Committee on Technology in Education (COTE) Presentation to: Maryland State Board of Education Meeting March 22, 2005 Baltimore, Maryland Presenters: June Streckfus, Executive Director, MBRT Bob Marshall, CEO, AWS Convergence Technologies, COTE Chairman Jayne Moore, Director of Instructional Technology, MSDE

Where Do We Stand in 2005? A Progress Report on Technology Resources in Maryland Schools

Updated Plan March 2002

Focus of Existing ’02 Plan…  Seamless and meaningful integration of technology tools and digital content with the Content Standards as the foundation

’02 Technology Plan Pillars

’02 Technology Plan Pillars

’02 Technology Plan Pillars

’02 Technology Plan Pillars

’02 Technology Plan Pillars

’02 Technology Plan Pillars

Where We Are Today… The promise of educational technology is in jeopardy and risks being unrealized if steps are not taken to insure higher level uses within our classrooms

md.ontargetus.com

Student-to-Computer Ratio State Target

Student-to-Computer Ratio

Classrooms connected to the Internet State Target 100%

Classrooms connected to the Internet

Teacher Knowledge and Skills Intermediate level for Internet use: able to design classroom or homework activities for students, which require the students to use the Internet as an information resource State Target 100%

Data on Use of Technology by Students:  How frequently is technology used by students in your school to …(Examples of activities listed) Perform measurements and collect data Plan, draft, proofread, revise, and publish written text Gather information from a variety of sources (e.g. Internet)

Student Use of Technology % of students who regularly* use technology to: Plan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text Gather information from a variety of sources (e.g., web) Communicate/report information, conclusions or results of investigations Manipulate, analyze and interpret information or data Perform measurements and collect data from investigations or lab experiments Remediate for basic skills % 36% 21% 6% 4% 31% * Regularly use means every day, or almost every day % 49% 26% 9% 7% 41% % 40% 24% 9% 6% 39%

Teacher Use of Technology % of teachers who regularly* use technology to: Communicating with staff members and other colleagues Maintaining attendance and/or grades Maintaining data on students (e.g. via a student information system) Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement data (e.g. using instructional and curriculum management systems) Creating instructional materials/visuals/presentations Accessing curriculum/school improvement material from the Internet % 52% 35% 15% 46% 24% * Regularly use means every day, or almost every day % 58% 38% 17% 59% 29% % 63% 40% 16% 62% 32%

Administrator Use of Technology % of administrators who regularly* use technology to: Communicating with staff members and other colleagues Communicating with parents and guardians of students Posting/viewing/accessing school and district announcements or information (e.g., via a school web site ) Maintaining student data (e.g. via a student information system) Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement data Researching educational topics of interest % 36% 63% 65% 16% 29% * Regularly use means every day, or almost every day % 75% 53% 71% 21% 38% % 56% 79% 70% 22% 39%

Digital Divide Review

Digital Divide in Infrastructure Student to Computer Ratio… Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

Digital Divide in Infrastructure % of Classrooms Connected to the Internet… Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS Digital Divide

Digital Divide in Student Use % of students who regularly* use technology to: Plan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text Gather information from a variety of sources (e.g., web) Communicate/report information, conclusions or results of investigations Manipulate, analyze and interpret information or data Perform measurements and collect data from investigations or lab experiments Low Poverty 65% 70% 45% 20% 15% * Regularly use means every day, or almost every day. High Poverty 45% 30% 15% 10% 5%

Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use Plan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use Gather information from a variety of sources Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use Communicate/report information and conclusions Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use Manipulate, analyze and interpret information to discover relationships… Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use Perform measurements and collect data in investigations and lab experiments Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

Digital Divide in 2005 – Student Use Remediate for basic skills – drill and practice Low Poverty High Poverty % FARMS

Summary…  Infrastructure in place  Teacher knowledge and skills flat  Classroom usage showing no increase over previous year.  Little or no progress with higher level, critical thinking activities  Digital Divide still exists – particularly in effective use

Where We Are Today… The promise of educational technology is in jeopardy and risks being unrealized if steps are not taken to insure higher level uses within our classrooms

Recommendations  A revised state Technology Plan and revised district Technology Plans, aligned with the State Plan and local master plans, be completed. The Plans should focus on the tight and seamless integration of technology tools into existing curriculum, with particular emphasis on the use of technology to foster higher-level critical thinking skills - January,  Technology requirements/assessments be incorporated into all teacher and administrator re-certification programs and in pre- service teacher preparation programs - Fall,  MSDE require local master plans to incorporate an analysis of data from the Online Technology Inventory Report - Fall,  MSDE review and document the effectiveness of professional development activities related to technology integration - Summer, 2005.

Recommendations (continued)  MSDE review state and local organizational structures within educational systems to insure that such structures are compatible with and conducive to effectively integrating technology into the curriculum and daily instruction - Spring,  MSDE investigate why progress is not continuing, through ongoing dialogue with school systems - Summer,  MBRT reconstitute the Committee on Technology in Education to include a membership comprised of leading business and IT executives that will review and make recommendations to MSDE regarding the State Plan and convey effective corporate technological practices used in the transformation of companies that are applicable to education - Spring 2005.

Q&A