On 11/15/03 7:18 AM, "Nancy Movall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The way I see it, the larger school districts are being targeted by the NLCB police. As we can see from the papers already, Fort Dodge, Des Moines and 17 of the schools in Sioux City are already on the "SIN" list. These are also the schools that probably offer connectivity to 8th graders already. So the issue is with the rural schools and if they are connected or not. If we wish to have more schools in Iowa be on the "SIN" list then I say set higher standards. Not only will the kids not be online, but they probably won't have access to technology. My personal belief is that when a large number of schools in Iowa and Wisconsin make the list then the legislatures will be forced to really look at the law and probably will make changes. So the point may very well be moot by 2006. But that is just my belief. I just really love it when the legislatures who can not do math (as we can see by unbalanced budgets) are trying to dictate to the schools what we should or should not be doing. It is amazing that the educational system in this country has lasted as long as it has. fin > Recently there was a question regarding the 8th Grade Tech Literacy > requirement of NCLB and here is what I know so far... > > Every district will be required to show evidence that "all" 8th graders > are technologically literate by the fall of 2006. I have been serving > on a state committee that is working on defining what "technology > literacy" means and how that can be measured. Several of the team > members are from large urban districts and it is clearly a concern to > them that we have to assess "all" 8th graders- so consequently, the > documents that we have developed so far use the ISTE Tech Standards > (NETS) and a checklist of sorts that suggests that if a kid can do one > thing within each standard, they are considered tech literate. > > Here is the dilemma- do we make the tech literacy assessment easy > enough so that all students have a change at being proficient, or do we > make it rigorous enough so that it truly indicates competence in tech > literacy? On the one hand, we don't want to be out of compliance > because of tech literacy, but on the other hand, we would like enough > "teeth" in the assessment to make sure kids are getting the training > they need in technology. It is the feeling of many of the members of > the state committee that we go with the assessment that let's all kids > succeed. I have mixed feelings because I think that if we leave it too > easy to be proficient, we are doing a disservice to our kids. - I > would be interested in your comments. > > Anyway, these documents will be shared with the districts within the > year -or districts can create and use their own. You will want to > work with your school improvement team to make them aware of this > requirement. > > Call if you have questions, > Nancy > > ----- > Nancy Movall > School Improvement & Instructional Technology Consultant > Prairie Lakes AEA 8 > Storm Lake Regional Office > 824 Flindt Drive, Suite 105 > Storm Lake, IA 50588 > 866-503-4636 (IA) > 712-732-2257 x52 > > Van: Bldg#117, Rt. 4 > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus on the server > aea8.k12.ia.us] > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Archived messages from this list can be found at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > --------------------------------------------------------- > -- Lance L. Lennon District Technology Director Eagle grove Community School District 515-448-5143 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus on the server aea8.k12.ia.us] --------------------------------------------------------- Archived messages from this list can be found at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ---------------------------------------------------------
