Home Advocacy
Category:

Advocacy

Stay informed on education advocacy. Explore updates, insights, and resources to support policies that empower educators and students.

legislative priorities
AdvocacyCTO/CIODigital LiteracyFundingLeadership

TCEA’s 2021 Legislative Priorities (Part 2)

by Jennifer Bergland
written by Jennifer Bergland

Last week, we took a look at some of TCEA’s legislative priorities for the 2021 session of the Texas Legislature. This week, we explore digital learning topics and policies.

Legislative Priorities for Digital Learning

Technology Planning

legislative priorities

Technology is ubiquitous in our society. Almost every aspect of our day is powered by technology. This is true for a school district as well. This has required many districts to quickly adapt as they strive to find personnel that have the level of technical expertise that is required to support sophisticated networks, teachers who can leverage technology to support student learning, and staff with the skills to analyze data that was once only needed in the corporate world. The network and equipment these staff members need must also be purchased and maintained in a safe and secure environment. All of this must be accomplished with limited funds. But none of this is possible without careful planning. Currently, Texas school districts are not required to create, follow, or update a technology plan.

Teacher Readiness

In a recent report written by Common Sense Media, it was noted that 56% of teachers felt that lack of training is a “significant or extremely significant problem.” The quick pivot to remote learning was taxing on many teachers. They were unprepared to adapt to the demands of knowing how to use the conferencing platforms, but also how to integrate the technology tools within their pedagogy and their content. In 2011, when districts lost the Technology Allotment, many schools disbanded their instructional technology training teams. These districts had used their Technology Allotment funding to pay for personnel to train their teachers. When that resource was eliminated, so were those positions. We are still reaping some of the consequences of the loss of that dedicated technology funding. 

legislative priorities

Digital Literacy

There is a mistaken assumption that since most children and teenagers have a smartphone, they must be digitally literate. Knowing how to use a consumer product and how to utilize digital technology for work and learning are two separate skill sets. The digital literacy skills that students need today are complex and require not only access to a variety of technologies, but also instruction and guidance in how to leverage digital resources in order to research, create, analyze, curate, and collaborate as they are acquiring new knowledge and skills. At the same time, they need to be taught how to protect themselves and their data since much of their life will be lived online. 

Technical Support

legislative priorities

School districts often have the largest and most sophisticated networks within a community. These networks must support the growing technical demands of the school district while protecting the student and staff personal information from cybersecurity attacks. These networks and the digital devices that access the networks require technical staff that can keep up with the demands of a large scale deployment of devices. They are often understaffed and underpaid, but they are committed to the core mission of the school district. These dedicated personnel are managing complicated networks and face many security challenges. Keeping them trained and staffed at a level that is manageable is a challenge. It requires funding for technical equipment, salaries, and training to provide the level of support required to ensure the technology is always available and is safe to use. 

Recommendations to address the various components of digital learning:

In the 85th Legislature, SB 810 required the SBOE to update the Long Range Plan for Technology at least every five years. The SBOE updated the plan and added it to the appendix of the Long Range Plan for Education in 2018. The Texas Education Agency brought together a group of stakeholders together to reimagine what is possible if we utilize technology within our educational environment. TEA then took this group’s ideas and built a plan that, if enacted, would address the barriers identified by TCEA. 

The plan has already been developed and approved. To address the barriers of digital learning, the state now needs to implement the plan. Below is a list of actions we believe the Texas Education Agency and the ESC’s should do to assist districts in implementing the Long Range Plan for Technology (LRPT). 

  • The Texas legislature should provide appropriate funding to accomplish the goals and strategies in the LRPT. These funds would support the following activities: 
    • Create a task force made up of district and state stakeholders to establish benchmarks that districts can use to measure their progress in implementing the LRPT. 
    • Require districts to write and adopt a three-year technology plan that demonstrates how they will align their district’s goals with the LRPT. 
    • Establish a Digital Teaching and Learning grant that districts can use to implement their technology plans once they are approved by the state. These grants should be available for all districts that submit an approved plan. 
    • TEA, ESC’s, and educational technology nonprofits should provide districts with support as they implement their plans. This could be in the form of, but not limited to: 
      • Technical support and advice
      • Professional development for both administrators and teachers
      • Workshops on best practices for implementing digital instructional materials 
      • Technology planning advice
      • Exemplar districts who exhibit best practices are identified so that other districts could contact and visit them. 
  • The Texas legislature should also: 
    • Replace the outdated time-based system (Carnegie unit) of awarding credits and funding with one that is based on a student’s competency.
    • Allow school districts to create their own full-time or part-time TxVSN school, if only within their own district boundaries. 

In Conclusion

After reviewing our legislative priorities, you can see why we see 140 days as the biggest barrier to making these priorities a reality. Our enemy is the clock, not our policies. Throw in a pandemic that has negatively affected the state budget and will decrease our access to legislators and their staff members and you can see why it is imperative that we focus on a few of our major priorities. Broadband has been a priority of TCEA’s for more than eight years, but the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the chances that it will also be a priority of the Texas legislature. We are hopeful that some meaningful legislation will be passed on broadband policy.

We will look for ways to move all of our legislative priorities forward, but the clock, the budget, and access will make this a difficult session. If you are interested in following our progress and you are a member of TCEA, be sure and join the Advocacy group in the TCEA Community. If you are not a member, consider joining and/or come back to the blog for updates and check out my Twitter feed @jbergland. And finally, if you want to get more involved in TCEA’s advocacy efforts, email me at jbergland@tcea.org.

0 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
legislative priorities
AdvocacyDigital LiteracyFundingLeadership

TCEA’s 2021 Legislative Priorities (Part 1)

by Jennifer Bergland
written by Jennifer Bergland

Those who eat, breathe, and sleep politics in Texas know that January 12th is an important day. This is the day that the 87th Texas Legislature will begin their work and all of the various groups that engage in the act of persuading the legislature to adopt their legislative priorities kick into high gear as well. As the Director of Government Relations for TCEA, I have the privilege of representing more than 57,000 educators’ interests at the Texas Capitol.

I know not all of our members are from Texas, but the vast majority are. And even if you aren’t living in Texas, but you are an ed tech enthusiast, rest assured that our efforts in Texas play an important role in influencing what happens in other states, just as other states’ laws and policies influence Texas. The U.S. Constitution has established that education policy is delegated to the states. The only reason the U.S. government has any influence over public schools is that they provide some financial support for educating our children. If states want the money, they must follow the federal guidelines. However, the vast majority of education decisions are made at the state level. 

Our Legislative Priorities

Every two years, the TCEA Board of Directors establishes the legislative priorities for TCEA. The reason this is done every two years is because the Texas legislature meets for 140 days every two years. That’s right, they only have 140 days every other year to create and pass a budget and any new laws. Our board establishes our legislative priorities that will help guide the association’s actions during the Texas legislative session, but also throughout the rest of the biennium since part of the process includes implementing any new laws that get passed during the session. 

TCEA has been actively monitoring and advocating to remove or diminish the barriers to digital learning for many years. And while the COVID-19 pandemic surely exacerbated and drew more attention to these barriers, the problems themselves have remained the same. Many Texas districts have been working over the years to provide their students with digital resources that enable them to learn anytime and anywhere. The districts who have been moving in this direction through strategic planning, resource allocation, and preparing their personnel for the shift from print to digital were far more prepared to be able to make the necessary adjustments during the pandemic. Those who had not have struggled. Part of their struggle was due to circumstances beyond their control, but with planning and preparation, many of these obstacles can be overcome. After review, the board has made the following recommendations for the upcoming legislative session. 

Broadband Access

COVID has made it obvious to all that many Texas students do not have adequate access at home. This was a barrier even before the pandemic, but the pandemic has highlighted the inequities that these families face. Broadband is not a luxury anymore. It is as much a necessity as basic electrical service. Without broadband, many students and some teachers have not been able to access the remote learning opportunities that many other Texas students have utilized to continue learning from home. It is important to note that these students who do not have access at home need this access even when they are able to go to school. Anytime, anywhere learning relies on access to resources regardless if the student is at home or at school. It is imperative that Texas provide the leadership that is necessary to solve the disparities in broadband access across the state. 

Recommendations to address the barriers for affordable and scalable broadband:

  • Establish an office to coordinate the efforts to provide broadband access to all Texans. 
  • Create a broadband plan that will guide the efforts of local and state agencies as they strive to provide affordable and scalable broadband for both rural and urban areas of the state. 
  • Improve the accuracy of the broadband mapping data by requiring a process to verify this data. 
  • Determine how to fund the installation of this vital infrastructure. 
  • Include broadband infrastructure projects in the list of eligible projects for public private partnership funding.  
  • Ensure that cities have the ability to provide this service if it is the best solution for their citizens. 

Technology and Instructional Materials Allotment

The TIMA is intended to be a dual-purpose fund to support the purchase of instructional materials and technology. However, districts have very little discretion on how to use the TIMA due to the size of the textbook proclamations and the sharp increase in the cost of instructional materials. 

In a recent survey conducted by TCEA, 50% of the districts that responded indicated they rarely, if ever, used the TIMA for technology. The respondents said that the cost of instructional materials increased in direct correlation to the size of the allotment, leaving little, if no money for technology equipment, support, or professional development. They also indicated that if there are remaining funds in the TIMA at the end of a biennium, instead of using those funds for technology, those funds are saved for the next biennium’s proclamations. 

Most districts do not view the TIMA as a source for technology funding. According to our survey, 61% of the districts rarely, if ever, include technology personnel in the discussions on the use of the TIMA. Therefore, it is obvious that the TIMA is not effective in providing funding for both instructional materials and technology under its current structure. 

Recommendations to address the barriers preventing the TIMA from functioning as planned:

  • Remove the requirement to purchase all instructional materials before a district can purchase technology. 
  • Require TEA to provide more assistance in helping districts learn how to leverage this allotment to align their goals with the state’s Long Range Plan for Technology. 
  • Require the SBOE to limit the size of the proclamations to no more than 75% of the expected distribution as stipulated in HB 663 in the 86th Legislature. 
  • Stipulate that a certain percentage of the TIMA be used by districts for technology purchases. This could be determined by the legislature or the commissioner. 

Next week, we’ll explore more of TCEA’s legislative priorities, focusing on digital learning.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
remote learning
AdvocacyDigital LiteracyEducational TrendsLeadership

Blended, Flipped, and Remote Learning: What’s the Difference?

by Jennifer Bergland
written by Jennifer Bergland

Words have meaning. The question is do we all have the same understanding of the meaning of a particular word or phrase. We have been using technology in schools for 40 years, and over this time, we have used different phrases to describe its use.

The recent pandemic has required schools to respond quickly to school closures to ensure the continuity of learning. In many instances, technology was used to bridge the gap from school to home. Therefore, I thought this was a good time to refresh our understanding of these terms, especially since this crisis has produced a new term (remote learning) related to the use of technology in education. 

A Short History of Ed Tech 

Tandy Color Computer 3

TCEA was founded in 1980 by teachers who were beginning to explore how to use computers in the classroom. At the time, computers for student use were usually located in a computer lab that was primarily used to teach students basic computer literacy.

In the late 1980’s, districts began to explore ways teachers could use computers and other types of technologies to support their instructional goals. In order to do this, the teachers first had to be trained on how to operate a computer and various software applications. When the goal expanded from basic computer literacy to integrating technology into the instructional process, teachers’ professional development changed from learning how to operate the technology to the best way to use the technology to support the student learning. 

Terms Evolved to Describe Technology Use 

Because technology has been used in a variety of settings and in different ways to support the instructional process, different terms and phrases have been used to express the different models of technology use. Sometimes these terms are misunderstood and misused. In order to try to provide some clarity, I would like to provide some descriptions for the different types of technology used to support student learning.

But I need to provide a disclaimer. Nailing down an agreed-upon definition has not been easy. I reviewed definitions used by associations and entities, as well as reviewed the Texas Education Code to see if some of these terms have a legal definition. And although most of the definitions are similar, there are some differences. 

I decided that the best way to understand these terms is to place them in a Venn diagram. On one side of the diagram are the uses of technology that are used within a brick and mortar building where both the teacher and student are present. The other side of the diagram is where the student and teacher are not in the same physical space. The shared portion of the diagram are the uses of technology that are often used in both face-to-face and virtual interactions between the teacher and student. 

Synchronous vs. Asynchronous 

Before you review the diagram, you need to know the difference between synchronous  and asynchronous learning. Synchronous learning is when the teacher and students participate in learning activities at the same time. Asynchronous learning is when students and teachers are learning the same material but at different times.

Definitions:

Digital Learning is any instructional practice that effectively uses technology to strengthen a student’s learning experience. It emphasizes high-quality instruction and provides access to challenging content, feedback through formative assessment, opportunities for learning anytime and anywhere, and individualized instruction. It is important to note that digital learning may be used in all of the other models except courseware. (Source: Digital Learning Day)

Courseware refers to any instructional software that is delivered on a computer. This is typically used to describe a self-contained course. A student receives all of their instruction via the computer and the software application. There is little to no personal interaction with a teacher. This could be done within the school building or at home. (Source: The Learning Coach) 

Blended Learning is an instructional approach that includes a combination of online and in-person learning activities which provide some element of student control over the time, place, path, and/or pace of their learning. At least some of the instruction is supervised in a brick-and-mortar location away from home. (Source: The Learning Coach, Raise Your Hand Texas, The Christensen Institute, and the Texas Education Code)

Flipped Learning is when students are introduced to the learning material before they come to class through video lectures, readings, or labs. Classroom time is used to deepen understanding through discussion with peers and problem-solving activities facilitated by the teacher. (Source: Advanced HE and Project Tomorrow)

Distance Learning occurs when students and their instructors are in two different locations. It usually involves a digital device and the internet. The learning can be synchronous or asynchronous. The following are types of distance learning: 

  • Online/Virtual Learning refers to a digital learning environment that takes place over the internet rather than a physical classroom. The teacher and student are not physically in the same location. The instruction delivery is primarily asynchronous, but could include some synchronous instruction. Courses provided by the TxVSN are an example of online or virtual learning. (Source: The Learning Coach)
  • Remote or At-Home Learning is a new term that describes distance learning, but has been closely associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Spring of 2020, this term described a school district’s attempt to help their students remain connected and engaged with the content while working from their homes. In a remote learning setting, a student receives instruction through online learning and/or via paper packets that are distributed to the students. People are now making a distinction between what transpired in the Spring of 2020 (Emergency Remote Learning) and what districts are preparing to offer their students in the 2020-2021 school year. Remote Learning is now being used to describe a class that intends to meet face-to-face in a traditional format, but may be transitioned (or started) online due to unforeseen circumstances. The difference between now and the Spring, is that districts have more time to prepare curriculum and teaching strategies to assist in this new learning environment. Remote learning is different from virtual or online learning. The latter typically refers to courses intentionally designed from the beginning to be delivered online. It was never intended for these courses to ever meet in-person, and students were never intended to work on these assignments in the same space. .

Update: This paragraph was updated on July 10, 2020 to reflect the changing nature of the term remote learning.

In Conclusion

These are not the only terms that have been used to describe the use of technology in schools. However they are the most popular terms that are in use today. 

Hopefully this helps clarify the different models of technology use as we grapple with how to plan for the future. Technology has never been and will never be a silver bullet that will fix the education system. However, if used effectively in the hands of a good teacher, it has the potential to assist students acquire a deep understanding of the content while preparing them for future careers that will be dependent on the use of technology.

This blog was updated with additional content on July 10, 2020.

Images:

1 comment
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
computer science credits
AdvocacyCoding/Computer Science

AP and IB Computer Science Credits

by Jennifer Bergland
written by Jennifer Bergland

As districts are creating their course selection sheets for their secondary students, some questions surrounding the actions by the State Board of Education are circulating among districts. At the center of the conversation is the fact that completion of AP Computer Science A now receives two credits. Some districts are interpreting this to mean that AP CS A must be scheduled for a two-hour block instead of the traditional one hour, while others are viewing this as optional. Which is it?

Background

For years, AP Computer Science A counted as an elective or as a math credit. If the student needed an advanced math credit, they could use AP CS A to satisfy this requirement. If they already had all of their required math credits, then it would count as an elective.

 In 2016, as a result of HB 5 passed in the 83rd Texas Legislative session, the SBOE approved three computer science courses to satisfy the languages other than English credit. These courses were:

  • Computer Science I
  • Computer Science II
  • Computer Science III

The board did not include AP Computer Science A because it had already been designated as a math or an elective credit. This inhibited some students from taking advantage of the provision in HB 5 that allowed students to substitute two computer programming courses for their LOTE credits. Many districts did not offer Computer Science II. Instead they offered CS I and AP CS A as the second course. This meant that students who did not want to take an AP course, but were enrolled in districts that only offered AP CS A as the second course in the sequence, were not able to substitute two computer programming courses for their LOTE credits as specified in HB 5.

In April of 2018, the SBOE expanded the list of courses that could count as a computer programming language that would meet the languages other than English requirement. The rule went into effect on June 2018. The courses that satisfy this option are:

  • Computer Science I
  • Computer Science II
  • Computer Science III
  • AP Computer Science Principles
  • AP Computer Science A
  • International Baccalaureate Computer Science Standard Level
  • International Baccalaureate Computer Science Higher Level
Photo by Aristo Rinjuang on Unsplash

In addition, the SBOE made some changes that affected the IB and AP computer science courses. Beginning with the 2018-2019 academic school year, students shall be awarded two credits for the successful completion of AP CS A and two credits for the completion of IB Computer Science Higher Level. The board also adopted a rule that a district shall allow a student who successfully completes AP Computer Science A or IB Computer Science High Level to satisfy both one advanced math requirement and one language other than English requirement (TAC 74.11(k)). This rule when into effect on August 27, 2018.

PEIMS

On August 1, 2018 TEA posted the following PEIMS numbers for these courses. Note that for each course there are two PEIMS numbers:

Implementation of These Computer Science Credits

According to the SBOE rules, districts do not have an option as to whether they give one or two credits for these two courses. However, they do have the option to how much time is necessary to learn the standards. The education code stipulates that districts are required to provide sufficient time for teachers to teach and for students to learn the content of a course. This is a local decision. If your students were able to master the standards in one period a day in prior years, there is no need to increase the seat time.

lt is important to note the reason the SBOE decided to provide two credits for AP CS. It now counts for both an advanced math credit and a LOTE credit. When the SBOE was deliberating this issue, the rationale they used for making this change, pivoted on this question: If a course had enough content to count as a math credit or a LOTE credit, then shouldn’t a student be given both. It is one course that satisfies both an advanced math AND a LOTE credit. If a student does not need one or both of these graduation requirements, then AP CS A counts as two elective credits.

If you or your district has any questions, contact the Curriculum Standards and Student Support Division of the Texas Education Agency at curriculum@tea.texas.gov.

Photo of computer screen with code by Sai Kiran Anagani on Unsplash

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Legislature
AdvocacyCoding/Computer ScienceCTO/CIOCybersecurityDigital LiteracyProfessional LearningSTEM/STEAMTechnology Applications

86th Texas Legislature Wrap-Up

by Jennifer Bergland
written by Jennifer Bergland

All good things must come to an end, but only someone who loves politics would consider the legislative process a good thing. I’m one of those people. I love every minute of it, even the ones that go past midnight! Looking back over the past four months, I am happy to report that TCEA was able to move our vision of education forward through legislation and have some promising opportunities to help shape the future of Texas schools. I have created a 2019 Bill Analysis document that include the specifics about the bills that will impact digital education, but below is a quick summary of the more important bills.

Computer Science and Coding

LegislatureWe had some huge wins in the area of computer science and computational thinking this session. Our six-year goal of providing weighted funding for the 9-12 Technology Application courses has finally been achieved. In HB 3, the school finance legislation, the weighted funding for CTE was changed from grades nine through twelve to grades seven through twelve. In addition, the bill specified that CTE courses and programs include Technology Application courses. This means that Technology Application courses from grades seven through twelve will receive the same weighted funding as CTE courses, which is 1.35 (instead of the normal 1).  HB 963 requires the SBOE to consolidate the 9-12 Technology Application courses with similar courses found in the CTE curriculum. The goal is to eliminate duplicates and identify the purpose of each of the courses. Finally, HB 2984 requires the SBOE to update the K-8 Technology Application standards to ensure that they include coding, computer programming, computational thinking, and cybersecurity. It also establishes a committee to create a strategic plan for K-12 CS education to increase computer science instruction and participation in public schools.

Broadband

LegislatureThere are two pieces of legislation that are going to impact educational broadband. The first is HB 1960 which creates a Governor’s Broadband Council that will advise the governor on issues related to broadband access to unserved areas. This is progress, but not as much as we hoped for. There are few, if any, areas of Texas that are unserved. The original bill included underserved areas, but heavy lobbying by the large telecommunication companies eliminated that language from the bill. However, we consider this progress because we finally have some entity at the state level that will look at the state’s needs for broadband from a strategic perspective. For too long, all state entities have tried to provide affordable, scalable broadband for their own purposes when it would be much more cost efficient to survey the needs across agencies and entities and design a plan to meet all the needs. HB 1960 at least establishes a council that could do this in the future, if given the authority.

The second bill that may help with broadband is HB 3906. This is an assessment bill that requires online testing by 2022-2023. The bill requires TEA to evaluate the availability of Internet access for each school district and identify changes to state law or policy that are necessary to improve the availability of Internet access. This may open a door for more aggressive action in parts of the state that are “served” but are underserved.

Digital Learning

HB 3 established a Blended Learning Grant program and then funded it at $6 million a year. TEA’s Math Innovation Zones are how the agency is fulfilling this requirement. It is good to know that the agency has funding to continue these types of grants.

Legislature

I have already mentioned that HB 3906 requires TEA and the SBOE to implement online testing by 2022-2023. Before this can happen TEA and the SBOE must devise an implementation plan that is approved by the legislature. The planning for this type of implementation will require heavy district input, which will largely come from their technology departments. This has the potential to finally focus some much needed light on what the state must do in order ensure that all students have access to technology, not just for assessment, but for learning throughout the year. In order for students to be successful on an online assessment, they must first be technically proficient and familiar with the type of device they will be using when taking the assessment. This translates to more access to digital tools for all students.

Funding

HB 1 is the budget bill for the 2020-2021 biennium. Listed below are some of the appropriations that were made that will impact digital education:

  • Technology and Instructional Materials Allotment – $1,101,430,204
  • OER curation – $20,000,000
  • Blended learning teacher training – $2,000,000
  • Blended learning grants – $12,000,000
  • TxVSN administration – $800,000

HB 396 allows districts to use their TIMA on software that will help manage instructional resources, including the usage and effectiveness of digital materials. HB 4611 stipulates that 50% of the funds that the Texas General Land Office sends to the legislature for education must be appropriated to the TIMA. If this had been in place this biennium, there would have been $3 million more placed in the TIMA. In addition, the budget stipulates that the SBOE should restrict instructional material proclamations to 75% of the TIMA and should consider school district’s technology needs when determining the size of the percentage of the Permanent School Fund sent to the legislature. 50% of this distribution goes into the TIMA. In translation, this means the SBOE should be sending the legislature enough money from the PSF to fund both the instructional material needs of school districts and also their technology needs.

Cybersecurity

SB 820 requires each school district to establish a cybersecurity policy that determines the cybersecurity risks to the district and a plan to mitigate those risks. The district will also be required to designate a cybersecurity officer who will oversee the policy. In addition, the district will be required to report to TEA any cyber attack that breaches the system security and notify the parents of the students whose information has been compromised.

Professional Development

LegislatureThere are several opportunities in the bills mentioned above that will provide professional development in digital learning. The Blended Learning Grants are largely designed to provide professional development for educators in blended learning, not to mention the funding provided to UTeach to continue to provide this type of training to Texas teachers. Also, this is a good chance to remind districts that the TIMA may be used to provide professional development on the use of technology. In addition to these bills, the legislature passed HB 2424 that requires the SBEC to establish rules to create microcredentials in fields of study related to an educator certification class. This was one of TCEA’s legislative priorities, so we are excited to see this bill pass.

What’s Next

The legislative session has come to an end, but  the hardest work is ahead of us. Enacting legislation is the first step in changing things. Now we begin the process of working with the different agencies and entities to ensure they are enacted well. Stay tuned for more blogs about many of these legislative initiatives and how you can provide input.

Credits

Photo of the computer code taken by Sai Kiran Anagani on Unsplash. Photo of cables taken by Jordan Harrison on Unsplash. Photo of teacher interacting with students taken by Mimi Thian on Unsplash Photo of teachers taken by Kylie Haulk on Unsplash.

0 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
time and money
AdvocacyCoding/Computer ScienceFundingProfessional LearningRobotics

TCEA Saves You Time and Money

by Chance McKee
written by Chance McKee

Every time I speak with TCEA members throughout the state, I ask “What are the biggest challenges you face in your professional life?” Every time, the answer is “I need more time and I need more money. How can TCEA help me with that?”

Boy, do I have answers for you! I’ve outlined below a few ways TCEA helps provide members with the gift of both time and money, all while helping you accelerate student achievement through the use of technology.

Saving You Time

  • TopSchoolJobs – This is a member benefit that saves you time by making the search for your next role in education a breeze. Additionally, you receive a free resume review when you create a profile!
  • Free CPE Credit – Stop wasting time hunting down professional development. TCEA  has all your PD needs covered through free webinars, which can also be found in the TCEA Community. These typically provide .5 – 1 CPE credit per webinar.
  • TechNotes Blog – Looking for a specific resource and need to find it fast? Keyword search the TCEA blog for immediate results on whatever ed tech topic you desire. This content-rich resource is a great way to track down resources on-demand.
  • TCEA’s Student Contests – Robotics, Computer Science, or 3D Design – these help save you time by providing you with unique activities for your students to teach them problem solving and critical thinking skills in a fun STEAM environment. Register today for TCEA’s 3D Design Contest!

Saving You Money

  • Commonbond Partnership – New member benefit alert! TCEA has partnered with CommonBond, a leading student lender, to bring you loan refinancing to tackle your student debt. In addition to this benefit being absolutely free, all TCEA members, family, and friends get a $200 cash bonus when they refinance with CommonBond. Not just saving you money, but making you money. That’s value.
  • SketchUp Pro License ($495 value) – You read that right. TCEA has been granted the exclusive rights in the state of Texas to provide free licenses of SketchUp Pro to all K-12 public school educators and students for school-owned computers. The 3D modeling software is normally $495 per license and is easy and intuitive, allowing anyone to model in 3D quickly and accurately. Use it for your students to participate in our 3D Design Contest!
  • Learning.com’s 8th Grade Technology Literacy Assessment – Through a partnership with Learning.com, TCEA offers all Texas districts a technology literacy assessment for eighth grade students at no cost to the district. The assessment includes a blend of interactive, performance-based questions and multiple-choice, knowledge-based questions to measure and report technology literacy and skills for middle school students. This provides districts with the data they need to understand how well students grasp critical 21st century skills. It is based on the Technology Application TEKS (TA-TEKS).
  • TCEA Certifications – Now, admittedly these cost money up front. But if you want to make more money in your future, professionally develop yourself by adding one of these certifications to your resume. These are a great way to gain expertise in a structured environment with guidance to help you become a master in that particular role.

Both Time and Money

  • TCEA’s empowerED program – Saves you time and money because:
    • It’s dirt-cheap professional development (starts as low as $39/enrolled educator).
    • A majority of your campus or district administrators and educators will be enrolled, keeping you all on the same page and working as one cohesive unit to accelerate student learning through the use of technology. This makes for a more efficient teaching and learning experience campus- or district-wide (which will save you time over the long term).
  • Ed Tech Day at the Capitol – The only real way you will see any sort of institutional change is by attending this event to educate your legislators (who dictate to your profession) on exactly what you need to be successful in the classroom. If only 15 people show up, they won’t take notice. If 1,500 people show up, maybe they will. Join us to affect real, lasting change.

Hopefully, this better explains how TCEA provide members with the gifts of time and money. The content and resources we offer are tailored and structured within a professional environment where you can network with others, grow your PLN, advance your own career, and lobby your legislators to make real change, all without expending too much time or money to do so, which means you can focus on what you do best: accelerating learning for your students.

Learn more about all that TCEA has to offer you. 

Featured Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Ed Tech Day at the Capitol
AdvocacyCTO/CIOLeadership

Ed Tech Day at the Capitol Is March 5th!

by Jennifer Bergland
written by Jennifer Bergland

TCEA’s Ed Tech Day at the Capitol is one of my favorite days of the year. This is when excited educators come to the Texas Capitol to educate their legislators on the need for technology in their schools and districts. We are hosting our members at the Capitol on March 5, 2019 and you won’t want to miss it!

Being around educators who are passionate about their craft is one of the reasons this day is so special to me. I spent thirty-two years helping educate students, and the one thing I miss the most since coming to TCEA, is being around educators on a daily basis. I get a chance to do this from time to time when I go out to districts to train on the use of technology, but having them join me at one of my favorite places, the Texas Capitol, is the best!  

First Timers Welcome

For many, this is their first time to come to the Capitol to meet with their legislator, so naturally there is some apprehension that needs to be overcome. We do this by making sure the participants are fully prepared to meet with their legislators.

Preparation

The day begins with a two-hour briefing on some of the issues we want discussed in the scheduled meetings. I also want to make sure the participants feel confident with the ins and outs on how to conduct these types of meetings. We do this by having a group of staff members from legislator’s offices discuss what to expect and how to navigate this type of meeting. I promise that, by the end of the two-hour training, everyone will be prepared to advocate for the things they are passionate about! Most people who attend the Ed Tech Day at the Capitol have so much fun in their two scheduled meetings, they ask if I can send them to more offices!

Senate and House Chambers

Capitol

In addition to meeting with legislators and/or their staff members, the attendees will also get a chance to visit the House and Senate Chamber. One or both will celebrate TCEA’s presence at the Capitol by voting on and reading a proclamation in the participant’s honor. This provides great memories and also some fabulous photos for social media posts.

Event Details

We have arranged for a special price at the Holiday Inn Austin Midtown for March 4th. The cost of the hotel room includes the breakfast and a shuttle to and from the Capitol. The cost for the event is only $20 for members of TCEA. The cost for  TEC-SIG members is only $10.00 because TEC-SIG is helping sponsor the event and is picking up half of the cost for their members. The cost for those who are not members of TCEA is $69. This includes lunch and a complimentary membership to TCEA.

Registration

You can register for the event here. See you in March!

 

Photos taken by Spencer Selvidge.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
legislative priorities
AdvocacyCTO/CIOLeadership

TCEA Board Sets Legislative Priorities

by Jennifer Bergland
written by Jennifer Bergland

Every two years, the TCEA Board of Directors adopts their legislative priorities. In order to arrive at these priorities, they survey the members, look at relevant research, and review what other states are doing. These priorities are designed to help school districts provide a more personalized education for their students by enabling teachers to customize the content, timing, location, and delivery of instruction that best meets each student’s instructional needs. This goal has been a laudable goal of educators for years, but the ability to differentiate instruction for each student has been difficult to achieve. Technology has advanced to the point where this is now possible.

Every industry and economic enterprise in the world has used technology to completely transform the way they conduct business. The TCEA board’s priorities address six core areas we feel can assist school districts to leverage technology in the same way.

An overview of the recommended strategies are listed below. You can find a detailed list of the board’s priorities on the TCEA website.

Leadership and Planning

Leadership is critical to enacting a change of this magnitude. This will require a well-thought-out plan that includes student outcomes, professional learning, curriculum and instructional materials, digital devices, broadband, and policies that enable a district to allow students to move at their own pace.

Recommendations:

  • Create a Digital Learning Task Force that will help implement the Long-Range Plan for Technology.
  • Establish a grant program to enable districts to reach the goals in the state’s LRPT.

Professional Learning

priorities In order to accomplish the goals established in our priorities, it  is imperative that teachers have a supportive environment in which to adapt their teaching strategies to take advantage of empowering technologies. Teachers recognize the benefits of the use of technology, but don’t always know how and when to use the different technologies that are available. This is why TCEA believes strongly that teachers need ongoing, job-embedded professional learning opportunities that empower them to use appropriate

technology tools to meet various educational needs.

Recommendations:

  • Support educators with ongoing, job-embedded professional development on the use of technology to enhance instruction.
  • Ensure that teachers who receive micro-credentials for skills that meet the demands of the digital classroom are recognized as continuing professional education requirements by SBEC.

Technology and Instructional Materials Allotment

In 2011, the state legislature created an allotment that provides funding for both instructional materials and technology. This dual purpose fund was designed to help districts transition to an increased use of digital instructional materials. Since the inception of the TIMA, only 13 percent of the allotment has been used to purchase technology (TIMA Expenditure Report). This has made It difficult for districts to initiate and sustain broad-based technology implementations. TCEA is firmly supportive of local-control, which is why our approach has been to provide districts with more information about available instructional materials, support the use of Open Education Resources, and work with the SBOE in limiting the size of the instructional materials proclamations.

Recommendations:

  • Provide districts with more guidance on the merits of Open Education Resources and continue to allocate funding for OER aligned to state curriculum standards.
  • Track a district’s expenditures on technology/digital content and tools to identify trends.
  • The SBOE should evaluate a school district’s needs for instructional content and technology and ensure that any proclamation not exceed 75 percent of the TIMA.

priorities

Technology Proficiency

TCEA was founded in 1980 by teachers who were interested in teaching students how to use a computer. Equipping students with the necessary skills to function in the e-economy is central to our mission. This is why we are alarmed that Texas eighth grader’s technology proficiency has declined by ten percent between 2013-2018 (source: Learning.com Texas – TCEA 8th Grade TA-TEKS Assessment).

There is a false belief that today’s students know how to use technology because they are able to connect with their peers via Snap Chat and Instagram. Students may know how to take a pic and send it to their friends, but may not be able to leverage technology to help them analyze and evaluate information in order to create and produce something new. TCEA believes that all Texas students should have computational thinking skills that will enable them to be both users and creators of computing technology.

Recommendations

  • Move the high school Technology Application courses into the CTE curriculum, aligning and removing similar courses.
  • Update the K-8 Technology TEKS to include computational thinking and coding skills.
  • Increase the number of students taking a course that exposes them to computer science or computer programming.
  • Provide additional funding for professional development to increase the number of teachers who can teach computer science courses.

Broadband

Texas has come a long way in meeting the FCC’s minimum goal of 100 kbs per student and access to fiber. The average cost of broadband has also dropped in recent years. However, we have not fully reached the goal of having scalable and affordable broadband for all students both at school and home. Students in districts without adequate broadband capacity or who have limited access to digital devices and tools are at a distinct disadvantage today. Not only do they have fewer options in terms of access to content, they are unable to develop the technical skills associated with navigating the internet and creating knowledge online.

Recommendations

  • Designate a state entity that will identify existing barriers to providing scalable broadband access both at school and in students’ homes and administer a plan to address these barriers.
  • Provide funding for the state E-rate match and for WiFi access within school classrooms.
  • Maximize the Technology Lending Grants in order to assist with home access.

Personalized Learning 

priorities Every student has distinct learning needs, interests, and aspirations. Up until recently, it was extremely difficult to tailor the instructional strategies to meet each student’s needs. Technology can be an enabler of this type of educational model. It allows students to guide their inquiry as they decide how they will interact with the content, including the time and location. This type of learning requires a major shift in the delivery of instruction and involves teacher professional learning, a robust technical infrastructure, the selection of appropriate content, and strong leaders who know how to manage this type of change. Many of the strategies listed above support the goal of personalized learning; however, there are a few that have not yet been addressed.

Recommendations

  • Allow students to receive credit based on the mastery of the content, not seat time.
  • Provide additional funding for blended learning initiatives such as the Math Innovation Zone.
  • Increase the number of students taking TxVSN courses.

Conclusion

The legislative priorities are designed to give TCEA staff guidance on what legislation the association should pursue. If you are interested in finding out more and you are a member, make sure you join the Advocacy group in our social community. If you aren’t a member, consider joining so that you can get involved and help advocate for our teachers and students.

Credits

Photos of the Texas Capitol by Spencer Selvidge

Computer code photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Student smiling photo by Oluwakemi Solaja on Unsplash

2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
SBOE
AdvocacyCoding/Computer ScienceCTO/CIO

Texas SBOE Moves CS Policy Forward

by Jennifer Bergland
written by Jennifer Bergland

Texas teachers and districts have been asking for more options for students who want to take computer science courses, as well as asking the state to establish some interoperability standards for digital instructional materials. The Texas State Board of Education responded to these requests at their April 2018 board meeting.

Substitute Computer Programming for LOTE

sboe

Donna Bahorich, SBOE Board Chair, Champion of CS.

In 2013, the Texas Legislature enacted HB 5 which provided a new graduation requirement option of substituting two credits in computer programming languages for two Language Other Than English (LOTE) credits. In January 2014, the SBOE designated Computer Science I, II, and III as the courses that could satisfy this new option. At the April board meeting, the SBOE broadened this list to include AP Computer Science Principles, AP Computer Science A, IB Computer Science Standard Level, and IB Computer Science Higher Level (19 TAC, Subchapter 74.12, b, 5, ii). In addition, the board approved a provision that allows a student who successfully completes AP Computer Science A or IB Computer Science Higher Level to satisfy both one advanced mathematics requirement AND a LOTE requirement for graduation (19 TAC, Subchapter 74.11, k). The student would not earn two credits, but could use one of these two computer science courses to satisfy two graduation requirements.

SBOEThese changes will give more options to districts as they decide which courses they can staff. Many districts offer Computer Science I, Computer Science II, and AP Computer Science A. However, because many districts only have one teacher who is certified to teach computer science courses, some districts must choose whether to offer Computer Science II or AP Computer Science. Since AP CS was not on the list of courses that a student could take to satisfy the LOTE graduation requirements, students at these schools were precluded from substituting a computer programming course for a LOTE graduation requirement. This change will eliminate that barrier.

Hal Speed, the past-president of TA/CS-SIG (Technology Applications/Computer Science Special Interest Group), advocated on behalf of TCEA to make this change. It has taken several years to gather the necessary support for it. However, his hard work has resulted in additional options for students. This is an excellent example of the difference one  individual can have in changing policy.

Recommended Prerequisites for AP CS

In addition to these changes, the SBOE changed the recommended prerequisites for AP Computer Science A from Computer Science I and Algebra II to only recommending Algebra I. The board enacted these changes upon the advice of the College Board (19 TAC, Subchapter 126.62, a).

Interoperability Standards

The SBOE also took some positive steps toward adopting interoperability standards for digital products. TEA has worked with school districts to create standards for machine-readable TEKS. The board adopted rules on April 13 that will require companies that submit digital instructional materials for Proclamation 2020 to use these new standards. This will make it much easier for districts to import the TEKS into their LMS. Over time, the TEA-created machine-readable TEKS will also be incorporated into digital products purchased by the district, which again will aid a district’s implementation of instructional materials.

sboeIn addition, the SBOE is requiring publishers who submit digital instructional materials for Proclamation 2019 to complete The Report on Interoperability and Ease of Use. This report will provide the SBOE with valuable information about what standards the different companies are using, which will help them decide which standards are the most common. This will aid in deciding which interoperability standards they should adopt and require for future proclamations. This has been a huge headache for districts. They have invested countless hours uploading and downloading student information. Each company uses different file formats for inserting and changing student data. Therefore, when students enroll or leave a district, someone has to upload and download many different files just to ensure that the date is accurate. Districts have been clamoring for this type of action for several years. The state is one step closer to adopting interoperability standards, which, I’m sure, will be greeted with much applause.

TCEA applauds the Board on the changes they made at the April meeting. The elimination of these barriers will enable districts to offer students more opportunities, both in the field of computer science, but also in the ease of use of digital materials.

Photo of man on the floor typing on a computer taken by Alex Kotliarskyi on Unsplash. Photo of two laptops on table taken by Marten Bjork on Unsplash.

 

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
funding
AdvocacyCTO/CIOFundingProfessional Learning

Technology Funding Increased in ESSA Budget

by Jennifer Bergland
written by Jennifer Bergland

Great news! On March 22, 2018, President Trump signed the 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill which included $1.1 billion for the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants which are outlined in Title IV, part A of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Compared to the 2017 budget, this is an increase of $700 million. Congress also included $2.1 billion in Title II, Part A which districts can use for professional development for their teachers, including training on the effective use of technology through TCEA and other providers. Advocates feel this is a huge win because the president’s original budget cut both Title IV, Part A and Title II, Part A completely out of the budget

Title IV, Part A Grant Funding

Title IV, Part A grants are called block grants because states and districts do not have to compete for the funds. They have to turn in an application, but all districts who comply with the regulations will receive the funding. Districts do not apply directly to the Department of Education. The funding flows to the states and they then disburse the funds to the individual districts. ESSA allows the state agency to keep five percent of their state’s allocation for state initiatives related to the goals of the program.

Title IV, Part A grants are to be used to provide programs in three prescribed areas. Districts are required to spend 20% of their funds on initiatives that will provide well-rounded educational opportunities and 20% of their funds on efforts to ensure that their students are safe and healthy. Districts must also use part of their Title IV funds on activities to support the effective use of technology. In fact, if they so choose, they can spend up to 60% of their funding on these types of activities. However, there is a provision that limits a district to spend only 15% of their funding for the purchase of technology infrastructure. This includes software applications and technology devices.

 

This means that districts will have more money next year to send their staff to outstanding technology learning events such as the Elementary Technology Conference, the Innovative Learning Strategies Conference, and the 2019 TCEA Convention & Exposition. Or use those same funds to bring in TCEA professional development providers to your district for a customized learning experience for your staff.

Allowable Expenditures 

ESSA

  • Provide educators with professional learning tools, devices, content, and resources to:
    • Personalize learning to improve student academic achievement;
    • Discover, adapt, and share relevant high-quality educational resources;
    • Use technology effectively in the classroom, including by administering computer-based assessments and blended learning strategies; and
    • Implement and support school- and district-wide approaches for using technology to inform instruction, support teacher collaboration, and personalize learning.
  • Build technological capacity and infrastructure, which may include:
    • Procuring content and ensuring content quality; and
    • Purchasing devices, equipment, and software applications in order to address readiness shortfalls.
  • Develop or use effective or innovative strategies for the delivery of specialized or rigorous academic courses and curricula through the use of technology, including digital learning technologies and assistive technology.
  • Carry out blended learning projects, which may include:
    • Planning activities which include:
      • The development of new instructional models (including blended learning technology software and platforms),
      • The purchase of digital instructional resources,
      • Initial professional development activities, and
      • One-time information technology purchases.
    • Ongoing professional development for teachers, principals, other school leaders, or other personnel involved in the project that is designed to support the implementation and academic success of the project.
  • Provide professional development in the use of technology (which may be provided through partnerships with outside organizations) to enable teachers and instructional leaders to increase student achievement in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, including computer science.
  • Provide students in rural, remote, and underserved areas with the resources to take advantage of high-quality digital learning experiences, digital resources, and access to online courses taught by effective educators.

This is great news for school districts. The types of projects that can be accomplished with these funds will be very beneficial to students. I encourage you to review the provisions of Title IV, Part A so that you can engage in conversations with other instructional leaders at your district to determine how these funds can be leveraged to support the effective use of technology.  Look for ways you can provide transformative professional development that equip teachers to use digital technology in a blended learning classroom. (TCEA can help with this!)

Resources for ESSA

Source: Photo by Kari Shea on Unsplash

 

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts