2018 Vision for Platt High School
Pamela Guest
Future of Education
Jennifer Wojcik
Table of Contents

Introduction, slide 3

Platt High School, slide 4

Literature Review
 Educational Technology Trends, slides 5-6
 Economic and Public Policy Trends, slides 6-7
 Demographic Trends, slide 8

Futuring Approach, slides 9-10

Vision for 2018, slides 11-13

Preparation, slides 14-15

Call to Action, slide 16

Conclusion, slide 17

References, slides 18-22
Introduction

Vision for Orville H. Platt High School [O. H. Platt High School/ Platt] involves:
 Mobile devices
 Online learning
 Learning analytics

Also included:
 Background on Platt
 Review of relevant literature
 Explanation of futuring techniques
 Proposed next steps
Platt High School

Opened in 1958 (Orville H. Platt High School, 2012-2013a); one of two public high schools in Meriden, CT

“Comprehensive” high school with 1,186 students and 84 teachers (New England Association of Schools and Colleges
[NEASC], 2012, pp. 14-15)

Goal: help students “become confident, self-sustaining adults who contribute to society” (O.H. Platt High School
website, 2012-2013b, para. 1)

Connecticut State Department of Education [CSDE] (2001-2011b) statistics:
 64.3% eligible for free-reduced price-meals
 62.5% are minorities; 44.5% are Hispanic; 5.7% are not fluent in English
 4.6% are gifted/talented; 14% have disabilities

2009 graduation rate: 89.8%; 74% of graduates went on to college (NEASC, 2012, p. 15)

CAPT results below state averages even after disaggregating the data (CSDE, 2012)

2013-2014 initiatives reflect journey to become “high school of tomorrow” (Meriden Public Schools [MPS], 2013a):
 Awarded continued NEASC accreditation (Allison, J. letter to Montemurro, R., May 31, 2013)
 Recommendation: more rigorous teaching strategies reflecting increased use of formative and summative assessments
 Nellie Mae grant award (MPS, 2013b): student achievement via “student-centered learning” (para. 1)
 Fall 2013: Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) pilot (smartphones, tablets, e-readers) (Primicerio, 2013a)
 Building renovation “renew(s) commitment . . . with new, attractive and secure high school facilities” (Deputy mayor as cited in
Brechlin, 2013, para. 14)
Literature Review

Educational Technology Trends
 E-learning and learning analytics: important given Platt’s objective to increase student achievement and personalize learning
 E-learning
 E-learning: “any electronically assisted instruction” which typically leverages the Internet (Yang, 2013, p. 429)
 E-learning 2.0: offers students greater ownership of learning through ability to acquire, organize, and develop content while partnering with others
(Yang, 2013, p. 431)
 “Control” and “access”: attractive features of online learning (Project Tomorrow, 2009, p. 1)
 Prediction: half of high school learning will happen online before 2020 (Christensen, as cited in Project Tomorrow, 2009, p. 1)
 Challenges: funding and qualified teachers (Project Tomorrow, 2009, p. 3)
 Higher education: increasingly using Internet in addition to, or instead of, classroom-based learning (Dew, 2012, p. 8); “entirely online [and blended]
programs . . . provide new opportunities to expand education beyond the limitation(s) of . . . location” (Betts, Hartman & Oxholm, 2009, p. 4)
 Mobile learning: “convenient” and “collaborative” e-learning tool likely to surpass desktop internet usage by 2015 (Yang, 2013 pp. 433, 435)
 Mobile devices: “gateways to endless learning, collaboration and productivity”; widespread adoption likely in 1 year (Johnson et al., 2013, pp. 3-4)
 Smartphones: mobile devices “influencing and changing learning practices”; used seamlessly by college students for personal and academic
purposes (Jubien, 2013, p. 12)
 Tablets: mobile devices which may be more appropriate for reading than smartphones (Jubien, 2013, p. 11)
 School leaders: pursuing mobile learning to save money and facilitate student-centered learning (Project Tomorrow, 2011, p. 6)
 “Digital equity”/”digital divide”: though increasingly affordable, the “gap between people who have and people who don’t have access to
digital/modern information technology” needs to be addressed (Project Tomorrow, 2011, pp. 8-9; Yang, 2013, p. 439)
Literature Review, continued

Educational Technology Trends, continued
 Learning Analytics
 Benefits: e-learning enables data collection and analysis to “adapt instruction to individual learner needs in real time” while supporting continuous
improvement efforts at all levels of education (Johnson et al., 2013, p. 20); educators can leverage technology and learning analytics to improve
student achievement and evolve teaching efficacy (Dyckhoff, Zielke, Bultmann, Chatti & Schroeder, 2012, p. 58)
 Prediction: broad usage of learning analytics by 2016 (Johnson et al., 2013, p. 4)
 Complexities: integrating data from multiple sources (Johnson et al., 2013, p. 21)
 Learning Analytics Toolkit: developed in response to data integration complexity issue (Dyckhoff et al., 2012)
 Data privacy: concerns about privacy of student information (Dyckhoff et al., 2012, pp. 59-73; Johnson et al., 2013, p. 21); pseudonyms for student
names proposed (Dyckhoff et al., 2012, pp. 59, 69, 72)
 Future enhancement: providing students direct access to analytics about their learning (Dyckhoff et al., 2012, pp. 73-74)

Economic and Public Policy Trends
 School finances, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and higher education costs: all significant given Platt’s “In Need of Improvement”
designation (CSDE, 2010-2011) and location in an economically challenged community.
 School Finances
 Considerations: financial budgets are a key concern in advancing technology usage in schools (Johnson et al., 2013; Project Tomorrow, 2009, p. 3)
 Recommendations: “improve operational efficiencies” (Maguad, 2007, p. 248); make “equity” and “efficiency” co-priorities (Rice, 2004, pp. 146147).
Literature Review, continued

Economic and Public Policy Trends, continued
 No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
 Government: “obsessed” with closing the achievement gap (Fusarelli, 2011, p. 215)
 Reauthorization: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization effort admits NCLB shortcomings and “promise[s] to reward
success instead of labeling failure” (Berry & Herrington, 2011, p. 273)
 Challenges: schools continue to face intense pressure to address achievement while competing for funding based on progress and proposed
actions; obstacles include limited resources and budgets, new requirements to implement Common Core Standards, and difficulties attracting
highly qualified teachers to low-performing schools (Berry & Herrington, 2011, pp. 275, 285, 287-288)
 Students and teachers: acknowledging the role standards and a challenging curriculum play in student success (pp. 8-9), Haycock (2001)
argued “students need extra help” and “teachers matter a lot” (p. 10)
 Higher Education Costs
 “Affordability of higher education continues to be one of the most critical policy issues in the [U.S.]” (Betts, Hartman, and Oxholm, 2009, p. 5)
 With tuition and room and board increasing well beyond the rate of inflation, “the amount families pay for college has skyrocketed 439% since
1982” (Wang as cited in Betts et al., 2009, p. 7).
 Student debt often far surpasses graduate income (Dew, 2012, p. 10)
 “The economic investment in higher education is so great, and the ramifications of that investment are so significant, that the decision when
and where to pursue post-secondary education may now be the most significant one an individual can make” (Dew, 2012, p. 11)
Literature Review, continued

Demographic Trends
 Diversity and poverty trends are highly relevant for Platt:
 Platt’s student body increased 7% from 2001-2002 to 2010-2011, with 55%, 62%, and 588% increases in the percent of minorities, Hispanics, and
bilingual students, respectively (CSDE, 2001-2011a; CSDE 2001-2011b)
 The percent of Platt students receiving free or reduced meals, for whom an achievement gap of over 28 points was recently observed (CSDE,
2012), increased 72%.
 Diversity
 “U.S. population is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse” (Shrestha & Heisler, 2011, p. 18)
 U.S. Census Bureau projected percent growth for all non-white races (p. 21) and an estimated 3.5% average annual increase in the percent of
Hispanics (as cited in Shrestha & Heisler, 2011, p. 22), suggesting Hispanics will be a majority minority at Platt by 2018
 “11% of African American students and 22% of Hispanic students” did not graduate in 2006 (Yates, 2008, p. 7)
 “Standardization reform efforts advance a sameness agenda” (p. 5) with white students positioned as the “norm” (p. 4), and yet the “playing field
[for diverse students] is anything by even or level” (p. 5). (Milner, 2013)
 Future majority of school students (the “culturally and linguistically diverse”) “will not graduate . . . in tragic numbers” (Yates, 2008, p. 8)
 Poverty
 Rates for African Americans and Hispanics are 3-4 times greater than non-Hispanic whites (Shrestha & Heisler, 2011, p. 30)
 NCES found a correlation between increased poverty and decreased student achievement (as cited in Fusarelli, 2011, p. 266)
 Haycock (2001) acknowledged poverty as significant, but cautioned schools against making it an excuse (p. 8)
 “Poor children are more likely to drop out of school . . . [and] get less education” (Mayer, as cited in Fusarelli, 2011, p. 218)
 With slow economic recovery, poverty levels will likely stay “comparatively high” (Shrestha & Heisler, 2011, p. 29)
Futuring Approach: Background

Background
 “Anticipatory decision-making process that leads to planning and program development”
(Sobrero, 2004, para. 7)
 Used strategically in many fields, including business and the military (Mietzner & Reger, 2005, pp.
221-222)
 Critical for education; significance is “profound” given “50% of the jobs/professionals that
children now aged five will enter, do not currently exist” (Moorcraft, 2007, p. 4)
Futuring
Technique(s)
 To prepare children for success, academic institutions should employ futuring considering a
“range of possib[ilities]” (Mietzner & Reger, 2005, p. 235)

Scenarios
 Describe what could happen; ideally 2-4 are developed (Mietzner & Reger, pp. 220, 223).
 Goal should not be to develop a reliable prediction, but rather to enable “better decisions
about possible futures” (Daum as cited in Mietzner & Reger, 2005, p. 222)

Scanning
 To develop relevant scenarios, futurists should scan for “threats and opportunities” (Strubhar,
2011, p. 58)
 Involves research and observation regarding the internal and external environment with focus
on pertinent history, changes, and trends (Sobrero, 2004, paras. 8-9)
Futuring Model
Bouchard (2012) explained the futuring
process using the above visual. The
circles captured “themes” a futurist
would “funnel . . . Into a futuring
technique . . .”, such as scanning.
Trends and other relevant factors
would be considered in order to
develop one or more reasonable
scenarios regarding a future state.
Futuring Approach: Application to 2018 Vision

Process
 Numerous scholarly texts and professional sources scanned for insight into:
 Platt-specific considerations
 Major technology, economic, public policy, and demographic changes
 Post University-provided futuring planning tool (see Figure 1, below) used to capture findings and analyze potential impacts and
related implications

Notes
 The 2018 vision offered reflects an effort to balance external trends with Platt’s primary concerns
 The author acknowledges the limitations of a single scenario based largely on six weeks of independent research
Figure 1: Excerpt from Post University Futuring Planning Tool used for this project
Data Collection
Potential
Im pact
Findings & Notes
Im plication and im portance
List the journal article,
US census data,
industry report,
newspaper article, etc.
What does y our research indicate? How does it apply to y our organization?
Tim e Fram e of
H - High
Im pact:
M - Medium
Current
L - Low
1 - 2 y ears
U3 - 5 y ears
Undeterm ined
5 + y ears
1 2 e-learning
predictions for 2009
(Unit 5)
"…rapid growth in the use of wikis for content presentation . . . [and] also . . . Growth in discussions and social networks
for collaborativ e learning". E.g., sharepoint Caution: "organizations who try to create big e-Learning 2.0 Strategies will
mov e much slower than organizations who adopt easy to use tools and make tactical use of these tools".
H
1 -2 y ears
Positiv e
Increasing
Important
Less training and more performance support in the form of toolkits (e.g., "teach me less about communication and giv e
me more templates for important, tough communication points").
L
1 -2 y ears
Positiv e
Unknown
Unknown
"Some training will still be preferred face to face (… team building or in-person soft skills . . . ), but we should be justify ing
any in-person training". "Transition to v irtual means greater demand for help on effectiv e v irtual classroom training and
for people who are good at creat[ing] effectiv e remote ex periences".
H
1 -2 y ears
Positiv e
Increasing
Important
Ty pe:
Positiv e +
Negativ e Unknown
Im pact:
Increasing >
Unchanged =
Decreasing <
Unknown
Relativ e
Im portance:
Critical
Im portant
Un-im portant
Unknown
T echnological
#2 e-Learning 2.0
#4 Performance support
quick wins and toolkits
#5 Virtual classroom
training
1 2 e-learning
predictions for 2009
(Unit 5)
1 2 e-learning
predictions for 2009
(Unit 5)
2018 Vision

Overview
 Given the “obsess[ion]” with achievement (Fusarelli, 2011, p. 215) and slow pace of reform (Berry & Herrington, 2011, p. 288), high
stakes testing will exist in 2018, but instruction will shift focus from memorization of facts to “collaboration, innovation, critical thinking
and communication” skills (MindShift, 2011, paras. 13, 17, 18)
 Consistent with Christensen’s prediction (as cited in Project Tomorrow, 2009, p. 1), most courses will be conducted in a “blended”
model incorporating both online and classroom-based learning (Yang, 2013, p. 432).

A Blended Learning Approach
 Block scheduling will be adopted; students will meet 2-3 times per week in course-specific classes
 One block daily will be spent in online learning labs moderated by cross-disciplinary “learning coaches” (Andersen, 2011, p. 17)
 Online learning will be pace-based (Project Tomorrow, 2009, p. 1), including “intelligent tutoring” (Brown, 2008, pp. xiii-xiv) to
provide point-of-need assistance, support for bilingual and special needs students, and additional challenges based on individual
progress.
 Students will access analytics regarding learning strengths and opportunities (Dyckhoff et al, 2012, pp. 73-74)

Inside and Outside the Classroom
 Classrooms: will have Smartboards and collaborative learning pods equipped with recharging stations for mobile devices
 Students will be active contributors to learning experience, leveraging smartphones and school-provided tablets for various
purposes, e.g., reading, questions, notes and assignment management (Jubien, 2013)
 Students will use tools like Edmodo and Twitter for additional collaboration and valuable “extra help” (Haycock, 2001, p. 10).
2018 Vision, continued

Student Learning
 Assignments will be project-based and self-selected based on students’ personal or career interests (MindShift, 2011, para. 11)
 Learning will have a core component and a customized component reflecting student-specific objectives (Andersen, 2011)
 Business partnerships will provide students digital access to real-world applications and subject matter experts; added benefits:
potential internships, scholarships and/or career opportunities (Louis & Miles as cited in Fusarelli, p. 229).

Technology-Aided Assessment
 Students will create an electronic portfolio of work which will drive “more formative, qualitative assessment” (Hartnell-Young as
cited in Becta, 2008-14, p. 22)
 Students will present a summary of their portfolio as a graduation requirement
 Learning analytics will provide teachers real-time insights and aggregate, graphical analysis to improve instruction and help
students learn (Dyckhoff et al., 2012, p. 73; Johnson et al., 2013, p. 24)

Challenges
 Securing budget, expertise, and support resources
 Establishing technical infrastructure
 Gaining stakeholder buy-in
 Finding qualified, willing teachers and training those teachers
 Effectively managing the overall change program (Project Tomorrow, 2009, p. 3).
2018 Vision, continued

Opportunities
 Vision is directly aligned to NEASC and Nellie Mae objectives, capitalizes on BYOD pilot, and recognizes realities of building
renovation effort
 School supported, technology-driven personalized learning…
 … is a cost-effective means of increasing engagement (Dew, 2012, p. 8) that can serve to narrow the “digital divide” (Project Tomorrow, 2011,
pp. 8-9; Yang, 2013, p. 439)
 … reduces bias, enabling appropriate differentiation (Gunderson et al., 2012) to help overcome historic relationships between
achievement/graduation rates and ethnicity/socioeconomic status (Fusarelli, 2011, p. 224)
 … better prepares students for college and careers where online education and training will be increasingly prevalent (Bencini, 2013, pp. 41-43;
Dew, 2012, p. 8)
 Advancing a student-centered agenda acknowledges a range of valuable student knowledge, helping “level the playing field” to
heighten student performance (Milner, 2013)

Burning platform for change
 Ignoring vision and opportunities likely leads to larger achievement gaps and lower graduation rates (Yates, 2008, p. 8).
Preparation
1.
Platt teachers should complete the “how creative are you” self-assessment (Mind Tools, 1996-2013) and read
“Teaching for Creativity: Two Dozen Tips” (Sternberg & Williams, n. d.)
 Teachers should dialogue with colleagues online about what they learned and how they can apply it
 Exercises serve two purposes
 Setting the stage for future change
 Enabling near-term improvements in instructional practices
2.
Teachers should be trained on emerging technology trends and how these can improve student performance
 Teacher retention already issue in STEM areas, (Curtis, 2012, p. 787); important teachers clearly understand how roles may evolve
 Training should …
 … be online as “teachers who learn online become more comfortable with the technology” (Project Tomorrow, 2009, p. 4)
 … stress benefits of technology for students in light of teacher interests in “making a difference” (Curtis, 2012, p. 786)
 … assure teachers they will have “space and support to become confident pedagogical innovators with the new technolog[ies]” (Becta, 2008,
p. 21)
 … provide opportunities for reflection and sharing
Preparation, continued
3.
Teachers should be encouraged and supported in adopting more rigorous, student-centered instructional practices,
utilizing technology wherever possible
 More project-based and self-directed activities leveraging online support resources like Khan Academy
 Tools like Edmodo, Remind 101, and real-time polling should be used extensively during BYOD pilot
 Data teams should focus on using existing learning analytics and readily available technologies to enhance student learning
4.
Review BYOD pilot results for relevant implications; conduct formal pilot of hybrid online/classroom learning
approach, considering prior experience with iPads (Primicerio, 2013b)
5.
Given anticipated resource constraints:
 Assess how “equity” and “equality” are balanced as priorities in existing budgets (Rice, 2004)
 Institute a “Lean Committee” to generate savings and free up capacity by eliminating inefficient, “wasteful” practices (Maguad,
2007)
Call to Action
1.
To realize this vision, the principal needs to secure support of department heads and the school union leader (Wright
State University, 2009)
 Series of working sessions should commence quickly to:
 Make the case for change
 Provide an overview of the vision with an opportunity for the group to refine it
 Agree on an action plan and related committees, including a diverse group of change agents to represent stakeholder interests.
 Face-to-face interactions should be supplemented with/replaced by:
 Online forums
 Tools for reviewing and revising materials and discussing perspectives
2.
Principal/designee should increase technology use by staff by leveraging internet-based tools for:
 Communication
 Professional development
 Meetings
Conclusion

Students should no longer have to “power down” to learn (Project Tomorrow, 2009, p. 1)

College students and employees of the future need to be:
 Effective communicators and collaborators
 Creative and technologically savvy
 Able to learn and adjust in a “rapidly changing world” (Anonymous California district CTO/CIO as cited in Project Tomorrow, 2009,
p. 10)

Platt needs to aggressively incorporate tools necessary for students to graduate with these skills, beginning with online
learning, mobile devices, and learning analytics
References

Andersen, M. H. (2011). The world is my school: Welcome to the era of personalized learning. Futurist, 45(1), 12-17.
Retrieved from http://www.wfs.org/content/world-is-my-school

Becta. (2008). Analysis of emerging trends affecting the use of technology in education [Research report]. Retrieved
from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/1538

Berry, K. S., & Herrington, C. D. (2011). States and their struggles with NCLB: Does the Obama blueprint get it right?
Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X), 86(3), 272-290. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2011.578982

Betts, K., Hartman, K., & Oxholm, C. (2009). Re-examining & repositioning higher education: Twenty economic and
demographic factors driving online and blended program enrollments. [Article]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 13(4), 3-23. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v13n4/re-examining-amp-repositioning-highereducation-20-economic-and-demographic-factors-drivi

Brechlin, D., (2013, June 27). Maloney job is underway. Record-Journal. Retrieved July 7, 2013 from
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/meriden

Brown, J. S. (2008). Foreward. In Iiyoshi, T., Kumar, M. S. V., & Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
(Ed.), Opening up education: the collective advancement of education through open technology, open content,
and open knowledge. (pp. xi-xvii). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Retrieved from
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262515016_Open_Access_Edition.pdf

Connecticut State Department of Education [CSDE]. (2001-2011a). Strategic school profile 2001-02: High school
edition: Orville H. Platt High School: Meriden School District [Web-based data tool]. Retrieved July 7, 2013 from
http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ResearchandReports/SSPReports.aspx
References, continued

Connecticut State Department of Education [CSDE]. (2001-2011b). Strategic school profile 2010-11: High school
edition: Orville H. Platt High School: Meriden School District [Web-based data tool]. Retrieved July 7, 2013 from
http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ResearchandReports/SSPReports.aspx

Connecticut State Department of Education [CSDE]. (2010-2011). No Child Left Behind [NCLB] report card: Meriden
School District: Orville H. Platt High School [Web-based report]. Retrieved August 1, 2013 from
http://ctayp.emetric.net/Content/ReportCards/2011/100802062_2011.PDF

Connecticut State Department of Education [CSDE]. (2012). Connecticut CMT and CAPT online reports: Connecticut
Academic Performance Test, 3rd generation: State by district/school report: Platt High School [Web-based report].
Retrieved July 7, 2013 from http://solutions1.emetric.net/CAPTPublic/CAPTCode/Report.aspx

Curtis, C. (2012). Why do they choose to teach – and why do they leave? A study of middle school and high school
mathematics teachers. Education, 132(4), 779-788. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/424715

Dew, J. R. (2012). The Future of American Higher Education. World Future View (World Future Society), 4(4), 7-13.

Dyckhoff, A., Zielke, D., Bultmann, M., Chatti, M., & Schroeder, U. (2012) Design and implementation of a learning
analytics toolkit for teachers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 58-76. Retrieved from
http://www.ifets.info/journals/15_3/5.pdf

Fusarelli, L. D. (2011). School reform in a vacuum: Demographic change, social policy, and the future of children.
Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 215-235. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/0161956X.2011.578955

Gunderson, E., Ramirez, G., Levine, S., Beilock, S. (2012, February). The role of parents and teachers in the
development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3/4), 153-166. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-0119996-2
References, continued

Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6-11. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar01/vol58/num06/Closing-the-Achievement-Gap.aspx

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., and Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC horizon
report: 2013 k-12 edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013horizon-report-k12.pdf

Jubien, P. (2013). Shape shifting smart phones: Riding the waves in education. Canadian Journal of Learning and
Technology, 39(2), 1-16. Retrieved from http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/696/365

Maguad, B. A. (2007). Lean strategies for education: Overcoming the waste factor. Education, 128(2), 248-255.
Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-175442994/lean-strategies-for-education-overcoming-the-waste

Meriden Public Schools [MPS]. (2013a). High schools of tomorrow. Retrieved July 7, 2013 from
http://www.meridenk12.org/Schools/High_Schools/High-Schools-of-Tomorrow/

Meriden Public Schools [MPS]. (2013b). Student-centered learning. Retrieved July 7, 2013 from
http://www.meridenk12.org/Schools/High_Schools/Student-Centered-Learning/

Mietzner, D., & Reger, G. (2005). Advantages and disadvantages of scenario approaches for strategic foresight. Int
J. Technology Intelligence and Planning, 1(2), 220-239. Retrieved from
http://www.lampsacus.com/documents/stragegicforesight.pdf

Milner, H. R. (2013). Rethinking achievement gap talk in urban education. Urban Education, 48(1), 3-8. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085912470417

Mind Tools. (1996-2013). How creative are you? [Self-assessment quiz]. Retrieved from
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/creativity-quiz.htm
References, continued

MindShift. (2011). How we will learn: Three trends that will shape the future of curriculum. Retrieved from
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2011/02/three-trends-that-will-shape-the-future-of-curriculum/

Moorcroft, R. (2007, April). The art of the clairvoyant. Manager: British Journal of Administrative Management. 4-5.
Retrieved from https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1512777-dt-content-rid17577170_1/courses/EDU505.901092027070/Documents/The%20art%20of%20the%20clairvoyant.pdf

New England Association of Schools and Colleges [NEASC]. (2012). Report of the visiting committee for Orville H. Platt
High School. Retrieved July 7, 2013 from http://www.platths.com/Information/NEASC-Report/

O.H. Platt High School (2012-2013a). About Platt: Educational excellence through school improvement. Retrieved
July 7, 2013 from http://www.platths.com/Information/About_Platt/

O.H. Platt High School (2012-2013b). Core values and beliefs: Statement of core values and beliefs. Retrieved July 7,
2013 from http://www.platths.com

Primicerio, K., (2013a, June 11). Pilot BYOD program coming to Meriden schools. Record-Journal. Retrieved July 7,
2013 from http://www.myrecordjournal.com/meriden

Primicerio, K., (2013b, June 24). Meriden’s top teacher focuses on building relationships. Record-Journal. Retrieved
July 7, 2013 from http://www.myrecordjournal.com/meriden

Project Tomorrow. (2009). Learning in the 21st century: 2009 trends update [Report produced in collaboration with
Blackboard, Inc.]. Retrieved July 25, 2013 from https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/xid-17577146_1

Project Tomorrow. (2011). Learning in the 21st century: Mobile devices + social media = personalized
learning. Retrieved July 25, 2013 from http://www.blackboard.com/resources/markets/k-12/collateral/projecttomorrow/K12_Prjct-Tmrw_Mbl-Rpt_2012.pdf
References, continued

Rice, J. K. (2004). Equity and efficiency in school finance reform: Competing or complementary goods? Peabody
Journal of Education (0161956X), 79(3), 134-151.

Shrestha, L. B. & Heisler, E. J. (2011). The changing demographic profile of the United States [Electronic version].
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/825/

Sobrero, P. M. (2004). The steps for futuring. Journal of Extension, 42(3). Retrieved from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/comm2.php

Sternberg, R., & Williams, W. M. (n. d.). Teaching for creativity: Two dozen tips. Center for Development and Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/teaching_creativity.php

Strubhar, A. J. (2011). The application of an environmental scanning and strategic planning framework in an
academic department of physical therapy. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 25(3), 53-59.

Wright State University. (2009). Innovation in action: How to be innovative. Retrieved from
http://www.wright.edu/innovation/how-to-be-innovative/

Yang, H. H. (2013). New world, new learning: Trends and issues of e-Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 77(0), 429-442. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.03.098

Yates, J. R. (2008). Demographic imperatives for educational reform for culturally and linguistically diverse students.
[Article]. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(1), 4-12.