Print

Print


So that communications are clear as the draft endorsements for Technology
Coordinator and Technology Resource Teacher are rolled out for public review
and comment... they were drafted by those who do the work you all do (I'll
get a list of participants who were involved in the process out to you all
shortly), the draft endorsements do NOT attempt to "license techies" but are
focused on the educational side of "educational technology", and there is no
test requirement.

It's good to see so much interest in this work!!!

Bill Romond

Educational Technology Coordinator
Vermont Department of Education
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-2501
(802) 828-0064 (V)
(802) 828-3140 (F)
http://www.state.vt.us/educ
[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: School Information Technology Discussion
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Vince Rossano
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 7:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Qualifications


Tom makes some good points here about professional certification.  I
have mentioned once or twice in this list my opposition to   the Ed.
Dept attempting to license us techies (as opposed to those whose jobs
include teaching functions), but the time has probably come to bring
some structure and standards to what we want to be seen as our
"profession" rather than our "job".  If we are to be considered
professionals, I believe we need a professional organization.  And that
organization, not the Ed. Dept., should be the body that certifies us.
I'm thinking, for a model, of the school business managers'
organization.  If you aren't familiar with that (and I am only slightly
familiar with it myself), the business managers, some time ago (many
years?), formed such an organization.  My business manager has a nifty
certificate on her wall assuring the world she didn't just wander in off
the street.  We need a nifty certificate too.   Seriously though, if we
don't take control of the inevitable certification process the Ed. Dept.
will.

Since developing such an organization and standards (Oh God!
Standards!  Here we go with more FileMaker Pro databases!) will not be
easy or simple, I suggest that those two indefatigable workers, Tom Walz
and Bill Kimball (if he promises not to develop a rubric), do the whole
thing themselves and call us when they're done.  Ah come on guys! You're
so good at this stuff.

Vince



Vince Rossano
Information Technology Director
Montpelier Public Schools
58 Barre Street
Montpelier, VT 05602

Voice: (802) 229-5355
Fax: (802) 223-6146
Email: [log in to unmask]

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/18/02 07:33AM >>>
In a message dated 10/17/02 2:23:38 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< Is it too much to expect for technology staff to be paid
commensurate

with their experience and to reward them for learning how to do their

jobs better?  Teachers receive this (and don't get me wrong, I believe

they absolutely should) - why should technology staff be treated to
any

less? >>

Lisa et. al.,

Hugely complicated issue here.  We cannot even pay teachers the same
salary
schedules within our own supervisory union. Is not a teacher a teacher
a
teacher?  Well, apparently not.

But your point is an argument for a definition of the job, standards
for the
job performance, and maybe even the certification.  It's harder to
argue that
a techie should be paid on a para scale if professional certification
is
required.

Two of our techie staff are in an odd place somewhere between teacher
and
administrator in terms of length of contract and pay.  There simply is
no
place in our salary structures that really fits them.

A potential and unfortunate result of reform is that some schools
might
decide to go without.  Some already do that with nurses, art teachers,
etc.
Not an easy issue.

Tommy Walz
Technology Coordinator
Barre Supervisory Union #61
Barre VT 05641
802-476-5011
[log in to unmask]