Eric Hamilton, Assistant Principal of Curriculum & Instruction Paul Wakefield, Network Engineer Alice Schmitz, Instructional Technologist S.T.A.R. = Name for program that allows students to access internet in class using PED PED = Personal Electronic Device PD = Professional Development

Using your cell phone or laptop, answer the following question: –Is your school considering allowing (or does allow) students to use PED’s? For yes, text code to For no, text code to Or submit the code to

Using your cell phone or laptop, answer the following question: –Is your school creating (or has created) a “guest” wireless network? For yes, text code to For no, text code to Or submit the code to

Need to increase student access to technology. –Students are digital natives and are accessing Web 2.0 tools outside of school and receiving instant access to information. Lake Zurich CUSD 95 has a long term goal to increase student access to technology in a fiscally responsible manner. –1:5 ratio at the high school as compared to national average of 1:3. –Realization that a 1:1 initiative was the most desired, but not cost effective, at the time.

Met with district Director of Technology to discuss the use of iPod Touches in the classroom. Came to the understanding that to be successful, students needed access to the internet.

Student Technology Access to Resources

October – Beginning of network planning January 19 – Planning meeting January 21– Review documentation –Via Late January – Surveyed students as to what PED they owned and might bring to school February 9 – Communication sent to parents, students, and staff February 11 – Meeting with teachers and technology to outline live roll-out and lesson plan February 18 – The S.T.A.R. Program goes live –Lesson plan to access network –“Responsible vs. Irresponsible use” lesson March 24 – Gather to debrief and discuss the status of the program and receive more training on use of PED’s March 25 – A second lesson plan, focused on content and technology integration, will have been implemented May 3 – Final debrief on progress of program August 11 – Communication sent to entire staff and parents about roll out of network to all students at the start of the 2011 – 2012 school year –Staff received lesson plan to use on first days.

Can my wireless infrastructure handle all these devices? What security will be incorporated into this Guest Network? What digital resources do users on this network need to access? How are we going to train all these users to connect?

Design for Pilot Program –Used existing autonomous APs –Secured using NPS server with PEAP –Separate L2 VLAN with strict ACL Final Design –Controller based “N” wireless solution –Open authentication with Splash Page –Separate traffic path to DMZ and Internet

Worked with Instructional Technologist to create a professional development activity for students. Presented to Administrative Team for feedback. –3-2-1 feedback method 3 things I like, 2 things I would change, 1 thing I would add

Used iTouches to watch videos on socially responsible use and describe what it is/is not. Reviewed letters to be sent to parents, students, and staff. Asked Department Chairs to recommend teachers to participate in pilot program.

Upon receipt of names, the Administrative Team selected three teachers to participate. –Approximately 90 students. 60 freshmen 30 seniors –English, World History, Anatomy/Physiology Provided a representative cross-section of students

It was key to meet with the teachers regularly to provide professional development and to listen to their concerns and feedback. We made sure that support was available to assist in implementation and to provide technical and moral support. We also made sure to schedule other PD days with them to provide feedback.

Initial Release time activity –Selected programs “in the cloud” –Voted using Poll Everywhere –Discussed tools and how to apply them –After that session, PD was provided in a “just-in-time” model. Weekly meetings

Students were told to bring in their PED’s –Laptop carts were in the room Students were allowed to work in groups or individually Students watched videos and described responsible use of a PED using the Is/Is Not framework Students presented responses to the class Facilitated by Assistant Principal

After the initial lesson plan, we scheduled three meetings with the teachers to provide more professional development. –The teachers requested that they meet weekly with the Instructional Technologist. We asked them for feedback at the end of the year.

Students –More interesting activities –Options (through voting programs) –Excellent projects were created Teachers –Enjoyed becoming more tech savvy –Enjoyed working with students at a different level (project-oriented) –Time – always an issue

Through feedback from Administrative Team and pilot teachers, we came to realize that our cell phone policy would need to be changed. Deans convened a committee to review a new policy allowing cell phone usage in the hallways and cafeteria. –Teacher discretion was emphasized. –Presented new policy to staff at the beginning of the year, along with professional development.

Institute Day (1/3 of faculty at a time) –Deans presented new policy Emphasized teacher discretion Appropriate use –Pilot teachers presented ideas –Voted on tools to learn and explore –Teacher input created a long list of tools (see handout) Concern –Would there still be consequences? –Definitely in the classroom teacher’s hands

PD, PD, PD –Monthly concept and tools to go with it –Administrators are modeling Revisit and remind Celebrate accomplishments –Collect lessons teachers wish to share –Drawing for those who participate Cloud vs. Apps Cell phones vs. Computers Document creation vs. Internet reference 1:1

1:1 computing? The infrastructure is in place, but… –What product? –How to get the product in the hands of the students? –How much PD time is available?

Eric Hamilton Alice Schmitz Paul Wakefield

What questions do you have for us?