Lone Tumbleweed on the Highway

Some Tech Directors in Texas are feeling like their jobs may become tumbleweeds in the wind of Texas politics. A rumor is floating that Technology Applications:TEKS may be a thing of the past as a result of a new bill. Is Tech Apps dead in Texas and would such a dispersion of concentrated ed-tech staffing result in a fresh start for technology integration in Texas schools?

For the last 9-10 years, I’ve heard technology directors in Texas lament the following:

School districts never fund Technology Applications at middle and high school. Why? They’d rather let high school students earn their required 1 credit of Tech Apps using a Career and Technology Education (CATE) course. It’s a loophole that allows Districts to OFFER at least 4 TechApps courses but never actually teach them.

In spite of this loophole, many school districts have decided to not short-change their children and have funded TechApps labs at middle and high schools. I remember my first visit to one of Northside ISD’s–I worked there as Staff Development Coordinator of the Pathways to Advance Virtual Education (PAVE), a $1.9 million Technology Integration in Education (TIE) grant, largest in the State at the time–high schools, awed at the 8 computer labs to be used for Technology Applications:TEKS.

It is a sight and feeling I’ve never forgotten and lament myself when considering how poor inner-city urban districts must struggle along without the technology students need to learn Technology Applications.

Today, a Texas educator reported the following:

Texas HB and Senate Bill 3 I hear is being voted on tomorrow which will eliminate the required Technology Application credit. Purpose is to give more flexibility to elective choices due to 4×4 and let students take whatever they want. I think the required Fine Arts credit might stay due to Senator Shapiro. Now might be a good time to call your legislators and find out what is going on.

The reactions from technology coordinators and directors were understandable…without TechApps–which some districts don’t even bother to teach, even though it’s a required elective and life without technology is inconceivable, school districts may have reason or excuse to shed their Educational/Instructional Technology Departments.

Simply, instructional technologists across Texas might begin the rapid descent into unemployment. Yet, will their absence have that great an impact when, as a whole, Texas is so high stakes test oriented? Will the disbanding of so many dedicated, passionate professionals in education technology result in the end of technology integration, or rather, symbolize a new beginning?

Responses–anonymized–to the possibility of no Tech Apps include:

• Bill would remove TA courses being reuired of students- yet still require schools to teach them. For rural schools – exemptions and exceptions will be made- counselors will “suggest” BCIS and TA classes will be offered but never make…And soon – TA classes will be allowed to drop cause no one signs up. Once again – Austin fires a bullseye in the stupidity target. Bill is most likely going to mandate Fine Arts. So we are requiring them to learn to sing – play an instrument …or draw…but not required to understand anything in technology.
• I loaded my legislators emails – everyone else needs to as well.
  
  http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
• I discussed this with my Rep’s “rep” a little while ago and couldn’t get any details regarding TechApps. She thought that the bill would make TechApps credits optional but not eliminated. I then found the bill online as “passed” by the House and conducted a keyword search for TechApps, credits, etc. but could not find anything definitive. So, if anyone has more info, please let me know.

• I’ve written Karen Kahan (TEA) and asked specifics for this bill. Is there a specific web site that outlines the particulars regarding Technology Applications? I was at the Capital a week ago, and I was not aware that there was a possibility that the Tech App courses could possibly be eliminated. If ANYONE knows more, links etc. please forward.

• I talked to Karen Kahan who said they are in committee right now. Then I called Hubert Vo and found out my legislator Beverly Wooley’s is co-author. I left a message for her to call me. If HB and SB 3 pass, the requirement to take a Tech App credit will go away. One comment by a person I talked to in the office was that I took the required course and it was a waste of time as all they taught was how to turn on the computer. I said that was probably a CT&E course, and not a Tech App course. That is the message that legislators are getting, it is a waste of time. Maybe we could work it to up the standards of the course for the credit. The College Board is working on a computing course, a computer science course that is not all programming. You tech app job may be gone too….

• Technology Contacts…
  I was asked today by one of our districts about the “proposed legislation” redefining graduation requirements and how it might affect Technology Applications.
  From what I can read online, CSHB3 as amended by the Senate Wednesday what appears to be included is the following…

  SECTION 7. Section 28.025, Education Code, is amended by amending Subsections (a), (b), (b-1), and (b-2) and adding Subsections (b-3), (b-4), and (b-5) to read as follows:

  (a) The State Board of Education by rule shall determine curriculum requirements for the minimum, recommended, and advanced high school programs that are consistent with the required curriculum under Section 28.002. Subject to Subsection (b-1), the State Board of Education shall designate the specific courses in the foundation curriculum required for a student participating in the minimum, recommended, or advanced high school program. Except as provided by Subsection (b-1), the State Board of Education may not designate a specific course or a specific number of credits in the enrichment curriculum as requirements for the recommended program.

  ….

  b-1) The State Board of Education by rule shall require that:

  (1) except as provided by Subsection (b-2), the curriculum requirements for the recommended and advanced high school programs under Subsection (a) include a requirement that students successfully complete:

  (A) four credits [courses] in each subject of the foundation curriculum under Section 28.002(a)(1), including at least one-half credit in government and at least one-half credit in economics to meet the social studies requirement;

  (B) two credits in the same language in a language other than English under Section 28.002(a)(2)(A); and

  (C) eight elective credits; and

  (2) one or more credits [courses] offered in the required curriculum for the recommended and advanced high school programs include a research writing component.

  Then Amended Wednesday to say …

  (1)In SECTION 30 of the bill, in amended Section
  28.025(b-1)(1)(C), Education Code (page 13, line 54), strike
  “eight” and substitute “six”.

  …….

  (3) the curriculum requirements for the minimum, recommended, and advanced high school programs under Subsection (a) include a requirement that students successfully complete:
  (A) one credit in fine arts under Section 28.002(a)(2)(D); and
  (B) one credit in physical education under Section 28.002(a)(2)(C).
  My analysis is that if it passes into law in this form it would change the required curriculum that a student has to have for graduation under the various graduation plans by requiring the four core subjects, languages other than English, fine arts, and physical education. It would also restrict the SBOE from making any other requirements, such as one credit of Technology Applications. It doesn’t change the fact that the districts have to offer the TA courses but they would not be a part of a required graduation credit for all students as is the case now.

• SB 3 over the last few weeks has undergone changes in terms of HS graduation requirements. This underscores the need for more active involvement of TCEA at this legislative session so our voices are heard. While [TexTAN] has done a great job she is a full time technology district technology director. We have a real good chance of getting us flexibility with textbook funding as the result of her efforts as well as others.

  The original idea was to just require the 4 by 4 for 16 credits and leave the remaining 10 credits as electives. Then the PE group lobbied, then the Fine Arts group got involved, and the Foreign Language group, and the CTE group as well. The winners right now are Fine Arts (at least one credit), CTE (pathways would involve at least 4 credits), foreign languages (I think 2 credits) and PE ( 1 credit). The losers would be the other courses required right now such as the Tech Apps credit.

• I know my position will be blowing in the wind if students do not have to take the TA class.

Image Source:
death knell. http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/images/RoxDeath.JPG

var addthis_pub=”mguhlin”;

Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org