Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Teacher Preparation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teacher‑prep faculty tell board: 'Method matters' — train candidates to evaluate, not just use, devices
Summary
Faculty from Emporia State and representatives of private colleges told the Kansas State Board of Education that teacher preparation emphasizes evaluating instructional methods and digital ethics; presenters said one course plus embedded clinical experiences prepare candidates to choose tools that amplify or transform learning.
Faculty from Emporia State University and leaders of private teacher‑preparation programs told the State Board of Education on June 8 that teacher training in Kansas centers on method and purpose rather than on specific hardware or time‑based rules.
"Technology policy should not be pro‑screen or anti‑screen but it should be pro‑learning, pro‑child, pro‑educator and pro‑family," Dr. Cecil Short told the board. Short and Dr. Sarah Schwarfiger described a statewide transfer course (often called "technology for educators") whose core outcomes require candidates to assess educational technologies, design lessons across in‑person and blended modalities, prepare accessible materials, identify ethical and legal issues and teach digital citizenship.
Presenters said the course is usually three credit hours and that much of the technology learning is embedded in clinical placements and other classes; many programs use common rubrics such as the Kansas teacher work sample to evaluate practice. Short and Schwarfiger emphasized instructional frameworks (e.g., PICRAT and the 'three M' model of media, modality and method) that ask whether a tool replaces, amplifies or transforms instruction — and whether a device meaningfully advances learning outcomes.
They also flagged child‑development guidance. Short cited World Health Organization and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations for very limited screen time in early childhood and said policies must consider developmental appropriateness, accessibility for students with disabilities and privacy/data issues when vendors are involved.
Board members pressed on implementation: how programs ensure candidates are observed in real classrooms, how the final assessments demonstrate that technology use is instructionally justified, and what supports smaller districts need to enforce ethical, evidence‑based choices. Presenters said faculty, district clinical supervisors and employer feedback all contribute to continuous review of outcomes.
What was requested: board members asked staff to collect written materials presenters offered and to return with clearer benchmarks and implementation supports that districts can use when evaluating technology purchases and classroom uses.
