technology

Looking for Online Learning Exemplars

Eduflack 21CS, accountability, AYP, Online Education, technology

Without question, K-12 virtual education opportunities are gaining more and more attention as late.  Earlier this month, the Digital Learning Council — under the leadership of former governors Jeb Bush and Bob Wise — released its Digital Learning Now! report.  In it, the new group offered up its 10 elements of high-quality digital education.

The 10 elements are core to learning success, whether it be digital or otherwise.  By focusing on issues such as student eligibility, student access, personalized learning, advancement, content, instruction, providers, assessment and accountability, funding, and delivery, the DLC makes clear that digital learning is central to the 21st century learning environment.  Online learning is no longer a topic left to the periphery.  It is core to modern-day instruction.
But the DLC’s outline of how begs a very important question — who?  This week, Eduflack was talking with a school district that is quite interested in expanding its digital learning offerings and take a major step forward in offering e-instruction and online offerings to its students.  Anticipating the time and expense involved in such forward progress, school officials were looking to do some site visits with other school districts in state.  The list of “success stories” was relatively short, but a few districts kept popping up.
After some exploration, though, a big problem arose.  The districts that were identified as best practice for online learning in the state were districts that failed to meet AYP this year.  Knowing that, can one look to model instructional practice from a district that can’t make adequate yearly progress?  It might not be fair, but AYP is the most important measure a school district faces today.  Any step one takes to improve or enhance instruction should result in improved student achievement.
It would be terrific if every state were a state like Florida, with a strong and successful online learning network that can be modeled and borrowed and stolen from.  But in this day and age, we first look to our own backyards to see what is done, particularly as we emphasize the need to demonstrate proficiency on state assessment exams.  So while we’d all love to replicate what the Florida Virtual School may be doing, we’re first going to look at what the neighboring county or the district with similar demographics on the other side of the state is up to.
It is no secret that K-12 education believes in modeling.  Few want to be first to market; everyone wants to do what a fellow successful state, district, school, or teacher is doing.  This is particularly true for digital learning, where so few truly understand it and so few are actually doing it well.  So how do we know who is an appropriate model?  Where is it happening in a district, a school, and with kids like mine?  And how do we determine if a district is indeed worth modeling?
Eduflack is all ears for those who want to identify examples of school districts who have been particularly successful in developing online learning programs, particularly those LEAs who can demonstrate return on their investment, both in usage and in student achievement.  Who wants in?  Where are our exemplars for district-based online learning programs?
 

Getting Caught In the Net(P)

Eduflack 21CS, ESEA, i3, NCLB, technology

With all of the talk about innovation, 21st century skills, college and career readiness, and much of the remaining buzz words surrounding school improvement this past year, little has actually be said about the old innovation workhorse, education technology.

Back in February and March, President Obama’s budget proposed zeroing out a number of the programs that served as dedicated ed tech funding for states and school districts, with a promise that ed tech would be better integrated in ESEA (and in ESEA reauthorization), and that increased dollars would be available for competitive ed tech programs that reach directly into school districts and schools.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Education finally released its National Education Technology Plan, or NETP 2010.  Wrapping itself around the topics of readiness, global competitiveness, performance, and accountability, ED planted a new flag for the direction of education technology programs, injecting a little 21st century into our national blueprint.

According to ED, “NETP presents a model of learning powered by technology, with goals and recommendations in five essential areas: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. The plan also identifies far-reaching ‘grand challenge’ R&D problems that should be funded and coordinated at a national level.”

How novel.  We are connecting the issues of school tech with actual learning and teaching in the classroom.  We are connecting ed tech with assessment and student performance.  And most importantly, we are addressing the “R&D problems,” important shorthand for how grossly underfunded education R&D, particularly in the area of technology, has been at the government level.  (Don’t believe Eduflack, at the percentage of the federal health budget committed to R&D and compare it to the percentage of the ED budget committed to R&D.  And don’t even get me started on the horrific shortage of private-sector education R&D.)

The release of NETP 2010 is important.  What is equally important, though, is how the rhetoric will be moved into practice.  How are these goals being integrated into ESEA reauth planning?  How are these goals weaved into evaluations for both RttT and i3 efforts in 2011 and beyond?  In our national commitment to better integrate ed tech into the infrastructure of K-12 education, how are we ensuring the necessary funding?  And in answering all of the above, who will champion a renewed federal interest and investment in ed tech on Capitol Hill?

For too many years, the ed tech community has been forced to play defense, trying to protect programs from deeper cuts, year after year.  NETP 2010 provides a greater sense of hope, a verbal agreement that ed tech is a priority of this Administration and this nation.  Now that verbal just has to carry over to the written contracts of this coming February’s Presidential Budget and long-expected ESEA action.
   

Social Media Failure in Our School Districts

Eduflack Arne Duncan, teachers, technology

By now, we’ve all heard the concerns about social media in the K-12 setting.  The fears of teachers revealing their personal lives of Facebook.  The worry of what can be accessed and posted on YouTube, revealing the good, bad, and ugly of the 21st century classroom.  Even ongoing tweets about both policy and practice in the classroom or the central office.  The concern has grown so significant that many school districts have policies banning the use of social media, even erecting firewalls to ban access to sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter with LEA computers or through LEA-based Internet connections.

Last month, Eduflack wrote on edreformer.com about current disintermediation efforts.  The concept is a simple one.  Rather than work exclusively through the traditional media, hoping they can offer a complete and balanced story, more and more folks are doing the storytelling themselves.  Using blogs, Facebook, YouTube, and the like, they cut out the media “middle man” and get the story directly to those stakeholders who need it most.  The Obama Administration has been particularly adept at the practice, using the powers of the Internet and social media to build lasting dialogues on the issues of the day.

This is a practice also pursued by the good folks over at the U.S. Department of Education, where, among other things, they have their own usedgov YouTube channel.  To date, there are 139 videos up there.  Some are of events that EdSec Arne Duncan and his staff participate in.  Others are specific efforts to deliver the ED message directly to key stakeholder audiences.

About three weeks ago, ED offered up a video from Duncan for school principals.  In the five-minute piece, Duncan lays out the Administration’s education priorities, funding commitments for programs like Title I and IDEA, and plans for improving the federal commitment to public education (particularly through ESEA).  It is just Duncan in front of a blue curtain and US flag and the ED learning tree seal, but it is effective.  A good video, with both good intent and a good message.  And it also gives a strong pat on the back to those school leaders who are fighting the good fight each and every school day.

By now, we all know that ED has been investing resources to ensure that school principals are part of the ESEA reauthorization discussion and have bought into school improvement efforts like i3.  We’ve seen teacher quality expanded to include principals.  And we’ve seen school leaders better involved in discussions than we seen in years past.  According to the Digest of Education Statistics 2008, there were 98,793 K-12 public schools in the United States.  We assume most of these schools have principals leading them.  So figuring out how to engage these nearly 100,000 school leaders on issues of policy and improvement is a good thing.

Yet as of this morning, there have only been 143 views of the video.  In three weeks, only 143 people have watched the piece (and I assume some of them are like Eduflack, not principals, the intended audience).  Nearly 100,000 school leaders, yet only 143 visits.  Why?

One primary reason, it appears, is our school districts’ fear of social media.  ED is using YouTube to distribute the video.  Most school districts ban YouTube, fearing access to unauthorized materials and a general waste of instructional time.  So even if ED puts all of the promotional efforts at its disposal behind the release of this video (and others like it) the intended audiences simply can’t access it.  Classroom teachers can’t get to the usedgov YouTube channel  Principals can’t peruse it.  Even superintendents and central office personnel can’t get in.  (Eduflack first heard about this video from educators in Houston who wanted to view the video, but were denied.  Since then, it seems the ban is a pretty standard practice.)

We ask our schools to prepare students for the rigors and opportunties of a 21st century world, yet we are asking them to teach with access to only the most basic of 19th century tools?  We continue to ask a technologically adept student population (for the most part) to unplug when they get to the schoolhouse doors, and forget how to access an unending wealth of information?  We ask teachers to improve the quality and result of their teaching, yet deny them the ability to supplement instruction through shared technologies and content that are FREE to all?  

Years ago, when the Edu-mom used to teach 10th grade English, she would roll out an old videotape of the Simpsons to help teach Edgar Allen Poe’s The Raven.  It was nothing special, just Bart Simpson reciting the poem, word for word, with the requisite Homer and company as backdrop.  But it helped make the poem more relevant for the students.  It took it beyond the printed words in the textbook and brought it to life.  (And the Simpsons then subsequently did the same with Hamlet, the Iliad, and other classics that should be covered in an English class in a way that even the most disinterested student would pay attention.)

ED should be complimented for offering up information distribution channels like YouTube and delivering information directly to the stakeholder audiences who need it the most.  (Though it is important to note that ED’s own firewalls prevent most employees from accessing sites like Facebook or many education policy blogs.)  The real failure here is on the school districts.  Despite the fears of accessing unauthorized materials or wasting classroom time and resources on social media, these uniform bans are only handicapping educators and shortchanging students.

We should be encouraging intellectual exploration and finding new ways to engage new technologies and medias to make learning more interactive, more relevant, and more effective.  We should be expanding educators’ access to the resources they need, not restricting them.  If we are really focused on 21st century learning, we need to find ways to embrace and maximize 21st century tools.  Now’s the time to embrace, not run away in fear.

         

The Ed Policy/Social Networking Nexus

Eduflack technology

When it comes to the education sector, what is the future of social media and networking?  That was the question that dear ol’ Eduflack addressed at a presentation yesterday to the Knowledge Alliance.  But it is an issue that I hear a great deal about, and no one is quite sure what to do with.

Education seems to be one of the last sectors to “join the party” when it comes to what is new and cutting edge.  We were late comers to the Internet and websites.  We were slow to embrace blogs (though it is important to note how sites like Eduwonk were quite cutting edge, for both education and other sectors).  And we’ve been dangerously tardy on on social media opportunities, including Facebook and Twitter.
The latter may be due to the fact that we aren’t quite sure how to use these tools.  In a perfect world, social networking sites are designed to help education organizations and educators do a number of things.  We share information.  We receive information.  We start grouping ourselves with like-minded organizations.  We engage in discussions, ask questions, and, yes, network.  Social media tools are meant to be more than just glorified RSS feeds, where we push out the latest press release or research study.  They are mean to encourage dialogue and interaction.  No one way communication here, please.
But doing so requires us to give up some of the control.  It means opening ourselves up to negative comments (far more than one does by allowing comments on a blog).  It means letting others shape our discussions.  It means giving our competitors a closer look at what we are doing.  And it means holding ourselves up for public scrutiny, where we can be called out for what we post, what we don’t post, and everything in between.  
So instead of addressing the future of social media in education, isn’t the more appropriate question really how education can better adopt our current social networking platforms?  For instance:
* Facebook — At this point, we are all on FB.  But is this really the tool to promote our organizations?  Over the past year, Eduflack has noticed more and more of his friends cutting back on their FB access, trying to restrict it to family and friends, and cutting the professional components out.  Many individuals don’t want to be friends with their boss, and they certainly don’t want their employer to see those photos from last weekend’s bar crawl or last summer’s Cabo outing.  And as much as we want to be “fan” of the organization that cuts our paychecks, what is going up on that FB feed that we don’t already get from our website, intranet site, and company-wide emails.
Yet we see a lot of groups building those Facebook pages and working to boost their “fan” numbers into the hundreds or the thousands.  To those doing it, mazel tov.  But Eduflack urges you to do it for the right reasons.  Simply posting all of your press releases up there is not maximizing FB.  You need to use the fan page to engage and start conversations.  Don’t just push information out, solicit information.  One of the great examples of this on Facebook is Edutopia, which is regularly asking questions and soliciting opinions.  They are using FB to truly build a social networking community, and I believe they are seeing the results.
* Twitter — Ah, Twitter, one of @Eduflack’s favorite places.  I admit it, I love to play on Twitter.  I probably post 10-20 things a day on my @Eduflack feed.  But when I started Tweeting last year, I set a few ground rules.  I don’t Tweet personal information.  I try not to Tweet personal opinion.  I use my feed to share all of the education policy news articles, research studies, events, and general activities that I find interesting.  So while it goes through that personal filter, I use Twitter to serve as a personal clearinghouse for all things ed policy and ed reform.
But I also make sure I am regularly reTweeting items from others that I trust or generally adore.  I will engage in discussions or ask questions of others on Twitter.  I show appreciation for the #FF and other notes.  I may not be perfect at Twitter, but I am trying to use it for the networking tool it is intended to be.  And in a shameless plug, follow me @Eduflack.  And check out my “top-ed-feeds” list, including great Tweeters like @Drynwyn, @alexanderrusso, @tvanderark, @edequality, and all of the blog feeds coming from @educationweek.
That becomes the challenge for many organizations.  Do you just push out your own information?  Do you tweet about competitors’ work?  Can an organization state an opinion or engage in a conversation?  In working with the American Institutes for Research, we’ve been investing some time in building up a Twitter presence.  To do so, we’ve set forward with a basic goal — serve as a one-stop show for high-quality social and behavioral research.  And that will mean more than just AIR’s work.  It is in the infancy stage, but @AIR_Info is starting to head in the direction Twitter intended.
Twitter also offers some unique advocacy opportunities for an organization.  This week, the education technology community utilized Twitter to raise attention to the fact that ed tech programs in general, and EETT in particular, are not part of the current budget negotiations.  So yesterday, the ed tech community hosted a Tweet for #edtech day.  They urged everyone in their communities to Tweet on the importance of ed tech and the need to restore $500 million in funding for EETT.  At the end of the day, organizations like SETDA, CoSN, and ISTE (whom Eduflack has long had a relationship) secured thousands of Tweets with an identified hash tag (like #eett or #edtech).  If one factors in the non-hash tagged posts, the number of ed tech tweets yesterday probably doubled, demonstrating a strong, singular voice for a particular education policy issue.  Now that is the power of social networking.
* LinkedIn — We don’t often think about LinkedIn as a education organization networking tool, but it has value.  For larger organizations, you can see a significant number of employees and former employees who all list the organization as an employer.  That gives you a base for engagement.  But LinkedIn’s true value is the use of the discussion groups.  One can start a discussion group on a given topic, then start inviting participants.  You build a small community to focus on an issue.  Each day, you get a email in your inbox updating you on the latest contributions to the discussion thread.  For those of us who use LinkedIn passively (meaning we only visit when we get a request to link in), the daily discussion reminders can do wonders to help us engage.
Ultimately, though, there is no magic bullet when it comes to education and social networking.  it doesn’t cost a lot of money, but it does require the investment of time and the commitment of the organization.  It can be tough to quantify the ROI for a CEO.  But if used successfully, it can really help with message, engagement, and discussion.  And isn’t that the point? 

Backbenching the Prez’ Ed Budget

Eduflack reading, Teacher Education, teachers, technology

It has been a little over a week since President Obama officially submitted his FY2011 budget.  Depending on who you speak to, it was the best of times/worst of times for the education sector.  Overall, the Administration is seeking to raise the federal commitment to education spending by more than 7 percent.  But that increase comes with a new set of priorities, a new grouping of funding streams, and some eliminations of long time, cherished programs.  You can see Eduflack’s original thoughts on the budget here.


During the original scrum, we heard from many of the groups we expected to hear from — including oldies but goodies like the NEA and AFT and the growing number of education “reform” organizations seem by many to benefit the new “consolidation.”  But Eduflack thought it would be interesting to see what some other organizations have been saying about the budget reccs, particularly those who are focused on the issues IDed in my original analysis.  Unsurprisingly, most comments come from those unwilling to throw a big bear hug around the proposed budget.

On the issue of teacher quality and preparation, we have Dr. Sharon Robinson, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (ISTE) opposing the elimination of programs such as the Teacher Quality Partnership saying: 

Across the nation, colleges and universities are playing an indispensable role in supplying our schools, particularly hard-to-staff schools, with effective teachers who intend to serve as classroom leaders for decades to come.  Through the federal budget and new programs such as Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation, the U.S. Department of Education should be supporting and incentivizing those teachers colleges that are blazing a trail when it comes to strengthening instructional standards, effective use of data systems, improving teacher quality, and turning around low-performing schools. Programs like TQP are essential to ensuring preservice teacher preparation is part of our improvement agenda.


Over at NSDC, policy advisor Rene Islas had a very different take on the future of teacher preparation, stating:

What does this framework say about teacher effectiveness? The president is beginning to adopt NSDC’s language. The budget request outline a new program called “Excellent Instructional Teams.” Sound familiar? Taking it to the next step, the new program description includes the following statement: “promote collaboration and the development of instructional teams that use data to improve practice.” I count that as a significant victory.


And what about education technology and its consolidation into the overall ESEA framework (and the elimination of specific grant programs funding ed tech at the state or district levels)?  The following was offered by Don Knezek, CEO of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE):

We cannot and must not lose sight of the value and impact of education technology in our classrooms. As ISTE noted in its Top Ten in 2010 just last month, education technology is the lifeblood of lasting school improvement. Working from best and promising practices in the field, we must continue to use technology as the backbone of school improvement. We must ensure technology expertise is infused throughout our schools and classrooms—particularly through programs like EETT—and that we are continuously upgrading educators’ classroom technology skills as a pre-requisite of ‘highly effective’ teaching. We must boost student learning through real data and assessment efforts. And we must work together to leverage education technology as a gateway for college and career readiness so that our K-12 systems can help fulfill the President’s pledge to make the United States tops in the world when it comes to college-completion rates. We cannot and must not deny policymakers and educators the resources they require to provide all students with the globally competitive education they so desperately need.  

And we saw similar words coming from the ed tech community at large in a joint statement from ISTE, State Education Technology Directors Association, and the Consortium for School Networking:

While there are elements of the President’s proposed budget that are laudable, we remain extremely concerned that the Administration has elected to defund EETT in its FY11 Budget Proposal and urge the Administration and Congress to restore adequate funding for this critical program. Congress and the President included EETT as a core provision of the current ESEA law in recognition of the importance of driving the next generation of innovations in teaching and learning, assessment and continuous improvement, and cost-efficiency in coordination with other federal, state and local school improvement strategies. We fear that years of investments through EETT and the E-Rate, coupled with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act investment, may be devalued or lost entirely without adequately funding EETT or a successor program.


Carol Rasco, the president and CEO of Reading is Fundamental, was far more direct on RIF being eliminated (and not consolidated) from the President’s budget:

Without this federal funding, over 4.4 million children and families will not receive free books or reading en
couragement from RIF programs at nearly 17,000 locations throughout the U.S.

Unless Congress reinstates $25 million in funding for this program, RIF will not be able to distribute 15 million books annually to the nation’s children at greatest risk for academic failure. RIF programs in schools, community centers, hospitals, military bases, and other locations serving children from low-income families, children with disabilities, homeless children, and children without adequate access to libraries. The Inexpensive Book Distribution program is authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEC.5451 Inexpensive Book Distribution Program for Reading Motivation) and is not funded through earmarks. It has been funded by Congress and six Administrations without interruption since 1975.


Interestingly, many of the so-called reform groups didn’t issue public statements (or at least haven’t put them up on the web for discerning minds to review).  Nothing from Teach for America.  Nothing from American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence.  Nothing up from New Leaders from New Schools.  Nothing posted from the National Council on Teacher Quality.  (And, in fairness, Eduflack realizes that public statements are often issued but are slow to get up on the websites, as seems to be the case with groups like the Committee for Education Funding, which released a statement that can’t be found on its website.) 

The priorities identified in the President’s proposed budget demonstrate which groups and individuals have the greatest sway over on Pennsylvania and Maryland Avenues.  What’s left to be seen is who will have real impact on Capitol Hill.  Anyone who is ready to leave RIF for dead, for instance, is underestimating Rasco’s passion and the power of the national RIF network.  The President’s budget is merely the first hand in what is going to be a long and expensive game of poker.  Those players who have been around the table many, many times before are likely to be the ones with chips still on the table when all is said and done.

(Full disclosure, I have done work with both AACTE and ISTE in recent years.)

ED Budget Winners and Losers

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, NCLB, teachers, technology

The President’s FY2011 budget is out, and we’ve now had a day to digest the toplines and find out if our pet programs are on the chopping block or slotted for additional support.  Not surprisingly, ED is reorganizing its budget around priorities similar to Race to the Top, leaving some clear winners and losers.  (The full breakdown of the budget reccs can be found here.)

As a former Capitol Hill rat and appropriations staffer, I find it important to note that yesterday’s document is a starting point, and not the final deal.  Programs that have been eliminated or consolidated are bound to be reinstated once their constituency speaks up.  Additional money is likely to be found to fund those reinstatements.  (And as a former Byrd scholar, Eduflack, for one, is hoping that funding for the Robert C. Byrd Scholarship is reinstated immediately).  But the new parameters and programmatic headers offered in the President’s budget is likely to hold, standing as our new organizational strands for future spending and ESEA reauthorization.

So who are the winners?  Who are the losers?  Let’s take a quick look, shall we.

Winners
* Arne Duncan — The EdSec has put his personal brand on both discretionary and non-discretionary spending, while imposing his own “brand” on the future of federal education dollars.  The current budget demonstrates that Duncan’s four pillars are not a one-time RttT deal, and instead are the buckets by which federal education policy will be governed for years to come.
* Reforming School Districts — The new budget likely provides another $700 million to LEAs under an expanded RttT and another $500 million for i3 (more than doubling our current i3 investment).  For those districts that are focusing on teacher/principal quality and school turnaround and research-proven innovation, the coming years may be profitable ones (as long as there aren’t too many good districts who can walk the walk).
* Teach for America — At first glance, some would say that TFA being “consolidated” is a bad thing.  But take a closer look at the budget.  The meager federal funds going to TFA now are being consolidated with a host of other teacher development funds to create a significant fund that can support TFA expansion and alternative certification pathways.  Wendy Kopp’s plans for scalability may be coming into clearer focus.
* Low-Performing Schools — Following a decade of NCLB and AYP, many thought RttT was going to focus on the turnaround of our lowest-performing schools.  Then the RttT scorecard came out, and it seemed turnarounds were being minimized.  But yesterday, he new budget proposed a 65 percent increase for turning around our 5,000 lowest-performing schools.  And this is in addition to support LEAs can get through Race to the Top.  It is a good time to be a school district with nowhere to go but up.
* STEM — No surprise here, based on the amount of attention the White House has been paying to STEM.  But by consolidating math and science moneys, we are now increasing our STEM commitment by 66 percent while focusing on high-need schools.  Interestingly, it seems we are shifting from a notion of all students needing to be STEM literate to using STEM to train the next generation of scientists and engineers.
* U.S. Sen. Patty Murray — Senator Murray’s inclusion here may surprise some.  But the President just strengthened her hand for her LEARN reading act.  the budget eliminates a lot of reading programs, including Even Start, National Writing Project, and Striving Readers, moving the money into a general literacy fund to support both PD and instructional materials.  But the proposed K-12 commitment to reading is only $450 million, well below the more than $1 billion a year that was recently spent under Reading First to move K-4 reading instruction.  Throwing another $500 million toward Murray’s bill and the support of middle and secondary school literacy (and the PD and support that goes with it) seems like more of a no-brainer now, either as a stand-alone piece of legislation or rolled into ESEA. 

Losers (at least for the time being)
* Education Technology — The proposed budget essentially eliminated all of the targeted ed tech dollars coming from the federal government, with the promise that technology would be integrated into core ESEA activities.  But here in DC, dollars are king.  In an era focused on school improvement and innovation, how can we zero out ed tech funding?  In a 21st century education, how can we eliminate funding for teacher development and support in the technology arena?  While the notion of integration may look good on paper, ED is going to face a real fight from the education community on the future of ed tech investment.  This is the one decision that really makes the least sense, in light of all of the rhetoric.
* Teachers Colleges — Perhaps the most interesting piece of the budget (at least to Eduflack) is the fact that Teacher Quality Partnership grants have been zeroed out, less than six months after ED awarded huge sums to colleges and universities across the nation under the TQP initiative.  By focusing teacher quality and development dollars on alternative certification pathways and programs focused on student outcomes, ED has all but said that our colleges and universities are playing little, if any, role in developing the next generation of high-quality teachers.  This is a big shift from Duncan’s remarks up at TC this fall and draws a real line in the sand between higher education and K-12.
* Teacher Incentive Fund — Back in the good ol’ Margaret Spellings days, a little program called TIF was created to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to incentivize effective teaching.  While few have seen the end result of TIF, the program was viewed as a core component of Duncan’s teacher quality efforts.  But now TIF has been zeroed out, with the dollars going to establish a new “Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund.”  While ED claims the new fund will be built on TIF’s strengths, it is clear the Administration is clearly the deck of most programs and initiatives associated with the previous regime.
* AYP — Though not explicitly spelled out in the budget priorities, AYP is now going the way of the do-do bird.  Adequate Yearly Progress, as measured by middle school proficiency in math and reading, is now going to be replaced by the college/career-ready common core standards developed by CCSSO and NGA.  State assessments tied to the middle grades reading and math standards will now be replaced.  NAEP now looks stronger, some of the accountability measures from the 1990s are losing a step, and we are clearly entering a new world order when it comes to student achievement, with the term AYP quickly expunged from our vocabulary.
* Beloved Pet Programs — As part of the consolidation efforts, funding for a number of beloved programs is being eliminated to make more money available for the streamlined priorities.  Federal commitment to the National Writing Project, Close Up, and Reading is Fundamental have been placed on the chopping block.  Javits G&T is soon gone, as is AP funding (unless College Board and Tom Luce can find a way to save it).  And it makes no sense to pick on the Byrd Scholarships again, particularly when we know the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee will find a way to restore funding. 
While many of these programs will ultimately get some dollars back, it is a sign of changing times.  And this may very well be the true end of the “Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners” effort, an ED program that collected $5 million in federal funding last year. 

And other surprises?  LEAs seem to be favored over the states.  Competitive funding is quickly replacing the block grants the sector has grown to depend on.  The Promise Neighborhoods initiative may finally focus on the role of family and community in education improvement.  The $1 billion bonus to pass ESEA remains in play.  And the significant funds found in both ESEA and HEA Title II appears to be in the cross hairs of the reform agenda.

Regardless of one’s personal preferences, the coming months are shaping up to be a “fun” debate on education funding  I just hope Chairman Harkin, Chairman Obey, and the rest of the approps gang are up for the challenge.

This Year’s Top Ed Tech Issues?

Eduflack assessment, High School, technology

Over the last week, Eduflack has been teasing out a few of the key issues the education technology community has identified as top priorities for 2010.  Interestingly, many of these topics are not limited to ed tech, but are applicable to the entire eduworld.  So I thought it was worthwhile to take a look at the full list from the folks over at ISTE (www.isteconnects.org):


1. Establish technology in education as the backbone of school improvement. To truly improve our schools for the long term and ensure that all students are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve in the 21st century, education technology must permeate every corner of the learning process. From years of research, we know that technology can serve as a primary driver for systemic school improvement, including school leadership, an improved learning culture and excellence in professional practice. We must ensure that technology is at the foundation of current education reform efforts, and is explicit and clear in its role, mission, and expected impact.


2. Leverage education technology as a gateway for college and career readiness. Last year, President Obama established a national goal of producing the highest percentage of college graduates in the world by the year 2020. To achieve this goal in the next 10 years, we must embrace new instructional approaches that both increase the college-going rates and the high school graduation rates. By effectively engaging learning through technology, teachers can demonstrate the relevance of 21st century education, keeping more children in the pipeline as they pursue a rigorous, interesting and pertinent PK-12 public education.


3. Ensure technology expertise is infused throughout our schools and classrooms. In addition to providing all teachers with digital tools and content we must ensure technology experts are integrated throughout all schools, particularly as we increase focus and priority on STEM (science-technology-engineering-mathematics) instruction and expand distance and online learning opportunities for students. Just as we prioritize reading and math experts, so too must we place a premium on technology experts who can help the entire school maximize its resources and opportunities. To support these experts, as well as all educators who integrate technology into the overall curriculum, we must substantially increase our support for the federal Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program.  EETT provides critical support for on-going professional development, implementation of data-driven decision-making, personalized learning opportunities, and increased parental involvement. EETT should be increased to $500 million in FY2011.


4. Continuously upgrade educators’ classroom technology skills as a pre-requisite of “highly effective” teaching. As part of our nation’s continued push to ensure every classroom is led by a qualified, highly effective teacher, we must commit that all P-12 educators have the skills to use modern information tools and digital content to support student learning in content areas and for student assessment. Effective teachers in the 21st Century should be, by definition, technologically savvy teachers.


5. Invest in pre-service education technology. Teacher preparation is one of the most important aspects of a world-class 21st Century system of education and learning.  A federal investment in a new, technology-savvy generation of teachers is critical. To ensure their success in the classroom, pre-service teachers must be prepared to use technology and integrate it into the curricula before their first day as a teacher of record. By fully funding programs such as Preparing Teachers for Digital Age Learners (PTDAL), we can ensure that the United States produces the most technologically savvy educator workforce in the world.


6. Leverage technology to scale improvement. Through federal initiatives such as i3 grants, school districts across the nation are being asked to scale up current school improvement efforts to maximize reach and impact. School districts that have successfully led school turnaround and improvement efforts recognize that education technology is one of the best ways to accelerate reform, providing the immediate tools to ensure that all teachers and students have access to the latest innovative instructional pathways. If we are serious about school improvement, we must be serious about education technology.


7. Provide high speed broadband for all. The connectivity divide may be the most critical aspect of both our digital divide and our learning divide over the next decade. We must continue our national commitment to ensuring broadband access for all students through initiatives such as the E-Rate program.  Today’s classroom applications require significant bandwidth that many schools lack. Students who don’t have Internet access at home face a significant hurdle to participate in school assignments and produce high quality schoolwork—and their parents are hindered in school-to-home communications. We must provide high-speed bandwidth to our nation’s classrooms and focus on the school-to-home connection so that all students can succeed.


8. Boost student learning through data and assessment efforts. In schools across the nation, teachers, principals, and district administrators are increasingly discovering the benefits of real-time instructional and curriculum management systems. To maximize these efforts, we must provide educators with the systems, knowledge, and support they need to effectively tailor their teaching strategies and better meet the individual needs of each learner. Teachers’ capabilities to use data to improve instruction are equally important to contemporary data and assessment systems.


9. Invest in ongoing research and development. With the current push for both innovation and school improvement, it is essential that we, as a nation, invest in the research and development necessary to identify what is driving increased student achievement and why. Increased investment in education R&D, particularly with regard to innovation in teaching and learning, ensures that we remain a global leader in education. By stimulating meaningful, broad-based research and the dissemination of such research, we can ensure that the quality of teaching and learning in our classrooms keeps up with the goals and expectations we set for our students.


10. Promote global digital citizenship. In recent years, we have seen the walls that divide nations and economies come down and, of necessity, we’ve become focused on an increasingly competitive and flat world. Education technology is the great equalizer in this environment, breaking down artificial barriers to effective teaching and learning, and providing new reasons and opportunities for collaboration. Our children are held to greater scrutiny when it comes to learning and achievement compared to their fellow students overseas. We in turn must ensure that all students have access to the best learning technologies.

So we are seeing the full rodeo here.  We have school improvement issues, including boosting high school graduation rates.  We have relevant instruction.  We have teacher quality and support, both preservice and inservice.  We have data systems and improvement.  We have global competitiveness.  And we touch on issues related to ESEA reauthorization, RttT, i3, and most points in between.

In years past, it seemed like ed tech was an island unto itself.  But if this list is an indication, it looks like ISTE is working to position its members as a core part of the school improvement infrastructure.  This is a necessary move if we are to truly maximize the resources and opportunities available to both our teachers and our students.  But the big unanswered question is a relatively simple one.  Is the traditional K-12 infrastructure prepared to accept ed tech as a non-negotiable in the school improvement/student achievement movement?

Putting the R&D Back in Education

Eduflack teachers, technology

Without question, educators and policymakers alike are using the term “innovation” more today than they ever have.  If we look at the dictionary definition of the word, we are asking for “something new or different introduced.”  If we look at programs such as the Investing in Innovation, or i3, program, we are expecting “something new or different” that is proven effective, offering some sort of research base behind it, some sort of data to support it.

Throughout such discussions, conversations on education innovation are likely to focus on the use of education technology in the classroom.  It is an obvious avenue to pursue.  Most of us equate technology with innovation. From flat-screen TVs to iPhones to interactive whiteboards to search engines like Google, we see technology as innovation.  And for educators, moving that technology into the classroom is a likely extension of the innovation debate.
Over at ISTE Connects (www.isteconnects.org), the good folks at the International Society for Technology in Education are rolling out their Top Ten in ’10, a list of the most pressing education technology issues facing U.S. classrooms today.  In one of the most recent postings, they raise the issue of education R&D.  In calling for increased investment in ongoing research and development, ISTE notes that “solid investment in education R&D, particularly if focused on innovation in teaching and learning, ensures that we remain a global leader.”
Loyal readers of Eduflack know that this issue of education R&D has long been near and dear to my flickerin’ little heart.  When you compare education to other industries, particularly healthcare, our investment in research and development is but a microfraction.  We look to teachers and schools to innovate, but we don’t necessarily have the resources to do the all-out research to determine what innovations are the most effective, with what audiences do they work, and what are the most effective uses.  And unlike healthcare, we surely don’t have researchers out there developing instructional interventions for one issue, only to find that it works for something completely different.  So our R&D process becomes more like faith healing than Mayo Clinic.
Groups like the Knowledge Alliance (formerly NEKIA) have long fought to increase federal spending on education R&D.  And since the establishment of the Institute of Education Sciences six-plus years ago, we’ve seen greater attention focused on the research side of the R&D house.  In the last decade, we’ve made incredible progress in increasing the visibility of and the need for education R&D.  But we still have miles and miles to go before we can sleep.
Over the years, Eduflack has seen some truly incredible education R&D work, including the effective use of MRI scans to track a student’s literacy abilities.  For those who say that education is more art than science, all you need to do is check out an MRI as part of reading skills acquisition.  You can actually see brain activity change as students learn and gain proficiency.  It is absolutely incredible.
I recognize that reading instruction may be a little passé these days, so let’s look at topics such as teacher quality.  We have a wealth of research on the necessary components for effective teacher education programs.  It doesn’t matter if they are traditional or alternative routes, we know the skills, knowledge, and support that aspiring teachers need to be effective in the classroom.  So how do we take that research, continue to extend it, and apply it to current efforts to boost teacher quality and incentivize good teaching?  How do we ensure that research, a familiar topic in education, is actually connected with development, be it policy or instruction?
And equally important, how do we use the R&D process to ensure that those latest and greatest technologies are being effectively used in the classroom?  As I wrote earlier this week, EdWeek’s Kathleen Kennedy Manzo had an interesting piece on the use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom, and whether they actually improve learning.  So what does it take to move the research on how such technologies can improve both teaching and learning into the hands of those teachers and educators who receive the technology?  How do we use the R&D process to ensure that ed tech comes with the “manuals” necessary so that the end users can be most effective?
As part of its Top 10, ISTE (a group Eduflack has been fortunate to work with) is soliciting feedback from its members and other interested parties on how closely the ISTE list crosswalks with the concerns and needs of the field.  R&D has always been a tough sell to education practitioners.  They can see it as taking funds away from instruction or turning their classrooms into Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory.  But at a time when we are asking more and more of our schools, when resources are at a premium, when it is demanded we innovate, and when the teaching and learning opportunities offered by new technologies have never been greater, education R&D has quickly become a non-negotiable.  

Whiteboarding “Uneven” Learning

Eduflack teachers, technology

Too often, we preach technology for technology’s sake in education.  Not wanting to be the last industry sector to adopt the latest toys or shiny playthings, we rush out to acquire that which we may not understand or appreciate.  As a result, we have that which is cool or cutting edge (at least for the next 10 minutes), but we often lack the training, support, and expertise to truly put it to use in the classrooms that need it the most.

Case in point — interactive whiteboards.  Over at Education Week, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo has this piece on the impact of interactive whiteboards in K-12 classrooms.  Asking the impact of such technology on teaching, Manzo has come back with a disturbing answer — “uneven.”  For some, such technology is a godsend, an ability to bring 21st century tools into a 21st century learning environment, helping better integrate student interests and inclinations into a learning style that can maximize outcomes.  For others, these pricey investments are used as nothing more than glorified chalkboards, reducing the latest bells and whistles to a 21st century reincarnation of Little House on the Prairie learning.

So why are such tools and technology “uneven” when it comes to improving teaching and learning in the classroom?  From the cheap seats, there are two major differentiators between those who are utilizing such technology effectively and those who might as well be banging rocks against those expensive whiteboards — integration and expertise.

From Manzo’s piece and from tales of good education technology across the nation, we know that teachers who effectively integrate technology into the wants and needs of both students and society are the ones who succeed.  To put a finer point on it, it isn’t what we teach, but rather how we teach it.  Putting Chaucer’s or Dickens’ greatest works on a Kindle does not teach handheld technologies. It uses handheld technology to deliver some of the greatest literature the world has ever read.  It provides content in a way that many of today’s students are better used to dealing with, opening their minds with great tech so we can feed them time-tested technology.

In far too many schools, we still “de-skill” students, unplugging them from the mediums they are most comfortable with to teach through methods contemporary to the buggy whip.  We unplug our students, believing that laptops, iPods, cellphones, and even whiteboards have no real place in teaching the three Rs.  As a result, students fail to see the relevance of their education as they judge the delivery and not the content.  In our quest to boost high school graduation numbers and build a more educated workforce, we should be doing everything and anything we can to better connect students to those learning and opportunity pathways.  That not only means technology, but it means well-integrated tech.

That leaves us with expertise.  We can’t simply install a new whiteboard in a veteran teacher’s classroom and expect her to use it like the salesperson originally demonstrated.  If we are to utilize ed tech effectively in the classrooms, we need to provide all teachers (and not just those designated tech teachers or affiliated with the business departments) with the skill and support to use available tools.  That not only means supporting ed tech “experts” in the schools, like we would reading or math experts, but it also means ensuring that all teachers have a basis of understanding and know how for how to put new tech to use in their old classrooms.  From interactive whiteboards on down, technologies can impact reading to foreign language, math to science, history to theater.  But we can’t make teachers walk the path alone.  We need to support them.  And we need to make clear that technology is the tool, and not the teacher itself.

In past years, schools across the nation have turned to federal programs such as the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program to provide the funds and guidance necessary to seed technology professional development in the classroom.  But at a time when ed tech has never been more important to the future success of our schools and our students, programs like EETT have all but been discarded like an eight-year-old operating system.  When the program was originally envisioned less than a decade ago, Congress intended for EETT to provide approximately $1 billion a year in PD support.  A small drop in the bucket when it comes to federal education spending, but the earth, moon, and stars for the ed tech community.  EETT never reached that intended target, and today the program only receives $100 million in federal support.  That’s one-tenth the funding to support thousands of schools at a time when technology, innovation, and turnaround has never been more paramount.  And one-tenth the intended funding at a time when supporting, encouraging, and developing qualified and effective teachers has never been a greater priority. 

Are whiteboards the solution to our struggling schools?  Of course not.  They are just the latest example of what technology has to offer.  We asked this question of one-to-one computing a decade ago.  We’re starting to ask it of options like iPhones and Twitter today.  The point is not the technology itself, but how well positioned our schools and educators are to receive the latest and greatest industry can produce.  Those teachers who understand (and are supported in) how to use technology to make instruction more relevant and interesting to the student will always thrive.  Those schools that are regularly providing educators the professional development and ongoing support to adapt and thrive in an ever-changing learning environment will always succeed.  

When we invest in our classrooms, our ROI should never be defined as “uneven.”  At a time when technology in education is the quickest path to meaningful improvement, we must make sure we are investing in the people and conditions to ensure success.  Interactive whiteboards alone can’t do it.  Teachers who understand the full power and reach of those whiteboards (along with the next big three things to come down the pike) can.

Innovation, Ed Tech, and ISTE

Eduflack 21CS, STEM, technology
In most education circles these days, the focus is on school improvement, common standards, and, most importantly, innovation.  Doing things the way they have always been done (albeit with additional dollars) is simply not on the current agenda.  From the EdSec all the way down to building leaders, we are looking for new ideas, new approaches, and new solutions to break the hold of the status quo and bring lasting improvement to our schools.
When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed into law, much was said about the proposed investment in education technology.  Some tallies put the investment in technology at $900 million, particularly when one factors in the dollars going to the creation of new state data systems.  Those dollar signs had many people immediately dreaming of new computer labs, smart boards, and other pieces of hardware to strengthen the learning environment.
But those who have been around the block a time or two on ed tech realize that simply putting more computers in the schools does not necessarily yield the student performance gains we’re all seeking from our new education investments.  It isn’t the technology as much as what we do with the technology that matters.  Its the outcomes that are important, not the inputs.  
That point is being driven home this week at the International Society for Technology in Education’s National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) in Washington, DC.  This is the 30th anniversary for both ISTE (an organization for which Eduflack advises) and NECC.  Many of those outliers in the ed tech field would say that the glory days of education technology are behind us, enjoyed in the late 1990s when we invested in broadband and one-to-one computing.  But if NECC turnout and energy is any indication, the true glory days for education technology have yet to come.
In recent months, we’ve heard how education conferences are in a downward spiral.  Shrinking budgets have resulted in school districts slashing conference budgets and eliminating out-of-district travel.  Yet NECC’s attendance this year is UP compared to last year.  More than 12,000 educators are gathered in our nation’s capital to explore ed tech topics.  And many of those educators are here on their own dime, realizing that the conference may be one of the strongest content-based professional development opportunities available to them.  For those who can’t get over to NECC, you can check out a wealth of resources at www.isteconnects.org.  
As part of this year’s NECC, Eduflack sat down with ISTE CEO Don Knezek to talk about some of the policy issues the education technology sector is facing, including:
Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT)
Established nearly eight years ago by Congress, EETT is a Title II-funded program designed to “improve student achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary grades.”  Much of EETT funding has gone to professional development programs and public-private partnerships designed to enhance the use of technology in the classroom.  It sounds like a terrific program, and one that closely aligns with federal priorities around school improvement and innovation.
Unfortunately, EETT has never been fully funded.  The program was intended to be a $1 billion a year effort, a vision never realized.  This year, the President’s budget allocates EETT at only $100 million, a figure that is also being offered by appropriations leaders on Capitol Hill.
“The battle for the dollar amount of EETT is not over,” Knezek said.  While he is concerned about current EETT funding, Knezek said ISTE members and educators across the country will work to get Congress to act and raise the funding for this necessary program.  (ISTE is actually sending 500 educators to the Hill this week as part of its Storming the Hill effort, and EETT is likely a hot topic for these concerned educators.)  “I’m disappointed with the [President’s] recommendation, but I hope it doesn’t represent a backing off of technology as a priority.”
Common Standards and 21st Century Skills
Citing technology’s role in “enriching accountability systems,” Knezek conceded that we are “pretty far away from addressing 21st century skills and technology” in the current common standards debate.  “It will be a long time before they get to a set of standards that address 21st century skills,” he said, ” but if they develop common standards that address change in the disciplines, yes we will see it.”
Specifically, Knezek sees a pressing demand to redefine current academic disciplines (all subjects, not just math and science) so they are framed in a 21st century environment.  If we can do that successfully, we’ll be in a position to integrate technology and 21st century skills into a national academic standards framework.
Knezek also raised some interesting questions for policymakers, decisionmakers,and influencers as we move forward.
* How does the education technology field show enough leadership for change?
* How do we demonstrate the key role technology plays in improving learning and student engagement?
* How do we successfully promote appreciate for co-learning, where both teachers and students benefit from the use of new technologies?
* What do students need to achieve to demonstrate 21st century skills?
* How do we really incorporate technology in STEM education?
It is hard to imagine we are in a position where we need to identify the relevance and impact of education technology on school improvement, but that is really where we are.  Groups like ISTE are now fighting to demonstrate that they are part of the improvement and innovation solution.  Ultimately, success may come if we move from discussions of hardware to discussions of its applicability.  How are we using new technologies to improve instruction?  To improve teacher training and support?  To better track students?  To better target interventions?  To generate real student achievement gains?  And when we do, how do we know we’ve done it?  Those are the sorts of questions we need answered for ed-tech to move from a third or fifth priority in minds of most superintendents to a first or second priority.
“We are clearly changing the structure of where are going for instruction and instructional experiences,” Knezek said.  If he is right, then those who are most able to adapt to the constant changes in standards, demands, and expectations will be those making the most difference.  Unfortunately, the best and brightest are not necessarily those who survive.  Like most fields, evolution is the name of the game when it comes to education technology in the 21st century.