Educating the Dragon

This University Course is really doing my head. It’s great, don’t get me wrong but I am well outside my comfort zone. Never before have I done so much professional reading and feel like I am getting so much wrong.   Forum One was to look at a ‘critical issue’ within our school. When I first posted my thoughts I had decided to consider the value added that the ICTPD model offered, below is a transcript of my initial thoughts only, none of the ‘discussion’ the group had has been included. However the italic writing is where I have either included or amended the original piece due to feedback I received. Feel free to add a comment or two as I continue on my learning journey your input would be greatly valued.

The support for ICT professional development is central to the government’s initiatives; is this just rhetoric or are they prepared to specifically fund to meet their outcomes? Under ‘E-Learning activities and contributions to facilitate/ support effective teaching’ teaching capabilities is ranked first on the list (MOE 2006, pg 5) with professional development again first under Communication and Learning Networks; capability and services (MOE 2006, pg7) But how will that translate into the school environment? I spoke to a principal concerning the financial aspects of ICT in the school. I discovered the following:· No money is ear-marked, tagged or ring-fenced specifically for Professional Development in ICT. · Specific funds are designated for such expenses as the Laptop scheme, ICTPD Clusters, networks and broadband connection and SMS.  

Some may argue that when funding is given for an ICTPD Cluster it is assumed that some of that money would be identified for professional development³, but that is not stated, merely implied and the reality is that participating school principals can allocate that money ‘as they see fit’ within the boundaries laid out by the contract. The ICTPD contact states: What can schools use the funding for?
The funding can be used for a range of costs associated with professional development activities for staff including (but not limited to):
· Teacher release time;
· Costs associated with workshops, seminars, and meetings;
· Internal/external cluster facilitation and support.Schools will be required to set out a budget in their proposal that details anticipated expenditure. Successful clusters will be accountable for showing progress against the planned expenditure during the course of their three year contract This shows a clear focus on professional development, I see now how the Ministry also keeps tabs on such expenditure. There are also checks and measures of development through the PD. I recall filling out several questionnaires on the top over the last 12 to 18 months. So it is right to ask the question “Where is the money going?” $120,000 sounds a lot of money, but that could easily be halved with the employment of a full time co-ordinator/ facilitator plus their hardware/software needs. The issue then arising around the scope of the role of the ICT coordinator, their competence and qualification to deliver the lion’s share of the  Professional Development and the most feasible and cost effective way to up-skill teachers to the deliver, meaningfully, in the classroom.   It has been identified that teachers having both their pedagogical approaches challenged and ‘forced’ integration of new technologies is problematic and more involved than a 3 hour workshop on a Friday afternoon (Jacobsen, D. M.,2001). Therefore funding has to reflect such a commitment.The document (MOE, 2006) is smattered with phrases such as “teacher(s) must be supported….through professional development and consistent ongoing support..” and “…teachers becoming confident and capable users of ICT and understanding how to integrate ICT effectively into their teaching practice” (MOE, 2006,pg 10) all are noble goals and ones that need to be addressed for the 21^st Century Learner but the answer to the how question remains elusive if funding specifically for ICT professional development is left for principals to pull from their ops-grant or private contracts and funding, especially after the contract is completed and the funding dries up, what is a school to do then? 

In the case of my school, which is why I have identified it as a critical issue, the current professional development is being supplied not by ministry funding but as a negotiated add-on to a wider ICT project. Is it right that professional development in ICT be left to whether a principal has such a vision or not? Is there a need for the government to be specific with funding if they are to be held accountable for whether or not the outcomes for “teacher capabilites” (MOE, 2006, pg 11)  are realistically to be met?

  ^{3http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=11143&data=l#P29_2327} 

^{Jacobsen, D. M. (2001). Building Different Bridges: Technology Integration, Engaged Student Learning, and New Approaches to Professional Development. Paper presented at AERA 2001: What We Know and How We Know It, the 82nd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA: April 10 - 14, 2001. MOE, (2006) Enabling the 21st Century Learner: An e-Learning Action Plan for Schools 2006- 2010}