Maryland+State+Technology+Plan

Maryland Educational Technology Plan for the New Millenium: 2007-2012 - Critiqued by: Andrea, Melissa, Jessica, Kenny, Lauren, Stephanie, Kim W.

[]

Hi group! I started filling in some information! Talk to you all soon.~Lauren Hey Everyone. I went to add the Stakeholder groups. I noticed that the other group listed people by name followed by the group they represent. Since we are on the state level most of our people come from the State Department of Education. So I will just add what I found and we can weed stuff out. -Steph I added the evaluation requirments and references but let me know if you think we should take some out and sum it up or add more. Thanks melissa I added to a few sections using the red text.-Kenny I tried to get a few of the sections that have not been answered. --Andrea It appears that I have waiting too long! I will add where I can :-)-Kim Wow! You guys were on the ball! Sorry I didnt check sooner. I will try to add more information - Jessica ﻿﻿Number of years plan has been and will be in effect:  Maryland State Department of Education:   Edward L. Root, // President //   Dunbar Brooks, // Vice President //  Lelia T. Allen  J. Henry Butta  Beverly A. Cooper  Calvin D. Disney  Richard L. Goodall  Tonya Miles  Karabelle Pizzigati  Maria C. Torres-Queral  David F. Tufaro   Brian W. Frazee // (Student Member) //
 * **Plan reviewed:** Maryland Educational Technology Plan for the New Millenium: 2007-2012
 * 2007-2012 ** ||
 * **Stakeholder groups involved in developing the plan:**

Nancy S. Grasmick // Secretary-Treasurer of the Board // // State Superintendent of Schools //

A. Skipp Sanders // Deputy State Superintendent, Office of Administration //

JoAnne Carter // Deputy State Superintendent, Office of Instruction and // // Academic Acceleration //

Colleen Seremet // Assistant // // State //// Superintendent for Instruction //

Jayne E. Moore // Director, Instructional Technology and // // School Library Media Program //

Martin O’Malley // Governor // || "Many stakeholders were involved in the examination, discussion and determination of the objectives that would be important  to implement for the effective infusion of educational technology  into Maryland classrooms, curricula, and instruction.  Through this decision making process, stakeholders identified  the objectives, targets and strategies that would achieve the  overarching goal of the technology plan – improved student  learning" (Maryland Educational Technology Plan for the New Millennium: 2007-2012, pg. 5). ||
 * ** Process used to develop this plan: **
 * ** Format for this plan: ** ﻿PDF File ||
 * ** Sections (e.g. curricular areas, professional development) included in this plan: ** ** Student Learning, Professional Development, Administrative Productivity and **
 * Efficiency, Universal Access, and Research and Evaluation ** ||
 * Goals and sample indicators included in this plan:

Improved student learning will be achieved in all content areas and in the technology knowledge and skills critical to students’ ability to contribute and function in today’s information technology society.

Objective 1: Improve student learning through technology. (Student Learning)

Objective 2: Improve staff’s knowledge and skills to integrate technology into instruction. (Professional Development)

Objective 3: Improve decision-making, productivity, and efficiency at all levels of the organization through the use of technology. (Administrative Productivity and Effeciency) Objective 4: Improve equitable access to appropriate technologies among all stakeholders. (Universal Access)

Objective 5: Improve the instructional uses of technology through research and evaluation. (Research and Evaluation)  || Mayland Business Roundtable for Education: Annual technology inventory School Library Media Annual Report MSDE Learning Object and Content Repository Maryland Technology Inventory (Annually) || Annual Status Report to Legislature Local School System Websites Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Plan Maryland Online Teacher Profile Tool (CPD) approval review Maryland Teacher Education Program Approval Process Curricular documents, lesson plans, teacher artifacts Monitoring management and operational efficiency Evaluation reports on completed professional development MSDE High School Committee Reports Evaluation Studies and Results MSDE Website content Learning Object and Content Repository Specifications on available systems Local and State Assessments Number of Maryland State approved online courses Local Policy and Procedure documents technologies related to STEM Local School System Professional Development Plans Number of visits to the MSDE Website and user feedback Number of online databases available in each county Online Technology Toolkit for Administrators Usage statistics from online databases Program evaluation reports for all divisions at MSDE Usage statistics for (HSA) online courses and curricular Samples of student work teacher education School Library Media Information Literacy Toolkit TL8 Student Toolkit Special Education Compliance Reports Teacher observations and evaluations Students earning degrees in the fields of STEM and related State Evaluation Clearinghouse and usage statistics Student completion rate in courses using advanced Number of Maryland students enrolled in online courses (beginning 2002) Number of courses using advanced technologies related to STEM ||
 * Required supporting documentation (e.g. research data, inventories):
 * ** Evaluation requirements for this plan: ** Annual Online Technology Inventory of each school Local School System Technology Plans
 * ** Reporting requirements for this plan: ** Every school system is required to submit an annual update to MSDE of its master plan, creating opportunities for continuous improvement. ||
 * ** Revision cycle for this plan: ** ﻿4-5 years (1998),(2002),(2007),(2012) ||
 * ** Funding sources to support this plan: ** In 2002, the Maryland General Assembly passed The Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools. The act resulted in increased funding for public schools and gave school systems greater flexibility in how they spend their funds to improve student achievement. (pg 12) ||

eductional terms for those who are unfamiliar to either field.
 * ** Strengths ** ||  ** Weaknesses **  ||  ** Recommendations **  ||
 * -﻿The plan includes a glossary to define technology and

-I really like how it provides a "Progess to Date" section for each objective. In this section it provides data and examples of how Maryland schools are meeting each objective. For example, it provides data for objective 1: Improve student learning through technology, by showing how student enrollment in online courses went from 31 in '03 to 1234 in '07.

-There is a section in the end to define and give an overview of each Maryland Ed Tech partnership. It tells why each partnership is important and how it is going to benefit the overall plan.

- It is important for any kind of plan to be easily accessed by all. This plan was well organized and easy to follow.

- The Maryland plan includes 7 steps from the National Education Technology Plan. This is important for our state to stay aligned with the country's standards. || - The plan incorporates actions that will be used to meet the objective. Will the state be providing resources to make the incorporation of technology into our current curriculum. Many of the lesson seeds on the state curriculum website do not incorporate any kinds of technology. This seems like a great place to put this action plan into action. The revision cycle should occur more often since changes and updates in technology are constant. || With all of the technology coming into the schools the plan should be revised every other year instead of every 5 years. - To use teachers from classrooms to help make the plan so there is more perspective from the people who are directly involved with the students on a daily basis. ||

References  Cavanaugh, T. & Cavanaugh, C. (2005). Blogging as a professional development tool. Paper presented at the eLearn Conference 2005, Vancouver CA. Retrieved October 30, 2006 from http://www.unf.edu/~tcavanau/presentations/elearn/blogPD/paper.htm. CDW-G. (2006). Survey: Teachers talk tech 2006; fulfilling technology’s promise of improved student performance. Retrieved August 25, 2006, from http://newsroom.cdwg.com/features/TeachersTalkTech2006Results.pdf Cradler, J. & Cradler, C. (2003). What does research mean to you?: making educational technology research relevant to educators. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(8). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org//Template.cfm?Section=May14&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&ContentFileID=1295 Most Maryland schools meet rising achievement goals: strong assessment scores result in continued success for many elementary and middle schools (August 16, 2006). Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/exeres/9AB12065-8740-43FD-BAD3- 85DAC9F9BE3E,frameless.htm?Year=2006&Month=8%> NetDay. (2006). Our voices, our future. Retrieved from http://www.netday.org/SPEAKUP/pdfs/SpeakUpReport_05.pdf Turner, L. (2005). 20 technology skills every educator should have. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/17325 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Maryland State Department of Education/Maryland Business Roundtable for Education. (2006). Where Do We Stand in 2006? Retrieved from http://md.ontargetus.com/.