In an earlier post, I lamented that the LOTI folks had switched their language and were eschewing their support of technology use to focus on instruction. Jerram Froese writes in response:
We teach to those who listen. What’s the point of preaching to the choir (tech folks) when it is building administrators that must be convinced. If a campus principal ‘buys in’ to innovating the teaching on their campus, the tools to do so will be necessity. I am in favor of the way Chris [Dr. Chris Moersch, LOTI Creator] has been ‘talking up’ LoTI the past couple of years, as well as the H.E.A.T. framework. Irving ISD has done extensive LoTI training for around 5 years and we still have such a LONG way to go before we come close to being where we want.
No matter what the specifics of the acronym, we continue to prompt more and more building administrators to attend – one or two may ‘get it’ and the others may tune out. But, we keep at it each year. Teaching/Technology – they are intertwined in the LoTI model and the wording doesn’t bother me one way or another. What is important is continuing to talk to those that will listen – be it 1 or 20.
Teaching and technology are intertwined in the LOTI model, indeed. If intertwining instruction and technology so that they are inseparable is the way to go, then why aren’t we in the “edtech choir” not advocating for the sweeping change represented by New Tech High Schools?
Having had the opportunity to visit Manor ISD’s New Tech HS, as well as listened to a presentation of their’s at TCEA (you know, I think I recorded that for a podcast…where did I put it?). I was so impressed I blogged it and included the following excerpt in a recently published article:
Manor ISD, site of a New Tech High School, has created its own YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/ManorNewTechHigh) to publish student-created videos. Students explain in their own words what Manor ISD’s New Tech High School is about.
When I first saw New Tech HS a few years ago–when they were bringing the program to Texas–I urged my boss at the time to support this with everything we had. Unfortunately, the finances never worked out, and it was too big a change to put schools through. But in truth, what HAS changed in the intervening years? Finances remain low and the change remains…simply, looking back, I wish I’d led better, urged more.
Gov. Mitch Daniels wants to radically transform the way Indiana teens are taught by converting all of the state’s high schools to a hands-on, high-tech approach by the time he leaves office…In every class at a New Tech high school, students work in groups to solve challenges and work on projects rather than learning through lectures. A teacher may present only one or two lessons a week.Projects are designed so that students learn specific facts or techniques on their own over the course of the projects. Grades are based on those projects as well as on presentations and evaluations of teamwork. Technology is key in all lessons….
“No one knows what the ideal or perfect model for helping our kids achieve more is, but here we have something that works,” Daniels said. “It’s a huge step beyond what we have been doing. It’s affordable, and it can be moved into schools very quickly.”
Source: Indiana Star
Indiana’s leadership in technology is well-known, thanks not only to them but Steve Hargadon’s interviews Indiana ACCESS (inACCESS) initiative leaders. Steve writes:
All of this tells me that a lot of folks have been selling the whole “computers in schools” concept completely wrong. In Indiana, they are not, not, *not teaching computers*. They are teaching *kids*, and they are *using* computers to do it. It seems like an arbitrary distinction, but it is in fact a *fundamental* distinction — and it’s a distinction that so many people seem to miss.
“How can you expect a teacher *not* to learn all this computer stuff so they stop wasting their time on grunt work, like grading papers?”
[In response to Steve’s post, Tom Hoffman writes:]
Indiana is an example of what can happen when you get the technology and the particulars of the funding and deployment strategies right, even if you have not preceeded that deployment with a systemic progressive reform of the school, comprehensive tech support and expensive professional development, etc.
Why aren’t we doing more New Tech a la inACCESS approach? Wouldn’t this work?
Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org
Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.
Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure
Discover more from Another Think Coming
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another Think Coming 
Obviously, we can do more schools like this. I’m not sure what one considers cheap, though. At an event at the New Tech campus in Manor this week, the New Tech folks form CA said just their part of the start-up is $400,000 over a four year period. That includes training, mentoring (coaching), and specialized walled garden software.These are a few things I would change:Dump at least part of the software deal. I prefer my students to be using more collaborative tools like Google Apps than just a virtual locker that is not collaborative. If we are going to talk about group work and collaboration, why is it not a foundation of the PeBL software system? I appreciate you can add more outside the software, but if you are selling a package deal, it should be in there already. Make the PBL’s local issues at least at the higher two grades all year as well as final year-end projects for the lower grades. This will not only help the students understand the local needs, but it will also tie in the community and industries into the projects which could help provide solutions for ongoing issues. I know that those industries are willing to lend a human perspective to the problems by either visiting with students firsthand or virtually.Consider alternatives for smaller school districts. I heard them say that placing a New Tech High inside of a larger high school does not work. I would like elaboration on that as well as how smaller districts can take advantage of the system. Share the negatives to the program that others have seen. I would like to know which kids this does not work for, because we all know that is going to be a question from any good planning committee and/or school board (hence the reason a small district cannot convert an entire high school). I love the system I have seen at the New Tech campuses. I would love to create one of my own. I just need to see a little more than I already have. That being said, my son would be attending one in a heartbeat. He would thrive in that environment.
Obviously, we can do more schools like this. I’m not sure what one considers cheap, though. At an event at the New Tech campus in Manor this week, the New Tech folks form CA said just their part of the start-up is $400,000 over a four year period. That includes training, mentoring (coaching), and specialized walled garden software.These are a few things I would change:Dump at least part of the software deal. I prefer my students to be using more collaborative tools like Google Apps than just a virtual locker that is not collaborative. If we are going to talk about group work and collaboration, why is it not a foundation of the PeBL software system? I appreciate you can add more outside the software, but if you are selling a package deal, it should be in there already. Make the PBL’s local issues at least at the higher two grades all year as well as final year-end projects for the lower grades. This will not only help the students understand the local needs, but it will also tie in the community and industries into the projects which could help provide solutions for ongoing issues. I know that those industries are willing to lend a human perspective to the problems by either visiting with students firsthand or virtually.Consider alternatives for smaller school districts. I heard them say that placing a New Tech High inside of a larger high school does not work. I would like elaboration on that as well as how smaller districts can take advantage of the system. Share the negatives to the program that others have seen. I would like to know which kids this does not work for, because we all know that is going to be a question from any good planning committee and/or school board (hence the reason a small district cannot convert an entire high school). I love the system I have seen at the New Tech campuses. I would love to create one of my own. I just need to see a little more than I already have. That being said, my son would be attending one in a heartbeat. He would thrive in that environment.
According to the Manor ISD website, the population of the entire district is 6,200+ students. With enrollment at New Tech listed at 157 students (grades 9-10), I hardly see this as a scalable solution to the vision of technology infused instruction across the state.Irving ISD has been in the 1:1 laptop business for 8+ years with over 10,000 laptops in students hands. That doesn’t mean squat, however, because the battle is not about the technology – it is getting teachers to better understand quality teaching practice. Scalability across the state and or nation is going to mean a lot of hard work, continuous down and dirty staff development on quality teaching (which naturally leads to the use of technology) and converting principals to be administrators that embrace technology. So, for now, I’m still fine with talking up innovation to our district administrators because the need for the technology follows right behind it. 😉
According to the Manor ISD website, the population of the entire district is 6,200+ students. With enrollment at New Tech listed at 157 students (grades 9-10), I hardly see this as a scalable solution to the vision of technology infused instruction across the state.Irving ISD has been in the 1:1 laptop business for 8+ years with over 10,000 laptops in students hands. That doesn’t mean squat, however, because the battle is not about the technology – it is getting teachers to better understand quality teaching practice. Scalability across the state and or nation is going to mean a lot of hard work, continuous down and dirty staff development on quality teaching (which naturally leads to the use of technology) and converting principals to be administrators that embrace technology. So, for now, I’m still fine with talking up innovation to our district administrators because the need for the technology follows right behind it. 😉