Meeting+Notes


 * March 15, 2010 Meeting Notes:**

See discussion items below.

Comments from the meeting in RED. .


 * Objectives for wireless upgrade
 * 802.11n wireless- up to 300 Mbps badwidth on a single channel, per radio (dual radio access points)
 * Ample coverage in all classrooms, able to handle many computers connected simultaneously
 * Access points managed by a controller, which will dynamically adjust APs for best performance
 * Wireless network security
 * May be able to leverage existing access point
 * Type of solutions: Cisco, Aruba, Meru: Need to determine best, most cost effective solution
 * price of equipment varies
 * different solutions have varying associated hardware, which impacts cost
 * The methods of managing the wireless signals varies. We need to select the solution that best fits the building and our functional needs


 * Gateway security appliance(s)
 * Needs to address malware, outside attacks and other unauthorized traffic.
 * We want to have control over data access by application or site, by group or by user.
 * We want the ability to make use of multiple Internet connections.
 * new 10Mbps Ethernet connection (Xtel).
 * Courtesy Comcast cable connection.
 * Must be able to manage access to internal servers across either/both connections


 * Update on computer lease/purchase plans
 * 100 laptops for Grade 5-8, July 2010
 * 50 netbooks for lower grades, July 2010
 * 100 more laptops for grade 5-8, July 2011
 * 50 netbooks for lower grades, July 2011
 * Replace Dell D510 Teacher laptops, July 2011
 * Balance of laptops for grades 5-8 (1:1), July 2012

It is important to consider the benefits and limitations of netbooks, even in lower elementary grades. Must consider the logistics of moving laptops and using power supplies in classe.
 * Professional Development plan
 * Will work in collaboration with Local PD Committee, but program will be autonamous.
 * YEAR 1: Train 6-7 teachers in 2010-2011
 * 1:1 computer to student access
 * 1 teacher in grade 2 or 3
 * 1 teacher in grade 4
 * 4-5 teachers in grades 5-8


 * Discussion : Selection of teachers may be determined by subject taught in grades 5-8, rather than by application. 100 computers, average class size of 20.
 * Grade 7/8 - LA/Rdg (2), Science (2), SS (2) Can we mave computers to ensure 1:1?
 * Grade 5 & grade 7 - LA/Rdg (3), [Sci (2) OR SS (2)]
 * Math can be included in year 2
 * World Language - Grade 5 (1), Grades 6-8 (2)


 * YEAR 2: 2011-2012 will include a combination of external trainer and turn-key training from our own staff
 * Same objectives as year 1
 * Can work with more teachers than in year 1, using mixed modalities (1:1 and lower ratios)
 * Cover all middle school core subject area teachers
 * Involve all grade 1-4 teachers, working with mixed modalities, focusing on school-to-home connections
 * The number of teachers who will be trained is dictated by the amount of hardware needed to support entire classes, and the availability of support personnel (trainers and in-house technology teachers)
 * We will engage trainer that will help develop instructional practices and activites for teachers, and work with them in their classes periodically throughout the year.

Q: Where will teachers find the time to work with others? Responses from committee members: 1- The participating teachers could form their own PLC. 2- Classroom visitations with coverage could occur 3- In Year 2, trainers will still be brought in AND Year 1 teachers can provide professional learning support.

Comment: It would be helpful to decribe what responsibilities would be for the Year 1 trainees (1st Generation) in Year 2.
 * Next Steps for development of Three Year Technology Plan
 * Identify infrastructure needs for 2011-2013, based on intended curricular objectives (e.g., cloud computing, remote network access, connection to public library, server needs and virtualization)
 * Identify future funtional needs (disaster recovery, growth in IT demands based on utilization changes)
 * Project costs for infrastucture and PD for Year 2 and Year 3 of the plan (2011-2012, 2012-2013)
 * Develop assessments to measure the efficacy of our implementation
 * Next steps for PD
 * Seek out and interview potential trainers/providers
 * Develop a program for selected teachers


 * February, 2010 Meeting with Teachers on professional Development Planning:**

(See Professional Development wiki page)


 * December 9, 2009 Meeting Notes:**


 * After meeting with the teachers on the committee in early December, we reviewed what was covered regarding expectations for "Student-Centered Learning" in the future. Only one member of the committee (Joel Sanchez), who was not at one of the teacher meetings, was at today's meeting. We reviewed for his sake.
 * As a follow up to the teacher meetings, each teacher was asked to develop their own ideas for a vision of the future. Those statements are posted here on the wiki (see vision links).
 * We broke into pairs and developed some statements that would support a vision for the school. Those statements are to be posted on the Vision Building page.
 * A single vision statement will be developed from the input and presented for final approval at the January 18th meeting.

November 16, 2009 Meeting Notes:


 * Information about the use of the Bededtech Wiki and the Bededtech Diigo group (and general use of Diigo) was presented. Each member of the committee should have an account with Wikispaces and with Diigo.
 * Discussion about the future direction of technology infusion led the committee in several directions. When trying to identify some priorities, several questions arose. Members were unclear about what the framework is to be, what the scope of topics should be for the committee to consider (e.g., curriculum, infrastructure, professional development). It became evident that some time has to be spent on developing a common understanding of the overall direction for educational technology in the classroom.
 * We were reminded that The Partnership for 21st Century Learning can provide us with a framework for our planning.
 * As a result of the meeting, it was decided that the teachers on the committee would be brought together to establish a common perspective and offer individual insights about teaching and learning with technology.


 * October 9, 2009 Meeting Notes:**

Members of the committee will suggest and/or support a set of guiding questions that will steer the mission and objectives for Educational Technology plans for the future. See Guiding Questions page.
 * = **Initial Questions** ||
 * = * How are we preparing kids to function in the workplace of the future?
 * To what extent do we want students using technlogy OUTSIDE of the school?
 * How do we build DIGITAL LITERACY?
 * What is DIGITAL LITERACY?
 * What does a TECHNOLGY-RICH envoronment look like?
 * How do we ensure that we are in sync with curriculum vendors?
 * What level of technology infusion do we want our kids to experience?
 * Should we develop a Transition plan to increase infusion of technology?
 * How do we ensure that stdents are prepared at //each level of their education//?
 * At what point do we introduce certain technologies?
 * What are the curricular priorities for 21st Century Learners?
 * How do we reinforce the use of technology with parents?
 * What are the 3-5 Key Items that will guide the vision? ||


 * June 8, 2009 Meeting Notes:**

1) Bob McNulty provided a few comments on the Educational Technology Assessment Report: The assessment report is being presented by T-Squared Educational Consulting (Dr. Ben Tantillo and Mr. Erich Tusch) at the June 11th BOE meeting. The Ed. Tech. Committee members will receive copies of the writtten report prior to the meeting, and are encouraged to attend the BOE meeting.
 * A broad range of areas were addressed, with some consistencies across areas of the assessment
 * The assessment analyzes information from classroom observations over 2 ½ days, teacher and student surveys, informal discussions and empirical data provided by the school staff.
 * The assessment asserts that there are areas in need of focus if we intend to develop a 21st century learning environment //throughout// Bedminster School.
 * The analysis of survey results, and comparison of student and teacher responses was in relation to current practices and perspectives, as compared to future objectives for developing a 21st century learning environment.
 * There is a lot of valuable feedback that must be interpreted and considered as we plan for the future.

The committee should meet some time after June 11th, and discuss the report and the implications of the consultants' recommendations. A definitive plan for that meeting was not determined.

2) Using the responses to the questions posed on the wiki, disucssion followed that centered around teacher training/professional development. Some key points were:
 * Before planning for professional development can occur, a vision, or mission statement, that pertains to the broad scope of learning at Bedminster School must first be developed. All stakeholders need to have input during the process of developing the vision.
 * Everyone must have ownership of the vision and be invested in the mission.
 * Glenn Lampa suggested that a district-wide strategic plan should then be developed, to help carry out the vision.
 * Once professional development planning begins, we need to use turnkey training. Nicole Mancini noted that the Activboard PD worked well, and we should rely on that method in the future. Joyce Rozelle noted that the Activboard PD project cost was about $4,000.00 in PD funds.
 * Andrea Burke talked about the upcoming training that she and Christine Landwherle will be attending for the Professional Learing Communities construct. She said that the Local PDC is looking to adopt methods and practices from the PLC model.
 * We noted that, although the Educational Technology curriculum is being revised over the summer, we should consider doing additional curriculum develpoment, with more teachers participating in the process, since we are looking to infuse technology into the core curricula at all grade levels. Caitlyn Parker suggested that we put a plan together for further curriculum development, and present the plan to the Programs and Personnel committee.
 * A discussion was opened up regarding the use of faculty meeting times for PD. During that discussion, Glen mentioned that, in his former district, 90 minute faculty meeting were held, and a lot of PD occurred at those meeting times. Glen stated that contractual limitations should be considered when developing plans for the school's professional development needs. The discussion included comments about volunteerism and how much time teachers willingly give as a part of their effort to excel and provide service to the students. Several perpectives were offered about what is done, and what needs to be done, in order to maintain professional growth. The content of the discussion pointed out that, in order to create PD opportunities that include volunteered time, several interconnected issues have to be addressed as we make programatic plans.

3) Priorities for professional development planning include:
 * 1) Undergo a schoolwide process of creating a vision for 21st Century Learning, which is accompanied by a misson statement and a strategic plan.
 * 2) Explore the Professional Learning Communities model.
 * 3) Develop a plan for expanding the Educational Techology curriculum revision and present to the Programs and Personnel committee. This will help to identify content objectives for PD.