MLTI Thinktank notes Transcribed - June 2019

Clarifying Questions:

  • How did choice of device become political?
    • How can this be undone?
  • MLTI Responsibilities or handbook
  • Where did SEED go?
  • How to leverage various learning avenues?
    • Tie to other state initiatives.
  • Can MLTI/LTT assist with device agnostic professional development?
  • How do we define equity?
  • How will DOE parcel or address device management to school structure?
  • Where is money coming from?
    • MLTI versus EPS money?
  • What is eligible for grant funds?
    • Grants are only available
  • Will SOM assume WIFI support in the future?
    •  Or will this become a local cost?
  • What aspect of current MLTI will be non-negotiable?
  • What will “bridge year” look like?

Values:

  • Equity: Same for all students
  • Early Professional Learning:  SEED [spreading educator to educator development]
    • Driven by teachers
    • Projects in units everyone can adopt
      • Teaching and learning focus
  • Teaching and learning focus (not about device)
  • Promotes voice and choice for all students
  • Teach enhances T+L?
    • need belief from teachers
  • DOE open to meeting with groups such as METDA or AG team
  • Equality: no grants, let’s coordinate the money into one vehicle. Aev is important
    • One solution for all
    • Singular WIFI: solution (maybe some different options) some flexibility
    • No more individual grades, complete solution for one building
  • Learning resources:
    • PD marriage between curriculum, content, technology
    • Infrastructure, support, and leave devices off the table
    • K-12 capacity for K-12
    • Facilitate larger services with all contents (data, engine, ess…?)
  • Sustainability:
    • CT and pricing yield to maintain funding
    • Keep it under misc
      • Most powerful way to move money
    • Rebranding of MLTI. Can the DOE pull this off?
  • Leadership buy-in
    • New leaders to attend and participate in MLTI DO
      • Doesn’t require physical presence
      • Partnership with groups to get leaders into training
  • Economic Development
    • Create a reason and capacity for students to….
    • Commitment to the program
    • Device choice
    • Technology support for VAMF
    • Network infrastructure
    • Support from MSLN
    • Flexibility of PL ind teacher to larger groups depending on needs – responsive to your needs
    • Access for all students and staff to technology
    • Devices, WIFI, software, etc at a level playing field
    • Access to PL opportunities: MARTYL (and buddies) summer conference, dig learning lab for all
  • Access to JAMF//management systems to maintain devices and to a repair depot especially for schools without resources for this
  • PL at schools for staff versus traveling to PL apps
  • Level playing field for all
  • Statewide meeting opportunities
  • Web based platforms
  • Commitment to the program
  • Device choice
  • Tech support from VAMF
  • Network infrastructure
  • Support from MSLN
  • Flexibility of PL individual teacher to larger groups depending on needs – response to your needs
  • Strong network of people who want the MLTI program to be successful
    • PD: utilizes Maine teachers relevant to many/any topic
    • Beginning focus on technology in class rather than other options. Teachers used it for many things
    • For leadership/principles and super intendants, vendors, and DOE team makers
      • Support Starr
      • Devices into schools in volume
    • Coordinated CT
      • Logistical project team between state and vendors
      • Pricing
      • Value in MLTI community with common challenges
      • Uniform devices across the state lower and higher end
  • Guarantee for teachers to have “teaon”? available
  • One solution removes barriers and can focus on learning one device
  • State stands between school and vendors
    • Balances between both, helps maintain ed. focus and learning
  • Guiding principles regardless of vendor, helps drive conversation based on education
  • Partnership between sale vendor
  • MLTI aspirational
  • Improvements in att. Rates
  • Drives areas of focus within the project
  • Always a sense of looking forward and being on the cutting edge
  • Trust
    • Trust with the DOE (MLTI team)
    • Clear execution of vision between the whole team (vendors, districts, DOE)
  • Constant communication
  • Visibility and [Lack of] school visits (DOE)
    • Entire team, PD, vendor, education
  • Regional meetings to instruct
    • Admin (superintendent, principle)
    • Teachers, tech leaders and parents. (?)
    • DOE
  • Expectation of local leaderships involvement
  • How do we communicate?
    • Web communication around buying laptops, program us more than buying
  • Choosing out words and town
    • Tone of voice. What is MLTI?
    • Partnership with vendors on communications
    • MLTI as a brand
  • Evaluation
    • Need for this data
    • Bright bytes aren’t the be all end all
  • Strong network of people who want the MLTI program to be successful
  • Commitment to bringing technology and connectivity for all students in Maine
  • Current efforts of reach out/ transparency / from Maine DOE to get feedback
  • Broadband and WIFI connectivity
  • Digital citizenship / 21st century skills / effectivity of 4cs
  • Access to 1-1 devices
  • PC to support for student success / teacher success technology integration to improve student outcomes
  • Device choice
  • Not just about the device
  • Equity – needs in different districts vary and we should be responsive / flexible to those - one size does not fit all
    • Focus on fairness
  • PL addressing individualized needs of teachers / districts – with content and structure
  • More offerings
  • Classroom practice focused / best practice
  • Current / up-to-date
  • Teacher-led
  • Collaboration between teacher and tech director
  • Teachers connect across school districts
  • Connections virtually
  • Funding
  • Equality and access for 7 and 8 grade and begins the conversation for other grades
  • Enable classroom / teachers to stay current
  • Wireless support
  • Offers students and teachers opportunities to expand their classroom beyond the walls of Maine
  • Technology integration with content areas
  • Support for teacher growth with device growth and innovation
  • Shifting mindset
  • Choice in device
  • Whole package that comes with device make it so 1-1 was manageable in a district
  • Everyone having the same device, everyone learned one device / system
  • Bring able to buy out devices at end of 4 years allowed districts to use them for other grade levels
  • Regular updating of devices
  • Access to Apple distinguished educators (?)
  • WIFI in schools
  • Having devices focus the conversation about digital citizenship
  • Access to 1-1 devices for 7 and 8th grade
  • Platform agnostic PL
  • Technology in learning was useful
  • Buying power of the State
  • Equity of high equal quality (everyone gets same quality) devices and services
  • One device allows for uniformity
  • Classroom-based, specific, targeted, (on demand) PL
  • 1-800 for Apple – Direct line, on-demand
  • Participation is achievable by every district
  • Technical support and training for tech people regardless of location
  • Management and solution
  • Local repair depot – time saving / quicker turnaround time
  • Opportunities for input that is valued
  • Partnership with vendor is a benefit for buying power as well as program oversight and quality
  • Network Maine
  • Student equity/access with tools and WIFI
    • Couldn’t do otherwise (655s -K-8)
  • Second à WIFI/network Maine
  • Flexibility to purchase used devices
    • Being able to extend past 4 years, pass it down
  • Professional Development with colleagues: experts (MARTEL, teacher leaders, Apple, ACTEM, PLN)
    • With Teachers tech leaders and curricular labs
    • Conformity = continuity
      • Sharing ideas/practices
  • Planned release time to work with T’s or T’s and T’s
    • Ability to network
    • Common set of tools
  • Money for Subs
  • Central leadership – supported innovation leadership
  • Student Conference
    • Peer work à passion/shared learning
    • Leading the way à seeing potential
  • MLTI summer institute
    • Professional Development/networking
  • Fall/spring regional meetings
    • Collaboration time/problem solving
  • New Devices/refresh of a new cycle à sustainability
  • Sense that Maine was leading the nation
    • Ego boost/reason to be proud
  • Radical change with purpose
  • Impacting kinds à opening new opportunities
  • Tech access is expecting
  • Students can process info in their best modality
  • Equity of access for students everywhere
  • MARTEL and Professional Development Conferences Statewide/regionally
    • Access to this for all regions of the state (summertime most valuable)
  • Robust networking/wireless-incredibly helpful
  • Core of Technology – MLTI set the stage so schools have had a framework to work with
  • Helps in budget convo’s with admin/leadership regarding tech in schools
  • Improving tech and learning/teaching in schools and more effective
  • Infrastructure people/network/immediate feedback/
  • Relationship with Apple: Day-long bootcamp where they come in and teach students
  • Device and accessibility/skill building
  • Apple involves students and student tech conference
    • Real world jobs
  • Access to Maine Virtual Library
  • Networking
  • State commonalities
  • Professional Development
    • Conferences MLTI teacher/leaders (the middle years)
    • Networking/sharing regionally frequent - teacher involved/open
    • Engage admin team
  • Bulk purchasing power/supports solutions
  • Consistent process cross-districts
  • Quality infrastructure WIFI MS
  • MSLN
    • Speed, cost
  • Lil opportunity (ME leads)
  • Apple updates/best practices
    • Privacy plus
    • No need to “reinvent the wheel”
    • Consistent staff (ME specific)
    • MDM solution implementation (current)
  • Accountability at local level
  • Bright bytes
  • Student conferences 

Suggestions:

  • Network/device/management all grades to existing school infrastructure.
  • Guidance/Parameters for minimum implementation/planning to provide equity and lead students to where they need to be
  • Offer teachers understanding of….?
  • Stay mindful of serving big districts and small districts and small districts
    • Prepackaged options
    • Grant options for bigger tech departments
  • Accountability on schools and on part of DOE
  • Bring back Bright Bytes-style data capturing
    • Helps Sea overview
  • Look at SEED model and PD for teachers (ex. Ed camp of school)
    • Ex. Design Thinking
    • Grow relationships with other educators
  • Teacher Lead/ money for incentive
  • Digital Citizenship component
  • Experts at School buildings
  • Money to cover pieces and/or aspects of teacher learning
  • Tie this initiative to other DOE initiatives
  • Way to promote great thins happening at school, celebrate success
  • Spend more time teaching cert. courses (spec. [about] teach in Maine)
  • Back to sustainability model?
  • SAMR Model – evaluate MLTA against this à Still appropriate?
  • ISTE Standards as a model (evaluate student outcomes)
  • OURCOME versus output driven? What are our goals?
  • Change state graduation components for technology with standards around digital world
  • Get students in on the discussion
  • Rebrand MLTI
    • Domain
    • Key principles
    • What is the brand? (revisit this)
    • State tech plan – revisit and maybe build off that. Its still relevant today.
    • Understanding why
  • More about the classroom
    • Not about device, “ride the back”
    • MLTI in conjunction with computer science content
    • Computer science curriculum is evolving, keep an eye on it
    • Student success at college level – prepare them
    • Be prepared for student life in a project-based environment DOE
  • MLTI at DOE
    • Tied to other programs and departments
  • Digital citizenship
    • Learning how to be good digital citizens
    • Digital literacy
  • Leadership and groups
    • Involving everyone at every level
    • Superintendent association
    • Principle association
    • Special education
    • Science boards
    • Curriculum director
    • Invite everyone
    • MLTI connected to other groups outside of schools
      • Creating partnerships with lost of groups
      • Across state and connecting it to the communities
    • Solving problems collaboratively
    • People forget about economic development
    • Creating an innovative workforce
    • Tie teachers together across the state
  • Vision of learning with technology to support it
  • Device agnostic support
  • More access to broadband outside of school and library
  • More PR for program to build more buy-in
  • Develop incentives for companies in Maine who support program for students- through employment?
  • Private partnerships for internships, etc for students
  • More opportunities for sharing between schools
  • Using student growth measures
  • More public/private funding
  • Demonstrate return on investment to outside stakeholders
  • Collect data around acquisition of essential skills for employment
  • Guidance from state around alignment of technology and MLRs
  • Guidance around how to interpret technology to meet MLRs in other content areas
  • Commitment from state around supporting Digital citizenship with PL, resources, etc.
  • Expand program beyond 7 and 8 grades à PK-12
  • Spend less on devices and more on ensuring equity
  • Program evaluation periodically
  • Seek out feedback regularly/ yearly and follow up
  • More and frequent communication from DOE to field
  • Identify most valuable solution with equity
    • Devices
    • Infrastructure
    • Professional development training for IT staff
  • Identify level playing field who provides what
  • Flexibility in deployment and support and choices
    • Ex: Network and WIFI structure
  • Support students as they move from 12th grade
    • Ex: device buyout for seniors
    • Rolling deployment
  • Ensure exploration of ALL platforms available
  • Continue professional development in house / external for both students and staff
  • Continue some form of a student conference
  • Evaluation system to ensure full potential of devices / solution is being leveraged
  • Maintaining the forward movement in technology
  • Collective buy-in from multiple stakeholders
    • METDH
    • ACTEM
    • Maine DPE (?)
    • MPA
    • MSSA…etc
  • Require participation of administration or make a part of other meetings
  • More PL conferences / more offerings / more frequency
  • More coordination (plan together) à PL should be technology and literacy, not necessarily separate.
  • Bring together tech leads to share and collaborate
  • Use local tech experts do research early in policy decision around WIFI expansion
  • Personal WIFI to students without WIFI at home
  • Build capacity at Maine DOE
  • Work to make program more sustainable economically
  • More stakeholders involved in RFP process – unity and scoring
  • A division board – needs to be representative of Maine
  • Should be pk-12
  • Earlier work on digital citizenship requirement
  • Provide support / guidance for digital citizenship
  • More regionalized PL offers (including MLTI conference)
  • More funding
  • More options for MOM solutions
  • Opt-out option
  • Continue conversations / brainstorming about what MLTI could / should look like
  • Options for districts who don’t have capacity
    • Packages (wireless in a box)
  • Mentoring between district TDs
  • Funding flexibility to hire tech coach
  • Using title II and III funding for tech coaching
  • Use Erate to support curriculum
  • Communication and timelines well in advance
  • All PL on occan (?)
  • Stretch device age beyond 4 years
  • Use buying power to help all
  • Collect data annual teacher perception of technology integration
  • Measure data around MLTI 6.R
  • DOE content specialist integrity reach in PL (?)
  • Training for new administrators to establish Buy in
  •  List of qualitative stories about students with tech (?)
  • More local access and control of WIFI for those who want it
  • WIFI should be K-12 solution needed at all levels
  • Leverage buying power of the State for WIFI
  • Evaluating WIFI place in program – how best to serve schools
  • Should have option for those who want/need WIFI but not required for all
  • More open process/transparency in phases
  • Make decisions as quickly as possible – stick to timeline
  • 7-12 (include) staff and students
  • Revisit/update if need be vision and mission
  • Single solution statewide
  • United/grade level solutions
  • Platform agnostic PL
  • PL linked to content areas
  • PL more conceptual and less application specific
  • PL provided by Maine Teachers
  • PL aligned to district priorities/state priorities
  • Grant program to select devices (choice) within set parameters to have baseline/expectations
    • 4-year grant $800-4000 and includes Professional Development
    • Got a State contract to help small schools get price break
    • Find a way to leverage buying power and noted concern about losing choice
  • Tech director/infrastructure training/support/Professional Development
    • Certification or credentials
    • More technical instruction
      • Update days = fall days
      • Bring back “deep dive”
  • Funding for continued support if you “go alone” as opposed to funding for the “entire package”
  • Professional Development (required) for admin/accountability for tech plans
    • Admin
    • Teachers
    • Parents
    • “And this how….”
    • Integrating/not silos
    • “what are the look fors?”
    • Have teachers contribute to research about tech use
  • Opt in document include “change management”
  • Better model to gauge effectiveness
  • Teacher leaders effective when paid for the effort
  • Identify specific gaps and fill them
  • Incentivize schools by making/likins to educator effectiveness (IE: what level of use is reflected in classrooms?)
  • Consider stipend position @ admin level
  • Instead of a tech plan, create a technology use portfolio and submit various forms
  • Hold MLTI teachers conference as well as student conference (free) to instill value and skill in teacher [need a critical mass]
    • Identify ideal device to student ratio to support budget decisions in communities program needs jolt-of energy
  • One more digital learning specialist may not be enough to support entire state.
  • If language in rule changes to most affordable (IE: MA) then value of most effective tools may be lost
  • Parent/community education: is there a difference between real-life citizenship and digital citizenship?
  • Disconnect between home and school still exists (no access at home means device is a brick)
    • Access is not universal
  • We are providing access; are we providing equity?
  • Equity also involves teachers using the devices effectively-how do boost floor to elevate ceiling?
  • How people learn is changing more rapidly than how people teach. Even in H.E.
  • ISTE
    • Adopt of adapt as part of MLR for students, staff, and administrators
  • Students are ready to advance sooner
    • Approach standards as progression to support continuous growth
  • Differentiate between computer science and technology use
  • Consider providing specific curricular guidance about computer science coursework.
  • MTLI: discuss role of cellphones in a student’s life and how to use this effectively
  • Leverage ACTEM or other organizations as an organization for Professional Development and other relationships
  • Leverage vendors to provide Professional Development
  • Leverage social model better to demonstrate what schools are doing effectively
  • Use social media to network more
    • Model collaboration as a professional practice
  • Everyday actions need to be shared
  • Cookie cutter approach no longer works one size fits all 0 more options instead
  • Menu of limited choices (network/devices/ to allow for choices that fit a school district
  • More input from community on what apps WILL COME WITH PROGRAM
  • K-12 wireless support address at home WIFI as a state
  • Add Professional Learning/MARTLE for each building at schools
  • More elementary aspects with technology for all elementary schools
  • Mandating = equity for all (requiring training for admin/teachers/tech staff)
  • More direct campaigning for existence/funding of this program show why it is/how it is working
  • Sharing stories of success
  • Badges for Apple district Educator: come with physical proof
  • More education and involvement with leadership
    • Show them HOW to implement tech
    • Offer incentive IE: More to front of line for participation
  • Restart of program will bring out vision and curiosity for staff to learn MUST have principal as part of the conversation
  • Remote/virtual meetings/face to face video conference focus on leadership more than educators bring out passion and excitement
  • Standard operating procedures for networks and WIFI and infrastructure and standard $ support for these as well for schools who need it
  • Provide best practice solutions around safe apps for kids and guidelines … more conversations around what is appropriate offer this publicly
  • Provide Professional Development…
    • Engaging, in small bits, teacher promoted/led
    • How to incorporate dig into classroom
    • Resources for teacher leaders
    • Timely
    • Micro-credentialing
    • Teacher-created instructional videos
      • Keep updated
    • Continual
    • Regionalized and incentivized
  • Vendor – single to provide complete solution, economies of scale for costs and supports
  • Uncouple WIFI from complete solution/ (MS can’t see inside network) products
  • Digital citizenship and staff buy-in
    • (needs Admin push)
  • Lack of support for teacher to implement dig citizenship without add-on of time

Concerns:

  • Damage coverage, sustainability and waste
  • No digital citizenship component
  • Outdated policies and procedures (take home example)
  • How would it impact testing without devices?
  • Mixture of implementations (equality) throughout state/dictates success
  • Leadership/future to collaborate
  • Apple devices create expectations and financial burden on families
  • Difficult to open classrooms to change
    • Not unique to tech
  • Does not want to be tied to a specific network, financial choices
  • PD doesn’t match current teaching practices through LTT
    • PD is not device specific
  • Leadership open to more/new models
  • 7th and 8th grade get expensive devices but none at the high school level ***
  • Standards-based teaching makes it difficult for teaching PD for teachers/needs leadership?
  • Does it need to be 7the and 8th grade only
  • MLTI train leadership?
  • Communication:
    • Web
      • Hard to find
      • Search is not there
      • Broken links
      • Missing research on PD
        • Too much policy and procedures
    • From DOE
      • Legislature only knows what we tell them.
      • Give more info
    • Laptop program: MLTI should be more, not just devices.
      • Can we go back to one device?
      • Feeling of MLTI at DOE “flies under radar”
    • PD:
      • Lack of PD, last audience, pushing the envelope, not everyone at the level.
      • Should be different, at many levels
      • Worst in time away from schools
      • Communication of PD and what’s available
      • Lack of teacher leaders with a brand of PD
      • Leadership:
        • At all levels, now is tern focused, should be everyone
        • Leaders at local level delegating to teon director and not be involved themselves
        • “Tech meetings about device” (why leadership doesn’t go to mailing offices)
      • State Coor CT RFF process
        • Personel to manage the whole process ready and able to execute solution
        • More than just the department in the room to review
      • School Size
        • Smaller schools -TD wear many hats, must work for all schools.
      • Grades
        • Not just 7/8 – too limited
        • Lack of content play in MLTI
        • No baseline for content data
        • No keeping up with changing landscape of ed tech, stop focusing on device
  • How is the program adapting to changes in technology – how can we build in ways to ensure updating and changing with technology. Containment improvement.
  • Access to broadband at home for students
  • Buy-in from stakeholders
  • Sustainability
  • How we measure success of this program
  • What data should we be collecting?
  •  Not enough focus on digital citizenship for both students and adults
  • Need more focus on how we use technology not best devices
  • Not enough work at State level to keep students in Maine for life – should be technology base employment / connections
  • What teachers need for support / students need for learning will change
  • Planning is too static
  • Vulnerability to changing administration
  • Network Maine is not being fully utilized
  • Non MLTI goods style goods style when taking state exam
  • Economics who is responsible for funding?
  • Utilization of devices to their full potential
    • Increase / value
    • How to incorporate in classrooms
  • Rural areas – disparity of services / support at schools
  • What’s next after 12th grade for our students\
    • Supporting future needs going forward
  • Disparity/ divide throughout Maine
  • Accountability of how devices are leveraged/used
  • Buyout prices at end of MLTI contracts
    • Most schools want them at end at a reasonable price
  • Communication to schools for pre-planning
  • Lack of transparency
    • IE: Communication
  • Schools would like more local control with networks
  • How is the program adapting to changes in technology – how can we build in ways to ensure updating and changing with technology continuum implement
  • Not enough focus on learning; too much on technology use
  • What teachers need for support / students need for learning will change
  • Planning is too static
  • Vulnerable to changing administration
  • Network Maine is not being fully utilized
  •  Timelines for planning à doesn’t line up with local districts
  • Moved from learning initiative to a technology initiative
  • Lack of buy-in for program as a learning initiative
  • Not everyone needs the same device or training
  • Access to internet at home
  • Restricted by offerings – WIFI, device, ect. Either you buy in or you are on your own
  • Lack of transparency / sharing of information sooner
  • Too device-focused à needs to be more student focused
  • Conference in spring and at Orono
  • Vision for future is not clear – data
  • Recognizing that student have been born into technology
  • Unknown / uncertainty
  • Timing: not enough time for districts to plan and adjust
  • Teacher hard to access to PL – hard to get out of class / building
  • PL not individualized enough
  • Not enough choice for districts to choose WIFI and device that suits them best
  • Not everyone has tech departments
  • WIFI infrastructure needs to be updated but not sure what’s happening with the state
  • Lack of public understand of what the program is and is not\
  • Funding
  • Fracturing of solutions – giving more choice in solutions is taking away from quality of solution
  • Choice takes away from buying power
  • Lack of opportunity for input
  • Timeline – not knowing what will happen in the future make decisions making difficult
  • WIFI – not knowing level of support from state
  • PL is not getting utilized
  • No WIFI access at home – equity
  • Lack of local access/visibility into the wireless networks.
    • Impacts students.
  • Differing levels (locally) of tech ability with expectation to maintain consistent level
  • Not recognizing expertise
  • Lack of credentialing to prove expertise to access
    • With flexibility not, requirement
    • Need the Professional Development/ability to gain training (suggestion)
  • Outdated equipment needs the money to support WIFI, state options/contract
  • Lack of timely communication about changes
    • Lack of follow-up/accountability
  • Lack of people at DOE to centralize support/leadership
  • Lack of info about/sharing of vision/long term plan
  • MLTI has lost its identity
    • Who to talk to?
    • Where does it live?
    • Fractured programs/support leaves local schools self-reliant
  • Not aligned with MLTI guiding principles
  • Equity – see above concerns/who defines equity?
  • MLRs – tech is separate from content areas
    • What is integration?
    • How are you measuring success?
  • Sustainability
  • Hard to get a good laptop for $600
    • Small school struggled to get price break for quantity
    • Money doesn’t support Professional Development/maintenance
  • Lack of thoughtful research
  • Do we have time to catch up?
    • Dedicated Professional Development
  • Staff may be unwilling to be lifelong learner
    • Resistant to new technologies
    • Struggle to use decides to maximum capacity and function
  • Principals need to be leaders, model effective use
  • Buy-in
    • No common standards for technology or computer standards so there are no common benchmarks
    • Standards for effective use of technology should be embedded in content standards
  • Tie GP for MLR to technology  ß solution
  • Not enough access for Ed Techs to report, plan, assist students
  • Student teacher access eliminated but critical to support continuous entry
  • Then and now perceptions of MLTI
    • MLTI teacher/leader needed “sell” to staff
    • New teachers see MLTI as device provider and admin
  • Professional Development for preservice
  • Professional Development for new to ME teachers
  • Lack of skill/training to classroom management of lil
  • Repair costs
  • Lack of protective structure on device
  • Keeping student data private
  • WIFI only for MS creates equity
  • Issues (MS only with MLTI created equity issues)
  • One size fit all doesn’t fit all grades
  • What happens after 2020? 2021? (how soon will we know?)
  • Multiyear budget decisions need to be made with limited info
  • State assessment online without K-12 equipment/infrastructure accessibility
  • Lack of home internet/statewide broadband
  • Screen time
  • Digital citizenship and staff buy-in (needs admin push)
  • Lack of support for teachers to implement digital citizenship without add-on of time
  • Repair costs at and after buyout and parts/devices
  • Cookie-cutter approach-instead offer
  • MARTLE did not continue through it was incredibly helpful
  • Elem level is left out/missing everything such as training/network/devices
  • Restrictions on some student devices because teachers and administration aren’t proficient and don’t understand tech
  • Program taken for granted by ALL (teachers, admin, parents, students)
    • So much could be lost/Entitlement
  • Loss of years’ worth of resources, lessons, and info stored which staff have built over time
  • Awareness of what is available to schools for resources/Professional Development
  • Old style testing doesn’t match current teaching methods