National_Education_Technology_Plan

National Education Technology Plan In 1983, the United States Department of Education’s National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk. This report detailed the Commission assessment of the state of education in America, and set in motion a maelstrom of political posturing that continues today. The original Nation at Risk study is reported to have been a bipartisan effort to find out how American students measured up to students in other developed countries. The results of the study stunned Americans and set in motion educational reforms that have changed the educational landscape in ways that might surprise the original authors of the Nation At Risk document. The study purported: …students are not being challenged with high quality mathematics and science curricula and many students are not learning the basic skills. A majority of our secondary school students still are not grade-level proficient in reading, mathematics, or science. The data for minority students remain alarming (National Education Technology Plan, 2004, p. 9) One of the most notable responses to the study became No Child Left Behind (NCLB); an educational reform program passed in Congress in 2001 with the lofty goal of eliminating illiteracy and bringing all children to an exceptional level of achievement by the year 2014. Supporters of the program argued that students who were growing up with technology would be accepting and willing partners in an educational structure that demanded achievement. It was determined that student achievement would be measured through national testing standards. It is the position of this researcher that No Child Left Behind has not improved education, nor resulted in the high levels of achievement that its’ authors hoped. Indeed, it may have done more harm than good in the long term. The goals of the program were well intentioned, but the program has done little more than hogtie the hands of good teachers, ignore mediocre teachers and driven good school administrators to early retirement for little more than having a culturally mixed student body that skews test results. Another by-product of NCLB is the loss of elective classes, and reduced classroom time in non-math and science courses. The intense focus on the two basic skills (Reading and Math) is a sea change in American instructional practice, with many schools that once offered rich curriculums now systematically trimming courses like social studies, science, and art. A nationwide survey by a nonpartisan group… indicates that the practice, known as narrowing the curriculum, has become standard procedure in many communities (Dillon, 2006, p. 1) One example of schools with narrowed curriculum include Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Sacramento where low performing students spend five of the six class periods on math, reading and gym. The rest of the student courses are crammed into one period (Dillon, 2006). Although the program itself has not accomplished its’ intended goals, one of the outcomes of the Nation At Risk study and the NCLB program was the recognition that the world was entering a digital age and education had to change to keep up. The recognition that the business community was making the necessary changes to embrace the digital platforms, but the educational system was not adapting curriculum and practice to include digital learning, was a very important by-product of NCLB. In 2004, the Department of Education published Toward A New Golden Age In American Education: How The Internet, The Law And Today’s Students Are Revolutionizing Expectations. This ambitious plan was intended to completely change the way educators looked at the role of technology in education (Access to high-quality learning experiences, 2009) (International Society for Technology in Education, 2008) (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Because technology is credited as being a significant factor in increasing productivity in many industries, some people believe that more effective use of technology in schools could do more to improve educational opportunities and quality. Research indicates that while there are poor uses of technology in education, appropriate technology use can be very beneficial in increasing educational productivity (Valdez, 2004, p. 1) The National Education Technology (NETP) program was to provide standards for achievement in the use of technology in education. When implemented, the program was designed to work cooperatively with NCLB to ensure that all students had access to technology; teachers were properly trained in the use of technology; and that all students learned how to utilize technology to solve existing and future problems. Of the seven goals that make up NETP, the five most critical goals are: 1. Strengthening leadership 2. Improving teacher training 3. Moving toward digital content 4. Integrating data systems 5. Supporting e-learning and virtual schools Strengthening Leadership In the majority of educational organizations, curriculum development, and financial appropriations are determined by district leadership. Building level principals and classroom teachers rely on the district to provide them with the tools they need to be successful. If educational leadership is not “schooled” in the use of technology in the curriculum, it is less likely that they will support the program. If, however, they have had enough training and exposure to fully understand the intended benefits, they are more apt to help the program succeed. Technology leadership is a combination of strategies and techniques that are general to all leadership but require attention to some specifics of technology, especially those related to providing hardware access, updating rapidly changing technology, and recognizing that professional development and the use of technology are constantly evolving (Valdez, 2004, p. 13). For public education to benefit from the rapidly evolving development of information and communication technology, leaders at every level – school, district, and state – must not only supervise, but provide informed, creative, and ultimately transformative leadership for systemic change (Access To High Quality Learning Experiences, 2009, p. 39). Leaders who understand the concepts of technology integration in the curriculum may work harder to provide the necessary tools, both financially and curricular, for the program to succeed. The NETP gives recommendations for strengthening leadership, which include: 1. Investing in the training program for educational leaders, with emphasis on technology. 2. Providing training in leadership development programs in organizational decision making as it relates to technology. 3. Developing community and educational partnerships 4. Encouraging technology partnerships in the business community 5. Inclusion of student participation in the planning process. (Access to High-Quality Learning Experiences, 2009) Each of these recommendations is valuable and indeed necessary to a successful technology program, however, it is the opinion of this researcher that the recommendations do not go far enough. Plan authors may have intended the five recommendations to spark serious change, with the hope that leadership would take the recommendations further on their own. Ideally, learning is best when initiated by the learner rather than the teacher, but this initiation becomes increasingly rare as those in leadership move further up the career ladder and is more absorbed in the minutia of bureaucracy. Exceptional leadership depends on several inherent abilities; decision making, empathy, vision, to name a few. Perhaps one of the most important abilities or desires is the desire to learn. Every administrator must have the drive and desire to learn new things, to keep up in their field. It appears to this researcher that enthusiasm and desire for learning might be measured by the length of time educational leaders have been out of the classroom. Those who have spent the majority of their lives in administration appear to be more and more caught up in the bureaucracy of education and less involved in the process of improving things at a building level. As younger administrators fill positions left through retirement, it is my opinion that we will see more emphasis put on technology in the classroom, primarily because the younger generation has grown up with technology and already embraces it. Improve Teacher Training “Transformation goals must focus on learning, not the technology nor the engineering required to provide access… technology is not the driver, it is the delivery” (Access To High Quality Learning Experiences, 2009, p. 9). For technology integration programs to be successful in schools, it must be recognized that providing equipment is only a part of the equation. If teachers do not have the preparation and training to effectively use the tools they have been given, the money spent on the equipment is wasted. “The teacher is a key variable in technology implementation and effectiveness. Technology’s impact on teachers and their practice should be considered as important as student effects, for students move on but teachers remain to influence many generations of students” (Valdez, 2004, p. 12). It is thought by some in our educational communities that when we talk about technology, we are talking about computers. When budgets for technology are discussed, constituents point out that we have rooms full of computers already, and therefore the job is done. It is the responsibility of educational leadership to promote understanding of what technology literacy and integration really are. Education has supported a “stand and deliver” method of education since the inception of schools. Technology education changes the way content and learning are delivered. That change is difficult for many to accept (Access to high-quality learning experiences, 2009). Teachers are pivotal in the implementation of technology programs as they are the front line who ultimately delivers learning opportunities to students each day. As in any profession, there are those who do not want to change the way they do business and will refuse to do so. Others recognize that change is inevitable and are ready to figure out how to do it. Professional development is critical in the effort to help teachers feel comfortable with the uses of technology and the methods that can be used to integrate digital learning into classroom experiences. Teaching and learning in the future will be accomplished by those who can ask the relevant questions, access the relevant data to develop and appropriate response to the questions and then communicate that new understanding to an audience of interested people. This means the best teachers will be those who can best model this behavior and are completely open to mentoring others in developing those skills and behaviors…In short, education becomes guidance for learners in critical thinking, creative and inspired correlation of information, and the presentation of those new correlates that bring value to existent information expressed in ways that connect with the multiple learning strengths of various people (Access To High Quality Learning Experiences, p. 10) Professional development opportunities for teachers should be based on the philosophy that learning is the ultimate goal, not the technology. Utilizing the available technology to expand the ways students learn both now and in the future is what is important. Move Toward Digital Content Education must move toward using more digital resources. Teachers and students cannot learn to solve problems in a digital environment unless they are working in said environment. Relationships between education and the business world can be developed so students might learn in what context technology is used. Learning scenarios might go beyond online to virtual environments where students can use complex thinking and problem solving skills. International learning experiences should be utilized, connecting with students to create solutions for global issues (SETDA National Leadership Institute Toolkit, 2003). Some school districts are experimenting with online textbooks at the secondary level. Higher education was the first to try this approach, but it is logical that high schools take advantage of the opportunities as more and more textbook company’s branch into the field. This generation of students is used to reading gaming manuals online, accessing resources, and references online and should have little difficulty making the transition to working with textbooks. Educational leaders recognize there may be value academically, but are perhaps more interested in the possible financial savings that will come from not having to replace costly textbooks on a regular basis. It does however, remain to be seen whether the textbook authors and publishers will demand access and update fees that equal or surpass the more traditional textbook cost. Integrate Data Systems “Over the past 10 years, 99 percent of our schools have been connected to the Internet with a 5:1 student to computer ratio” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, p. 10). Educational leadership has made great strides toward providing on online access to every child and every school. Thanks to the e-Rate program, the majority of schools and libraries have the technological foundations in place, but lack the curricular knowledge and training to truly utilize the technology as it is meant to be used. Professional development training for teachers will address this issue. Technology is being integrated into more aspects of the program than just classroom learning. Parents can access student information online from home, or from a mobile phone. Online newsletters are used to share the parent/teacher information that used to go home pinned to a backpack. Principals and teachers can now access information on student test scores from their desks. Some educational leaders are encouraged by the recent release of Google docs, a word processing program put out by creators of the search engine Google that allows documents to be edited, revised, or proofread simultaneously online. Students working in different locations can all be contributing to a document resulting in collaborative learning experiences. Support e-learning and virtual schools Many public school districts are offering distance-learning opportunities in the K-12 environment. Students are taking advantage of online classes to supplement what local school districts offer. Distance learning may provide some budgetary relief for districts, but for students these course offerings are a goldmine enabling them to advance faster if they choose, or catch up if they are behind. Because these classes are offered in a digital environment, students are again learning to navigate in a digital world. The original goals of NCLB and NETP were to “end the achievement gap between rich and poor and white and minority students and improve the academic performance of all students by 2014” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, p. 37). The National Education Technology Plan states NCLB is “having a major impact on public education…is producing measurable results…schools are reporting notably sharp gains for poor and minority children” (Valdez, 2004, p. 37). Although this researcher agrees with many of the goals in the National Education Technology Plan, she disagrees with NETP researchers who believe significant progress is being made toward the goals. Many educators feel that although the intentions were good, NCLB’s reliance on testing to validate student progress has caused more harm than good. School funding and in some cases, teacher certification has been tied to test results, which has become more blackmail than encouragement. Experienced educators argue that one test cannot and should not be the single indicator or student achievement. Students learn in a myriad of ways, they also exhibit knowledge, understanding and ability in a variety of ways. The idea of putting ‘all the cards in one basket’ by using a single test to determine a students’ ability and aptitude wouldn’t not be tolerated in other arenas, why should it be the sole determining factor of success in education. In a nation of immigrants, schools are full of students who do not have English as their first language. Classrooms are filled with a variety of different language learners who have come from academic backgrounds that are not equal to the United States. Although all educators might agree that these students must come to know English and be able to function at a high level in the English speaking world, is it fair to those students and teachers to have one test determine their future for that school year' The day may soon come when every student in the country is expected to master the same material at the same age…To claim that all the children in a single large family could progress through every subject at the same pace is a stretch. To claim this of every child in a whole neighborhood is preposterous. To claim it of every child in a nation of 300 million people is the premise of national standards…Not only is it impossible to create a single set of standards that would serve every child equally well, such standards would fail to significantly improve our schools. High external standards have never been the driving force behind human progress (Coulson, 2009, p. 1). As has already been stated, this researcher agrees with the goals of the National Education Technology Plan. Education does need to train students to be able to function in the business world, and that world is highly dependent on technology. In an era where more and more of our technology jobs are being outsourced to other countries, our children will be without jobs unless they can provide the services and skills that American business desires. We live in an ever increasingly digital world, best described by the NETP: Technology ignites opportunities for learning, engages today’s students as active learners and participants in decision-making on their own educational futures, and prepares our nation for the demands of a global society in the 21st century (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, p. 46). The common thread throughout the five critical goals for technology education is knowledge. Leadership must be knowledgeable about technology and its importance and teachers must be knowledgeable about how to create learning experiences for students that integrate technology throughout the curriculum. Professional development opportunities for both groups are important to the success of the program. Valdez (2004) proposes that when leadership and teaching staff work together from the beginning to determine the goals for technology implementation, both groups will be better equipped to develop the kinds of professional development necessary. Educational leaders and stakeholders will develop a technology leadership vision and goals for the district and schools. All stakeholders will know the desired technology goals and the measures that will determine if those goals have been met. Both the vision and the goals should focus on improved student learning and teacher effectiveness as the predominate outcomes. Teacher effectiveness in the final analysis must be focused on how successful teachers are in improving student learning (Valdez, 2004, p. 14). NETP has given educational leadership the impetus to develop district technology programs to meet the needs of the students in their district. It is the opinion of this researcher that national standards can never meet the needs of every individual school district; at best, they can be a starting point for discussion. There are too many variables in each community to be able to follow point by point a list of standards put together by some entity with no knowledge of the children in an individual classroom. However, NETP is a start, and the responsibility is passed to local educational leadership to move from this point. While modern technology has great potential to enhance teaching and learning, turning that potential into reality on a large scale is a complex, multifaceted task. The key determinant of our success will not be the number of computers purchased or cables installed, but rather how we define educational visions, prepare, and support teachers, design curriculum, address issues of equity, and respond to the rapidly changing world. As is always the case in efforts to improve K-12 education, simple, short-term solutions turn out to be illusions; long-term, carefully planned commitments are required (Valdez, 2004, p. 18).   References Access to high-quality learning experiences. (2009, June 25). Retrieved September 12, 2009, from National Educational Technology Plan: https//edtechfuture.org/'p=776 Coulson, A. (2009). The Case against national school standards. New York Daily News. Retrieved September 11, 2009 from http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php'pub_id=10446 Dillon, S. (2006). Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math. The New York Times: March 26, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html' International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National Standards for Technology in Teacher Preparation. Retrieved August 9, 2009, from ISTE/NCATE Standards: http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_forTeachers_2008.htm International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). Nets for Teachers 2008. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from ISTE: www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_ForTeachers_2008.htm SETDA National Leadership Institute Toolkit. (2003). Retrieved September 9, 2009, from SETDA: http://setda.liveelements.net/toolkit/nlitoolkit/NETP/netp04.htm U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Education. Valdez, G. (2004, July). North Central Regional Education Laboratory. Retrieved September 9, 2009, from Critical Issue: Technology Leadership: Enhancing Positive Educational Change: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le700.htm