Technology Planning Committee Meeting Notes 05/18/2015

Posted by Julie Morgenthal on 5/18/2015 1:00:00 AM

Committee Members in Attendance
Jan Mains - District
Kelly Roman - Griffith
Karen Peterson - Griffith
Drew Miller - District
Zachary LoMonaco - District
Simon Alaniz - District
Myra Romero - District
Patricia Lacina - District
Ellen Trzaskowski - Crockett
Bryan Cunningham - Griffith

Thanks to those in attendance for reviewing the finalized documents at the Technology Planning Committee meeting yesterday. On the diagram labeled Mobile Computing Device Distribution Flow we discussed the idea that parent night may not be the best venue to orient parents regarding technology since there is not any targeted time during that event to address parents as a group. This was discussed at our ALT Meeting with principals on May 19th. Principals felt we may be able to make parent night work or we may look at a different technology specific or other combination venue to meet with parents. We all agreed we will need an alternative, electronic type orientation as well to ensure parents have other methods of accessing the information. There will be a follow up on this topic at a later ALT Meeting. Since parent completion of the orientation is required for students to use the computers in the class, there was a sense we should focus on requiring 5th-8th grade parents this year and then add in K-4 next year once we have a system in place. Principals agreed that would work as a minimum to get started.   


If you have not reviewed the finalized Google Docs for the teacher policy and student/parent policy, please take a look at those asap.  Here are the links:

Student Parent Agreement:

Teacher Classroom Agreement:


As per the discussion at the meeting, I was able to talk to one 7th grade class and one 8th grade class regarding the parent/student policy and general ideas regarding computer breakage and loss. The students felt it was fair to pay for deliberate damage. The majority felt parents would attend some type of orientation. They did point out however that the Lenovo model we purchased has some inherent weaknesses. They indicated the keyboards sometimes do pop up on their own. They also said the hinges break easily. They indicated sleeves for the laptops would be helpful. One group liked the idea of a separate bag and the other group felt a separate bag may get easily lost since it is another thing to remember. They thought sleeves would be better. Approximately 1/3 of the students I spoke to indicated the computers to get used at home by other family members to watch videos, look for jobs, play games, and do research. All felt the newest model of Lenovos were too slow. They said labeling the chargers may help with mixing them up and losing them. They also felt that tablet/laptop combos where you could optionally use a keyboard would be the best option. Some liked the detachable keyboard and some liked the fold back version. There was not really a clear majority. 


At the Technology Planning Committee Meeting, we also discussed the Criteria for Teacher Software Subscriptions. Please review this and provide any feedback as well:


The idea is that next year,  grade level teams will create a list of 10 software products they would like for their grade level grouping ordered by preference. Then the Technology Department would verify the products for compatibility and pricing. By having the Tech Department do the procurement, there is an opportunity to combine common programs across schools for a better price as well as ensure all of the agreements have a common renewal date. This way it will be easier to create a timeline for yearly product reviews and decisions about renewals.


We also discussed that next year we are going to focus on student technology for grades K-6. This means we are essentially flip flopping years 1 and 2 of the Override Plan. This is necessary to renew student technology sooner for online testing.