1. Since a series of cuts began in 2010, our school district has seen a reduction in:
- technology leadership (district tech team, tech coaches, key tech contacts, tech innovation grants, tech coordination, etc.)
- technology options available to teachers (single platform, lack of teacher-directed customization, purchasing restrictions, wifi restrictions, banned devices)
- school technology budgets (ours is half what it used to be)
- communication about technology (for example, many of the "decrees" that guide technology decisions can't be found in print)
2. We have not had a "tech plan" since 2005, although in 2011 there was a district meeting in which we learned that cloud computing, support for mobile learning, and BYOD would be the new normal, and a way to address shrinking budgets and "21st Century Learning."
3. We have lots of talented tech analysts who are quick to respond to tech issues, who are experts with networks, and who are able to balance security, stability, and function.
4. We have, in the last two years, had surveys and meetings about renewing technology leadership and support for BYOD & mobile devices.
5. The BCEdplan and various Ministry documents suggest that the internet, not texts or traditional learning resources, will be the main source for curricular material.
Given the above, and that we are well into the 21st Century, is it unreasonable to expect that teachers should be able to access stable wifi on a BYOD in order to a) teach using the internet, and b) print?
This functionality is spotty in our school district, but is available in most public institutions and corporate environments, as well as other school districts. As one of my colleagues puts it, "I get better wifi on a greyhound bus than I do at my school." I would encourage those who are still connected to the decision-making processes around district technology to raise this item up a few notches on the priority list. Our wifi, to put it lightly, has lots of room for improvement.
3. We have lots of talented tech analysts who are quick to respond to tech issues, who are experts with networks, and who are able to balance security, stability, and function.
4. We have, in the last two years, had surveys and meetings about renewing technology leadership and support for BYOD & mobile devices.
5. The BCEdplan and various Ministry documents suggest that the internet, not texts or traditional learning resources, will be the main source for curricular material.
Given the above, and that we are well into the 21st Century, is it unreasonable to expect that teachers should be able to access stable wifi on a BYOD in order to a) teach using the internet, and b) print?
This functionality is spotty in our school district, but is available in most public institutions and corporate environments, as well as other school districts. As one of my colleagues puts it, "I get better wifi on a greyhound bus than I do at my school." I would encourage those who are still connected to the decision-making processes around district technology to raise this item up a few notches on the priority list. Our wifi, to put it lightly, has lots of room for improvement.
1 comment:
Various types of school bus restraint
In order to transport the young students safely, lot of safety measures should be undertaken. Different types of restraint devices are available for using in school buses.For the safety of the pre-school aged children and young children, compartmentalization protection is offered by the school bus seats. Usually the seats are very close to each other and allows to absorb the energy in case of a sudden jerk or collision. Another most important type of school bus restraint devices which is used by the school bus authorities and school authorities is cargo/ gear containers. They are used for restraining the cargos inside the school buses. It helps in keeping cargos in place without the chance of the cargo coming off from a place.
Post a Comment