Technology Implementation Partnership (TIP)

1
Technology Implementation Partnership (TIP)
Kickoff Session September 25, 2007
2

• Agenda
• Welcome from CITEd team Tracy
• Overview of TIP Initiative Chuck
• Presentation from TIP project sites TIP Sites
• Snapshot of TIP
• Differentiating instruction Heidi
• Looking at Student Work Judy
• Discussion of the EdTech Locator David
• Evaluation of TIP Initiative Allison
• Overview of Scaling-Up Tracy
• Next steps Tracy

3

• Who We Are
• The Center for Implementing Technology in
  Education (CITEd), is funded by the U.S.
  Department Educations Office of Special
  Education Programs (OSEP).
• CITEd is a collaborative project run by the
  American Institutes for Research (AIR) with the
  Education Development Center (EDC) and CAST.
• CITEd supports leadership at state and local
  education agencies to integrate instructional
  technology for all students to achieve high
  educational standards.
• See full staff list with contact information on
  final slide.

4
TIP Professional Learning Community
5

• TIP Sites Overview

6

• Why the TIP Initiative?
• To increase the use and understanding of
  differentiating instruction through innovative
  technologies.
• To support a professional learning community
  across the districts and within the five
  districts.
• To identify and share lessons learned on
  effective ways to engage teachers,
  administrators, IT and PD coordinators to use
  differentiating instruction across the curriculum
  to meet the learning needs of all students,
  particularly those with special needs.
• To scale up TIP across grades, curriculum areas,
  and schools throughout the districts. Share
  lessons learned with SEAs and LEAs.

7
Technical Assistance to TIP Sites

• Provide TA through
• conference calls
• onsite meetings
• web-based support
• webinars
• just in time support and resources
• shared strategies and tools through online
  learning community across sites
• Share best practices, successes, and challenges
  in program implementation and scaling-up.

8

• TIP Site Introductions
• Focus of TIP at your site
• General demographics of your site
• Goals for the TIP effort over the next two years
• Building a Professional Learning Community
• What is one thing your district can contribute to
  the TIP professional learning community? 
• What is one thing your district would like to
  learn from the TIP professional learning community
  ? 

9

• Bethany School District
• Bethany, CT

• 557 students
• 51 teachers (FTE)
• Free lunch 3.2
• Special ed 11
• Limited English 0

10

• Focus
• Writing
• Grades 5 and 6
• Goals
• Increased use of hardware and software within
  writing process for students.
• Increased access to general education curriculum
  and classroom for students with disabilities.

11

• Minnesota Virtual Academy
• Houston, MN

• 479 MNVA students
• 17 MNVA teachers
• Free lunch 6
• Special ed 8
• Limited English 0

12

• Focus
• Grades 4-8
• Mathematics
• Work sample analysis
• Goals
• Teachers have increased comfort with the scope
  and sequence of mastery of math.
• Teachers have increased repertoire of strategies
  and resources for teaching math.
• Improved progress monitoring and reporting.

13

• Northampton School District
• Northampton, MA

• 2,940 students
• 232 teachers
• Free lunch 26.3
• Special ed 21
• Limited English 2.3

14

• Focus
• Literacy across the curriculum.
• Goals
• Students independently make use of software.
• Teachers incorporate software into their lessons.

15

• Thomasville City Schools
• Thomasville, GA

• 2,889 students
• 204 teachers
• Free lunch 72
• Special ed 13
• Limited English lt1

16

• Focus
• Mathematics
• Middle school
• Goals
• Teachers identify student learning needs and use
  evidence (i.e., student work) they have collected
  in their portfolios to appropriately select and
  revise differentiating instruction strategies

17

• Wolsey-Wessington School District
• Wolsey, SD

• 217 students
• 25 teachers
• Free lunch 37
• Special ed 17
• Limited English 0

18

• Focus
• Science
• Cohort of teachers K-12
• Goals
• Increase differentiated instruction with
  technology.
• Increase student engagement and use of technology
  with learning.

19

• Key Focus of TIP Initiative
• Differentiating Instruction through Technology
• Planning and delivery of classroom instruction
  that considers the varied levels of readiness,
  learning needs, and interests of each student.
• Using a range of technology tools to engage
  learners at varying levels of readiness in
  multiple ways.
• Offering students options for demonstrating their
  understanding and mastery of the classroom
  material.

20

• Differentiating Instruction through Technology
  (continued)
• Embraces student differences
• Provides assistive and accessible tools,
  encourages students to create customized tools.
• Uses assessment data to guide instruction.
• Uses progress monitoring and diagnostic tools.
• Uses choice to engage and motivate
• Provides the tools and encourages students to be
  creative.
• Offers flexible groupings
• Mixes whole class orientations with small group
  and peer tasks and considers groupings outside of
  the classroom.

21

• Looking at Student Work (LASW)
• An approach for professional development
• Provides teachers with meaningful ways to link
  technology to the curriculum.
• Supports ongoing, collaborative team process.
• Examines diverse student work.
• Provides a protocol and process for the teacher
  team.
• Engages the teacher team in a cycle of
  discussion, action, and reflection.

22
Ongoing, Collaborative Team Process

• Teams include
• general education teachers
• special educators
• curriculum specialists
• technology specialists
• ELL, Title 1, etc.
• Team members assume roles facilitator, recorder,
  timekeeper, and presenting teacher.
• The team meets regularly
• before, during, or after school, taking advantage
  of faculty meetings, planning periods,
  grade-level meetings, etc.
• usually for 45-60 minutes
• once every 2-3 weeks or monthly

23
Uses Students Work

• Presenting teacher brings the work of three
  students with diverse abilities and needs, e.g.,
• High performing student
• Typical student
• At-risk student
• Struggling student with a disability
• ELL student

24
Creates a Cycle
25
CITEd EdTech Locator SUMMARY CHART CITEd EdTech Locator SUMMARY CHART CITEd EdTech Locator SUMMARY CHART CITEd EdTech Locator SUMMARY CHART CITEd EdTech Locator SUMMARY CHART
  Teachers and Related Service Providers Administrators Technology Coordinators Professional Development Coordinators
Early Tech Implementation Technology use by teachers and students is limited with little linkage to instructional strategies or student needs. Technology is mainly used as a productivity tool. The use of technology is substantially different for general and special educators. The technology plan is nominal there is no timely technical support, and core curricula are developed with minimal consideration of students with special needs. Assistive technologies are purchased and administered separately. The school/district does not require that websites and software adhere to accessibility guidelines. Universal design and access issues are considered only for students with IEPs. Connectivity and e-learning environments are limited, providing a student-to-computer ratio of 10-1 and limited access to assistive technology tools. Technology training is limited to use and access, with little focus on instruction. Training for general educators and special educators is separate, with universal design principles limited to special educators.
Early Tech Implementation Technology use by teachers and students is limited with little linkage to instructional strategies or student needs. Technology is mainly used as a productivity tool. The use of technology is substantially different for general and special educators. The technology plan is nominal there is no timely technical support, and core curricula are developed with minimal consideration of students with special needs. Assistive technologies are purchased and administered separately. The school/district does not require that websites and software adhere to accessibility guidelines. Universal design and access issues are considered only for students with IEPs. Connectivity and e-learning environments are limited, providing a student-to-computer ratio of 10-1 and limited access to assistive technology tools. Technology training is limited to use and access, with little focus on instruction. Training for general educators and special educators is separate, with universal design principles limited to special educators.
Early Tech Implementation Technology use by teachers and students is limited with little linkage to instructional strategies or student needs. Technology is mainly used as a productivity tool. The use of technology is substantially different for general and special educators. The technology plan is nominal there is no timely technical support, and core curricula are developed with minimal consideration of students with special needs. Assistive technologies are purchased and administered separately. The school/district does not require that websites and software adhere to accessibility guidelines. Universal design and access issues are considered only for students with IEPs. Connectivity and e-learning environments are limited, providing a student-to-computer ratio of 10-1 and limited access to assistive technology tools. Technology training is limited to use and access, with little focus on instruction. Training for general educators and special educators is separate, with universal design principles limited to special educators.
Developing / Advanced Tech Implementation Technology use supplements instruction, specifically for remediation, review, and practice for special education students. Technology is sometimes used to manage administrative tasks or special education paperwork e-mail and e-newsletters are used to convey information to parents. The technology plan is aligned with the state plan and developed with input from multiple stakeholders. Assistive technologies and other accommodations are considered. General cost-of-ownership principles are followed and same-day tech support is provided. The school/district requires that websites and software adhere to basic accessibility guidelines. Universal design and access issues are considered for a limited number of computers, or areas with high computer use. Internet connectivity is available in most or all classrooms, with basic resources available for sharing servers. Significant wireless connectivity is available. Training relates technology use to content area instruction. There is awareness of universal design principles among special educators and some general educators.
Target Tech Implementation Technology is used for differentiating instruction, is integrated into curricular and assessment materials, and follows principles of universal design, accommodating the diverse needs of all learners. Multiple forms of technology are used to manage IEP and administrative tasks. Technology is used as a communication tool between teachers and parents. The technology plan focuses on integrating technology to support differentiating instruction, and the needs of students with disabilities are included in all curricular and technology decisions and purchases. The school/district requires and ensures that websites and software adhere to best practice accessibility guidelines. Universal design and access issues are considered and implemented throughout the school/district. Purchase priorities support differentiating instruction. Direct Internet connectivity is available in all rooms in all schools, with easy access to wireless connectivity. Training models the use of technology as a seamless and expected component of any instruction, with heavy focus on universal design and differentiating instruction strategies to ensure access to the general education curriculum for all students.
Adapted from Massachusetts and Texas STaR Chart Initiatives Adapted from Massachusetts and Texas STaR Chart Initiatives Adapted from Massachusetts and Texas STaR Chart Initiatives Adapted from Massachusetts and Texas STaR Chart Initiatives Adapted from Massachusetts and Texas STaR Chart Initiatives
26

• Evaluation of TIP Initiative
• Key evaluation questions
• What changes are evident in TIP sites related to
  differentiating instruction with technology
  tools?  What was the role of TIP in supporting
  this change?
• What conditions (e.g. professional development,
  leadership, communities of practice) facilitated
  changes at the TIP site? What was the role of TIP
  in facilitating change? 
• What barriers did the TIP site face? What was the
  role of TIP in reducing barriers?
• What were the steps taken to scale-up technology
  implementation?  What was the role of TIP in
  scaling-up technology implementation?

27

• Evaluation (continued)
• Instruments
• Teacher Survey
• Interview with key site contacts
• Other feedback sources
• Key benchmarks/timeline
• Teacher surveys October 2007, May 2008, May 2009
• Site contact interviews April 2008, April 2009

28

• Logistics Baseline Teacher Survey
• Launch date Monday October 1
• Closing Date Friday October 12
• Online survey via www.surveymonkey.com
• Needed from TIP sites by Thursday, September 27
• Names and emails for all teachers who will be
  responding to the survey
• Approval of, or edits to, the text for the email
  invitation

29

• Key Components of Scaling-up
• Success with TIP that leads to expansion, e.g.,
  more classrooms, more grades, different content
  areas, more school(s), and/or more district(s).
• TIP needs staying power Is TIP still used 2 to
  3 years later? Is there fidelity to the
  Initiative?
• Ownership transfers to teachers and
  administrators Do teachers feel they own the
  program? Are they comfortable making changes if
  needed?
• TIP needs to change classroom culture do
  teachers make it a part of their daily practice?

30

• Next Steps CITEd Upcoming Events
• Webinars
• September 2007-May 2008 CITEd webinar series
  (www.cited.org)
• Oct 9th Looking at Student Work facilitator
  training
• Nov 29th Dec 4th Differentiating Instruction
  through Technology webinar
• Winter 2008 Scaling-up event (dates to be
  determined)
• Other TIP activities
• Oct 1-12 - Online teacher survey
• October 5 Online tours of CITEd website EdTech
  locator and other resources
• Watch for online courses on Differentiating
  Instruction through Technology, Evaluation, and
  Scaling-up

31
(No Transcript)
32

• Questions? Feedback?
• Email sskipper_at_air.org or your
• TIP coordinator

33

• Key TIP Contacts

• CITEd
• Alise Brann, TIP Assistant-Bethany Site
  (abrann_at_edc.org)
• Allison Gandhi, TIP Evaluator (agandhi_at_air.org)
• Tracy Gray, CITEd Director and PI (tgray_at_air.org)
• Chuck Hitchcock, TIP Coordinator-Northampton Site
  (chitchcock_at_cast.org)
• Boo Murray, TIP Coordinator-Thomasville Site
  (bmurray_at_cast.org)
• David Rose, Principal Investigator
  (drose_at_cast.org)
• Heidi Silver-Pacuilla, TIP Coordinator-MNVA Site
  (hsilver-pacuilla_at_air.org)
• Nancy Safer, CITEd PI (nsafer_at_air.org)
• Susan Skipper, TIP Coordinator-Wolsey Site
  (sskipper_at_air.org)
• Tyler Tepfer, TIP Program Assistant
  (ttepfer_at_air.org)
• Mary Thorngren, CITEd Deputy Director,
  (mthorngren_at_air.org)
• Jenna Wasson, TIP Assistant-Thomasville Site
  (jwasson_at_cast.org)
• Judith Zorfass, TIP Coordinator-Bethany Site
  (jzorfass_at_edc.org)

• Bethany
• Timothy F. Connellan, Superintendent
  (tconnellan_at_bethany-ed.org)
• Rob Spino, Housemaster Pre-K 2
  (rspino_at_bethany-ed.org)
• Maureen Galla, Curriculum Coordinator
  (mgalla_at_bethany-ed.org)
• Mary Federico, Housemaster 3-6 (mfederico_at_bethany-
  ed.org)
• Karen Proto, Special Education Services
  (kproto_at_bethany-ed.org)
• Northampton
• Beth Dichter, Technology Inclusion Specialist
  (bdichter_at_northampton-k12.us)
• Linda Carrier, Director of Teaching and Learning
  (lcarrier_at_northampton.k12.ma.us)
• Bill Dornbusch, Director of Technology
  (bdornbusch_at_northampton-k12.us)
• Craig Jurgensen, Director of Pupil Services
  (cjrgensen_at_northampton.k12.ma.us)
• Diane Kolodziey, Special Ed Director's Assistant
  (dkolodziey_at_nps.northampton.ma.us)
• Donna Sroka, School Technology Director
  (srokad_at_svahs.net)

34

• Key TIP Contacts Continued

• MNVA
• Mark Dyar, Special Education Coordinator for
  Online Programs (mark.dyar_at_houston.k12.mn.us)
• Angela Specketer, Principal (angela.specketer_at_mnva
  .k12.mn.us)
• Joslyn Runyan, Lead Teacher (joslyn.runyan_at_mnva.k1
  2.mn.us)
• Robyn Christopher, Lead Teacher
  (robyn.christopher_at_mnva.k12.mn.us)
• Krin Berg, Curriculum Director (krin.berg_at_houston.
  k12.mn.us)
• Karen Swanson, Special Education Teacher
  (karen.swanson_at_mnva.k12.mn.us)
• Amy Halverson, School Psychologist
  (amy.halverson_at_houston.k12.mn.us)
• Jon Baietto, Assistant Principal
  (jon.baietto_at_mnva.k12.mn.us)
• Rana Bell, Teacher (rana.bell_at_mnva.12.mn.us)
• Patty Herman, Teacher (patty.herman_at_mnva.k12.mn.us
  )
• Tara Thompson, Technology Coordinator
  (tara.thompson_at_mnva.k12.mn.us)
• Georgia Rehbein, Special Education Teacher
  (Georgia.rehbein_at_mnva.k12.mn.us)

• Thomasville
• Mary A. Friesen, Special Education Director
  (tfriesm_at_rose.net)
• Jennifer Jordan, Assistant Principal
  (jordanj_at_mail.tcitys.org)
• Tina McBride, Lead Teacher (mcbridet_at_mail.tcitys.o
  rg)
• Jackie Scott, Math Coach, (scottj_at_mail.tcitys.org)
  
• Wolsey-Wessington
• Caroline McGilvrey, Technology Teacher/Coordinator
  (caroline.jensen_at_k12.sd.us)
• Carol Rowen, Elem/MS Principal (carol.rowen_at_k12.sd
  .us)
• Darcie Langbehn, Speech Special Education
  Teacher (darcie.langbehn_at_k12.sd.us)
• James Cutshaw, HS Principal Superintendent
  (james.cutshaw_at_k12.sd.us)
• Sandi Ransom, Teacher (sandi.ransom_at_k12.sd.us)
• Gordon Hooks, Teacher (gordon.hooks_at_k12.sd.us)
• Linda Snell, Teacher (linda.snell_at_k12.sd.us)
• John McEnelly, Teacher (john.mcenelly_at_k12.sd.us)