ECOMP 6101: School Profile

Do you know the “numbers” on your school? 

Please prepare a summary School Profile (your own, your children's, your community's; as appropriate)
including basic descriptive and factual information.


School: Middle School of the Kennebunks

Enrollment: 502
6th = 178
7th = 156
8th = 168

Student Body profile
The student population at MSK is mostly Caucasian (approximately 97%). The remaining three percent are made up of representatives from African American, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American heritage. Of the total number of students enrolled, approximately twenty percent have qualified for free/reduced lunch support. The student-to-teacher ratio is estimated at ten-to-one.

Teaching Staff
MSK employs a total of 47 full-time teaching staff, with an additional 82 staff employed in various rolls from Ed. Tech. to Food Services and Maintenance to Special Education personnel.

Test Scores
In looking at test scores from 2012 for the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP), students at MSK scored the following:

• In the area of mathematics, 80 to 85 precent of students in grades 6-8 met the standard.
• In the area of reading, 86 to 89 precent of students in grades 6-8 met the standard.
• In the area of writing, 62 percent of students in grade 8 met the standard. No results were available for students in grades 6 and 7.

In looking at test scores from the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), students at MSK scored the following:

• Students in grades 6/7 made improvements in both those who met the requirements and the number of students who showed growth between 2009-2010 in the area of reading. Students in grade 8 showed a decrease in both meeting requirements and showing improvement.
• In the area of mathematics, students in grade 6/7 showed improvement in their growth between 2009-2010, but showed a decline in the number of students who met their target scores. Students in grade 8 showed improvement in both categories.

Instructional Technology Resources
MSK is equipped with two general purpose computer labs and a third Special Education computer lab; all three are outfitted with Apple iMac computers. Each 6th grade classroom is outfitted with an interactive whiteboard (i.e. SMART Board) including all three computer labs, five special education rooms, and the main library.

Each full-time teacher in grades 7/8 has access to a Apple MacBook via the Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI); teachers in grade six also have MLTI laptops purchased through the state laptop program. The ratio of students to laptops in grades 7/8 is 1-to-1 as a result of the MLTI program. The entire school building is equipped with a WiFi network, which is also provided by the state via the MLTI program. Through a grant, the 6th grade is equipped with two mobile labs in an attempt to bring the entire school closer to a 1-to-1 laptop environment for students across all three grades.

Student computer use at home
It is estimated that about 85 percent of the student population across the district has access to a computer or electronic device at home. This figure is partially inflated due to the presence of the MLTI program in that one of its goals is to provide both students and parents at the middle school level with access to a WiFi-enabled laptop computer capable of accessing the Internet. Students who qualify for the free/reduced lunch program may also qualify for Internet access at a reduced rate through Great Works Internet (GWI). The state program will also provide students with a modem to connect the state laptop to this service.

Why are numbers significant to know and what do yours show?

These numbers are significant because they help paint a picture of the overall population that the school is serving. Student body and staff profiles help to determine what kind of teaching and learning environments are possible and if the current status is even sustainable. Testing numbers can give insight into how effective school instruction and assessment is with respect to student learning and comprehension, although often administrators and/or school boards can add more weight to these numbers than what is appropriate or realistic. Instructional technology numbers can expose inequalities in access across grade levels and schools. For example, when a new elementary school was built in Kennebunk every Kindergarten through third grade classroom was outfitted with an interactive whiteboard. While this was a huge innovation and step forward in technology integration for the students and staff, it created inequity with the elementary school population in Kennebunkport. Hence, the school district spent the next two years devoting budgetary funds to install similar technology until the Kennebunkport school was on par with the new school.

Bibliography

Regional School Unit 21 (2012). March 6, 2012. http://www.rsu21.net

School Digger (2009-12). March 6, 2012. http://www.schooldigger.com/go/ME/schools/1477300800/school.aspx

ZipSkinny (2005). March 6, 2012. http://www.zipskinny.com/index.php?zip=04043

ECOMP 6101: Making Change Follow Up

The intent here is to link the simulation exercise directly to you, and to your experience. Think about the adopter types and the chart on levels of use of innovation (also found under Lab Activities under Making Change Simulation) to reflect on your own experience. BRIEFLY answer the following questions and post your answers on the Discussion board in the designated area. There is a table attached here to also help organize your thinking.

------------------------------------

1. Where were you on levels of use of technology two years ago? 

Two years ago I was two years into my new roll as a technology integrator at the middle school and witnessing the decline and eventual demise of our 21st Century Classroom program due to a lack of funding. I was overseeing the deployment of “Round III” of the MLTI 1-to-1 laptop program and continuing to develop my computer literacy course with little to no input or feedback from the administration with respect to curriculum.

Upon reflection, I find that my level of technology use leapfrogs all over the place, depending on which aspect of my job I focus on. I was in the mechanical stage with respect to the 21st C.C. program due to the decline in support from the administration and growing discontent and lack of interest from teachers in the program. If I look at the MLTI program, I think I had a foot in the refinement level as I was overseeing the initial deployment of new technologies and I wanted the transition to be smooth and successful for both students and staff. I wanted them to know what new tools they were going to have at their fingertips and how to successfully integrate them into their teaching and learning. Upon reflecting on my teaching through my computer literacy course, I think I was finally moving into the integration level as I wanted to make deliberate connections between the content I was teaching and the projects students were being asked to create in their other classes. 

2. Where on this scheme are you now? 

Today, while they have changed my job title from integrator to coordinator, I feel that I have been able to maintain a strong presence in the refinement and integration levels. From time-to-time I am able to get a foot (perhaps only a toe) into the renewal stage as I try to find alternatives to achieving goals by way of integrating new technologies. However, each time a new technology comes along I revert back to the orientation level in order to define what this new innovation is, how it could be integrated, and where could I coordinate its introduction into the classroom.

Where on the chart do you see yourself when you finish your degree program?

I don’t see myself really changing where I am when I finish this degree program. I think by the very nature of being an integrator/coordinator of technology, you have to have the flexibility to travel up and down the levels in order to be successful. However, my hope is that in the future I will be able to motivate students and staff to make these treks with me and collaborate at each level, thereby developing concrete and worthwhile strategies for technology integration and innovation.

ECOMP 6101: Making Change-The Game

Simulation Game: Making Change
Simulates organizational change in educational setting - training exercise not technology per se but the process of getting colleagues to do something differently. 


The simulation is based on real findings in educational research and the situation is based on real people.


You will work as a team, assuming the role of a change committee. Your objective is to do various activities to influence people who are represented on the game-board. 


The game-board represents a school district – on one axis are the names of people you want to exert influence on (the players) and across the top of the board are the phases people go thru adopting any new practice - or levels of use the players move through.

The winning team and their game-board :-)

ECOMP 6101: Book Reflection

Taking Charge of Change - Chapter 5
[Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling, L., & Hall, G. E. (2006). Taking charge of change. Austin: SEDL.]

The Role of Effective Change Facilitators

More PowerPoint presentations from Nick Shuman

ECOMP 6106: Curriculum Unit Website

What is the purpose for creating a teaching website?

Your website should be designed to provide you and others (i.e. parents and/or students, other teachers, administrators, and colleagues with whom you collaborate) with access to information and documents that are part of the unit you will be designing during this course. Websites provide easy access to materials, hyperlinks, online resources, and assessment documents. Your website should become a compendium of information and resources for your curriculum unit. Plan your website to make use of the power of the Internet to assist with the storage, retrieval, and communication of information and documents.

Teaching Website: Internet Safety
Table of Contents:

• Introduction
• Unit Goals
• Unit Questions
• Assessment Plan
• Unit Resources
• Instructional Procedures
• Introduction
• Cyberbullying
• Digital Footprint
• Internet Credibility
• Phishing
• Viruses
• Conclusion
• Technology Integration
• Differentiated Instruction
• Communication

ECOMP 6106: Working with Spreadsheets

Earthquake Research and Inquiry-Based Learning
You will be using the EarthBrowser software to gather and analyze data about earthquakes. Then you will create a spreadsheet and graphs from your data.

Because my students do not have access to Microsoft Excel but rather Apple’s equivalent Numbers, I thought it would be prudent to attempt the assignment using the same software students would use. I was able to reproduce almost all aspects of the Jing videos on Excel in Numbers. However, Numbers did seem to be lacking in some of its manipulation options, specifically with angling the earthquake location labels. As a result, I was pretty much locked in to a horizontal bar chart as my only option if I wanted all of the information to be displayed properly. Otherwise, I find I like the ease of Numbers and the sleekness of the finished products.

ECOMP 6106: Working with Databases

InspireData and Roller Coasters
Using the Roller Coasters database that comes with InspireData explore and become familiar with a variety of the software's features. Your job is to come up with ONE question, TWO interesting relationships, and SOME thoughts or explanations for the relationships. Create four different plots of your data and make sure your plots clearly represent your data.


Question: What is the relationship in top speed when comparing steel to wood coasters?

Interesting Relationship #1:  While the two fastest roller coasters were the only two steel-launched coasters in the database, the slowest coaster was also a steel structure (the Cobra).

Interesting Relationship #2:  Besides the slowest and the fastest coaster categories, the rest of the roller coasters surveyed fall in the middle and find themselves in three separate but consolidated groups: the first a combo of wood and steel structures, the second a grouping of four wooden coasters, and the final set an all-steel grouping.

Explanations: 

• It would seem that, when it comes to top speed, steel coasters that have the assistance of being launched are by far superior. While the database does not explain what the difference between steel and steel-launched coasters is, I would theorize that it has something to do with inertia.
• Perhaps the clustering outlined in relationship #2 has something to do with the geographical location of the coasters? Perhaps it may have something to do with where the roller coasters were built and the environmental conditions they must constantly deal with.? However, when the speed variable is compared to the location variable the resulting graph does not appear to support this hypothesis.