MEETING to Discuss PV STEMNET Response to CITI K-12 RFP
December 16,2004

Hampshire Educational Collaborative
Northampton, MA

Allan Feldman supplied the group present with a draft plan and budget

The following is a list of comments made by those present:

• Digital imagry – accessibility of software – connect with computer in schools
• Photoshop needs to be integrated into the curriculum
• Provide teachers with cameras
• Reviewed initial budget – there needs to be a commitment and match from school districts – no overhead or indirect needs to be included in this proposal
• Suggested that schools could match time of technology coordinator
• Spring training for team leaders –
• On-sight mentoring needs to be included – there are teachers who do this – focus = professional development/feature best practices
• MMSP has plan to offer credits to teachers if they select this option – consider credits being provided by multiple higher ed institutes
• MMSP – Umass, Smith or Springfield (?), and WSC
• Course hours – minimum 37.5 hours
• Consideration – one large workshop or 2 sites (North and South)
• Better idea – smaller groups
• 15/15 for 2 sites
• Open this program up to teachers who are interested
• Card readers - ? extra cost
• Have teachers use the same camera type
• 1 instructor – 2 team leaders – 20-25 teachers
• Can we maximize the # of teacher participants
• 40 teachers – 2 instructors – 4 team leaders
• Team leaders participate in the development of the workshop
• The budget doesn't require a research component – is this necessary
• How important is the research -- ? graduate student wirking with team leaders in the Spring
• Develop expertise in the Spring for early adopters
• Graduate student must have expertise in this area – should have classroom experience and understands what goes on in the classroom
• Consider a humanities based site
• Integrate technology seamlessly into the curriculum
• Address – skills, concepts, and capabilities
• Teachers learn best by using technology
• ID teachers with expertise – recruit on an individual basis
• How does your school district envision using this type of technology in the future?
• Will the teachers in the future have the equipment to sustain this initiative?
• Possible funding through Title 2D
• How will teachers teach this in their classrooms   -- can it be integrated into their curriculum as part of frameworks?
• Need to define what teachers will learn
• Suggested that teachers could keep a journal
• Narrow focus to some content area – systemic change
• Focus on math and science – as a possibility   (AF – bottom line is that teachers are not going into math and science)
• Key issue – workforce development in technical fields – all teachers need to gain technology fluency
• Consider teaching teachers how to do action research
• Instructor in action research will do the evaluation
• Possible time frame for workshop
• Week 1 M, W, F and Week 2 Tu and Th
• Clearly define roles of all participants
• Teachers need to do the same activities that students do
• Needs to be a syllabus – supply this to master teacher
• Need to have concrete lesson plans
• 3 projects – 1 product – convert to lesson plan
• Post lesson plans on website
• Follow up – blackboard, WEB CT, UMassk-12
• Technology directors from school districts should be participants at some level
• District would have technology support – ½ day during workshop when directors get together
• Need good data for the big $$$$ grant
• Summer syllabus provided to technology coordinators
• Preference given to districts that agree to send technology coordinator
• Plan Spring gala for all teachers
• Define role of master teacher and redo budget to reflect more teacher participation

Return to PV STEMNET TI³CL