Print

Print


>
> *" find a mechanism to create a more integrated structure for planning
> around digital learning instead of just developing technology plans in an
> isolated fashion."*

​Nice direction...since it's why we need technology in the first place...to
support learning. ​


*Elizabeth McCarthy, MAT*
*Digital Learning SpecialistGoogle Education Trainer*
Google+google.com/+ElizabethMcCarthy
<https://www.google.com/+ElizabethMcCarthy>


On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Drescher, Peter <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

>  Hello:
>
>
>
> Some questions have come up on Technology plans lately and I want to just
> define a bit about the expectations for those moving forward.   We are in
> our cycle for most SU’s where current plans will expire on June 30, 2015.
>
>
>
>
>
> In July of the past year, USAC/FCC put in some significant changes to the
> E-rate program.  You will recall that E-rate required technology plans for
> any application that was seeking Priority 2 funding.    At the State level
> we have had in place a requirement as well that schools, (or in the case of
> our last plan cycle, SU’s, submit a technology plan for a three year
> period).   For this new set of rules under the Modernization or 2.0, USAC
> has moved to not require technology plans.
>
>
>
> We continue at the State level to desire to require “technology plans” in
> some form at the SU level.  It provides some accountability for schools and
> districts and it helps in many ways with describing the objectives of
> schools in the development of a continuous learning-with-technology focus.
>   Moving forward we would like to focus to be on “digital learning” to
> support student achievement.
>
>
>
> Where we are struggling with making a change is in how these “technology
> plans” are developed and submitted.  There has been some discussion at the
> AOE about how these plans could be incorporated into another tool or plan
> that is already crafted by schools or districts.  This makes much more
> practical sense in that it moves the “technology plan” under a  more
> integrated approach to overall learning goals.    The conversation
> continues and I welcome input from the field on this topic.
>
>
>
> All of that said...
>
>
>
> Suffice that at this particular time and with schools working diligently
> to implement SBAC this Spring, I am moving to “approve” the current
> technology plan documents that were submitted in 2012 for an additional
> year, taking those out to June 30, of 2016.   There is work afoot to create
> guidance work around the EQS materials for technology and through that work
> we may find a mechanism to create a more integrated structure for planning
> around digital learning instead of just developing technology plans in an
> isolated fashion.
>
>
>
> Please contact me if you have questions or post to this list or off-list
> with your suggestions for ways to incorporate this planning into other
> regularly requested annual or otherwise scheduled reports.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Drescher*
>
> *Education Technology Coordinator*
>
> *Vermont Agency of Education*
>
> *Transformation and Innovation Division*
>
> *219 N. Main St. Suite 402, *
>
> *Barre VT 05641*
>
> *Ph.: 802.479.1169 <802.479.1169>*
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> *Twitter: VTED_Technology*
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Search <http://list.uvm.edu/archives/school-it.html> the SCHOOL-IT Archive
>
> Manage <http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SCHOOL-IT&A=1> your
> Subscription to SCHOOL-IT
>