Update: Meeting Notes 1/30/14

Present: Stephanie Smith, Mauri Dufour, Kathryn Sturgis, Lori Twiss, Jim Wells, Pauline Simard, Norma-Jean Audet, Sherry Dolloff, Jim Carmichael, Sonja Abbot, Nate Theriault, Kelly McCarthy, Carol Miller, Shelly Mogul, Peter Robinson, Jon Pratt, Mia Morrison, Mike Muir, Jake Bazinet (did I miss anyone?)


  • Lots of staff from different grade levels, folks who haven't worked together before, and folks from other districts who have come to work with us
  • Represented: Auburn Schools (K-6, 7-8, & 9-12), Foxcroft Academy, RSU 4, Lewiston Middle School, MLTI, UMF Teacher Candidate

The Framework

  • Started to review the framework, but it was a little overwhelming! Lots of new information. A little like drinking from a fire hose.
  • Agreed: Overall, framework looked ok (at least at first glance)
  • Agreed: Idea of using digital badges sounds worth pursuing here.
  • Agreed: It would help to have an overview of the project/plan. (“Mike, sounds like you have a pretty strong vision of what this might look like. It's ok for you to share that, because our input and buy-in would still come from our helping to build it out.”)

Good Questions

  • Shouldn't we do a needs assessment first? – It's really important to respond to immediate needs. This work may not be the right place, since it is to create a system of Distributed Professional Development, and is just one aspect of a comprehensive approach to supporting teachers. This work is around a long term, systemic solution. Immediate needs (as would come from a needs assessment) should be responded to, now, with workshops, trainings, resources, or coaching, separate from/in addition to this development work.
  • I'm not sure I see the different subject areas accounted for here? – As a systemic solution, this work is built around 10 professional curriculum buckets. These buckets reflect 3 general areas (personal use, classroom management when using technology, management of the technology) and 7 pedagogical uses (Tech for Foundational Knowledge, Tech for Using Knowledge, Tech for Learning Progress Management, Tech for Personalizing Learning, Tech for Supporting Independent Learning, Tech for Assessment, Tech for Home/School Connection). These 10 buckets are “subject area agnostic,” which is to say, each individual teacher would bring her own context, including subject area, to the work. A Social Studies teacher would look for social studies related ways to leverage technology for students applying knowledge, and a Math teacher would explore math appropriate approaches to using technology to have students develop foundational knowledge. Teachers will either bring their own subject(s) to the work of individual modules, or attend subject-specific support sessions for a module.
  • Will we differentiate the system by grade level? – At a high level, Distributed PD is built around 10 professional curriculum buckets (see above). These buckets are “grade level agnostic.” Teachers will either bring their own grade level(s) to the work of individual modules, or attend grade band- or grade level-specific support sessions for a module.
  • Won't the system have to be fairly different depending on what device your school uses? – As pointed out above, Distributed PD is built around 10 professional curriculum buckets. These buckets are “device agnostic.” Teachers will either bring the specifics of working with their school's device to the work of individual modules (like an Evernote module), or attend device-specific support sessions for a module (like a syncing module).
  • Don't we need something like this for Customized Learning? – a) Technology is an important component to successfully customizing learning. b) Let's design the system for something more focused, like supporting technology integration, work the bugs out of the system, then decide if we should build it out for other aspects of Customized Learning.

“Why would teachers do this?”

  • “What's in it for them?” is a fair question.
  • They get support (this system will be developed to provide support for teachers in their efforts to effectively leverage technology for teaching and learning).
  • They get recognition of professional learning and accomplishments.
  • Shelly Mogul said that participation will count toward recertification.
  • At some point, we might have a conversation about how far through the phases teachers might be expected to work.
  • Future question: how else might educators be recognized, incentivized, or rewarded for their work?

Where To Start

  • Decided to start by reviewing the Draft Phases of Tech Integration document (see the Is Our Phases of Tech Integration Ready? activity).
  • An “Assignments and Meeting Reminder” email (with specifics) is forthcoming.
  • From there, we'll start brainstorming module topics/titles

Next Meeting

  • Decided there is some urgency to get at least a preliminary system in place (perhaps by next August or September).
  • To respond to that urgency, decided to meet twice a month.
  • Meeting Rule of Thumb: 2nd and 4th Thursdays, 3:30-5:00
  • Thought snacks would be a good idea
  • Next meeting: Feb 13, 3:30-5:00


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s