“During the past several months, the Obama Administration has outlined a vision of educational innovation and improvement to enable our nation’s children to compete in the global economy. But today’s budget proposal falls far short of the targeted investments needed to ensure all students have the modernized classrooms and technology-rich instruction needed to achieve this vision.”

I supported President Obama in his campaign and still support his work leading our country, but I have been EXCEEDINGLY disappointed by the total LACK of leadership he’s provided (along with his cabinet) when it comes to the causes of educational transformation and specifically 21st century skills. All the rhetoric I’ve read and heard from the Obama administration when it comes to education sounds like “more of the same” that we got from GWB and NCLB. I’ve had and continue to maintain a very contrary view to that vision. Unfortunately, it does not appear President Obama does… Yet. (I’m not giving up hope!)

School districts and edtech vendors around the United States continue to anticipate a massive windfall of money from ARRA, even if these proposed cuts in EETT go through. In past years, the administration has proposed cutting EETT and Congress has restored level funding. Will that happen again this year? I don’t have a crystal ball, but I doubt it will. The spending spree of the Obama administration has to end somewhere, and it is probably good (on balance) that FINALLY voices in his administration are being heard who are calling for constraints and limits on government spending. How are we supposed to spend our way out of our financial maladies anyway? Don’t we really need to save more and spend less to remedy our national debt crisis, which continues to be ignored by most of our leaders?

Miguel Guhlin, in his post “Rant – Obama Cuts Ed-Tech Funding,” shares many reasons why it may not matter that President Obama is proposing cuts to EETT. After all, who stands to benefit the most from this windfall of funding? Miguel writes:

The truth of the matter is, Who really cares anymore except companies that suffer from school’s loss of funding?

When you balance the fact that people are losing their jobs left and right, losing their homes, against the point that K-12 schools in the United States won’t have money to install high tech computer labs that:

1. Don’t get used to their full potential because the teachers–including the “computer teachers”–don’t bother to learn the software and/or help students learn it.
2. Involve school districts blowing $500K or more on initiatives like [fill in the blank with your favorite Integrated Learning System] that have a negligible impact on student achievement.
3. Technology funds get DIVERTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT–did you know NCLB Title 2 Part D funds can get diverted by the Superintendent of K-12 school districts? It’s in there–anyways so that what is actually spent in schools ends up going to money-hungry vendors who provide what administrators who could care less about stepping out of their comfort zone think they need to have.
4. No requirement that Curriculum and Instruction departments actually LEARN how technology can be used except as a drill-n-practice tool behaviorism approaches left over from 20+ years ago.

…So, yes, if technology continues to be irrelevant to teaching, then cut it out. Excise funding on technology from the budget. If you’re not going to make it a requirement, if you’re not going to fire superintendents who dance around using technology except to put it in so that it looks like something is happening, if you’re not going to require teachers to learn how to use it and CHANGE their teaching, if you’re not going to transform curriculum specialists and how they work, then it’s a waste of money.

I absolutely agree that a LOT of the money we have spent and continue to spend on educational technology solutions is wasted. I pointed this out in my keynote for eTechOhio this past February, “Reinventing Education for the 21st Century,” quoting both Dr. Larry Cuban and Dr. Clayton Christensen.

These were the key quotations I shared on this subject in my presentation.

From Dr Larry Cuban. Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Harvard University Press. 2003. ISBN: 0674011090. pages 178-179:

As for enhanced efficiency in learning and teaching, there have been no advances (measured by higher academic achievement of urban, suburban, or rural students) over the last decade that can be confidently attributed to broader access to computers. No surprise here, as the debate over whether new technologies have increased overall American economic productivity also has had no clear answers. The link between test score improvements and computer availability and use is even more contested.

From Christensen, Horn & Johnson. Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. McGraw Hill. 2008. Pages 72-73:

…the billions schools have spent on computers have had little effect on how teachers and students learn… The reason for this disappointing result is that the way schools have employed computers has been perfectly predictable, perfectly logical– and perfectly wrong. As we show in this chapter, schools have crammed them into classrooms to sustain and marginally improve the way they already teach and run their schools, just as most organizations do when they attempt to implement innovations, including computers. Using computers this way will never allow schools to migrate to a student-centric classroom.

One of the points I tried to make in my keynote was that we need to look at educational technology solutions through the “accommodating or transforming” lens. Is a given technology simply going to let us do a traditional/analog task with an electronic tool, or is it going to truly enable us to TRANSFORM learning and the interactions which ensue both inside and outside the classroom? We need to seek educational technology uses which are TRANSFORMATIONAL rather than merely accommodating.

In his post, Miguel cites Jamie McKenzie and The CEO Forum on Education & Technology who claim:

…we have no reliable evidence that one-to-one computing translates into improved student learning results…

I take issue with this view, and offer up the July 2008 TCER report, “Third-Year (2006-07) Traits of Higher Technology Immersion Schools and Teachers” as a case in point.

When we ask a bad question, we almost always get a bad answer. There was so much change in campus leadership as well as variance in the ways the TxTIP program was implemented in its initial years, that was silly to ask (in essence) the question: “Has access to laptop technology led to the miraculous transformation of educational cultures in TxTIP immersion schools?” Of course it did not. When researchers looked more closely at campuses which actually implemented the TxTIP immersion project with strong leadership / administrative support and modeling, consistent PD, helpful and useable digital curriculum, etc, the results they found were QUITE different than those produced when all TxTIP schools were studied.

I’m delighted our schools, specifically in Oklahoma where I live, will receive more funding and support for educational technology needs in FY10. I’m here to tell you, our schools NEED IT. They are woefully underfunded overall, and specifically underfunded when it comes to technology. I fear, however, that in many cases Miguel’s worst fears may be justified unless state leaders (here and elsewhere) step up and insist that technology funds be spent in ways that support the TRANSFORMATION of the learning environment. This means, in my view, EVERY student and teacher in grades three and up being equipped with a netbook computer. With volume pricing, these laptops can be purchased for less than $300 each with an extended warranty from the vendor. Do all computer hardware vendors REALLY want to sell schools lots of inexpensive netbooks? No, many certainly don’t. They would much rather continue selling $1000+ laptops, and limit those sales to only a FEW campuses, a FEW teachers, a FEW administrators, and a FEW students.

The problem with this model is, educational technology for the few will never transform the face of learning in our schools. We MUST aggressively move to embrace open source learning platforms and software tools in our schools, and put netbooks in the hands of all our learners (in grades 3 and up) as soon as possible. We need to study and understand the lessons of 1:1 projects like TxTIP, articulated in reports like the July 2008 TCER report previously cited, and then implement projects which support teachers and students well in making a transition to 21st century learning.

Will the real educational leaders please step forward? If none are present with the vision to do this in the present Obama administration, could we please replace them with some leaders who DO have this vision they can not only articulate but act and lead on?

If the educational leaders we need are not going to step forward, perhaps we shouldn’t care about EETT proposed cuts. After all, if you’re not a vendor, will any of those new (non-netbook) proposed purchases REALLY make a difference to the “learning bottom line” in your classroom and the classrooms of your children? Probably not.

The seed of change is spreading across Kansas. Since 2003, 228 classrooms have participated in a Title IID initiative that has invested over $8 million dollars to improve learning in the content areas in our state. They are called Technology Rich Classrooms, and they are changing the way that teachers teach and children learn.

This Google Map mashup shows the locations of classrooms which have participated in the Kansas TRC program to date.

One of the attendees at PodStock shared that the number of participating classrooms in TRC is expected to jump from less than 10 per year to around 75 per year with the infusion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) dollars. This additional investment in educational technology will apparently coincide with a further reduction in legislative funding for education in Kansas on a per-pupil basis. Last year the legislature reduced per-pupil funding by $30, this year the legislature is expected to further reduce funding by approximately $130 per student. These are tough times.

I think Kansas’ focus on educational technology integration at the classroom rather than the building level is right on target. As educational leaders, we often want and strive for systemic, scalable change across entire organizations. Educational technology innovation generally tends to take place in isolated pockets, however, and the TRC project seems to recognize this reality. Clarence Fisher echoed these thoughts in his post today, “Replicating Classrooms.” Clarence noted:

In the rush to build places of learning that are appropriate for changing times, we have focused a great deal of our energy on the replication of schools. We criticize models of certain schools as being great places, but not replicable. I wonder if we are looking at the wrong level. I think that we need to be looking at classrooms as the “unit” that needs to be more closely examined.

Certainly there are many models of spaces where kids can learn. From museums to home schooling situations, there are many models that are possible. But when it comes to the formal learning space, I’m starting to think that we are spending huge amounts of energy and dollars in the wrong place. We pump millions of dollars into schools and hope for the trickle down model of success. We support buildings and programs, hoping that teachers will “buy – in.” Of course there are great models of individual PD where teachers are supported on an ongoing basis to change and be successful. But I still think that most of our time, energy and dollars are being spent at the divisional and the school level.

If we are looking for models worth replicating and for success, we need to look more deeply on a smaller scale, we need to look at classrooms.

I think Clarence is right, as are Kansas leaders who have implemented the TRC program.

Does your state have a campus or classroom focus for educational technology integration programs, and specifically (in the United States) for EETT initiatives? Do you think your state or nation’s focus is appropriate or not? Do you agree with Clarence Fisher?

According to Hilary Goldman, writing on her blog in the ISTE Community Ning:

The U.S. Department of Education plans to post the state applications for the State Stabilization Fund on Tuesday. [March 31, 2009] In addition, the Dept. will post a State Stabilization Fund FAQ web-page on Tuesday that will be comprised of questions that have been submitted so far from schools, districts and states across the country. Additionally, Title I and IDEA funds will likely flow to the states next week too and a FAQ will be posted for these programs too.

On Thursday, April 2, 2009, Goldman and ISTE CEO Don Knezek will co-host a free webinar for ISTE members titled “So The Stimulus Passed…Now What?” Panelists for the webinar will include:

1. David Byer of Apple, Chair of ISTE’s Public Policy and Advocacy Committee
2. Deborah Rigsby of the National School Boards Association
3. Davis Brock of Elmore County Public Schools in Alabama

This discussion will be timely given the announcement of the state stimulus fund application two days earlier.

From what I have observed of recent TitleIID grant award winners here in Oklahoma, the most common ways for school leaders to spend new educational technology funds today in my state are:

1. Purchasing new desktop computers to replace aging systems in school computer labs.
2. Purchasing additional electronic whiteboards and data projectors for teacher classrooms.
3. Purchasing electronic response systems for classroom teacher use.
4. Purchasing laptops for mobile computing labs which can be checked out and moved into different classrooms as requested.

While some states in the United States have a variety of 1 to 1 learning initiatives underway, here in Oklahoma we only have a handful of school districts (about 1 percent) exploring one to one learning. The state of Maine, under the leadership of then-governor Angus King, implemented the Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI) in 2002 starting with 7th and 8th grade classrooms. On March 11, 2009, Maine announced it is extending the MLTI to all high school students in the state, becoming the first state in the nation to “provide them statewide at the high school level.” How long will it take for other states, including yours, to follow the lead of Maine when it comes to 1 to 1 computing?

The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) Research in the 1980s concluded that teachers can progress through a series of stages as they learn to integrate technology into the curriculum.* Initially, teachers learn to “adopt” technology to support traditional instruction. Later, with support for project-based and inquiry-led approaches to instruction, teachers can move into the “appropriation” and “invention” levels of technology integration.

NCLB, the standards movement, and high-stakes accountability have created learning cultures in many U.S. schools today which do not support inquiry or project-based learning. Our need for transformational school change is apparent, however, not only when we consider our need to embrace 21st century skills, but also when we examine the multiplicity of issues involved with school dropout issues. As we consider the ways new educational technology funds should be spent in our respective U.S. states in upcoming months, I encourage leaders to consider supporting TRANSFORMATIONAL uses of technology in the classroom rather than uses which merely ACCOMMODATE or support traditional, teacher-directed instruction. It is essential we provide every student and teacher in our classrooms today, in grades three and up, with a portable, wireless, Internet-capable computer. These devices must be capable of not only “receiving” information and media, but also permitting students to create, communicate, and collaborate in natural and fluid ways. The Sugar operating system developed for OLPC is an exemplary open-source (free) operating system offering these functionalities. Hopefully, in the coming months, we’ll see multiple U.S. states embrace 1 to 1 computing and leverage the learning capabilities offered by netbooks and operating systems like Sugar. It is difficult to think outside the box if you live each day within the confines of a school district bureaucracy, but that type of innovative thinking is EXACTLY what we need in our current economic and historical context. Our students and teachers not only need access to computer HARDWARE for digital learning, they/we also need access to high quality digital curriculum. The fact the state of Texas continues to force school districts like Irving ISD to waste at least $4.6 million on paper textbooks which sit unused in district warehouses is atrocious. Irving ISD has been and continues to be a national leader in 1:1 computing, but leaders in the Texas legislature have remained beholden to the powerful textbook industry and lobby when it comes to textbook purchasing. As citizens and educational advocates, we must speak out and make our voices heard. We need to empower learners in our schools of all ages with digital tools and digital curriculum. Laws like those in Texas denying school districts local autonomy to utilize funds allocated for instructional materials in sensible ways which best meet the needs of students as well as teachers must be changed.

How do you hope your state will competitively offer opportunities for schools to use educational technology stimulus funds? If you live outside the United States, how would you like to see your national government leverage available dollars to support educational technology / ICT?

* Note: Original ACOT research results have apparently been taken offline by Apple for some reason. A new ACOT2 project (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow – Today) has been launched, but links to older research materials do not appear to be available in archived form. :-(

One of the best places to turn for answers to these questions is the ISTE Community blog of Hilary Goldman. Her February 13th post, “Economic Recovery Package Includes $650 Million for EETT” provides a partial answer to these questions. Her February 23rd post, “More Good News for Ed Tech Funding” reveals that the $269+ million in Congress’ proposed FY 09 Omnibus Appropriations bill would add EETT funding to the $650 million included in the stimulus package which was signed into law last week.

All educators should be aware of the opportunity to utilize the EdTech Action Network (www.edtechactionnetwork.org) to directly send messages to elected members of Congress showing support or opposition to particular pieces of proposed legislation. ETAN is a cooperative effort of ISTE and COSN. Click the ETAN website link “Write Elected Officials” to send email and/or printed letters to your elected representative and Senators. The content of recommended letters on the ETAN website is dynamically customized as proposed legislation before the U.S. Congress changes. Currently the following is the suggested subject and email text for a letter to elected officials:

Please Support Education Technology in our Nation’s Schools

I am writing to share my opinion about the funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program that was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Both the House and Senate passed bills included $1 billion for the EETT program, and yet the final bill reduced this commitment by 35 percent to $650 million. I am very disappointed that this program suffered such a funding decrease during conference deliberations.

As an educator, I certainly appreciate and applaud the unprecedented investment in education that is included in the economic recovery package. However, I am troubled by the decision to reduce the classroom technology component from $1 billion to $650 million. The EETT program provides economic stimulus to our local communities through the creation and retention of high skilled jobs, stimulates the business sector and at the same time provides our students with the skills they need to compete in the global workforce.

President Obama has spoken many times about the need to bring computers and modern technologies and skills to our nation’s classrooms. I hope that as the FY09 and FY10 appropriations processes continue you will make the EETT program a top funding priority.

This text can be edited and customized as desired.

If you are a U.S. voter, make your voice heard in Washington D.C. by utilizing the ETAN Congressional contact tools.

Thanks to Hilary for keeping the U.S. educational technology community informed via her ISTE community blog!

To be entered into the Grand Prize drawing, we are asking members to submit stories about their ISTE, NECC, and/or Ed Tech experiences. This year marks the 30th anniversary for the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and ISTE’s conference, the National Educational Computing Conference (NECC). We’re celebrating this milestone by honoring the past, celebrating the present, and envisioning the future.

To archive the personal experiences of learning, discovery and growth of the last 30 years in Ed Tech, we encourage you to submit an online story of classroom success, integration, and discovery here, or to submit your stories of student impact in video format here. For tips, information, and ideas on digital storytelling at a special wiki set up in ISTE’s digital storytelling Special Interest Group.

If you are aware of other opportunities for educators to win a free trip to NECC this summer please let me know, and I’ll share them here on ISTEconnects!

Hat tip to Tenth Muse for the heads-up on this NECC scholarship opportunity.

Do you know of other organizations offering scholarships for educators to attend NECC this year?