DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 374 786 IR 016 830

AUTHOR Fulford, Nancy, Ed.

TITLE Toward a Technology Infrastructure for Education:

Policy Perspectives I. Policy Briefs, Report 3,

I994.'

INSTITUTION North Central Regional Educational Lab., Oak Brook,

IL.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),

Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 94

CONTRACT RP91002007

NOTE 33p.

PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) Collected Works

General (020)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Educational Innovation; *Educational Policy;

*Educational Technology; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Equal Education; *Federal Legislation;

Futures (of Society); *Information Networks;

Information Policy; Regional Programs; State

Programs; Technological Advancement

IDENTIFIERS Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Michigan; Minnesota;

*National Information Infrastructure; North Central

Regional Educational Laboratory; Ohio; Wisconsin

ABSTRACTPolicy briefs are reports on the status of current

issues in education from a national perspective; descriptions of

actions and agendas in the North Central Regional Educational

Laboratory (NCREL) region; and commentaries by experts from their

particular point of view; and rer,,urces for further information. The

focus of this report is technology and education. The brief begins

with a report entitled "Education as a Componer.t of the National

Infrastructure" (Dennis Gooier) that examines the role of schools in

the national information infrastructure (NII). Next, regional actions

and agendas are presented for the states in the region, i.e.,

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

The following information is given for each: local efforts; state

efforts; financial aspects; key groups in education technology;

educational equity; and education technology needs. Recent

legislative developments are presented in the report "Recent

Legislative Initiatives Expected To Affect Educational Technology,"

(Rafael Ramirez and Rosemary Bell). Finally, state contacts are

listed. (JLB)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

orx a Educateisait failltnsl RU.S. OEPARTIIENT OF [DUCA

Report 3, 1994r) nus 60Curnimi Ass boa footoducod oe

F )UCATiONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERn

'mowed from if* Ninon vf orporotalsooonotnottrig .t.

Minor cflaVs hove Woo mod* lo !farrowrproduction gustilyPolicy Briefs Points of vw or °omens statiodin this doctrmidi do not ematsysnly MCMINN *MGMOER! position or oolicY

A Publication of the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

Policy Briefs

are reports on

the status of

current issues

in education

from a national

perspective,

descriptions of

actions and

agendas in the

NCREL region,

commentaries

by experts from

their particular

point of view,

and resources

for further

information.

Toward a TechnologyInfrastructure forEducation: PolicyPerspectives IDirector's Note:

Technology information is changing while we write. New legisla-tion and funding, new technologies and emerging expertise abouthow to use them to enhance student learning, and new relation-ships between educators and the private sector will require thatdecision-makers stay alert and positioned to respond appropriately.This Policy Briefs and the other policy work of the RegionalPolicy Information Center are designed to capture and bringknowledge of these emerging resources to the decision-maker.

We are convinced that technology is transforming and willcontinue to transform the way teachers and students learn. Thistransformation involves much more than merely changing paperwork sheets to computer ones or providing advanced calculus torural students through distance learning. Technology willchange the nature of the learning process from a passive endeavorto an active one as students, young and old, access informationand work with others from around the world. The North CentralRegional Educational Laboratory shares the responsibility withpolicymakers at all levels to guide this transformation.

2

Overview

Education as a Component of the National Infrastructureby Dennis Goo ler, Northern Illinois University

Discussions about the nature, quality, andstructure of the American education systemcan be viewed as part of a broader discussionabout the national infrastructure. Peopleare taking a closer look at the condition ofwater and sewer systems, highways, bridges,and other physical elements, and in manyinstances are finding them to be inadequate.Schools are a vital part of the nationalinfrastructure, but concerns about thenation's schools extend beyond the physicalstructures to the basic processes of teachingand learning that go on in our schools.

An important part of the debate during thelast presidential campaign concerned theneed for and desirability of strengtheningor rebuilding the basic infrastructure ofAmerican society. In a report from theNational Telecommunications and Informa-tion Administration (NTIA), U.S. Departmentof Commerce (1991), the authors suggestedthat infras'-ructure:

refers to a nation's stock of physical capitalthat provides the underlying foundationor framework for private-sector endeavors,or that is used to furnish essential servicesto the public. As such, the term encom-passes both the capital owned or fundedby government (e.g., highways and air-ports) and the capital assets controlledby private firms subject to varying levelsof government oversight (e.g., railroadsand electric companies). (p. 13)

P tably, each presidential candidatea ;.,pared his intention to improve our infra-s -picture as needed; the central debate wasover bow to finance such improvementsin a tr, axe of significant national debt anda slow economy. This broader debate aboutfinancing infrastructure improvementshas its counterpart in education: How isrestructuring and reform to be financed inthese times?

p4 2

Educators and educational policymakersrightfully focus on the education subset of thenational infrastructure, but their focus mustbe broadened to include other subsets thataffect education or could affect education inthe future. One such subset of the nationalinfrastructure that has an ever-increasingimpact on education is communicationsparticularly the telecommunications, massmedia, and customer premises equipment(CPE) elements of the communicationsinfrastructure. The importance of thecommunications subset of the nationalinfrastructure and especially the telecom-munications component was emphasized inthe NTIA (1991) report:

Telecommunications is a vital componentof the U.S. economy and, indeed, of thenation's way of life. Rapid and efficientcommunicationinitially by telegraph,and later by telephonewas importantin the nineteenth century in unifying thecountry as the United States expandedwestward and developed into an indus-trial power. As economic markets becamemore and more globalized, America'sdomestic communications system wasimportant in permitting U.S.-basedfirms to operate efficiently and to com-pete internationally. Finally, even themost casual telephone user cannot butmarvel at the ease and simplicity withwhich he or she can communicate, usingeither voice or data, with others in otherparts of the country or the world. (p. 21)

Using Technologies in EducationAs part of plans for school reform and restruc-turingparticularly in teaching and learningmany argue that the education systems ofour nation ought to be active users andshapers of current and emerging communi-cations elements. Telecommunications,mass media, and various forms ;,.c customerpremises equipment (e.g., microcomputers,

CD-ROM players, VCRs, etc.) can andshould play a vital role in our vision of teach-ing and learning for tomorrow's schools.Technologies are fundamental in preparingour young people for the world that webelieve they will occupy, both as vehiclesfor learning and as basic tools in the work-place. To be sure, the nature of tomorrow'sworkplace is not certain, and numerous sce-narios have been formulated to describe theimpact that technologies will have on thenature of work itself, as Zuboff (1988) hasso compellingly portrayed.

If schools are to help us gain proficiencyin the use of these technologies, thenthose technologies must be readilyavailable to teachers and learners.

Regardless of the precise changes in thenature of work and workplace or indeed inhow information is accessed and used bycitizens in the future, schools have a verystrong interest in these matters. After all,schools are in the information business andin the business of helping young citizensprepare to live in a rapidly changing world.To the extent that we will be required touse (and live with) telecommunications andother technologies simply to survive as citi-zens and workers, it is appropriate that ourschools engage us in the use of these tech-nologies throughout our formal schooling.As individuals, we need to achieve a "comfortlevel" with technology that permits us touse technologies to learn and to manipulateinformation. In short, we must learn to usecreatively the technologies that play anincreasing role in our daily lives.

If schools are to help us gain proficiency inthe use of these technologies, then thosetech::,,logies must be readily available toteachos and learners. It is one thing toacknowledge the importance of communica-tions in ur lives and the need for a commu-nications infrastructure in schools and ininformal educational settings. It is quite

pair 3

another to enable schools to take advantageof such an infrastructure.

As telecommunications and applicationsdevelop, education appears to be a secon-dary actor in the process. Simply put,the educational community is not sittingat the telecommunications policymakingtable where important decisions are beingmade that will have a significant impacton education in the future.... Schoolsneed to connect to the national telecom-munications highways much like commu-nities need on- and off-ramps to theinterstate transportation highways.Many classrooms do not have even tele-phone lines, for example, while otherhigher band applications for schools,such as videoconferenc. ng and high-speed computing, are already commer-cially available. (Gooier, Firestone, andClark, 1991, pp. iii-iv)

The education system is not automaticallyincluded in plans for advanced telecommu-nications and technolog: systems, for ahost of reasons. (There are exceptions, ofcourse, such as the Star Schools projectsand other local and state initiatives involvingtechnology applications in schools.) Educa-tors have not always insisted on having alocal communications infrastructure thatmeets the information and communicationsneeds of teachers and learners. Further-more, when educators have promoted theuse of technology to improve teaching andlearning, they often have opted for "stand-alone" technologies, meaning that an indi-vidual classroom, school, or (less often)school district obtains a form of technologythat is not connected to any other setting orsystem. Yet, the characteristics of emergingtechnologies, coupled with demands forinformation resources and technology-based learning tools, suggest the need tocreate a national technology infrastructurefor education.

Toward a TechnologyInfrastructure for Education

To move toward a telecommunications andeducational technology infrastructure foreducation requires educators and policy-makers to expand and substantially changethe discourse on technology applications ineducation. Melmed and Fisher (1991), in astudy from the Center for Educational Tech-nology and Economic Productivity at NewYork University, touch on some of the reasonsthat such a change is needed:

Current developments in digital technol-ogy, powerful market forces, and publicpolicy concerned with scientific computingcould combine to create the potential forwidespread use of high-tech informationtechnology with great social, educational,and economic benefit for all Americans.This outcome is not assured. Many tech-nical, economic, and regulatory barriersstand in the way, with little effort bypolitical and social institutions to ensurepublic participation in the nation'semerging digital communication andinformation infrastructure. (p. 1)

Americans are not starved for information,argue Melmed and Fisher, since most citi-zens have access to newspapers, magazines,books, radio, broadcast and cable television,libraries, and 800 and 900 telephone numbers.But a coordinated electronic infrastructuregives individuals the capacity to connectand interact with one another and withinformation sources, together with universalaccess and a broad array of images and tools.Electronic technology infrastructures havethe potential to alter radically the range ofinformation and resources that learners canaccess as well as what they can do with whatthey can access. One small example: Indi-vidual learners, regardless of where theylive, might have access through the electronicinfrastructure to the extensive databasescreated by major newspapers, only a smallpart of which appears in print in the dailynewspaper. Or learners might gain accessto the holdings of the Library of Congress.

If one accepts the argument that schoolsand other educational institutions must beconnected to a national communicationsinfrastructure, what are the issues to beconsidered in making the necessary connec-tions and taking advantage of those connec-tions? Given that many of the technicalelements of a national communications infra-structure are in place (such as cable systems,electronic highways such as the Internetand the emerging National Research andEducation Network (N172,N), and advancedtelephone and video systems), what wouldprevent schools from "plugging in" to thenetworks?

Policy ImplicationsFor educational policymakers, calls forcreating a universal, powerful, and flexibletelecommunications and technology infra-structure that can be used by the nation'seducation systems raise a myriad of complexpolicy and operations questions that mustbe addressed. Melmed and Fisher (1991),for example, make the following observation:

Many barriers exist to realizing the socialbenefits of an emerging modern commu-nication and information structure.. .There are technological and economicissues; there are public policy issues ofdifferent kinds, including, inevitably,who pays and who gets. This is a formi-dable agenda for the nation. (p. 13)

Hezel (1991) argues that state-level policyissues involving telecommunications infra-structures center around the concepts ofequity, access, and quality. Williams(1991), examining the concept of the Intelli-gent Network (a technology infrastructure),outlines some of the services that might beavailable to schools and other social institu-tions through an intelligent network andasks what kinds of policies must be estab-lished to balance citizen, business, and publicservice goals in deployment of a network.In its study of distance education, the Officeof Technology Assessment (1989) observedthat "telecommunications policies can be

page 4 5

barriers to implementation or they canexpedite development. They require imme-diate attention at the national level." (p. 19)

As state and local policymakers seriouslyconsider making schools an integral part ofa communications infrastructure and askhow technologies might best serve the goalsof education and education reform, they alsomust confront issues in substantive areas,including but not limited to the following:

Programming Issues. How do wedevelop programming that takes advan-tage of the power of the infrastructure?How do we determine intellectual propertyrights when programming is availablethrough an electronic infrastructure? Howis programming best shared among users?

Training Issues. What kinds of skillsand perspectives do teachers and learnersneed in order to use the infrastructureeffectively? How will teachers and learnersgain these skills and perspectives? Whatare the implications for preservice andinservice teacher and administratorpreparation programs? How can wedevelop and sustain long-term staffdevelopment and technical assistanceprograms for teachers?

Financial Issues. How will we payinitial capital costs? How can we ensureequity in financing capital costs? Whatare the ongoing and recurring costs ofusing the infrastructure, and how shallthose costs be paid? How do we fund

- programming development costs

Coordination and Planning Issues.How much and what kind of planningand coordination will be required tomake effective use of the communicationsinfrastructure? Who should provideneeded planning and coordination?

Technical Issues. What kinds of hard-ware and software should schools purchaseto use as part of the infrastructure?What standards should be followed? Howdo we deal with changes in technologies?How do we maintain needed equipment?

Regulatory Issues. Who regulates theinfrastructure? VVhat are the specific

regulatory roles of state and nationalagencies? How are rate structures estab-lished, and do special rates apply to edu-cational uses of infimstructure services?Does widespread use of the infrastructureby schools present curriculum, certifica-tion, or other education regulation issues?

Evaluation Issues. How do we determinewhether the infrastructure is serving theneeds of educators and learners? Howdo we make modifications in the infra-structure as they are suggested by researchand evaluation data? Is the infrastructurea cost-effective means of providing educa-tional opportunities, and in what settings?

A central question is: Can educationalpolicymakers afford not to beginaddressing these complicated issuesand fashioning policies to enhance theuse of communications and informationtechnologies in our nation's classrooms?Is it possible that the education systemcan function effectively without makinguse of these emerging technologies?

It will be apparent to local, state, and nationalpolicymakers that categorizing these issuesmasks a large number of complicated andinterrelated policy concerns. A centralquestion is: Can educational policymakersafford not to begin addressing these compli-cated issues and fashioning policies toenhance the use of communications andinformation technologies in our nation'sclassrooms? Is it possible that the educationsystem can function effectively withoutmaking use of these emerging technologies?For years, advocates have insisted that ifschools would just use a given technologytheir instructional, administrative, and fiscalwoes would be over. Too often, advocatesfor a specific technology promise far morethan the technology can deliver. No wonderpolicymakers at the state and local levelare a bit cautiouseven a bit cynicalabout the most recent round of technologyadvocacy.

page 5

The difference in today's discussion of tech-nology may be that the kinds of technologies(and related services and applications)being discussed for education are alsoprominent in the workplace, the home, andthe community. Williams (1991) reiteratesthis point:

In the last decade, telecommunicationshas moved from a background role of autility to applications meant to createnew competitive advantages in businesses,increased productivity in public services,and economic development in cities,states, and nations. (p. vii)

As we witness the benefits of the coales-cence of telecommunications and com-puting, many are calling this the arrivalof the intelligent network, which is asmuch a national resource as a communi-cations medium. (p. 1)

Connections by schools into the commu-nications infrastructure no longer appearto be luxuries, but necessities if ourschools (and our learners) are to gainknowledge that is relevant in tomorrow'sworld.

Technology applications in education cannoteasily be distinguished fr -int technologyapplications in many other sectors of society.Connections by schools into the communica-tions infrastructure no longer appear to beluxuries, but necessities if our schools (andour learners) are to gain knowledge that isrelevant in tomorrow's world.

The education policymaker is faced with adifficult proposition: A persuasive argumentcan be made that schools must be connectedto the national communications infrastructureand draw on the information resources andinterconnectivity of the infrastructure, yetthe short- and long-term implications of usingthe infrastructure raise potential problems.Wurman (1989) has described the "informa-tion anxiety" that overcomes many people

page 6

when faced with access to large amounts ofinformation (information that the infrastruc-ture surely could, in time, deliver to eachuser). Postman (1992) warns us against thesurrender of culture to technology, assortingthat the uncontrolled growth of technologycan destroy the vital sources of our humanity.Roszak (1986) advises caution in approach-ing a technology infrastructure for education:

Thanks to the high :success of informa-tion theory, we live in a time when thetechnology of human communicationshas advanced at blinding speed, butwhat people have to say to one anotherby way of that technology shows no corn-parable development. (p. 16)

Some Pervasive QuestionsIt is clear that our national infrastructurewill include electronic highways that willreach most areas of the nation, offering thepotential for a vast communications network.Whether appropriate on and off ramps fromthese highways will connect our schools tothis network remains an open question.There is no doubt that some schools willconnect to the network, and this fact alonesuggests some fundamental questions foreducation policymakers at all levels: Whatdoes education equity mean in an age oftechnology and information? Will the"haves" connect to the infrastructure, whilethe "have-nots" are denied access? Whatmight be the long-range consequences ofthis division within our nation's schools?What policies need to be shaped, practicesfollowed, and regulations imposed 1.o preventinequity from taking a new form for a newgeneration? To the extent that the prognos-ticators are accuratethat information accu-mulation, manipulation, and transmissionwill define life in the next centurywhathappens to those young people who do nothave the opportunity to gain knowledge,perspectives, and skills germane to theseinformation-related activities? If we lookat our history, we know the answer.

7

For those students who do have access tothe communications infrastructure andhave the tools and information resourcespromised as part of that infrastructure,other questions are raised. Will access tothese tools and resources involve studentsin what Postman (1992) describes as an"ahistorical, information-saturated, technol-ogy-loving character of Technopoly"? Or, asLeebaert and Dickinson (1991) ask, willthese students and their teachers "ignorethe creative possibilities and becomedynamically passive, using the obvious toget the extraordinary rather than discerningthe less obvious to achieve the miraculous"?

The policy issues associated withscnools and the communicationsinfrastructure are made complex byrapid changes in technologies. by themorass of agencies and processes thatregulate and coordinate technology andeducation throughout the nation, and byambiguities in what we want for oureducation system and its processesand what we want out of them.

That is, will exposure to and involvementwith technology resources alter the natureof teaching and learning in ways that areless than desirable?

The policy issues associated with schoolsand the communications infrastructure aremade complex by rapid changes in technolo-gies, by the morass of agencies and processesthat regulate and coordinate technologyand education throughout the nation, andby ambiguities in what we want for our edu-cation system and its processes and whatwe want out of them. We need to decidefirst whether it is important for our schoolsto be connected to the national communica-tions infrastructure. If the answer is yes,we must address a number of how, howmuch, when, and with whom questions.

page 7

8)

Organizing these questions around groupsof issues and understanding the relation-ships among those groups may make thepolicy-setting task more manageable.

I wish to close this overview with a personalobservation. In my judgment, we as a nationcannot afford even to contemplate not "plug-ging in" education to a national and interna-tional telecommunications infrastructure. Toremain outside of that infrastructure is todeny students and teachers access to whatwill be the basic information resources of futuresociety, thus robbing future generations ofthe tools and resources that they will needto be effective citizens, workers, thinkers,and social beings. I do not mean to suggestthat education must warmly embrace everyinvention, technology, strategy and product.Above all, educators must be critics, but criticswith a vision of the structure and processesof a changing society. Precisely how we asan education community will connect to theinfrastructure and use information resourcesand tools to further the cause of effectiveteaching and learning is not crystal clear.What is certain is that we must be an activeplayer in the gamethe outcome is tooimportant for us to watch from the sidelines.

Dennis D. Gooier is Professor and Chair,Department of Curriculum and Instruction,College of Education, Northern Illinois Univer-isity. Dennis has worked for many years onproblems pertaining to technology applicationsin education and on the study of the effectsand consequences of technology uses. Dr.Gooler has written on technology planning andassessment issues, has served in a consultingcapacity to numerous agencies and institu-tions involved with technology applications,and has participated in the development oftechnology legislation. In his current capac-ity, Dr. Gooler is particularly interested inpreparing teachers to use technology effec-tively in and out of the classroom.

Regional Actions and Agendas

Illinois

Local Efforts

An Educati,-sal Service Center(ESC) survey of its directors and

technology specialists was conducted todetermine the extent and manner of Illinoisschool districts' use of technology to obtainsufficient information on which to base pol-icy direction. Because ESCs provide a vari-ety of technology-related services to localschool districts, their staff seemed a reason-able source for this information.

The results of this survey tend to confirmnational data suggesting that slow progressis being made in integrating technologyinto education. The averages reported byESC personnel indicate the following:

Less than 10% of Illinois school districtsare making use of multiple technologiesas part of an overall plan for restructuringtheir schools.

The use of technology as part of the totalcurriculum has not yet begun in 76.4% ofIllinois districts.

For 44.6% of the districts in Illinois, tech-nology is, at best, a resource for teachersand students.

As much as 15.9% of Illinois school dis-tricts are making very little use of tech-nology in any form.

A significantly higher percentage of dis-tricts uses technology for managementpurposes than for teaching and learningthe most common applications of technol-ogy in Illinois schools are accounting,student record keeping, and budgeting.

Analysis of ESC data shows significant vari-ation among ESC areas. For example, inthree ESC areas, 75% or more of the districtseither are making little use of technology orhave only begun to use technology as aresource for teaching and learning. OtherESCs report that more than 75% of theirdistricts are making extensive use of

page 8

technology as part of a technology and/orrestructuring plan.

After the survey was completed, conversationswith ESC representatives suggested thattheir responses had been generous and thatthe overall level of technology use in Illinoisschool districts is actually lower than thedata would indicate. ESC personnel suggestedthat a substantial number of districts "haven'teven gotten off the bus and into the dugout."

A similarly gloomy picture appeared in theSeptember 1992 issue of Macworld magazine.Using data from Quality Education Data(QED) in Denver, Colorado, the magazinereported that Illinois ranks in the bottom10% of states in the ratio of computers tostudents.

Although the number of computers perstudent cannot adequately measure howwell districts are making use of technology,QED's information does indicate a lack ofmeaningful access to technology in Illinoisschools.

It was clear in the survey and in subsequentdiscussions with ESC personnel and othersthat every part of the state has a few localdistricts that are models for the effectiveuse of technology. Many of these districtswere featured in last spring's "Tech 2000"demonstration, which allowed legislatorsand others to view the technology initiativesof more than 100 local schools and schooldistricts. However, it would be misleadingto believe that these districts represent thestatus of technology use in Illinois schools.

State EffortsTo fulfill its commitment to the availabilityand effective use of technology in Illinoisschools, the State Board of Educationneeded to find out what would be necessaryto achieve this end. Board staff were askedto conduct a policy study to answer thegeneral question: What should be theappropriate role of the State Board inensuring access to technology and proficiencyin its use for students and educators?

9

This study involved two separate butrelated sets of activities. The first wasaimed at developing a common base of infor-mation and perspective among board mem-bers and staff. Activities toward thisobjective included the following:

Preparation of a briefing notebook ofrelevant technology materials

Observation of local school districttechnology programs

A long-range planning seminar with Dr.Karen Sheingold, former director of theBank Street Center for Technology inEducation, and four Illinois educators:Sin Hartsfield, a teacher in Springfield;Walter Warfield, then superintendent ofthe Decatur school district; Ron Fortunato,technology coordinator for GlenbrookSouth High School; and Perry Soldwedel,assistant superintendent for the Pekinelementary school district

A demonstration of IDEAnet, Indiana'sstatewide telecommunication networkfor education

A long-range planning seminar withAlan November, technology coordinatorfor Glenbrook North High School and anationally known consultant on technologyand education

The second set of activities was aimed atanswering the following study questions:

What are the appropriate and effectiveuses of technology in the schools?

To what extent do Illinois school districtsnow make effective use of technology asa resource to support student learningand improve operational efficiency?

What initiatives promote and what barrierslimit the effective use of technology byIllinois school districts?

What is the appropriate role for theState of Illinois/State Board of Educationin removing these barriers and promotingeffective technology use in Illinois schools?

To answer these questions, the staff studyteam conducted a review of the literature;compiled information specifically relevant

to Illinois, including a variety of previousreports; conducted surveys of ESC personneland staff at the colleges of teacher education;visited local school district and universitytechnology programs; met with repre-sentatives of local school districts and otherstate agencies; interviewed agency staff;attended relevant meetings and conferences;and explored a variety of legal and technicalissues.

This study did not use any single definitionof technology, but kept in mind the broadarray of electronic, mechanical, and otherdevices that already exist and that may beintroduced in the future. The study wasnot limited to computers.

With the implementation of the newschool recognition/improvement process,the agency is concentrating its resourceson building a database that gives staffaccess to a full profile of district informa-tion and allows school districts to identify,through telecommunications, a variety ofresources that may support their schoolimprovement efforts.

14page 9

Recommendations aimed at helping schoolsuse technology more effectively to supportlearning and improve their operation areready for implementation following theiradoption by the State Board of Education.These recommendations, based on researchand a policy study by agency staff, call forthe State Board to take the following actions:

1. Establish a formal coalition of business leaders,technology providers, local district educators,and representatives of various aspects ofstate government to provide a forum fortechnology planning, communication,collaboration, and advocacy.

2. With the assistance and support of thiscoalition, develop a vision for the use oftechnology in Illinois education a state-level strategic plan for achieving that vision.

3. Identify and appropriately modify the laws,policies, rules, and practices that inhibitthe use of technology as a resource andcatalyst for improving student learning.

4. Develop a statewide telecommunicationssystem serving elementary and secondary

schools.

5. Continue efforts to incorporate technologyinto the operation of the state educationagency and the administration of its programs.

6. Support federal actions that supplement andsupport the state's technology initiatives.

One of the major issues associated withthe variations in access and use of tech-nology in Illinois school districts isequity. Under the right conditions,technology can bring human and dataresources to students who might other-wise never be able to access suchresources, bridging traditional gapsof wealth and location.

Financial AspectsWith the implementation of the new schoolrecognition/improvement process, the agencyis concentrating its resources on building adatabase that gives staff access to a full pro-file of district information and allows schooldistricts to identify, through telecommuni-cations, a variety of resources that maysupport their school improvement efforts.

The State Board's FY93 budget made tech-nology capacity-building a priority, andfunds are now being used for the followingmajor initiatives:

Purchase a state education license forcommunications software that will allowall school districts to communicate bytelephone lines with the State Board andwith one another

Identify standards for electronicsubmission of local school districtfinancial data

Develop data systems to support the newschool accountability process

Develop a new administrativeaccounting system

The FY94 budget recommendations call forcontinuation of these initiatives and newfunding to support automation of the processwhere possible.

Key Groups in Education Technology

The following are examples of promotionand support for technology use:

page 10

The Educational Service Centers areresponsible by law for providing servicesrelated to achievement of computer literacyand high-tech competency.

The Illinois State Board of Educationand Western Illinois University collabo-rate on the WIU/ISBE network.

State and federally funded programs inte-grate college preparatory coursework withrigorous technical education concentration.

Since 1989, a total of $39.7 million instate funds has been appropriated forimproving the mathematics, science, andtechnological literacy of Illinois studentsand teachers.

A recently developed partnership witheleven public television stations and theState's larger school districts, known asthe Illinois Cooperative Group Buy,involves the pooling of resources formore cost-effective purchasing of qualityvideo programming.

ISBE staff have begun working withCentral Management Services to pursuethe building of "electronic highways" inIllinois, and another staff group is workingto identify the databases that would beaccessible through telecommunicationsnetworks.

Development of a new administrativeaccounting system

11

Educational Equity

One of the major issues associated with thevariations in access and use of technologyin Illinois school districts is equity. Underthe right conditions, technology can bringhuman and data resources to students whomight otherwise never be able to accesssuch resources, bridging traditional gaps ofwealth and location.

Unfortunately, variations in the use of tech-nology tend to widen the gap between richand poor, rather than close it. In the Sep-tember 1992 edition of Macworld, CharlesPiller suggests that the issue is not simplythe difference in availability of technologyamong schools, but that many schoolspar-ticularly those in inner-city or rural areasdo not have the skills or funds to train theirteachers to use technology effectively or tomaintain the equipment once it is acquired.Given the demands of the 21st century, thissituation will lead inevitably to what Pillercalls "a technological underclass."

The issue of Macworld in which Piller wrotehis article was dedicated to "America's Shame:How We've Abandoned Our Children'sFuture." In the same issue, the editorsmade the following prediction:

Building a Technology Infrastructure

The integration of technology into theschools should be based on a compre-hensive plan, carefully developed byeach local school board in cooperationwith its administrators, faculty, par-ents, and community. However, a sub-stantial number of school boards donot know how to proceed with such astrategic planning activity and/or donot feel comfortable with their abilityto handle the technical issues thatsurely will be raised by the process.These boards and communities needsystematic training to provide themwith a common approach to this task.

By the year 2000, we may create aschism in American society betweenhave and have-not graduates from ourown school systems. If computers are notsuccessfully and widely integrated intoprimary and secondary education, oursociety will strati& into those with theknowledge to succeed and those who cannot

The integration of technology into theschools should be based on a compre-hensive plan, carefully developed byeach local school board in cooperationwith its administrators, faculty, parents,and community.

t2page 11

Education Technology Needs

Among the needs for the successful integra-tion of technology in Illinois schools are thefollowing:

Vision or Strategic Plan. The 1991CCSSO Technology Policy Statementconcluded that "Wile state must commu-nicate a clear and persuasive vision oftechnology's role in education to ensurethat all key persons .. . work toward acommon goal for technology use."

Coordination and Cooperation. Inthe absence of any commonly understoodvision or strategic plan for the use oftechnology in education, most groups

id individuals with an interest in thisissue have been proceeding more or lessindependently. This lack of cooperationand k. irdination can significantly impedeprogre:,s and lead to enormous waste intime and money. For example, the settingof standards for telecommunication tech-nologies is literally impossible withoutcooperation among a wide variety ofentities.

Eliminate Some of the Resistance toChange and to Technology. Resistanceto change is partly a consequence of edu-cation's size; education is a huge enterprise,and one innovative project at a time doesnot have much impact on the entirety.Education is also a product of tradition.

The human tendency to revert to thefamiliar, lack of involvement in planningfor change, implementation pitfallsallof these problems have meant that thebasic structure of schools and schoolinghas changed very little. This resistanceseems to intensify when the issue is tech-nology in schools.

A Sufficient Funding Base. Educa-tional funding is already inadequate inIllinois and does not allow major, newinitiatives such as the appropriate andeffective implementation of technology inthe schools. Because the state's fundingsystem has inherent inequities, the lackof resources for new initiatives is moreacute in some districts than in others.This lack of resources can widen thedisparity of opportunity that alreadyexists in the public schools.

Moreover, some factors in the technologyequation cannot be adequately or appro-priately addressed at the individual dis-trict level. This difficulty is particularlytrue for (1) the creation of the "electronichighways," which will be necessary toconnect all districts to one another andto telecommunications resourcesthroughout the world and (2) the provi-sion of training and technical assistanceresources. These endeavors require notonly coordinated state leadership, but asignificant and stable source of funding.

Local Planning and Leadership. Fora variety of reasons, most local schoolboards have not engaged in any systematicplanning to integrate technology into theschools. Even districts engaged in long-range strategic planning are payingscant attention to technology as a resourcefor restructuring the educational system.

Teacher Training and TechnicalSupport. The effective use of technologyin the schools is dependent on theteacher's level of knowledge and comfortwith technology and his or her ability touse technology to expand and improvethe learning procecs. However, usingtechnology in preparing teachers is, at best,in the very early stages of implementation.At the practitioner level, few districtshave any comprehensive or systematic

plan for providing either initial or con-tinuing training in the use of technologyfor teachers already in the classroom.

A related barrier to the appropriate andeffective implementation of technology inthe schools is the absence of technicalexpertise and support.

Deal with Mandates, Requirements,and Traditions. We have barely begunto identify the organizational, policy, andprocedural issues that act as barriers tousing technology to transform education.However, it seems reasonable to expectthat the list of such factors will be longand challenging.

Infrastructure. Illinois school districtsin both urban and rural areas are filled withold buildings that do not lend themselveseasily to the rewiring necessary for com-prehensive implementation of technology.State Board efforts to secure capitalfunding to address the facilities needs oflocal districts have been unsuccessful.

Some parts of the state have an aging orinadequate communications infrastruc-ture, while others do not have access toparts of that infrastructure (e.g., cable).

Modeling. The state education agencyhas only recently begun to use the newertechnologies for its own operation, andwe still have a long way to go before thatmovement becomes fully evident at thelocal level.

IndianaThe State of Indiana and theIndiana Department of Education(IDOE) have provided vision, lead-

ership, and ongoing support for technologyinitiatives since 1983.

Local Efforts

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) areresponsible for planning, curriculum, staffdevelopment, and other issues related to thetechnology infrastructure. LEAs continueto look for the best resources available tothem for planning, staff development, andhardware support, such as computer net-

page 12 13

works, bulletin boards, e-mail, library auto-mation, and voice/video/data systems forclassroom, staff development, and adminis-trative needs. These resources include theIDOE, the Indiana Clearinghouse for Educa-tional Technology (ICET), Educational ServiceCenters (ESCs), vendors, universities, tele-phone companies, outside experts, and schools.

Since 1983, the State has legislatedfunds for technology in the areas of train-ing, technical support, and consultants;the Buddy System Project, with computersin homes for fourth, fifth, and sixth grad-ers; the K-1 early childhood reading, writ-ing, and math programs, using computertechnology; and grants to K-12 schools.

State EffortsThe Indiana Department of Education pro-vides resources, information, and technicalsupport through its consultants. OtherIDOE efforts include:

The IDOE-funded Indiana Clearinghousefor Educational Technology

State-sponsored conferences and assis-tance to other conferences and profes-sional organizations in the state

Materials and assistance in areas suchas districtwide technology, planning, anddevelopment of capacity within LEAs

Dissemination of technology productsand training

Planning for library automation andtelecommuni ations

Leadership training for technology usewithin the schools for principals, and teamsof teachers and library media specialists

IDEAnet, the Indiana Department ofEducation Access Network's bulletin board,conference, chat, and database system

Other state efforts include:

The state-funded ESCs serve as regionalconsortia for products, training, andother needed services to member LEAs.

Intelenet, a state ,ommission, managesthe statewide, integrated telecommunica-tions network. This fiber optic network isavailable to state and local governments,schools, the Indiana Higher EducationTelecommunication System (IHETS),and colleges and universities.

The IHETS provides programming foruniversities and schools through Intelenet,microwave, telephone, computer networks,and satellite.

Financial AspectsThe State of Indiana has legislated a SchoolTechnology Advancement Account (STAA),which makes available to LEAs $5 millionannually in low-interest loans. The Statealso gives LEAs access to local buildingfunds for technology purchases. Since 1983,the State has legislated funds for technologyin the areas of training, technical support,and consultants; the Buddy System Project,with computers in homes for fourth, fifth, andsixth graders; the K-1 early childhood reading,writing, and math programs, using computertechnology; and grants to K-12 schools.

The federal government through the Statealso provides grants under programs suchas Chapter II and Title II.

Key Groups in Educational Technology

Advocates for educational technologyinitiatives in Indiana include:

1 4page 13

Dr. Suellen Reed, IDOE Superintendentof Public Instruction, and the IndianaSchool Technology Enterprise Council(ISTEC), an appointed body with membersfrom business, industry, and educationand legislators that advise the statesuperintendent

Marvin Bailey, President and CEO of thestate-legislated Corporation for EducationalTechnology, which serves 20 schools in theBuddy System Project and seeks legislationto fund the project thrcughout the state

Dr. Howard Mehlinger, Director, Centerfor Excellence in Education at IndianaUniversity, which explores ways to usetechnology to improve education at alllevels

State Representative Philip Warner,Indiana General Assembly

Art Linderman, Director, IHETS

Education Equity

Nondiscrimination and equity are policiesof IDOE and the State Board of Education.Advanced Placement courses must be imple-mented by LEAs in 1994. Meanwhile, vari-ous LEAs have riled a class action suit tocompel the State to provide equity in fund-ing for Indiana public schools.

Building a Technology Infrastructure

Efforts and activities that help buildthe technology infrastructure include:

The Indiana Department of Educa-tion's leadership, initiatives, andresoi......s (teleconferences, confer-ences, training, grants, materials,expertise, referrals, network, clear-inghouse, publications)

LEA, state, and corporate partnerships,such as the Buddy System Project

The state-legislated Indiana Libraryand Historical Board's library auto-mation standards for public librariesand library services authorities,expending funds for library auto-mation, effective July 1, 1993

Partnershare, an example of aschool, university, and businessresource sharing group

LEAs using local funding to remodeland build new facilities for incorpo-ration of telecommunications andcomputer-related networks, whichin some cases includes the use ofChannel One installation for otherin-house purposes, such as connectingto a steerable satellite dish

Education Technology Needs

In order to continue to expand the vision oftechnology planning and infrastructure, aswell as ongoing staff development, Indiana'stechnology needs include equity for allgroups and equity in funding, planning,and telecommunications.

IowaLocal Efforts

Iowa's education standardsrequire the board of education in each LEAto "adopt a plan for the efficient and effectiveuse of technology in the instructional pro-gram." This plan "shall provide for theunderstanding and use of current technologyby staff and students and shall include aprocedure to review the district's utilizationof technology as a teaching and learningtool." Technical assistance in the develop-ment of these plans is generally provided bythe educational services and media personnelof Iowa's intermediate education agency,the AEAArea Education Agency.

State Efforts

At the state level, the following efforts arebeing made:

1. The State Board of Education's "strategicplan" includes an objective addressing"instructional technology," which declaresthat "the power of technology will be har-nessed in Iowa schools and communitycolleges to help students learn."

2. The Department of Education has appointeda technology commission to develop "a clearand compelling vision for using technologyto transform the education system at thebuilding, district, area, and state levels tosupport the teaching and learning process."This commission will conduct policy andpractice analyses and provide a forum foraddressing issues in technology.

3. The state's general assembly legislated thedevelopment and construction of the IowaCommunications Network (ICN), a statewide,fiber optic, two-way interactive telecommu-nications network connecting the Regents'universities, the community colleges, and apoint of presence in each of Iowa's 99 counties.

4. Legislation was passed this year directingthe governor to establish an educationaltechnology consortium to develop a plan forcomputer use by children in Iowa. The ulti-mate goal is to provide a computer for eachstudent and teacher in the state for schooland home use.

papa 14 15

Financial Aspects

Approximately $30 million was appropriatedover a six-year period t begin paying for theconstruction of the Iowa CommunicationsNetwork. Certificates of Participation alsowere sold to cover a major portion of the costof construction. The voice and data traffic ofstate government will be transferred to thissystem over time, and the fees generated bythat activity also are expected to help financethe system. In addition, educational userswill support the system through an hourlyaccess fee.

Iowa also was awarded a $4 million StarSchools demonstration grant that will supportstaff development activity, the developmentof regional partnerships that include areaeducation agency, community college, andlocal education agency interests, and point ofpresence send/receive classroom equipment.

Expenditures for "technology" at the locallevel are at the discretion of and fundedby the LEA. Cooperative purchasing byconsortia of LEAs and/or the area educationagencies is commonplace.

Key Groups in Education Technology

As such a comprehensive and expensiveendeavor, "technology" must involve allsectorshigher education, including com-munity colleges, area education agencies,the state education agency, the local schooldistricts, and private enterprise. In addition,several professional organizations, particu-larly the Iowa Computer Using Educatorsand the Iowa Educational Media Association,are key players in the promotion, staffdevelopment, and nurturing aspects ofadvancing the technology agenda.

Key roles include: higher educationpre-service and inservice education and modelingbehaviors; community collegeshubs forICN and management of regional distancelearning networks; AEAsinservice andtechnical expertise from both the mediaand educational services divisions; LEAsfacilitating the teaching and learning processwith the power of instructional technology.

The role of the SEA is to develop the visionof technology's impact on the transformation ofeducation in Iowa and to advance its imple-mentation through leadership, partnership,and legislative initiative. Furthermore, theSEA must promote equity of educationalopportunity and define technology's role inachieving that goal. The technology com-mission initiated by the Department of Edu-cation is designed primarily to realize thetechnology mission of the SEA.

Education Equity

Equity of learning opportunity has been amajor impetus in the development of theIowa Communications Network. Whencomplete, the ICN will bring equal access toinformation and instructional offerings toIowa's smallest and most rural districts.

The Iowa Computer Initiative describedpreviously is a further attempt to bringequity. At present, computers and associ-ated access to information are availableonly to students whose districts or parentshave made them a priority and can affordto make them available.

Recommendations advanced by the Tech-nology Commission will undoubtedlyaddress the issues of equitable access totechnology, information, and education.

Building a Technology Infrastructure

The Iowa Communications Network andthe proposed Iowa Computer Initiativeboth affect the state s technology infra-structure significantly.

As LEAs and other educational institu-tions replace or add instructional facili-ties, the wiring and other physical needsof today's and tomorrow's instructionaland communications technologies mustbe incorporated. In addition, Iowa needs afunding mechanism built into the schoolfinance formula to support technology.

16page 15

Education Technology Needs1. Statewide coordination of technology

initiatives, policies, and practices

2. Technology's role in the transformationof education

3. Funding

4. Equity and other policy/practice issues

.41000., Michigan6 In Education: Where the Next

Century Begins (1990), the StateBoard of Education identified 14

goals as priorities for action. One of thegoals called for the development of a com-prehensive, five-year state technology planto coordinate existing and emerging technol-ogy in four major areas: investments, inte-gration, technical assistance, andprofessional training programs. Michigan'sState Technology Plan: 1992-97, containing22 recommendations, was adopted by theState Board of Education and establishes aframework for action for the developmentand implementation of technology systemsand services in Michigan. The recommenda-tions are organized into five major themes:school reform and restructuring, statewidetelecommunication systems, professionaldevelopment, technology investments, andcopyright and fair use.

Local EffortsIn Michigan, all schools, colleges, and uni-versities are focusing on teaching essentialskills more effectively. Through Public Act25 of 1990, known as the Quality Issuespackage, a model core curriculum thatincludes technology outcomes for K-12education was established. Through P.A.25, schools are in the process of planningfor and implementing these technologyoutcomes for all students. An estimated34 percent of Michigan school districts havereported progress in implementing thetechnology outcomes.

State Efforts

In response to the State Board's directive,Michigan's State Technology Plan: 1992-97was developed to assist local, regional, andstate agencies in planning and utilizingtechnology to achieve broad educational out-comes. The five-year plan includes informa-tion about current services and systemsthat involve computers, electronic bulletinboard systems, videodiscs, read-only compactdiscs, two-way interactive television systems,satellite and cable television programming,integrated learning systems, and multimedia.The State Technology Plan addresses tech-nology issues concerning all learners receiv-ing services from local and intermediateschool districts, post-secondary institutionsincluding teacher preparation programs,and adult education programs.

In Michigan, all schools, colleges, anduniversities are focusing on teachingessential skills more effectively. ThroughPublic Act 25 of 1990, known as the QualityIssues package, a model core curriculumthat includes technology outcomes forK-12 education was established. ThroughP.A. 25, schools are in the process ofplanning for and implementing thesetechnology outcomes for all students.

Financial Aspects

The educational community views technol-ogycomputers, bulletin board systems,videodiscs, CD-ROMs, two-way interactivetelevision systems, satellite dishes, and cabletelevision programmingas a means toachieve the national and state educationgoals. Yet, the financing of technology foreducational programming is still seen bymany to be cost-prohibitive. Michigancontinues to be faced with difficult decisionswhen considering the financing of state-wide technology initiatives. In times ofsevere budget reductions, local districts arefinding it necessary to explore innovativeprograms and strategic purchases. TheState Technology Plan calls for the install-ment of computers, networks, satellite

page 16 17

dishes, and the other major technologies atthe classroom and building sites.

In August 1993, the Michigan Legislatureand the Governor enacted legislation thateliminated $6.3 billion in property tax sup-port for public schools effective January 1,1994. The legislature is preparing an edu-cation reform and school finance package toreplace this revenue. Due to the fiscal climatein the state, it is difficult to estimate thelevel of funding that will be available overthe next five years for implementation ofspecific recommendations. The Departmentcontinues to seek funding to implement theState Technology Plan's recommendations.State funds to support technology projectsare still very limited. The primary state-funded technology program for the pasttwo years has been TEC-CHOICES, whichprovides intermediate school districts withsupport for pilot technology projects.

Michigan continues to be faced with difficultdecisions when considering the financingof statewide technology initiatives. Intimes of severe budget reductions, localdistricts are finding it necessary toexplore innovative programs andstrategic purchases.

In January 1993, the Michigan Public ServiceCommission (MPSC) ruled a at MichiganBell Telephone Company could either refundto its customers excess earnings of $10.5million or provide a voluntary matchingcontribution so that approximately $21million could be used to support educationaltelecommunications projects. In February,Michigan Bell agreed to provide a match iffunds could be used by Michigan Bell tosupport telecommunications projectsintended to make progress toward estab-lishing an integrated statewide network.The MPSC's original order indicated tEatthe Commission would make the final deter-mination regarding what projects would befunded. Governor Engler appointed aMichigan Council on Telecommunication

Services for Public Education, a three-mem-ber body that will allocate excess earningfunds for distance learning projects.

Key Groups in Education Technology

The Department of Education realizes thatthose responsible for the educational enter-prisethe governor and the legislature, theState Board/Department of Education andother state agencies, local and intermediateschool districts, community colleges, four-year colleges and universities, professionalassociations, business and industry, parents,and studentsmust jointly plan for thetechnology initiatives to be implementedfor the next five years.

More than 40 statewide orgizations serveon the Superintendent's Tec. Axiology andTelecommunications Planning and AdvisoryGroup (Pil'AG). This broadly representativeAdvisory Group will make recommendationson policy issues related to educational tech-nology and telecommunications over the nexttwo years. The TTPAG will advise theDepartment on implementation strategiesfor Michigan's State Technology Plan: 1992-97 and work closely with the governor's officeto support the creation of the Michigan Infor-mation Network. This advisory group willexamine the impact of the plan on integra-tion and restructuring, provide input regardingthe organizational structure of an ongoingtechnology advisory committee to the Depart-ment, and address the need for affordableaccess to information, communication, andbroadcast services for educational institutions.The group has been meeting since June 1993.

The Technology Training Team was estab-lished in 1992 to examine the use of varioustechnologies, including interactive video,teleconferencing, and other telecommunica-tions delivery systems for state government.The Department of Education is workingwith representatives from 18 state agenciesto develop strategies that state governmentcan use to deliver services to its employeesand clients more effectively.

The Department of Education continues tomeet with representatives from the major

18page 17

information, communication, and broadcastservices in the state, including the TelephoneAssociation of Michigan, Michigan CableTelevision Association, Michigan PublicBroadcasting, satellite programmingproviders, and telecommunications andcomputer vendors, to discuss implementa-tion strategies for the plan.

Since 1989, the Library Media ProgramAdvisory Committee (LMPAC) has developedrecommendations and strategies to maintaineffective library media centers and programsfor the State Board of Education. Public Act141 of 1988, known as the Library Media Pro-gram Act, created this statewide committee.The LMPAC has developed a series of recom-mendations concerning library media programsand has presented these recommendationsto the State Board in annual reports for1991 and 1992. More recently, LMPAC haspublished an Information Processing Skillscurriculum to support the technology compo-nent of the Model Core Curriculum.

In the governor's October 1993 messageto the Legislature to reform Michiganschools, Governor Engler renewed hiscall for a Michigan Information Networkthat will "create a virtual statewidenetwork that offers interactive data andvideo connectivity to every educationalentity in Michigan."

The Michigan Information Technology Net-work (MITN) was formed in 1988 by theState of Michigan to strengthen the state'seconomic competitiveness through theapplication of distance learning technology.The MITN Board of Directors is seeking$15 million for a satellite transponder. Thegoal of this initiative is to reduce uplinkcosts and expand video programming optionsthrough a multi-channel broadcast capability.The State Superintendent serves on theMITN Board of Directors and is an advo-cate for a close working relationshipbetween this organization and the educa-tional community.

Educational Equity

Technological systems need to focus onequal access for all learners to educationalcontent and human resources, regardless ofthe source or provider and the age of thelearner. Michigan must guard againstcreating a society of information haves andhave nots. Equity without regard to gender,race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, mentalor physical limitations, or geographic loca-tion must be guaranteed. The Departmentis engaged in several initiatives that promoteequitable access to technology and informa-tion for educational institutions in the state.

page 18

A series of Policy Seminars is being spon-sored by the Department to address impor-tant telecommunications and technologypolicy issues facing Michigan's educationalsystem. The Policy Seminars are intendedto raise the technological awareness oforganizations, institutions, and personsresponsible for the educational system.

It is estimates. .nat 93 percent of the state'sK-12 school districts have access to cabletelevision services. In 1993, the Board ofDirectors of the Michigan Cable TelevisionAssociation approved the Michigan CableTelevision Integrated Network, A VisionStatement. This vision statement calls forthe interconnection of more than 350 cabletelevision systems serving more than 1,600Michigan communities with fiber optictechnology.

The number of satellite dishes located ateducational institutions in Michigan is rap-idly increasing. The Department estimatesthat nearly 60% of the state's K-12 schooldistricts can be reached via satellite technol-ogy. Every community college in Michiganhas satellite reception capability, as domost of the public universities, intermediateschool districts (ISDs), and Regional Educa-tional Media Centers (REMCs). The Depart-ment also has developed a regionaldownlink facility for educators and stateemployees for video programs and servicesbroadcast via satellite.

19

Building a Technology InfrastructureThe successful operation of schools, colleges, and universities has become increasingly dependent onthe efficient exchange of voice data and video signals. In the governor's October 1993 message to theLegislature to reform Michigan schools, Governor Engler renewed his call for a Michigan InformationNetwork that will "create a virtual statewide network that offers interactive data and video connectivityto every educational entity in Michigan."The Department has updated the State Board of Education's Inventory of Instructional Telecommuni-cations Systems in Michigan, which describes telecommunications projects in Michigan and serves asbaseline information in planning and developing distance learning systems. State government's useof telecommunication services is expanding, yet without an overall strategy. Over the past year, theState Board of Education and the Department have been involved in numerous telecommunicationsand technology initiatives, policy discussions, and planning strategies.The Office of Grants and Technology provides information and technical assistance for public andprivate sector groups involved in the planning and implementation of technology-based programs.The Department also is exploring the establishment of a statewide computer network infrastructurefor the purposes of teacher-to-teacher communication, transmission of administrative records betweenlocal, intermediate, and state agencies, and connection to information sources from national and inter-national networks. MichNet, operated by Merit Network, Inc., in Aim Arbor, provides a data networkinfrastructure in Michigan or "common gateway" that is used by Michigan's universities and collegesto access computer networks and databases through the state and across the nation. Communitycolleges, businesses, K-12 school districts and intermediate school districts, and government can useMichNet's infrastructure to connect to the National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET), whichserves as the heart of the Internet. The Department of Education has become an affiliate member ofMichNet (Merit Network, Inc).

Education Technology Needs

Public education is the last major labor-intensive industry to begin to use technologyin its day-to-day business. Most of the tech-nology that is available to business andgovernment is unknown in our classrooms.Much of the technology being used in today'sclassrooms is used to reinforce outmoded,ineffective methods for teaching and learning.It is Michigan's vision to ensure the avail-ability of technology to transform teacherand student roles in the 50,000 classroomsin this state. Technology can immediatelyhelp students achieve learning outcomesand provide greater equity in the deliveryof educational services. Information tech-nology allows structural changes to be madethat will transform education, therebyallowing people to become better educatedindividuals, effective citizens, and productiveworkers. The State Board of Educationdescribed this individual in the state'sModel Core Curriculum in 1991: "The tech-nologically literate person is one who under-

page 19

2 0

stands the role and impact of technologyupon society, accepts the responsibilities as-sociated with living in the technologicallyoriented Information Age . . . and uses tech-nology as a tool for obtaining, organizing,and manipulating information; and forcommunication and creative expression."

There are still many issues involved inaffordable access to information and broad-cast services for Michigan's educationaliastitutions. Major concerns that need tobe addressed at the legislative or regulatorylevel include the following:

Cost and access to satellite, instructionaltelevision fixed services (ITFS), andcable service by educational institutions

Recognition of educational needs inlicensing and legislation for satellite,ITFS, and cable services

Lack of partnership opportunities toprovide satellite, ITFS, and cable servicesdue to regulatory restrictions

Incentives for telecommunication commoncarriers to develop special pricing fordistance learning projects

Pricing differentiation for education vs.business for distance-learning services

Transmission of educational interactivedata and voice communications acrossthe state

P Potential for duplication of effort bygroups developing public and privatetelecommunications systems

Legislative action to reauthorize the Michi-gan Telecommunications Act, which has asunset provision effective January 1, 1996

MinnesotaFew concerted :-.-fforts at compre-hensive education technologyplanning and/or infrastructure

are being made in the state. The MinnesotaDepartment of Education (MDE) is begin-ning to re-initiate its efforts.

Local EffortsEach district is responsible for planning.Those with Interactive TV (about 34 co-ops)do work together in long-range planning.

State EffortsState efforts have focused on the Internet.About 1,000 schools are participating in atwo-year demonstration. The MDE also istaking the lead for Mastery/Outcome soft-ware. A plan will be ready by August 1994.

Financial AspectsFew, if any, new dollars are available. TheSEA is requesting eight staff positions tohelp schools plan distance education andcomputer networks.

Key Groups in Educational TechnologyHigher education has taken the lead intelecommunications networks and linesfor data, video, and voice. K-12 willultimately cooperate with these agencies.

Senator LeRoy Stumpf of Thief RiverFalls is the primary legislative personinterested in technolczy. His area of con-

centration is higher education. BothSenator Stumpf and the MDE want K-12to piggyback with higher education.

Technology and Informational EducationServices (TIES), a regional cooperative,has taken a leadership role. Dr. ClarkKirkpatrick is the executive director.

The MDE will set up a statewidetechnology leadership group soon topromote standards for technology.

Private enterprise is not very active.

Mark Manning is responsible for MDEefforts in Minnesota.

Educational EquityThe MDE Internet project is the mainproject attempting to provide equitybetween large and small districts.

Building a Technology Infrastructurein The Cabinet (MDE commissioner

and staff) will be asked to approve astatewide leadership committee byFebruary 1, 1994.

Eight staff positions have beenrequested from the legislature toaddress networks, distance education,and the Internet.

The Internet project attempts to get toeach local school building.

Needs to Be AddressedThe legislature has not acknowledgedthe need, so no monies are forthcoming.

The MDE needs to be more active inbuilding a technology infrastructure.Severe budget cuts have hit the MDE,and it needs help to provide leadership.

Some teachers' attitudes towardtechnology need to change.

The MDE needs to address the followingquestions as identified by the TechnologyInformation Educational Service (TIES):

page 20

1. Is it the role of the state to provide equitableelectronic access for all students throughoutMinnesota?

21

2. Should the state invest in an infrastructurethat allows electronic communication for allstakeholders providing public services?

3. Should the expansion of available informa-tion resources to K-12 schools be facilitatedthrough funding and enhanced technicalresources?

4. Should the state fund the necessary staffresources for consultation, training, andongoing support to customize Internet resourcesfor K-12 Minnesota schools?

5. Should a capital investment be made for allMinnesota schools to provide the technicalinfrastructure to each building to accommo-date data, video, audio, and telecommunica-tionsi.e., the Information Superhighway?

6. Should the state fund information systemsoftware applications to support the imple-mentation of performance-based graduationrule requirements using statewide softwareand database standards?

7. Should statewide vis:onary leadership existas a catalyst to implementing technology inschools?

8. Should the state fund the use of systemsarchitecture standards and acquisition,development, and integration tools thatallow for access to cross-agency, student-related data?

9. Should the state provide executive informa-tion systems to serve the needs of the stateand public?

10. Should the state develop a comprehensivestrategic technology plan for K-12?

11. Should the state provide "long-term commit-ment" of resources to this effort?

12. Should the state establish a system ofgovernance for educational telecommunica-tio; What is inter-agency and inter-sector?

13. Should the state support professional devel-opment of existing and future staff toensure technology competence?

14. Should the state develop incentives for staffto develop large- and small-scale efforts intechnology innovation?

OhioThe State Board of Educationapproved the Statewide Plan forTechnology, which was developed

by a broad-based advisory committee, inNovember 1992. The plan describes the goalsand objectives for three areas: Administra-tion/Management, Instruction, and Profes-sional Development. Committees are workingto develop action plans for each objective toinclude the steps for implementation, theresponsible person or organization, the time-line, and the cost, if known. These action planswill be taken to the State Board this summer.

The Ohio Computer Education Network isnationally recognized for its ability to collectand aggregate data, provide linkages withnational and international databarcs, andprovide a variety of administrative functionsfor schools and districts. We are nowworking to bring all of the delivery systemstogether so that each can be used to itsfullest, and together they can provide anintegrated, connected statewide system.

22

page 21

Other actions will be taken this summer toimplement a report from the governor'soffice that will bring together the users,providers, and state department staff whoare most involved in technology.

The Ohio Education Computer Network formsthe infrastructure of the Department of Edu-cation's electronic connection to the schooldistricts and other agencies. The networkuses the microwave system of the state of Ohioas well as advanced telecommunication linksto connect to more than 3,000 school buildingsin Ohio. The Department of Education dependsupon this network for the transmission ofmuch of the data necessary to fulfill statu-tory requirements of the districts. Thisstrategic data includes financial, staff, andstudent elements. The recently installedEducation Management Information Systemrelies solely on the infrastructure of the network.

The Ohio Computer Education Network 'snationally recognized for its ability to collectand aggregate data, provide linkages withnational and international databases, andprovide a variety of administrative functionsfor schools and districts. We are now work-ing to bring all of the delivery systemstogether so that each can be used to itsfullest, and together they can provide anintegrated, connected statewide system.

Local consortia have begun to look at waysto develop interactive systems that arecompatible and can be used to enhanceinstruction. Some counties are lookingfor creative funding mechanisms that willallow all districts to have access to thehardware, software, and professionaldevelopment necessary to have acomprehensive program.

Local EffortsMany local efforts are being developed andimplemented in Ohio. Several districts haveworked closely with Ohio Bell/Ameritechto put into place fiber optics for distancelearning projects.

Local consortia have begun to look at ways todevelop interactive systems that are compat-ible and can be used to enhance instruction.Some counties are looking for creative fund-ing mechanisms that will allow all districtsto have access o the hardware, software,and professional development necessary tohave a comprehensive program.

State EffortsThe state legislature provided funds in thelast biennium for the poorest 218 districts inthe state to compete through grants for moneyto implement technology programs that wouldincrease the opportunities of students to takecourses not offered in the district. Anotherpurpose was to ensure that students hadaccess to state-of-the-art technology andinformation. Grants were given to districtsfor a variety of programs, including distancelearning, computers, automated library sys-tems, and learning management systems.

A percentage of each grant was required tobe set aside for professional development tomaximize the use of the technology.

Financial AspectsThe State Board has requested a largeincrease in expenditure for technology for thenext biennium. At this time, the legislatureis working on the budget, and it appears thatthere will be some funds for technology notonly for the poorest districts, but also for alldistricts. There are funds built into thebudget for the Computer Education Network.

School Districts continue to look for other fund-ing sources through local businesses, localtemporary taxes, and fundraising activities.

The state legislature provided funds inthe last biennium for the poorest 218districts in the state to compete throughgrants for me to implement technologyprograms that would increase the opportu-nities of students to take courses notoffered in the district. Another purposewas to ensure that students had accessto state-of-the-art technology andinformation. Grants were given todistricts for a variety of programs, includ-ing distance learning, computers, auto-mated library systems, and learningmanagement systems. A percentage ofeach grant was required to be set asidefor professional development tomaximize the use of the technology.

Key Groups in Education TechnologyThe key players in Ohio for technology include:

Legislators. The state education agency(SEA) works closely with the legislatureto develop budget, program, and regula-tion recommendations that will enhancethe statewide system.

Private business. The SEA meetsregularly with software and hardwarevendors to stay current with the latest intechnology and ensure that the technologycenter is up to date.

page 22 23

Public utilities. The telephone andcable companies are working with schooldistricts on special projects and areattempting to receive regulatory relieffrom the legislature in return for invest-ing in technology for schools.

Education Equity

The legislature has enacted a law that requiresa Technology Equity Commission to functionwith the purpose of determining how thepoorest school districts can benefit from tech-nology in meeting the instructional needs ofstudents. Legislators, SEA staff, Ohio Edu-cation Broadcasting Commission staff, andrepresentatives of telephone companies,cable companies, instructional televisionagencies, etc., are members of the Commission.

Funds are in the existing budget and recom-mended for the next biennial budget fortechnology for the poorest districts.

Building a Technology InfrastructureAs part of its work, the Technology EquityCommission asked that a survey be conductedof every building's needs for wiring, tech-nology, and professional development. Theresults of the surveys are being aggregatednow for a statewide report, and the localdistricts are using the results to develop atechnology plan. There is a wide contin-uum of technology needs across the state.

Education Technology Needs

Ohio needs to:

N Ensure that all policy and funding decisionslead toward a statewide infrastructurethat promotes integration and connectivity

Continue striving for equity of opportunityfor all students, including technology needs

Address statewide professional develop-ment at all levels to ensure the receptiv-ity of technology and its appropriate usein teaching and learning

$

24

tWisconsinLocal Efforts

Many local districts are workingon distance learning technology

projects in the state. Approximately 22 groupsare planning fiber optics-based systems.An additional 20 Instructional TelevisionFixed Services (ITFS) sites are in operation,and local districts are planning the expan-sion and operation of several of these sites.The state has decided not to create a state-level, distance learning system or network,but to allow projects to be created at a local orregional level. Then a backbone infrastruc-ture would be created to link these projects.

State Efforts

The Wisconsin Educational CommunicationsBoard (ECB), the licensee of six of the state'seight public television stations, coordinatestelecommunications planning efforts amongstate education institutions. ECB workswith the University of Wisconsin system,the Department of Public Instruction, andthe Vocational, Technical, and AdultEducation (VTAE) system.

The state has decided not to create astate-level, distance learning system ornetwork, but to allow projects to be createdat a local or regional level. rhen a back-bone infrastructure wolgd be created tolink these projects.

page 23

In August 1989, the state legislature createda 15-member Information Technology Advi-sory Board (ITAB) to manage a comprehen-sive study and make recommendations forimproving Wisconsin's data processing andtelecommunications systems, including edu-cation services. The ITAB published areport in November 1990 entitled Informa-tion Technology Management in Wisconsin.One of the report's major recommendationswas the formation of a statutory board oninformation technology under the governanceof the Department of Administration. Anotherpriority identified in the ITAB report is theimplementation of strategic business and

information technology planning throughoutall state agencies. A recommendation affect-ing education was to provide a centralizedsupport for the independent, regional educa-tional telecommunications initiatives thathave been established throughout the state.

A steering committee has been created bythe governor to provide direction to a newproject for statewide information planningcoordinationthe Wisconsin Strategic Plan-ning Project (WiSPP). The ECB hascontracted with a consultant for a telecom-munications planning effort for the educa-tional community.

The governor announced the formation of atelecommunications task force. The purposeof this task force is to make recommenda-tions for creating a comprehensive fiber opticsystem for the state. This effort is beingunderwritten by the telephone industry.

Financial AspectsThe ECB contract costs $100,000. The1993-95 state budget has $400,000 for fiberoptics-based systems, and the state received$2.2 million for telecommunications projectsfrom Ameritech. Approximately 50 proposalswere submitted to the Department of Admini-stration for these monies. An additionalbill for $147,000 to fund the expansion ofone ITFS system is in the legislature. Thisbill may be rewritten to address fiber opticstechnology in the near future given theemphasis on this technology by the governor'soffice. Additional monies for distance edu-cation technologies may be introduced.

Key Groups in Education TechnologyDepartment of Administration

ECB's Distance Education TechnologyInitiative Committee (DETIC)

Department of Public Instruction

State Board of Vocational, Technical andAdult Education

University of Wisconsin System

University of Wisconsin Extension

Access Wisconsin (telephone companies)

Public Service Commission (PSC) (forfiber regulations)

The State Educrl_.ion Agency (SEA) workswith all entities involved in distance learning(except for the PSC) and sits on the DETIC,VTAE's Media Consortium, and the Univer-sity of Wisconsin System's Media Counciland WiscNet (Internet) to coordinate dis-tance learning opportunities with K-12distance le rning needs. The SEA assiststhe ECB and University of WisconsinExtension in the coordination and produc-tion of satellite-delivered staff developmentprograms using the Satellite EducationResources Consortium (SERC) satellite sys-tem. The SEA also coordinates the registra-tion of students taking SERC studentcourses. The SEA is also represented on anational distance learning conference steer-ing committee held every August in Madisonand on the state's education technology con-ference steering committee held in October.

Education EquityThe Wisconsin Public Television Networkbroadcasts more than1,500 instruction tele-vision (ITV) programs to every K-12 schooldistrict in the state. The broadcast networkis used to distribute these enrichment pro-grams equally to small and rural school dis-tricts as well as large metropolitan districtsin the state. The state has six ITV utiliza-tion specialists who assist the districts inusing ITV programming in the classroom.

Wisconsin also has been a charter memberof the SERC, comprising 24 states thatwork together to provide student creditcourses and professional development pro-grams to every district within their borders.To make the SERC programs available toall interested districts, the state has partici-pated in SERC/NTIA (National Telecommu-nications and Information Administration)satellite dish grant award programs twoyears in a row to make affordable satellitedishes available to all districts interested inpurchasing them. Wisconsin has producedseveral staff inservice programs every yearand one of two graduate student creditcourses offered over the SERC network.

page 2425

Building a Technology InfrastructureSeveral technology infrastructures exist to bring instruction into the classroom in Wisconsin.

Since 1965, the University of Wisconsin Extension has operated a two-way, audio-only networkthat reaches into some 200 sites and offers more than 300 programs each year. Although most ofthese sites are not K-12 classrooms, they do bring instruction into the communities and can bebridged into classrooms depending on the specific program or course content. For example, severalschools take Spanish III classes directly from the Extension over this network.

Until recently, four regional, audio-only networks have brought instruction directly into theclassroom. One of these has been replaced by a fiber optic system and one closed-circuit systembecause of the growth of ITFS and satellite technologies in the region.

The Extension also has an audiographics network that reaches 13 sites in the University systemand runs over the audio-conferencing network. This technology adds interactive computergraphics to the audio interchange.

The Wisconsin Public Television Network has been providing instructional television programmingdirectly to classrooms over the state broadcast system. More than 1,500 individual enrichmentprograms are offered during the school year. The Wisconsin Public Radio Network also hasbrought instruction into classrooms throughout the state over its FM sideband frequencies.

II The ECB has constructed a total of 20 ITFS systems that cover approximately 45% of the K-12districts in the state. This technology has been recently identified as a "transitional" technologyand will not be supported by the ECB. The EC13 sees technology changing into fiberoptics over the :text ten years, which is about the life expectancy of an ITFS system.

The ECB has conducted a major study of distance learning technologies in the state and is inthe process of publishing a proposed statewide, infrastructure-based, fiber-optic technology.This technology would eventually link all regional and local distance learning systems as long asthey conform to the technical standards identified in the report. The state government hasdecided not to build a statewide distance learning network, instead allowing these systems to developlocally and regionally. The statewide technology would be the vehicle to link these individualsystems across the state.

Education Technology Needs

The following educational technology needsshould be addressed in Wisconsin:

Staff developmei :t and inservice programsneed to be developed for teachers alreadyin the classroom, on how to choose anduse technology in instruction and pre-service programs. These programswould train teacher candidates in theinstructional use of a wide range of tech-nology in K-12 classrooms.

What should the K-12 classroom of the21st century look like technologicallyand how can the state finance retool-ing/restructuring?

26

page 25

What organizational, structural, andlicensure issues need to be dealt with asour K-12 classrooms become classroomswithout walls and our school districtsbecome organizations without boundaries?

How do we ensure equal access to educa-tional technology and the opportunitiesthey offer to all students and staff in alldistricts across the state, regardless ofgender, race, equalized valuation, andgeographic location?

Recent Legislative InitiativesExpected to Affect Educational Technologyby Rafael Ramirez and Rosemary Bell, NCREL

The second session of the 103rd Congresssaw action on two major pieces of legisla-tion affecting K-12 education: the Goals2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227)(108 Stat. 125) and the Improving America'sSchools Act (IASA). Both pieces of legisla-tion provide for the development of an edu-cational technology infrastructure to beintegrated into federal and state educationrestructuring plans as a tool for implementingand achieving the National Education Goals.

On March 31, 1994, President Clintonsigned into law the Goals 2000 legislation,the cornerstone document for all futurefederal education legislation from thisAdministration. President Clinton viewsGoals 2000 as a way to link national stand-ards to local school reform efforts, focusingparticularly on systemic reform in education.The Imprcving America's Schools Act(IASA), the other major piece of legislation,is the title for the reauthorization of theElementary and Secondary Education Act(ESEA), first passed in 1965. The Housepassed its version of IASA on March 24,1994 (H.R. 6). The Senate Labor and HumanResources Committee marked up its versionof IASA (S. 1513) on June 9, 1994.

Throughout the bill, IASA weaves the sametheme of systemic education reform foundin Goals 2000. For example, in title I ofIASA, the program for disadvantaged stu-dents, where the greatest amount of moneyis dedicated, both the House and Senateversions require states to set content andpupil performance standards in order toreceive fiends. The development of contentand student performance standards is acentral piece of Goals 2000 in that they pro-vide the linkage between federal, state, andlocal efforts in implementing systemic reform.However, while the House version calls for

these standards in all core subject areas,the Senate version asks for them only inmathematics and reading. Both Goals2000 and the House and Senate versions ofIASA cite the importance of using technologyas a tool in the learning process to improveall aspects of education; hence the emphasison a systemic approach to integrating tech-nology to achieve curricular ends. What be-comes appLaent is that investment intechnology is being seen by more and morepolicymakers and educators as a..1 effectiveand efficient tool to help achieve school reform.

The second session of the 103rdCongress saw action on two majorpieces of legislation affecting K-12education: the Goals 2000: EducateAmerica Act (P.L. 103-227) (108 Stat. 125)and the Improving America's Schools Act(IASA). Both pieces of legislation providefor the development of an educationaltechnology infrastructure to be inte-grated into federal and state educationrestructuring plans as a tool for implement-ing and achieving the National EducationGoals.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

Goals 2000: Educate America Act legislatesthe National Education Goals and outlinesa process for establishing national educationcontent, student performance, and opportu-nity-to-learn standards. The legislationassumes that the development of higherstandards for all students will drive educa-tion reform and restructuring in a systemicway and lend to higher achievement for allstudents. One tool for helping all childrenachieve these higher standards that is evidentin Goals 2000 is the use of technology.

page 26 27 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Goals 2000 and Educational Technology

Under title II, part C, of Goals 2000, entitledLeadership in Educational Technology, theSecretary must develop a National Long-Range Technology Plan describing how theSecretary will promote the effective use oftechnology as a tool to help all studentsachieve the higher standards. The L.untentsof the plan must include infL oration abouteverything from joint activities with otherfederal agencies to applying technology tostate systemic reform and professionaldevelopment for teachers. The plan alsoencourages building partnerships with theprivate sector. The title authorizes anOffice of Educational Technology within theU.S. Department of Education to be headedby the Director of Educational Technology.This office already exists and is administeredby Linda Roberts.

Although no money has specifically beenappropriated, Secretary of Education Rileyhas indicated that he will dedicate$500,000 to the Office of Educational Tech-nology for FY 1994. Congress has authorized$5 million for the Office for FY 1995. Inaddition, $5 million has been appropriatedto go to the states for planning grants foreducational technology for FY 1994.

H.R. 6 looks upon technology as a meansto help students reach higher standards.It provides a national leadership role forthe Department of Education and supportsa comprehensive system to promote theacquisition and use of technology andtechnology-enhanced curricula, instruc-tion, and administrative support.

Improving America's Schools Act (IASA)

The Clinton Administration intends to tiethe Improving America's Schools Act(IASA) closely to Goals 2000. The House,in H.R. 6, proposed a significant change totitle I of this Act in order to achieve this

A 0 page 27

goal, setting up a new rule requiring that,in order to receive funds, states must submitplans indicating how disadvantaged childrenwill be helped to meet high content andpupil performance standards. Since Goals2000 also provides money for the planningprocess, it is very likely that states, havingto go through the process anyway to receivetitle I funds under either the House or Senateversions, will participate in Goals 2000 withan eye toward fulfilling title I requirementsfor IASA.

H.R. 6 looks upon technology as a means tohelp students reach higher standards. Itprovides a national leadership role for theDepartment of Education and supports acomprehensive system to pronni-,e the acqui-sition and use of technology and technology-enhanced curricula, instruction, andadministrative support. The main educa-tional technology provisions of H.R. 6

include the following:

Part B, subpart 1Assistance to StateEducation Agencies (SEAs) and LocalEducation Agencies (LEAs)

This formula grant program supports com-prehensive state and local systems foracquiring and using technology, as well ascurricula, instruction, and administrativeactivities that use technology. In order toreceive funds, each SEA must file a five-yeartechnology plan that is integrated with thestate's Goals 2000 plan. An LEA must sub-mit a three-year plan with its SEA. Seventypercent of the state allocation is for elemen-tary and secondary education programs pri-marily administered at the LEA level; 20percent will go to higher education programsthat create partnerships between highereducation institutions and LEAs, particularlyin the area of professional development; 10percent will support collaborative activitiesamong libraries, literacy programs, and LEAsusing technology to share services.

Part B, subpart 2Research, Development,and Demonstration of EducationalTechnology

This subpart, like S. 1040 and Goals 2000,establishes an Office of Educational Tech-nology. It also calls for the Secretary ofEducation to develop a national, long-rangeplan for technology use in education andauthorizes grants to promote use of technol-ogy in education.

Part B, subpart 3--Star Schools Program

This subpart rewrites the Star Schools pro-gram as a new program in the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act.

Part B, subpart 4Development ofEducational Technology Products

This subpart authorizes the Secretary ofEducation, on a competitive basis, to awardgrants, enter into contracts, or make loansto eligible consortia for the development,production, and distribution of technology-enhanced instructional resources andprogramming.

The Technology for Education Act of 1994(S. 1040) has been incorporated into theSenate's IASA bill (title III of S. 1513).Titles I and II of S. 1040 call for the Secre-tary of Education to develop a national,long-range plan for technology in educationand establish an Office of Educational Tech-nology and a formula grant program forstates with reform plans under Goals 2000that develop systemic state technology plans.These two titles already have been enactedinto law as part of Goals 2000. However,should S. 1040 remain intact in the final,conferenced version of IASA, these activitieswould then fall under that legislation.Additional provisions include the following:

Title III of S. 1040 authorizes a formulagrant program (School TechnologyResource Grants) to SEAS for implemen-tation of state systemic plans to addressthe educational technology needs ofLEAs with the highest percentage of poorchildren and with the greatest need forthe technology. Title III also authorizes

a competitive grant program for regionaleducational technology assistance con-sortia to provide professional developmentassistance, other technical assistance, andinformation dissemination. At least 80percent of each consortium's fundingmust be spent for professional development.

In order for schools to use technologyappropriately and effectively to enhancethe curriculum, they need to have accessto telecommunications systems andinformation technologies through ele.7-tronic networks. However, investment inthis type of technology, especially fromthe school pi.-erspective. will involvequestions about how telecommunicationsand information technologies can helpachieve curricular expectations.

page 28

Title IV of S. 1040 authorizes competitivegrants to eligible consortia for the devel-opment, production, and distribution ofinstructional programming that incorpo-rates educational appl'mtions of advanced.technology. Priority is to be given to pro-gramming that, among other things,may be adapted nationally at reasonablecosts and is aligned with national stand-ards and state curriculum frameworks.This title also rewrites and extends theStar Schools Program Assistance Act.

Title V focuses on ensuring that educationis a part of the national infrastructurebeing developed under national policies.

Title VI authorizes a study of systemicfunding alternatives for financing tech-nology in schools.

Title II, part B, of H.R. 6 and title HI ofS. 1513 seek to coordinate their activitiesand programs in the area of educationaltechnology with Goals 2000. Both billswould apply technology to education to helpall students reach higher standards. Inorder to implement this goal, the technol-ogy provisions in both bills pay substantialattention to the professional developmentof the teaching force to increase knowledge

29

about the appropriate use of technology inthe classroom and the school, skills in usingtechnology, and expertise in integratingtechnology into the elementary and secon-dary school curriculum.

The common thread throughout the discus-sions of telecommunications and informationtechnologies in these two bills is a concernwith applying and integrating technologywithin the school reform efforts to helpteachers and students meet the new, morechallenging state content and student per-formance standards that are called forunder Goals 2000.

The National Information Infrastructure (NH)and Educational Technology

While Goals 2000 spurs major educationreform in the states, incivaing the develop-ment of educational technology, an importantissue still being debated in Congress is howbest to "wire" classrooms so that they willhave access to the electronic networks, par-ticularly the Internetthe "network of net-works." In order for schools to use technologyappropriately and effectively to enhancethe curriculum, they need to have access totelecommunications systems and informationtechnologies through electronic networks.However, investment in this type of technol-ogy, especially from the school perspective,will involve questions about how telecom-munications and information technologiescan help achieve curricular expectations.Designing a system using technology tohelp meet these expectations directly reflectsthe systemic education reform effort thatGoals 2000 seeks to implement. TheAdministration's and most states' efforts inimplementing systemic education reformbased on restructuring of the schools tomeet higher standards will be greatly sup-ported through the integrating and network-ing opportunities that the NationalInformation Infrastructure (NH) will afford.

H.R. 820, title VI, the National Competi-tiveness Act of 1994, is one bill that specifi-cally mentions education in its discussion of

3 0page 29

electronic connectivity. For instance,section 206 explicitly authorizes the Secretaryof Education to conduct basic and appliedresearch in computational sciences in orderto coordinate the efforts of libraries, schoolfacilities, and educational re 'rch groupsto develop, evaluate, and apply softwarecapabilities in education. In conjunctionwith other agencies, the Department ofEducation can develop and implementtraining programs for teachers, students,and librarians in the use of local andnational computer networks. The Depart-ment of Education has been authorized$11.9 million for FY 94, $22.1 million forFY 95, and $23 million for FY 96. Another$5 million is authorized to the Departmentof Education to provide access to networksfor school facilities.

In section 603(a)(3)(A)(i), the goal is to"improve education at all levels, from pre-school to adult education, including thedevelopment of new educational technologies."

Section 604(a)(5) of this legislation requiresthat the "National Science Foundation(NSF) and the Department of Education, incooperation with other appropriate agencies,shall provide for the development of advancedcomputing and networking technology foruse ip education at all levels." Four hundredfour million dollars has been authorized,which includes the development of a digitallibrary networking system.

Section 610 calls for the National Aeronau-tics and Space Administration (NASA) toestablish a Computer Technologies for K-12Education Project to test and demonstrateeducational applications of advanced com-puter technologies in public school systemsthat provide precollege education. Competi-tive grants will be awarded to plan, deploy,manage, and operate advanced educationalapplications of computer technologies in K-12public school systems. Eight million dollarsis authorized for each of fiscal years 1994and 1995.

One of the authorized activities called forin this legislation has direct implicationsfor education, because it provides for thefunding of pilot projects conne?ting primaryand secondaey schools to the NationalResearch Education Network (NREN).NREN is charged with developing high-speed networks and has a mandate toinclude K-12 schools in this development.However, to this point, very little fundingor effort has been exerted to include K-12schools in the development of the NREN.

Another piece of legislation, H.R. 2639,sponsored by Representative Markey(D-Mass.) on behalf of the Clinton Admini-stration, also would enhance schools' link-ages with the information highway. It wouldsupport new responsibilities for the NationalTelecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA), the agency respon-sible for overseeing the development of theinformation highway. H.R. 2639 wouldgive NTIA $250 million to help fund projectsthat enhance access to and use of theInternet by educational institutions,research facilities, libraries, museums, andothers. Passed by the House in November1993, the bill is awaiting action by the Sen-ate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation. There is talk of adding aprovision to require telephone companies tomake it possible for schools to hook up tothe NREN or the Internet or to providereduced rates for them to connect. Mean-while, under an appropriations bill (H.R.2519) covering NTIA, two aspects of H.R.2639 were given some funding for the 1994fiscal year: $21 million for broadcast-related hardware purchases related to con-necting to information networks and $26million for computer and software purchasesassociated with connecting.

Other bills that could have an impact onthe integration of technology into educationare the following:

H.R. 89, introduced by Rep. Dale Kildee(D-Mich.), would authorize $500 millionin its first year for state grants to pro-mote use of technology in schools.

page 30

H.R. 2268, introduced by Rep. GeorgeBrown (D-Cal.), would authorize anunspecified sum for a nationwide tele-communications system for state andloca' 74ucation institutions, agencies,and :oviders.

H.R. 3G26, introduced by Rep. JackBrooks (D-Tex.) and Rep. John Dingell(D-Mich.), modifies the "final judgement"that broke up AT&T. Essentially, iteliminates restrictions for the telephonecompanies with respect to manufacturingand providing information services. Itasks that the telephone companies developseparate subsidiaries for these purposes.

H.P. 3636, introduced by Rep. Markeyand Rep. Jack Fields (R-Tex.), opens theway for competition between the tele-phone companies and the cable companies,allowing telephone companies to provideinformation services and the cable com-panies to transmit voice and data.

While it is apparent that many of the legis-lative rorts underway recognize the provi-sions that will have to be made in law andregulations to ensure universal access tothe NII at an affordable rate, it is equallyclear that K-12 education needs to take ona strong role in the process. Constant atten-tion must be paid to the needs of K-12 edu-cation, and we must be diligent in ensuringthat the activities that fall under these billsare coordinated with the systemic educationreform efforts reflected in Goals 2000 andIASA. The ease or difficulty that K-12 edu-cation will experience in connecting to theNH depends on decisions made about feesand rate structures under bills that mayhave no direct connection to K-12 education.It is, therefore, up to K-12 education toinsist that legislative provisions be includedthat are specifically directed to their needsand that will allow easy and affordable access.

Rafael Ramirez is the Director of Outreachand Technology and Rosemary Bell isProgram Assistant in the Regional PolicyInformation Center (RPIC) of the NorthCentral Regional Educational Laboratory(NCREL). Both work on educational tech-nology issues and legislative outreach.

3.1

State ContactsILLINOISConnie WiseIllinois State Board of Education100 North First Street, Room S-284Springfield, IL 62777217-782-3950

INDIANAPhyllis Land Usher, Senior OfficerIndiana Department of EducationRoom 229, State HouseIndianapolis, IN 46204317-232-6894

IOWAGail SullivanIowa Department of EducationGrimes State Office BuildingDes Moines, IA 50319515-281-5296

MICHIGANDaniel W. SchultzAssistant SuperintendentOffice of Grants and TechnologyMichigan Department of EducationP.O. Box 30008Lansing, MI 48909Phone: 517-373-6331, Fax: 517-373-3325Internet Address: 20506dws©msu.edu

MINNESOTAMark ManningMinnesota Department of Education856 Capitol Square Building550 CPdar StreetSt. Paul, MN 55101612-297-3151

OHIOSteve Graves, DirectorComputer Services and Statistics ReportsOhio Department of Education65 South Front StreetColumbus, OH 43266-0306617-466-7000

WISCONSINCarolyn FolkeWisconsin Department of Public Instruction125 S. Webster StreetMadison, WI 53702608-266-1965

References and ResourcesGoo ler, D., Firestone, C., & Clark, C. (1991). Defining

education's role in telecommunications policy.Oak Brook, IL: North Central RegionalEducational Laboratory.

Leebaert, D. & Dickinson, T. (1991). A world tounderstand: Technology and the awakening ofhuman possibility. In Leebaert, D. (Ed.) Tech-nology 2001: The future of compilting and com-munications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,293-321.

Melmed, A. & Fisher, F. (1991). Towards a nationalinformation infrastructure: Implications forselected social sectors and education. NewYork: Center for Educational Technology andEconomic Productivity, New York University.

National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration (1991). Telecommunications inthe age of information. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Commerce.

Office of Technology Assessment (1989). Linking forlearning: A new course for education. Washington:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender ofculture to technology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Roszak, T. (1986). The cult of information: Thefolklore of computers and the true art of thinking.New York: Pantheon Books.

Williams, F. (1991). The new telecommunications:Infrastructure for the information age. New York:The Free Press (a division of Macmillan, Inc.)

Wurman, R. (1989). Information anxiety.New York: Doubleday.

Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine:The future of work and power. New York:Basic Books, Inc.

1. The following review of title II, Part B, fromH.R.6 is taken from a memo sent by James B.Stedman to the Sente Human ResourcesCommittee, dated April 12, 1994.

2. The following discussion about the remainingtitles in S. 1040 is taken from the same memofrom James B. Stedman to the Senate HumanResources Committee referenced in the firstendnote.

31 32

111111.11311

BAUM

.11101.9*A 4 - 3_9 9 -4-

NCREL10th ANNIVERSARY

Opinions expressed in the commentaries do not necessarily reflect the view of NCREL staffor board. Facts and ideas presented in NCREL's Policy Briefs are intended to surveya current issue and not to advocate a particular position.

Policy Briefs Jeri Nowakowski, Executive Director

A publication of the North CentralRegional Educational Laboratory1900 Spring Road, Suite 300Oak Brook, IL 60521-1480Telephone: (708) 571-4700FAX: (708) 571-4716GTE: ncrel.lab

Deanna H. Durrett, Regional PolicyInformation Center (RPIC) Director

Nancy Fulford, Editor

This publication is based on work sponsored wholly or in part by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI),Department of Education, under contract number RP91002007. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect theviews of OERI, the Department of Education, or any other agency in the U.S. Government.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory1900 Spring RoadSuite 300Oak Brook, IL 60521-1480

Gail Mathews

ERIC Processing & Reference Facility

1301 Piccard Drive, Suite 300

Rockville MD 20850-4305

33

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 6784

Chicago, IL