Arizona Learning Technology Partnership

225 West Orchid Lane

Phoenix, AZ 85021

602-944-8557(o) 602-861-9150(f) tkraver@qwest.net

Sunday, November 23, 1997

By: Ted Kraver

After three months of work the four Task Group reports were presented August 27th. The 9 to 15 page documents are summarized into this document along with periodic updates. Full task group reports are available from our web site or give us a call. The task-group leaders and report authors are:

ALTP is a Partnership within Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development (GSPED), http://www.commerce.state.az.us/fr_stpln.shtml. ALTP is currently pursuing three complementary initiatives.

1. To complete by December a statewide strategic plan for K-12 technology adoption. This plan will be used by Arizona by policy leaders and to support development of K-12 district technology plans;
2. To support a 1998 legislation initiative to bring funding for learning technology up to $300 per K-12 student;
3. To create an economic cluster of software companies, R&D sources, work force developers and Arizona schools that delivers learning technology to a globally competitive market.

Planning-Implementation Process: The ALTP and the strategic planning process was organized from July 1996 to the end of May 1997. The planning process has three phases:

Wave 1: the past 15 years, is now the "End of the Beginning." Through great efforts and sporadic funding K-12 school districts now have positive attitudes, partially trained staffs, some support ($110 per student on average) and adequate knowledge and champions to adopt technology to increase student performance;

Wave 2: the next 5 years, is the "Buildup." Following the practice of technology rich schools, Arizona schools aggressively adopt add computers and connect to the Internet in the classroom, train staffs, build support systems and integrate software with curriculum. Student performance increases one sigma: for example a C student => B student. Funding grows from $110 to $300 per student. The needs of post secondary education and workplace are addressed.

Wave 3: the next 5 to 20 years, is the "Final Push." The second generation of research based learning technology has emerged from the laboratories and is being delivered by (Arizona) commercial companies. School purchases shift toward software and digital media. Funding tops out at $300 per student. In twenty years we have transformed teaching practice, intelligent tutors, simulated environments, student and small group centered learning. Performance tops out at two sigma improvement: C students => A students. (Lake Wobegon effect: all students are above average.) All are in a rich life long learning mode.

ALTP will develop, implement and support STRATEGIC PLANS

for the enthusiastic and effective use of LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES

throughout the Arizona K-12 SCHOOL SYSTEM.

Roots of ALTP: ALTP has many parents over the past five years: Enterprise Network Strategic Planning Task Force 1989, Arizona Strategic Plan for Economic Development (ASPED) from strategy #1 of the Human Resource Foundation Group 1990; Phoenix Future Forum in the form of Learning/Research/Enterprise 1991; the Arizona Telecommunications and Information Foundation of GSPED 1994; the Arizona Software Association cluster of GSPED 1995; the Community Information and Telecommunications Alliance (Tucson) 1996; Center for Software Excellence (Tucson) 1996; and the prior Arizona Education and Information Technology Council 1995. Members of these groups founded ALTP in the summer of 1996. The steering committee decided to focus on technology adoption in K-12 education. The kickoff was a 2 day-200 person Expo and strategic planning meeting that attracted sponsors in January 1997. By May of 1997 ALTP had launched a state wide strategic planning process. GSPED partnership status was achieved in June of 1997.

Who We Are: ALTP is a volunteer group of learning technology advocates from business, government and education. We use civic entrepreneurial practices. The 13 person ATLP Executive Committee is supported by 50 person Leader Council and has 400 associates on a list serve — fax system. Our active people are from all major stakeholder groups (18) on the intersection of business, government and education. All the major K-12 and government entities: DOC, ADE, STW, TPO office, AEA, PTA, K-12 technology directors and lead superintendents are participating. Sponsors include AT&T, Apple, Motorola, Microsoft, Bull Worldwide Info. Systems, Network Infrastructure Corp., US West, APS, AG Communications, and Academic Research and Technology.

The Three K-12 Technology Sectors are Addressed by Three Organizations:

1. The Arizona Department of Education (ADE: Alex Belous) http://www.ade.state.az.us/ is driving the rollout of telecommunications based information technology to deliver electronic administration of financial and student reporting and data access http://www.ade.state.az.us/maps/.
2. The Governor's Telecommunication Policy Office (TPO: Rick Marcum) is leading with Project Eagle http://www.state.az.us/tpo/index.html. Project EAGLE joins initiatives such as Arizona Learning Systems, Arizona State Public Information Network and Netday address the linking of K-12 schools into broad band telecommunications for Internet access and distance learning.
3. Arizona Learning Technology Partnership, www.altp.org is focused on accelerating adoption and integration of learning technology into the classroom. ALTP addresses the computers, software, teacher training, support and integration of technology into the curriculum and learning process.

We do not use the term "learning technology" in the context of learning to use computers, software applications, keyboard entry or programming languages. Our definition addresses the information technology of software, digital media, computer and telecommunications based systems, integrated within curriculum and well trained teachers, that directly support teaching and learning of all content areas, anywhere, anytime.

The strategic planning process has three phases. Phase I includes study, analysis and design (summer of 1997). The results are reflected in this report. Phase II has participative planning and writing of the plan (rest of 1997). Participation will include all 18 stake holder groups using the methods of leader interviews (24) , electronic surveys (10 groups), and focus groups (12 groups). Phase III is implementation of the strategies that emerge from the planning process (1998).

During Phase I the strategic planning process was developed around three components: models, strategies and issues.

A prescriptive model of strategic planning and implementation processes was also developed. The high-level systems model includes the ALTP, legislature, funding, and schools, communities, business, libraries, etc. The planning cycles up through five levels: classroom (teachers, students); schools districts and planners; school support personnel; legislature and funding sources; and public and stakeholders.

Implementation flows in the opposite direction through state and federal data; state agencies and Arizona Department of Education; school support personnel; school districts; and classrooms. The roles of ALTP stakeholders can be identified within each model.

Planning is uncoordinated among the stakeholders and nonexistent in some areas. There is no shared strategic plan that identifies required capacities, among business, education and government, to support network installation. There is no Arizona plan to bring learning technology into every classroom as a basic requirement. Research is needed into successful plans from other states and reliable forecasts of the availability of emerging learning technologies. There is no plan to allocate adequate time, funding and resources to technology planning.

A plan is needed for supporting institutions, such as libraries, to be included in the educational process. Increased support is necessary for communication and data access between schools and homes. There must be means to restrict child access to inappropriate information. A global vision and plan is needed to deal with emerging learning technology issues. A process is required that focuses on short term (one year) elements and processes to influence spending and trends; and long term methods to chart new directions and to keep a strategic plan coordinated.

Teachers are mostly positive on bringing technology into the classroom and learning the skills needed to make it work. Training is often non-existent or ineffective in many school districts in Arizona. Training of teachers needs funding and time commitment. There is a lack of understanding of "learning technologies" and goals for enhancing understanding of those technologies. If teachers are to transform their practice to become facilitators and curriculums must be redesigned and implemented around technology, then significant planning and funding is necessary.

There is no consistent process to redefine the structure of learning and resist the mere superimposing of technology onto current methods. Agreement must be reached on the process, content and goal of training (for example, should it include incentives and release time with minimum impact on ongoing teaching?). The research on how and what to teach teachers on the use of technology is far from mature. Teacher trainers are also in the beginning mode. Part of this issue is driven by the lack of a clear vision of how learning technology will develop and be adopted over the next ten years.

The redefining of the roles of teachers and students, and traditional assessment must be addressed. One issue is teacher control of students. How can talented teachers be attracted, prepared and rewarded? How can teachers be retrained with a process that includes inputs from students? Some training today is not focused on using technology as a tool, rather than as an end in itself.

There is no consistent plan in place to put the learner (student) at the center of the learning process. Curriculums often ignore future extensibility and technical upgrades. All too frequently curriculums do not deliver real world and work place skills. Lesson plans should include technology as an integral part of the curriculum. It is difficult to standardize cost/benefit analyses to support technology purchase decisions.

There are limited efforts to promote the development of research based commercial learning systems based on cognitive science. Effective use is not being made of artificial intelligence, multimedia and simulation software and synthetic environments to tutor the student, support inquiry and authentic learning, and provide insightful mental pictures. The availability of this advanced learning technology and digital media is limited. There are inadequate assessment procedures in place to address this type of technology. There is need for instructional management systems to bring massive amounts of information on the Internet into classroom applications. Arizona schools must proceed in incremental stages over the next five years as this next generation of software and digital media emerges.

Funding of K-12 education in Arizona is inadequate overall and at the State level does not recognize the specific need for "learning technologies" equipment, facilities, support, services, analysis, training, etc. There is no activity in place to communicate the need for funding learning technologies to the legislature or public. The school people, students, parents and the voting public are supportive of funding computers in schools.

Legal and administrative rules and custom exist which impede the implementation and use of "technology." The struggle for equity, liability laws, purchasing procedures, operational rules, copyright law ambiguity, public attitudes, and lack of innovation processes contribute friction to technology adoption.

Networked telecommunication systems must support many types of innovative learning methods including inquiry and video distance learning, especially to rural schools. The next generation of inexpensive, broadband infrastructure into the classroom and linked within the district and worldwide is just now being installed. Schools need to link their immediate community infrastructure to the district infrastructure.

The public, districts and legislature do not in general understand the benefits of adequately funded technology adoption. Funding for learning technology tends to be overshadowed by the overall educational funding debate. The legislature needs to be fully informed about ALTP and its objectives. Broad cooperation is needed to generate funding and support.

There are inadequate linkage relationships among K-12, universities, and community colleges. The Arizona State Public Information Network (ASPIN) and newly emerging Arizona Learning Network is a major step forward in addressing this issue with information technology means. Through statewide School to Work and other programs, understanding of the technology and other skills needed by employers of students graduating from K-12 education is being improved. There is too little emphasis on the impact of learning technologies on economic development in Arizona. Stakeholder groups must be brought together around a common mission and set of goals to support awareness and changes.

There is a serious lack of skilled technical support people in K-12. Support is not being provided at a level similar to what is deployed within commercial businesses. Administrators may not appreciate the need for certified technical support professionals to keep complex systems up and running with the consistency experienced in other industries. The efforts to hire and train qualified technical support staff are too sporadic and uncoordinated. Schools with their lower salary base have to compete in the commercial environment for technicians. Many schools training technicians and then have them hired away by the business world.

Existing partnerships with business and the community in general are sparse and limited. With over 200 districts (1000 schools) and over 200 charter schools there are many good examples in Arizona. Only a small fraction of the K-12 technology adoption can expect to have direct business support such as Netday, school adoption, and Tech Corp. Arizona needs private-public partnership among different cultures, and out reach to other states and regional alliances. The most important role is for representatives of business, government, healthcare, post secondary education and healthcare is to play an active role in planning, advocacy, and linking their constituencies with Arizona schools.

The $150 billion U.S. research establishment has profound lack interest in learning technology. There is much less than $100 million annually expended on cognitive psychology and technology relating to supporting learning. The next generation of emerging technology will be highly dependent on this research base. Research is needed to upgrade current technology, develop new learning processes in the classroom, support buying decisions and determine teachers' roles with respect to learning technology. Many more studies of exemplary demonstration sites and models for transformation are needed. To demonstrate its potential to the public, legislature and industry more sophisticated cost/benefit analyses are needed. The very difficult task of tracking the impact of technology integration with the learning process needs to be addressed. There is need to provide state funding (like Florida) for both basic and applied research and development.

Existing technology is underused. There are significant inequities of access to technology, information and ideas for all learners. One district has 27 networked computers in each classroom. Other has difficulty putting one computer in a classroom. There is no plan for Arizona to bring technology into every classroom. A statewide index of free resources is needed.

There is no consistent effort being applied to verify, validate and understand the future role of the school building. Except for new construction there is little effort or support to design the resulting "building" in relation to technology supported education. Not only the physical domain but the staff and work processed must be changed support new technology introduction and use. Current buying practices of schools must be changed to support innovation adoption.

Currently student goals do not take into account learning technology standards. Students too often graduate with inapplicable real world skills, such as cooperative learning, teamwork and communication. The less privileged youths are not being connected to technology based learning systems. There is too little emphasis on basic problem identification and solving and basic skills.

Today students all too often are being evaluated based on regurgitation of facts rather than on their assimilation and use of information. There are no baselines or benchmarks to measure the success of technology adoption and to define measurement standards prior to adoption. The result is lack of support for policy decisions. There is a need to standardize on products and systems that can be used and integrated within and between all schools in Arizona. Standards being adopted that serve the learning goals of the state need learning technology components. There have been inadequate attempts made to leverage the work that has been done on the national technology standard committee. Arizona needs to create a technology policy, using templates, standards and a technology plan.

There is little equity of access to technology for low-income homes, rural areas, and inner-urban areas.

Today there is strong public perception and support to improve public education. There are no sustained public relations efforts being put forth to create the new mental image of the enormous opportunity presented by learning technology. ALTP could communicate the definition and purpose of learning technology to the universe of stakeholders. The world's spotlight could be trained on Arizona by creating and implementing leading edge successes. A broad knowledge of the current and potential K-12 technology use in Arizona is needed among taxpayers and parents groups. A program for technology training and "evangelism" to community groups would be beneficial.

Learning technology is an innovation with rapid advances in performance. Appreciation is developing within the education community of the need for continual and ongoing upgrades with service support. Schools need to capitalize on emerging opportunities of hardware, software, applications, pedagogy, curriculum, research and policy. Computer life is approximately three years. Consistent and increased funding is needed for at least the next five years seize this opportunity of continuous performance improvement.

K-12 education is being recognized as a significant foundation of economic development. One example is the major School To Work program housed in the Arizona Department of Commerce. Arizona has the twelfth highest college attainment level but is mired with the lowest 20% of states in K-12 performance. Arizona can import talent but is failing its youth. Our business community (especially high tech) is very concerned about obtaining the quality and number of workers as business expands.

Turning to the lens of GSPED, learning technology has a good possibility of rapidly expanding into major new global industry. Arizona could capitalize on this opportunity by developing a competitive learning technology economic cluster.

The overriding reason to adopt learning technology is to increase learning performance of students. Increased performance can be manifest as learning at a higher level during a given time on task or learning at the same level in a shorter period of time. Performance for a given effort is express at all levels of education by grades: typically A, B, C, D, and F. This system is based on the following "bell curve" statistical representation (prior to "grade inflation"). An improvement of "one sigma / ? " or standard deviation approximates moving the performance of the entire group of students up one grade level.

If we are indeed serious about improving K-12 education performance then we need to work on improving performance by sigma’s not just minor improvements relative to other districts, states or nations. A one-sigma increase has all C students performing as B students. Two sigma’s moves most students to the A level producing the Lake Wobegon effect, "all children are above average."

Most industries have experienced this effect through adopting technology. The airline industry doubled speed and range by replacing the piston engine with the jet engine. Food industry has decreased farm labor from 65% of the population to 2% using biological and mechanical technology. ALPT believes education will experience the same level of performance gains through information technology.

Vision for Future: Research has shown that learning within small groups can significantly increase learning. The ultimate small group is one-on-one tutoring. Bloom in 1984 showed that tutoring can increase learning by two sigma. Over the past 25 years, average student count per teacher has dropped from 25.8 to 17.6 to serve special needs children. Average class size has remained and so has learning performance. GroupWare and Internet collaboration, technology can support small group learning. Over the next 10 to 20 years, research and development on intelligent computer aided instruction with simulation and synthetic environments is expected to improve to the one-on-one tutoring level. Distributed learning systems comprised of Web based instructional management systems built to deliver object oriented applications and content will provide access and equity. The promise exists for all Arizona children "to be above average!"

Current Target Model: Studies examining the success of "technology-rich" schools have revealed key features. These included concentrated, conscious, and explicit planning among school leaders, families, and students to create "learner centered" environments. Goals within curriculum frameworks and challenging standards for student achievement are clearly articulated.

A near universal access to computer technology is provided with a computer for each of 4 students in the classroom. The school is restructured to support the learner-centered environment and achievement of standards. Adults are more consultative about curriculum and individual student progress. There was improvement in multiple outcomes. This development is typically pushed by initial increment of external funding. On going technology funding is 3 to 5 times higher than average of $75 for all US schools. The average level is $300 per student.

Current Technology Rich Results: Technology rich schools have higher attendance rates and lower dropout rates, and improved student performance. Meta-studies of 500 studies of learning technology research show students learn more in classes, learn in less time, like classes more, and develop positive attitudes toward computers but not toward the subject matter. Nora Sabelli of NSF has research that shows tests scores increase with use of networking. Authentic tasks, such as editing a distant person's writing engages the student and raises performance. Technology stimulates and motivates the student, but must be wisely crafted to increase learning. Studies support use of online communications, authentic tasks, technology to support curriculum reforms, higher order thinking skills, home computers with modems, and self paced learning.

Christopher Columbus middle school of Union City, NJ, is in a poor, densely populated urban district. Eight years ago the district initiated a technological and philosophical makeover resulting in "technology rich" district with 3000 computers for 9000 students. Test scores at the Christopher Columbus, the early adopter, are double similar schools in other districts.

Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow 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.

Standardized Four Levels of Adoption: The CEO Forum has assessed U.S. schools based on their four pillars: Hardware, Connectivity, Digital Content and Professional Development. They have created the STaR (School Technology and Readiness) chart so schools can compare their progress in adopting technology. The STaR assessment (renewed annually) has the 1997 results based on QED data. Their four school categories and assessments (%) for schools are: Low Tech with 10 to 26 students per outdated classroom computers (59%), Mid Tech with 7 to 14 students per mix of outdated and multimedia computers (26%), High Tech 4 to 9 students per mostly multimedia computer (11%) and Target Tech (4%). Target Tech has fully integrated curriculum and technology with 2 to 5 students per multimedia computer in the classroom, connected to the Internet and local area network. ALTP is focused on bringing Arizona’s K-12 schools into the Target Tech level. "Technology rich" is equivalent with the Target Tech level defined by the CEO Forum. For Target Tech the four pillars must be integrated and the innovative business model created via: analysis-planning, initial capital investment, and readjustment followed by emergence of new work and organizational models.

Military Training Results: Department of Defense (DoD) has aggressively studied learning technology. Standard Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) or (CBT) demonstrates a 0.4-sigma improvement. A one-sigma increase roughly corresponds to one grade level improvement. Research on latest Intelligent CAI technology (ICAT) shows a one-sigma increase. The next generation of intelligent technology promises two-sigma improvement, reaching the ultimate of one-on-one tutoring level.

The ALTP study conceptualized three Waves of K-12 technology adoption. Wave 1 is the early adoption of available technology by innovation leaders and is the learning phase. Wave 2 is the adoption of Wave 1 technology throughout the school and teaching transformation phase. Wave 3 is the adoption of next-generation (emerging) learning technology phase.

Over the past 15 years word-processing, calculation, drill and practice, Internet communication and information retrieval, multimedia, and drawing programs have automated part of the manual work of K-12 learning. Most curriculum, teacher training, and classroom processes have had little change. Many technology adoption mistakes have been made, creating a rich learning environment for teachers and administrators. Computers have penetrated 10% to 20% of classrooms. Technology expenditures have risen to 2% of school funding (including E-Rate).

Our national educational technology goals advocate: teacher training and support, state-of-the-art computers in the classroom, broad-band telecommunications connectivity to the world, and effective software and on-line learning resources integrated into the curriculum. A trained cadre of K-12 technology directors is in place. Computers are now accepted as valuable K-12 learning tools by student, teachers, administrators, parents and the voting public. Wave 1 has prepared the acceptance, advocacy and innovation foundation for Wave 2.

Current Arizona Adoption: Arizona has the fourth quartile ranking blues. Arizona ranks in the bottom third on the NAEP tests, eighth lowest on seniors going on to higher education, sixth lowest in spending when adjustments are made for regional costs and sixth highest pupil-teacher ratio. Suburban districts are extraordinary good and four cities have difficult inner city problems. There are many poorly supported small rural and

Indian reservation schools. Schools face severe facility problems when debt limits are reached or real property values are low. The legislature has not yet produced an equitable funding system to address Federal court rulings. Arizona leads the country in school restructuring innovation with over 200 charter schools. Arizona has an opportunity to jump to the first quartile by accelerate learning technology implement. But we need careful planning, creative adoption and a committed leadership with knowledgeable legislature.

From the prior chart we see that Arizona ranks in the 2nd quartile in practically all categories except for teacher training and cable TV. Many studies are national in scope. A reasonable assumption for planning purposes is that national averages apply in the average to Arizona schools.

National penetration of technology into schools (not necessarily classrooms) has started: Computers 98%; VCRs 97%; Multimedia Computers 85%; Cable TV 76%; Internet Access 64%; CD-ROM 54%; Networks 38%; Videodisk 35%; and Satellite 19%.

Use Within Schools: The studies of successful rich schools show that that students per multimedia computers should be in the 4 range. High minority schools average 17 students per computer (only 50% are multimedia). Internet access is growing by 15% a year. But only 15% of all classrooms have Internet access compared to 64% of all schools. Technology use penetration varied widely depending on grade, course and usage. The 1994 use of computer study results: Almost Daily/Never: Grade 4 - 9%/60%; Grade 8 - 10%/51%; Grade 12 - 19%/37%.

Over the past decade for college bound seniors:

1. Computer programming and no computer experience has dropped in half;
2. Math problems, computer literacy and data processing has remained approximately constant;
3. Use in social sciences, natural sciences and word processing has doubled;
4. Use in English has increased by a factor of four.

Arizona ranks in the 3rd quartile for teacher training in technology. Arizona is one of 33 states that require courses in education technology to gain a teaching license. Studies indicate that 30% of technology budgets should be used for teacher development and computer system support.

Technology adoption must have a plan with teacher input. Training on the use of computers, databases and word processors must be followed by integration of technology into curriculum. There are many models and strategies for teacher development but there is no clear evidence of superiority.

Current Software Technology: Support for Individual learning activities include stand-alone drill and practice units for particular skills. CD-ROM- or Internet-access provides resource bases, assistance in searching for information and communication with experts. Computational and writing tools include word processors and spreadsheets. Simulations help visualize systems, or mathematical or scientific concepts. Support for instructional management includes integration of curriculum, standards, and assessments, management of student portfolios, and support for development of individual student instructional plans.

Telecommunications: All states are involved in national telecommunication projects such as Netday, and federal programs such as Title 1, E-Rate from the FCC and Technology Literacy and Challenge grants from the DoEd. Some are using telecommunications base systems to convert to electronic administration of schools. Arizona has Arizona State Public Information Network, ADE initiatives both for administration and Internet access, and the new Project Eagle with the Arizona Learning System for distance learning. We assume that the new E-Rate federal funding and installation momentum of broad band telecommunications will carry to every school by year 2000 and then into every classroom. The ALTP task is to stay focused on instructional technology within the classroom.

National Average Per Student: A RAND study in 1996 estimated that 1994-1995 K-12 technology expenditures were $3.2 billion at $70 a student. This is 1.3% of the annual per pupil funds of $5400. Estimate of sources was federal (25%), local (40%), state (20%) and business/contributions (15%). The federal, business ($200 million) and foundation support is at approximately $1 billion or $20 for each of 50 million K-12 students. E-Rate promises $2 billion a year starting in 1998 for telecommunication equipment (including servers), installation and line charges at an average of $40 per student. If federal levels stay constant, and state and local increase by 15% a year, a level of $7 billion will be reached by 1999-2000 school year ($140/student). If 15% per year funding growth continues then expenditures will reach "rich school" levels by 2004-2005 school year of $15 billion ($300/student). With 50,000,000 U.S. K-12 students, this level is 5% of the $300 billion spent on K-12 education.

Technology Rich Schools: Studies of exemplars of technology rich schools produced a range of cost estimates of $180 (3%) to $450 (8%) per student. The most plausible number was $300 per student or 5.3% of the school budget. The McKinsey Model created in 1995 looked at four options:

Currently Arizona is below the national average of 17 students/mm computers with 19 students/mm computers. To become a state with "technology rich schools" our ratio needs to drop to 4. If we consider the fact that at least half of our households with school age children have computers, this challenge may not be so hard to reach.

Source of Funds: Major corporations like IBM, AT&T, US West, Novell, Microsoft, Apple, Cox Communications etc. donate or provide special discounts to schools to initiate technology adoption. They expect ongoing business to turn a profit like all other K-12 providers. Foundation support and special funding has played significant innovation roles but will shrink to a small fraction as full deployment takes place. The majority of funds will have to come from the taxpayer. It is expected that funding will shift from bonds and special funds to reallocation of existing budgets. At least initially, additional funds will be needed.

Over the past 100 years schools have increased funding for many innovations: schools lunches, busing and special education. All other social institutions have use technology to reconfigure employee roles and eliminate unneeded prior allocations. For example inquiry-based learning reduces textbook and instructional materials. As technology adoption matures student learning is expected to significantly increase for the same school time on task and teacher cost. Schools will be in the enviable position to decide whether to reduce costs and some of the performance gains, or continue to invest at the same levels to sustain higher student learning.

Funding Strategies: Other states have used a wide variety of methods and strategies for funding technology acquisition. These include special Educational Technology Infrastructure Bond Acts, tax credits for home computer and educational software purchases by parents, school district retailer sales tax, tax on rental of video tapes, special tax on property or income, charitable deductions for computer donation, sales tax exemption for teacher purchases of computers and software, lottery: profits, capital outlays, one time funding, use of surplus to accelerate technology adoption, matching funds for local grants, per pupil, RFP for competitive bid, district plans approved by the state board of education, Federal E-Rate funds for telecommunications, US DoEd grants, US West Foundation Uriditio project of notebook computers and teacher training, a private statewide foundation and surplus agency computers given to schools,. (Editor's note: I believe we have our priorities backward. How about the public sector funding the most advanced computers for schools and after three years the schools donating them back to the government agencies!)

State Support Structures Along with a long-range strategic plan (Texas plan ranges from 1988 to 2000), and state level "Public Education Computer Technology Task Force's," the State can provide educational technology support in a number of ways. Examples: Delaware Center for Educational Technology, Educational Technology Training Centers, test bed technology pilot schools, Learning Technology Hubs, an Office of Technology, Educators Technology Training Commission, technology-based curriculum development, developing a comprehensive K-12 technology computer curriculum, School Technology Assistance Act, frameworks for district strategic planning, R&D funding on basic learning technology, and technology to do technology planning.

The data on the next page was gleamed from the Education Week November 10, 1997 report. It was taken from the text portion of the state reports. A number of approximations and assumptions were made to generate each individual state number. Some were one time funding. Others were over one or more years. Taken overall it gives a good approximation of the state of State funding that is added to local and federal funding. To produce the "technology rich" classrooms, the State must increase and maintain funding at the $150 per student level. No state is committed to that funding level yet. ALTP has penciled in our legislative proposal that grows to $150 over five years. Arizona has the opportunity to join the lead group in student performance.

Arizona Funding Model: From these ideas gleamed from other states, Arizona needs to create their own long range technology funding plan that truly serves the needs of school and is acceptable to the Arizona community. One example is the California study commission July 1996 report that called for $10.9 billion K-12 technology investment over four years ($300 /student/year). The split was hardware and telecommunications infrastructure at 52%, learning resources and services 27% and staff development and support 21%. Software and digital media resources were $100 per student. The shock effect of this large proposal was politically disastrous. The lesson learned is to build an accelerated adoption plan that is phased in with manageable funding increases.

Major pacing factors are management process transition, building a support organization, teacher training and curriculum integration. The US Office of Technology Assessment predicted that five years was needed to effectively infuse technology into a school. Arizona schools are well along in many areas, but there is much to be done. Five years could be an effective and efficient transition horizon.

Teacher training, software, telecommunication services and system support services are funded under the normal M&O (maintenance and operations) category. Computers, telecommunications equipment and bundled software can be purchased under the COREL (capital) category.

The rich school technology investment is $300 per student per year. This translates to $300/$5400 or 5.4% of Arizona cost per student. The following annual funds are averages for Arizona students. Federal funds from Title 1, Technology Literacy Grants, and foundation-business support is about $30 per student. The new federal E-Rate funding for telecommunications starting January 1998, will provide an average of $40. From bonds, capital and M&O funds Arizona schools are spending an estimated $80. Arizona spending is a little above average compared to other states. This provides a current base of $150 a student for hardware, software, media, telecommunications, teacher training, and system support.

An increase of $30 per student each year would produce the $300 level in five years. At 750,000 students the funding increases would be $22.5 million a year. The total additional funding would be $112 million by 2002. A five-year buildup of funding synchronized with five years of school transformation seems to be a viable strategy.

Equity: The $70 of federal funding is biased toward the poor school districts. The $80 of district funds is biased toward the richer school districts. The new State level funds would go equally to all schools. The result should be a fairly equitable distribution.

The theme of More, Better, Faster and Cheaper will continue for the seeable future for computer hardware, software systems and telecommunications. Factors of ten in capability, power and speed with dropping costs are well in hand.

Hardware transformation to multimedia, local area networks and file servers are well underway. Lap tops with flat panel display screens and lightweight display projectors will become affordable in the classroom. Voice recognition is emerging now for educational use, along with pen and hand writing input. The hand held and "thin" computers will project learning out of the classroom and into the home and work place.

Wireless connectivity will provide another boost to access and flexibility. Synergistic technologies such as television and digital videodisks will further enhance the multimedia capability of computers. Communication devices, and video and still cameras open the window to distance learning, video conferencing and collaborative group learning.

Telecommunications is expanding at a furious pace due to deregulation, home computers, Internet and wireless technology. Plain old telephone service (POTS) is being pushed to 80Kbps modems. ISDN (128Kbps) is being overtaken by xDSL that should provide, as one option, 704 Kbps over the POTS system at $125 a month. Arizona is the first state in country for major deployment of xDSL by the end of 1997. We are also the rollout state for Cox Communications fiber optic deployment. Their @Home service is accelerating into neighborhoods and promises 30 Mbps with cable modems. New forms of high-speed wireless (1Mbps) will compete directly with POTS for local access. Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service can be used within a six-mile radius as wireless cable controlled by modem over the Internet. Local communities around neighborhood schools can have access to very low cost service. Direct Broadcast Satellite proliferation such as Hughes DirectPC (400 Kbps) provides Internet, especially promising for remote communities.

Software systems based on object oriented methods will accelerate cost effective learning technology development. Network browsers, content delivery upon demand, smart interfaces, simulation methods and intelligent engines are becoming the pacing components for development of learning technology.

Technology Adoption: Wave 2 accelerates the adoption of current technology over the next five years. Most teachers accept technology as a boon to their profession. Technology skilled cadres of teachers, technology directors and administrators are addressing the demands of parents and students for more technology. Technology is being integrated with the curriculum and more teachers are being trained. But most instructional tools are from Wave 1.

Of the over 15,000 software packages available, only the top few percent are recommended as excellent by the leading California software assessment agency. In 1994 Department of Defense launched their Computer Aided Education and Training Initiative (CAETI) to move into Wave 2 with a strong push toward Wave 3. The vision included using digital resources to support individualized, collaborative, authentic and interactive learning anywhere and anytime in worldwide DOD dependent schools. Delivery systems are affordable, scaleable and maintainable, and include multi-user environment and simulation advancements. Evaluation addressed both performance and technical. The goal of CAETI is to increase learning performance by one sigma, decrease learning time by 30% and increase access to information by a factor of 10.

School to Work: Wave 2 technology will become a major component of the School to Work (STW) transformation. STW is being integrated into our schools and workplaces. Students are preparing to enter the work force by acquiring the tools and tactics. They also address the world of education as it relates to acquiring the skills and knowledge they need to succeed throughout their lifetime. STW has curriculum-driven school-based learning, work-based learning and connecting activities designed to build bridges between the classroom and the workplace. However, the "classroom" is available to youth who are in school, out of school, home-schooled, enrolled in alternative programs, incarcerated and found in almost any imaginable setting that supports formal instruction. Computer skills are required for over half of the high-skilled workers. Computers are driving the wage differential increase between high skill and low skill workers. To meet the deadline for the end of federal funding, full implementation of Arizona specific technology needs to be completed mid-way through Wave 2.

Vision and Barriers: Wave 2 must create vision and overcome barriers. A single, compelling and new vision is needed. The current shared vision of education is learning in the isolated school, and does not include homes, communities and workplace and via the media. Psychological, political, cultural and organizational barriers impede innovation. Business aggressively adopts technology because of the competitive and short-term profit demands. Schools have many conflicting community and internal demands. They have a very long term results horizon with little feedback to staff and management. Participative and comprehensive strategic planning with direct implementation via budget and organization can create new vision and bypass barriers.

Vision of Wave 2 Results: Within five years Arizona teachers are well trained and supported. Teachers and students has sufficient modern multimedia computers in their classrooms, every classroom is connected to the information highway and effective software and on-line digital resources are integrated in every school's curriculum. Wave 2 has pushed student performance gains toward the one sigma level bringing Arizona into the national 1st quartile.

But other states are also advancing with technology. To maintain 1st quartile requires aggressive adoption of Wave 3 technology. Wave 2 has trained teachers, generated funding mechanisms, made process changes and installed the hardware infrastructure for the final Wave 3 transformation.

Wave 3 will be driven by emerging research-based learning technology. By 2003 basic telecommunications, computers, support, media access and trained teachers are in place. Over the following 15 years the transformation of K-12 education will mature. Wave 3 will focus on software and digital media. Costs are not expected to grow significantly over the 5% of budget. Special hardware such as virtual reality goggles may be needed but the percentage cost will be smaller than Wave 2.

Emerging Technology: Universities and colleges, military laboratories, research institutes, consulting organizations and corporations are deep into learning technology research. Technology areas include computer aided instruction (CAI), intelligent agents, collaborative group ware, multi-media tutors, dynamic modeling systems, simulated events, sensory, synthetic environments, intelligent CAI (ICAI), network-classroom, and network-integrating school, home, workplace and community.

This technology will be based on the current research in cognitive psychology that engages the mind in a research environment. Learning types supported includes: authentic, apprenticeship, case based, collaborative/cooperative, distance, goal-based scenario, individual self-paced, integrated, inquiry, just-in-time, meta-cognitive, problem based and project based. Methods for training teachers and integrating the new technologies into curriculum will be addressed.

Typical Technology - ICAI: ICAI has five components: Expert Model is detailed cognitive representation of expert knowledge. Instructional Model teaches by applying cognitive theories of human learning through tailored coaching and intervention on the fly. Student Model diagnostically evaluates student skills and adjusts instruction. Simulations provide interactive contextual practice. Advanced Interfaces support student centered learning.

ICAI teaching performance is monitored, evaluated and improved during operation. Instructional interactions are based on student real-time performance. Low aptitude students require more guidance that would frustrate high aptitude students. In certain areas of maintenance and mathematics the design expertise is mature, but in the huge number of other domains the instructional engineering expertise is rudimentary. Many ICAI features and attributes must be heavily researched to escape the cut and try methods of instruction design. Over the next five years much work must be done to develop instructional engineering.

Multidimensional Learning: Dual roles will emerge. Learner-workers will mix on-the-job, schooling, and informal off the job learning. Telecommuting to classes, intelligent coaches and guides assist the student. Authoring tools are provided for the expert - teacher. Tools for teacher-authors include libraries of interface elements, representations of content materials and task activities, design rules, course templates, and exemplars based on solid pedagogical theories, automated collection of in-field usage data, and knowledge acquisition tools. Teachers are supported in changing roles with artificial intelligence (AI) evaluation, portfolio management, and multi-media libraries of starter examples.

Barriers: There are two current barriers to the timely development of Wave 3 learning technology. These are market buying power and research funding for emerging technologies. For example, United States spends $15 billion of federal and private monies on medical technology research. Less than $100 million is being spent on emerging learning technology research. This minimal funding is currently available in NSF Applications of Advanced Technology Program, DoD, DARPA, DoEd, and DoC.

Market Buying Power: The purchasing power of doctors and hospitals result in a continuous flow of innovative products from a $100 billion pharmaceutical and medical device industry. Although all of US education expends $635 billion each year, learning software is purchases are only at the $1 billion level, including home purchase of edutainment software. In 1996 K-12 schools purchased $600 million in curriculum software while colleges and univeristies spent $250 million. Static markets do not invite new product investments or upgrading of outmoded products. There is even less incentive for costly investment in cognitive science and comprehensive testing of new products. The K-12 school market is narrow and fractured. There are 120,000 school-buying units. But edutainment products can be sold to 20 million homes with both modern computers and children. . States need to aggressively adopt the current K-12 technology, while demanding the next generation of software systems. They need to coordinate with rapidly expanding markets of learning technology for work force training in private sector, government and military, and in post secondary colleges and universities.

"The educational software market is considered a feel-good thing, and that is not good," Nora Sabelli, NSF. Lacking a significant market demand for next generation technology, corporate investment in research and development is small. The small market – lack of investment is a viscous cycle. To create a virtuous circle the research base must mature rapidly and become widely used for commercial products. The learning technology software companies must then multiply and grow into an industry.

Federal Participation: Aggressive development of emerging technologies requires powerful collaboration between the software/digital media industry, the federal government R&D agencies and the K-12 market via the technology directors. Industry software markets have historically matured with well-supported commercial packages that adapt to the customer need. These packages, with some exceptions like FEA analysis, were not research based. The emerging learning technologies are much more complex than manual word processors and spreadsheets. They must effectively engage the student mind. Each student has unique of learning attributes and style. Sophisticated and easy to use component-based authoring systems are needed so teacher-experts can author-assemble their own courseware. These authoring products must be research based, just multimedia assembly programs.

Federal government has the national mandate to support research. It invests $75 billion in R&D each year to support our economy and our way of life. Comprehensive research is needed over all the known parameters to develop a complete set of instructional engineering tools. Like the NACA 1920's program for airfoils or the current human Genome project, government has played a decisive role in developing the basic tools for emerging industries. It seems prudent to allocate at least 1.3% or $1 billion a year to the study of learning supported by technology.

The Air Force Research Laboratory estimates that approximately $100 million would drive ICAI toward commercialization. Half would be used to empirically identify instructional engineering principles and most of the rest would be used for additional authoring systems over a wide range of domains. Voice-based dialogue capabilities could be adapted from current commercial systems for $5 million. The many other technology areas need comparable levels of support.

The White House and Department of Defense launched the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) initiative at a November 3^rd and 4^th 1997 kick-off meeting, in Washington DC. The ADL is to establish a cost-effective distributed learning environment for military services, DoD and other federal agencies with collaboration with university and business workforce needs. ALTP was invited to attend and meet with the leading edge R&D producers, product developers and user-customers of emerging learning technology.

ADL provided dramatic examples of what Arizona K-12 education can expect during Wave 3. (1) GM has put 1,000,000 pages of car repair technician manuals into a box the size of a telephone with screen but no mouse or keyboard. Just head set and mike for voice input and total multimedia output, continuously updated. (2) The DoD has taken a 5 week resident course and delivered it over the Internet. The maximum time for student completion was 25 clock hours (85% reduction in time to learn). The instructor was able to facilitate the learning of 200 students, vs. 30 maximum with the normal class room method. (3) The military has reviewed 30,000 training courses from all services and landed on 800 that will be recast as Internet-Web based courses. The investment will be in the range from $100,000 to $1,000,000 per course. With a $15 billion training budget, we can assume costs will be radically reduced. (4) A high level consortium is developing the specification and prototypes of the Instructional Management System as part of the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative. This system may become the standard for Internet-based education.

ADL breakout groups include Content Advocacy, Business Market, Technical Solutions and Research Priorities. ALTP is chairing the Technology Management sub group of the Business Market group.

Federal support for agencies, institutes and universities is needed for basic research and development tasks on object oriented courseware; advanced distributed learning techniques, tools and effectiveness. Federal Agencies and their contractors can work together with commercial software companies to develop a range of software components and objects. Commercial software companies are then positioned to license this technology and develop specific applications that serve the needs of their school district customers. A systems view of teachers, their education, educational systems organization, background and development level of students is critical. This brings in the third collaboration, K-12 school district stakeholders. Only within the crucible of real time learning can these software systems be developed to serve their customer.

Success for this final push requires a national vision and commitment. An Arizona vision and commitment could be a first step and a vital step. States like Florida have funded their universities and research institutes to develop learning technology systems for their schools. Arizona could be in the vanguard through K-12 schools collaboration with emerging learning technology R&D projects. We would realize multiple payoffs for our children, workplace, citizens and economy.

Four factors will facilitate K-12 adoption of emerging technology:

1. Advocacy and leadership;
2. Knowledge on effective deployment;
3. Assistance organizations;
4. Research-based commercial-grade products.

The last is both a difficult problem and a golden opportunity.

Software Opportunity: Commercial companies need to exploit the only source of research, federally funded programs. Over the past eight years, aggressive government R&D commercialization programs have had limited success using devices such as CREDA's. One of many examples of market pull has been a $billion success. Netscape has acquired the research, technology and people from University of Illinois. Through a unique economic development system that combines all elements, Arizona may have a better system. GSPED has vehicles for bringing developers, marketers, funding sources, customers and R&D technologists together to capitalize on this opportunity. The stakeholders within ATLP, a partnership of GSPED, could organize around the GSPED cluster and foundation concept to create a Learning Technology Economic Cluster.

Arizona Assets: Arizona has an accessible customer base to participate in design and development testing. The Arizona Software Association has 300 members, the Center for Software Excellence is active in Tucson with 160 members, and there are over 1400 software companies in the state. Many learning technology based organizations operate in Arizona. Examples include Learning Edge, Jostens Learning, EMG (part of Viacom), Evans Newton, Academic Research and Technologies, Mindplay, Air Force Research Laboratory (Armstrong), our universities, Assessment Technology, Bull, Intel, Motorola, Allied Signal, AG Communications, Emsquare, and Novanet.

NIST-ATP: US Department of Commerce's NIST is launching an Advanced Technology Program (ATP) in the area of learning technology. The ATP program funds private companies in consortiums with universities and national laboratory researchers to commercialize emerging technologies. The RFP should be out the first of the year. A typical ATP program is $15 million each year for three years. ALTP hosted a region workshop in Arizona on October 23, 1997. Working with NIST, Arizona could not only be a leader in adopting learning technology for K-12 education, but become a globally competitive leader with a Learning Technology economic cluster.

References:

1. Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL), Power Point Presentation, US Dept. of Defense, Don Johnson,
2. Apple Education Research Reports, ISTE, 1995, Jean Hall, 541-302-3775, Apple Corp.
3. Assessment of Emerging Educational Technologies That Might Assist and Enhance School-to-Work Transitions; Chris Dede, GMU and Matthew Lewis, RAND, for US Congress Office of Technology Assessment.
4. Computer Aided Education and Training Initiative, Paul Chatelier, pchat@triton.dmso.mil; www.dmso.mil/CAETI/
5. Computers and Classrooms, The Status of Technology in Schools, Educational Testing Service, Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., and Engel, P. K., May 1997
6. Does This Stuff Work? Some Findings from Applications of Technology to Education and Training, J. D. Fletcher, Institute for Defense Analyses, 1996, dfletcher@ida.org
7. Education Week, January 22, 1997;
8. Education Week, Technology Counts, Schools and Reform in the Information Age, In Collaboration With the Milken Exchange on Education Technology,www.mff.org,November 10, 1997
9. Fostering the Use of Educational Technology. Elements of a National Strategy, RAND, Glennan, T. K., Melmed, A. A. 1996;
10. Functional Area Analysis of Intelligent Computer-Assisted Instruction, TAPSTEM, Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks AFB, Wes Regian, www.brooks.af.mil/al/hr/litlfaa/litlfaa.htm.
11. Getting American’s Students Ready for the 21^st Century, Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge, June 1996;
12. Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Past, Present and Future, Shute and Psotka, Army Research Inst., 1995, www.brooks.af.mil/al/hr/icai/its/its.htm.
13. Internet Usage in Public Schools, 1996, Quality Education Data, 1996;
14. The Learning Connection, Schools in the Information Age, Benton Foundation www.benton.org/library/schools
15. Making it Happen, Report of the Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology, Richard Riley USDoEd, March 1995;
16. NSF Technology Workshop, October, 1995 www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/edtech/nsfws
17. Quality Education Data survey for Arizona K-12 Schools, August 1997;
18. School Technology and Readiness Report: From Pillars to Progress, Year One, The CEO Forum on Education and Technology, October 9, 1997, Ken Kay, ceoforum@itstrategies.com, www.ceoforum.com;
19. Six Challenges for Educational Technology, George Mason University, Chris Dede (at NSF),
20. The State Networking Report, Southwest Education Development Laboratory, Texas Education Network, Spring 1997;
21. Technology and Education, What Have We Learned? Wall Street Journal Special Insert, November 18, 1997.
22. Technology Counts-Schools and Reform in the Information Age, Education Week, Vol XVII, Number 11, November 10, 1997 in Collaboration with the Milken Exchange on Education Technology www.mff.com.
23. Technology in Arizona: A K-12 Perspective, Arizona Society of Technology Directors, www.ade.state.az.us/technology/whitepapers.html October1997.
24. State Technology Initiatives Report, Software Publishers Association, July 1997
25. What Have We Learned about Computer Based Instruction in Military Training?, J. D. Fletcher, Institute for Defense Analyses, 1995, dfletcher@ida.org