A
1999 Snapshot |
Prepared by: |
Table of Contents
Preface
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background
The
Relationship of Technology to Academic Standards
The purpose of this document is (1) to analyze the 1999 state-of-the-art regarding learning technology, (2) to present what facts are known about the contributions of technology to increased academic performance and (3) to make some technology-related recommendations for K-12 education in Arizona.
Technology is being introduced into K-12 education with varying levels of support throughout the nation. Arizona generally lags other states in the funding and use of information technology in the K-12 educational system. Some positive steps are being made regarding academic standards that are related to technology, and this activity needs to be supported.
The lessons learned from business and its use of information technology need to be applied in an appropriate manner in the field of education.
Research shows that at the very least, the use of information technology, computers and the Internet in schools increases the engagement and interest levels of the students. This has the potential to reduce the dropout rate. Other research suggests that the effective use of information technology in the schools can improve the academic scores of students.
The grass-roots organization Arizona Learning Technology Partnership (ALTP) has done considerable work to lay the foundation for increased use of technology in Arizona schools. To continue that effort and to make it more effective, the following short-term recommendations are proposed:
For the remainder of 1999, ALTP and its supporters should work as closely as possible with the School Facilities Board, staff and consultants hired to assure that the guidelines and assessment tool for all of Arizona's 1200 schools reflects the need for adequate networked computers in the classroom.
For the next two years, ALTP and its supporters need to reenergize the advocacy process to pass legislation to fully fund teacher professional development and technical support.
From 1999-2002, ALTP and its supporters need to organize the education and training delivery system within Arizona that will provide full professional development and training for Arizona's 50,000 teachers and librarians.
From 1999-2003, ALTP and its supporters need to support school districts to enhance their strategic technology plans and integrate them into a statewide strategic plan.
From 1999-2004, ALTP and its supporters need to organize and advocate to develop Arizona into an attractive state to transfer the most effective learning technology into K-12 education and for learning technology based companies to prosper.
ALTP and its supporters need to develop and lead a project to assess all programs and offerings available to train and professionally develop Arizona’s 50,000 teachers. They need to design a curriculum to deliver this learning to all teachers that is customized to the students' age grouping and subjects. The providers should include technology companies that have programs for schools, universities, community colleges, private colleges, private training firms, curriculum software companies, school districts, consultants, distance learning and web based training.
ALTP and its supporters should assess current training and professional development levels using the Milken-ADE data available at the end of July, along with some primary research. A costing model should be developed that links roll out of computers and infrastructure with the teacher development. Teacher turnover and entry level teachers should be considered. Annual costs will be determined based on the model.
ALTP and its supporters should initiate a statewide PR and education program to focus on 20 or more stakeholder groups. This campaign needs to be professionally done, with handouts, presentations, and professional support.
Legislation for 2000 needs to be designed to fund deficiencies in Students FIRST, teacher professional development and technical support. A comprehensive program to educate 90 legislators needs to be initiated no later than August and be completed by November 1999.
Other more substantive long-term recommendations are detailed in the final section.
Much has been written about the use of technology (usually referring to computers) in the K-12 classroom during the last decade. Most of that material has been anecdotal and consequently of limited use in formulating general policies regarding the effective use of technology. This is normal when new methods and processes appear on the horizon. For example, when personal computers began to become popular in the early 1980s, most businesses were skeptical about using them in the workplace. More often than not, they were considered a threat to the status quo of centralized corporate management and of Management Information Systems (MIS) departments. Arguments for and against their usage relied mainly on anecdotal evidence. It was only in the late 1980s and early 1990s that documented research could be employed to validate the benefits of personal computers to workplace productivity. By then, the forward thinking companies had already deployed them in large numbers and gained a competitive advantage over the laggards, who wanted to wait until the "proof" was in.
We are just entering that stage of documented research in the field of K-12 education. Several publications that have appeared in the last year to eighteen months are giving us the first glimpses of the value of information technology for K-12 instruction. It is important to keep abreast of the latest developments in this domain because changes are occurring so rapidly.
This report focuses on a few documents that we believe fairly summarize the work that is going on right now. The publications of interest are:
Technology Counts '98 has several sections. One section of interest describes a research effort by Harold Wenglinsky of the Educational Testing Service in New Jersey in which he analyzes the effect of technology on national mathematics test scores. Another section outlines the national use of, access to and capacity of technology equipment in schools. In general, the latter section uses data gathered in the first half of 1998 from various sources, including the private data collection company Market Data Retrieval (MDR), the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Milken Exchange on Education Technology.
Because of the frequent reference to the ratio of students to computers, one item that needs to be noted is that when reporting on the ratio of students to computers, Technology Counts uses data gathered from MDR. MDR defines such a computer to be a multimedia computer with a sound card and a CD-ROM drive that is available for student instruction. This implies that the computer could be located anywhere in the school, it need not be directly accessible to students, and it need not be networked or have access to the Internet. This means the student-computer ratio could be deceptively low, even if the students had no direct access to a computer.
Progress of Technology in the Schools: Report on 21 States covers data gathered from the state technology directors in twenty-one states. This is the result of a state-by-state survey distributed by the state education technology directors of twenty-eight states to the districts in each state. Twenty-one of the states achieved a response rate of more than 40% of their districts. After validation of the content of the responses by each state director, these twenty-one states were selected as the sample to be reported on. The definition this publication uses for the student to computer ratio is "the number of students to each Internet capable computer available for student use."
Another important study is the CEO Forum Report. The CEO Forum on Education and Technology was founded to help ensure that every child in the United States is equipped with the essential technological, critical thinking, and communications skills necessary to compete in the 21st century. The Forum is led by a number of CEOs and leaders of businesses that focus on technology and on education. The Forum has issued two annual reports on the status of learning technology in American schools, paying special attention to hardware, content, connectivity, and professional development. The Forum members hope to accelerate the country's progress in preparing our children for the next century by highlighting the progress that is being made.
The CEO Forum School c and Readiness Report, Year Two, contains two major sections. The first section, titled "Professional Development: A Link to Better Learning," is prescriptive and deals with the need for and the implications of professional development of teachers in the domain of technology. It draws heavily upon comparisons with experiences and lessons learned from the corporate workplace. The other section called the "Year 2 StaR Assessment" is descriptive and outlines the current national situation vis à vis technology in the schools. This report uses data gathered from the private data research firm Quality Education Data (QED). The definition it uses for the student to computer ratio is the number of students in the school to the number of multimedia computers in the school (it is not clear if this includes computers used for administrative purposes).
The Last Silver Bullet? Technology for America's Schools is a detailed analysis that tries, and largely succeeds, to make the case for technology in schools.
Education, it is often said, is one profession that has undergone virtually no changes in technique for the last 150 years at least. This can not be said of other professions, such as medicine, for example.
Technology and Information Technology
Technology has played an important role in transforming business and work practices. In fact, technology is the prime driver behind the transformation of our socioeconomic infrastructure from the industrial age into the post-industrial era of today, just as it was the prime driver in transforming our agrarian society into an industrial society.
Technology, in general, encompasses the tools and strategies for solving problems, using information, increasing productivity and enhancing personal growth. Knowledge and skills that were unheard of a decade ago, such as using databases to locate material in public libraries, communicating through global networks, and understanding how to access information stored electronically, are critical for today’s citizens. Technology goes beyond computers into complex technological advances such as genetic engineering; mechanical and construction equipment; and tools; and the production, preparation and disposal of food. It also includes everyday applications such as the design of athletic shoes, space age fabrics, entertainment centers and smoke detectors.
Technology, in the large, needs to be understood by its prospective users so that it can be used effectively. Usually technology is discussed according to one of its subcategories, such as medical technology, electronic technology and information technology.
Information technology differs from other subcategories of technology. Not only does information technology need to be understood by its prospective, but its prospective users also need to comprehend how to incorporate it into work processes and education processes. Workplace examples of how information technology can be used to make processes more effective and productive are found in electronic commerce and Internet-based applications. These are application areas that were inconceivable before the advent and use of information technology. Similar processes in education are just now emerging.
Because education deals with the processing of information by human subjects, technology that relates to and interacts with information is of vital concern to the pedagogical domain. The special and important role played by information technology was recognized by the creators of the Arizona academic standards. That relationship is explored below.
The Relationship of Technology to Academic Standards
How does technology relate to academic adequacy standards? To answer
this question, it is useful to refer to the work recently carried out by the Arizona
Department of Education (ADE). The ADE has developed academic standards (adopted by the
State Board of Education on March 24, 1997) for the following:
From the above categorization, we see that technology is one of the subject areas for
which academic adequacy standards have been defined. In other words, to become
knowledgeable about technology is an end in itself. Examples would include the instruction
of students in the use of an oscilloscope, a computer keyboard or a computer programming
language. From this point of view, technology is just another subject such as reading,
writing, arithmetic, etc. Graduating students need to understand technology and how to use it. It is also
necessary for graduates to consider legal, social and environmental issues when
considering technological solutions. Information technology, however, differs from the other subject areas (including
technology in general) in that it can also improve the way students learn, and it can help
students meet academic standards in those other fields. In this respect, technology is a
means to an end. An example would be using computers in the classroom to facilitate the
instruction of mathematical concepts. From this point of view, technology is a tool, the
use of which can facilitate learning in all disciplines. Business seeks employees who are literate in information technology and able to
participate in a high-performance work force that adapts readily to constantly changing
technology. In addition, business requires personnel who are able to think analytically.
The public schools must prepare individuals to create, gather, retrieve, store, analyze,
synthesize and present information that fuels the world of work and civic life. Again, referring to the ADE standards, four technology-related standards have been
defined. The first two standards focus on information technology, while the latter two
emphasize technology in general. The standards are:
We have inserted the word "information" in the first two standards above for
clarification. It is apparent from the context of the standards document that the intended
reference is to "information technologies." Technology is an integral component
of academic adequacy standards, both as a means to achieving those standards and as a part
of those same standards. Technology standards have been recognized by the ADE as a
necessary requirement for academic adequacy in Arizona K-12 education. The implication of the above paragraph is that Arizona K-12 students must become
proficient (1) in understanding technology in general and (2) in understanding and using
information technologies.
General Technology: Training and Literacy
The word 'technology' comes from the Greek word 'techne' meaning art or craft, suggesting a set of crafts or techniques for making things. However, the word itself was not invented until the nineteenth century, in the midst of the industrial revolution, and, indeed, technology has been the linchpin of the industrialization that has occurred over the last several centuries.
Training and literacy in general technology, other than by means of on-the-job training, has traditionally been dealt with as students enter middle school or high school. Often the training in various aspects of technology has been relegated to the vocational classes or to more specialized and advanced sections of physics and chemistry. This is typical of the industrial age views of technology, and it has served that era well.
Things changed with our entrance into the information age. This change has been made dramatically clear since the introduction of the personal computer in the 1980s.
Computer Technology: Training and Literacy
The requirements for training and literacy in computer technology are deceivingly simple on one level: people who plan to work with computer technology need to be literate about computers and electronics just as budding electricians or electrical engineers need to be literate about power plants and electricity. This is the model that people tend to gravitate toward when discussing computer literacy. Unfortunately this leads them to believe that computer technology differs only in some degree from other technology. Such a conclusion is false -- computer technology differs in kind from traditional technologies because of its use in managing information. Because of this connection, computer technology, as information technology, changes the way we learn, the way we communicate and the way we work.
Information Technology: Professional Development and Usage
Information technology was spawned by computer technology. Its impact has not yet been fully manifested, but its growing importance is impossible to ignore. Originally it concerned only computer programmers, system analysts, computer scientists and the like. As computers have become more commonplace and ubiquitous (e.g., automobiles are made up of hundreds of microprocessors), information technology has expanded to include all kinds of technology that are used to process information and knowledge, including the domain of learning technology.
Comparison between Education and Business
It is useful to analyze the ways in which business confronted the demands made by the intrusion of information technology, because in many ways educational institutions are destined to follow in the footsteps of the business community. Businesses in the 1980s were not prepared for the changes introduced by the burgeoning personal computer and information technology industry.
In many ways, the corporate world in the early 1980s resembled the education world of today. Computers were primarily large mainframes managed by the MIS departments and kept isolated from the employees at large. The CEO Forum on Education and Technology has recognized this similarity and is taking efforts to apply some of the lessons gained in the business world to the educational domain. The CEO Forum was founded to help ensure that every child in the United States is equipped with the essential technological, critical thinking, and communications skills necessary to compete in the 21st century. The Forum is made up of executive management representatives from some of the leading corporations in America, such as Apple Computers, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Dell Computer, IBM, Jostens Learning and the Washington Post. It also includes members from the National Education association and the National School Boards Association.
"To thrive in today's world and in tomorrow's workplace, America's students must learn how to learn, learn how to think, and have a solid understanding of how technology works and what it can do. Teachers hold the key. In fact, teachers are perhaps the single most important factor determining the quality of education." The message here, which too often goes ignored, is that the teachers need continuous and up-to-date training and professional development in order for them to impart effectively the concepts of technology to their students. Such training initially seems quite costly, as shown by some corporate experiences such as at Motorola.
In the 1980s Motorola began requiring its employees to take at least 40 hours of training per year. When other companies were spending an average of one percent of payroll costs on training, Motorola was spending 3 percent, or approximately $1400 per employee per year. On the plus side, Motorola was able to measure the effects of this training in three separate studies. They showed that Motorola was able to get at least a $30 return for every training dollar invested, in terms of job performance.
What the above scenario tells us is we must not become petrified by "sticker shock" when discussing the implementation of training and professional development. We need to look at the total picture and consider the benefits to be gained in the future.
"Business seeks employees who are literate in technology and able to participate in a high-performance work force that adapts readily to constantly changing technology. In addition, business requires personnel who are able to think analytically. Therefore, our public schools must provide students an access to extraordinary education and prepare individuals to create, gather, retrieve, store, analyze, synthesize and present information to solve problems. Graduates lacking these skills will be isolated from the information that fuels the world of work and civic life."
The CEO Forum group has assembled a convenient categorization scheme called the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart. The categories are Low Tech, Mid Tech, High Tech and Target Tech. Schools can use the STaR Chart to evaluate their own schools and to lay out a plan for entering the highest level of technology readiness. In summary, to reach the Target Tech level, schools must have
Only 6% of the nation's schools are currently at the Target Tech level.
The educational benefits of schools at the Target Tech level are many. Such schools are conducive to student-centered project-based learning, provide students with universal access to a wide range of resources via CD-ROMs and the Internet and have easy access to the parents and other community members. These schools also train students in collaborative learning and the development of skills in teamwork, communication and problem-solving -- all of which are becoming increasingly important in the workforce of today.
Ideally, every teacher and student should have access to their own modern multimedia networked computer. In other words, there should be a student to computer ratio of 1:1. This would enable teachers to optimize the time spent with students who need personal attention. The other students would be able to proceed at their own pace according to their needs. This would allow an approximation of nearly one on one tutorial instruction. This is just what is needed to raise the scores by two letter grades.
It also is worthwhile to point out that computers are becoming more ubiquitous day by day. Soon it will be difficult to identify the difference between telephony, television and computers. As this occurs, schools must be adaptable to the new technology. This could easily make obsolete current measures of quantification, such as the student to computer ratio This means that any standard guidelines need to be flexible enough to incorporate the technological changes that are forthcoming.
In assessing the state of the nation and of Arizona regarding
technology in the schools, there is general agreement across all of the sources that we
are considering. Nevertheless, some variations are noticeable due to differences in
definitions of terms and in the research methods employed. In this section, wherever such
discrepancies are found, they are identified as follows:
There are two kinds of information reported on here: one kind is made up of raw data (i.e., survey responses and numbers), while the other consists of analyses or inferences that can be derived from the data.
Listed below are highlights of the 1998 raw data.
Some analyses of the data include the following:
Current State of K-12 Education in Arizona
Unfortunately, most of the current data for Arizona will not be available until later this summer. The Milken Foundation is conducting a survey of technology in the Arizona K-12 system, but the results will not be tabulated until July or August. The results below, limited as they are, reflect the data reported in Technology Counts '98: Putting School Technology To the Test.
Arizona is tied for 25th to 32nd place with 14 students per multimedia computer available for instructional use. (As noted above, this does not necessarily mean that students actually have access to such computers.)
Arizona has 51% of its classrooms connected to a Local Area Network (LAN). Arizona is tied for 31st and 32nd place among the 50 states.
45% of Arizona classrooms have access to the Internet. Arizona is tied for 27th to 29th place.
76% of Arizona school districts have access to the Internet. Arizona is tied for 46th to 47th place.
44% of Arizona schools report that at least half of their teachers use a computer daily (either for planning or for instruction). Arizona is tied for 29th and 30th place.
Technology can improve learning, but it needs to be used effectively. Research has shown that learning within small groups can significantly increase learning. The ultimate small group is one-on-one tutoring, which can increase learning by two sigma. This equates roughly to two letter grades (e.g., from a C to an A). By providing each student with a computer, it becomes possible to approach one-on-one tutoring. Within the next decade, we can expect to see intelligent computer aided instruction software with simulation and synthetic environments that will closely approximate the one-on-one tutoring level.
Evidence is available to strongly suggest that technology does make a difference. But most of the prior research on computers in the classroom consists primarily of evaluations of exemplary programs, which may not be replicable on a large scale. A great example of that early evidence that supports the argument for educational technology is the Apple Computer sponsored Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) program. The ACOT project had students performing better on standardized tests plus improvement in eight attitudinal and higher-level performance areas not covered by standard tests. They verify that the teachers must be deeply involved in the technology adoption.
ACOT stresses several points that are critical to understanding technology's role in education reform.
A recent study has been published by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) which does provide dramatic empirical evidence that educational technology can and does make a difference. Because this study was published in Technology Counts '98, it has received a good deal of publicity. It was conducted by Harold Wenglinsky, a research scientist at ETS. This study uses a national database, the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress, and advanced analysis techniques, to isolate the effects of the computer from the myriad other factors involved in student achievement. Data were drawn from the 1996 NAEP in mathematics, consisting of national samples of 6,227 fourth-graders and 7,146 eighth-graders. The complete 38-page report is available on the Web at http://www.ets.org/research/.
In the fourth grade, students using computers to play learning games are .15 of a grade level ahead of their counterparts; students with teachers who have had professional development on computers are .09 of a grade level ahead. Assuming a 36-week school year, these gains amount to three and five weeks respectively. In the eighth grade, students using computers for higher-order thinking skills show gains of .42 of a grade level, and those with a teacher who had received professional development on computers show gains of .35 of a grade level. These amount to much more substantial gains of 15 and 13 weeks respectively.
Efforts to Introduce Technology to Arizona Education
The Arizona Learning Technology Partnership (ALTP) is a grassroots organization under the umbrella of the Arizona Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development (GSPED). It has been responsible for some gains made in the past several years in expanding the role of technology in Arizona schools on a statewide level. A number of other organizations have also been involved in promoting the cause for technology in education, ALTP has probably been more broadly based than the others.
From 1997-1998, ALTP defined a vision for K-12 education and a process for realizing it through a Strategic Plan proposal with supporting documentation and evidence.
Beginning in 1997 and continuing to the present, through dozens of conferences, speaking engagements, presentations and newspaper articles, ALTP raised the public and business expectations for the use of computers in the classroom to assure that Arizona K-12 students meet the Arizona Academic Standards.
In the Spring of 1998, ALTP induced the legislature to include Technology Equipment and Infrastructure in Students FIRST legislation for soft capital funding of $40 million a year and facility funding of $350 million a year. This led to the establishment of the School Facilities Board and its charge to define guidelines for capital funding in Arizona that will support the academic standards introduced by ADE.
In the Spring of 1999, ALTP took a bill for $25 million funding for teacher professional development and technical support through House education committee but failed by one vote in House appropriations. The $50 million school M&O funding passed with support from legislators that advocated using part of these funds for professional development and support.
As noted in The Last Silver Bullet?, the implementation of learning technology in America is remindful of other massive national efforts to build infrastructure in America, such as the post-World War II GI Bill, the interstate highway system and the man-in-space program. In each of these cases we had a vision of what we hoped to achieve, and we charged ahead. Had we required cost-benefit analyses before proceeding, we never would have proceeded with those programs. Looking back, with the benefit of hindsight, the cost-benefit ratios are astoundingly favorable. It is always the case when introducing new ideas that affect infrastructure, that we cannot precisely predict the outcome - but we can direct and shape it as we go along.
The problem is that it is far easier to criticize than it is to justify a new solution. One of the criticisms always brought forward is that the stories and figures of success are too minimal to be considered worth the cost. However, since more and more studies seem to confirm the notion that technology in education engages students and increases their interest level, the dropout rate should be reduced with the increased effective use of technology. How much of a reduction would be worthwhile? Some research has been done to calculate the effect of reducing the high school dropout rate of those currently 5-17 years of age by 10 percent from its current level of 11.7 percent. Based upon the difference in earnings of high school dropouts and graduates, this could lead to an increase of total earnings over the students' work by an amount whose present value is over $30 billion. This doesn't even address the increased labor market productivity of all students exposed to technology-rich education. The point is that if technology has limited effects on a relatively small number of students, the benefits still could be immense once all students are exposed to it.
Arizona ranks 50th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia in the percentage of youths aged 16 through 19 who were high-school dropouts. Consequently, any methods that might reduce the dropout rate should be of great interest to the people of Arizona.
Learning technology works if it is properly integrated into the curriculum, when teachers are trained to use it, and when good software and technical support are provided. This much is known from research studies, and we can verify it by looking at specific cases of successful implementation by classrooms, schools, districts, and even states.
The next two paragraphs are quotes from The Last Silver Bullet? Technology for America’s Schools and we feel that they are best stated in their original form.
We also have theoretical support for our conclusion about technology's value to student learning. A number of teaching methods have been shown to have positive impacts on children, including cooperative learning, individualized instruction, and active learning, among others. And it has been shown that when students are engaged, are not threatened, and do not feel they are being singled out or embarrassed, they learn more. Technology enables all the above to occur. Because all these educational approaches have been shown to be effective across many groups, for long periods of time, we can say that because technology enables methods and attitudes that increase student learning and result in other positive effects on students, technology itself enhances these positive outcomes. That is, if technology causes teaching to take a certain form that causes positive student outcomes, then we can say technology causes positive student outcomes.
We conclude that the case that technology leads to positive student outcomes is iron clad. But how do we respond to the skeptic who will not be convinced until the "perfect" educational research study is completed, or to the opponent of spending what is required for school technology who tries to stonewall all proposals to do so by claiming the evidence to justify it is not yet in? First, in education there never are absolutely unequivocal research results. There could always be some unidentified factor causing an observed change. Second, the rapid improvements in the available technology means we are always studying what has been, rather than what can be. Third, where technology has been done properly in schools, the results are positive to a very acceptable level of statistical certainty. Fourth, theoretical evidence supports these positive findings. Finally, technology, as we envision it, has rarely been tried. Just as there was no proof that we could land a man on the moon before we actually did it, although there was theoretical reason to believe we could, we will never prove technology's effectiveness in schools until we do it better, more extensively and, yes, more expensively than we have done so far. Just as the experts had confidence before the fact that we could land a man on the moon, it is fair to say that most people who have looked into education technology are highly confident that the benefits of doing so would be immense.
Based on the above observations we feel that the following short-term recommendations are in order:
For the remainder of 1999, ALTP and its supporters should work as closely as possible with the School Facilities Board, staff and consultants hired to assure that the guidelines and assessment tool for all of Arizona's 1200 schools reflects the need for adequate networked computers in the classroom.
For the next two years, ALTP and its supporters need to reenergize the advocacy process to pass legislation to fully fund teacher professional development and technical support.
From 1999-2002, ALTP and its supporters need to organize the education and training delivery system within Arizona that will provide full professional development and training for Arizona's 50,000 teachers and librarians.
From 1999-2003, ALTP and its supporters need to support school districts to enhance their strategic technology plans and integrate them into a statewide strategic plan.
From 1999-2004, ALTP and its supporters need to organize and advocate to develop Arizona into an attractive state to transfer the most effective learning technology into K-12 education and for learning technology based companies to prosper.
ALTP and its supporters need to develop and lead a project to assess all programs and offerings available to train and professionally develop Arizona’s 50,000 teachers. They need to design a curriculum to deliver this learning to all teachers that is customized to the students' age grouping and subjects. The providers should include technology companies that have programs for schools, universities, community colleges, private colleges, private training firms, curriculum software companies, school districts, consultants, distance learning and web based training.
ALTP and its supporters should assess current training and professional development levels using the Milken-ADE data available at the end of July, along with some primary research. A costing model should be developed that links roll out of computers and infrastructure with the teacher development. Teacher turnover and entry level teachers should be considered. Annual costs will be determined based on the model.
ALTP and its supporters should initiate a statewide PR and education program to focus on 20 or more stakeholder groups. This campaign needs to be professionally done, with handouts, presentations, and professional support.
Legislation for 2000 needs to be designed to fund deficiencies in Students FIRST, teacher professional development and technical support. A comprehensive program to educate 90 legislators needs to be initiated no later than August and be completed by November 1999.
Long-term recommendations based on the ETS Research of Wenglinsky as well as that of the CEO Forum suggest the following;
collaborating with schools of education and K-12 schools to provide support and share relevant best practices for integrating technology;
implementing technology leadership seminars for principals and school administrators;
providing leadership and guidance on skills requirements that exist in their workplaces and provide information to help define and continuously refine a K-12 curriculum to support the development of these skills; and
working with colleges of education to clarify goals and objectives for continuous faculty professional development that encompasses technology and to ensure availability of adequate resources.
In conclusion, technology advocates are correct in asserting that technology can be beneficial to student learning. Used properly, technology can lead to gains in academic achievement and positively influence the social environment of the school, reducing teacher and student absenteeism and improving morale.
Technology is becoming pervasive in all aspects of life. Just as technology has led to more efficiency and increased productivity in the business world, it can lead to more effective learning and increased productivity for teachers in the field of education. To use technology effectively requires training, professional development and continued support. These are requirements that are now understood by the business world. They need also to be incorporated into the funding models of educational institutions.