Recently a Media Specialist in another county emailed me to ask about our State Department of Education’s Teacher Technology Proficiency Survey.
“What do you think of the SDE’s technology proficiency test? … We are a little dumbfounded here that some of the technology referenced is unknown to us, and we are supposed to be mentors to our teachers.”
For background, in SC our teachers have to “prove” that they are proficient (80%+) in using technology in their practice as part of their teaching certificate. The survey is supposedly based on the ISTE NETS for Teachers and has questions that deal with all things tech related, including Web 2.0 tools.
As a “tech expert” in my school, I assist our technology coach with the survey administration – helping teachers access the site, sign-in, and navigate the survey. Listening to teachers during and after the test, I frequently hear “what the heck is a … ”
The following is an excerpt from my response to my friend’s query:
… Yes, the SDE tech survey isn’t “passable” to many in my school/district since almost all of the Web 2.0 tools they list are BLOCKED. My teachers have no clue what wikis, nings, and other tools are. Oh, they’ve heard me talk about them, but since they are blocked very few have explored them.
That said, let me ask you this? How many of your district LMS/teachers are taking the time to try to learn what those tools are? Did they make note of the questions/items they didn’t know about (or review their test & answers) to find out what they missed? Are they just sitting back and waiting until the district provides them training or are they actively seeking to gain their own knowledge?
Two things:
1) teachers and LMSers CHOOSE to be in this profession. As educators, how can we ask our students to be “life-long learners” if WE aren’t willing to walk the walk? Also, the TEACHER/LMS is responsible for their PD, NOT our school or district. Yes, they should be allowing us to attend PD, but we shouldn’t be waiting for them to always pay or organize the training. If the teacher/LMS can’t afford to pay, find FREE alternatives. There are so many free online PD opportunities and we have the ETV FREE workshops, too (March 29-31)! Time is another excuse I hear and I don’t buy it. People find the time to do the things they want to do, they can find the time to do PD. And Web 2.0 tools can take as little as 20 min a week to try out a new tool. Doesn’t mean you have to become an expert, but as LMSers we should be at least FAMILIAR with this stuff. Don’t know where to start – why not use the AASL Top 25 Websites for Teaching and Learning? OR I HIGHLY recommend attending the Upstate Technology Conference for PD in the use of education technology.
2) how can we advocate for these tools to be unblocked and/or taught in PD by our districts if all we do is sit back and complain and/or sit back and do nothing? For all those who complain to you/me about the SDE tech survey how many have taken the time to protest to the powers that be at the district level? You and I individually can’t really do anything – we are low “men” on the totem pole. If we are being held to the topics in the survey in order to be considered Technology “Proficient” then our districts SHOULD be providing training in house AND these things shouldn’t be blocked by our filters. Why aren’t the teachers/LMSers holding their district accountable? If it’s on the survey doesn’t that mean the state thinks these things are important? Then collectively we should be FORCING our districts to unblock and train on these tools.
Okay, stepping off my soapbox about teachers being in charge of their own PD, being sick of excuses and district filters.
I do sympathize and understand my teacher’s frustration with the survey. I, too, struggled with some of the questions. Not because I didn’t know the technology, but because of poorly worded or multiple correct (in my opinion) answer choices. There were also questions that were tool/program specific instead of generic/category/process specific. I know there was one that included a specific brand of library circulation software (and not the one my district uses) for which most teachers would have no clue what it was. There were also questions for software that is traditionally used in elementary schools that high school folks wouldn’t recognize. I’m really interested in knowing who authored this assessment and did they field test the questions before publishing it for administration to teachers?
Since I was tasked to administer a similar survey to our 9th graders (based on the ISTE NETS for Students), I have access to my school’s results (both teacher & student). While our district hasn’t provided any instruction as to what we are to do with our results (as proficient OR not proficient) my school’s Technology Committee will be using the results from our teachers to designing our future in-house PD – using the categories most missed. As a bonus, using the survey and the teachers’ needs as justification may help to get some of these tools unblocked!
Excellent!! I love your perspective(s)!
I responded to this on Cathy’s Facebook link to this article.
I think you make some excellent points about the nature of the test. It is severely flawed, even leaving out the Web 2.0 references that may or may not be blocked. However, even more than the test, the portfolio requirement for 60 additional hours of technology PD, in addition to that required for normal certificate renewal seems a bit extreme.
Your comment about your district not providing instruction for how the results are used hits at the heart of the matter. From the beginning there has been no consistent instruction from the state as to what the requirements should be, so districts have been left to fend for themselves. Being proficient in one district didn’t necessarily mean you were proficient if you moved to another. ePortfolio was supposed to bring some consistency to that process, but districts are still left to decide how they are going to implement the process.
In our district we treat the assessment simply as a placement test to see where teachers will start the process, whether introductory, advanced, etc. We are much more interested in the files that are uploaded as part of the portfolio.
The final problem is that there is no real teeth to this. A teacher is not going to be denied certification if they don’t meet tech proficiency. With the demise of E2T2 funds there is no monetary penalty for districts. As much as I want our teachers to be tech proficient, this process is just another hoop – one with no real meaning.
Really, the whole process needs to be scrapped and re-built. There needs to be reasonable requirements that are consistent from district to district. This needs to be developed by all stakeholders – administrators, teachers, and tech coaches (I think the current one was just developed by primarily tech folks.)
And, it needs to have reasonable, but real consequences for not completing. These consequences need to be specific to the teacher, and not some nebulous “Oh, your district might not receive some elusive federal funding if you don’t complete this.” That’s too far removed from both teachers and principals for them to really be concerned.
Sorry for such a long rant, but I’m dealing with this right now in our district, and getting lots of questions from teachers and tech coaches.
@Cathy, thanks!
@Tom – thank you for stopping by and for such a great explanation! Funny you should use the “hoop” to jump thru as that is exactly what my colleague said to me in her email.
I agree that there needs to be a definitive decision by the STATE as to what all districts and teachers are required to provide to “prove” proficiency. Be it the ePortfolio or some “test” or whatever.
When we first had to take the assessment some 8 or so years ago, my district did require folks who weren’t “proficient” to complete online courses to satisfy their proficiency status.
Since that first assessment there has been no additional requirements (to my knowledge) made to teachers who haven’t passed. We are even told not to worry about the results, just do the best you can. No mention of WHY we’re taking it or WHAT it is used for or what happens to those who don’t pass. Without direction what is the point of requiring us to take it in the first place?
But, as I said above, I would think as EDUCATORS when we take a test and we don’t know the answer to something we’d take the time to learn it. My true point of the post was really 1) teachers should be self-motivated to continue to learn and seek their own PD and 2) we should be fighting the filter. Yes, I have a problem with this specific test, but the test was just a means to prove my points.
Heather, I fully understand that point, as well. It’s the same thing that happens when teachers realize their certification is up, then scramble to find the hours for renewal.