeholders that the expectation is that computers and networks are as invisible and as dependable as a utility like electricity.

Technesia
At the 2009 CoSN Annual Conference I heard Bill Rust of Gartner explain technesia.
He said that technesia is when stakeholders fail to remember the value of technology in their environment. The same people who vote to reduce technology support staff will continue to expect the same level of support, just as the stakeholders who say this is the year to forego new technology (capital) spending will complain that the technology is slow. It’s much better to be able to articulate these needs at the budget table before cuts are made so that all stakeholders realize the future implications of present decisions.

Technology Aligned with Strategic Plan
There should be direct alignment and coherence between your strategic plan, student achievement goals, and technology. If there is not, technology will be relegated to peripheral, silo status, a stand-alone and separate entity within a larger system. With strong alignment, technology budget requests can be shown to be consistent with important, core plans and goals.

Technology in the Curriculum
Does your district have a clear vision of the 21st century skills that students should be mastering? Is there an understanding of what constitutes a 21st Century Classroom (or a Digital-Age Classroom)? Are there expectations and standards for teachers and students, and are they grounded in core learning experiences and goals? I know that in my current district this is an area for improvement. We have pockets of excellence and some real innovators who teach in technology-infused ways. Their students benefit from their skills, enthusiasm, knowledge, and from the fact that they embrace the tools at their disposal. We are not yet at the point where this is systemic or where we have a coherent vision school to school, level to level. To the extent that there is one, it can be used to explain and protect technology expenditures and budget items.

Other ideas?
Do you have tried and true ways that have been successful for you in positioning technology as a critical element in your school district? Something safeguarded as vital in your budget and an integral component in your strategic plan? I’d love to hear your ideas.

Reason 1:
To assess your progress against goals and objectives set forth in your technology plan

Reason 2:
To assess your technology program against national and state standards

Reason 3:
To raise awareness about the successes and challenges of technology in the schools among all constituencies – school boards, superintendents, technology directors, principals, teachers, students, parents, and community members

Reason 4:
To advocate for the funding necessary to meet the district goals

Reason 5:
To examine the attitudes and perceptions of technology users and to measure user satisfaction

Reason 6:
To examine student and teacher use of technology for various purposes, as well as the skills levels of all users

Reason 7:
To determine whether the infrastructure meets the needs of the end users and to uncover urgent priorities that need to be addressed and funded

Reason 8:
To develop recommendations that will inform the planning process and that will create a guideline for improvement

Reason 9:
To expose perceptions about leadership and policies that impact technology adoption

Reason 10:
To determine whether the investment being made in technology is really improving teaching and learning

What is an audit?
Most people are familiar with financial audits. A financial audit is a review of the financial record-keeping and status of a company, usually performed by an outside firm of accounting experts. They offer an independent evaluation of all of the financial statements and transactions, verifying the financial soundness of an organization as well as the accuracy of the financial statements that a company releases to the public. In similar fashion, a technology audit is a review of the technology of an organization. To be of value, it should also be done by an external, impartial group with no vendor bias. Objectivity is an important characteristic of any audit.

What should an audit do?
An audit should assess against national and state standards, best practices, and district goals for teaching and learning. A comprehensive audit will evaluate all components of a technology program – infrastructure, reliability, accessibility, and use. Is technology really supporting the strategic goals of the school district? Is technology helping to achieve organizational goals? One overarching goal of an audit is to gather and analyze data that will inform technology planning and will help to make the most efficient and effective use of learning technologies for students and teachers. One outcome should be an identification of the areas of greatest success and those of greatest need.

An audit should both affirm the positive aspects of technology in the school district and should uncover barriers and obstacles. Surveys of all staff and sample populations of parents and students are instrumental in finding out how users feel about the technology in the schools. Survey results should also expose perceptions about leadership and policies that either drive or inhibit effective technology integration.

In the end, the audit report should be shared widely with all stakeholders and should be an instrument to drive improvement. The very act of participating in such an external audit focuses attention in ways that can be leveraged to build awareness, support, and understanding of the technology in your schools.

E.W. Dijkstra, the Dutch computer scientist, once said that, “Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.” If one takes this line of thinking and applies it to computers in education, one can assert that the use of computers in education is not about the computers; it is about education. More and more, people of widely varied backgrounds – educators, technology experts, education policy makers and futurists – are in agreement that technology should be used to help students achieve learning goals. I hear less often that students should be learning about technology for the sake of “knowing technology” and having marketable skills. That means that there is a great challenge for educators to be “able to integrate technology into the curriculum to improve student achievement” (www.nclb.org).
Meeting this challenge well, will take practice and professional development.

“Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.”

The NCLB Act refers many times throughout the 670 pages of the act to professional development for teachers and administrators, and encourages states and school districts to support and offer technology professional development. Professional development is a necessary component in working toward the goals of NCLB. “It’s not enough simply to have a computer and an Internet connection in the classroom if they are not made part of the learning process. Technology is a tool like any other, and the value does not come from having access to it, but rather how it is used” (www.nclb.org). This reminds me of an analogy that I heard Chris Dede make at a conference about ten years ago. He said that a computer in the classroom is not like a fire. You can stand near a fire and get warm and reap the benefits of the fire simply by proximity to it. You can’t simply huddle around a computer and reap educational benefits from being near to it. It has to be used and used well.

When I think about bringing the power of technology to bear in our teaching in all subject areas, planning, and assessment, I automatically think about professional development – constant learning. The kind of professional development is a deeper level of professional development (PD) than the simple “how-to” of a software tool. I don’t think schools should offer any how to workshops or courses and envision that it will substantially change teaching and learning. I think instead, that we should be weaving technology into every single professional development activity we offer. By this I mean that whether the workshop is about teaching math at the elementary level or developing units around essential questions and problem-based inquiry or creating rubrics, the workshop should have technology as an essential component.

One successful way to offer such PD is something I will call a “hybrid model” of teaching technology integration. The “hybrid model” calls for a focus on a content area or pedagogical skill that is not in the technology arena, but also calls for the course or workshop to use technology seamlessly to achieve the goals of the course. A “team” of teachers, one with a stronger content knowledge and another with stronger technology expertise might work together to facilitate such courses. If you have had success in your district with a “team-teaching” approach, a content expert paired with a technology expert who will help to include an essential technology dimension to the class, I’d love to hear from you – would you be willing to share your successes? If so, you could share by a comment on this post, or you could write a guest blog post that you could send to me and I could post for you.

People trying to quit smoking have been found by researchers to move through certain predictable phases as they change their behavior. The basic change model was developed by the psychologists James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente (see The Five Stages of Change at http://www.agale.com.au/ FiveStagesOfChange.htm). Others have generalized these phases to other types of behavioral changes. For example, the same phases are applicable when people try to change eating habits, stop procrastinating, or start exercising. The five phases are: awareness or precontemplation, interest or contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance.

I’ve been thinking about the five steps and how these phases might manifest themselves in making professional changes. For example, as we attempt to institute significant changes in our instructional practices, what behaviors or actions would characterize each phase? In my descriptions below, I write about A. Teacher, a teacher starting to use technology in teaching and learning.

Awareness or Precontemplation
In the awareness phase, A. Teacher knows a few colleagues using technology, but isn’t sure what technology could do for her or for her students. Therefore, she has no desire to use it. A. Teacher thinks it might be too hard. In this phase many people convince themselves that there really is no reason to change – that the benefits do not offset the risks. Research says there are four major categories for getting stuck in precontemplation: people are reluctant, resigned, rebellious or rationalizing. A. Teacher simply isn’t ready.
How does one move into the next stage? Something or someone helps them get beyond their reluctance. Maybe a close colleague who has already made the changes that A. Teacher is considering convinces them to become more interested.

Interest or Contemplation
The interest phase is marked by a growing interest, but a resistance to commit. A. Teacher is ambivalent. She sees projects that her students have done in other classes using technology and she wishes that the students were creating similar projects in her class, as well. She acknowledges that there may be compelling reasons to get on board using technology but she has not overcome inertia. In this phase A. Teacher is more open to hearing about projects and software and web 2.0 tools.

Preparation
As A. Teacher moves into the preparation phase, she has learned more about using technology. Some fellow teachers have shown her the process of how they managed a unit using technology, and she has talked to the Technology Specialist, who was very helpful and agreed to support her in a technology-infused project with students. This is a research phase – A. Teacher visits the classroom of a colleague to see a similar approach in action. A. Teacher is ready.

Action
A. Teacher is now in the action phase of change. She has begun a major unit using technology and students will present their projects to the class and post them on the web. She appreciates the support from others, but is feeling more independent. She feels it has been worth the effort when her students do really good work, the school Principal congratulates her on an innovative approach to an existing unit, and she receives email from parents praising the projects that are posted on the web.

Maintenance
As A. Teacher moves into the maintenance phase, she strategizes about the next project and about ways to incorporate technology into the classroom on a daily basis. Technology use becomes second nature to her and she finds that her colleagues now come to her and ask for help in creating technology-infused project guidelines and rubrics. In maintenance A. Teacher might feel self-congratulatory about the progress she has made. Eventually, A. Teacher may become one of the risk-takers in the building, willing to try new tools and participate in pilot projects and transforming teaching and learning.

As I think about the various stages, I work to imagine what might help someone have the “click” moment or experience that moves them to the next level. If we can build enough of these experiences and support structures into our schools, perhaps we can have all of our teachers moving briskly along the change continuum. Wouldn’t that be great?

I have been working with a group of educators on a position paper about leadership for technology. Our paper is based on the premise that leadership for technology must be distributed among many roles, each having an important part in leading the charge. It will outline the leadership responsibilities for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, School Committees, Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Technology Administrators, Principals, Teachers, and Students. (Have we missed anyone?)

Since working on this, the topic that has been swirling in the back of my mind is the difference between the leadership that teachers bring to the effort versus what technology administrators need to bring to the table.

At one level, classroom teachers need to be concerned with technology that helps them create learning experiences and assessments that reflect 21st century learning. At the CTO level the concern should be creating a climate and culture that helps students and classroom teachers to succeed. The CTO puts into place the infrastructure, policies, and support that make it possible for the classroom teacher to succeed at meaningful technology use in teaching and learning.

But doesn’t the leadership role of the teacher also extend beyond their own classroom? I think that teachers who are successful technology leaders are those who:

• Actively participate in technology planning and strategic planning that has a strong technology vision
• Create learning experiences and assessments appropriate for the 21st century
• Model proficient use of technology and risk-taking in using new technologies
• Understand, promote, and model safe, ethical, and legal use of technology
• Model life-long learning
• Share their best practices with their colleagues
• Look outside of their classroom experiences to evaluate current research
• Contribute to a professional dialog to improve and renew teaching practices in their school and in the wider educational community.

Do you agree? Is there anything missing? I’d love to have input about this to help us on our position paper.

A reasonable professional development strategy is one that begins with a CRAWL – a task that provides easy entry into the topic or concept being taught. Participants should very quickly reap the benefits of some early successes. This follows how well designed video games work – it is easy to enter the game and players achieve some simple and early successes.

The second phase – WALK – is one in which expectations are raised and participants challenge themselves to master more complex concepts and skills. They begin to make connections more quickly between the skills they are learning and the educational outcomes made possible by applying these skills to teaching and learning. In the video game analogy, they have mastered many of the game moves and have progressed up a couple of levels. They are moving through the virtual world more quickly and are feeling more comfortable navigating the game landscape.

The third phase – RUN – is marked by participants taking what they have learned and running with it. They have the confidence to adapt their new skills to meet their style and goals, and further, to begin to innovate both in their use of technology as well as in their actual lessons and assignments. If this were a video game, they would be getting closer to saving the Princess and would be munching stars and power boosters and easily defeating the power draining obstacles the game puts in their path. They would have learned more moves and could switch between the basic game moves and the trickier ones at will.

The professional development area I want to focus on with educators in my school district this year is online communication and collaboration. My vision includes teachers and administrators confidently using listserves, blogs, wikis, and “cloud” document sharing to teach, learn, communicate, and collaborate.

What I am struggling with is applying the CRAWL – WALK – RUN strategy to this effort and envisioning the CRAWL stage. What can we expect in CRAWL? Is it simply reading blogs and commenting? If so, what are those early successes? What impels people forward to WALK?

In the WALK phase, administrators might replace current newsletters and announcements previously done on paper and on web pages with a blog. The wins are easy to foresee – instant communication with many, a sense of personal accomplishment, and positive community feedback. One of many possible “win” scenarios for educators would be participating with students in an online environment (Moodle or a wiki or a blog) and the early successes, again, are easy to imagine.

As I plan professional development activities for the coming year, it would be so helpful to hear from other educators. I welcome advice on how to frame that CRAWL or introductory phase. I especially am interested in hearing from voices of experience. If you have accomplished this in your district how did you begin and what were the intrinsic rewards for those early adopters?

MassCUE & M.A.S.S. 2009 Technology Conference
Pre-conference: October 27 : : Conference October 28 & 29
Tackling 21st Century Learning

T he school year hasn’t even ended and I am already looking forward to the Fall 2009 Technology Conference (October 27, 28 & 29). There is a lot NEW and EXCITING about the conference this year.

PARTNER
MassCUE is partnering with the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents (M.A.S.S. ) to host the conference together. Prior to this year, each organization has held its own technology conference. The significance of this partnership is more than just two organizations working together. MassCUE and M.A.S.S. collaborating on the technology conference means that technology using educators, Instructional Technology Specialists, Technology Directors, Superintendents and other school administrators will be at the same table. Truly systemic and effective use of technology in teaching and learning requires the partnership of all district stakeholders. Bringing the constituencies together for this professional development conference represents an important step in the right direction. And what might the results be of district teams working together to evaluate the vendors and the sessions? Might there be better and more collaborative decision-making? More strategic use of technology to meet teaching and learning goals? What else?
(METAA will also be helping to organize and will have many presenters at the conference.)

LOCATION
Gillette Stadium !
Even when a conference location has served a group well, it is a good idea to shake things up and move to a new location after a few years. It is even more important to relocate in order to better serve the entire state and to improve conference amenities and technology access. So this year the MassCUE Board of Directors has been working for many months on securing Gillette Stadium as the conference location for 2009 and 2010. This project has included the input and effort of the MassCUE conference committee, and M.A.S.S. Gillette Stadium is an exciting venue that has much to offer. The exhibit area, lunch, and keynotes addresses will be on the clubhouse level and the breakout sessions are in the luxury suites, one level up. There is plenty of parking (!) and lots of restaurants and shops that make the area a destination location.

NEW FEATURES
Lots of people are hard at work to make this conference one of the best ever. In the works are:

a Cyber café, hands-on pre-conference options, hands-on classroom sessions during the conference, and more!

KEYNOTES
Tony Wagner is the keynote speaker on October 28th. He is the co-director of the Change Leadership Group at Harvard and author of The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don’t Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need –And What We Can Do About It . Tony is an in-demand speaker and is widely published. I read the book and find that his idea about the seven survival skills students need is supported nicely by the framework that the Consortium for 21st Century Skills has published. Conference participants are in for a rousing keynote about 21st century learning. I look forward to hearing Dr. Wagner address Massachusetts educators.

Dr. Donald Leu will present the keynote address on October 29th with a group of his graduate students from the University of Connecticut. Professor Leu is the director of The New Literacies Research Lab at the University of Connecticut. The lab conducts research on the new reading comprehension and learning skills required by the Internet and other emerging information and communication technologies. He is often called upon to speak on Internet literacy. Dr. Leu and his co-presenters will deliver a powerful message about 21st century literacy.

I hope to see you at Gillette in October. Please consider presenting a break-out session to share your expertise and to tell your success stories.

Presenter RFP

I n our school district, we have been engaging in conversations around homework. Many questions have been raised. What is the purpose of homework? Are assignments differentiated? Is there a consistent framework or guidelines that are discernible by parents and students?

Many times during the conversations, I thought about how technology can help the homework “situation.” Technology can be used to open avenues for parents to be involved and informed. Teachers can offer a choice of assignments and let students select ways to practice or show their mastery of a topic or unit, and technology can open up many choice possibilities. Of course, technology can be used to facilitate collaboration. Teachers could be creating and facilitating online discussions, classroom blogs, wikis, and more. I’ve watched secondary level students collaborate on a project while each sat at their own computer. A combination of Adobe Buzzword , Skype , and instant messaging made working together, from "remote" locations, possible.

Arguably, there are so many good examples of using technology for assignments and offering students a choice of performance tasks (translate: differentiated) that rather than write more about the topic myself, I thought I would share a few links that contribute to the discussion as examples.

http://daretodifferentiate.wikispaces.com/Choice+Boards
This link is to a wiki called Dare to Differentiate. There are lots of great resources here. There are templates (like Tic Tac Toe choice board and RAFT Assignments) and background information and guidelines for use.

http://apcalc2008.blogspot.com/
This is an AP Calculus blog. The teacher and blogmeister says about his site:
"A view through the walls of our classroom. This is an interactive learning ecology for students and parents in my AP Calculus class. This ongoing dialogue is as rich as YOU make it. Visit often and post your comments freely."
This is worth a visit to see a good classroom blog in action.

http://millersenglish10.blogspot.com/
This is a good example of an English classroom blog.

Read Carol Ann Tomlinson , who writes compellingly about differentiation.
You could start with an article at: http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/MiddleGround/August2005/Article1
/tabid/339/Default.aspx

"Use differentiated homework. When everyone in the class has exactly the same homework assignment, some students will likely only be doing busy work because they have already mastered what they’ve been asked to practice, while some other students simply have no idea how to do the required work. Differentiated homework can provide a great opportunity for students to "work backwards" to master missing skills, to extend content to challenge advanced learners, and to link applications of content to student interests."

One last point – I think all school districts need to discuss and develop policies around homework. A simple Google search for "homework policy" yields more than 8 millions hits. These may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas about what might be included in an effective homework policy, but nothing can substitute going through the process of developing a "home grown" policy and periodically reviewing and revising that policy. The process will surface attitudes, anxieties, misconceptions, and expectations.

I n Massachusetts there is some momentum around harnessing the energy and good will of businesses, individuals, state agencies, and other non-profits to partner with schools toward achieving some big technology goal for schools. This goal has yet to be determined, but the "shorthand" description I have heard is the "next net day." The name does not reflect that people think that schools still need volunteer wiring, but rather that net day is recognized as one of those pivotal volunteer efforts that started small, grew bigger, and accomplished something of value for schools. I think the idea of "net day" is that it will be an effort that uses the net day type framework to get various players to buy in, help organize, and to get the state to put their weight behind it.

Net Day was a volunteer, grassroots effort to get school classrooms connected to the Internet. It started back in the mid-nineties and was originally meant to take place on one Saturday. The first Net Day, March 9, 1996, saw volunteers show up at many schools in California to pull ethernet cable through the buildings to bring the Internet to students. According to Wikipedia , "20,000 volunteers helped to wire 20 percent of California schools to the Internet." The event was seen as a big success and was replicated in many more states and grew into a national effort and organization. And regardless of the fact that most schools have probably long since replaced that volunteer-pulled cable with newer, higher category ethernet cable, it is hard to deny that Net Day was indeed a valuable happening. Schools did get wired, computers were connected, and, perhaps even just as important, a new awareness of technology in education was generated. The photo of Bill Clinton and Al Gore standing on ladders and pulling cable lent validity to the notion that schools had to get wired and take advantage of what technology had to offer.

So is there another opportunity for a coalition of like-minded individuals and groups to accomplish something significant for schools and for the efforts of educators to use technology effectively? Is there some organizing goal that will galvanize interests? It seems to me that there is. My problem wasn’t thinking up ways that schools could use some outside help, but in limiting my ideas to just a few. At the moment, I’ve narrowed it down to three big areas: bandwidth, computers, and professional development. Everyone who has anything to say about education today is talking about and writing about 21st century skills and a 21st century classroom. But what does that mean?

The various accounts and many points of view seem to have a few things in common. They mention skills like collaboration, creativity, communication, and problem-solving, and they mention computer and information literacy. For example, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills says that students must use "digital technology, communication tools and/or networks appropriately to access, manage, integrate, evaluate, and create information in order to function in a knowledge economy."
So, as a rule, visions of a 21st century education necessarily include technology, Internet access, and using computers to collaborate, research, communicate, and solve problems. In order for schools to do a high quality job of educating students, we need high bandwidth, computers for students and educators to use, and professional development for teachers so they know how to integrate technology and 21st century skills into teaching and learning.

Bandwidth
Schools all over Massachusetts deal with their bandwidth issues separately, individually. There are a variety of providers, from telephone companies to cable television companies, that schools work with for Internet access, and erate goes only so far. I wish the state would work with businesses to negotiate really good deals for high bandwidth (synchronous 15, 20, 50, 100 Mbps?) Internet access that all schools could take advantage of.

Computers
I wish schools could, to some extent, get out of the business of providing computers (or some kind of computing device) for students and teachers. I think it would be a good idea if a "new net day" coalition created a student/educator computer purchase program that was more than a token discount. I think that if teachers and students could get really amazing deals on laptops that they would actually prefer to use their own laptop and bring it back and forth to and from school. This would free school computer dollars up for computers for the lower elementary grades, some specific application computer labs, administration, and to have computers on hand for those who, for any reason, do not have their own computer to use. This idea is not without its problems. Issues to resolve would be protecting school networks from viruses, spam and adware; making sure each computer has the necessary suite of software; developing a way for lower income students to also have a laptop, and probably a dozen other issues I am not yet thinking about. Still, I think that the more personal computers we allow into our schools and onto our networks, the fewer computers schools are on the hook for buying, maintaining, repairing, upgrading, replacing . . . .

Professional Development
It seems like there is never enough money for professional development. There are plenty of ways a "net day" group could help. One strategy would be matching fund grants for schools to get some money to use toward professional development for every dollar spent on technology. Another idea would be for a coalition to provide "train the trainer" training for corporate volunteers to develop them into a valuable support and mentor corp. Professional development might offer the most opportunties for partnerships – there is so much high-tech expertise in corporations, couple that with a desire to contribute to the greater good, a mentor training program, and a free way to collaborate and the possibilities start to become apparent.

These are just the beginning thoughts of one person, meant to get the conversation started. I would love to hear ideas from others. What might the next "net day" be and how would it work and what would the impact be?

A t a recent public meeting, during a discussion about the technology needs of the school district, there was a thought-provoking comment about teaching without technology. The speaker talked about a very gifted professor at his college whose classes are always fully subscribed and typically have waiting lists. The professor is very highly regarded as an exemplary teacher by both his students and by peers. And, the speaker noted, this professor uses no technology in his lectures.

I think that part of the intended message was that truly excellent teachers do not need the "crutch" of technology in the classroom, and that, perhaps, we should take this into account when we are advocating for educational technology.

I do not think that technology in the classroom compensates for mediocre teaching. I do believe that there are good teachers who do not use technology. But I also think that really good teachers who also master technology and use it well for teaching and learning are better teachers because of it.

His comment reminded me of something my father once said. My siblings and I were entranced by Bruce Lee (or was it Chuck Norris?) and we were convinced that the martial arts represented the utmost in fighting skills. In every movie or TV show, the big, strong villain was beaten by the smaller but more skilled martial arts expert. That’s when Mal (my father) said we were nuts. He said, sure, some judo experts might beat some big, strong street fighters. But, he said, some big, strong street fighters also know judo – then the little guy hasn’t got a chance. I have no idea about fighting, but I see the bigger principle he was going for. Quality A might be argued to be better than Quality B, but someone with both A and B is more likely to win over a contender with either A or B. At least, that was my take-away.

The metaphor works for me when thinking about teaching with technology. An excellent teacher (that’s Quality A) who also uses technology really well (that’s Quality B) is superior to a teacher that has only A or B, right? So, if you accept the premise, how do we convince members of our parent community? Parents aren’t in the classroom as students to experience the difference first-hand, and they aren’t teachers, seeing the impact of students using technology to further their learning ~ what then is the best way to help parents understand the value of technology in education today?

I came across a really insightful post that contributes to this topic.

It is at:

http://doug-johnson.squarespace.com/blue-skunk-blog/2008/10/2/the-continuums-ends.html