Technology Counts

EDUCATION WEEKAmerican Education’s Newspaper of Record • Vol. XVII, Number 11 • November 10, 1997 • © 1997 Editorial Projects in Education • $6.00

In Collaboration With

The Milken Exchange

on Education

Technology

CountsTECHNOLOGY

Schools and Reform in the Information Age

November 10, 1997 • Education Week

T E C H N O L O G Y C O U N T S 3

ContentsTAKING TECHNOLOGY’S MEASURESupport for school technology is spurring an investment ofbillions of dollars a year. But a lack of research and a dearth of data mean the payoff is unclear.

A TOOL FOR LEARNINGMany educators are banking on the belief that technology improves student achievement. In reality, though, research onits effectiveness offers, at best, mixed results.

TEACHING THE TEACHERSMoney spent on school technology could go to waste ifteachers don’t know how to use it or integrate it into thecurriculum. But adequate training is often hard to come by.

A TEST OF LEADERSHIPManaging the use of school technology poses a host of vexingissues for administrators. The trick is weeding through thejargon and hype to decide how best to proceed.

PARTNERING WITH THE PUBLICTechnology is making it easier for parents, businesspeople, andcommunity members to get involved in education. It’s alsoforcing some educators to rethink what they mean by “school.’’

A MATTER OF POLICYSchool technology enjoys support from across the politicalspectrum, but states pursue a range of strategies to increase it.The federal government is also playing an important role.

STATE-BY-STATE PROFILESThe 50 states are addressing educational technology withvarying degrees of interest, financial backing, and success.

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . .45

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . .47

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . .47

California . . . . . . . . . .50

Colorado . . . . . . . . . .52

Connecticut . . . . . . . .52

Delaware . . . . . . . . . .53

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . .55

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . .62

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . .64

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Maryland . . . . . . . . . .66

Massachusetts . . . . . .66

Michigan . . . . . . . . . .68

Minnesota . . . . . . . . .68

Mississippi . . . . . . . . .69

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . .69

Montana . . . . . . . . . . .70

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . .70

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .72

New Hampshire . . . . .73

New Jersey . . . . . . . .74

New Mexico . . . . . . . .74

New York . . . . . . . . . .76

North Carolina . . . . . .77

North Dakota . . . . . . .78

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . .80

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . .82

Pennsylvania . . . . . . .82

Rhode Island . . . . . . .83

South Carolina . . . . . .84

South Dakota . . . . . . .85

Tennessee . . . . . . . . .86

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . .88

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . .90

Washington . . . . . . . .90

West Virginia . . . . . . .92

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . .92

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . .94

6

12

24

30

36

40

Index to Advertisers 43

TO SUBSCRIBE, WRITE TO:Suite 250, 4301 Connecticut Ave. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008 • (202) 364-4114FAX (202) 364-1039 • E-mail address: [email protected]

43 issues @ $69.94

EDUCATION WEEK is available on the World Wide Web at www.edweek.org.

PRESIDENT & EDITOR Virginia B. Edwards

MANAGING EDITOR Gregory Chronister

SENIOR EDITORS Lynn Olson (Special Projects), M. Sandra Reeves (Commentary)

ASSOCIATE EDITORS Ann Bradley, Mary-Ellen Phelps Deily,

Karen Diegmueller, Steven Drummond, Erik Fatemi, Sandra Graziano, Craig D. Jerald,

Liz Parker, Mark A. Taylor, Debra Viadero

WASHINGTON EDITOR Mark Pitsch (on leave)

ASSISTANT EDITORSMillicent Lawton, Khela Thorne, Mark Walsh,

Mary Ann Zehr

ASSISTANT ON-LINE EDITORSDavid Ehrmann, Peter West

STAFF WRITERS Jeff Archer, Caroline Hendrie, David J. Hoff, Linda Jacobson, Robert C. Johnston,

Bess Keller, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, Jessica Portner, Beth Reinhard, Joetta L. Sack,

Jessica L. Sandham, Lynn Schnaiberg, Andrew Trotter, Kerry A. White

COMMENTARY ASSISTANT Ihsan K. Taylor

REPORTER/RESEARCHERSKaren Abercrombie, Adrienne D. Coles

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES Kimberly Campbell, Bridget K. Curran

RESEARCH ASSISTANT Nancy Waymack

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS David Hill, Drew Lindsay, David Ruenzel

ART DIRECTOR Elizabeth A. Richards

ASSISTANT ART DIRECTOR Laura Baker

PRODUCTION ASSISTANTS Feng Yu Hsu, Gina Tomko

ART INTERNS Stacy Armstrong, Sara Matyas

PHOTO EDITOR Benjamin Tice Smith

PHOTO ASSISTANT Allison Shelley

SYSTEMS MANAGER Michael J. Aubin

ASSISTANT SYSTEMS MANAGER Catherine M. Hess

LIBRARIAN Kathryn Dorko

ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN Barbara Hiron

LIBRARY INTERN Rachel Henighan

PUBLISHER Ronald A. Wolk

ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER Carolyn Kaye

CONTROLLER Eric W. Arnold

SENIOR ACCOUNTANT Janice Brunson

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Barbara M. Guinn

CIRCULATION DIRECTOR Peter LeMaster

CIRCULATION ASSISTANT Ina Calver

MARKETING DIRECTOR Karen Creedon

MARKETING ASSISTANT Angela Lunter

MARKETPLACE ADVERTISINGRodney E. Spencer (202) 686-0800

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSISTANT Katherine S. Croake

CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE Joel I. Schwartz

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Shaiy Knowles

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS Tina Ellis, Laurie Hatfield, Jennifer Miller

DISPLAY ADVERTISING DIRECTOR Michael McKenna

ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVES Irving Carpenter, Julie Matthews, Harriet Rogers,

Richard Sieber

Suite 432, 4301 Connecticut Ave. N.W.Washington, D.C. 20008 • (202) 686-0800

ADVERTISING TRAFFIC MANAGER Carol Kocian

ADVERTISING PROJECTS COORDINATORAnnette Lanier

ADVERTISING INTERN Douglas Ortiz

PUBLISHING CONSULTANT Lawrence A. Durocher Jr.

TECHNOLOGY COUNTS An EducationWeek/Milken Exchange on Education Technology report on schools and reform in the information age.The Milken Exchange is an initiative of the Milken Family Foundation. See www.mff.org.

EDITOR SENIOR EDITORVirginia B. Edwards Erik Fatemi

ASSOCIATE EDITORSMark A. Taylor, Andrew Trotter,

Mary Ann Zehr

ART ASSISTANT ARTDIRECTOR DIRECTOR

Elizabeth A. Richards Mark James Ricks

ART INTERN DESIGN CONSULTANTSara Matyas Serdar Sirtanadolu

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS AND WRITERS Jo Anna Natale, Julie Rasicot,

Anita M. Seline, Meg Sommerfeld, Debra Viadero, Kerry A. White

Cover Photo Illustration: Elizabeth A. Richards, Mark James Ricks

Cover Photo: Dale Lauck

Chart Photos: Chancery Software, John Heller, Dale Lauck

EDUCATION WEEK (ISSN 0277-4232) is published43 times per year (weekly except for the first and lastthree weeks in July, the last three weeks in August,the last three weeks in December, and two issues willbe published in the second week of November) byEditorial Projects in Education Inc. Editorial andadvertising-sales offices are located at 4301Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 250, Washington, D.C.20008; (202) 364-4114. Subscriptions: U.S.: $69.94for 43 issues. Canada: $96.94 for 43 issues. ForeignSubscribers: Please add $138.00 for Airmail.Periodicals postage paid at Washington, D.C., and atadditional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: SendAddress changes to EDUCATION WEEK, P.O. Box2083, Marion, Ohio 43305. Volume XVIl, Issue 11.

((UUSSPPSS##559999--887700))

Back issues are available at $3.50 each (first-classpostage). Send order to: Back Issues, EDUCATIONWEEK, Suite 250, 4301 Connecticut Ave., N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20008. Copies of the newspaperon microfilm can be ordered from UniversityMicrofilms, 300 North Zeeb Rd., Ann Arbor, Mich.48106.

EDUCATION WEEK TECHNOLOGYCOUNTS

45T he need for reporting on

the state of schooltechnology is moreimportant than ever.

Billions of dollars are being spenteach year in an effort to prepareschools and students for tomorrow’stechnological demands andchallenges. Policies are beingdeveloped at every level ofgovernment as well as in districtsand schools to incorporate moretechnology into the daily lives ofstudents.

Parents and corporate Americaare clamoring for schools to movemore quickly to embrace a high-techvision for education. And the fast-changing landscape of educationaltechnology only complicates the taskfor policymakers and administratorswho seek to make “smart” decisionsabout how to proceed.

It’s against this backdrop that weset out late last spring to map thestate of educational technology. Toguide us in our mapmaking, wedecided to survey the terrainthrough the perspectives of five“clients” of educational technology:students, teachers, administrators,the public, and policymakers.

What we found is a landscapereplete with unexplored anduncharted territory.

The problem is basically twofold.First, policymakers and educatorsare vexed by a lack of data—particularly, comparable state-by-state data—on even the most basicquestions of the amount oftechnology already in the schoolsand the way it is used. Second, andperhaps more important, researchon whether technology improvesstudent achievement has producedlittle hard evidence.

In the absence of such data andresearch, teachers, administrators,and policymakers are makingdecisions based primarily onanecdotal evidence and intuition.

Nonetheless, consensus is growingthat an increase in educationaltechnology is not only inevitable butcould serve as a powerful tool in thequest to improve the nation’sschools. Technology holds greatpromise to foster exploratorylearning, empower teachers, andbetter equip administrators.

The task of illuminating complexissues, informing the public debate,and undergirding the policymakingprocess with hard, reliableinformation is a crucial one, webelieve. The bottom line is thatlasting school change will only comeabout when policymakers,practitioners, and parents arearmed with the information theyneed to push for reform.

Technology Counts, then, willserve as the foundation for a seriesof annual reports that will continueto chart the state of schooltechnology across the 50 states.

—THE EDITORS

Education Week • November 10, 1997

6 T E C H N O L O G Y C O U N T S

Technology’s stock is flyingas high in the nation’sschools as it is on Wall Street.

In poll after poll, parentssay technology is essential toa child’s education. Many ed-ucators believe it’s the miss-

ing linchpin of school reform. Business leaders con-sider it a mandatory part of a student’s preparationfor the workplace. And policymakers at every level ofgovernment are spending more money on it eachyear.

With support for technology so strong, people mightassume its value for schools has been proven beyondquestion. In fact, the dividends that educators can ex-pect from this investment are not yet clear.

There is no guarantee that technology improvesstudent achievement. Research in this area has pro-duced little hard evidence, and few studies have yetexamined the kinds of technology use that expertsbelieve are most valuable to learning.

Nor is there assurance that policymakers havespent enough time on questions of how the new tech-nology will be used or maintained. Although all thestates and many school districts have technologyplans, the quality of those plans varies widely. Andprecious few resources have been spent on ensuringthat teachers make effective use of the new tools.

Many states and districts can’t even say with con-fidence how much technology they already own.Some state officials have no other source for thisdata than commercial firms whose surveying meth-ods are flawed.

Nevertheless, spending on educational technologythis school year could top $5 billion.

Proponents of technology acknowledge the manyquestions that surround its use in schools. But theysay technology offers so many potential benefits thatit would be even riskier not to invest in it.

“It is impossible for me to imagine how schoolleaders who are focused on more authentic ways ofdoing math and science, who are developing rich en-vironments for learning, can achieve that withouttechnology,” says Linda Roberts, the adviser on tech-nology to Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley.

“The data may not be perfect,” adds Mary Fulton,an analyst at the Education Commission of the States.“But if we don’t start somewhere and have somethingto build on, we’re never going to get anywhere.”

In this report, the staff of Education Week hascompiled the best data available about the level oftechnology in the nation’s schools and the latestthinking about how technology should be imple-mented. Because both are in a state of flux, Technol-ogy Counts will serve as the foundation for a seriesof annual reports in the years to come.

The growing amount of money spent on schooltechnology is not the only factor warranting a closer

look at its effectiveness. Technology is also a hottopic in the policy arena.

President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and aprocession of state governors from both political par-ties have recently endorsed technology as a necessarytool for education. At last year’s national educationsummit in Palisades, N.Y., the governors and businessleaders who attended made improving educationtechnology one of two main goals for school change.

Among the most important pending federal initia-tives are the discounts for telecommunications ser-vices that are scheduled to go into effect in Januaryunder the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The “E-rate” discounts, which will be administered by theFederal Communications Commission, will be worth$10 billion to schools over the next four years.

Political support for technology has grown, in part,because many policymakers view it as a critical partof broad-based education reform, says BarbaraMeans, an education researcher at SRI Internationalin Menlo Park, Calif.

“Over the course of five years, a lot of states havecome around to seeing technology as an importantpart of trying to support teachers, trying to getacross the new standards,” Means says.

Means and other experts list several ways tech-nology can bolster reform:• In the classroom, technologies that support explo-

ration, such as the Internet and desktop presenta-tion tools, can create a synergy with “constructivist”teaching methods.• Providing teachers with high-tech training, per-

sonal computers, telephones, and Internet connec-tions is a step toward increasing their professional-ism. Technology also can reduce their isolation andlead to professional communities of educators in cy-berspace.• Technology can help measure academic achieve-

ment as assessments of student performance growmore complex.• The movement to restructure schools—to decen-

tralize decisionmaking and share it with teachers orschool-level councils—can be aided by networks thatcollect and distribute information. Databases of stu-dent information can help teachers target resourcesand appropriate teaching methods toward individualchildren.• Computer tools that streamline administrative

tasks can improve school accountability and free upmore resources for the classroom.

“We’re not as effective in our reform efforts as wecould be if we don’t harness the power of technology,”says Means. “We don’t spend our technology moneyas well as we could if we don’t implement school reform.”

But reform has many currents—sometimes hardto distinguish as they swirl and eddy, separate andrejoin—and many education reformers considertechnology a side issue.

“In school reform, there are so many challenges,”

MEASURE

Unprecedented support for

school technology is

spurring an investment

of billions of dollars.

But a lack of research and

a dearth of data mean

the payoff is unclear.

ByAndrewTrotter

Taking Technology’s

Means says. “It is so difficult and complex, technol-ogy seems another layer of complexity and expense.”

Henry Levin, the director of the AcceleratedSchools Project, a reform network that seeks to bringat-risk children into the educational mainstream,agrees. “It’s very, very expensive to maintain a [high-tech] facility and someone to watch over it. So thatcompetes with other possibilities.”

Yet, he calls technology “a wonderful tool” when in-tegrated into the instructional program.

“My concern is that the technology ought to basi-cally be the servant of a very strong program thatchallenges students and gets them involved, as op-posed to simply being an entity in itself which some-how is going to have an impact because it exists,”says Levin, an education professor at Stanford Uni-versity who is on a teaching sabbatical at TeachersCollege, Columbia University.

Other educators worry that schools are spendingmoney on technology without a clear plan.

“I’m very concerned over the rush to purchasehardware when we do not have enough evidence onhow best to use computers to help youngsters achievein reading, mathematics, writing, et cetera,” SamuelG. Sava, the executive director of the National Asso-ciation of Elementary School Principals, says.

“My second concern is that a number of school sys-tems, in order to purchase the hardware, have begunto eliminate such key programs as the arts,” he adds.

No one admits to sacrificing other programs totechnology purchases, Sava says. “But when you talkto music educators, or when you talk to our princi-pals, you begin to get a feel that within the limits ofthe resources, computers are getting a higher prior-ity. Computers are supposed to support the curricu-lum, not write the curriculum.”

Strong evidence of technology’s effectiveness un-doubtedly would further strengthen public and polit-ical support for it. But research is slow in coming.

One difficulty in assembling evidence is that tech-nology’s capabilities have changed faster than edu-cation researchers can complete the large-scale, con-trolled studies that lead to firm conclusions.

Studies of that sort were done on computer-assistedinstruction by the early 1990s, and showed that “drilland practice” can effectively reinforce basic skills. Butby then, many computer-using teachers were usingtechnology in completely different ways. Other ap-proaches are supported only by small studies or bystudies limited to a narrow range of technology.

Some say no one should be surprised. “In mostareas of society, we’ve gone ahead on the basis of in-stinct, not on evidence,” notes Donald M. Feuerstein,a senior adviser in the U.S. Department of Education.

Where proponents of technology lack scientificproof about its benefits, they cite common sense andeducators’ classroom observations.

It is often forgotten that the use of technology inthe schools has evolved partly through the grass-roots efforts of a handful of teachers and adminis-trators who were dissatisfied with traditional teach-ing methods and who experimented with theirclasses and schools, sometimes exchanging their owntime and money for training.

They gradually won over more colleagues andformed idea-sharing networks and then coalitionsof educators—prodded by technology vendors, to besure—who toiled to win political support and fund-ing for technology.

Because of that history, many educators believepolicymakers are playing catch-up.

Yet, most in education’s own ranks are still morecomfortable with chalkboards than with a computermouse. Only one out of five teachers uses a computerregularly for teaching, according to the National Cen-ter for Education Statistics.

Educators and policymakers agree that it is folly tointroduce technology without adequate teacher train-ing—both at the university and professional levels.

But budgets and funding often don’t reflect that belief.“Technology is a special case. It isn’t something

teachers got in their preparation,” says Kathleen Ful-ton, the associate director of the University of Mary-land’s Center for Learning and Educational Technol-ogy. “We assume teachers know about content andpedagogy, and we expect them to stay up to date inthose areas. But they have not been prepared to thinkabout how technology can enhance their teaching.”

In addition to a lack of research, the nation alsohas a dim picture of the amount of technology that isalready in the schools and the ways it is used.

Solid data can make a real difference in public

perceptions and in policymaking, experts say. For ex-ample, a 1995 NCES survey showed the nation thatonly 9 percent of school classrooms were wired to theInternet. Coming at a time when the public was be-coming intrigued by the World Wide Web, the figureprovided a rallying point for the NetDay movementto wire classrooms. The number of wired classroomsrose to 14 percent in the 1996 NCES survey and is ex-pected to jump again this year.

As the states exert more leadership in technologyand school reform efforts, they have become espe-cially hungry for data that compare their schoolswith those in other states.

“Legislators ask that question; also, communities



Continued on Page 8

Money MattersPercentage of 3- to 17-year-olds with access to computers in their homes, by household income.

Household Income

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, Education and Social Stratification Branch, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993.

$10,000 $10,000-14,999

$15,000-19,999

$20,000-24,999

$25,000-34,999

$35,000-49,999

$50,000-74,999

6%

Per

cent

age

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

11%

16%19%

38%

56%

27%

Gauging the SpeedGenerally speaking, would you say that theintroduction of computers and up-to-date technologyinto public schools is happening too fast, at the rightspeed, or not fast enough?

SOURCE: Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc. for theMilken Exchange on Education Technology, 1997.

Note: 1,012 voters polled by telephone.

43%Not fastenough

6%Not sure

11%Too fast

40%Right speed

Ranking Local SchoolsWhen it comes to the public schools in yourcommunity, do you think these schools are ahead ofthe curve or behind the curve in using computers andup-to-date technology to teach students?


Note: 506 voters polled by telephone.

42%Behind

9%Neither

14%Not sure

35%Ahead


and business interests do,” says John Cradler, a tech-nology consultant and a former technology directorof the Council of Chief State School Officers in Wash-ington. “It’s like how your state compares on SATscores.”

Two of the main sources for state data are QualityEducation Data and Market Data Retrieval, com-mercial marketing firms that collect information on

technology and sell it to technology manufacturers.QED, which has its headquarters in Denver, is a divi-sion of Peterson’s Guides Inc. MDR, based in Shelton,Conn., is owned by Dun & Bradstreet Corp.

Both companies conduct mail and telephone sur-veys of schools throughout the nation, asking forlaundry lists of their high-tech equipment and pur-chasing plans. Their results are supplemented by in-formation from the Education Department and othersurveys.

The two companies try to collect data for everyschool—a method called a “census survey”—becausetheir main business is assembling marketing lists andreports to help other companies target sales efforts.

By default, the companies’ data have generallycome to be treated as an unofficial state-by-statescorecard on technology. That is especially true of dataprovided by QED, which is better known than MDR.

The problem, say many experts, is that the dataare flawed.

Henry Jay Becker, a University of California-Irvine education researcher, notes that a census sur-vey is prone to undercounting. He estimates thatQED consistently low-balls school technology countsby about 25 percent.

A census survey is “just not a good way of gather-ing representative information,” he says. “Samplesurveys are much better.”

A number of state technology directors and re-searchers have pointed out other problems withQED’s survey.

Schools generally are under no compulsion to sub-mit data to the company, and in any given year,many don’t bother.

For example, just 6 percent of schools in Rhode Is-land responded to a survey conducted by QED lastspring. The company supplements these data withdata collected from Rhode Island schools in earliersurveys, but this practice raises another issue.

As recently as this past summer, QED was stillusing some data collected in 1994 or earlier—a longtime ago, given the fast pace of change in technology.The company tries to minimize this problem, how-ever, by giving more weight to recent data.

For the nation as a whole, QED says it receivesdata for 67 percent of schools annually, but the re-sponse rate varies greatly from state to state.

One way the company boosts response rates is byaccepting school data provided by states or districts—even though that practice runs a risk of lowering ac-curacy.

“A lot of times, districts don’t take [the surveys] se-riously,” Cradler says. The wrong person might com-plete the survey; he might count computers in thewarehouse rather than in schools; or he might mis-interpret the questions, Cradler says.

In addition, some district technology coordinatorssay they receive questionnaires at a point in the bud-get cycle when their estimate of the year’s purchasesis hazy at best.

These problems make QED’s state-by-state rank-ings unreliable, say some state directors.

In its 1997-98 catalog, for example, QED reportsOhio’s student-to-computer ratio as 14-to-1, for aranking of 46th in the nation. The ratio of studentsto multimedia computers is reported at 50-to-1, for aranking of 49th.

But the data are plain wrong, according to TimBest, a consultant who serves as Ohio’s technology di-rector. He says that QED did not account for 87,664multimedia computers purchased by the state overthe past two years. The multimedia-computer ratioshould be close to 14-to-1, he says.

“Whenever QED figures are released, we get ham-mered in the press,” Best says. “We spend our time infirefights rather than doing the work we’re supposedto be doing.”

MDR, which heard from 63 percent of Ohio’sschools in its 1997 survey, reports the state’s ratio in


“The data may not be perfect. But if we don’t start somewhere and have something to build

on, we’re never going to get anywhere.”

Mary Fulton, Policy Analyst, Education Commission of the States

Continued from Page 7

Assessing the Impact of Computers

SOURCE: National Computing Survey, Microsoft/Intelliquest, 1995.

Note: 2,802 people polled by telephone.

SOURCE: Global Strategy Group for Jostens Learning Corp., 1997.

Note: 582 teachers and 419 superintendents polled by telephone.

74%Strongly/Somewhat

agree

10%Strongly/Somewhat

disagree

16%Neither agree nor

disagree

34%Somewhat

agree

2%Somewhatdisagree

2%Don’t know/Refused to

answer

3%Stronglydisagree

59%Strongly

agree

Public’s View

Do you strongly/somewhat agree or strongly/somewhatdisagree that computers have improved the quality ofeducation?

Educators’ View

Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhatdisagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement:The use of computer technology in the classroom hasimproved teaching and learning in my school district.

Computer Availability Over Time

83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97

Stu

dent

s pe

r C

ompu

ter

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

School YearSOURCE: Market Data Retrieval, 1997.

92

64

46

37

3127

2421 19

12 11 9 9 7

Continued on Page 10



The Race FactorPercentage of 3- to 17-year-olds with home or schoolcomputer access, by race and ethnicity.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, Education and SocialStratification Branch, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993.

White

Black

Hispanic

Percentage

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

At home

At school

12

53

13

51

63

36

The following are among the most informativerecent reports on educational technology:

■ “Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementaryand Secondary Schools, Fall 1996,’’ National Center forEducation Statistics, U.S. Department of Education,1997.See www.nces.ed.gov/NCES/pubs/.

■ “Beyond Bells and Whistles: How to Use Technology toImprove Student Learning,’’ American Association of SchoolAdministrators, 1996. (301) 617-7802.

■ “Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology inU.S. Schools,’’ Policy Information Center, EducationalTesting Service, 1997. (609) 734-5694.

■ “Fostering the Use of Educational Technology: Elements of aNational Strategy,’’ RAND, 1996. (310) 393-0411. Seewww.rand.org/publications/MR/MR682/contents.html.

■ “Getting America’s Students Ready for the 21st Century:Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge,’’ U.S.Department of Education, 1996. See www.ed.gov/pubs/pubdb.html.

■ “Report to the President on the Use of Technology toStrengthen K-12 Education in the United States,’’President’s Committee of Advisors on Science andTechnology, Panel on Educational Technology, 1997. (212)478-0608. See www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html.

■ “The School Technology and Readiness Report: From Pillarsto Progress,’’ CEO Forum on Education and Technology,1997. (202) 393-2260. See www.ceoforum.org.

■ “State Strategies for Incorporating Technology IntoEducation,’’ National Governors’ Association, 1997. (301)498-3738.

■ “Teachers & Technology: Making the Connection,’’ Office ofTechnology Assessment, Congress of the United States,1995. See www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota.

■ “Technology and the New Professional Teacher: Preparingfor the 21st Century Classroom,’’ National Council forAccreditation of Teacher Education, 1997. (202) 466-7496.See www.ncate.org/specfoc.

Key Reports

multimedia computers as 19-to-1, or 34th in its listof states.

(Education Week is relying primarily on MDR’s1997 survey for state-by-state information in this re-port because the company accepted data only fromindividual schools; it disclosed the response rates forevery state; and those response rates were compara-tively high—averaging 64 percent, with no statebelow 48 percent.)

Jeanne Hayes, the president of QED, acknowledgesthe validity of states’ concerns. “It’s not an acceptablesituation,” she says.

But she also points out that state-collected dataoften have similar flaws. And she says the companyrecently retooled itself to work with states to im-

prove data collection.QED has been trying to enlist states to adopt a

common survey of current-year technology use andinventories in their schools. To date, 23 states havejoined QED’s Project EdTech and lent their clout toencourage schools to return QED’s surveys.

Seventeen more states have shared data theyhave collected with QED, Hayes says, although she isdissatisfied with the timeliness and consistency ofsome of it. The company is planning to release thefirst compilation of EdTech data later this month.

Response rates from the first year of ProjectEdTech are relatively high, ranging from 41 percentof schools in Arizona to 100 percent in Louisiana, astate that required schools to complete the survey toqualify for a grant.

Some state technology directors wonder why they

need to rely on a for-profit company when the stateshave data-gathering mechanisms in place. They wantthe states to develop jointly their own national sur-vey without the intervention of data marketingfirms.

“Districts tend to take it more seriously if it’s agovernment survey,” Cradler says.

But Hayes suggests that an independent companyis more likely to have fair and consistent surveymethodology than 50 different states.

Some researchers, including Becker, downplay theimportance of state-by-state comparisons at all. Hethinks researchers need to be asking more sophisti-cated questions that do not lend themselves to thebureaucratic collection procedures of a school censussurvey—no matter who conducts it.

Data on the numbers of computers, videodisc play-

What gets measured, gets money, some policyanalysts say. The flip side—what gets money,gets measured—may be equally true.

Perhaps for both reasons, state policymakersare showing greater interest in gettingaccurate, up-to-date data on technology inpublic schools.

Many states conduct at least limited surveysof the hardware, software, and infrastructure intheir schools, or they glean those data from thesurveys of market-data firms.

But state officials say they need comparabledata from all the states, so leaders can makecomparisons and highlight the policies andpractices that prove most effective.

Currently, data on school technology are “veryfragmented, very scattered, not compiled, notstandardized,” says Mary Fulton, a policyanalyst at the Education Commission of theStates in Denver.

She notes that data collected by states areoften inconsistent with those collected by otherstates. “It’s often comparing apples and oranges,cranberries and peanuts,” Fulton says.

One problem is that surveys by different statesoften don’t use common definitions—such aswhat constitutes a “modern” computer.

A number of states define it as a multimediacomputer, meaning it has a sound card and aCD-ROM drive. But Tennessee, for example,defines a modern computer as one with a 386processor or better and certain networkingcapabilities.

The market-research firms Quality EducationData and Market Data Retrieval seek toovercome that problem by surveying schoolsnationwide and breaking out statistics for eachstate. But many state officials aren’t happywith the quality of these surveys.

At the same time, state legislators andeducation leaders are demanding richer data onthe ways in which students, teachers, andadministrators are using technology and on therelated needs for teacher training and technicalsupport.

Technology experts say that the numbers ofcomputers or wired classrooms don’t necessarilyindicate how well teachers and students areusing them.

“There is so much equipment in schools that isso underutilized,” says Barbara Means, an

education researcher at Stanford ResearchInstitute International. “And there’s some veryold equipment in schools that is usedcreatively.”

Education Week asked state technologydirectors and various other experts about whatschool technology information they would liketo see collected from all the states. Here aresome of their responses:

Students

■ What percentage of students use technology tocommunicate with people beyond their own schoolfor classroom activities?

■ What percentage of students use electronicnetworks, including the Internet, to collaborate onclass projects with students at other schools?

■ What modes of distance learning are available tostudents, such as cable television, satellite, orcomputer?

Teachers

■ What percentage of teachers are at varioustechnology proficiency levels, such as novice,intermediate, advanced, and expert?

■ What percentage of a state’s preservice teachers areat various proficiency levels when they are certified?

■ What percentage of school media centers have afull-time media specialist who is trained to assistteachers or students in using technology?

■ What percentage of teachers use technologyregularly for various activities related to instruction,such as writing, collecting, and analyzing data, andgathering information?

■ Do districts or schools maintain ongoing programs ofstaff development that include technology? Whatpercentage of teachers take part in this type ofprofessional development? How frequently do theyparticipate in them? How many hours do they spend insuch programs? How useful do teachers regard them?

■ What methods do districts or schools use toencourage teachers to participate in technologytraining—mandates, incentives, or teacher initiative?

Administrators

■ What percentages of principals and superintendentshave taken part in professional development on howto integrate technology into the curriculum or to usetechnology to support school reforms?

■ What percentage of official school or district

correspondence is distributed via e-mail or Webresources?

■ What percentage of teachers use an electronicnetwork for administrative tasks, such as submittinggrades, recording attendance, and sendingcorrespondence?

■ Is technical support for on going maintenance ofschool technology provided by full- or part-timeschool or district staff, by outside contractors orvendors, or by students?

■ What is the ratio of technical support staff to users?■ What percentages of districts and schools have a

specific revenue stream to support and sustaintechnology initiatives?

Outreach

■ What percentage of schools facilitatecommunication with homes by having telephones inevery classroom, a homework hotline, voicebulletins, e-mail accounts for teachers, or a Website?

■ What percentage of schools give students access totechnology and/or networks during non-classhours?

■ What percentage of schools give communitymembers access to technology?

Inventories

■ What are the ratios of students to equipmentavailable for instruction, including computers,multimedia computers, CD-ROM players, networkedcomputers, and computers with Internet access?

■ What percentages of schools and classrooms haveaccess to cable television, satellite broadcasts,schoolwide local-area networks, and the Internet?What types of Internet connections are they (e.g.,dial-up, dedicated line, high-speed modem)?

■ What percentage of instructional computers arelinked to a local-area network?

■ What percentage of district buildings are linked to awide-area network?

■ What percentage of computers are located incomputer labs, media centers, administrationoffices, classrooms, and other locations?

■ What percentage of classrooms have telephones?■ What percentage of administrative workstations

have LAN or WAN access to the Internet?■ What percentage of schools have access to current

word processing, spreadsheet, database, andgraphic software? —ANDREW TROTTER




What Data Should Be Collected?



ers, satellite dishes, or wired classrooms in schoolscan obscure crucial questions—including whetherthey’re actually being used, experts say.

Momentum is building, meanwhile, for a nationalresearch and data-gathering effort on technology.

A report released last spring by the President’sCommittee of Advisers on Science and Technologycalls for spending at least $1.5 billion on educationaltechnology research. The CEO Forum, a group of cor-porate and education leaders, endorsed improved col-lection of data on schools’ use of technology in a re-port released last month.

The federal government is already developing indi-cators to track how schools are using grants from theTechnology Literacy Challenge Fund, a program thatdistributed $200 million to the states to award to dis-trict technology projects in the 1997-98 school year.And some officials are proposing that the FCC requireschools, as a condition of their E-rate discounts, to sub-mit a technology inventory, their equipment purchaseplans, and an assessment of their needs.

The Education Department’s Feuerstein says thegovernment wants to create a database of the nation’sschool technology that could be collected over time andanalyzed. Feuerstein says the FCC inventory could bejoined to a massive NCES effort—in concert with thedata efforts of the states—to settle on standards for in-formation collected about school inventories.

Once the indicators are established, states could in-corporate them in their technology surveys to produceone set of standardized data.

“It has to be a very inclusive effort,” Feuersteinsays.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., has proposed the cre-ation of a national organization that would connect ef-forts to study content, software development, and In-ternet use, in light of academic standards andcurriculum. He suggests that a consortium of highereducation, business concerns, research institutes, andgovernment would fund and direct the group.

“We’re talking about leveraging new researchacross agencies, and other [private] agencies wherethey’re doing cutting-edge research,” says Cradler,who has contributed ideas to the proposal. “The ideais to pull together all data sources, to elevate this toa national initiative.”

Some of the demand for national data is driven bythe need to persuade legislators in Congress and thestatehouses that their investments in technologyhave been worth the money.

Jonathan Sallet, the chief policy counsel at MCICommunications Corp., warned a group of educatorsin Los Angeles last spring that the public will wantto see the payback.

“Now, there’s goodwill and optimism,” he said.“Three years from now, we’ll need to show results—or in the future [the E-rate] will be seen as a goodidea that failed.”

The sections that follow in this report will look atschool technology from a variety of perspectives.

The first section, on technology in the classroom,discusses what research has revealed about the effec-tiveness of technology in raising student achievement.

The second section, on teacher training, examineshow well teachers are prepared to apply technologyin their classrooms and their professional lives.

The next section, on administrators, addressesschool leaders’ readiness to make decisions that takeadvantage of the full capabilities of technology.

The fourth section looks at the ways in which tech-nology has changed the relationship between schoolsand the public—from parents to corporations.

The final section examines how federal and statepolicies are driving or hindering the use of schooltechnology.

The report concludes with a summary of technol-ogy efforts in all 50 states. ■



Port Hueneme, Calif.

Were it not for the age ofthe students, this 8th gradelanguage arts classroomcould easily be mistaken for amodern office in some sleek,

glass-and-steel building downtown.Everyone is working at a computer, the machines

arranged in horseshoes of six that fan out from thecenter of the room like petals on a flower. Each clus-ter, separated by a padded partition, has its ownprinter, videodisc player, monitor, and electronicsound-effects board.

Students use the equipment to include sound andfilm clips in their class presentations or composemusic to accompany the blues poems they write. Asthey read an excerpt from All Things Bright andBeautiful, they can watch videodisc clips on veteri-nary work on a 9-foot-by-12-foot screen that descendsfrom the ceiling.

Blackstock Middle School, located just north of LosAngeles, has put millions of dollars into 11 “smart”classrooms such as this one under the belief that ed-ucational technology improves student achievement.

But educators here are hard-pressed to say forsure if the investment has paid off.

Blackstock’s students—most of whom are poor andmembers of minority groups—are clearly more tech-nologically literate than they used to be. Their teach-ers say they are also more motivated and spend moretime writing and collaborating on projects. And theschool won a coveted “Blue Ribbon” from the U.S. De-partment of Education for its efforts.

“My gut feeling tells me something significant isgoing on here,” Stephen Carr, the school’s technologycoordinator, says.

But is technology helping Blackstock’s childrenlearn more? Educators have no way of knowing. Andin that regard, the school’s story is a familiar one.

Tens of billions of dollars have been spent to equipthe nation’s schools with calculators, computers,printers, videodisc equipment, satellite technology,televisions, software, and connections to the Internet.The average ratio of students to computers is now 7-to-1, compared with 25-to-1 just a decade ago.

And President Clinton has upped the ante, cam-paigning for schools “where computers are as much apart of the classroom as blackboards.”

Yet, research on the effectiveness of educationaltechnology offers, at best, mixed results. Some appli-cations have been unquestionable successes; othershave yet to prove their mettle.

Ask any expert if technology can improve school-ing, and the immediate response is inevitably, “It depends.”

“It’s kind of like asking, ‘Are pencils effective?’ Itdepends on what you’re going to do with them,” saysTed Hasselbring, a co-director of Vanderbilt Univer-sity’s Learning and Technology Center in Nashville.

A teacher might use technology poorly, use it well,or not use it at all, he says.

Thus, the real question for educational technologyis not “Does it work?” Rather, it’s “When does it workand under what circumstances?”

Educational technology comes in many differentforms, from film strips to the Internet. But most ofthe research has focused on computers.

In the 1960s and 1970s, when they were first in-troduced to schools, computers were set aside in sep-arate labs. Teachers used them largely to teachstand-alone courses on computer programming.

That effort, it turned out, proved to be a bust. Theequipment and programming languages werechanging too rapidly for schools to keep up, and stu-dents were going out into the work world with out-moded skills.

Eventually, however, educators began to view thetechnology as a more efficient way to provide some ofthe same instruction they were already providingand to offer practice in basic skills. These programs,for example, might use colorful graphics and cartoonfigures to quiz students on simple math equations.

In that regard, the computer’s track record wasbetter.

“Computer tutorials are about as effective as per-sonal tutoring,” says James Kulik, a research scien-tist at the Center for Research on Learning andTeaching at the University of Michigan. He and hiscolleagues have reviewed more than 100 studies,each of which compared a classroom using computer-aided instruction with a classroom that did not.

Overall, he concludes, students in the computer-using classrooms learned more and learned it faster.They gained the equivalent of about three months ofregular classroom learning—progress that is aboutpar for many kinds of classroom interventions.

“About the only thing we found raising students’examination performance higher was curricular ad-justments made for gifted and talented kids—thekind of thing where kids are taught things beyondtheir grade level,” Kulik says.

Other studies suggest that computer-based lessonswere particularly effective for teaching basic skills todisadvantaged students—partly because they startedout in school further behind their more affluent class-mates in reading, writing, and arithmetic.

But, as the thinking in the education fieldchanged, it became clear that these kinds of “drill andskill” programs were not enough.

Inspired by the research of cognitive scientists, ed-ucators began favoring classroom environments inwhich students take charge of their own learning,learn to think critically and analytically, work collab-oratively, and create products to demonstrate whatthey have learned. By putting learning in the handsof students, the “constructivist” model turns on itshead the old style of schooling in which a teacher

LEARNINGByDebraViadero

A Tool for

Many educators are

banking on the belief that

technology improves

student achievement. In

reality, though, research on

its effectiveness offers, at

best, mixed results.

stands in front of a room and lectures.Computers and other kinds of classroom technol-

ogy, it has become increasingly evident, can helpbring about that transformation. But, while there isno shortage of anecdotes on schools that have suc-cessfully used technology to reshape teaching andlearning and to raise student achievement, the defin-itive, large-scale studies that make the case for thesenewer, more integrated uses of technology are harderto find and less clear-cut.

Students in Union City, N.J., for example, madesignificant learning gains after the district under-went an extensive technological conversion. But it’shard to tell how much of the success was the result ofthe equipment and how much could be attributed toother educational innovations taking place in the dis-trict’s schools at the same time.

“At this point, there are more claims about whattechnology can do than there are well-designed eval-uations with conclusive findings,” concludes a draftreport conducted for the U.S. Department of Educa-tion by the Washington-based American Institutes forResearch.

Part of the problem is that the trend toward con-structivist learning is relatively new, and technologyhas been used to support it only in the past few years.

“There hasn’t been enough time to accumulate ahuge amount of evidence,” says Christopher Dede, asenior program director for the National ScienceFoundation. “The literature is positive. There’s justless of it.”

One of the few documented successes in using edu-cational technology to foster constructivist learning is“The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury,” a set of 12video-based adventures designed to improve themathematical thinking of students in grades 5 and up.

In one adventure, called “Journey to Cedar Creek,”Jasper reads a newspaper advertisement for a 1956Chris-Craft cabin cruiser that needs fixing up. He

takes his aluminum fishing boat to Cedar Creek,where he meets the cruiser’s owner. He tries out theboat, buys it, and then discovers that the runninglights don’t work, leaving him 15 minutes to get offthe river by sunset.

The challenge to students: Can he make it? Theclues they need to answer this lengthy time-rate-dis-tance problem, such as the amount of gasoline in thetank or the distance home, are embedded in thevideo. Students must solve at least 15 problems to ar-rive at a conclusion.

When researchers at Vanderbilt University’sLearning and Technology Center tested the program,they found that students in Jasper classrooms did aswell as students in traditional classrooms at solvingstandard, one-step word problems. But they were sig-nificantly better than children in the control group atsolving multistep word problems—the kind of com-plex reasoning that many education reformers say isso important.

National Geographic Society’s Kids Network is an-other technology-based program with data to back upits effectiveness.

This program, which is now almost 10 years old,matches each participating class with nine to 15 oth-ers around the country. Via the Internet and a centralcomputer at the National Geographic Society, theclasses collaborate on eight-week-long research pro-jects on everything from water quality to recycling.

An independent study of the project involving 36California schools found that students who partici-pated in the network outscored students in tradi-tional classrooms on their grasp of some scientificconcepts. The Kids Network students also outper-formed control-group students on questions unre-lated to their unit of study, such as a task that askedtest-takers to interpret bar graphs of children’s icecream preferences.

Another project, called SimCalc, uses advancedcomputer technology to introduce elementary andmiddle school students to basic calculus concepts—

what project developer JimKaput calls the “mathemat-ics of change and the rate ofchange.”

With some of the SimCalcprograms, students can cre-ate mathematical functionsto control the movements ofanimated characters thatthey see on their computerscreens. Individual studentsin a classroom, for example,can each be in charge of adifferent character in amarching band. Studentscan also use motion sensorsto pick up their own mo-tions and import that datainto the computer.

University of Massachu-setts researchers, who areworking on SimCalc in con-junction with TERC, a Cam-bridge, Mass., researchfirm, have tested their pro-grams in inner-city middleschools. SimCalc students,the researchers found, wereable to perform as well as—or better than—typical highschool or college-age calcu-lus students on problemsinvolving graphical repre-sentations of motion or thatrequire the interpretationof velocity-vs.-time graphs,among other calculus skills.

“People often think oftechnology as doing oldthings better,” says Kaput,

a math professor at the University of Massachusetts,Dartmouth. “But we are doing something previouslynot thought possible.”

Even simple technology, such as word processorsto help in writing instruction, has proved its worthin the classroom. But again, the circumstances mustbe right.

“Where technology is used wisely and where theteachers are given the right kinds of support andtraining and the right kind of equipment, then [they]are able to actually implement some of the best the-ory and practice regarding the teaching of writing,”says Stephen Marcus, a co-director of the SouthCoast Writing Project and a researcher at the Uni-versity of California-Santa Barbara. “Students aremore willing to do more editing, to spend more timereviewing their text and improving it.

“But to provide a computer and think that stu-dents’ writing will somehow magically improve—that’s just wishful thinking,” Marcus adds.

Computers and word processors that are poorlyintegrated into the curriculum might even distractstudents from learning, says Barbara Means, a re-searcher with SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif.

“I’ve seen kids spending a whole period illustratinga color cover of a report, pixel by pixel, when theyhaven’t even done the report yet,” she says.

Teachers also have to be careful not to let the funquotient overtake serious learning. A 1996 NationalAssessment of Educational Progress survey foundthat the most frequent use that 4th graders make ofcomputers is to play games. For 8th graders, playinggames is the second most common use, behind writingpapers. The survey does not specify whether these ac-tivities took place at home or at school, however.

The recent advent of the Internet presents a wholenew range of issues for educators. Some educatorshave compared the Internet to a giant library in




Every student has access to a computer in this “smart classroom” at Blackstock Middle School in Port Hueneme, Calif. Thetechnology has made students more motivated and willing to collaborate, but no one can say whether they’re learning more.

Mel

Mel

con



“There hasn’t been enough time to accumulate a huge amount of evidence [on technology’s

effectiveness]. The literature is positive. There’s just less of it.”

Christopher Dede, Senior Program Director, National Science Foundation

Falls Church, Va.

School has gotten a lot easier for KatherineMontgomery, a 16-year-old junior with cerebralpalsy.

The change came about last year thanks to amachine called a DragonDictate, which isproduced by Dragon Systems of Newton, Mass.

For Katherine, writing in longhand—and eventyping on a computer—is a slow, tortuousprocess. But, with the DragonDictate, she cansimply dictate her words directly into acomputer and print them out.

She speaks into a microphone mounted on abaseball cap, and the words appear on hercomputer screen. The process is notinstantaneous. Sometimes, the computermishears a word, and Katherine must select thecorrect word from a list of similar-soundingchoices. But the device has nonetheless cut herhomework time dramatically.

“Now, I can turn stuff in on time,” she says.The DragonDictate, which Katherine shares

with four other students here at Falls ChurchHigh School, is just one example of howtechnology has revolutionized schooling forchildren with disabilities. While mainstreameducators continue to debate the merits of buyingexpensive educational technology for schools,special educators engage in no such argument.

Technology has literally helped openschoolhouse doors for disabled students and givenimpetus to the “full inclusion” movement, whichcalls for teaching disabled students in regularclassrooms whenever possible.

With her DragonDictate, Katherine can keepup with her nondisabled classmates. Braillecomputers and software programs that produceenlarged type do the same for visually impairedstudents.

Instructional technology can also be a boon forstudents with learning problems, says MichaelBehrmann, the director of the Center for HumanDisability at George Mason University.

Researchers at Vanderbilt University inNashville, for example, have developed a CD-ROM-based program for teaching reading skillsthat has produced results for both disabled and

nondisabled students with low literacy skills.With the program, known as the Peabody

Literacy Program, students watch a video andthen read about it. They are guided along theway by what program developers call an“almost-intelligent” tutor. The computer, in otherwords, takes into account students’ answers andtheir response time as it “decides” which activityto give them next.

The researchers have tested the program with5th through 9th graders in Orange County, Fla.In most cases, they found, students had doubledthe reading gains they would normally make attheir grade levels.

The field of assistive technology experienced aboom in the mid-1980s after Congress revisedfederal special education law.

Advances in computer technology that led todevices that were more powerful, more portable,and sometimes cheaper also fueled the growth.DragonDictate, for example, has been around forat least a decade, according to William Reeder,the coordinator of integrated technology servicesin Fairfax County, where Katherine’s school islocated.

But, early on, the equipment was complicatedand clumsy to use. With more recent versions,however, students can be trained to use thesystem in about an hour.

Moreover, the price has dropped from about$10,000 in the 1980s to $3,500, Reede says.

The biggest problem, Behrmann says, isfinding teachers who are skilled at using thewide range of devices now available.

“If you’ve been in the field 10 years, and youhaven’t gone out for additional training, you mayhave missed this completely,” he says.

—DEBRA VIADERO

Special AssistanceTechnology Is Revolutionizing

Instruction for Disabled Students

Software converts Katherine Montgomery’sspoken words into typewritten characters.

Ben

jam

in T

ice

Sm

ith

11th Graders Boot UpPercentage of students using computers at school, by frequency of use.

Never Less than once a week Once a week 2-3 times a week Every day

Student Computer Use

SOURCE: The Condition of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1997.

Per

cent

age

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

55

2621

31

68 6

12 12

23

1984 1994


which all the books have fallen down. The challengefor teachers is figuring out how to sift out the infor-mation that is educationally worthwhile.

“There’s so much junk on the Net and ‘blue’ stuffthat children want to see that it’s going to become areal issue,” Robert Bracewell, an associate professor ofeducational psychology at McGill University in Mon-treal, Canada, predicts.

Some schools are responding by supervising stu-dents closely and asking students to sign writtenpledges promising not to use the Internet inappropri-ately. Others are installing electronic filters to screenout pornographic content.

But Richard Benz, a high school biology teacher inWickliffe, Ohio, worries that the new buffers maycensor out the good with the bad. “If I have studentsdoing research on breast cancer, will that be knockedout because of the word ‘breast?’ ” he asks.

Veteran Internet educators say that helping stu-dents weed out the bad information can become a les-son on critical thinking.

These kinds of uncertainties surrounding classroomcomputer use only amplify the calls of policymakersfor hard data on whether the nation’s investments ineducational technology are paying off. But some edu-cators wonder whether traditional tests can reallymeasure what their students get out of the equipment.

Stephen Carr, Blackstock’s technology coordinator,recalls the difficulty he had as a history teacher at theschool before he began incorporating technology intohis lessons.

“I love history, and I saw that regardless of how en-thusiastic and animated I tried to be, I had a toughtime engaging 8th grade kids whose hormones arepopping all over the place,” Carr says. “But when Iused technology to let them discover information ontheir own, I’d see kids on task.

“It made me realize the measurement that I wasusing or the state was using or the district was usingis perhaps not indicative of what they were really get-ting from [technology],” Carr says.

Besides, asks Gary Peterson, a California-based ed-ucational technology consultant, “How would you as-sess a multimedia project that is being collaborativelyput together by four kids and presented?”

Probably not with a standardized test, he says.Even performance assessments intended for stu-

dents to show what they can do with what they knowmay be missing something if they don’t use technol-ogy, says Walt Haney, a researcher at Boston College.

In one study, Haney administered a writing task totwo groups of middle school students. One groupwrote in longhand, while the other typed their essayson computers. All of the essays were then typed andevaluated by independent raters using the samegrading criteria. The raters judged the writing sam-ples that were written on computer to be better.

But most performance assessments, according toHaney, ask for handwritten responses from students.He wonders whether they are accurately rating stu-dents’ full capabilities.

Haney has asked students for years to draw pic-tures of their schools and classrooms. Where studentsonce drew a teacher lecturing in front of rows ofdesks, many are now incorporating computers intotheir drawings. In one, a student works at a computerwhile his teacher stands behind him. Out of theteacher’s crayoned mouth comes a cartoon bubblewith the words, “Good job!”

The drawing evokes more than the advent of tech-nology in schools. It suggests how computers canchange the relationship between students and theirteachers.

That changing relationship is one of a number of






“There’s a real misconception that you find a piece of software, you put it on, and you let kids

play on it. But teachers have to come up with a pedagogy or a strategy to make it work.’’

Stephen Carr, School Technology Coordinator, Blackstock Middle School, Port Hueneme, Calif.

Classrooms that use technology wisely andintegrate it into the curricula are hard to come by.

Henry Jay Becker, an education professor atthe University of California, Irvine, estimatesthat only 5 percent of computer-using teachersare what he calls “exemplary computer-usingteachers.” By his definition, these teachers usecomputers as a tool to solve problems or to createa product rather than as a reward for completingother work or for skill mastery. They also use thetechnology to accomplish significant tasks, suchas major reports, and for a variety of purposesranging from simulations to spreadsheets.

Such classrooms are rare because integratingtechnology into schooling is no small task.

“Everything we thought we would do took threetimes the amount of time we thought it wouldtake,” says Gerry Montgomery, the director oftechnology for the Monterey Peninsula UnifiedSchool District in California. Schools there aretwo-thirds of the way through an ambitioustechnology education plan. And Montgomeryestimates that it will take a bond issue tocomplete the work, which calls for wiring everyclassroom to the Internet, among otherimprovements.

In Port Hueneme, Calif., Blackstock MiddleSchool’s decade-long effort to incorporate

technology has been similarly long and arduous.The process began with a $2.5 million, five-year

grant from the state to create a model technologyschool. With that money and, later, funds from thefederal Title I program for disadvantagedchildren, the school has paid to give a fewteachers at a time a year or more leave fromregular classroom duties to figure out howtechnology fits in with their lessons and withstate guidelines for teaching their subject matter.

Teachers even worked hand in hand withbuilders and architects to design their own“smart” classrooms.

Much of that time was also spent testing andmodifying new technology-based lessons withsmall groups of students.

“There’s a real misconception that you find apiece of software, you put it on, and you let kidsplay on it,” says Stephen Carr, the school’stechnology coordinator. “But teachers have tocome up with a pedagogy or a strategy to make itwork. It may not come with an assessment. Youhave to tweak the software and create ancillarymaterials.”

Carr’s job was created after equipmentbreakdowns threatened to discourage hiscolleagues from using the technology they had.

“It got to a point where teachers expected thetechnology to work, and if the technology wasdown, you’d better have somebody get it to workreal quick or they were scrapping the technology,”he says.

Eventually, Carr and a core group of other

teachers became skilled enough to train theirless technologically savvy colleagues. Now, onstaff in-service days, teachers can circulateamong a number of classrooms whereBlackstock’s teachers offer lessons oneverything from navigating the Internet toproducing computer spreadsheets. The specifictopics are determined through surveys of theschool’s teaching staff.

Carr also gets help five afternoons a week fromtwo high school seniors who are graduates ofBlackstock.

John Cradler, an educational technologyconsultant for Educational Support Systems inSan Mateo, Calif., studied 12 California schoolsthat had won hefty technology grants from thestate, as Blackstock did. He found that the schoolsthat sustained their investments and continuedto use technology well had some features incommon. They included:• A principal and district administrator

committed to the project.• A belief on the part of educators that

technology is a way to extend the curriculum andto support education reforms—and someknowledge of how to do it.• The involvement of teachers in schoolwide

instructional decisions.• Adequate allocation of time and money for

staff development—on site—and for follow-upsupport.• A history of openness to educational

innovations.• A link between technology and district or state

curricular standards—and rewritten frameworksto reflect technology’s role. —DEBRA VIADERO

Putting It All TogetherIntegrating Technology Into the

Classroom Takes Time, Planning

Schools on the NetPublic schools with access to the Internet, by location of connection.

1994 1995 1996

SOURCE: Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996,U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1997.

Per

cent

age

80

60

40

20

0

35

3

50

8

65

14

Computers Across the CurriculumPercentage of students with teachers reporting the use of computers in teaching three subjects.

Reading U.S. history/Socialstudies

Geography

Per

cent

age

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

SOURCE: NAEP Reading, History, Geography Assessment Electronic Data Almanacs,TeacherQuestionnaire, National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1994.

43

17

38

32

42

34

Grade 4 Grade 8

Schools Classrooms

ADVERTISEMENT

side benefits to computer use that have turned up instudies. The existence of these added benefits, tech-nology proponents say, may be further proof that tra-ditional testing methods are not capturing the full ex-tent of the advantages that computer use may bringto the learning process.

In 1985, Apple Computer Inc. provided dozens ofschools with a range of technologies, including com-puters, videodisc players, video cameras, scanners, andCD-ROM drives, and then set out to study the effects.

In a summary of that 10-year effort, researchersconcluded that students in the technology-rich class-rooms performed no better than students in tradi-tional classrooms on standardized achievement tests,but that the classes were reaping other kinds of bene-fits. Students were writing more and finishing unitsof study more quickly. They were becoming indepen-dent learners and self-starters, working cooperatively,expressing positive attitudes toward the future, shar-ing their expertise spontaneously, and representinginformation in a variety of forms.

And teachers began to act like the teacher inHaney’s crayoned drawing—more like coaches andless like lecturers.

“It’s like being a conductor. Sometimes a conductorteaches a particular piece and sometimes he just or-chestrates,” Robin Freeman, Blackstock’s principal,says.

Janet Ward Schofield, a psychology professor andsenior scientist with the University of Pittsburgh’sLearning Research and Development Center, says thecomputer almost requires teachers to shed lecture-style teaching.

“The changes that occur in schools as a result ofcomputers are as much a function of the changes thatcomputer use creates in teachers as they are a func-tion of the actual computers themselves,” addsSchofield, who spent three years observing one urbanhigh school’s conversion to the information age.

What happened, in part, was that teachers in class-rooms with large numbers of computers began circu-lating around the room out of necessity. The teachersalso began to give up some of their authority as it be-came evident that some students knew more than theydid about the newfangled machines in their midst.

As a result, the student experts began helping theirpeers more often. It became natural to lean over to aclassmate and say, “How do you do this?”

A few teachers, however, found those dynamicsthreatening.

“As one teacher put it to me, there’s a very high foolquotient,” Schofield says. “Some teachers recognizethe fool quotient and were comfortable with it. Therewere many who were not.”

The classrooms of the latter group continued to op-erate much like traditional classrooms, Schofield says.

The increase in student collaboration that takesplace in some technology-rich classrooms has caughtsome educators and observers by surprise.

“Everyone thinks it makes students antisocial,”says Diane Oshiro, the assistant superintendent oftelecommunications for the Hawaii Department ofEducation. “Yes, it will make them antisocial if you’redoing drill and skill, but if you’re using the technologyto solve problems, it almost forces that interaction be-tween students and teachers.”

In her state, schools are experimenting with “vir-tual” classes, offering a select number of Internetcourses to schools scattered throughout the Hawaiianislands. Educators found, however, that they had tohave an adult on site to guide students through theircourses and to keep students from dropping out.

“What we found was that students just neededsomeone to talk to,” Oshiro says.

Research also points to a change in technology-using students that has long been obvious to





teachers: Motivation soars.Study after study suggests that attendance rates

have gone up in classrooms where students are usingtechnology for interactive kinds of learning activities.(With basic-skills programs, however, the noveltymay wear off after a while.)

One possible reason is that students tend to per-ceive technology as being less judgmental than theirteachers. Students also get excited about creatingproducts that look every bit as polished as thingsthey see in the adult world, experts say.

“You can produce a book with handwriting, butthat’s not a book. You can call it that, but studentsknow that it’s not a book in the way adults usebooks,” McGill’s Bracewell says.

“There’s also a sense in which technology is valuedin our culture, and they perceive that, too,” Means ofSRI says. “They associate it with high prestige jobs,power, and money.”

While zeal for computers is commonly associatedwith boys, girls can embrace technology just aswholeheartedly, researchers say. Most of the evidencein this area is anecdotal, however.

“There’s nothing in technology that says girls won’tget involved, it’s the content we impose on it,” saysMargaret Honey, the deputy director of the EducationDevelopment Center’s Center for Children and Tech-nology in New York.

While girls may not warm to video games that arerife with super heroes and violence, they do respondto computer programs in which students determinethe content—desktop publishing programs, for exam-ple, electronic pen pals, and certain kinds of Internet“moos.” The latter is short for “multi-user object ori-ented” environments, which allow more than one per-son to log on at the same time as ‘‘characters’’ and in-teract with one another.

But the social milieu surrounding the machinescan be a deterrent for girls. School computer labs, forexample, can turn into “clubs for white boys,”Schofield says.

At the high school she observed, “boys would comeand play games together and horse around. Girlswould come in and people might not even say hello tothem,” Schofield recalls. In the computer program-ming class at the school, only two of the 15 studentswere female.

“There were real problems the girls faced in find-ing a social place for themselves,” she says.

Another benefit of technology, teachers say, is itsability to break down the four walls of the classroom.Through the Internet, students can access informa-tion and interact with people thousands of miles away.

“Once you get connected to the world, it brings theworld’s issues to the classroom,” says Honey Kern, anEnglish teacher at Cold Spring Harbor High Schoolin New York.

Kern is an adviser for students participating in anInternet-based project on the Holocaust run by theInternational Education and Resource Network. Theproject enabled Cold Spring Harbor students to com-municate with three Holocaust survivors.

“We sent them questions and they answered us di-rectly on-line,” says Benjamin Goldner, a senior. “Thisis not something I could have done without a com-puter. It was simply horrifying and yet amazing tohear firsthand accounts from the lips of survivors.”

The Internet also allows students to conduct re-

search in partnership with scientists. The CornellLaboratory of Ornithology’s FeederWatch program,for example, enlists students nationwide to monitorthe comings and goings of birds at their local birdfeeder. The scientists then use the data, which thisyear they will receive electronically from students ina pilot program, to produce reports on the migrationpatterns and population declines of winter birds.

And educators in Monterey, Calif., are working withmarine scientists on a project called “Virtual Canyon”that will enable students to hypothetically plumb thedepths of a deep-water canyon in the Monterey Bay.

The program, a hybrid of CD-ROM and Internettechnology, uses a real-life marine research vesselas a metaphor to help students tap into a rich data-base of information collected by the Monterey BayAquarium Research Institute on the bay and its in-habitants.

From the ship’s “moon bay,” for example, studentscan take “dives” into the ocean. Some dives featureactual video footage taken at depths of thousands offeet by the institute’s remotely operated vehicles. Stu-dents can click on a creature they see in the videoand learn its scientific name, or they can gather in-formation on salinity, water pressure, and light atvarious depths of the canyon.

Elsewhere on the ship, the captain, the first mate,and institute scientists can “talk” to students abouttheir jobs and the bay.

“The whole purpose behind this piece is for kids torandomly explore and investigate,” says Kam Matray,the principal investigator for the project, which theMonterey district is spearheading.

Once students have a testable hypothesis, theyenter the program’s research section, where they canpose questions, take notes on a notebook, and posttheir reports on the Internet.

It’s the kind of experience, Matray says, that moststudents get only on an occasional—maybe even aonce-in-a-lifetime—field trip. “Teachers, by them-selves, just can’t break down those classroom walls,”she says. ■

“I’ve seen kids spending a whole period illustrating a color cover of a report, pixel by pixel,

when they haven’t even done the report yet.’’

Barbara Means, Researcher, SRI International




Computer Use in 8th Grade Mathematics

Students’ Reports of Computer Use Teachers’ Primary Use for Instruction

SOURCE: 1996 Mathematics Assessment, National Assessment of Educational Progress, National Center for Education Statistics.

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding.

Once or twice

a month16%

Once or twice

a week15%

Almost every day

12%

Never/Hardlyever57%

Playing math-learninggames

13%

Drill andpractice

18%

Demonstration ofnew topics in math

5%

Simulations andapplications

13%

Do not usecomputers

52%

Library Media CentersPercentage of public school libraries offering varioustechnologies in the 1993-94 school year.

SOURCE: The Condition of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 1997.

Cable TV

Telephone

Computer with modem

CD-ROM

Video/Laserdisc

Satellite dish

Fax

Internet connection

Percentage

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

76

61

34

32

31

23

12

8

Sources and notes:

All the data for this table weredrawn from research conductedby the firm Market Data Retrieval.

Students per multimediacomputer: A multimediacomputer has a sound card and aCD-ROM drive, components thatenable it to make use of cutting-edge educational software.

Percentage of schools withvideodisc players: A videodiscis an optical disc that containsrecorded still images, full-motionvideo, and sounds in a hypertextenvironment.

Percentage of schools withLAN: A LAN, or local-areanetwork, allows a group ofcomputers in close proximity toshare resources such as printers,storage, and access to softwarefrom a server.

Percentage of schools withWAN: A WAN, or wide-areanetwork, is a computer network inwhich widely dispersedcomputers, such as those locatedin several buildings across a city,are connected.

Students per CD-ROM: A CD-ROM, or Compact Disc-Read OnlyMemory, is an optical-basedstorage system that permits data(such as music or literaturesamples) to be randomly accessedfrom a disc, stored, copied, orincorporated into a studentproject.

Percentage of schools withInternet access: This figureincludes schools with at least onepoint of Internet access. It doesn’tindicate whether the Internet canbe accessed in the school’sclassrooms.

How Market Data Retrieval’ssurvey was conducted:

From October 1996 to June1997, all 85,000 public schools inthe United States received theMDR 1997 Technology Survey byeither mail or phone. The surveywas directed to the school-leveltechnology coordinator by nameor title.

The first wave of surveying wasconducted via a mailing to 55,000schools in October 1996. Theremaining balance of 30,000schools received the survey viaphone calls made from January toJune 1997.

Of the 55,000 schools thatreceived the initial mailing, morethan 26,000 non-respondentschools received a second mailingin January 1997 and 20,000 non-respondent schools received thesurvey via the phone. The schoolsthat did not respond to the secondmailing also received follow-upphone calls. In total, more than70,000 phone calls were made.

When the surveying wascompleted in June 1997, roughly14,000 schools had responded tothe mail survey and 41,000schools had responded to thephone survey.



Technology and Instruction

Students permultimediacomputer

% of schoolswith

videodiscplayers

% of schoolswith cable

TV

% of schoolswith satellite

access

% of schoolswith LAN

% of schoolswith WAN

Students perCD-ROM

% of schoolswith Internet

access

IndicatorsState

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

National Average

29

16

28

27

27

20

22

14

17

18

25

17

20

19

16

11

23

36

23

23

23

20

19

28

18

19

13

28

29

18

23

25

26

19

19

23

23

21

29

25

21

22

20

27

25

24

23

28

19

13

2211

39

50

58

42

62

54

44

53

92

62

73

42

44

66

55

51

54

40

30

57

41

47

56

30

59

29

54

39

46

52

47

48

77

38

44

34

49

47

36

58

36

71

69

74

33

71

66

65

54

61

5555

74

52

59

81

64

76

81

69

85

87

89

67

67

72

86

76

85

75

64

81

79

77

83

71

74

59

84

52

78

73

64

72

82

71

82

69

72

76

81

73

75

78

65

67

62

82

77

88

84

77

7744

30

55

38

44

16

25

11

16

38

92

12

30

15

26

17

18

80

29

15

10

23

20

17

37

56

51

32

27

14

14

38

7

20

31

18

32

25

21

20

62

29

24

37

29

20

30

23

31

19

38

2288

58

64

69

72

58

76

63

67

79

80

85

71

58

71

63

69

72

55

61

73

55

58

75

55

66

42

74

66

50

58

69

64

73

58

58

59

67

59

52

80

44

73

67

80

60

75

75

80

69

70

6655

15

44

28

48

31

36

13

71

55

22

65

33

25

19

27

21

45

22

33

34

21

22

40

17

38

18

36

35

10

13

28

19

30

35

31

18

43

19

29

28

13

56

32

60

36

41

45

31

21

29

3300

30

15

29

31

27

20

22

19

16

18

24

18

20

17

15

14

24

35

21

23

22

19

17

30

20

17

15

24

33

18

22

24

24

17

20

22

21

20

28

24

19

20

20

29

25

23

22

26

19

12

2211

55

68

57

75

65

80

88

83

79

73

91

74

65

69

78

71

68

56

81

78

75

66

86

44

74

67

84

53

73

69

57

72

80

75

62

50

79

59

80

67

52

89

64

74

92

79

80

71

77

76

7700



Over the past two years,Duncan Hollinger has gonefrom having no computers inhis classroom to having four.He’s also gained Internet ac-cess and acquired a printer.

But he’s still teachingpretty much the same way he always has.

“If you have 30 students and four stations, all of asudden you have to do a lot of redesigning of how topresent the material,” says Hollinger, a musicteacher at LaSalle Middle School in Niagara Falls,N.Y. “You have to change your style of teaching toaccommodate or individualize.”

So far, Hollinger says, no one has showed himhow. Although the district taught him how to usevarious computer programs—and even providedhim a laptop to practice with—little of that trainingaddressed ways of weaving technology into daily in-struction. And he doesn’t have the planning time torevamp his lesson plans.

Experiences such as Hollinger’s are all too familiar,national education experts say. They warn that a lackof adequate teacher training—or of any teacher train-ing at all—could mean that much of the money beingspent on hardware and software is going to waste.

“Often, states will spend millions on equipment,and may only spend a fraction—2 or 3 percent—ontraining,” says Glen Bull, an education professor atthe Curry School of Education at the University ofVirginia. “If you’re not training, you’re throwingmoney away.”

There is little nationwide data on what percent-age of teachers have received technology training,and even less on what form that training has taken.But a 1994 survey by the U.S. Department of Edu-cation shows that only 15 percent of the nation’steachers had had at least nine hours of instructionin educational technology.

In part, the dearth of time devoted to training isa result of the lack of funding earmarked for thatpurpose. If a school’s equipment is to be used well,experts generally agree, at least 30 percent of atechnology budget should be spent on professionaldevelopment. In fact, the average figure is just 15percent, according to a 1993 survey of districts bythe research firm Market Data Retrieval.

Bull says administrators and policymakers tendto think they’re getting more for their money if itgoes for something they can touch, and they can’ttouch training.

“Clearly, you can show hardware and software tothe community,” agrees Carol E. Edwards, the direc-tor of programs for the National Foundation for theImprovement of Education. Still, she thinks someother issues better explain the lack of funding forteacher training.

“There’s some notion that if one spends money on

teacher training, you’re taking it away from directspending on students,” she says.

In addition, Edwards says, many people believethat teachers ought to pay for their own training.“There’s something about that old factory modelthat says, ‘If you want to learn, you need to go outand do it on your own, and, if you’re lucky, you mightbecome a supervisor or manager.’ ”

Of course, just because a district pays for trainingdoesn’t mean it will be effective.

A poll of 582 teachers conducted this year by theGlobal Strategy Group for Jostens Learning Corp.found that 71 percent of the respondents said basiccomputer training was available. The proportiondropped to 48 percent when respondents were askedwhether they had access to training for integratingcomputers into classroom instruction.

“If I told you how many courses I’ve taken in com-puters, you would roll on the floor,” says BonnieBracey, an Arlington, Va., teacher who was ap-pointed by President Clinton to a federal panel oninformation technology from 1993 to 1995.

The problem is, those courses had “no connectionto what I teach,” she adds. “It took us a long time tofigure that out.”

Indeed, experts in instructional technology say, asthe Internet and educational software become alarger part of daily school life, teachers need to ad-just to no longer being the sole source of informationfor their students. In many cases, teachers might beless familiar with the technology than their students.

Teachers who use technology also must learn howto manage their classrooms differently. They need tobecome more comfortable with different studentsdoing different activities at the same time, and theyhave to make sure all of their students—not justthose who feel confident with technology—have achance to use it.

“We’re taking teachers and trying to transformthem into something very different than what theysigned up for,” says Michael R. Haney, a program di-rector for funding teacher training projects at theNational Science Foundation.

Haney offers himself as an example, saying hewent into teaching years ago because he liked givinga lecture and having a stage presence. “There wasnothing about my training that taught me how tohave kids go in eight different directions,” he says.

Technology training would be more effective ifteachers themselves were involved in planning it,but they usually have no more than a token role,says Larry Cuban, a professor of education at Stan-ford University.

“The way that training is being framed,” he says,“is that teachers need to be trained in order for com-puters to be used in classrooms, and if teachersaren’t using computers, then it’s the teachers’ fault.”

Administrators and policymakers are often wor-ried most about getting the equipment into theschools as soon as possible, Cuban says, while teach-

TEACHERSByMary Ann Zehr

Teaching the

Money spent on school

technology could go to

waste if teachers don’t know

how to use it and integrate

it into the curriculum.

But, more often than not,

adequate training is

hard to come by.

ers have practical questions, such as how the tech-nology should be incorporated into the curriculum.

“Whose questions are going to be heard—the ad-ministrators’ or the teachers’?” he asks rhetorically.

Larry Martinez, the administrator for school tech-nology and information services for the NiagaraFalls district, where Hollinger works, isn’t blind tocharges that teacher training hasn’t includedenough practical applications for the classroom.

But he responds that it’s been hard to get teachersto share information about what they teach so hecan make the training more relevant. And, he says,some teachers expect technology to do too much.

“Teachers seem to want a perfect package—a per-fect 7th-grade software program for blond-haired,blue-eyed students—and it’s not going to happen,”Martinez says.

The need for training is particularly strong amongveteran teachers who earned their certificates yearsbefore the personal computer entered the market.

In the 1993-94 school year, the most recent yearfor which data are available, 24 percent of elemen-tary public school teachers and 26 percent of sec-ondary teachers were 50 or over, according to theNational Center for Education Statistics. Nearly athird of the teaching force had been teaching formore than 20 years.

But even many young teachers who are familiarwith technology don’t know how to use it in a class-room.

“I couldn’t even tell you some computer programsthat would help a child with reading or with math,”says 23-year-old Kathy Nestor, a special educationteacher at Hood School in Lynn, Mass. She expectsto receive a new Apple computer with a CD-ROM thisyear for her class and says she’ll “definitely needtraining.”

Nestor didn’t have any technology training atBridgewater State University in Massachusetts,

from which she received degrees in English and spe-cial education in May 1996. She recalls that onlyonce—in a course about testing—did a professor tellstudents about the use of technology in education.

Norma Horan, a principal for St. Timothy’s Schoolin Columbus, Ohio, interviewed 30 people for fiveteaching positions at her school this year. The candi-dates were mostly young recent graduates fromstate universities.

During interviews, she says, “I ask them to ratetheir level of computer knowledge. Most respond ei-ther ‘non-user’ or ‘beginner.’ Very rarely do I getsomeone who says ‘very comfortable.’ ”

Kathleen Fulton, the associate director of the Uni-versity of Maryland’s Center for Learning and Edu-cational Technology, says colleges of education havebeen slow to integrate technology into their own cur-ricula, in part, because many faculty members aretoo removed from K-12 classrooms.

“Most of the innovation in technology is at the K-12level, not in higher education,” says Fulton, who wasa senior analyst and project director for the now-de-funct congressional Office of Technology Assessment.

A May 1996 survey of schools of education showsthat only 45 percent of faculty regularly used com-puters, televisions, and VCRs as interactive instruc-tional tools during class periods; 53 percent occasion-ally used some electronic technology to presentinformation in class. Fifty-eight percent of schools ofeducation didn’t have any classrooms wired for theInternet; 19 percent had no World Wide Web site. Thesurvey was conducted by the American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education and the NationalCouncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education oftheir 744 member institutions.

NCATE hopes to increase those figures by requiringschools to meet technology standards for accredita-tion after the year 2000. “We want to see technologymove from the periphery to the center of teacher ed-ucation,” says Arthur E. Wise, the president of NCATE,which accredits about 40 percent of the nation’s

schools of education.A report released in Sep-

tember by an NCATE taskforce offers recommenda-tions for what the newtechnology standardsshould entail. It says, forinstance, that colleges ofeducation must be requiredto show how the role oftechnology is part of theirmain plan for teacherpreparation.

“We are seeing this re-port as a way to send a sig-nal well in advance,” Wisesays.

One school that ranksamong the current leadersin technology training isthe University of Washing-ton. The university re-quires all its educationmajors to take a course inbasic computer skills ortest out of it. Faculty mem-bers are encouraged to pre-sent educational technol-ogy examples in everycourse, and the school triesto match students for ob-servation or student teach-ing with teachers in thecommunity who use tech-nology well.

Allen Glenn, the dean ofthe university’s college ofeducation, says it’s morecomplex than most peoplethink to merge technology

skills with teaching and learning.“The fact is that not a lot of people know how to

use technology as effective instruction,” he says.Glen Bull says it’s taken the faculty at the Uni-

versity of Virginia’s Curry School of Education a longtime to figure out how to integrate technology intothe curriculum without it seeming contrived. In fact,a committee has met twice a month since 1977 toidentify how best to integrate technology into theteacher education curriculum.

Nearly all members of the education faculty makeuse of technology in their courses, Bull says. All edu-cation majors there are required to take a coursethat introduces them to the broad range of technolo-gies they might use for instruction.

Colleges of education in North Carolina and Cali-fornia, meanwhile, will soon be required to empha-size technology.

Beginning in the spring of 1999, all teacher candi-dates coming from North Carolina schools of educa-tion will have to pass a state test in computer com-petency. In addition, all veteran teachers renewingtheir license will be required to earn three to fivecredits in technology.

“We’re always doing staff development if the peo-ple coming out of the universities aren’t trained,”says Elsie L. Brumback, the director of instructionaltechnology for the North Carolina Department ofPublic Instruction.

In California, legislators recently passed a law re-quiring that, after Jan. 1, 2000, a teaching credentialwill be contingent on “demonstration of basic compe-tency in the use of computers in the classroom.” Toreceive a permanent credential, which teachers areeligible for after five years, they will have to studyadvanced computer-based technology.

Research shows that training is most successfulwhen it offers hands-on learning, opportunities to ex-




Duncan Hollinger, a teacher in Niagara Falls, N.Y., has Internet access and four computers in his classroom but little trainingon how to teach with them. “All of a sudden you have to do a lot of redesigning of how to present the material,” he says.

Jaso

n A

aron

Sch

war

tz


periment, and easy access to equipment and peoplewho can explain how to use technology well in theclassroom, according to “Teachers & Technology:Making the Connection,” a key 1995 report by theOffice of Technology Assessment.

Once teachers are certified, they’re lucky if they canfind the time for any training at all, some experts say.

According to a 1996 survey of public school teach-ers by the National Education Association, sec-ondary teachers have an average of five class peri-ods a week for preparation; 10.6 percent ofsecondary teachers have no designated preparationtime. Elementary teachers average less than threehours a week of preparation time; 8.2 percent haveno preparation time.

“Professional development is the biggest bottleneckto the implementation of new technology in schools,and the reason is that teachers are so busy,” saysJohn D. Bransford, a professor of psychology at Van-derbilt University and a co-director of the LearningTechnology Center at Vanderbilt’s Peabody College.

As part of a team that included a publishing com-pany, Bransford helped create a reading series, calledLittle Planet, that uses videodiscs and computer soft-ware. His experiences with that project showed himthe importance of providing time for training.

The team worked closely last school year with nineteachers who used Little Planet in their classrooms.Vanderbilt researchers met with the teachers for anentire day twice a month and also visited their class-rooms regularly. A research grant covered the cost ofsubstitutes at the teachers’ schools.

Given such support, three teachers interviewed re-cently said they felt they were successful in integrat-ing the program into their curriculum, and theyraved about the student response.

On the other hand, a few teachers who weren’tpart of the pilot group, and were trained on how touse the series only during a one-day session over thesummer of 1996, were less enthusiastic.

Little Planet Publishing had provided the materi-als and training for free to 30 Nashville teachers. Butsix weeks after the one-day session, the companycalled the participants and found that “a disturbingnumber of people hadn’t even opened the box,” saysPaul Sloan, the chairman of the company.

Over the course of the school year, Sloan had hisstaff visit the teachers’ classrooms and help themteach the series or fix technical problems with theircomputers. By the end of the year, 20 of the teacherswere using the series extensively, though five teach-ers still had not used it at all.

Districts providing their own professional develop-ment have experimented with various ways to goabout it.

At Barnwell Elementary School in Alpharetta,Ga., technology specialist Diane Stephenson offersteachers an optional training session every week foran hour after school. She usually reviews one piece ofsoftware and gives teachers the chance to brainstormhow they might use it in their classes. “After teach-ing all day, it’s about all they can take,” she says.

Dare County schools in North Carolina have amore top-down approach. Four years ago, Superin-tendent Leon Holleman informed teachers and prin-cipals that they would have to reach a basic level ofcomputer competency within the next year if theywanted to keep their jobs. A basic level includedknowing how to use the Windows operating system,do word processing, and create and use spreadsheetsand databases. Training was provided by knowledge-able teachers during in-service days.

“People were really upset. They would cry and begnot to do it,” says Landra Cartwright, the technologycoordinator for the district, who designed the plan.But everyone met the requirements, even one teacherwho had to take the classes four times, Cartwrightsays. Afterward, the teachers were given laptop com-puters that they could use in school or at home.



During the 1994-95 school year, the district beganrequiring teachers to take 20 additional hours oftechnology training each year if they wanted to qual-ify for merit pay. Most schools in the nation do notmake technology competency a formal part of per-formance evaluation.

The Grand Forks school district in North Dakotais using a different approach to training, also withgood results. Seven teachers have taken a two-yearpaid sabbatical from their teaching to be “technologypartners” for the district’s 13 elementary schools.Teachers can sign up to have one of the partners jointhem in class whenever they try something newwith technology.

“We are finding the opportunity to learn as you gois best,” says Beth Randklev, the principal of BenFranklin Elementary School in Grand Forks.

When teachers take training courses, they don’talways remember everything when they return totheir own computers, she says. “Often, what stopspeople is one little thing that they didn’t know howto do. If you have a whole room full of kids [whensomething goes wrong], it discourages you from try-ing it again.”

A technology partner helps the teachers’ triallessons go smoothly, Randklev says.

Schools usually require their curriculum coachesto be technicians as well, and this can sometimes re-sult in spreading their talents too thin.

At the Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School Districtin South Yarmouth, Mass., former library media spe-cialist Kathy Schrock is responsible for coaching andtraining teachers, providing technical support, andevaluating and ordering educational software foreight schools.

She’d like to spend most of her time coachingteachers on curriculum. “I hope things will change,”she says.

In other instances, schools ask teachers who arecomfortable with technology to help their peers oncurriculum issues while juggling their other respon-sibilities. Sometimes, the schools offer stipends or re-lease time to such teachers, but not always.

“I did two jobs last year,” says Dawn Caldarella, ateacher at West Lawn Elementary School in FallsChurch, Va.

Requests from other teachers for advice got out ofhand, she says, so her principal hired her this yearto serve as a technology resource teacher and to pro-vide technical support on a full-time basis. Theschool had to give up a teacher position to do so.

In addition to a lack of funding and planning time,another obstacle to training can be a reluctance onthe part of some teachers to embrace new technology.

“Some teachers are plain not interested and aren’tgoing to change no matter what,” says Diane

Stephenson, who decided not to force teachers to at-tend her technology training sessions after she ini-tially required it.

“I don’t think technology can be imposed on teach-ers,” agrees Libby Adams, a computer resourceteacher at Troost Communications Academy inKansas City, Mo.

She believes a couple of teachers in her buildingretired earlier than they planned because they sim-ply didn’t want to deal with computers—somethingthat became impossible to avoid when Troost con-verted to a magnet school in communications.

At the same time, at 59 years of age, Adams breaksthe stereotype that older teachers are less inclined touse technology. She taught herself how to use a com-puter eight years ago when a principal let her takeone home to practice on, and now she’s a full-timetechnology coach for teachers. “They say you can’tteach an old dog new tricks—well, you can,” she says.

Other teachers are reluctant to use technology be-cause they are ambivalent about its benefits.

“Our use of and emphasis on technology, espe-cially for children and adolescents, has simplytaught them to want everything faster,” says MaryaD. Fitzgerald, an English teacher at Robert E. LeeHigh School in Springfield, Va. While she uses a lap-top to record grades and has students use a com-puter for word processing when working on the



“I have become the de facto Internet expert and fix-it guy and the research guy. I relish that

role, but it’s very time-consuming. It’s hard to be an effective teacher and trouble-shooter.’’

George Cassutto, Teacher, North Hagerstown (Md.) High School

Library media specialists can be a big help toteachers who want to learn more abouttechnology, three experts who have experience inthe position say.

“They’re underused,” says Kathy Schrock, aformer library media specialist who was hiredlast February to oversee technology for theDennis-Yarmouth Regional School District inSouth Yarmouth, Mass. Schrock manages aWorld Wide Web site for educators that ispopular among teachers nationwide.

“What teachers don’t realize is that librarianshave been trained on how to search and how toevaluate” information, she says.

Most of the nation’s schools—93.7 percent—have a library media specialist, according to theAmerican Association of School Librarians. Thenation has 97,976 library media specialists.

Educational technology is often concentrated ina school’s library. Schools with only one Internetconnection frequently have it there, and manyschool library collections contain CD-ROMs andsoftware programs as well as books.

In Madison, Wis., the district librarians have puttogether an electronic library of Web sites,organized by subject. In addition, they are tryingto teach students and teachers better search

skills, which are more important now than whena library’s resources were all pre-selected.

“We’re very concerned about the time teachersand students waste on the Internet,” says MadgeKlais, a former school librarian who is now aprogram support teacher for the Madisondistrict’s 46 school libraries.

Library media specialists feel much the samepressure that teachers do to get up to speed oneducational technology.

A School Library Journal survey found that inthe 1993-94 school year, 75 percent ofrespondents said they’d had training oninstructional design/consulting with teacherswithin the previous two years; 71 percent hadreceived training in integration ofinformation/computer skills into curricularareas; and 40 percent had participated inInternet in-service training. Respondents saidthey had participated in other kinds oftechnology training as well, including CD-ROMtechnology and on-line searching.

Librarians also are usually the only people in aschool who have been trained in copyright law.Schrock says that when she gives talks aboutcopyright laws pertaining to electronicpublishing, some teachers turn their eyesdownward because they realize they’re notseeking proper permission to use informationfrom the Internet.

These areas of expertise should encouragemedia specialists to break down the walls that

divide libraries and classrooms, believes CarolSimpson, a former school librarian now in chargeof library technology in the MesquiteIndependent School District in Texas.

The library should be a resource center that isalways open to students, she says, and, in turn,librarians should venture into classrooms towork directly with teachers.

“Most educators still have the mindset of thelibrary when they were in school,” Simpson says.“The librarian is a clerk: check out, check inbooks. Their curriculum experience goes unused.

“We don’t want to have that little-old-lady-in-tennis-shoes image.’’ —MARY ANN ZEHR

An ‘Underused’ ResourceLibrary Media Specialists Are

Often Experts on Technology

“We’re very concerned about the timeteachers and students waste on theInternet,” says Madge Klais of Madison, Wis.


And

y M

anis

school literary magazine, she says she gets con-cerned when students tell her they don’t like to readbecause “it’s too slow.” She thinks students ought tobe taught how to do things “the slow way” first.

But on the whole, teachers value technology. In apoll conducted this year by Peter D. Hart ResearchAssociates Inc. for the Milken Exchange on Educa-tion Technology, teachers were asked to use a 10-point scale to rate the importance of student accessto computers, with 10 meaning “extremely impor-tant.” Ninety-two percent of the respondentsrecorded an 8 or higher when asked about highschool students’ access; 68 percent recorded an 8 orhigher when asked about elementary school stu-dents’ access.

For Sondra Burke, a 2nd grade teacher at Barn-well Elementary School, the turning point waslearning about high-quality educational software.

“We didn’t know what was out there,” Burke says.“Once you know what’s out there and how it canhelp the children, you jump at it. And once theyshow you how easy it is, you go for the gold.”

Teachers who are excited about integrating tech-nology into the curriculum say a supportive schoolculture is essential.

Kristi Rennebohm Franz, a 1st and 2nd gradeteacher at Sunnyside Elementary School in Pull-man, Wash., recalls how her principal and colleaguesbacked her when she decided she wanted to experi-ment with telecommunications projects. “They founda Mac LC for me. They found a modem and got meset up. The custodian helped me run wires from the

main office to my room so I could use the dedicatedline. The secretary let me know when I could use thededicated line.”

Her experiments have sparked enough interest intelecommunications that her whole school has par-ticipated in technology projects.

Henry Jay Becker, a researcher at the Universityof California, Irvine, cites four factors in the teach-ing environment that tend to encourage the use ofcomputers: collegiality among computer users; re-sources available for staff development and com-puter coordination; smaller class sizes; and schoolsupport for using computers for meaningful activi-ties, such as producing the school newspaper andyearbook.

Becker estimates that to create such an environ-ment would cost $1,375 per pupil per year.




Teachers Boot UpPercentage of teachers in all publicschools regularly using advancedtelecommunications for teaching,professional development, andcurriculum development.

SOURCE: Advanced Telecommunications inU.S. Public Elementary and SecondarySchools, Fall 1996, U.S. Department ofEducation, National Center for EducationStatistics, 1997.

Teaching

Curriculum development

Professional development

20

16

15

Percentage

0 10 20 30 40 50

TeacherTrainingWhat drives public school teachersto learn to use advancedtelecommunications?

SOURCE: AdvancedTelecommunications in U.S. PublicElementary and Secondary Schools,Fall 1996, U.S. Department ofEducation, National Center forEducation Statistics, 1997.

31%Incentives

51%Teacher-initiated

4%Other

13%Mandated

Note: Percentages do not total 100because of rounding.

Teacher licenserequires

technologytraining

Elementary Secondary

% of teacherswho had at least

9 hours oftechnology

training

Instructionalcomputers by

location

Classroom Laboratory

“It’s an ideal, but my assumption is that unlessyou do this you won’t have a full teaching force of ex-emplary computer-using teachers,’’ he says.

Some teachers are having to make the best ofschool cultures that provide little support.

Mary Jane Christopherson teaches students howto create and analyze digital images at ChatfieldHigh School in rural Minnesota even though shefeels her technology expertise isn’t appreciated bycolleagues or administrators.

“It has been a lonely battle and one I’ve thoughtabout giving up,” says Christopherson, who learnedhow to use image-processing software for teaching sci-ence through a weeklong course offered in Rochester,Minn., by the Arizona-based Center for Image Pro-cessing in Education. “It is high stress because thingsbreak. … You ask yourself, ‘why bother?’ ”

In the end, she says, she bothers for the sake ofher students.

George Cassutto, a 9th grade government teacherin Hagerstown, Md., knows the feeling. He’s the onlyteacher in the 1,200-student North Hagerstown HighSchool who teaches with the Internet. Last summer,he and one of his students received an award from asoftware-development company, EdView Inc., for aWorld Wide Web site on the civil rights movementcreated by one of his classes.

“I have become the de facto Internet expert andthe fix-it guy and the research guy. I relish thatrole, but it’s very time-consuming. It’s hard to be aneffective teacher and trouble-shooter,” says Cas-sutto, who asked his principal if he could have atechnology planning period for this school year; hedidn’t receive it.

Cassutto, a self-taught techie who hasn’t takenany staff development courses on technology, hasgradually changed his approach to teaching. Whilehe still gives lectures, he also has his students do col-laborative projects, even though it sometimes seem-ingly leaves him with nothing to do in the classroom.

At times, he says, he will pause to observe his stu-dents and marvel at how well they’re working to-gether. “You get goose bumps when that happens,” hesays. ■



Involving TeachersState

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Teachers on the WebSelected World Wide Web sites for teachers seekingadvice on how to use technology in instruction:

■ Kathy Schrock’s Guide for Educators provides anintroduction to the Internet for teachers. Seewww.capecod.net/schrockguide/index.htm.

■ Jill Tucker’s Lesson Plans provides lesson plans forusing the Internet that have been designed byteachers and organized by content area. Seewww.trms.ga.net.

■ Global SchoolNet Foundation helps teachers whowant to get their classes involved intelecommunications projects. It lists hundreds ofprojects that have been conducted or are under way.See www.gsn.org/indexhi.html.

■ Educast delivers personalized education news andWeb links to teachers according to a profile of theirinterests. It also lists information about grants and freeresources. See www.educast.com.

■ Multimedia Resources Free for the Taking is acompilation of pictures, videos, sounds, and otheruseful components that teachers can take from theInternet for multimedia projects. Seewww.itrc.ucf.edu/tel_ed/teled.htm.

■ The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse forMathematics and Science Education highlightsoutstanding Web resources for math and scienceteachers under its Digital Dozen list. Seewww.enc.org/classroom/index.htm.

■ TeachNet includes descriptions of more than 500classroom projects (not necessarily using technology)designed by teachers. See www.teachnet.org/.

12

21

13

10

15

20

15

10

20

18

23

15

10

13

15

15

28

11

14

15

15

10

15

11

10

18

15

15

14

11

10

15

22

17

8

8

15

10

11

11

21

18

18

20

18

14

28

17

16

20

1155

40

56

39

36

49

39

44

51

61

53

58

51

38

47

41

44

44

36

46

34

43

40

37

41

42

46

40

34

59

46

40

46

42

40

52

36

45

42

47

44

37

61

42

34

59

47

46

48

38

44

4455

49

37

52

53

44

50

46

38

31

38

35

40

51

44

49

44

46

55

43

54

47

49

51

50

47

45

51

55

30

45

51

46

47

52

39

55

43

50

46

44

54

31

51

57

31

40

43

45

51

46

4466

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

National Average

Sources and notes:

Teacher licenserequires technologytraining: States withan X requireprospective teachers toreceive training intechnology beforebeing licensed. Somestates require suchtraining for bothelementary andsecondary teachinglicenses; others requireit for one level or theother. These data aredrawn from theforthcoming “1997-1998 Manual onCertification andPreparation ofEducational Personnelin the United Statesand Canada,”published by theNational Association ofState Directors ofTeacher Education andCertification.

Teachers who hadat least 9 hours oftraining ineducationaltechnology in1994: The data aredrawn from the U.S.Department ofEducation’s “1993-94Schools and StaffingSurvey.’’

Instructionalcomputers bylocation (classroomand laboratory):Market Data Retrievalasked schools toindicate the percentageof their computerslocated in theclassroom, laboratory,library, or otherlocation. The dataprinted here reflectinformation about thetwo most popularlocations: theclassroom andlaboratory. (See note onMDR’s methodology,Page 20.)



As technology flows everfaster into the nation’sschools, many administra-tors say they’re feelingswamped by the challengesof putting it into place.

“We’re getting kids com-ing into our system—even at kindergarten—whoare pretty knowledgeable with computers,” saysAllen Rosenthal, the superintendent of the SunPrairie Area School District, near Madison, Wis.“There’s a real pressure on us to put technology atthe top of our agenda.”

It’s a pressure that most administrators wouldrather avoid, some members of the profession say.

While superintendents tend to support technol-ogy, according to polls, they turn wary once theydiscover how much it changes the traditionalschool culture, according to James Tice, the super-intendent of the Strafford, Mo., schools.

“We are bodies at rest that are wanting to stayat rest,” Tice says of his colleagues. “Administra-tively, we’ve got it perfected. We’ve got kids linedup in desks, we ring bells, and they change classes.”

But when superintendents see children sprawledon the floor around a computer working on a groupproject, or have to evaluate technology-using teach-ers, or even imagine telephones in every classroom,they don’t know how to act, Tice adds.

Technology presents a range of difficult manage-ment issues for administrators: What kind ofequipment should a district buy? How much train-ing should teachers receive? What’s the best way toprovide maintenance? How can a district integrateadministrative uses of technology with instruc-tional uses?

Plenty of information is available on these vex-ing subjects from school staff, the Internet, govern-ment and professional organizations, trade publi-cations, and vendors. But good advice is oftenburied under a mound of hype and jargon, andopinions abound about the best ways to proceed.

“In working with districts around the country overthe last five to 10 years, I have been struck by howvery uneven technology use can be,” says Walt Haney,an education professor who teaches a course titled“Expectations and Evidence for Educational Technol-ogy” at Boston College. “A district can be state of theart in its research unit but at ground zero regardinginstructional applications, or the reverse.”

Even high-tech districts differ from one another.“If you look at the leading-edge school districts,every one is doing things a little differently,” saysSteven P. Lanphear, the educational technology co-ordinator for the Verona, Wis., school district,which has given every student from grades 3 to 12an e-mail account.

Some administrators have been hesitant to com-mit to technology because they’ve seen how hard itis to avoid costly mistakes. Still fresh are instances

of officials who have overspent on communicationssystems that vastly exceeded their needs; who beton technologies that were “orphaned” by manufac-turers; who neglected to seek input from teachers;and who exhausted their budgets on equipment,leaving nothing for staff training.

Rosenthal describes technology as “one of themost frustrating challenges” of his nine years inSun Prairie. “We know what the need is, but meet-ing that need and juggling it with all the compet-ing priorities is tough.”

Experts say there is a link between administra-tors’ ability to make informed technology decisionsand their personal use of technology.

A superintendent who has a computer in his of-fice and uses it “is more willing to invest in [a tech-nology] plan and is more aware in general of hisstaff members’ needs,” says consultant Judy Stain-back, who assists Tice’s district.

Linda C. Wing, the coordinator of Harvard Univer-sity’s Urban Superintendents Program, agrees. “A lotof people experience changes in their lives using tech-nology, and then they know children can do it, too.”

Nearly three-fourths of school superintendentsnationally use computers, according to one survey,but observers have mixed impressions of adminis-trators’ command of technology.

“An increasing number [of administrators] arebecoming technologically literate, but it’s still asmall percentage,” says Paul Houston, the execu-tive director of the American Association of SchoolAdministrators.

Craig Richards, a professor in the graduate pro-gram for school administrators at Teachers College,Columbia University in New York City, guessesthat only 5 percent of principals nationwide arefluent in the basics of word processing, spread-sheets, and presentation software.

The reasons include the administrators’ age, sched-ules that are too busy to allow time for training, and,for some school leaders, a reluctance to give up theperquisite of having a secretary do the typing.

“Principals, on average, are 50 years old,”Richards says. “We’ve got a generation of peoplewho are actually barriers to the infusion of tech-nology in school systems—and are afraid of itthemselves.”

Other observers see signs of progress. “It’s not adismal picture,” says John R. Hoyle, a professor ofeducational administration at Texas A&M Univer-sity. “There are some individuals who refuse toturn their computers on, but I see more of the olderguys, ages 40 to 60, surfing the Web.”

Hoyle notes that the level of computer skillsvaries with the job title: A superintendent mayonly know word processing, but the chief financeofficer probably understands spreadsheets, too.

Whatever the reasons for lagging technology

LEADERSHIPByAndrewTrotter

A Test of

Managing the use of school

technology poses a host

of vexing issues for

administrators. The trick is

weeding through the jargon

and hype to decide how

best to proceed.

skills, they do not include lack of access. Adminis-trators commonly have a modern computer on theirdesk, and they tend to get e-mail accounts and ac-cess to the Internet before teachers and students,says Jerry Malitz, a project director at the NationalCenter for Education Statistics in Washington. Afall 1996 NCES technology survey found that 92 per-cent of Internet-connected schools make the Inter-net available to administrative staff, compared with88 percent that provide the Internet to teachersand 35 percent that provide it to students.

To boost administrators’ skills, some districtshave required administrators to attend computersurvival courses. In Strafford, Mo., Tice has madetechnology know-how count in awarding adminis-trative promotions.

And a number of graduate programs—such asthe education specialist program at NortheastLouisiana University—demand that candidates fordegrees in school administration must take a tech-nology course—a rare requirement five years ago.

“Technology needs to be acknowledged [in cre-dentialing],” says Gary Marx, the AASA’s deputy ex-ecutive director. “The credentialing processeschange more slowly than the world around us.That’s frustrating to school administrators who feelthat preparation needs to be adequate.”

Interest in adding technology requirements wasspurred by an AASA commission proposal for profes-sional standards developed in 1993, says Hoyle, whochaired the commission. Many of the standardshave benchmarks that include technology. Superin-tendents are expected to know how to use Webpages and the Internet to communicate with staffand their communities; to know how to use technol-ogy to enhance administration of business and sup-port systems; and to be able to apply technology increating and managing instructional programs.

The association plans to make the standards the

core of a national training and licensure programfor superintendents.

In the long run, some experts say, stiffer technol-ogy requirements in teacher training and certifica-tion will have an even greater impact in developingthe skills of administrators, who usually start outas teachers.

While such efforts can give superintendents abroad grasp of technology, district leaders shouldrely on specialists for technical advice, school offi-cials recommend.

Jesse Rodriguez, the director of information tech-nologies for the Tucson, Ariz., district, and PaulHouston of the AASA have a common understandingof how a collaboration can work. Rodriguez servedunder Houston when Houston was the Tucson su-perintendent, from 1986 to 1991.

Houston says he had basic computer skills butlittle experience in large-scale technological changewhen he arrived in the post. He turned to Ro-driguez for advice on buying a computer system toanchor the district’s information functions.

“I had to make a decision between a mainframeand [a network],” Houston says. “We were ready tospend several million dollars.”

At the time, he adds, “there were powerful forcesarrayed pushing the mainframe solution.”

Rodriguez helped him clarify what his goals werefor the 63,000-student district and how technologycould advance them, Houston says. They avoidedgetting sidetracked into debates about, say, themerits of Apple computers vs. IBM.

“[Rodriguez] would constantly say, ‘What do wewant to happen?’ ” Houston recalls.

Together, they agreed that a network-based sys-tem mirrored the kind of district Houston wanted.Many districts are taking a similar approach more

than a decade later.Lewis A. Rhodes, a

consultant and a for-mer assistant execu-tive director at theAASA, says the rap-port between Hous-ton and Rodriguez is“a perfect model,” butadds that “you don’tfind that much.”

Unfortunately,Rhodes says, manydistrict technologyexperts are isolatedin management-in-formation-systemsdepartments andare not consulted ongovernance and in-structional issues.

“They aren’tbrought in to impor-tant conversations,”Rhodes says. “They’rejust talking to them-selves.”

One leadershiptest that looms insome administrators’minds is how to pro-vide upgrades andtechnical support forschool technology.

Districts havetended—or been re-quired—to spendmoney from bondsand state grants onbuying equipment,

while they often have underestimated or omittedongoing support costs in their budget forecasts.

Increasingly, districts are providing Internet ac-cess through a network, which requires more so-phisticated support than a single modem connec-tion. Greater dependence on networks andcomputers for basic functions raises the stakes ifthe equipment breaks down.

Most experts say it’s essential to have technicalexperts on staff. Many schools that have wide-areanetworks still rely on part-time network adminis-trators, but the share fell from 51 percent in 1994 to42 percent in 1996, according to the NCES. The shareof schools with full-time network administrators,meanwhile, climbed from 9 percent to 29 percent.

Another 29 percent of schools with wide-areanetworks still had “no single individual” serving asa network administrator, however. Such schoolsmay be relying on a combination of district andschool personnel and outside vendors.

A nationwide shortage of informational-technol-ogy specialists is making it more difficult to hirequalified people. “Technical specialists are gettinghard to find,” says Cheryl Williams, the director ofthe Institute for the Transfer of Technology to Edu-cation, at the National School Boards Association.

Money is also a factor. Large and better-fundeddistricts can generally afford to hire a small, if over-burdened, technical staff. But small districts andthose that are just scraping by financially tell a dif-ferent story. In some Missouri districts, the onlytechnical support is a toll-free phone number, con-sultant Stainback says.

Districts’ typical strategy has been to grow theirown expertise by training teachers or media spe-cialists who have technical aptitude. That approachcan have mixed results, as in the 4,600-student SunPrairie district, where school media specialist Pat




James Tice, the superintendent of the Strafford, Mo., schools, says many administrators are afraid of the sweeping changesneeded to fully integrate computers into their schools. “We are bodies at rest that are wanting to stay at rest,” Tice says.

Dea

n C

urtis

Wende served for three years as the technology co-ordinator.

Wende says the part-time job included technol-ogy planning, equipment purchasing, trainingteachers, and loading software on hundreds of indi-vidual computers.

“I was also in charge of a whole library mediaprogram,” she says.

And being spread thin wasn’t the worst of it.“She became a lightning rod and the middle per-

son for some real political struggles” over technol-ogy funding, debates over computer platforms, andcomputer donations, superintendent Rosenthalsays. Last summer, she returned full-time to hermedia center job.

David S. Glaser, the chief financial officer of theRockwood, Mo., schools, near St. Louis, has beengrappling with the technical-support issue in tryingto manage a rapid influx of technology into the20,000-student district. In only 10 months after vot-ers approved a bond request in April 1996, the dis-trict added advanced networks and more than 2,000multimedia computers to its previous stock of 4,000.

In private industry, Glaser says, companies pro-

vide a support person for every 35 to 150 personalcomputers, depending on the company. The Rock-wood district currently has 10 support people ofvarious skill levels—one for every 600 computers.

“Obviously, in the last year, we’ve been askingourselves what innovative ways we can increaseour support,” Glaser says.

The district’s strategies have included adding awork-order tracking system on the districtwide net-work and installing a management system that en-ables technicians to attend to problems on networkservers and hubs without having to leave their offices.

School administrators in a number of states areturning to students for technical help. In Issaquah,Wash., a suburb of Seattle, for example, more than300 high school students are organized into teamsto maintain networks and run student Internet ser-vices throughout the district’s schools.

A few students visit the district’s elementaryschools and some middle schools every week, in-stalling wiring, loading software, training teachersand students, managing Internet accounts, and per-forming other maintenance and repair functions.The students get course credit, and their skills leadto well-paying summer jobs and sometimes to per-manent employment.

Michael Bookey, a parent who helped build theIssaquah project from a networking activity foreight students in 1989, says it exemplifies the kindof creative solutions that school leaders will need tosurvive the technological changes ahead.

“Schools must operate more like new-age compa-nies than industrial-age factories,” he says.

But Tucson’s Rodriguez warns against dependingtoo much on students for technical support: “It’s re-alistic if you assume you’re going to have a struc-tured organization behind it. The idea that a districtcan only run its schools with kids is far-fetched anddangerous.”

Another key administrative responsibility is toassess the results of a district’s technology program.

Few, if any, school systems have figured out how tomeasure the effect of technology on student learning.But a promising effort is under way in MontgomeryCounty, Md., an affluent suburb of Washington.

The 125,500-student district is in the middle ofan ambitious plan to connect classrooms, mediacenters, and offices electronically so students andstaff can tap information and communicate withinthe district through an intranet, and globally via

Technology doesn’t change the basics ofschool leadership—just a few importantdetails, say seasoned administrators and otherexperts who have pondered the terrain ahead.

Here’s some of their advice:

■ Set your goals first, then consider tools. Otherwise,technology vendors will urge you to adopt goalsthat fit what they have to sell, says Gerald Malitz, aproject director at the National Center forEducation Statistics at the U.S. Department ofEducation. “You don’t want to buy a technologysolution. You want to help design a functionalsolution,” he says.

■ Make the technology plan a part of the overallimprovement plan for the school or district.

■ Connect instruction and management. Improvinginstruction may be paramount, but technology thatimproves management can raise the capacity ofschools to provide instruction, says Lewis A.Rhodes, a consultant to the American Associationof School Administrators.

■ Connect people. Administrators and teachersbenefit from understanding more of each others’needs and perspectives. Infrastructure that movesinformation between those groups—telephone, e-mail, and data networks—can increase the

organization’s efficiency, Rhodes says.

■ Include others in the decisionmaking process.Technology is multifaceted, and each potentialgroup of users—administrators, teachers,students, parents, and community members—cancontribute insight and support that will improve theodds of success.

■ Learn technology personally. From your own use oftechnology—at home or at the office—you canlearn to think beyond the individual bits ofequipment to lessons about how technology canshape and serve an overall system of education.

Key Resources

Administrators seeking advice on tacklingtechnology questions can tap into plenty ofsources:

■ “Technology @ Your Fingertips: A Guide ToImplementing Technology Solutions for EducationAgencies and Institutions” offers down-to-earthadvice on every aspect of school technologyleadership, compiled by the National CooperativeEducation Statistics System.

For information on ordering the report, call theNational Library of Education at (800) 424-1616.Copies are expected to be available through theGovernment Printing Office at (202) 512-1800 andon the NCES Web site at www.ed.gov/NCES.

■ “Maximizing Your E-Rate Workbook” offers tips onthe pending federal discounts ontelecommunications services for schools and

libraries. Developed by the Consortium for SchoolNetworking and the American Association of SchoolAdministrators, the book costs $55 fornonmembers, plus shipping and handling.

Write to AASA Distribution Center, P.O. Box 411,Annapolis Junction, MD 20701-0411; (202) 462-9043.

■ The Technology Leadership Network of the NationalSchool Boards Association helps more than 300school districts share information and expertise ontechnology—through meetings, special reports, anda newsletter. For information, write to NSBA, 1680Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314; (703) 838-NSBA;Web site: www.nsba.org/itte.

■ The U.S. Department of Education offers the latestinformation on the E-rate at the Web sitewww.ed.gov/Technology.

■ “Excellence & Accountability in Teaching: A Guide toU.S. Department of Education Programs andResources” describes a range of resources that theEducation Department makes available to supportschool improvement and technology, including theDwight D. Eisenhower Professional DevelopmentPrograms, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund,grant programs, technical-assistance centers, andclearinghouses. For a free copy, call (800) USA-LEARN.

■ The National Network of Regional Educational Labsconsists of 10 regional educational labs, supportedby the federal government, which offer extensiveresources for school leaders. Find them on the Web:www.nwrel.org/national. —ANDREW TROTTER

Where To Find Help



“Principals, on average, are 50 years old. We’ve got a generation of people who are barriers to

the infusion of technology in school systems—and are afraid of it themselves.’’

Craig Richards, Professor, Teachers College, Columbia University


Experts Offer Advice, ResourcesFor Managing School Technology



the Internet. The Global Access project, now in itsfourth year, will take another six years to imple-ment and cost $70 million.

“We have to demonstrate to funding sources andto parents that the time and effort we’re taking toimplement technology and train teachers is worthit,” says district administrator Susan Marx, the di-rector of the project’s user-services team.

A committee of officials from the district and thecounty government, which is paying for Global Ac-cess, developed 22 indicators to monitor costs,timetables, and performance. The measures shedlight on four broad features—the technology itself,its use by district staff, its impact on teaching andlearning, and fiscal issues. Accompanying eachmeasure is the projected cost of collecting the data.

The district is pilot-testing several indicators thisyear and plans to introduce them gradually.

School officials hope to use this information tounderstand the links between technology and stu-dent achievement. They already know that infra-structure alone is not enough.

The key is whether the technology “is thought-fully used in planning for instruction,” Marx says,

If performance measures prove valid and practi-cal, school leaders may find it easier to win politicalsupport for technology in the future—and for abroader range of technologies than those currentlyfound in the classroom.

Many taxpayers don’t see the value to children ofinvesting in administrative technologies and basicinfrastructure, school leaders often complain.

But such investments increase a school system’scapacity for getting things done, says Tucson’s Ro-driguez. This happens on two levels, he says—first,by automating a host of necessary administrativetasks so they are done quicker; second, by “informat-ing,” that is, helping schools use data to make gooddecisions, a task they have done poorly in the past.

The Broward County, Fla., schools are bettingmillions on that premise by developing a data in-frastructure that gives its schools an unprece-dented ability to manage their budgets, buy sup-plies, hire teachers, and analyze student data.

“School districts have been lagging a little bit be-hind in management systems. Business is ahead ofus on this,” says Carmen Varela-Russo, Broward’sdeputy superintendent of technology.

One component of Broward’s data infrastructureis “data-mining” technology, developed with thehelp of IBM, that lets principals or teachers delve

into district records for their students’ test scores,attendance patterns, or even health information,and sort it to create profiles of individual schools orclasses. A three-school pilot test is being expandedto 20 schools this year.

“All of a sudden, we have data in ways we neverhad it before,” Varela-Russo says.

But she cautions that educators need to betrained to use this deluge of data effectively. “Youneed to know how to analyze data and translatethat into doing something different to improve mas-tery of learning in the classroom,” she says.

In its leadership programs for principals and as-sistant principals, Broward has added training inhow to crunch data, interpret the results, and makeappropriate changes in their schools, she says. Anddistrict administrators routinely give researchbriefs to principals to explain to them the meaningof data reports.

“I will tell you there is a tremendous difference inwhat principals understand now and what theyused to,” Valera-Russo says.

Districts such as Broward that blur the distinc-tion between administrative and instructional usesof technology may have a leg up on the goal ofachieving meaningful school change, according to agrowing cadre of experts. Not only will the districtsbenefit from a richer environment of data, consul-tant Rhodes says, they also can develop strongerconnections among their personnel.

“You have technology now to connect people indifferent ways and align them to a purpose andsupport them in a way that’s sustainable,” he says.

Such connections include everything from tele-phones and e-mail, which help teachers, adminis-trators, and employees chat more conveniently, tocentral databases that store the accumulated ex-pertise of school staff—as in Broward, where com-puters at every school can access current academicstandards, tips on teaching strategies, and recom-mended technologies.

New technological capabilities will require ad-ministrators to adopt new ways of managing, saysTice, the Strafford, Mo., superintendent.

He cites the biblical admonition against sewing apiece of new cloth onto an old garment. “In educa-tion, we continue to take something new and patchit into our old way of doing things,” Tice says.

“When we get this new power of technology, wegenerally try to do things better,” he adds. “The realchallenge is we need to do better things.” ■

Record Keeping in SchoolsPercentage of schools using advanced telecommunications for record keeping in 1996,by grade level and school size.

SOURCE: Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics, 1997.

Grade Level School Size

Elementary Secondary Less than 300

students

300-999students

1,000 or morestudents

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Per

cent

age

66 68

56

69

80

Administrative UsesOne argument that people make is that computersand up-to-date technology can be used for mundaneadministrative tasks such as taking attendance ormarking grades, which would then free up teachersand administrators to focus on the most importantpart of education, which is teaching and counselingchildren. How important is this particular use of up-to-date technology?


Note: 300 teachers and administrators polled by telephone.

32%Very

important

28%Somewhatimportant

13% Not that

important

26%Fairly

important

1% Not sure

Managing WithTechnologyWhat is the No. 1 or No. 2 activity that teachers inyour school/district use computers for?

SOURCE: Global Strategy Group for Jostens Learning Corp., 1997.

Note: 582 teachers and 419 superintendents polled bytelephone.

Percentage

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

34 29

34 20

17 21

10 20

No. 1 use No. 2 use

Teach word processing,spreadsheets, graphics

Classroominstruction

Management ofclassroom grading,reporting, andassessment

Conductresearch on theInternet


Managing Technology

% of districtswith WAN

% ofsuperintendents

who usecomputers

State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

National Average

40

68

46

72

57

42

33

94

94

50

100

50

45

43

45

32

88

71

51

94

41

49

56

48

54

24

46

96

18

26

51

45

78

36

67

22

63

41

77

69

26

93

48

97

43

77

65

86

33

65

4499

53

93

66

69

77

80

70

74

61

77

86

75

77

77

81

83

80

68

67

60

76

75

80

64

75

76

85

36

82

74

81

78

74

75

73

63

73

74

61

76

66

62

73

75

76

76

77

82

74

73

7744

Sources and notes:

The data for thistable are drawnfrom research bythe firm MarketData Retrieval.

Percentage ofdistricts withWAN: A WAN, orwide-area network,is a computernetwork in whichwidely dispersedcomputers, suchas those located inseveral buildingsacross a city, areconnected.Administrators canuse a WAN totransmitinformation, suchas student work,bus schedules, orelectronic records,to schools. (Seenote on MDR’smethodology, Page 20.)

Percentage ofdistrictsuperintendentswho usecomputers: In asurvey of schooldistricts, MarketData Retrievalasked thesuperintendent, orsomeone whoworked for him orher, whether he orshe used acomputer everyday.

Technology CountsUnderwritten by the Milken Exchange onEducation Technology, Education Week’s firstannual report on the state of educationtechnology takes an in-depth look at:

• the effect of technology on studentachievement;

• teacher training and professionaldevelopment;

• school-public partnerships;

• state plans and policies for educationtechnology.

Inquiring Minds: Creating a Nation of Teachers as LearnersThe growing realization that professional development practices are badly out of sync withthe reform agenda is spurring widespread interestin rethinking teachers’ on-the-job learning. This56-page Education Week special report takes anin-depth look at:

• the role of teachers’ unions in providing for their members’ continued learning;

• how technology can be used to supportprofessional development;

• the strengths and weaknesses of teachersnetworks and why many are interested increating them;

• how professional development dollars are spent;

• what practicing teachers have to say about their opportunities to learn and grow in their work.

Special Reports AvailableE D U C A T I O N W E E K

O r d e r F o r m

Quantity

_____ Technology Counts at $6.00 each $ __________

_____ Inquiring Minds at $6.00 each $ __________

Shipping and handling included in cost TOTAL $ __________

Name

Institution

Address

City, State, Zip

Send coupon and check or purchase order to:

EDUCATION WEEK, Special Reports4301 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 250, Washington, D.C. 20008

For information on ordering more than 10 copies at special bulk rates,

please call (202) 686-0800.

All orders must be pre-paid unlessaccompanied by a valid purchase order.

✂




Much has been made oftechnology’s ability to openschools up to the world via the Internet and satel-lites. But technology isplaying an equally power-ful role in opening schools

up to their local communities.In many districts, parents can write teachers a

note through electronic mail or call them directlyon a classroom phone. Teachers can post students’work on Web pages. Schools can provide studentswith take-home laptops.

One result of such developments, some expertssay, is that the public’s involvement in schools isgrowing.

“Schools have been isolated for a long time, andthey can’t be anymore,” says Melanie Goldman, themanager of the National School Network, a researchproject initially funded by the National Science Foun-dation. “We’re seeing a resurgence in interest fromthe community. Technology has unfrozen the struc-ture that has been in place for a long time.”

The changing relationship between schools andthe community is even making some educators re-think what they mean by “school.”

The Foshay Learning Center, for example, a K-12public school in Los Angeles, has set up eight satel-lite learning centers in low-income apartment com-plexes across the city. Without leaving their build-ings, students can get help with homework, learnabout technology, and participate in enrichment activities.

“School is anywhere the equipment is,” says Cyn-thia Amos, the program administrator for Foshay’ssatellite project. “We’re trying to show the kids thatyou can learn anywhere.”

As technology increases people’s access toschools, their interest level increases as well, edu-cators are finding.

Some parents who otherwise might never havevolunteered in a school are hooking up classroomcomputers to the Internet. Many businesses are do-nating equipment to schools and trying to capital-ize on the new market for educational products.

“The more we expand the communication and in-formation services, the more that everyone is get-ting involved in education,” says Frank B. Withrow,the director of educational programming at theNASA Classroom for the Future project at WheelingUniversity in West Virginia. “One of the challengesthat the schools have is how do they take advan-tage of that?”

Better communication between teachers andparents is one goal for a state-funded program inIndiana called the Buddy System. In this program,computers and modems are placed in the homes of7,000 elementary school students, usually 4th and

5th graders, for a one- or two-year period. Schoolssubmit proposals to participate, and are selected inpart on their record of family involvement.

One evaluation of the Buddy System conductedby an independent consulting firm showed that it“established and strengthened home-school connections.”

Alan T. Hill, the president of the nonprofit groupthat runs the Buddy System, says parents havebeen so enthusiastic about it that “we have to fight[them] off ” when they have an opportunity eachyear to present to the state legislature what they’redoing with computers. “We only have room for 150people [inside the state capitol’s rotunda],” Hillsays. “We have to give schools quotas.”

One attractive feature of the Buddy System isthat it allows parents to communicate with teach-ers using e-mail. But this isn’t necessarily why theprogram has been so successful. Indeed, two par-ents in the program who were interviewed recentlysay they rarely use e-mail.

Hill says there are other “hooks” that get parentsinvolved as well.

When they receive a computer, they often feellike they’ve gotten “something very tangible anduseful from their local school system,” Hill says. “Asa result, they become more involved in workingwith the teacher. They have to go to the school topick up the equipment. There’s a minimum oftraining required. Many of them have never beenin the schools.”

In many Buddy System schools, Hill says, par-ents run computer training programs for families.

A more basic form of technology—the tele-phone—has a longer track record in improvingcommunication between school personnel and par-ents. Teachers at Canton Middle School in Balti-more, for example, have had phones in their class-rooms for the past four years.

“If something is going wrong, they pick thephone right up and say, ‘We’re having a crisis,’ ”says Carolyn Fowler, the mother of a Canton 8thgrader. “Not only do they call the parent to say,‘Your child did this.’ They also call to say, ‘Yourchild had a good day.’ It makes the parent feel re-ally good.”

About twice a week, Fowler calls the school’shomework hot line, on which teachers record amessage each day for parents and students to ac-cess in the evening. Before her child attended Can-ton, Fowler says, it was easy for him to say, “Thereisn’t any homework.”

Canton also uses the voice mail system to send anautomatic message to parents at 6:30 a.m. if theirchild was absent from or arrived tardy at school theday before. “I notice an increase in promptness,”says Nilah Briscoe, the school’s technology manager.“Mother and Dad are saying, ‘Why were you late?’It’s like an alarm to get them up in the morning andget the child to school on time. It works.”

THE PUBLICByMary Ann Zehr

Partnering With

Technology is making it

easier for parents,

businesspeople, and

community members to get

involved in education. At the

same time, it’s forcing some

educators to rethink what

they mean by “school.”

Web pages, meanwhile, are being used less fordirect home-school communication than as a wayto keep parents generally informed about school orclass activities.

“I see a lot of publishing of the kids’ work, whichis going to involve parents. I’ve seen very little par-ent-teacher communication going on,” saysStephen Collins, the project manager for Web66, aUniversity of Minnesota-based effort to trackschools’ use of Web sites.

Kim Cobb, a parent of twins attending South El-ementary School in Hingham, Mass., says her chil-dren’s school Web site “keeps me on top of what’sgoing on without my having to be there. It’s greatfor working parents.”

But she adds, “It’s not a substitute for being intouch with the teachers themselves.”

Barbara Davis, the mother of a 6th grader atSouth School in Holbrook, Mass., volunteered to bethe coordinator for a school Web site that she justhelped launch. “We have the lunch menu up thereand school calendar, and people liked that becauseoften those things don’t go home,” she says.

Within a year, she expects, the Web site will havea separate page for each class, giving teachers theoption of posting information about homework fortheir classes.

Typically, Davis says, “Your kid comes home fromschool and you say to your child, ‘What did you doin school today?’ Usually he says, ‘Oh, nothing.’ ”

School Web sites give parents an alternative, shesays.

As it becomes increasingly important for stu-dents and parents to have a computer at home,concerns are being raised about those families whocan’t afford one.

“You can’t get a good job without some computer

skills,” says Ralph Bunday, a physics teacher atMontgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring,Md. He is worried that low-income students aren’tgetting the access to computers they need to com-pete in the job market.

Students with a computer in their home havemore time to become comfortable with technology,adds Susan Ragan, a computer science teacher andcolleague of Bunday’s. “You get to sit there for hoursat a time rather than having to jump up after 45minutes and go to your next class.”

Bart Decrem, the executive director of PluggedIn, a program that offers computer access to stu-dents in a low-income neighborhood near SiliconValley in California, agrees.

Unless students have access to computers, tech-nology is merely “something they read about in thenewspaper,” Decrem says. “It doesn’t become partof their daily world.”

The most recent national data about the distribu-tion of technology in the homes of school-age chil-dren comes from the 1993 U.S. Census. It showsthat 32 percent of children from ages 3 to 17 had acomputer in their home. Almost 36 percent of whitechildren had one, compared with 13 percent of blackchildren and 12 percent of Hispanic children.

Access to computers at home can vary greatlyeven among students in a single school.

“We have $5 million houses along the lake andwe have 28 percent of students on free or assistedlunch,” says Frank Gnagni, the department chair-man of media and technology services for EvanstonTownship High School in Evanston, Ill. “Some gohome to their own computer in their own bedroom.Others go home and have to go to the library to usethe computer.”

To help address the equity issue, the schoolopens its media and computer centers up to stu-dents before and after school.

Other schools aremaking computersavailable elsewherein their communi-ties. At MontgomeryBlair High, studentsare receiving acade-mic or community-service credit for set-ting up computercenters—with do-nated equipment—in low-income apart-ments where someof the school’s stu-dents live. TheChampaign Com-munity Schools dis-trict in Illinois put acomputer lab in alocal boys’ and girls’club, hoping to reachsome of the studentswho don’t have com-puters at home. Thelab is also used bythe school duringschool hours.

Concerns aboutequity are behindsome schools’ effortsto lease or loan com-puters to studentsfor their home use.But many expertsagree that theseprograms are too ex-pensive for mostschools to affordwithout an outside

source of funding.Even Indiana’s Buddy System program, which

the public has supported, had its state funding cutin half—from $6 million to $3 million—for the cur-rent biennium.

In South Carolina, residents and businesses inthe Beaufort County school district have made itpossible for selected middle school students to takehome laptop computers by setting up a foundationthat raised money to subsidize the cost.

Parents all pay something each month to leasethe computers for their children; the amount de-pends on their income level.

“We would not have these computers except forthe fact that we have local support by people in ourcounty,” says Denise Smith, the principal of RobertSmalls Middle School, where 55 6th graders tookhome laptops last year. “These are business per-sons who are willing to step out and say, ‘Our chil-dren deserve this opportunity,’ and are willing tocommit themselves to make this available to allour children.”

She adds that the student laptop program “iscatching on almost like wildfire.” Requests to par-ticipate at her school have increased five-fold fromthe previous year.

But already this year, the foundation is havingto increase the amount that parents must pay torent a laptop. The basic rental fee has increasedfrom $35 to $60 a month. Parents of students re-ceiving free lunches pay $15 a month, a $5 increasefrom last year.

If a school does hand out equipment, it also mustmake sure that families know what to do with it, saysPeter B. Miller, the network director for the Commu-nity Technology Centers’ Network, a membership or-ganization for community technology centers.

“Any program that is based on the distribution of




Students who use computers at a center in their Takoma Park, Md., apartment building can now access the Internet, thanks toa program run by Montgomery Blair High School. The school plans to establish nine other area centers for low-income students.

Allis

on S

helle

y

hardware and software and doesn’t give sufficientattention to staff training and support as well astraining in the home is going to fall flat,” Miller says.

One segment of the public that has welcomedschools’ increased use of technology is the businesscommunity.

“There’s a growing interest in businesses con-necting with schoolchildren for great reasons andsome not-so-great reasons,” says Anne Bryant, theexecutive director of the Alexandria, Va.-based Na-tional School Boards Association. “Children consti-tute a huge market. What we’ve got to keep as thecenterpiece is that we’re trying to create the besteducation for our children that makes us leap intothe 21st century.”

Many businesses, to be sure, are motivated bytheir desire to be “good corporate citizens.” Theyhave given tremendous support to schools for awide range of technology needs, including providingcomputer hardware and software, installing dis-tance-learning laboratories, training teachers, andassisting with technology planning.

Mary K. Jones, a software engineer for the Love-land, Colo., division of the Hewlett-Packard Com-pany, has taken advantage of technology to servestudents on a more personal level. Through thecompany’s telementoring program, Jones advisedthree students about career options and the impor-tance of school. They communicated by e-mail.

“The technology finally made it possible for me togive back in a way that doesn’t affect my wholelife,” Jones says.

Some employers say they’re concerned that ifschools don’t graduate computer-literate people,they won’t have a computer-literate workforce fromwhich to hire employees.

Indeed, one recent poll of 303 human resources

executives shows that 49 percent of the respon-dents say computer skills are “very important,” butonly 14 percent think students are “very well pre-pared” in this area. The survey was conducted inMay by Roper Starch Worldwide for Amway andJunior Achievement.

“There’s certainly an increased interest in tech-nology partnership,” says Daniel Merenda, thepresident and CEO of the National Association ofPartners in Education Inc. “Businesses are inter-ested in getting involved because they want youngpeople coming out of their schools to be able to workin the workplace. If there’s a well-equipped work-force, it’ll attract more business to the communityand there will be more markets.”

Businesses also view school technology as abooming new market.

“I think there’s a huge need there. And wheneverthere’s a huge need, a lot of companies will want tobe there,” says David Fachetti, the senior vice pres-ident of sales, marketing, and operations for theBoston-based FamilyEducation Co., which marketsWeb sites that emphasize parent involvement.“Schools have to be careful.”

Fachetti says his company has strived to earncredibility by gaining endorsements from organiza-tions such as the National PTA and the AmericanAssociation of School Administrators. “The realityis we wouldn’t be working with those organizationsfor too long if we went outside of what was accept-able bounds,” he says.

School technology became especially attractive tobusinesses when the emphasis shifted from “ad-ministrative processes” to “learning processes,” saysRick Normington, an area vice president of the ed-ucation market group for Pacific Bell. “We’re shift-ing into an environment where we’re trying tobring more information into the classroom. That’swhat’s causing the market to explode.”

Pacific Bell has agreed to commit $100 millionbetween 1994 and the year 2000 to a technology

program called Education First that provides freeISDN lines to California schools and libraries, an ed-ucation Web site, four roving technology trainers,technology workshops, and other services.

Normington says some school leaders were sus-picious of the program at first.

“We spent so much time publicizing what wewere doing, we created some fear on the part of ed-ucators that our motives weren’t real,” he says. “Westopped publicizing for a while and instead madesure that the schools understood we would bearound for the long term.

“If a business is only interested in a marketplaceor publicity, the school’s going to recognize that,”Normington adds. “They’re going to be reluctant toaccept help from someone who’s going to disappearonce the reporters are gone.”

NetDay is perhaps the best-known example ofhow technology can boost the public’s involvementin schools.

The project was started in 1996 by Michael Kauf-man, a senior director of digital learning for PBS,and John Gage, a chief scientist for Sun Microsys-tems, as a one-day event to wire schools in Califor-nia for access to the Internet. At the request of theWhite House and the U.S. Department of Educa-tion, they expanded the project nationwide.

As of this fall, more than 250,000 volunteers hadhelped wire 50,000 classrooms across the UnitedStates.

Some observers say those figures don’t tell thewhole story, noting that if classrooms don’t havecomputers, or teachers don’t have training, wiringdoesn’t make much of a difference.

But no one can deny that the effort has toucheda chord.

“I’m seeing people from all walks of life wantingto wire the classrooms in the school in their neigh-borhood. … It almost becomes a competitive thing,”says Ann Murphy, a NetDay national organizer.“People kept writing to us and saying, ‘I’ll organizeTexas. I’ll organize Oklahoma.’ So you have aunique NetDay in every state.”

Participants in Massachusetts have included “alot of young people in their 20s and 30s who havebeen exposed to technology in the workplace,” saysSteve Miller, the head of NetDay in Massachusettsand the executive director of Mass Networks Edu-cation Partnership. “They like it, know it’s impor-tant, and want to share it.”

NetDay is a way of helping students in disadvan-taged areas that might not otherwise be able to af-ford technology, says Suzanna Gomez, the assistantdirector of civil and human rights for the AFL-CIO.She has been coordinating union participation inNetDay in federally designated empowermentzones.

“We consider this civil rights,” Gomez says, not-ing that 67 percent of the new entries to the work-force between 1994 and 2000 are expected to bewomen and minorities and that 60 percent of thejobs by the year 2000 will require technical skills.

Helping to wire schools “is not only the moralthing to do, but the right thing to do,” Gomez says.

The program has intangible benefits as well,Murphy says.

“NetDay is bringing people back into the classroomto see what kind of condition schools are in,” she says.“We found that once people get connected with theschool, they stick around and don’t leave.” ■




“There’s a growing interest in businesses connecting with schoolchildren for great reasons and

some not-so-great reasons. Children constitute a huge market.’’

Anne Bryant, Executive Director, National School Boards Association

Computers at HomePercentage of homes with school-age children who have home access to a computer, by age of child.

3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Age of Child at Home

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, Education and Social Stratification Branch, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993.

Per

cent

age

50

40

30

20

10

0

25 2629

3134

37 37 38



AvailabilityFrom what you know about the public schools in your community, do you think there is too much, too little, or the rightamount of the following:

39

46

4

39 41

1

36

48

4

Too much Right amount Too little

SOURCE: Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc. for the Milken Exchange on Education Technology, 1997.


Per

cent

age

50

40

30

20

10

0

Access to adequate computersand up-to-date technology

Students who are familiar withuse of computers and up-to-date technology

Teachers who are familiar withuse of computers and up-to-date technology

Home-School ConnectionWhat parents with on-line children want from home-school access.

Per

cent

age

100

80

60

40

20

0

SOURCE: American Internet User Survey, FIND/SVP with Grunwald Associates, 1997.

Get homeworkassignments

Access schoolinformation

Communicate withteachers

50

21

46

24

43

26

Very interested

Somewhatinterested

Workforce ReadinessWhat employers and graduating seniors believeabout students’ preparedness for the workplace.

SOURCE: Roper Starch Worldwide for Amway and JuniorAchievement, 1997.

Note: 303 human resource executives and 969 high schoolseniors polled by telephone.

Per

cent

age

13

6

45

14 28

100

80

60

40

20

0

Computer skills

The ability to communicatethrough writing

Being able to work withpeople from different

backgrounds

100

80

60

40

20

0

Per

cent

age

Per

cent

age

100

80

60

40

20

0

66

Employers Students

Employers Students

Employers Students

High-Tech AdvantageWhen it comes to the items below, do you think the school that is well-equipped with computers has a very majoradvantage, a fairly major advantage, a minor advantage, or no advantage over the school that is poorly equipped?

Having more access toinformation

Preparing students toenter workforce

Students who are moreinterested in learning

Making learning a moreactive experience

Students who havemastery of basic skills

Providing moreindividualized attention

Very/Fairly majoradvantage

Minor/No advantage

SOURCE: Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc. for the Milken Exchange on Education Technology, 1997. Note: 1,012 voters polled by

Per

cent

age

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

93 9288 86

7570

6 6 1012

2127



School technology has be-come the educational initia-tive du jour for lawmakersacross the nation and ofevery political stripe.

They might argue vehe-mently about school choice

and national standards, but they’re in almost totalagreement when it comes to the need for computersand other kinds of technology in the classroom.

“Students unable to use the tools of this informa-tion age will be forever at a disadvantage,” Republi-can Gov. Pete Wilson warned the California legisla-ture before unveiling a $1 billion school technologyinitiative earlier this year.

“Education technology is an absolute essential,”Nevada Gov. Bob Miller, a Democrat, declared beforeintroducing his $44 million school technology billthis summer.

Those sentiments are echoed in Washington,where President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore,and Education Secretary Richard W. Riley tout thevalue of school technology at every opportunity.

As an education issue, “technology is unusual be-cause there’s such a broad base of support for itamong lawmakers and parents, regardless of polit-ical party,” says John Barth, an education policyanalyst at the Washington-based National Gover-nors’ Association.

“There’s been a strong and positive sea changeboth in Washington and state capitals on schooltechnology and the potential for it to drive educa-tional improvement,” adds David Byer, the vicepresident for government affairs for the Washing-ton-based Software Publishers Association.“There’s an understanding that technology canmake a difference in schools and will ultimately de-fine our ability to compete.”

Legislators have come to that conclusion despitethe lack of hard data indicating that technologydoes, in fact, improve academic achievement. Manystates have little information on how much technol-ogy is in their schools, much less whether it is beingused effectively.

So far, that hasn’t hindered policymakers’ support.Schools spent an estimated $4.3 billion on technologylast school year and are projected to spend $5.2 bil-lion this school year, according to a survey by the re-search firm Quality Education Data.

“It’s too great a risk not to have computers inschools,” says Michael Sentence, an education ad-viser to former Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weldand now acting Gov. Paul Cellucci. Data or no data,“we know that they’re an important tool. And votersare convinced that computers are an absolute ne-cessity for schools.”

But Nebraska Lt. Gov. Kim Robak, a Democrat,says support for technology would increase, and themoney would be better spent, if states had betterdata.

“We need information to show what works andwhat doesn’t,” Robak says. “If we had empirical data,policymakers would be more willing to fund [technol-ogy], and voters would be much more willing to pay.”

Despite the general consensus that school tech-nology is important, states are taking widely differ-ing approaches to increasing it. Many of them, forexample, are emphasizing multimedia computers;others are putting their money into Internet accessor distance learning.

States are also at various stages of the process.Some have been talking about technology for years,while others are just starting to address it.

“States are remarkably distinct from one an-other,” observes Jeanne Hayes, the president of QED.“There are 51 different domains.”

But she and others say there are clearly somevanguards, and experts especially laud states thathave tied technology to broad education reform ef-forts, rather than implementing technology simplyfor the sake of computer literacy.

Experts also praise states that make teachertraining a top priority in state and local technologyplanning. Teacher training, they say is essential toensure that the millions of dollars invested in hard-ware and software are put to good use.

“The issue of having teachers adequately trainedand prepared is key,” says Barbara Stein, a seniorpolicy analyst for the Center for Education Technol-ogy in Washington. “Policymakers are showing agreater understanding about the need for profes-sional development” and are beginning to address itin their state budgets.

One state that often receives praise for itsschool-technology efforts is West Virginia.

Under former Democratic Gov. Gaston Caperton,the state established a $70 million, 10-year programto improve students’ reading, writing, and mathskills. The legislature has appropriated about $7million each year—most of which comes from thestate lottery—to outfit classrooms with technology,and about 30 percent of the funds have been ear-marked for professional development programs.

By next month, the state expects to be the firstin the nation to have every school wired for a local-area network and the Internet. West Virginia alsohas roughly four computers per classroom in all itselementary schools, and all the teachers in theseschools have received training in technology.

Current Gov. Cecil H. Underwood, a Republican,has continued that commitment to school technologysince he took office last year.

“Everyone in West Virginia—the governor, thechief state school officer, and the legislature—istalking out of the same side of their mouth,” saysFrank B. Withrow, the director of education forNASA’s Classroom of the Future project at WheelingUniversity in West Virginia.

OF POLICYByKerryWhite

A Matter

School technology enjoys

support from across

the political spectrum,

but states pursue a range of

strategies to increase it.

The bottom line remains,

though, that there’s a

disturbing lack of data to

help guide decisions.

Residents supported the state’s emphasis on tech-nology from the beginning, adds Robert J. Dilger, aprofessor of political science at West Virginia Uni-versity in Morgantown.

School technology “has always been a politicallysaleable idea here. … Everybody bought it,” Dilgersays. After several years of bipartisan support, headds, “school computers are more than a politicalgimmick.”

One key to West Virginia’s success was the state’sdecision to buy all of the districts’ hardware and soft-ware in bulk and provide the lion’s share of teachertraining and technical support, state SuperintendentHenry R. Marockie says.

Many districts—especially small ones—lack thebusiness and technical expertise to undertake suchefforts on their own, he notes.

“Everybody got on board as fast as they could be-cause the program was such a winner,” he adds.

West Virginia’s achievements notwithstanding,some experts argue that a top-down approach doesnot work for every state because it robs schools oflocal control. Programs that grow from the grass-roots level, they say, get more people involved andare, therefore, more likely to be sustained over time.

“The centralized model is not always the best one,”says Cheryl L. Lemke, the vice president of educa-tion technology for the Milken Exchange on Educa-tion Technology and a former associate state super-intendent for technology in Illinois. “Changehappens when local school officials, educators, andparents become part of the program.”

Experts say Kentucky’s school technology pro-gram has been successful for that very reason.

The state’s plan, a component of its landmarkKentucky Education Reform Act of 1990, calls for atelephone in every classroom and a computer forevery six students and every teacher in the state.

The program is tied to the state’s educationalgoals, and local districts and individual schools de-cide how best to use technology to meet them, notes

Don Coffman, the Kentucky education department’sassociate commissioner for school technology.

Kentucky requires each district to have a long-range technology plan, and districts get money fromthe state on a sliding scale according to local wealthand as long as they are working toward fulfilling itsplan.

Districts are allowed to make their own softwareand hardware purchases, but have the option of tak-ing advantage of manufacturers’ volume discountsby purchasing at the state level.

The program has worked, Coffman says, becauseof its bottom-up approach.

“This is a local effort,” he says, “where schools andteachers are integral” to the planning and purchas-ing process.

In high doses, however, local control can be a bar-rier to statewide school technology initiatives, somepolicymakers say.

In Nebraska, Lt. Gov. Robak complains that a “lackof coordination” between state and local governmentagencies, colleges and universities, businesses, andschools has hampered technology progress.

“Without coordination, we can’t build a base,” shesays. “We have no mechanism to pull it all together.We can’t have an analog system in one county and adigital in another. Local control can’t go all the waydown to the infrastructure.”

Balancing local and state authority is only one ofthe challenges facing policymakers in the area ofschool technology. Another is the perennial issue offunding.

Some legislators, as in Alabama and Kansas, havebeen reluctant to invest in technology because theysay it would take money away from other educa-tional needs that are more pressing. And in manystates, technology advocates have had difficulty per-suading lawmakers to sustain state spending formore than a year at a time.

“School technology re-quires a huge front-end in-vestment,” and the enor-mous costs allow somelawmakers to believe thatit’s a one-time-only obliga-tion, says Christopher Dede,a professor of informationtechnology and education atGeorge Mason University inFairfax, Va.

But, he says, the ongoingexpenses of school technol-ogy programs—such ashardware upgrades, teachertraining, and software—areequally important.

Technology funding alsoraises the thorny problemof equity. Almost all statesreport that while a few oftheir districts have madegreat leaps in school tech-nology, others have barelygotten off the ground.

Legislatures have strug-gled with ways to reduce thedisparities, with varying de-grees of success. Many havechosen to direct federalgrants to districts with thegreatest needs.

Perhaps the biggest chal-lenge for legislators in thearea of technology is plan-ning. Experts warn thatlawmakers can waste a lotof money on equipment ifthey approach technologyin a disjointed way.

“Before states act, they need to think strategicallyand for the long-term,” says Barth of the NationalGovernors’ Association. “Lawmakers need to askthemselves, ‘How are we going to use computers tomeet educational goals? How are we going to pro-mote the most efficient practices at the local level?How are we going to train teachers to use them?’ ”

“A lot of systems are approaching technology in apiecemeal fashion,” where plans and purchases aremade over several years or in an unconsolidatedmanner, adds Felix Perez, a policy analyst at the Na-tional Education Association.

The best initiatives, he observes, are ones that“give districts flexibility to make a package that’sbest for them—where there is control at the locallevel, but support and structure at the state and fed-eral levels.”

Dede explains that “federal, state, and local tech-nology programs need to be interrelated, so thatrather than ships that pass in the night, they’re twosides of the same coin.”

President Clinton laid out his technology plan in1996, setting “four pillars” for technology in schools:modern computer hardware, connectivity, teacherpreparation, and high-quality educational softwareand on-line resources.

Federal technology funds, meanwhile, stream intoschools from a bevy of sources, including the depart-ments of education, commerce, and agriculture; theNational Science Foundation, and the National En-dowment for the Humanities. (See box on next page.)

The most prominent federal technology programis the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, a De-partment of Education program offering grants toevery state.

The Clinton administration has asked Congress todouble funding for the program for fiscal 1998 to$425 million.

Nebraska Lt. Gov. Kim Robak says policymakers need to do a better job of coordinating state and local efforts to fosterschool technology. Better data are needed as well, she says. “We need information to show what works and what doesn’t.”

Joel

Sar

tore





Another notable federal technology initiative wasannounced in May, after the Federal Communica-tions Commission decided to provide virtually everyschool and public library a specially discounted “ed-ucation rate,” or E-rate, on telecommunications ser-vices, internal connections, and Internet access.

The long-awaited discounts, available beginningJan. 1, will range from 20 percent to 90 percent de-pending on a school’s poverty level, which is deter-mined by eligibility for the federal free and reduced-

price lunch program.The discounts could amount to tremendous sav-

ings for schools, “especially poor schools,” explainsJohn T. MacDonald, the director of state leadershipfor the Council of Chief State School Officers inWashington.

But, he warns, the savings depend entirely “onhow wisely the discounts are used. The [school sys-tem’s technology] plan is so important.”

Companies that provide the discounts will be re-imbursed through a fund—the Universal ServiceFund—paid into by all telecommunications compa-

nies. Up to $2.25 billion will be available each yearthrough the fund.

There is a chance that the program could be scut-tled or altered by legal challenges filed by thetelecommunications giants. Among other argu-ments, the companies contend that the discountscover services that the FCC doesn’t regulate; thatthe discounts will cut into revenues, forcing higherrates upon the consumer; and that the discountscreate unfair competition because many businessesbenefiting from the Universal Service Fund will notbe paying into it.

But MacDonald and other experts advise schoolsto continue to design their technology plans with theJanuary discounts in mind.

“We’re telling states to move forward with theirpreparations,” MacDonald says.

All told, the federal government pays for only asmall portion—25 percent—of schools’ technology ex-penses, according to the New York-based manage-ment firm McKinsey & Co. Inc. The rest comes fromlocal districts (40 percent), states (20 percent), andprivate sources (15 percent).

Still, experts say, the federal endorsement res-onates.

“Policymakers are interested and impacted by thefederal government’s leadership on this issue,”Lemke of the Milken Exchange says. “And dollarsfollow vision.”

School technology “has exploded because of peoplelike the president showing they have a very deep in-terest in this,” adds Perez, the NEA analyst. “Criticalmass has been reached. Schools need to capitalize onthis momentum.” ■


As an education issue, “technology is unusual because there’s such a broad base of support

for it among lawmakers and parents, regardless of political party.’’

John Barth, Education Policy Analyst, National Governors’ Association

The following are among the federal agencies andprograms that provide resources for school technology:

Department of Education:(www.ed.gov/Technology)

■ Technology Innovation Challenge Grants: Provide seedmoney for technology-based teaching strategies in areas ofhigh poverty.

■ Technology Literacy Challenge Fund: Provides seedmoney for technology to states, which then distribute the fundsto districts.

■ Star Schools Program: Supports distance learning forunderserved schools; also provides support for teacher trainingand civic activities produced via satellite.

■ Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Providesfunds for hardware and software for students with specialneeds.

■ Goals 2000: Educate America Act: Provides planninggrants to each state that can be used to integrate technologyinto overall state education improvement plans.

■ Title I: Education for the Disadvantaged: Funds can beused for software and hardware, primarily for basic skillsinstruction.

■ Title II: Eisenhower Professional Development StateGrants: Intended for sustained, high-quality professionaldevelopment for teachers and other school personnel.

■ School to Work Opportunities Act: Provides grants tostates and communities for programs integrating academic andvocational learning with work-based learning. (Program isadministered jointly by the departments of Education and Labor.)

Department of Commerce: (www.ntia.doc.gov)

■ Telecommunications and Information InfrastructureAssistance Program: Provides funds for equipment,software, training, and service.

■ Public Telecommunications Facilities Program:Awards matching grants to non-commercial entities to purchasetelecommunications equipment for educational and culturalpurposes. Smaller grants assist in planning how to usetelecommunications equipment.

National Science Foundation: (www.nsf.gov)

■ Teacher Enhancement: Offers a number of grant programsintended to help teachers and administrators use technology topromote math, science, and technology.

Department of Agriculture: (www.usda.gov)

■ Distance Learning Telemedicine Grant and LoanProgram: Provides grants to rural schools, libraries, and othereducational institutions for advanced telecommunicationssystems.

National Endowment for the Humanities: (www.neh.fed.us)

■ Teaching With Technology: Awards grants for computer-based instructional materials focusing on history, literature,philosophy, and languages.

Sources of Federal Money


Who Should Pay?Voters rank support for potential revenue sources for equipping schools with up-to-date technology.

Per

cent

age

of V

oter

s

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Raising cigarettetax

Raising corporateincome tax

Raising state salestax 1 penny

Special sales taxon computers and

technology

Increasing propertytax/levy bond

SOURCE: Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc. for the Milken Exchange on Education Technology, 1997.


Strongly/Somewhat favor Strongly/Somewhat oppose

72

25

61

34

59

38

57

38 38

56

Financial SupportWould you be willing to pay $100 more in federaltaxes if the additional money were used only toequip public schools with computers and up-to-date technology?



4%Not sure

28%No

61%Yes

7%Depends

INDEX TO ADVERTISERS



The Policy Arena

State has surveyto collect

technology data

Percentage ofhigh-techschools

State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

National Average

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

6

32

13

10

10

29

14

17

29

23

26

27

16

23

25

25

18

7

25

19

14

16

36

7

16

20

36

15

14

18

16

15

24

31

13

10

24

12

10

14

18

27

15

20

22

23

20

12

19

31

1188

Advertiser Page

Asia Society...........................................................................................................87

Assn. for Supervision & Curriculum Development ........................................................................59

AT&T Capital Corporation ...............................................................................85

Benton Foundation ..............................................................................................65

Canter & Associates ............................................................................................91

Chancery Software ..............................................................................................81

The College Board ...............................................................................................58

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation...................................................................54

Compaq Computer ............................................................................................4-5

CompUSA.............................................................................................................19

Computer Curriculum Corp. ...........................................Inside Front Cover, 17

Continental Press .................................................................................................17

Cooperating School Districts..............................................................................65

The Cress Company ............................................................................................26

CTB McGraw-Hill...............................................................................................15

Deloitte & Touche Consulting ............................................................................58

Discovery Channel School...................................................................Back Cover

Eastman Kodak ...................................................................................................79

Educational Structures........................................................................................67

Gateway 2000 .......................................................................................................35

Getty EducationInstitute for the Arts ......................................................................................73

Harvard Graduate School of Education ..........................................................15

IBM .................................................................................................................22-23

Ingenius .................................................................................................................53

Institute for Academic Excellence .....................................................................63

Intl. Conference on Technology and Education............................................................................11

Kurzweil Educational Systems ..........................................................................67

Learning Plus ...................................................................................................9, 11

Massachusetts Corporationfor Educational Telecommunications..........................................................54

Milken Exchangeon Education Technology ........................................................................48-49

Natl. School Boards Association ..................................................................26, 46

NEC America .......................................................................................................51

NetSchools Corporation......................................................................................44

New Deal ...............................................................................................................61

Nova Southeastern University ...........................................................................91

NovaNET Learning ...............................................................................................9

NTS Computer Systems ...........................................................Inside Back Cover

Philips Multimedia (Planet K-12)......................................................................21

Riso ......................................................................................................................57

Scantron Corporation .........................................................................................46

SkillsBank Corporation ......................................................................................61

Stanford University .............................................................................................73

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages ......................................................................81

Teaching Technology ...........................................................................................77

TeachMaster Technologies..................................................................................28

Walden University ...............................................................................................83

Yamaha Corporation...........................................................................................77

Zenith Electronics Corporation.........................................................................93

Sources and notes:

State has survey tocollect technologydata: States with an Xhave a survey to collectdata and have reportedthe results to theAmerican Institute forResearch/PelavinAssociates. States witha blank either do nothave a survey or havenot responded to AIR’srequest for information.

Percentage of high-tech schools: Thedata are drawn fromresearch by the firmMarket Data Retrieval.MDR defines high-techschools as schools witha computer networksystem, Internetaccess, and better-than-average availabilityof computers and CD-ROMs. (See note onMDR’s methodology,Page 20.)


A L A B A M A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.alsde.edu/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Lisa A. Woodard (334) 242-9594

• Technology Literacy Challenge FundFY 1997: $3.5 millionFY 1998: $6.8 million

• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $224,744

• Number of Students: 741,933Student-Multimedia Computer Ratio: 29:1

• Number of Teachers: 43,843Technology-Trained Teachers: 12 percent

As has happened with other K-12 initiatives in Al-abama, politics have thrown the state’s school tech-nology plan into limbo.

In February, the Alabama board of education ap-proved an ambitious vision for infusing technologyinto elementary and secondary education. But inJune, the legislature balked at the price tag, leavingthe plan with an uncertain future.

The need is great in a poor state like Alabama fornearly every type of school improvement, includingtechnology. Computers are hard to come by at manyschools, and much of the equipment is outdated.Most teachers lack a computer workstation, not tomention Internet access for themselves or their stu-dents. There are few electronic connections betweenschools and postsecondary institutions, and mostschool records are transferred by hand.

Supporters of the proposed technology plan, whoincluded Republican Gov. Fob James Jr., were count-ing on the legislature to address the shortcomings byapproving a $125 million bond issue.

But the powerful Alabama Education Associationobjected to the notion of the state making paymentson the bond over 20 years for technology that it saidwould be obsolete within five years. And both thatgroup and Lt. Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat, ar-

gued that state money could be better spent on rid-ding schools of some of their nearly 3,000 portableclassrooms.

In the end, lawmakers were more persuaded bydemands for fewer portables than for technology.

The governor is now expected to call a special ses-sion by the end of the year in which the legislaturewill consider a smaller $35 million bond issue for K-12 technology. The compromise includes a mecha-nism by which school systems could pool their moneyfor such capital improvements as new classrooms.

The new proposal would buy a skeleton of networkconnections leading up to the schoolhouse door. Butlocal districts would have to go it alone inside theschools themselves.

“Some of the more financially destitute systemswill have a difficult time availing themselves of thistechnology,” acknowledges Edward R. Richardson,the state schools chief and a backer of the originaltechnology bond.

The loss of the larger bond issue also could jeopar-dize both the speed with which the state can showgains in student performance and its compliancewith a state court’s order to improve the condition ofimpoverished schools, he adds.

“If we’re trying to compress the time in which weshow marked improvement in student achievement,”Richardson says, “we’ve now lost one of the tools thatwould have been invaluable to our teachers.”

Meanwhile, state officials emphasize that other ef-forts, using federal and local monies or volunteer ef-forts, are still proceeding.

Alabama is using the $6 million it received fromthe federal Goals 2000: Educate America Act for ed-ucational technology.

And in fiscal 1997, Alabama received $3.5 millionfrom the federal Technology Literacy ChallengeFund. That money went for networking schools aswell as for the purchase of computers. Of the state’s127 districts, 100 applied for grants, receiving be-tween $5,600 and $97,500 each.

Alabama officialsalso hope that themuch-anticipated fed-eral “E-rate” telecom-munications discountswill supplement thestate’s $35 millionbond, says Lisa A.Woodard, an educa-tion specialist in thestate’s office of tech-nology initiatives.

Although Alabamadid not organize astatewide NetDay,many school systemsheld one or several ofthe volunteer events.Other districts did nottake part, believingthat they should notproceed with wiringfor Internet accesswithout first beingcertain of the state’s contribution.

Indeed, some schools that wired themselves arenow waiting for the state to hook them up to a net-


State-by-State Profiles

A Guide to Reading The State Profiles

State Education Agency Web Site: All statedepartments of education maintain home pages on theInternet.

State Education Agency Technology Contact: Inmost cases, the contact person is in charge of managingtechnology advances within a state, organizing andconducting grant competitions related to technology, andassisting in the formulation and revision of technology policy.The person listed serves in at least one of these capacities.

Technology Literacy Challenge Fund: The figureslisted show how much the state received from this federalsource in fiscal 1997 and is projected to receive in fiscal1998. The fund provides formula grants to state educationagencies. The grants help the agencies implement statewidetechnology plans through competitive funding to districtsusing new technologies to improve schools.

U.S. Department of Commerce, TIIAP: The figurelisted shows how much the state received from theTelecommunications and Information InfrastructureAssistance Program in 1995 and 1996. This is a competitiveprogram that has played an important role in demonstratingpractical applications of new technology.

1997 Technology Innovation Grant: The figure listedshows how much the state received from the 1997Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program. Thiscompetitive U.S. Department of Education program strives toimprove and expand new applications of technology tostrengthen school reform efforts, improve studentachievement, and provide ongoing professional developmentfor school personnel.

Number of Students: The figure represents a projectionfor the 1996-97 academic year and is based on the bestavailable data. The source is “Public Elementary andSecondary Statistics: School Year 1996-97, Early Estimates,’’National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department ofEducation, 1997.

Student-Multimedia Computer Ratio: The source is asurvey completed in June by Market Data Retrieval. Amultimedia computer has a sound card and a CD-ROMdrive, components that enable it to use cutting-edgeeducational software. (See note on MDR’s methodology,Page 20.) Some of the state narratives also include state-provided data that may conflict with MDR’s figures.

Number of Teachers: The source is “Public Elementaryand Secondary Statistics: School Year 1996-97, EarlyEstimates,’’ National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education, 1997.

Technology-Trained Teachers: The figure shows thepercentage of a state’s teachers who had at least nine hoursof educational technology training in 1994. The tabulationcomes from the National Data Resource Center. Data arecollected as part of the U.S. Department of Education’s“1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey.’’

The following are descriptions of the charts accompanyingthe state narratives:

Computer Availability: The data are drawn from the“National Assessment of Educational Progress 1996Mathematics State Reports’’ based on 4th and 8th gradepublic school teachers’ reports on the availability ofcomputers. All NAEP data are rendered in studentpercentages. In Alabama’s chart, for example, 10 percent of4th grade and 31 percent of 8th grade math students hadteachers who reported having no access to computers. Notall states participate in NAEP, and participating statessometimes test only one grade level. Percentages may nottotal 100 because of rounding.

Computer Use: The data are drawn from the “NationalAssessment of Educational Progress 1996 MathematicsState Reports.’’ All NAEP data are rendered in studentpercentages. In Alabama’s chart, for example, 58 percent of8th grade math students report never or hardly ever using acomputer in mathematics. For some states, data are for 4thgrade students because no 8th grade data were available.Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding.

Alabama continued on Page 46

Computer AvailabilityPublic school teachers’ reports on the availability ofcomputers to students in mathematics classes.

Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

10

31

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

42

21

30

1219

37

SOURCE: NCES, NAEP, 1996.

None 1 inclassroom

2 or more inclassroom

In laboratory

Available Computers

Computer UsePublic school 8th graders’ reports on the frequency of computer use for mathematics.

58%NNeevveerr//HHaarrddllyy

eevveerr

15%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

14%


12%

Grade 4 Grade 8


work, Woodard says.The infusion of education technology statewide

“may not happen as fast as we hoped,” she says, “butwe want to fulfill this commitment.”

The difficulties in getting the technology plan offthe ground in Alabama lend weight to a worryvoiced by the peer panel that reviewed the state’sapplication for the TLCF grant. They were impressedwith the state’s goals, but said: “The major concernfor the panel is the fear that this visionary plan willmerely remain a dream.” —MILLICENT LAWTON

A L A S K A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.educ.state.ak.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Helen Mehrkens (907) 465-8730

• Technology Literacy Challenge FundFY 1997: $1 millionFY 1998: $2.1 million

• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $1.2 million



Achieving technological equity is a challenge inevery state, but nowhere is the task more difficultthan in Alaska.

Districts in such populated cities as Fairbanks orAnchorage are as well-equipped with computer labsand other technological resources as many districtselsewhere in the country, says Rick Cross, the state’sdeputy education commissioner.

But most schools in the remote Alaskan bush lacktelephone lines and must depend on satellites tomaintain contact with the outside world. Because ofthe extra time required for satellites to transmitdata, Internet connectivity in rural schools is virtu-ally impossible, educators say.

“Achieving equity in Internet access has been thestate’s first priority,’’ says Ann Derby, the Alaskantechnology director for the Northwest Regional Tech-nology in Education Consortium, a federally fundedorganization that provides technological assistance tosix states. “But at this point, more than 50 percent ofthe districts don’t have it.”


Alabama continued from Page 45

None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

711

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

21

28

39

22

3339



Available Computers

Grade 4 Grade 8


And while state of-ficials have been ne-gotiating with tele-c o m m u n i c a t i o n scompanies to installmore advanced infra-structure to servebush schools, industryofficials have notmoved to do so be-cause the populationbases are too small tosupport the cost of aninitial investment,says Nick Stayrook,the director of plan-ning and evaluationat the FairbanksNorth Star BoroughSchool District.

“It just doesn’t payfor the large telecom-munications compa-

nies to give them that kind of access,” Stayrook says.“They’re looking at other, high-tech ways to do it, butit’s just not happening.”

State educators are banking on the pending fed-eral “E-rate” telecommunications discounts to makeit more financially feasible for rural districts to gainbetter access to technology, Cross says.

For districts in the state’s more densely populatedareas, technological innovation has depended largelyon the resources available in local communities. Thestate has made some important contributions to var-ious districtwide initiatives, Cross adds, but it hasnot provided the funding for a consolidated,statewide effort.

For a financially squeezed district like Anchorage,that means its technology plan is not being imple-mented as rapidly as many would like, says NormHolthouse, the district’s technology director.

“We know where we’re going and we’ve madeprogress,” he adds. “But we suffer from a lack of re-sources, so it’s going to be a slow process.”

This year, the district was helped by a state-funded effort through the Alaska Science and Tech-nology Foundation, which provided grants of up to$10,000 to 326 schools across the state for network-ing purposes.

Using that money, and the help of volunteers whodonated time to help wire the district’s schools ondesignated NetDays, the district has broadly ex-panded its networking capabilities, Holthouse says.

But many of the district’s schools don’t haveenough computers and are “bare bones” when itcomes to support staff, he says. “The state has notprovided us with extra money there.”

Despite its lack of funding, the department of ed-ucation is clearly supportive of districts wishing todo more to integrate technology in their classrooms,Stayrook says.

“We know that the state doesn’t have a whole lotof money either,” he says. “But they have done a lotin the way of motivating schools to use technology.”

Alaskan educators say the private sector hashelped pick up some of the slack.

British Petroleum, the state’s leading oil company,donated several hundred used computers to theschools last year. In the process, the company set up25 technical training centers and paid for teachertraining, software, and cables for schools that re-ceived the computing equipment. —JESSICA L. SANDHAM

A R I Z O N A

• State Education Agency Web Site: wwwwww..ade.state.az.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Alex Belous (602) 542-5080

• Technology Literacy Challenge Fund:FY 1997 $2.8 millionFY 1998 $6.4 million

• Selected Other Federal Resources for Technology:Department of Commerce TIIAP $749,458

• Number of Students: 749,759Student-Multimedia Computer Ratio 28:1


Arizona’s schools are clearly hungry for technology.The state education department wanted to give

away nine donated multimedia projectors earlierthis year. It received 142 applications from districtsand schools.

But for a variety of political and financial reasons,larger-scale state support for technology has beenslow in coming.

“Most large school systems are pretty wellahead,” says Hank Stabler, the technology directorfor the 29,000-student Peoria Unified school dis-trict, one of the state’s larger suburban systems.“The community demands it and passes bonds tofund it. But within smaller school systems, there’sa huge range.”

That range is in part the result of the vast dispar-ity among Arizona districts’ property wealth, whichdetermines how much money school systems canraise for school-construction and -maintenance pro-jects—let alone technology.

For the past threeyears, the state hasbeen embroiled in aschool-finance lawsuitthat seeks to lessenthe disparity. In themeantime, observerssay, lawmakers areunlikely to provide ahefty cash infusion fortechnology.

“It’s hard to ad-dress technologywhen the roof leaks,”quips the author of awhite paper on leg-islative prioritiesdrawn up by the Ari-zona Learning Tech-nology Partnership, apublic-private al-liance launched ayear ago to help sup-

port the state’s K-12 technology push.Arizona’s main technology goal for K-12 schools

is for every student to have equitable Internet ac-cess by June 1999. To date, between 60 percent and70 percent of all public schools in the state are con-nected, says Alex Belous, the state education de-partment’s director of Internet and learning tech-nologies.

Lisa Graham Keegan, the state’s elected Republi-can schools chief, is a booster for technology usesthat promote greater public accountability. Such ef-forts include publishing school report cards on theInternet and developing ways of tracking studentsand spending down to the school level.

It is no accident that these are Keegan’s priorities:She heartily supports a free-market education sys-tem in which parents can use taxpayer dollars tochoose from a wide range of public, private, andparochial schools.

Notwithstanding the superintendent’s enthusi-asm, Stabler sees a leadership void in school tech-nology.

“In this state, we have not seen any champion,”says Stabler, who heads an informal group of districttechnology directors. “And on the one hand, we wantto invite high-tech companies here, but on the otherhand, we don’t want to invest in the technology lit-eracy of our students. There’s a real disconnect.”

Arizona’s political climate makes it difficult to co-ordinate technology efforts statewide, some say, be-cause local control reigns supreme and state man-dates are anathema.

“The state role is really to pilot: Let’s think it up,let’s try it out, find a partner, and have at it. Andthen we step back,” Belous says.

The emphasis on local control has affected tech-nology funding as well. To date, school technologydollars have come almost exclusively from local dis-tricts and the federal government.

Arizona received $2.7 million from the federal gov-ernment’s Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. Thestate has already doled out its first 100 connectivitygrants, at $5,000 per connection, mostly to smaller,more rural districts that historically have been un-derserved technologically. The grants translate intoa full-time, plugged-in Internet connection.

Comprehensive implementation grants of up to$150,000 are being distributed to school systemsthat already have basic connections, but need to beefup their infrastructure or teacher training.

“It’s moving on to the next step, which is desktopInternet access,” Belous says. But the real challengefor schools, he says, is to integrate technology intothe curriculum.

“The buzzword is curriculum integration, but noone really knows what that means. We talk aboutgetting access, but it’s like, I have a telephone, nowwho do I call?” —LYNN SCHNAIBERG

A R K A N S A S

• State Education Agency Web Site: ark.edu.k12.ar.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:James Boardman (501) 682-4239






Arkansas continued on Page 50


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

12

25

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

22 2219

10

4742


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

15%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

15%


15%



eevveerr

15%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


11%

Grade 4 Grade 8


For a state that has lagged behind many others onnumerous measures of educational quality, Arkansashas made significant strides in school technology.

This school year, for example, every school and dis-trict office in the state will have access to the Inter-net through dedicated telephone lines.

One reason is that Arkansas has had educationaltechnology on its agenda for a long time. Its com-mitment started in 1983, when the legislature au-thorized a partnership between the state depart-ment of education and a nonprofit company toprovide schools with microcomputers. Known as Project IMPAC—Instructional Microcomputer Project for Arkansas Classrooms—the programhelps schools develop technology plans, build theinfrastructure for technology, buy hardware andsoftware, and train teachers, says Cecil McDermott,IMPAC’s program manager.

The legislature gives the education department$2.7 million a year to channel to IMPAC activities,which exist in “every school in one way or another,”McDermott says.

Another prong in the state’s multilevel effort tobring technology to schools is the Arkansas PublicSchool Computer Network. Like IMPAC, the project isa partnership between the state and a nonprofitcompany. It was conceived in 1991 to develop a

statewide computernetwork that wouldlink public schools toeach other and to theeducation depart-ment, primarily foradministrative pur-poses. It also hasbeen the driving forcebehind connectingschools to the Inter-net.

Since 1992, the leg-islature has funneled$41 million into thenetwork’s efforts, ac-cording to Bob Fried-man, the APSCN’s di-rector.

James Boardman,the state’s assistantsuperintendent for in-formation and tech-nology, says Arkansas

will focus next on increasing classroom uses of tech-nology and giving more individual classrooms—notjust schools—Internet access.

“We’re still behind on instructional use,” Board-man says. “We’ve really moved forward on connec-tivity and administrative [uses of technology]. Now,we need to move into the classroom and into profes-sional development.”

The state’s recently updated technology plan sug-gests strategies to do that, Boardman says.

Meanwhile, he says, one initiative already in theworks is likely to help. The legislature recently ear-marked $200,000 to set up two-way interactive videocapability at Arkansas’ 15 regional education cooper-atives. Such technology will help the centers deliverall types of training programs—including those deal-ing with technology—to educators across the state.

In addition, it will give students access to teachersand courses beyond those available in their own dis-tricts. Aiding in the effort is the Arkansas EducationTelevision Network, which is providing the regionalcooperatives with programs to air in every K-12 sub-ject area, says John Cheek, AETN’s director of learn-ing services.

At the district level, interest is growing in whattechnology can do for students, Boardman says. Re-cently, 167 districts—more than half the state’s total—applied for a piece of the $2.1 million Arkansas re-ceived from the federal government in TechnologyLiteracy Challenge Fund money. He said the state hasreserved $450,000 of the sum for districts that havehigh poverty rates and a greater need for technology.

Technology, he says, “will be equalizing if we useit correctly. If you’re in a rural place where it’s veryhard to bring in a depth and breadth of program-ming, where it’s difficult to have access to the infor-mation and resources available, it will help tremen-dously.” —JO ANNA NATALE

C A L I F O R N I A

• State Education Agency Web Site:wwwwww..goldmine.cde.ca.gov/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Jim Greco (916) 657-5414


• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $5.6 million1997 Technology Innovation Grant: $7 million

• Number of Students: 5,535,312Student-Multimedia Computer Ratio: 27:1


School technology has never been one of Califor-nia’s strong points; instead, it’s been something of anembarrassment.

“For the state that’s home to Silicon Valley, thatstarted NetDay, and that’s been innovative in tech-nology in a number of ways, California has done verypoorly in putting computers in the hands of teachersand students,” says Glen Thomas, the newly namedmanager of educational technology for the state de-partment of education.

The state is poised for big changes, however. In thepast few months, California has unleashed twomajor undertakings to build the technological infra-structure in schools and to improve teacher training.

“It’ll be a totally different landscape in Californiain three years in terms of infrastructure and profes-sional development,” Thomas says.

Under the Digital High School initiative, lawmak-ers will dedicate more than $1 billion over four yearsto boost the level of technology in California schools.Two hundred high schools—their names drawn in alottery—will be thefirst to benefit fromthe program, receiv-ing $300 per studentthis school year to de-vote to technology.

“It’s the largestamount of fundingthis state has everhad for technology,”says John Cradler, aSan Francisco-basedtechnology researcherand consultant whohelped develop theguidelines for theDigital High Schoolprogram.

The money, whichdistricts must matchwith local funds, willupgrade hardwareand software, providestudents and teach-ers with direct Internet access, and train teachers inhow to use the technology to achieve curriculumgoals, Thomas says. Over four years, between400,000 and 1 million computers will be added tohigh schools.

Instead of introducing technology to schools in apiecemeal way, as state educators have done so far,“we’ll totally fund the whole ball of wax right now,”Thomas says.

In September, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson signedinto law another major technology initiative, this onerequiring new teachers to have basic skills in tech-nology before setting foot in the classroom.

The law doesn’t go into effect until 2000, but itenlists the California Commission on Teacher Cre-dentialing to determine what constitutes basicskills. Likely components will include a basic un-derstanding of hardware systems and familiaritywith e-mail and other telecommunications services,says Rod Santiago, the commission’s legislativeliaison.

The law is significant because California expectsto hire thousands of teachers over the next severalyears as the student population rises, older teachersretire, and class sizes drop.

Other efforts aimed at improving school technol-ogy are already at work in the state. Among them:• Federal and state grant programs. This year,

California is projected to get $46.5 million underthe federal Technology Literacy Challenge Fund;last year, it received $20.6 million. In addition, forthe past three years, California has funded its own$16 million grant program to advance technology inschools. In either case, schools can use the moneyfor technology however they see fit.


Arkansas continued from Page 47

California continued on Page 52

Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

9

40

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

20

1218

11

53

37



None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

6

22

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2521

30

12

38

45


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

12%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

16%


13%



eevveerr

14%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


12%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Grade 4 Grade 8


• The California Technology Assistance Project. Forthe past two years, the legislature has devoted about$2.5 million a year to this network of 11 regionalagencies that assist districts with technology. Theagencies’ job is to help districts make technologypurchases, to provide technical training to teachers,and to advise schools on developing technologyplans, Thomas says.• Project Golden Net. This effort seeks to link dis-

tricts to the state department of education so thatthey can quickly exchange administrative data,such as attendance counts and curriculum reports.Last summer, $10 million was appropriated for theproject—funded primarily with developers’ fees—towire 13 rural counties. “We are hoping to completethe wiring for everybody by 2000,” Thomas says.• The California Instructional Technology Clear-

inghouse. Developed in the late 1980s, the clearing-house is an on-line database providing assessmentsof thousands of software products available for in-struction. Teachers and administrators have evalu-ated all the products to determine the extent towhich the software meets California curriculumstandards and whether a product is user-friendly.

—JO ANNA NATALE

C O L O R A D O

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.cde.state.co.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Eric Feder (303) 866-6859





Colorado fashions itself a high-tech state. It ishome to major cable and telephone companies suchas Tele-Communications Inc. and US West, and, byone estimate, it has one of the highest concentra-tions of high-tech workers in the country.

But some Colorado educators believe the state isnot taking the lead it should on school technology.

“My impression is that Colorado is not very wellcoordinated at the state level,” says Larry Buchanan,the technology coordinator for the 21,000-studentPoudre school district. “We do informal coordinationamong district technology coordinators. But the statehas not really taken a strong role.”

In 1996, the legislature appropriated $20 millionin competitive grants for education technology. Themoney was available to K-12 schools, higher educa-tion institutions, and state libraries.

Democratic Gov.Roy Romer this yearcalled for $25 millionin grants and an-other $20 million forprofessional develop-ment. But the budgetrequest fell victim toother priorities, andthe legislature appro-priated no statefunds for educationtechnology.

“It just didn’t comeabout,” says EricFeder, the director ofeducational telecom-munications in thestate department ofeducation. “We’rehoping that in thenext legislative ses-sion, there will be an-other initiative.”

On paper, at least, Colorado has a strong vision foreducation technology.

The state’s lengthy education technology plan,released last March, calls for Colorado to integratetechnology with the state’s subject-matter contentstandards and to take the lead in building the infrastructure for networked classrooms andschools.

The state already has “information literacyguidelines,” and its technology plan contains a pro-posed set of technology standards. While the stan-dards haven’t been adopted, they go well beyondbroad generalities to such specifics as how manywords per minute a 5th grade student should beable to “keyboard” (12-15, using touch skills 50 per-cent of the time), and when students should be ableto create documents (2nd grade) and manipulatedatabases (4th grade).

Local control of schools is a bedrock principle inColorado, so even Feder acknowledges that “districtsare way ahead of what the state is doing.”

In Colorado’s largest district, Jefferson County insuburban Denver, officials last year sought to comeup with a way to distribute education technologymore equitably among its 137 schools.

John Canuel, the district’s instructional technol-ogy coordinator, says that PTA groups at some schoolswould raise money for computers on a regular basis,while schools in poorer neighborhoods got few extras.

“Our district PTA wanted to get out of the technol-ogy business,” he says. So the district came up witha plan in which all schools lease their computersfrom the district.

“We come in and buy out all the equipment in theschools,” Mr. Canuel says. “We’ve been doing it for 15years with copiers.”

Now, computers in Jefferson County schools arephased in on a five-year cycle, meaning all schoolshave some of both new and older-model machines.

“It is slower growth, but every six months eachschool gets some new computers,” Mr. Canuel says.

He adds that he has had “almost zero” contactwith the state on technology issues. “All of our tech-nology funding is coming right out of our generalbudget,” he says.

Many districts are turning to corporate and pri-

vate support for help. In Denver, the US West Foun-dation operates the Curtis Park Technology Center,a neighborhood-based place for disadvantaged chil-dren, welfare recipients, and senior citizens to comein to surf the Internet or work on a resume.

US West, one of the Baby Bell regional telephonecompanies, has also partnered with the Denver dis-trict to offer discounted Internet accounts to districtemployees and parents. The company gives $2 ofevery $12.95 monthly fee per account back to thedistrict. —MARK WALSH

C O N N E C T I C U T

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.state.ct.us/sde/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Carol Rocque (860) 566-8889





With the state pouring millions into technology in-frastructure for schools, experts say Connecticut coulddo more in other areas of educational technology.

“The state has carved out the role of infrastructure,not necessarily of hardware and training,” says stateRep. Denise W. Merrill, a Democrat who has been thelegislature’s main proponent of school technology.

The legislature allocated $10 million for technol-ogy infrastructure in the 1995-97 budget, and thatfigure will rise to $20 million in the 1997-99 budget.

From that pot of funds, $1 million will be given toeach of the largest districts in the state: Hartford,Bridgeport, and New Haven. The remaining fundswill be distributed through competitive grants inwhich districts with technology plans will vie formoney to pay for wiring, hubs, routers, servers, andlocal area networks.

Legislators are taking a wait-and-see attitude be-fore committing to technology in other ways, how-ever. They want to see more research on the effec-tiveness of school technology and to avoid mistakesthat other states may now be making. Besides,fiercely independent local districts and towns often


California continued from Page 50


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

4

12

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

31

19

29

8

36

60


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

7

22

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

34

13

41

7

18

58


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

18%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

12%


12%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Grade 4 Grade 8


view state involve-ment in educationwith suspicion.

And technology canbe a tough sell to statelegislators who do noteven have access to e-mail and the Internetin their own state of-fices, Merrill adds.

“We are makingprogress, but we needto focus more on pro-fessional learning,”says Merle Harris,the chairwoman ofthe Joint Committeeon Educational Tech-nology, established bythe legislature toguide technology de-velopment. “We as-sume that our teach-ers have the skills,” but many do not, she says.

Toward that end, the state plans to use its $1.5million grant from the federal Technology LiteracyChallenge Fund to offer more professional develop-ment for teachers. Training will be conductedthroughout the state in Connecticut’s six regionaleducation service centers.

Carol Rocque, the state technology coordinator,says she was pleased that the TLCF money is avail-able for training because none was forthcoming fromthe legislature.

“We asked for professional development money atthe state level, but it’s very difficult to get fundingfor,” Rocque says.

Technology is slowly making its way into contentstandards for students and proficiency requirements

for new teachers, Rocque says. The state’s masterytests, administered to 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10thgraders, will soon have more technology components.

The state has done a fair amount of planning fortechnology, Rocque says. Its technology plan was de-veloped over a two-year period and is due for an up-date next year.

In addition, the joint committee headed by Harrisincludes representatives of schools, higher educationinstitutions, libraries, and businesses. The commit-tee aims to link services among schools, public li-braries, and universities and colleges to avoid creat-ing systems that can’t speak to each other.

A perennial struggle in Connecticut—providingequity among poorer and more affluent districts—spills over to educational technology as well. A peerreview of the state’s TLCF application flagged a con-cern that the state’s poorest districts would lag be-hind wealthy districts in the planning and develop-ment of technology.

“There are some districts in the state that are notcoming up to speed at all, particularly the smaller,rural ones,” says Ted Merritt, the chairman of a tech-nology committee of an association of Connecticutschool superintendents.

And he, like others, says the state as a whole hasa long way to go as well.

“We know we’re not where we should be, but beinga little behind puts us in the position to leapfrog,”Merritt says. —ANITA M. SELINE

D E L A W A R E

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.doe.state.de.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Theresa Vendrzyk Kough (302) 739-4692


• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $223,1831997 Technology Innovation Grant: $1 million




Delaware continued on Page 54


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

18

45

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

33

2016

11

34

25


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

14%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


13%

Grade 4 Grade 8


Blessed by its small size, Delaware has taken anactive role in upgrading school technology, wiringschools, and promoting business involvement.

State officials are in the process of building an“education data network” that will provide all ofDelaware’s 7,000 classrooms access to various typesof technology. Gov. Thomas R. Carper, a Democrat,has also made school technology a priority duringhis two terms, tying it to economic development.

In a recent speech,Carper called tech-nology “a critical ele-ment” to help furtherthe state’s academicstandards and boostlocal curricula.

“We’re making aninvestment—an enor-mous investment atthat—in the future ofour entire state andnation,” he said.

Much of that invest-ment began in 1994,when Delaware re-ceived a $220 millionwindfall from a U.S.Supreme Court caseconcerning the heirs ofdeceased businessowners who had of-fices in New York butlived in Delaware.State officials decided to set aside $30 million of thesettlement to upgrade school technology.

Their first goal—scheduled for completion nextyear—was to wire every classroom for state-of-the-art technologies, including computers, fax machines,and video.

So far, the state has made large strides. The li-brary in each of Delaware’s 180 public schools hasalready been connected to the Internet, and librari-ans are now working on providing students with on-line resources, including magazines, journals, andencyclopedias.

The wiring project will “make substantial im-provements in terms of equity in access to informa-tion,” says Tom Sloan, a librarian for the state gov-ernment and a board member of the DelawareCenter for Educational Technology, the group coor-dinating the Internet wiring.

Delaware has also enlisted federal AmeriCorpsvolunteers to help recycle used computers donatedfrom government offices and local businesses. Sofar, about 200 computers have been sent to class-rooms via that route, says Sheri Woodruff, a spokes-woman for the governor’s office.

Earlier this fall, top district officials gathered ata summit to discuss their next step—how to inte-grate technology into the curriculum.

Only 15 percent of classrooms had modern com-puters in fiscal 1997, compared with 5 percent infiscal 1996, and only 20 percent of classrooms hadeffectively used technology in the school curriculumin fiscal 1997, compared with 5 percent in fiscal1996, according to state data.

State education officials are “really making strongefforts to tie technology to what kids and teachers arebeing asked to do,” says Theresa Vendrzyk Kough, thestate’s education associate for libraries and technol-ogy. “It’s not just technology for technology’s sake.”

About 20 percent of the teachers in buildings thathave received wiring have completed training to usethe technology and better understand the Internet,according to state estimates, and the University ofDelaware has offered free classes to train teachers onusing technology to improve instruction.

Delaware’s board of education is also consideringa proposal that would require “competence in the


Delaware continued from Page 53



eevveerr

13%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


10%

use of technology” for teachers seeking initial certi-fication and recertification.

But some school officials do not feel that that isenough.

Gail J. Ames, the director of assessment andschool improvement at the Red Clay district nearWilmington, is grateful for the state’s focus on tech-nology, but worries that teachers do not receiveenough training to maximize their opportunities.

Classrooms also need more hardware to take ad-vantage of the state network, she adds. “We don’thave all the computers we’d like to have at the endsof those wires.”

But Kough says she expects the transformationto take some time. Rather than seeing computersas an “add-on” in the classrooms, she says, “moststudents, even teachers, are going to be in an envi-ronment where they’re going to be using computersto do work.” —JOETTA L. SACK

F L O R I D A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.firn.edu/doe

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Peter Lenkway (904) 488-0980


• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $272,7381997 Technology Innovation Grant: $1.3 million



Florida is one of the nation’s leaders in schooltechnology, and financial resources are a major rea-son why. Over the past five years, state lawmakershave appropriated $445 million to the cause.

“Florida’s always put a lot more money and a lotmore commitment into [school technology] thanmost other states,” says John Cradler, an educa-tional technology researcher and consultant basedin San Francisco.

So far, the money and planning have shaped thistechnology scene:• Educators have access to the Florida Informa-

tion Resource Network, a statewide network con-necting public school districts, community colleges,

state universities, and libraries.• Many older schools have used an $80 million

retrofitting program sponsored by the state to up-grade their buildings to take advantage of technology.

• Every school has avideodisc player, pur-chased at state ex-pense.• Florida has empha-

sized the importanceof teacher training intechnology by requir-ing districts to spend30 percent of theirstate technology dol-lars for that purpose.• Technology is

linked to the state’sacademic standards;all the core subjectcurricula incorporatethe use of technologyas a teaching andlearning tool.

“Our strong pointis that we were earlyadopters of technol-ogy,” says Peter Lenk-

way, an administrator in the office of educationaltechnology at the Florida Department of Education.“We have a large institutional base of technology inschools, and we’ve had a variety of initiatives overthe years that have pointed teaching and schoolsinto the future.”

One of the most lauded initiatives is the statenetwork, FIRN. Conceived in the early 1980s as anetwork to link schools for administrative pur-poses, FIRN has since added other functions.

Today, it supports 50,000 free e-mail accounts forteachers; serves as an Internet provider for schools;features its own Web server, which gets about200,000 hits a week; and allows school officials totransfer student and administrative records elec-tronically. FIRN also features a toll-free telephonehot line available seven days a week and supports10 technicians around the state to help educatorsmake use of its services.

“FIRN is a valuable resource, and Florida is luckyto have this as part of the infrastructure,” concludeda review panel evaluating state applications for thefederal Technology Literacy Challenge Fund.

State funds pay for FIRN, and all the state’s dis-tricts have access to it—90 percent through directconnections and 10 percent through dial-up accounts.Each district, however, is responsible for connectingits schools to the system through a wide-area net-work—and that leaves some schools wanting.

“Some districts have all their schools connected;some don’t,” says Bill Schmid, FIRN’s director.

Making access to technology more equitable is achallenge in Florida, where state money is dividedamong districts on a per-pupil basis. Smaller,poorer districts have a hard time affording expen-sive technology, Schmid says, and are anxiouslyawaiting the distribution of federal “E-rate” dis-counts on telecommunications services.

State officials also hope to increase the numberof modern computers in Florida classrooms.

Even though the student-to-computer ratio islow—at 6-to-1, according to state figures—officialspoint out that this figure includes outdated models.

“We have a lot of old equipment,” Lenkway says.“For example, we have 69,000 Apple IIs in schools.”The state has recommended that districts come upwith a plan to replace old computers, he says.

Another challenge in Florida is getting teachersall the training they need in technology, withoutdepriving students of instructional time, he adds.The state is exploring ways to train teachers with-out asking them to leave their schools and stu-dents, such as distributing CD-ROMs featuring tech-

nology instruction and using the state’s satellitetransponder to deliver instruction. —JO ANNA NATALE

G E O R G I A• State Education Agency Web Site:

www.doe.k12.ga.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Oscar L. Perry (404) 657-0810





The story of educational technology in Georgia is atwo-part tale: before the lottery and after the lottery.

Before 1994—the first year schools started re-ceiving the benefits of the state’s lottery for educa-tion—districts were pretty much on their own ifthey wanted to spend on technology.

Since then, the lottery has pumped more thanhalf a billion dollars into technology for schools anduniversities. That money has been a catalyst for districts to make their own investments in tech-nology.

“Folks assumed that [the lottery] would be ashort-lived initiative,” says Bailey Mitchell, the di-rector of instructional technology for the GeorgiaDepartment of Education. “But it’s become an insti-tutionalized part of the budgeting process.”

Just this year, almost $37 million in lottery fundswere sent to districts for hardware and software.The legislature also approved $15.4 million to payfor district technology specialists.

The money—distributed on a per-student basis—has established a base of technology in the schools,while still giving districts flexibility to buy theequipment and software they prefer. That demandfor local control, however, can lead to uneven use oftechnology in the schools, leaving some legislatorsdisillusioned.

“There are schools that are benefiting greatly,and there are schools that don’t understand whatwe’re doing,” says Rep. Jeffrey L. Williams, a Re-publican from suburban Atlanta who serves on the



Georgia continued on Page 56


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

4

21

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

28 26

52

18 17

35


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

3

15

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

3127

45

1421

44


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

14%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


11%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Grade 4 Grade 8


House education committee. “The challenge is thatthe average teacher on the street is still frustratedthat she doesn’t have enough computers.”

According to a state survey, Georgia has one In-ternet-ready computer for every 13 students. Thegoal, Mitchell says, is to have six computers inevery classroom.

In the meantime, the state is trying to help teachers use the com-puters they do havemore effectively. Withmoney from the gen-eral fund, the legisla-ture has establishedregional technologytraining centers forteachers, paraprofes-sionals, administra-tors, and bookkeepers.Just this year, law-makers approved$444,000 for two morecenters, bringing thetotal to 13.

The teacher train-ing program is de-signed not only tomake teachers com-fortable with the ma-chines and familiarwith various softwarepackages, but skilled

in blending those programs into the curriculum.Some district officials, however, still feel as if train-

ing takes a back seat to equipment. “That will con-tinue to be a criticism,” says George Bagwell, the di-rector of technology and staff development for theGwinnett County schools, a large suburban districtoutside Atlanta. “Schools don’t train their staffs aswell as corporations do.”

Giving students and teachers better access to theInternet—through a state network called Peach-Net—is also a priority. The state spent $2 millionthis year to connect more K-12 schools.

While state officials have invested heavily in tech-nology, they are also taking advantage of the federaldollars that are available. This year, the state re-ceived $4.8 million from the Technology LiteracyChallenge Fund. The funds will be distributed to dis-tricts through a competitive process, with an empha-sis on districts with higher rates of student poverty.

In addition to equipping schools with computersand software, the legislature decided in 1992 tospend $50 million to start up an interactive dis-tance-learning network. The system makes coursesand other educational opportunities available tostudents, particularly those attending small dis-tricts in rural areas of the state.

As of January, the network was serving morethan 130,000 students at 171 K-12 schools.

The financial question remaining is whether thelottery can be sustained as a powerful source of rev-enue for education.

“Every other lottery in the country has gonethrough a falling off of revenue,” Williams says.

If that happens, legislators, or voters, may beforced to choose between technology and threeother programs funded by the lottery—the HOPEcollege scholarship program, prekindergarten, andschool construction. —LINDA JACOBSON

H A W A I I

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.k12.hi.us

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Diana Oshiro (808) 586-3307


• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $697,9521997 Technology Innovation Grant: $752,866



In the midst of a continuing fiscal crisis that hassliced most state services, the Hawaii legislature thisyear approved one of its largest investments in edu-cational technology.

The state will pour more than $17 million in the1997-99 biennium into building the infrastructureneeded to wire every classroom to the state com-puter network and provide Internet access and mul-timedia capability to every teacher and student. Thefunding is more than 10 times the previous bien-nium’s allocation for school technology.

One lawmaker says the increase represents a shiftin thinking among her colleagues, many of whomnow see technology as a key to addressing the state’seconomic woes.

“I have been most interested in the way technol-ogy can accelerate and enhance economic develop-ment,” says state Sen. Carol Fukunaga, who chairsthe Senate ways and means committee. “In thepast, there has been more of a focus on the bricksand mortar needs of schools. We now have a cadreof legislators who can see the value and need forcomputers.”

The state’s network already links each of Hawaii’smore than 250 schools. Now, the state is in the processof hooking up all the classrooms, a task that has beenslowed in recent years by budget constraints.

The network has reached students of all socioeco-nomic levels throughout Hawaii’s eight main is-lands, according to John Sosa, a director with the Pa-cific Resources for Education and Learning, afederally funded research lab in Honolulu.

“There’s a real equity strength within the systemthat you don’t have in other states,” says Sosa, whoserved as the superintendent of the Honolulu schooldistrict until this past summer. “The focus has reallybeen on getting Internet access to every kid.”

The state is placing particular emphasis on usingthe Internet to expand educational offerings to itsmost remote regions. Under a five-year $4.7 milliongrant from the U.S. Department of Education, Inter-net-based and satellite broadcast courses make ad-

vanced instruction available to almost any student ingrades 7-12. Hawaii’s “e-school” also allows studentsto write for a state literary magazine, take a coursein Shakespeare from the University of Hawaii, orparticipate in a cyber-entrepreneur program.

The state’s superior infrastructure has not trans-lated into large numbers of computers for teachersor students, however. Hawaii has an average of 17students for every classroom computer, according tothe state department of education; officials hope toimprove that ratio to 6-to-1 as more funding becomesavailable. Only 37 percent of the state’s nearly12,000 teachers report regular use of computers.

“Technology on the instructional side is not mov-ing as fast as we would like,” says Diana Oshiro, thestate’s assistant superintendent for technology. “Butattitudes are changing.”

In September, Gov. Benjamin J. Cayetano an-nounced a new program to get more computers tostudents. The Computers for Schools program willsolicit donations of used computers, repair the equip-ment, and get them back to work in classrooms. Theprogram also provides job training to the state’s in-mates, who will learn to repair and refurbish thecomputers. A similar program in California hasplaced more than 33,000 recycled computers inclassrooms since 1991.

Much of Hawaii’s technology is still used only at theadministrative level. Officials at the state educationdepartment and field offices on individual islandshave become increasingly dependent on technologysince more than 400 administrative positions wereaxed several years ago in response to budget cuts.

Teacher training,meanwhile, has beena priority. The stateis using the $1 mil-lion it received thisyear from the federalTechnology LiteracyChallenge Fund totrain teachers inevery school how touse the Internet tosupplement instruc-tion, to integratetechnology into thecurriculum, and todevelop Web sites. Ithas also provided ayearlong institute forhundreds of teachersin the use of technol-ogy in the classroom.

The state’s nextpriority should be toprovide better main-tenance for its school technology, Sosa says. “Weprobably have a lot of computers and systems thatare not being used to their capability because wehaven’t had the technical support to help principalsand teachers maximize their effectiveness.”

—KATHLEEN KENNEDY MANZO

I D A H O

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.state.id.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Rich Mincer (208) 332-6800




Georgia continued from Page 55

Idaho continued on Page 58


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

8

20

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

46

2630

10

17

44


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

15%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


10%

Computer UsePublic school 8th graders’ report on the frequency of computer use for mathematics.


eevveerr

14%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

10%


10%

Grade 4 Grade 8


1997 Technology Innovation Grant: $1.3 million



Idaho has made a steady financial commitmentto school technology since 1994, when the legisla-ture enacted the Idaho Technology Initiative.

While that piece of legislation calls for annualspending of $3.4 million, lawmakers have added an-other $7 million for technology in one-time fundseach year. The annual total of $10.4 million is notan insubstantial amount, considering that Idahohas just 240,000 students.

The money—consisting each year of $20,000 baseallocations to districts with technology plans, plus$35 per-pupil allocations—has gone a long way to-ward increasing the hardware available in schools.A 1990 state survey put the student-to-computerratio at 26-to-1. Today, it’s 6-to-1, says Rich Mincer,the chief of the Idaho Department of Education’sbureau of technology services. The national averageis 7-to-1, according to the research firm MarketData Retrieval.

Idaho’s technology plan hopes to bring the state’sratio down even more. “Our minimum goal is 5-to-1;our optimum goal is 3-to-1,” Mincer says.

Other money has helped propel advances. All thefunding the state received from the federal Goals 2000program has been applied toward technology, as has$4.5 million contributed in 1996 by the state publicutilities’ commission because of customer overcharges.

In addition, the legislature has given the state’sfour schools of education $1 million a year since1995 to train district-level teachers in technology,primarily in its integration into the classroom. Part-nerships with Hewlett-Packard Co. and MicronTechnology have assisted schools as well, providingnew and used computer equipment, training for ed-ucators, and financial assistance in connectingschools to the Internet, Mincer says.

As of last year, about a third of Idaho’s schoolsstill lacked access to the Internet. Getting themhooked up is one of the state’s most pressing goals,Mincer says.

Several other initiatives are in the works. Thestate board of education is reviewing a proposal forminimum technology standards for teacher certifi-cation. Also, the state is developing curriculumguidelines for all subjects and exit requirements forhigh school graduates. Once those are drawn up,the plan is to weave use of technology throughoutthe recommendations, Mincer says.

The state is also conducting a statewide review ofthe impact technology is having in the classroom.The results are due Jan. 1.

One of the groups awaiting the review’s results isthe legislature.

“We need to demonstrate what we’ve done with themoney the legislature has given us so far and wherewe’re going with it,” says Mike Howard, the principalof Payette Lakes Middle School in McCall and a mem-ber of the Idaho Council for Technology in Learning.

“The legislature has dedicated money towardtechnology, but they’ve just whetted our appetites,”Howard says. “The more we learn [about technol-ogy], the more we want to learn.” —JO ANNA NATALE

I L L I N O I S

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.isbe.state.il.us/homepage.html


Idaho continued from Page 56

Illinois continued on Page 60


• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Sharon Roberts (217) 782-5596





Illinois lags behind states with comparable K-12enrollments in investing in technology, but it’s tryingto catch up. Policymakers would like to use their tar-diness to “learn from other states’ mistakes and do itright,” the state’s information technology plan says.

With no dedicated source of funding for technol-ogy, Illinois districts have been left largely on theirown. The state’s dramatic gaps in wealth among dis-tricts, not surprisingly, have produced similar dis-parities in distribution of technology.

That picture is starting to change, however. Law-makers approved $15 million for educational tech-nology in fiscal 1996, $30 million in fiscal 1997, and$44 million this year. The state’s plan calls for heftyincreases in the future, to $194 million in 2000.

Gov. Jim Edgar, who annually hosts a technologysummit, has been a strong supporter. In 1996, hecalled for all Illinois districts to have high-speed con-nections to the Internet by 2000.

State officials say that while it’s important to helpstudents gain access to modern machinery, they’reeven more interested in using technology to helptransform classroom practice. Statewide, there are20 students for each multimedia computer, accordingto the research firm Market Data Retrieval.

“It’s easy to get locked up in the whole glamour ofequipment,” notes Lugene Finley, the acting associ-ate superintendent for technology. “We know thatthe equipment is merely a tool to help us improvestudent learning.”

As an example of what they’d like to see, officialspoint to a state project that has connected eight mu-seums with 260 classrooms around the state. Studentshave access to museum artifacts and can explore in-formation and ideas in consultation with curators.

“If a teacher is open to allowing students to con-struct their own knowledge, she runs a very differentkind of class,” says Cheryl L. Lemke, a former associ-ate superintendent of learning technologies in Illinoiswho is now the vice president of educational technol-ogy for the Milken Exchange on Education Technol-ogy. “It’s not just a lecture. You can provide a frame-work for learning basic skills by allowing students touse technology in productive and powerful ways.”

In addition to competitive grants to districts, Illi-nois is putting dollars into building a statewide net-work that will allow all schools to have high-speedconnections to the Internet. By the end of the cur-rent school year, officials hope to have half of thestate’s 4,100 schools connected.

In 1995, the state board of education launched“learning technology hubs,” now in seven locations.These regional offices provide technical assistanceand professional development to local districts.

The hub strategy also allows the regional centersto work with districts to ensure that their purchasesfit within the larger state framework. “A consistentprogram for all schools is vital, so we aren’t going outwith everybody getting their own deal and their ownprovider and creating a network nightmare,” saysstate Sen. Frank C. Watson, a Republican.

The state was one of the nation’s first to receivefunding—$9.1 million—from the federal TechnologyLiteracy Challenge Fund. The money is distributed bycompetitive grants, with preference given to districts

that have large numbers of low-income students.Districts must spend a minimum of 25 percent of

the funds on training teachers to use new learningtechnologies, notes Sharon Roberts, a policy adviseron technology at the state education department.This focus on professional development, along withthe state’s clear vision for the role that technologyshould play in education, earned it kudos from thepanel that reviewed Illinois’ TLCF application.

But the level of interest in the grant program un-derscores the hunger for learning technology amongIllinois districts. The state received 664 applications,Finley says, but could fund just over 50.

“There is a tremendous appetite and need outthere in terms of dollars to support technology ini-tiatives,” he says.

Clearly, grants alone cannot meet this demand.The state’s technology plan calls for the legislatureto identify a revenue source to support an annualper-pupil allocation of funds.

In fiscal 1996, the most recent year for which dataare available, Illinois spent $8 per student on tech-nology, compared with $70 in Ohio, $65 in Georgia,and $51 in Florida, according to Illinois’ technologyplan. —ANN BRADLEY

I N D I A N A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.doe.state.in.us

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Mary Jo Erdberg (317) 232-9119





Indiana doesn’t provide much in the way of stateaid for educational technology, so a district’s progressdepends largely on the interest and wealth of itslocal community.

“We’re a locally oriented state; that’s the Indianaway,” says Phyllis Land Usher, an assistant superin-tendent in the state education department.

That mindset may also help explain the dearth of

statewide data on school technology. The departmentof education conducted a survey this year, but tech-nology spending is hard to track in many districts’budgets, and some districts were confused about

what to count as acomputing device. Asa result, no one putsmuch stock in thesurvey’s results.

“We can tell yousegments of what isbeing spent on tech-nology—overall, no,”says Mike Huffman,who was appointedin August to fill anew position: specialassistant to the statesuperintendent fortechnology. Part ofHuffman’s job will beto improve informa-tion gathering abouttechnology.

Most of the moneyfor technology comesout of districts’ capi-tal-project funds,

which are collected from local property taxes.The downside of using this funding method is that

“wealthier school corporations have the capability toraise much more money than poorer corporations,”state Sen. Steve Johnson, a Republican fromKokomo, says.

At the same time, a couple of statewide technologyprograms have been quite successful. A programcalled the Buddy System, started in 1987, has placedcomputers in the homes of elementary students at70 schools. And the Indiana Technology LearningCenter at Butler University in Indianapolis, which isoperated mostly with state money, trained 3,500teachers, principals, and superintendents last year.

In 1995, the Indiana General Assembly approved$36 million in school technology funding for a two-year period, on top of $5.6 million it has allocatedeach year since the early 1990s. The $36 millioncame from gaming money—the lottery, charitybingo, horse betting, and riverboat gambling.

For the current two-year budget cycle, whichstarted in July, the state Senate wanted to shift thesource of the school technology money to the generalfund. But the House disagreed, and the legislatureended up approving $40 million from gamingsources, plus continuing the $5.6 million a year fromthe general fund.

Some technology advocates were disappointed.“If education depends on something as fluid as lot-

tery dollars, some years we may have disappoint-ments,” Usher says. “I would like to have general-fund rather than gaming revenue.”

Indiana hopes to use its technology funding to ad-dress the inequities among school districts. The stateTechnology Plan Grant Program, launched in the1996-97 school year, will give each school district aset per-pupil amount of money for technology. Thestate began with poorer districts and will reach alldistricts in five years.

The department of education is requiring schooldistricts that receive grants to have a five-year tech-nology plan in place and to pitch in one year’s worthof its capital-project-fund money.

In the meantime, the state has some catching upto do with its own planning. The department of edu-cation—with input from legislators, businesspeople,and school personnel—has developed a state tech-nology plan that lists four priorities: planning, pro-fessional development, access (including infrastruc-ture), and funding. However, the plan isn’t verydetailed—it’s only four pages long—and has nodeadlines or costs assigned to any of the proposals.The legislature does not have to approve it.


Illinois continued from Page 58


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

1

19

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1412

42

11

42

58


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

11%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

10%


15%

Grade 4 Grade 8


“It’s a reactive plan, not a leadership plan,” saysHuffman, who adds that he’s working on a better one.

Usher says an “iron-clad, concrete plan” is not al-ways the best idea. She admits that, “in some re-spects, it’s not good” that the legislature doesn’t ap-prove the technology plan, because “we don’t haveownership from top to bottom.”

“On the other hand,” she says, “the freedom you’regiven outside the political process makes for fastermovement.” —MARY ANN ZEHR

I O W A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.state.ia.us/educate/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Rich Gross (515) 281-5663





Iowa’s heavy investment in planning for educa-tional technology is starting to show results.

The state is about to complete the second year of anambitious five-year program in which $30 million isallocated each year to districts for, among other items,hardware, software, and infrastructure. The money isdistributed on a per-pupil basis, with a minimum of$15,000 given to the state’s smallest districts. Another$450,000 goes to fund regional area education agen-cies to provide technical assistance to schools.

Pouring all this money into technology improve-ment has given some legislators pause about whatwill happen in the future, says state Rep. Libby Ja-cobs, the chairwoman of the legislature’s oversightcommittee that handles all technology issues.

“The discussion now is what happens in year fivewhen we’ve got all this equipment,” Jacobs says.“Maintenance and updating will be issues.”

In the meantime, all that a district has to do toreceive its money from the state technology pro-gram is offer a one-page proposal laying out itsplans. Districts do not have to spend their allot-ments each year, but can earmark them for bigger


Iowa continued on Page 62


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

3

11

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

35

2230

10

31

58


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers

Grade 4 Grade 8


projects later in the five-year program.“Some districts may want to go slow, do a needs

assessment over two or three years, and then makea decision on how to spend it,” says Klark Jessen, aspokesman for the state education department.

That is a novel approach for Iowa, says AnnMolis, the state education department’s legislativeliaison. “In Iowa, we’re more cash-and-carry. Wedon’t usually operate that way.”

Technology continues to draw the interest of stateleaders. A recent report from the Governor’s Commis-sion on Educational Excellence for the 21st Centuryincludes numerous proposals for increasing schooltechnology. Gov. Terry E. Branstad was scheduled last

month to hold 10 pub-lic hearings on therecommendations,and is expected topropose legislationbased on them in hislegislative package,Jessen says.

Attracting muchattention is the com-mission’s recommen-dation that, with thesupport of the privatesector, every Iowastudent in the 4thgrade and above begiven access to a lap-top computer.

Other recommen-dations include ex-tending funding fortechnology beyondthe five-year pro-gram, incorporating

the use of technology into school-improvement plans,and continuing use of the Iowa Communications Net-work to enhance student learning, teacher develop-ment, and parent involvement.

The ICN is a $200 million project launched in thelate 1980s that will eventually connect all theschools in the state. It currently links all the state’scommunity colleges and at least one site in each ofIowa’s 99 counties, as well as a limited number ofschools. By 1999, the network will be installed in atleast one high school in each district.

Schools use the ICN in a variety of ways, includingproviding Internet access, carrying long-distancephone calls, and conducting distance-learning pro-jects, such as interactive video sessions with colleges.Other schools have tapped the system to exchangedata with the state education department, says RichGross, the director of technology for the state educa-tion department.

Gov. Branstad strongly supports the network, butit has a number of critics. Pressure from dozens ofsmall telephone companies in the state has ledsome legislators to consider selling the system to aprivate company.

Meanwhile, the state is collecting applications fordistribution of the $1.4 million grant that it receivedfrom the federal Technology Literacy ChallengeFund. The money will be given to schools with thehighest percentage of students receiving free or re-duced-price lunches, Jessen says.

About 30 grants will be awarded, and schools re-ceiving funding must complete their project by theend of September 1998. —ANITA M. SELINE

K A N S A S

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.ksbe.state.ks.us

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Sal Tayani (785) 296-2397

• Technology Literacy Challenge FundFY 1997: $1.5 millionFY 1998: $3 million




Kansas is just starting to plan a statewide tech-nology initiative, and its education leaders knowthey’re behind.

“We’ve got a long way to go,” says Andy Tompkins,the state’s commissioner of education. “Right now,we’re just trying to get connectivity and access.”

The state board of education will propose in Janu-ary that the legislature set aside $11.5 million fornew equipment, Internet access, and teacher train-ing. The money will be a modest start, Tompkinssays, and state officials know it won’t pay for every-thing they want.

“There’s a worry that [technology] is a big hole”that will be costly to fill, he says. “We don’t want togo in and give them sticker shock.”

Even the $11.5 million will be difficult to fund,says one legislator who’ll play a leading role in theplan’s fate.

Lawmakers already plan to boost spending foruniversities and community colleges and will beunder pressure to do the same for the state’s K-12per-pupil allocation, says Sen. Barbara Lawrence, aRepublican from Wichita who is the chairwoman ofthe Senate’s education committee.

“There’s a huge question of where do we get themoney when there is so much demand in otherareas,” she says.

Lawrence says she would prefer to free up moneythat could go for an initiative to reduce class sizes inthe earliest grades. That would probably do more tohelp children learn basic skills, she says.

What’s more, Lawrence says, she and other statelegislators don’t want to tread on the state’s tradi-tion of giving local districts wide discretion over howthey run their school systems.

That emphasis on local control has resulted in a“dramatic variation” across the state when it comesto technology, Tompkins says.

While some districts have not begun to plan forschool technology, others are operating model pro-grams, he says.

A coalition of districts and a university in thesoutheastern corner of the state has brought inter-active television to 10 schools. Similar partnershipsare cropping up throughout the state, he says.

Some districts have won approval for bonds to up-grade their technology. Others are reworking theirpriorities to pay for new equipment, and others redi-rected priorities for their general funds to pay for theupgrades.

The 1,200-student Girard school district, for ex-ample, has spent $2 million to build a computer net-work that every teacher can access for tasks as var-ied as corresponding with parents and each othervia e-mail, assessing students’ reading ability, andprinting their quizzes and homework assignments.

The district also built a technology center wherestudents have access to distance learning and com-puter labs.

The initiative came about because school boardmembers there are forward-thinking and under-stand that schools need to change to meet the fu-ture’s needs, according to Dick Foliasso, the district’scoordinator.

Tompkins is trying to create that same sense ofinitiative on the state level.

The panel that reviewed the state’s application forTechnology Literacy Challenge Fund money wrotethat Tompkins’ enthusiasm “gave the panel a senseof confidence about the state’s intention to take thosenext steps in developing a more comprehensive planand integrate technology into the curriculum.”

One of Tompkins’ first steps as commissioner wasto hire Jayne James to be the state’s technology di-rector, a position that had long been vacant.

—DAVID J. HOFF

K E N T U C K Y

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.kde.state.ky.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Don Coffman (502) 564-6900





A recurring theme in Kentucky’s school technol-ogy plan is equity, and it’s no wonder: The plansprung from a mandate in the Kentucky EducationReform Act, the 1990 law that overhauled the state’sailing education system and demanded equal oppor-tunities for all Kentucky students.

The state’s success in addressing this issue is amajor reason why Kentucky is known as a nationalleader in educational technology.

“Distant school districts in the hollows of easternKentucky can have access to the same kinds of tech-nology as kids in Louisville,” says Cindy Heine, the as-sociate executive director of the Prichard Committeefor Academic Excellence, a statewide citizens’ advo-cacy group. “That equity has been extremely impor-tant in providing resources.”

Equity “is a strength” of the Kentucky plan,agrees John Cradler, a San Francisco-based educa-tional technology researcher and consultant. “Beinga smaller state, with a lot of money behind its tech-nology plan, it has been able to provide connectivityto its schools.”

Each of Kentucky’s 176 districts has at least onehigh-speed connection to a state network known as


Iowa continued from Page 61

Kentucky continued on Page 64


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

4 5

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

24 22

39

15

33

58


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

16%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


14%

Grade 4 Grade 8


the Kentucky Information Highway, which providesInternet access, according to the state department ofeducation.

As of this fall, 1,000 of the state’s 1,400 schoolsalso have high-speed connections, for which they

pay reduced monthlyfees; the remainingschools have dial-incapability.

Kentucky is mak-ing progress in otherways as well:• The ratio of stu-

dents to multimediacomputers with net-working capability is 8-to-1—near theplan’s goal of 6-to-1,according to statedata. For teachers,the ratio is 3-to-1;the goal is 1-to-1.• Thirty percent of

Kentucky’s 37,500classrooms have thewiring to connectthem to the state’snetwork, althoughnot all of them have

the necessary computer hardware.• Forty-five percent of the districts have interactive

video capability.• Kentucky has a state procurement contract,

under which every district pays the same price forhardware, software, and networking equipment.

The state and districts have shared the cost of ad-vancing educational technology, spending $276.5million since 1992. While the investment is signifi-cant, it falls well short of the plan’s five-year goal of$553 million.

Kentucky’s legislature provides money to the edu-cational technology trust fund, which is dividedamong districts based on their average-daily-atten-dance figures for students.

To get the money, districts have to document theirtechnology needs annually in technology plans, andthey are required to match every state dollar theyreceive with a local dollar. Most districts have gonebeyond that requirement.

For its part, the General Assembly has kicked in$123 million to date—43 percent of the total it hadplanned to give by this year.

“We’re so fortunate we’ve been able to do whatwe’ve been able to do, but you need to keep the mo-mentum going,” says Linda Pittenger, the principalassistant in the Kentucky Department of Educa-tion’s office of educational technology. “If we drag itout, we get into a situation where the equipment [wehave] gets old.”

The legislature’s intent was to meet the plan’stechnology goals this year, she says, but a shortfallin state revenues has thrown the plan off schedule.

Still, “the General Assembly has been real sup-portive of our program,” Pittenger says. “In the lastbiennium budget, we were the only [education] pro-gram that did not simply get flat funding.”

The state is in the process of updating its plan,and the focus ahead will be on teacher training, shesays.

“We’ve been so obsessed with wires and boxes;now, we’re able to focus our energy on how the tech-nology should be used in the classroom and whatteachers need in term of support,” Pittenger says.

So far, she says, teacher training has taken placemostly at the regional level, with teachers trainingteachers. Technologically savvy students also helpto train teachers under the Student TechnologyLeadership Program, in place in about 400 schools.

—JO ANNA NATALE

L O U I S I A N A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.doe.state.la.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Carol Whelan (504) 763-5575





Louisiana had registered little progress in thearea of school technology until 1995, when the stategarnered a $4.8 million challenge grant from theU.S. Department of Education and the National Sci-ence Foundation.

That grant enabled five urban and rural districtsto conduct a range of technology projects. One wiredits schools and established a wide-area network. An-other concentrated on professional development.

But perhaps more important, the grants encour-aged businesses, universities, and the state govern-ment to lend their support to technology as well.

“The change in Louisiana has been dramatic overthe last six months,” says Kerry Davidson, whoheaded a commission that developed a statewidetechnology plan. “There’s no doubt that the challengegrant was the catalyst.”

“If we hadn’t had these pilot sites, we’d be havinga lot of trouble,” agrees Carol Whelan, the director ofeducational technology for the state education de-partment.

Encouraged by the results of the NSF grant, thestate legislature this year allocated $37 million forbuilding technology infrastructure in additionalschools.

“We asked for $75 million, but we were happy toget” the $37 million, says Whelan, noting that therewas some opposition to the technology funding fromteachers who thought the money should go tosalaries.

Davidson and Whelan say they hope that morefunding will be forthcoming. “There’s nowhere to gobut up,” Whelan says.

How the $37 million is implemented will be key to

securing more money, Davidson says, adding that ed-ucators must be able to demonstrate that the technol-ogy has led to im-proved achievement.

The $37 millionwill seek to replicatethe challenge-grantpilot program andwill be distributedbased on need.

Whelan worriesspecifically about thestate’s rural schoolsand says that re-sources must helpbring them up to par.“They have the mostto gain in expertise,to get technology, todo the coordination,and to get thegrants,” she says.

The state also isslated to receive an-other $5.3 millionfrom the federal Tech-nology Literacy Challenge Fund. Whelan says themoney will be used for professional development programs.

“There’s never enough professional development,and trying to get it statewide is difficult,” she says.

Indeed, a statewide survey in March showed that20 percent of the state’s teachers felt they had nocomputer skills, and another 39 percent felt theywere just beginners. Only 8 percent felt they had ad-vanced computer skills.

As with the state funding, the districts with thehighest percentage of students receiving free or re-duced-priced lunches will get the highest percentageof the TLCF money. The state also hopes to encouragethe formation of consortia, with larger school dis-tricts helping smaller ones.

“We feel that technology enhances instruction,”Whelan says. “It is a tool that can be used. If [all] kidsaren’t expected to use it, it becomes an equity issue.”

Louisiana’s technology plan was developed over2½ years. The Governor’s Louisiana EducationalAchievement and Results Now Commission, or theLEARN Commission, and the state board of educa-tion approved the plan in the fall of 1996.

The plan has led to widespread change, Davidsonsays. For example, the statewide survey found that1,000 of the state’s 1,400 schools now have technologyplans. In addition, the state education departmentpreviously did not have a division focused on technol-ogy. Now, several people work in that area.

Louisiana has also benefited from volunteer andcorporate interest in technology, Whelan says. Thestate has held NetDay events for the past two years.

—ANITA M. SELINE

M A I N E

• State Education Agency Web Site:www.state.me.us/education/homepage.htm

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Ray Poulin (207) 287-5113





Kentucky continued from Page 62


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

21

43

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

29

1014

10

36 36


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

22%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

23%


14%



eevveerr

11%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

15%


9%

Grade 4 Grade 8



Maine has invested in a high-quality distance-learning network and Internet connections soon tobe available in all its schools. But some in the statesay it’s time to upgrade their computer equipment.

“We’re ahead of other states in fiber optics,” saysstate Sen. Peggy A. Pendleton, who co-chairs the leg-islature’s joint education committee. “The next stepfor us is to get the equipment in the classroom.”

Maine’s schools have about eight computers perstudent, according to the state department of educa-tion. Within three years, state officials aim to cutthat ratio in half.

So far, though, no comprehensive program is inplace to address local districts’ needs. Pendleton saysthe legislature will discuss ways to design a programin next year’s session.

In the meantime, districts must depend largely ontheir own resources to fund technology.

“There are some school districts that are verymuch involved in upgrading technology,” says RayPoulin, Maine’s deputy commissioner of education.“Other school districts are very, very strapped andcan’t find the money.”

The state’s lean economy of recent years hasn’thelped. With state aid falling below full funding, someschools have been unable to invest in technology.

“We have very good [computer] labs in each of ourschools. As far as providing every classroom [with acomputer], we haven’t done that yet,” says H. GrahamNye, the superintendent of the Augusta public schools.“I think you’d find that in every school district.”

What every school will have within the next threeyears is an interactive video and audio network thatwill also link it to the Internet.

The state is building the fiber optic network withmoney raised in a $15 million bond approved byvoters in 1996.

State officials chose this form of technology after anintensive planning process in which they decided thatit was the best way to allow people in several sites tolink up and communicate interactively.

High schools will be on-line first, and every schoolwill have access within three years.

Five high schools and the University of Maine-Orono experimented with the network for the pastyear.

The network is helpful, one superintendent in thepilot study says, especially because both the audioand video applications are interactive. But he warnsthat his colleagues need to be patient about gettingit running.

“It’s ready now,” says Leon Levesque, the super-intendent at the School Administrative District No.


Maine continued on Page 66

Computer AvailabilityPublic school teachers’ report on the availability ofcomputers to students in mathematics classes.

Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

713

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

42

2326

11

25

53


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers

Grade 4 Grade 8


16 near Augusta. “The piece we haven’t addressedis how we support staff. How do we make a comfort

zone for teachers andstudents to use it?”

Over the past year,the district’s HalowellHigh School used thenetwork to arrangefor a lecture by an ar-chaeology professor atthe university. Theschool plans to startoffering Japanese andother foreign lan-guages not readilyavailable in regularclassrooms.

In addition to dis-tance learning, thenetwork will giveevery school accessto the Internet. It ispowerful enough togive every computerin Halowell High adirect connection to

the World Wide Web while still being used as avideo classroom.

The Internet access will be free to schools. It’sbeing paid for out of a $20 million fund created byNYNEX to compensate for overcharges to local phonebills. —DAVID J. HOFF

M A R Y L A N D

• State Education Agency Web Site: sailor.lib.md.us/msde/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Barbara Reeves (410) 767-0382





A partnership between the business communityand the state has been the driving force behindMaryland’s efforts to bring schools up to speed on ed-ucation technology.

The state department of education and the Mary-land Business Roundtable for Education joinedforces in 1993, creating a committee that producedthe state’s educational technology plan. That planwent into effect in January 1995.

“If there’s anything that makes this state unique,it’s in the partnerships that are making it happen,”says Barbara Reeves, the instructional technologydirector for the state education department. “With-out that synergy, there would be pieces missing.”

The first phase of the state technology plan is toprovide access and build networks. With the strongsupport of Democratic Gov. Parris N. Glendening, thelegislature in 1996 established Maryland Connectedfor Learning, a program to wire and equip schoolsand train staff, and committed about $60 millionover five years to fund the effort in 700—or abouthalf—of the state’s schools.

The roundtable had produced previous statetechnology plans, guided by an interest in makingsure public schoolswere producing com-petitive students asa way to attract busi-nesses to the state.Glendening sup-ported the currentversion “more thanwe could ever hopefor,” says JuneStreckfus, the execu-tive director of theroundtable.

“We knew we hadto put some clout be-hind this,” she says.“We’re holding thestate to the standardwe set.”

A survey by thebusiness group onthe level of educa-tional technology inthe state’s 24 dis-tricts found that “there were greater discrepancieswithin a county than from county to county,”Streckfus says.

As of 1996, about 49 percent of computers inMaryland’s elementary and secondary schools were“high capacity” and nearly 51 percent were “low ca-pacity,” meaning they can’t support Internet accessor be used in wide- or local-area networks, accordingto a technology committee status report released inJune. The figures were comparable to national aver-ages, the report says.

The ratio of students to computers, meanwhile,was 7-to-1, a major improvement over the 1989 fig-ure of 19-to-1. The ratio of Maryland students tohigh-capacity computers was 16-to-1.

While Glendening’s administration has taken thelead in pursuing state funding, officials are alsoseeking support from the federal and local govern-ments and businesses to implement the plan, ac-cording to Major Riddick, Glendening’s chief of staff.This year, the state received a $2.4 million grantfrom the federal Technology Literacy ChallengeFund, which is being used to award competitivegrants of $50,000 to $225,000, depending on a dis-trict’s size.

“The federal funding really has been good at fill-ing in some of the gaps,” Reeves says.

Under the state’s technology program, districtsapply for state funds, which may include matchinggrants, to provide chosen schools with a completewiring distribution for voice, video, and data. Thestate education department buys equipment for theschools through a special lease-purchase program.

Project schools are expected to dedicate 30 percentof what they spend on hardware toward teachertraining, Reeves said, but some are falling short ofthat goal. Each school received about $43,000 worthof equipment and about $7,100 for teacher training.

By the end of fiscal 1998, 239 schools will havebeen selected to receive the funding. Funding hasbeen requested to wire and equip another 153schools during the following fiscal year, according totechnology officials.

In addition to the state’s partnership with theMaryland Business Roundtable, schools are profitingfrom other partnerships with businesses and highereducation institutions. The University of Marylandprovides free e-mail accounts to all teachers in thestate. The state’s public library system provides pub-lic access to the Internet, including low-cost connec-tions for school systems.

Research by the business roundtable found that43 percent of schools had World Wide Web accessfrom at least one location and that only 7 percenthad Internet access in a majority of classrooms.

The state doesn’t provide funding to schools to payfor Internet service providers. Pending “E-rate” dis-counts from the Federal Communications Commis-sion may provide a way to pay for those services, of-ficials say. —JULIE RASICOT

M A S S A C H U S E T T S

• State Education Agency Web Site: info.doe.mass.edu/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Greg Nadeau (617) 388-3300 ext. 729


• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $1.2 million1997 Technology Innovation Grant: $3.2 million



After giving short shrift to educational technologyfor years, Massachusetts lawmakers are showingsigns of greater support. For the first time, the legis-lature last year approved funding specifically tar-geted to school technology.

“There is a growing recognition that technology is


Maine continued from Page 65


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

5 7

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

17

8

30

5

49

80


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

6

23

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

37

19

27

5

30

54


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

16%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

14%


17%



eevveerr

19%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

17%


10%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Grade 4 Grade 8


not going to go away,” says Greg Nadeau, the chieftechnology information officer for the state depart-ment of education. “You can’t view it as a capitalitem. You have to view it as an operational item.”

Providing Internet access for schools is a top pri-ority of the state’s technology plan. Other highlightsinclude establishing an information-managementsystem designed to replace all paper transactions be-tween districts and the education department; a pro-fessional development system that will include aWeb site where educators can learn about and regis-ter for training courses; and a procurement systemthat is expected to save districts money in buyinghardware and services.

The legislature’s first funding for technology—a$50 million bond approved in September 1996—pro-

vided $30 million inmatching grants thatdistricts are expectedto use for buildingcomputer networksand infrastructure.

Applying for grants“nudged [the dis-tricts] forward in developing seriousplans and budgets”for educational tech-nology, Nadeau says.

While legislativesupport for the tech-nology bond wasstrong, the fundingwas viewed primarilyas an incentive fordistricts to spendmore money on tech-nology, according toofficials.

In June, lawmak-ers allocated just $2.9 million of the education de-partment’s $7.9 million request for statewide tech-nology initiatives for the current fiscal year. But twomonths later, in supplemental legislation, lawmakersadded $20 million for technology in grades K-12 and$10 million for higher education. The departmenthas two years to spend the money.

About $15 million of the K-12 funding will be dis-tributed in grants, and the rest will be spent onstatewide projects, including providing every educa-tor with $25 to pay for Internet access.

“The amount of money the state gives to schools isreally a drop in the bucket,” Connie Louie, the de-partment’s technology coordinator, says. “It’s just aleverage to get them to do something.”

Though there’s been talk of another bond bill,some legislators seem leery about allocating moremoney without seeing evidence that districts are pre-pared to shoulder the bulk of the financial burden ofintegrating technology into their schools, estimatedat $450 per student per year, says Ray Campbell, thegeneral counsel of the state’s information technologydivision.

State officials hope to further entice districts to in-vest in technology with competitive grants awardedout of the $3.4 million that Massachusetts receivedfrom the federal Technology Literacy ChallengeFund. About $1.2 million will be allocated in need-based professional development grants; other grantswill recognize districts that have model programsand identify projects that could have statewide impact.

Another strong impetus has been provided by thestate’s two NetDays, which produced $8 million incontributions of products and services and resultedin the wiring of more than a third of the state’s 1,800schools. A third NetDay was planned for last month.

Technology officials are also planning on usingpending federal telecommunications discounts tohelp pay for managing school networks, estimated to


Massachusetts continued on Page 68



eevveerr

16%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

14%


12%

cost $200 million a year, and delivering toll-free ac-cess for all educators and Internet access to eachschool, estimated to cost $20 million a year.

Education officials will be watching closely to seewhat impact the July resignation of Gov. William F.Weld will have on the state’s commitment to educa-tion technology. Some, including Nadeau, say theyexpect to see increased attention in this area underthe acting governor, Paul Cellucci, because of hisstrong commitment to education throughout histenure as lieutenant governor and his years as a leg-islator. —JULIE RASICOT

M I C H I G A N

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.mde.state.mi.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Jamey Fitzpatrick (517) 373-6331





Michigan devotes little money to school technol-ogy, hampering the overall strength of its efforts inthis area.

One key weak spot is teacher training. Schooltechnology leaders repeatedly cite shortcomingsthere when describing where Michigan needs to improve.

“It’s one thing to know how to use computers toprepare letters or to send e-mail,” says Jamey Fitz-patrick, the acting director of technology at the statedepartment of education. “It’s completely another toknow software and how to use it as a teaching andlearning tool.”

Although the legislature passed a law in 1993 re-quiring new teachers to know how to use computersfor instruction, “different institutions take [the re-quirements] at varying levels of seriousness,” Fitz-patrick says.

He and others are also troubled by the number of

teachers currently in the classroom who are uncom-fortable with using technology for instruction. “Wehave staff—through no fault of their own—who weretrained to be stand-up-in-front-of-students teachers,”says David Kahn, an associate executive director of

the Michigan Associa-tion of School Admin-istrators. “Using com-puters to teach is awhole new strategy.”

State officials arein the process of re-drafting Michigan’sfive-year technologyplan. One area slatedfor revision, consul-tants say, is the sec-tion on professionaldevelopment, whichmight recommend of-fering teachers suchincentives as com-pensatory time orextra pay for partici-pation in training.

Although Michi-gan’s expiring planasserts the impor-tance of teacher train-

ing in technology, the legislature hasn’t dedicatedany significant funding to the cause—or to any as-pect of school technology, officials say.

“We haven’t had any major initiative to deal withfunding or infrastructure,” Fitzpatrick says, addingthat school technology in the state has depended inlarge part “on what districts already spend and onfederal money.”

This year, the state department of education is di-viding among districts $8.6 million it received fromthe federal Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. Butthat sum, Fitzpatrick says, is no match for the $42million in requests from districts.

The hunt for money stems in part from recentschool-finance reform in the state. In 1994, Michiganvoters opted to change school funding drastically bymaking sales and other taxes—not property taxes—the main source of school support.

That switch “put a great burden on districts topass bond issues to fund technology,” says Ric Wiltse,the director of technology in the East Grand Rapidspublic schools. “It’s improving, but a couple of yearsago, right after the change in the funding picture,people’s taxes went down, and they were very reluc-tant to have them go back up again.”

Despite the less-than-rosy funding picture, “dis-tricts have made significant progress getting thestuff of technology, such as hardware and net-works,” Fitzpatrick says. “Even so, we have a longway to go.”

Part of the state’s challenge lies in eliminatingwhat Wiltse calls a “wide disparity” among individ-ual district capabilities.

“In some districts, there’s maybe one dial-up con-nection in the media center, but we also have dis-tricts where every classroom has Internet access,”says Wiltse, the president of the Michigan Associa-tion of Computer-Related Technology Users inLearning.

One promising initiative on the horizon: The stateis developing the Michigan Information Network,which will link local schools and districts with col-leges and universities, libraries, health institutions,and businesses across the state. The network—stillin the planning stages—will connect existing re-gional networks and expand on them, says LindaSchatz, the director of the office of the Michigan In-formation Network. —JO ANNA NATALE

M I N N E S O T A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.educ.state.mn.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Mark Manning (612) 297-3151





Minnesota lawmakers and state education officialshave a vision for educational technology that reachesbeyond wiring schools and buying computers.

The state’s plans are based on the concept of life-long learning, which emphasizes developing technol-ogy in public schools in conjunction with higher edu-cation institutions and public libraries.

With strong support from Gov. Arne H. Carlson,lawmakers are committed to providing the fundsneeded to support that vision. In 1995, the legisla-ture provided $32.5 million for education initiativesas part of the state’s long-range technology plan. Andin July 1997, it further cemented the commitment byappropriating nearly $90 million over two years innew and ongoing initiatives.

“There’s a growing acknowledgment that districtscan’t do it alone,” says Theresa Mish, a project ana-lyst for the division of information technologies in thestate department of children, families, and learning.

Minnesota’s main focus has been on building astatewide technology infrastructure to provide accessto all students. The new funding includes $12.5 mil-lion to complete and operate the Minnesota LearningNetwork, which will connect all higher education in-stitutions, K-12 schools, and public libraries.

“That’s been a big focus of ours, so that a schooldistrict at least has a minimum level of connectivityto get started,” Mary Mehsikomer, a department pro-ject specialist, says.

In addition to providing Internet access, the net-work will connect every district to an interactivetelevision system. About 200 of the state’s 425 dis-tricts currently use the two-way television systems,which have a long history in Minnesota, to providedistance-learning classes. The systems allow groupsof schools to share teachers and resources by broad-casting classes that each school may not be able toafford to run on its own.



Massachusetts continued from Page 67


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

8

23

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

34

19

28

8

29

50


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

510

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2721

16

8

52

62


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

14%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


16%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Grade 4 Grade 8


Most of the state’s schools—78 percent—havetechnology plans, according to a 1997 departmentsurvey of 1,150 of Minnesota’s roughly 1,500 schools.Eighty-nine percent have access to the Internet, and48 percent have classroom computers that are con-nected to others in the school.

Seventy percent of schools have an instructionaltechnology coordinator responsible for supportingteachers in integrating instruction and technology.Forty-six percent of teachers are considered to haveadvanced skills in using technology in instruction; 35percent have no skills or are at the beginner level.

One of the highlights of the new initiatives deal-ing specifically with K-12 schools is $14 million allo-cated for matching challenge grants to invest intechnology equipment, networks, and training. Ap-plicants are required to address staff training, tech-nical support, how they plan to use the technology,and how it will benefit the community. An additional$25 million is provided to all districts according to aper-pupil funding formula.

Another highlight is the establishment of the Min-nesota Learning Academy, which is a $2 million part-nership of the state, local districts, and private ven-dors to offer courses for teachers that will emphasizeintegrating technology into classroom learning.

About $6 million also was set aside to refurbishmultimedia computers in a public-private recyclingpartnership that’s expected to reduce the ratio ofstudents per multimedia computer from 22-to-1 to 7-to-1 over three years.

The state also plans to target $2 million in federalTechnology Literacy Challenge Fund grants towarddistricts with the highest poverty and greatest needfor technology.

But while the stateis committed tospending millions ontechnology, there isno framework outlin-ing how much dis-tricts must spend,state technology offi-cials say.

If a district wantsto take advantage ofthe Minnesota Learn-ing Network, it mustfirst install its owninternal network.

“You have a lot ofc h i c k e n - a n d - e g gquestions playing outhere,” says PaulWasko, the managerof education andtraining initiativesfor the state office oftechnology.

To apply some leverage, the state requires schoolsto take certain steps, such as developing technologyplans or applying for pending federal telecommunica-tions discounts, as prerequisites for receiving grants.

But how those schools spend the money is “fairlywide open and left up to each school,” Mish says.

—JULIE RASICOT

M I S S I S S I P P I

• State Education Agency Web Site: mdek12.state.ms.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Helen Soulé (601) 359-3954





In Mississippi, a state with relatively little moneyand low test scores, many officials see technology asthe most affordable way to give students access to aquality education and materials available to childrenelsewhere in the country.

“We’re trying to bring Mississippi up to par withother states with technology in the classroom,” Repub-lican state Rep. Mike Chaney says. “That’s the onlyway we can leapfrog up from the position we’re in.”

Legislators appropriated $30 million for schooltechnology in 1994, setting aside $1.5 million of thatamount to establish a statewide education network.The remaining funds were divided on a per-pupilbasis to districts with technology plans.

Before the legislation passed, only a handful of dis-tricts had taken substantive steps to integrate tech-nology into instruction, says Nathan Slater, the di-rector of management and information systems atthe department of education.

Now, each of thestate’s 152 districtshas Internet access,and districts are mak-ing progress on wiringtheir schools. Roughlyhalf the state’s 900schools currently haveaccess, and an aver-age of five schools arehooking up to thestate network everyweek, Slater says.

“There’s been an ex-plosion in Mississippiwith educational tech-nology,” he says. “We’realmost overwhelmedwith the number of re-quests coming in fromschools that want toget onto the state net.”

With the establish-ment of its statewide

network, Mississippi is keeping pace with neigh-boring Southern states, says Kurt Cearley, the co-ordinator of constituent services for the SoutheastRegional Technology Consortium, a federally sup-ported program that provides technological supportto 12 states and Puerto Rico.

While the legislature has not dedicated anyfunds to the integration of classroom technologysince its 1994 investment, districts officials saythey’re relatively content with the state’s support.

The state regularly sponsors in-service programsfor teachers in an effort to ease the districts’ burdenof providing technology training. The department ofeducation offers its training in three phases, from be-ginning to advanced, at computer labs throughoutthe state, says Helen Soulé, the director of educa-tional technology for the department.

From the first session of the first level of training,teachers are taught how to use computers as toolsfor the classroom, Soulé says.

“The very first thing we teach them to do is tomake a name tag,” she says. “It’s still at a very basiclevel, but it’s practical.”

The state recently invested in a teacher trainingprogram that aims to equip one teacher in everyschool with “exemplary” skills in technology integra-tion. The three-year program will work through a“tag” model, in which one trained teacher will go onto teach another, Soulé says.

And though some of the state’s poorest rural dis-tricts are “still catching up” in their implementationof technology, Soulé says legislators have imple-mented various funding equity measures to helplevel the playing field, including a new Adequate Ed-ucation Program that will help balance total spend-ing in school districts.

In addition, she says, money from the federalTechnology Literacy Challenge Fund will help re-duce the cost of technology integration for strugglingdistricts. —JESSICA L. SANDHAM

M I S S O U R I

• State Education Agency Web Site: services.dese.state.mo.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Susan Cole (573) 751-3175

• Technology Literacy Challenge FundFY 1997: $3.2 millionFY 1998: $7 million





Missouri continued on Page 70


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

20

37

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1215 16

7

51

40


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

1218

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

31

13 14 14

44

56


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

18%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

14%


12%



eevveerr

9%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

11%


20%Grade 4 Grade 8

Grade 4 Grade 8


Missouri’s schools are riding a wave of state-sup-ported technology initiatives that its educators saycan be traced back to the beginning of Gov. Mel Car-nahan’s first term in 1993.

“We just love our governor,” says Kurt Fuchs, thedirector of media services for the Columbia publicschools. Before Carnahan’s tenure, Fuchs says,“there was a drought” in educational technology.

During Carnahan’s first year in office, legislatorspassed the Outstanding Schools Act, which included$5 million in technology-acquisition grants that dis-tricts could access provided they had a technologyplan and the funds to match.

Legislators renewed the grant allocations in theyears that followed, and set aside funds for competi-tive grants for districts with innovative proposals. By1996, the state’s total contribution for technologicalimprovements in its schools exceeded $50 million.

The competitive grants, especially, have infusedclassrooms with creative possibilities that wouldn’totherwise be open to them, Fuchs says.

Another state initiative allows all schools free ac-cess to subscription-based electronic resources, suchas a full-text periodical reference library and two on-line encyclopedias.

The state department of elementary and sec-ondary education has worked to link the schools tosuch programs through MOREnet, a research and ed-ucational network based out of the University ofMissouri that has provided 90 percent of the state’sdistricts with Internet access.

MOREnet has put Missouri ahead of its neighbor-ing states when it comes to Internet connectivity,says Jim Nazworthy, a project coordinator at theSouth Central Regional Technology in EducationConsortium, a federally funded program that offerstechnological assistance to five states.

Most of the Missouri districts that are not yetlinked to MOREnet are small and in rural areas thathave historically been unable to provide the finan-cial support required for technology programs, saysSusan Cole, the coordinator of state programs for thestate’s education department.

The state hopes to direct the federal funds it willreceive through the Technology Literacy ChallengeFund to help these strapped districts begin develop-ing and implementing technology plans, Cole says.

As in many other states, the most difficult partsof integrating tech-nology in Missouri’sschools have beenscraping up themoney to hire sup-porting technical per-sonnel and carvingout the time for staffdevelopment, educa-tors say.

“There’s very littlemoney available fortraining,” says TerryStewart, the superin-tendent of the Jen-nings school districtoutside St. Louis. “Thekids are definitelygoing to be computerliterate, but the ques-tion is, are we?”

For students andteachers in the Jen-nings district, and

five others in the St. Louis area, help is on the way.Thanks to a partnership program with Southwest-ern Bell, each district will soon be wired to a morepowerful network offering high-speed connectivity,and teachers will have the opportunity to participatein 150 hours of training offered by the company.

The project stems from a 1993 court settlement

that determined the company was making too muchin profits.

The network, which is expected to be in place nextspring, will make it possible for every child in thebuilding to be on the Internet at the same time,without slowing the connection, Stewart says.

Ken Woolverton, a regional account manager atSouthwestern Bell, says the project could have a rip-ple effect throughout the state.

The project “could be expanded in the next coupleof years,” he says. “We’re building up the infrastruc-ture, hoping to kick off more applications.”

—JESSICA L. SANDHAM

M O N T A N A

• State Education Agency Web Site: 161.7.114.15/opi/opi.html

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Michael Hall (406) 444-4422





Montana has long had a state network for educa-tors and a statewide system allowing for interactiveteleconferencing, but only recently have lawmakersbegun appropriating money that individual schoolscan directly use to boost their technology programs.

In a strategy that is likely unique to Montana, thelegislature voted in 1995 to devote money made fromthe sale of timber on state lands to school technology.State officials estimate that these revenues willamount to about $9 per student in the current schoolyear and about $17 per student next year. Montanahas approximately 164,000 students.

Earlier this year, the legislature allocated a one-time sum of $12.5 million to Montana’s 471 schooldistricts—money the districts can spend on technol-ogy, textbooks, or library and building maintenance.In return, the districts must spend an equal amountof local funds on those needs, according to the stateoffice of public instruction.

Other state initiatives have a longer history. In1989, the legislature created the Montana Educa-

tional Telecommunications Network, a statewidenetwork for educators that today features about10,000 users, says Steve Meredith, the METNET ad-ministrator.

Teachers and administrators use the system fore-mail and for access to the Internet, Meredithsays, while studentsuse it for variousschool projects, in-cluding one in whichthey are testingsamples from statewaterways and re-porting their resultsto University ofMontana faculty. Tosupport METNET, thelegislature kicks inabout $100,000 ayear, Meredith says.

Another METNETfeature is its interac-tive video system.Used primarily forhigher education, thesystem allows peoplein distant parts ofMontana to takecourses and earn de-grees without neces-sarily setting foot on a state college campus. Pre-col-lege uses of the video system amount to less than 2percent of the video system’s service, although a fewpublic school educators use it for teleconferencingand training purposes, according to Rick Wine, thesystems analyst for METNET Interactive Video.

The cost of setting up an interactive video site—roughly $80,000—prevents many districts frommaking better use of distance-learning opportunitiesthat the system could provide, Wine says. “If we hadsites in these locations, I’m sure they’d be used. LikeKevin Costner said in ‘Field of Dreams,’ ‘If you buildit, they will come.’ ”

To help build local technology programs, Mon-tana’s school districts rely on federal money as wellas the state and local dollars they devote to thecause.

About $25 million flows into Montana in Title Imoney, which the federal government allocates ac-cording to the number of low-income children in thestate. Many districts choose to devote their portionof these dollars to technology programs, according toRon Lukenbill, the Title I specialist at the office ofpublic instruction.

“We’re seeing greater and greater use [of money]for technology,” Lukenbill says.

A 1994 survey conducted by the office of publicinstruction showed that only 22 percent of thestate’s districts had technology plans; 20 percentused distance learning; and 19 percent had accessto the Internet.

Another survey—this one conducted by the re-search firm Quality Education Data in 1996—saidthat 79 percent of the schools responding had accessto the Internet. Meredith, however, cautions thatthat percentage doesn’t tell the whole story: “A lot ofschools say they have Internet access, but often it’sin the principal’s office. One modem per 200 studentsdoesn’t really work.” —JO ANNA NATALE

N E B R A S K A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.nde.state.ne.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Dean Bergman (402) 471-5023


Missouri continued from Page 69

Nebraska continued on Page 72


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

5 6

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

27

14

2724

41

55


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

15%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


13%



eevveerr

19%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


12%

Grade 4 Grade 8



• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $1 million1997 Technology Innovation Grant: $3.3 million



With little fanfare, some Nebraskans say, theirstate is becoming a national leader in school tech-nology.

“We’ve come a long way” in a short time, ob-serves Dean Bergman, the head of the educationtechnology center for the state education depart-ment.

For the most part, the investment hasn’t been ahard sell. Farmers have embraced computers asreadily as insurance workers in Omaha or collegeprofessors in Lincoln.

That statewide recognition of the importance oftechnology has resulted in an impressive 13-to-1ratio of students to multimedia computers, accord-ing to the research firm Market Data Retrieval.

And as a tool to bring educational resources tothe state’s small districts, especially those insparsely populated areas, digital technology has noequal—and no enemies.

In the past two years, Nebraska has almost dou-bled the number of districts with dedicated Inter-net connections, including voice and video trans-mission, according to state figures. Of the 278Nebraska districts that include secondary schools,all but 11 are connected.

The state has boosted the number of computer-wired classrooms by about half during the sameperiod, officials say. That leaves only a quarter ofthe state’s classrooms unwired.

Officials describe distance learning as a naturalfor the state where 1.6 million people are scatteredover more than 650 districts, including some of themost sparsely populated territory in the continen-tal United States.

An old system that included one-way satellitetransmission is being replaced by one designedaround the state’s 19 regional education serviceagencies, each of which will house a sophisticateddistance-learning classroom serving a consortiumof schools. Teachers in these classrooms will beable to see, hear, and interact with students else-where.

Four such classrooms are or will soon be in oper-

ation, with all 19 scheduled to be open for businessby 2000.

While the purchase of computers has fallenmostly to local school boards, Nebraska’s K-12 In-ternet system has been financed primarily out of asmall property-tax increase that the legislature au-thorized the educational service units to levy in1993. Two years later, the legislature converted afund for weatherization loans to a fund for schooltechnology, adding about $1 million a year to the$3 million already being provided by the levy in-crease.

In the past five years, Nebraska has also gar-nered about $40 million for technology from out-side the state, mostly in federal grants.

With much of the necessary hardware andwiring in place, leaders are turning their attentionto teacher training, which they know could be im-proved. “I have a sense it’s all over the map interms of the [technology] skills teachers have,”state Sen. Ardyce Bohlke, who chairs the Nebraskalegislature’s education committee, says.

Bohlke says she ex-pects the legislatureto consider targetingmoney to technologystaff development inthe coming session.

A recent report bythe University of Ne-braska-Omaha’s col-lege of education con-cludes that Nebraskateachers seem to beusing computers morefrequently in their as-signments. Forty-onepercent of a self-se-lected sample of 1,216respondents said, forexample, that theirstudents used the In-ternet for class as-signments more thansix times during thepast year.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Kim M. Robak is leading thecharge for a Nebraska technology commission,which would devise a statewide plan for technologyinfrastructure.

Currently, Robak says, there is little coordina-tion on technology between schools, universities,and state and local governments. Not only wouldsuch a plan help eliminate unnecessary duplica-tion, it would free educators to “do what they dobest”—figure out how to use technology to increaselearning, she says.

Robak hopes the legislature will approve thecommission next year. —BESS KELLER

N E V A D A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.nsn.k12.nv.us/nvdoe/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Frank South (702) 687-9130





The Nevada legislature this year approved itshighest-ever appropriation for education technol-ogy. But many state experts describe the fundingas a “one-shot deal.”

They warn that more money may not be forth-coming unless schools can prove that it resulted inincreased academic performance.

“It’s a little easier to get this passed politicallythan an ongoing cost,” says H. Pepper Sturm, ananalyst for the legislature’s research division. “De-pending on the state’s financial condition, it’s aneasier sell.”

The Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997 in-cludes several technology components, including anallocation of $27.5 million to be distributed amongthe state’s school districts, youth training centers,and public libraries. The money can be used for avariety of technological needs, such as the pur-chase and installation of hardware, software, andwiring.

The funding should help smooth some inequities,says Fred Dugger, a technology consultant for thestate. “The challenge we really have is to achieveuniformity in quality of education in a state wherethere are such widely different backgrounds,” hesays.

In addition, the legislature allocated $8.6 millionfor professional de-velopment, repairand maintenance,and technical sup-port. The money willalso allow the stateeducation depart-ment to hire a edu-cation technologyconsultant to assistdistricts.

The Commissionon Educational Tech-nology, which in-cludes legislators, ed-ucators, parents, andrepresentatives fromuniversities and theprivate sector, willdecide how to distrib-ute the two alloca-tions.

The commission isexpected to developa statewide technology plan by January 1999. Thatplan will be a key to future funding, Sturm says,noting that the state’s Senate majority leader hassaid that no more state money will be appropriatedfor technology until a plan is in place.


Nebraska continued from Page 70


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

2

12

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

35

24

35

7

30

57


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

10

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

32

14

44


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

17%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


11%

Computer UsePublic school 4th graders’ reports on the frequency ofcomputer use for mathematics.


eevveerr

8%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

17%


10%

Grade 4

Grade 4 Grade 8


“We’ve worked so hard to get where we are now,”says Lin Forrest, a technology consultant for thestate education department. Now, with the state’sgrowing use of technology, “there’s more awarenessof what needs to be done.”

Observers say legislators have been encouraged bythe success of a $2.6 million pilot program that al-lowed six districts to build a network to transmitdata—including attendance records, demographics,student enrollment, and school reports—to the statedepartment of education.

Officials say the network will make it easier totransfer records from schools to their district officesand the state education department. It will also en-able the publication of statewide reports on studentachievement, demographics, and, eventually, budgets.

The legislature approved another $12.7 millionthis year for the Statewide Management of Auto-mated Records Transfer, or SMART, system. Thatmoney will expand the system to every district ex-cept Clark County, which includes Las Vegas and 62percent of the state’s student population. Automa-tion efforts are already under way there, and morefunding to bring Clark County into the SMART sys-tem is expected in the next legislative session.

In addition, Nevada education officials are tryingto find funding to continue building the NevadaSchool Network. A $400,000 funding request for thenetwork was dropped in last-minute budget delib-erations during this year’s session, says Doug Thun-der, the assistant superintendent for administrationand fiscal services. The network links all districts,providing any classroom that has a computer and amodem with Internet access.

The system runs on the same network as NevadaNet, which links the state’s universities and col-leges. Using the two networks, high school studentscan take college courses and teachers can continuetheir professional development.

The state is also using other technology re-sources. For instance, a commission began meetinglast month to decide how to distribute $1 millionthat the state received from the federal TechnologyLiteracy Challenge Fund. The state has targetedpoor students to benefit from the money, accordingto Thunder.

Among other proposals, the panel is consideringa request to pay a technician to service technologyneeds in a consortium of rural schools, Forrest says.In addition, the state may begin incorporating tech-nology components into content and teaching standards. —ANITA M. SELINE

N E W H A M P S H I R E

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.state.nh.us/doe/education.html

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Judith Fillion (603) 271-3855





School funding is largely a local responsibility inNew Hampshire, and, for that reason, districts varywidely in what educational technology they offerstudents.


New Hampshire continued on Page 74


Nearly half the state’s 95 districts that respondedto a 1995 state education department survey did notexpect to have any schools connected to the Internetby the end of this year. And, according to a survey bythe research firm Quality Education Data, only 58percent of New Hampshire’s districts had local tech-nology plans in 1996, says Judith Fillion, the directorof the state department of education’s division of pro-gram support.

Funding for technology from the state is almostnonexistent, although some money for wiring isavailable to schools under construction or renovation.In fact, the New Hampshire legislature pays only 7percent of all education costs. A big reason: NewHampshire has no broad-based sales or income tax togenerate a source of revenue. More than 90 percentof funding for K-12 education comes from local prop-erty taxes.

Consequently, depending on local priorities and taxbases, “some districts have everything, and somehave very little,” Fillion says.

One that has a great deal is the 5,400-studentConcord district. Every Concord classroom has directInternet access, and the ratio of students to multime-dia computers is 7-to-1 in the district’s high school,according to technology coordinator Mark Denoncour.

The middle-class district reached that status overthe past three years, thanks to $2 million in bond is-sues and contributions from the local cable company,Denoncour says. He also credits teachers’ “serious ini-tiative” and administrators’ “risk-taking.”

Though most districts are not so far along, “noschool district, even those most pressed for re-sources, is ignoring” technology, says Rep. BillBelvin, the Republican chairman of the House edu-cation committee.

“Some [programs] are rudimentary, and that’s aconcern, but when [the state] makes grants for spe-cific purposes, you usurp local prerogative,” he says.“I have great confidence in our local districts” to de-cide the issue for themselves.

Belvin says he sees no major funding initiativefrom the state headed districts’ way.

Lawmakers have taken a few steps toward ad-vancing the cause, however. For example, they’ve cre-ated a legislative oversight committee to monitor im-plementation of the state’s technology plan, whichwas completed in March.

In addition, two years ago, the legislature autho-rized a distance-learning commission to study waysin which technology might benefit not only K-12 ed-ucation, but health care, business, and municipalgovernment in the state, according to D. DickinsonHenry, a businessman who chairs the commission.

“We’re so rural that there is a vested interest ineliminating geographical discriminations,” Henrysays.

The department of education, Fillion says, hasbeen helping districts develop technology plans sothey can raise technology funds from federal grantprograms, such as the Technology Literacy ChallengeFund, and take advantage of discounts on telecom-munications services that will be available next year.

The money made and saved under such programs,Fillion says, “is helpful to a state like ours.”

The department last year began requiring thatteachers and administrators seeking recertificationearn five hours of training in technology. For the past10 years, the state has also required that studentscomplete a half-credit’s worth of computer educationto graduate from high school. Among the points ofthat coursework: to make sure that students havebasic skills in computer operations and can accessdatabases.

Business also has played a role in building schooltechnology programs. Under the New HampshireTechnology in Education Program, a group of privateorganizations in the state has given money to network schools, administrative offices, the

state department of education, and other educationagencies. —JO ANNA NATALE

N E W J E R S E Y

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.state.nj.us/education/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Julia Stapleton (609) 984-1644





New Jersey is putting technology in its schoolsthrough a combined effort from its local phone com-pany, government, and businesses.

To compensate for overcharges, the state’s localtelephone provider has committed to spend $130 mil-lion on Internet access, equipment, and a high-speednetwork.

A new program designed by Gov. Christine ToddWhitman and her Republican colleagues in the legis-lature created a fund to pay for technology and toshow teachers how to use it.

And businesses are providing volunteers to consultwith schools and teach them how to use the newequipment.

But some educators are questioning whether theseefforts are enough.

“Unfortunately, it’s still a state starting to come on-line,” says Raymond Farley, the superintendent of theHunterdon Central Regional High School District inFlemington. “We have to pick up the pace.”

State officials also recognize that their work hasonly begun.

“We still have to raise everybody’s awareness thattechnology is a major part of everything we do,” saysJeffrey V. Osowski, the assistant commissioner forthe division of information management services.

To do that, the state is requiring each of its 594districts to submit a plan explaining how they willuse computers, the Internet, and distance learning tohelp students meet the goals of the state’s new com-mon core of learning. The plans were due last month.

Much of the infrastructure will be paid for from a

settlement with Bell Atlantic for $130 million in over-charges to the state’s residents. Under the agreement,the “baby Bell” is giving schools discounts of up to 70percent on their phone bills, promising to wire everyschool with fiber optic cable by 2001, and paying for$25 million of interactive television equipment.

From the state coffers, districts will be given anextra $50 million—about $40 per pupil—in aid thisyear to pay for technology. The state promised thesupplemental tech-nology money will bea permanent fixturein the school-aid for-mula, Osowski says.

Even with theplanning, New Jerseyofficials are concernedthat teachers knowhow to use the equip-ment in conjunctionwith traditional class-room tools.

To help solve thatproblem, the state setaside money to estab-lish training centersin each of the state’s21 counties. Thegrants range from$175,000 to $250,000starting this year andwill drop by $50,000each for the secondand third years. After that, the centers will need tosupport themselves.

The sites are intended to give districts the helpthey need to put their plans to work.

The business community is also lending a hand.Corporations created Tech Corps New Jersey afterthe state’s first education summit last year.

The nonprofit’s volunteers are helping districtswrite their technology plans, training teachers andadministrators how to use the equipment, and run-ning a clearinghouse to help them solve problems,Donna Custard, the project’s manager, says.

The biggest weaknesses, according to the panel thatreviewed the Garden State’s federal application for thefederal Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, is theamount of money given to the state’s poorest areas. Asa result of the complaint, the state decided to allocatehalf its federal money to the 114 poorest districts.

Farley, the Hunterdon superintendent, has noticedthe disparity as well. His district is working closelywith Asbury Park schools to train teachers, while cor-porations provide computers, Internet connections,and distance-learning equipment.

Hunterdon County schools, in the wealthy westernsection of the state, have one computer for every 2.2students, he says. Overall, schools have seven stu-dents for every computer.

The state is “trying to offset tremendous in-equities,” he says. —DAVID J. HOFF

N E W M E X I C O

• State Education Agency Web Site: wwwwww..sde.state.nm.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Kurt Steinhaus (505) 827-6683



• Number of Students: 330,522


New Hampshire continued from Page 73

New Mexico continued on Page 76


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

14

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

43

13

29


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

10%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

18%


9%

Grade 4


Student-Multimedia Computer Ratio: 23:1


Equity—or the lack thereof—is one of the mostpressing school technology issues in New Mexico.

The way things stand in the state now, “technol-ogy is not an equalizer—it’s a disequalizer,” saysKurt Steinhaus, the technology coordinator for NewMexico’s education department.

In one school, Steinhaus says, a student reportingon China can conduct research on the Internet, pre-pare a multimedia presentation of his findings, andpost his report on the World Wide Web for peopleeverywhere to see. In another, a student’s researchmight be confined to the C volume of the encyclopedia.

The legislature has allocated money for schooltechnology since 1994, when it passed the Technol-ogy for Education Act. That bill appropriated $3.1million to school technology—an amount the legis-lature has matched each year since.

That sum is divided among districts on a per-pupilbasis, amounting to only about $9 to $10 per student,says Carmen Gonzales, the chairwoman of the NewMexico Council on Technology in Education, an advi-sory group created in the 1994 legislation.

“It’s not very much,” she says.In New Mexico, where districts get about 90 per-

cent of their operating money from the state, somedistricts have persuaded the legislature to awardthem special funds for technology. But Gonzales says

their success magni-fies the inequityamong districts.

“Large districtshave enough peopleto write the grantsand lobby the legisla-tors,” she says.“Smaller districtsdon’t have a person todo that.”

To help ease thedisparities, Gonzales’advisory group is recommending that legislators create aprogram to assign lottery proceeds todistricts that havethe greatest need fortechnology, she says.

Other efforts arealready under way to

even out differences between the “haves” and “have-nots.” One is a teacher training program called Re-gional Educational Technology Assistance—a three-year-old project of the state department ofeducation, the technology council, the University ofNew Mexico, New Mexico State University, and LosAlamos National Laboratory.

Under the program, teachers from all over thestate gather for workshops on technology with theexpectation that they will return to their districtsand share what they’ve learned with their peers.

“It’s the first statewide effort to get everyone on thesame page,” Gonzales, the program’s co-director, says.

State officials are also working to develop“teacher competencies” in technology. The stan-dards would establish what teachers should knowabout equipment and what they should know aboutusing technology in the curriculum.

Once the standards are completed, the state willlikely turn them over to districts to use in whateverway they see best, he says. “We know mandatingdoesn’t work very well.”

Yet another effort seeking to equalize access totechnology is Network New Mexico—a sort of year-round NetDay. On any given Saturday, 20 to 100volunteers are working to wire a school for access tothe Internet, according to Sandra Simons-Ailes, a4th grade teacher in Albuquerque who serves asNetwork New Mexico’s president.

As a result of the grassroots efforts, 20 schoolshave been wired since last fall, Simons-Ailes says.With a $5,000 donation from the telecommunica-tions company US WEST, Network New Mexicohopes to wire an additional 50 to 100 schools thisyear, she says. —JO ANNA NATALE

N E W Y O R K

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.nysed.gov/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Charles DeVoe (518) 486-5832





New York state’s proposed “Electronic LearningCommunity” would link schools, universities, and li-braries. Students would have equitable access totechnology, and would be able to learn in a variety ofsettings. Teachers could seek out advice from theircolleagues, and residents would have easy access toinformation.

That is the vision, as set out in the New YorkGoals 2000 plan. But getting there will take time.

Like many states, New York has a lack of resources,a fledgling infrastructure, and a striking range oftechnological advancement from district to district.

In the small town of Clarkstown, for example,technology is an integral part of the district’s lessonplans, says Sandy Paben, a corporate consultant forthe New York State Association of Computers andTechnologies in Education.

“But there are also school districts that have donenot a thing, zero, zip,” Paben says.

For several years, New York schools tapped ahandful of state entitlement programs to help pay forspecific educational technology expenses such as in-structional hardware and wiring. In this year’s leg-islative session, law-makers voted togradually increasethe hardware entitle-ment fund from anannual level of $10million to $43 millionby 2002.

The legislaturealso established anadditional entitle-ment program that,for the first time, cov-ers a broad array ofschool technology ex-penses, includinghardware, software,and maintenancecontracts.

The program isslated to begin with a$9 million pot nextschool year and growto $91 million in2002.

None of the entitlement program funding levelsare guaranteed, however; rather, they are seen asspending goals. The final decisions on appropriationsare left to the legislature and governor.

In establishing the entitlement program, the leg-islature responded to a wide-ranging educationaltechnology plan, parts of which they adopted andparts of which they left for future action.

“In some overarching sense, the legislature em-braced all facets of the plan,” says Charles DeVoe,the director of the office of technology policy, whichproposed the legislative agenda for technology.

Technology boosters also are eyeing a $2.4 billionbond referendum that was scheduled for a Nov. 4vote.

Described as the largest potential infusion of cap-ital into school buildings in state history, the refer-endum, if approved, would repair and replace thestate’s crumbling school infrastructure.

Much of the money would be spent in rectifyingage-old problems, such as replacing coal-burningfurnaces in some schools or removing asbestos inothers, but it also could result in more schools beingwired for computers.

“One of the significant intents of this referendumis to bring New York state into the new ‘technocen-tric’ age, though some schools haven’t even left the19th century,” says Steve Kaufman, the chief ofstaff to state Assemblyman Steve Sanders, thechairman of the Assembly education committee.

Meanwhile, New York continues to plan for tech-nology. In particular, the state is attempting to linktechnology with standards for student performance.


New Mexico continued from Page 74


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

11

32

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2521

34

9

31

39


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

13

28

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

27

5

25

6

36

62


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

11%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

12%


11%



eevveerr

13%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

14%


13%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Grade 4 Grade 8


DeVoe argues that New York is being wise byplanning methodically. He cautions against the“paste-in” approach taken by some other states inwhich schools are provided with all the equipmentthey need but little training or planning to use itwell.

“This [planning] helps us with what the schoolsreally need. We may be behind the curve, but whenall is said and done, we’ll be ahead,” he says.

Districts have until mid-November to apply forthe state’s Technology Literacy Challenge Fundmoney. The pot of $54 million for schools representstwo years of grant money that have been combined.According to state guidelines, at least 25 percent ofthe money must be spent on professional develop-ment, a critical piece in helping New York becometechnologically adept.

“If you want systemic change, you’ve got to do itthrough staff development,” Paben says.

In addition, 50 percent of the TLCF grant will goto the state’s five largest cities, and another 10 per-cent will go to schools that are under state review.

—ANITA M. SELINE

N O R T H C A R O L I N A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.dpi.state.nc.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Elsie Brumback (919) 715-1530


• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $2.7 million1997 Technology Innovation Grant: $838,584



North Carolina has several things going for its ed-ucational technology program that many other statesdon’t: It’s made a respectable investment in this areasince 1995; it requires teachers seeking recertificationto get training in technology; and it obligates its highschool graduates to pass a test in computer skills.

But ask North Carolina’s director of instructionaltechnology what she thinks is the state’s greatest ad-vantage, and she cites the fact that every district has


North Carolina continued on Page 78


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

612

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2216

35

11

36

61


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers

Grade 4 Grade 8


developed a sound school technology plan.“The technology plans are the road maps, the vi-

sions,” Elsie Brumback says.Because all 117 of North Carolina’s districts had

plans by May 1996, the districts could apply earlyfor federal grants that make such plans a require-ment, such as the Technology Literacy ChallengeFund.

And now, Brumback says, as districts in manystates scramble to develop technology plans to qualifyfor the upcoming federal “E-rate” telecommunicationsdiscounts, which will help defray the cost of Internetaccess for schools and libraries, North Carolina’s dis-tricts are ready.

The plans came to life in part because of money theGeneral Assembly earmarked for their development.The legislature agreed in 1994 to a proposal to pro-vide $381 million over five years for school technol-ogy. The money goes into the interest-bearing SchoolTechnology Trust Fund and stays there until districtsare ready to claim their share.

“The advantage is people don’t feel they have tospend the money quickly or lose it,” Brumback says.“They think through their expenditures more.”

The money has helped districts equip and networktheir schools. According to the latest research fromthe department of public instruction, the student-to-computer ratio in North Carolina is 5-to-1, or an im-pressive 11-to-1 counting only computers with 486

processors or better.In addition, 82 per-cent of the state’sschools have access tothe Internet.

Though lawmakershave far to go to fulfilltheir agreement tofund school technol-ogy—so far, only $92million has gone intothe trust fund—theyrecently identifiedsome new revenuesources. One ofthose—state finesand forfeitures—could bring schools $4million a year ormore, Brumback says.

Other initiativesalso set North Car-olina apart. For exam-ple, its students, as a

condition of graduation, must take a test demon-strating their technology skills when they are in 8thgrade. The test, whose first-year results were due thisfall, assesses such skills as word processing and theuse of databases and spreadsheets, but also questionsstudents on subjects such as the ethics of technology,Brumback says.

Another focus has been improving teachers’ knowl-edge of technology. The department of public instruc-tion currently is working to create a technology testthat people studying to become teachers must passbefore earning their teaching licenses.

“The purpose is to ensure that teachers don’t justhave the basic skills, like word processing, but thatthey know how these skills apply to classroom in-struction,” says Gloria Bowman, an education con-sultant in the department’s human resources office.

In addition, starting in June 1999, practicing ed-ucators will be required to complete three to fivehours of technology training for recertification,Bowman says.

But the state should do even more in this area,Brumback says.

Training teachers to integrate technology intothe classroom “is hard to do,” she says. “It comesafter they’ve learned how to use the equipment and

the software. It’s really how they put it all togetherfor kids in the classroom.” —JO ANNA NATALE

N O R T H D A K O T A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.dpi.state.nd.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Joe Linnertz (701) 328-2261


• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $1.2 million1997 Technology Innovation Grant: $1 million



North Dakota was investing in computers yearsbefore many other states, and, for that reason, ithas often been cited as a leader in educational tech-nology.

Indeed, its computer-to-student ratio is one of thelowest in the nation, at 5-to-1, according to the re-search firm Market Data Retrieval.

That figure, however, is not as grand as it mightseem, and neither is the state’s level of commitmentto technology, school officials say.

“Obsolescence has caught up with us,” says JoeLinnertz, North Dakota’s assistant superintendentfor public instruction.

North Dakota students might well have more ac-cess to computers than students in most otherstates, Linnertz says, but often the equipment is oldand slow. “I’d say 50 percent of our computers areolder Apples.”

And although the legislature has steadily con-tributed money to school technology for a decade,the amounts have been modest at best, rangingfrom $1 million to $6 million per biennium. Thatfunding has been awarded to the state’s 238 dis-tricts on a competitive basis, Linnertz says.

This school year, the legislature appropriated anadditional $5 million for technology to districts ona per-pupil basis. The amount works out to about$40 per student.

Such conservative allocations are typical ofNorth Dakota government, says Dan Pullen, whodirects the Center for Innovation in Instruction, a

Valley City, N.D.-based organization that trainsteachers in technology.

“You’re not going to find public resources beingspent lavishly for anything,” Pullen says.

If North Dakota’s school technology program haslacked money, it hasn’t lacked foresight. A largelyrural state, North Dakota realized early on thattechnology could help students leave the limita-tions of a traditionalclassroom.

Nine years ago, forexample, the statelaunched an interac-tive television sys-tem. Today, the sys-tem is made up of 12networks of schoolsthat, because of theirsize or limited teach-ing staff, can’t offertheir students a fullmenu of classes.Schools within eachnetwork shareclasses in foreign lan-guage, art, anatomy,advanced math, andother subjects, saysBill Strasser, the di-rector of the state’slargest interactivetelevision network.

High school students, as well as teachers andothers, can also take college courses for creditthrough the networks, which tie into the NorthDakota state university system. “It really helpsschools fill in the holes in the curriculum,” Strassersays.

The state also offers students the opportunity totake high school courses over the Internet, andeven to earn a high school diploma that way. Stu-dents from North Dakota, as well as from all overthe United States and the world, can choose from150 courses, according to Dean Mehrer, the technol-ogy director for the North Dakota Department ofPublic Instruction’s division of independent study.

About 90 percent of North Dakota districts haveInternet access through SENDIT, the state’s K-12network, established in 1991. Member districts payan annual fee, based on student population, thatranges from $150 to $1,150 a year, according toJody French, SENDIT’s project director. The legisla-ture kicks in about $340,000 a year to help run thesystem.

In the years ahead, North Dakota officials planto focus on training teachers to use computers moreeffectively in their classrooms—and on getting thelegislature to boost financial support of such efforts,Linnertz says. —JO ANNA NATALE

O H I O

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.ode.ohio.gov/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Sam Orth (614) 728-8324






North Carolina continued from Page 77

Ohio continued on Page 80


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

2

13

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

29

20

28

10

42

58


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

19%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

16%


12%



eevveerr

15%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


10%

Grade 4 Grade 8


In early 1995, before Ohio’s massive infusion ofmoney into school technology, a U.S. General Ac-counting Office study ranked the state dead last inthe number of students per computer.

Four years and $530 million later, the state in-tends to have wired all of Ohio’s classrooms for com-puter use, bought one computer for every five chil-dren in grades K-4 in most schools, and trainedteachers to integrate technology into their lessons.

“We were sleepy for a while, but in the last fewyears, technology has become an incredibly importantfocus,” says Tim Best, the education department’s di-rector of information, learning, and technology ser-vices. “The strength of our program is that it’s not justabout wires and work stations. It’s about learning.”

The technological sea change in Ohio began inJune 1994, when Gov. George V. Voinovich signed theSchoolNet bill, which authorized spending $50 mil-lion in bond proceeds to wire every public schoolclassroom for the use of telephones, televisions, andpersonal computers. As of the start of the currentschool year, more than half the state’s 100,000 class-rooms had been wired, Best says.

SchoolNet also included $45 million in bonds tobuy computers for the 153 districts with the lowestproperty values. About 10,700 computers have beenpurchased through this measure so far.

But the biggest windfall came in June 1995, whena $430 million program called SchoolNet Plus was in-cluded in the state budget. That program is buyingthousands of computers for classrooms and adminis-trative offices and helping thousands of teachers be-come computer literate. About 30,000 teachers par-ticipated in technology workshops this summer.

All 611 districts have had to come up with technol-ogy plans to get a share of the state money.

“The real goal is to provide a critical mass of com-puter technology, but the cost is forcing us to do it inphases, starting with grades K-4,” Best says. “We

want to reach kids early, when they have a huge ca-pacity for learning and a great interest in school.”

Another $30 million to upgrade electrical service inschools was approved in the state budget passed inJune. An $8.5 million federal grant awarded this yearwill target technology for middle school students.

Rep. Michael A. Fox, the chairman of the educationcommittee and the legislative sponsor of SchoolNetPlus, advises educators to balance spending on equip-ment and teacher training.

‘Technology is a tool that expands the reach and im-pact of education, but you won’t see results unless it’sdone right,” the Republican lawmaker says. “Teachershave to have a lot of skills to really use technology likethe Internet effectively in the classroom.”

Cleveland, the state’s largest district, has come upwith an interesting incentive for teacher training: Thedistrict provides free laptop computers to teacherswho agree to 60 hours of unpaid computer trainingover two years. So far, teachers at 20 schools have re-ceived computers they can take home.

“If we put PCs in classrooms yet have trainingthat’s strictly voluntary, some people will go and oth-ers won’t, so you won’t hit everybody,” says Paul Kar-lin, the district’s educational technology manager.“We also wanted teachers to have the opportunity topractice using computers outside the classroom.”

School technology has yet to make a big impressionin Cleveland, with only 10 of 118 schools hooked up toa computer network so far. But in Cincinnati, thestate’s third-largest district, computers are alreadymaking a difference in and outside the classroom.

All 81 schools and four administrative officers arewired for computers, dramatically improving the dis-trict’s efficiency, technology officials say.

Up until three years ago, administrators wouldspend as long as four weeks locating all students atthe beginning of the school year because registrationwas done by hand, says Mary Jo Caster, the district’stechnology director. Now, when a child enrolls, thename is typed into the school computer and immedi-

ately entered into the central office’s database.Also, messages that once took two or three days to

be delivered to school buildings can now be relayedinstantaneously through e-mail. “We went from beingprehistoric to having a network that staff can’t livewithout,” Caster says. —BETH REINHARD

O K L A H O M A

• State Education Agency Web Site: wwwwww..sde.state.ok.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Phil Applegate (405) 521-3994


• Selected Other Federal Resources for TechnologyDepartment of Commerce TIIAP: $2 million1997 Technology Innovation Grant: $1.2 million



Technology is a “long-neglected tool” in many Ok-lahoma schools, the state’s instructional technologyplan concedes.

That neglect stems mainly from inadequate train-ing for teachers and an unwillingness by districtsand legislators to provide funding, according to sev-eral technology experts in the Sooner State.

A few districts are well-stocked with moderncomputers and classroom networks, says John Cur-ran, who heads the state’s organization of schooltechnologists. But out-of-date technology is the


Ohio continued from Page 78

Order Form n y? Call 1-800-346-1834 or FAX your der

t(202) 686-0797.Please include your credit card number and expiration date.

SHIP TO:

Name

School/Institution

Street Address

City

State

Zip Code

Daytime Phone

TITLE PRICE QUANTITY ITEM TOTAL

Technology COUNTS $6 ea.

PAYMENT METHOD

Check Enclosed, Payable to EPE

Acct. # Exp. Date

Signature

P.O.# ($20 minimum)

MAIL COUPON TO: Education Week, Technology COUNTS, 4301 Connecticut Avenue NW,Suite 432, Washington, DC 20008

In a hurry? Call (800) 346-1834 or FAX your orderto (202) 686-0797 and pay by MasterCard or Visa!

SHIPPING/HANDLING INCLUDED IN COST.

* All orders will be shipped via UPS ground service. Next-day delivery (Federal Express) isavailable. Call or FAX us for exact shipping costs.

Quantity discounts are available. Call 800-346-1834 for information on ordering morethan 10 copies.

Extra Copies of

EDUCATION WEEK’s first annual report on

the state of education technology is a

“must-read” for anyone interested in Ameri-

can education. Underwritten by the Milken

Exchange on Education Technology, the 96-page report explores

state plans and policies for education technology and the effect of

technology on student achievement.

To order, send $6* (no cash, please) to:

EDUCATION WEEK — Technology COUNTS

4301 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 432

Washington, DC 20008.

FFoorr ffaasstteerr sseerrvviiccee,, ccaallll ((880000)) 334466--11883344 aanndd ppaayy bbyy MMaasstteerrCCaarrdd oorr VViissaa!!

* shipping and handling included

Are Available!

Technology

COUNTS

✂



norm; in fact, most schools are “teaching children asif they were still living in the American agrarian so-ciety of the 19th century,” the state plan says.

“Oklahoma has 548 districts; it also has 548 lev-els of sophistication in technology,” state Superin-tendent Sandra Garrett says.

The state has endorsed technology skills as a pri-ority for students, but its financial support has runout of gas at the statehouse. This year, in the midstof a state economic boom, lawmakers boosted overallsupport for schools by $103 million to $1.6 billion.But they turned down the department of education’srequest for $62 million—or $100 per student—forschool technology.

Garrett says the legislature deferred its technol-ogy investment until a planned study of schooltechnology needs is complete.

One problem that worries some legislators is thatmany computers in classrooms are used ineffec-tively, or not at all, because teachers aren’t trainedin operational basics and in how to meld high-techactivities with the curriculum, according to stateSen. Darryl Roberts, who chairs the education sub-committee of the Senate appropriations committee.

In 1994, Oklahoma had the nation’s lowest per-centage of teachers—just 8 percent—with at leastnine hours of training in educational technology, ac-cording to the U.S. Department of Education.

Legislators took steps this year toward changingthat status. They gave $1 million for professionaldevelopment in technology directly to public schoolsand $7 million from a telecommunications sur-charge to the state’s 29 vocational-technical schoolsfor technology training that will be open to allteachers.

In addition, Oklahoma’s teacher preparationcommission, which organizes training for teachers,will sponsor technology classes.

State officials also plan to award part of the $2.3million they received this year from the federalTechnology Literacy Challenge Fund to “telemen-toring” projects that help qualified teachers passalong high-tech skills to colleagues.

Ironically, Oklahoma was considered one of thenation’s leading technology states in the mid-1980sbecause of its investment in satellite technology fordistance learning, an approach suited to a scat-tered, rural population.

But when the economy slumped later in thedecade, districts cut back on spending, and mostschools failed to keep up with computer hardwareand software advances.

The fastest-growing tool for distance education—the Internet—has yet to reach most Oklahomaclassrooms.

Only 10 percent of the state’s schools have accessto the Internet, and most of those have only a sin-gle, dial-up Internet connection in the library, ac-cording to a recent state survey.

The lack of on-line classrooms seems especiallyglaring because it limits schools’ ability to take ad-vantage of OneNet, the state’s splendid telecommu-nications infrastructure that can transmit voice,video, and data, and provide access to electronic li-brary materials and the Internet.

Since 1992, the state has spent nearly $14 mil-lion on expanding and upgrading OneNet, which isavailable to public schools, vocational-technicalschools, colleges, universities, libraries, and othergovernment agencies.

By the end of August, 129 schools had dedicatedaccess to OneNet. Others find it too expensive—even at the discounted rates the state has set forschools and teachers—or lack the internal net-works, computers, and other technology they needto use it.

OneNet officials say they hope pending telecom-munications discounts from the Federal Communi-cations Commission will help them dismantle thosebarriers. —ANDREW TROTTER



O R E G O N

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.ode.state.or.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:James Sanner (503) 378-3310 ext. 488





Oregon’s schools have a fair amount of educa-tional technology, even though the legislature hasappropriated little money for it.

“I wouldn’t say we are leading the nation in anyway, but I think we are ahead of the curve,” saysstate Sen. Jeanette Hamby, whose district lies inthe Portland suburbs.

Most funding for technology has come out of dis-tricts’ budgets.

“The state has a very conservative fiscal out-look,” says Kathleen Heide, the technology special-ist for the state department of education. “Eventhough the state hasn’t given a lot of direct funds[for technology], I think we do have a massivegrassroots effort to think about how technology canbe obtained for schools through building strongbusiness-school partnerships, with the state facili-tating some of those [partnerships].”

Almost three-quarters of Oregon’s 1,212 schoolsare linked to the Internet with a dedicated high-speed connection. Most of the remaining schoolsare connected through dial-up access, according tothe state education department.

Schools are receiving Internet access through astatewide effort called the Oregon Public EducationNetwork, a nonprofit funded with money from dis-tricts’ budgets.

Wendy Hawkins, the statewide manager of educa-tion relations in Oregon for Intel Corp. and a mem-ber of the Oregon Business Council, views OPEN asone of the most positive things happening withschool technology in Oregon. “They are making verysteady and increasingly fast progress,” she says.

Hawkins started a technology project in one countythat has led to another statewide effort to help

schools: Students Helping Recycle Used Technology.Through STRUT, students refurbished 2,000 comput-ers last year for Oregon schools.

“Other states have more access to the Internet, and others have done better jobs with train-ing,“ Hawkins says. “But Oregon still measures uppretty well, compared to the stories I hear from mycolleagues in other states.”

Oregon’s ratio of students-to-multimedia com-puters is 23-to-1, slightly below the national aver-age of 21-to-1, according to the research firm Mar-ket Data Retrieval.

The state has atechnology plan,which was approvedby the state board ofeducation in January.

A peer reviewpanel for the Technol-ogy Literacy Chal-lenge Fund praisedthe state’s vision,which is structuredaround the four national technologygoals, and its empha-sis on professional de-velopment. It alsolauded the state’s cre-ative financing strate-gies through localpartnerships, and ef-forts to target assis-tance to poorer com-munities.

But the panel urged the state to create more mea-surable objectives, benchmarks, and timelines to bet-ter evaluate technology’s impact on student learning.

A lack of money poses a barrier.The legislature set aside just $2 million for educa-

tional technology for the current biennium, accord-ing to Jan McComb, an education policy analyst inthe legislative policy and research office.

The legislature also allocated $50 million in one-time funds that schools can use for capital projectsand other school spending, including technology.

Residents were scheduled Nov. 4 to vote on a$150 million lottery bond. If passed, it would go toschools for similar one-time construction needs.Many schools are expected to use it for technologypurchases, according to McComb.

Heide says the state department of educationhas emphasized technology planning. Departmentofficials have worked closely with schools to comeup with local technology plans, which are requiredfor schools to receive Technology Literacy Chal-lenge Fund money.

“We’ve seen many states proceed with big buckswho have no movement in technology planning,”Heide says. —MEG SOMMERFELD

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.cas.psu.edu/pde.html

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:John Bailey (717) 787-5820





John Bailey, who was hired two years ago as thefirst-ever director of technology for the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Education, likes to tell this story:

In a recent school technology survey, a wealthydistrict reported buying 500 laptop computers. Butwhen the district’s technology director was askedhow they would be used, he had no idea.

“He just shrugged his shoulders,” Bailey says. “Ifind it hard to believe that [this approach] willhave an impact on education.”

The Keystone State is trying to prevent thatkind of situation from happening again by ensur-ing that every district has modern equipment anda plan for its use.

Pennsylvania is in the second year of a $127 mil-lion, three-year statewide technology plan calledLink to Learn. The program provides funds forcomputer equipment, staff development, and infra-structure. But its strength is a clear focus on plan-ning and infrastructure design.

In fact, the first year of the program saw $33million in state grants go to help districts developlong-term plans and technology infrastructure.

And any computers bought with state funds hadto meet minimum standards so they would notquickly become obsolete. The equipment is expectedto operate in a future statewide educational tech-nology network.

Also as part of the Link to Learn effort, the de-partment plans this fall to publish the results of afirst-ever, district-by-district survey of technology use.

In preliminary results, researchers found thatadministrators and teachers were more likely touse school Internet connections than students.

“I don’t know if we have a preference for whoshould use it most, but there was a sense that stu-dents were first,” Bailey says. “This flies in the faceof that.”

The education department supplemented statefunding with an $8.6 million grant from the fed-eral Technology Literacy Challenge Fund in fiscal1997.

The review team that approved Pennsylvania’sChallenge Fund grant wrote that Link to Learn“demonstrates forward-thinking as it aspires topull together, connect, and provide a common pur-pose to statewide technology use.”

But as the midway point of the state programapproaches, legislators are suggesting a close re-view of Link to Learn to make sure that its appro-priations are being well-spent.

“It’s time to make an assessment of how thingsare going and check with districts how things areworking,” says Republican state Rep. Jess M. Stairs,the chairman of the House education committee.

One legislator is already expressing concern thatthe department’s efforts to develop a statewide in-




Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

8

22

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

35

26 27

8

30

44


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

13

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

21

28

37


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

15%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


12%

Grade 4

Grade 4 Grade 8


frastructure are moving too slowly.“The legislature has been supportive, but many

expect the education department will do a better jobto promote an integrated system as opposed to pass-ing out money to buy equipment,” says state Rep.Ronald R. Cowell, the ranking Democrat on thehouse education committee.

Many state officials agree that Pennsylvania hasbeen generous in funding school technology, and Re-publican Gov. TomRidge is a strong sup-porter of it. But Cow-ell adds that districtsshould make technol-ogy a regular spend-ing priority, with orwithout special rev-enues from the state.

“Schools must thinkof technology as a reg-ular classroom tool,”he says. “I think thatthose investmentsneed to come fromoverall school bud-gets.”

Toward that end,district technologyplans under Link toLearn are expectedto show long-termfunding plans forcomputers, network-ing, staff development, and infrastructure.

The idea, Bailey says, is to reduce districts’ re-liance on sporadic state and federal fundingsources. “That’s how technology becomes obsoleteand irrelevant.” —ROBERT C. JOHNSTON

R H O D E I S L A N D

• State Education Agency Web Site: instruct.ride.ri.net/ride_home_page.html

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:William Fiske (401) 277-4600 ext. 2130







eevveerr

8%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

19%


14%

Want To Learn More About KeyEducation Issues?

Browse the Issues Pages on Education Week on the Web!

Type www.edweek.org, go to IINN CCOONNTTEEXXTT, click on

IISSSSUUEESS, then select the topic you want to know more about

(we feature more than 20).

We summarize each issue and provide links to other pertinent

sites on the Web, past Education Week stories, and definitions

of key terms. You’ll even find a list of background readings

and a hyperlinked roster of related organizations! From

assessment and community partnerships to professional

development and school choice, the Issues Pages on

Education Week on the Web offer the information you need

to understand these important and timely education topics.

Don’t delay! Visit Education Week on the Web today.

www.edweek.org

IInn CCoonntteexxtt

IIssssuueess

States

Politics Watch

Town Meeting

Glossary

Organizations

Best of the Web


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

13 15

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

44

7

33

12


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers

Rhode Island continued on Page 84

78

Grade 4 Grade 8

0


Years before the Federal Communications Com-mission assured schools would get deep discounts fortelecommunications services, the nation’s smalleststate was striking its own deals to bring schools intothe 21st century.

Thanks to a concession offered by the New EnglandTelephone Co. while the state public utilities commis-sion was considering regulatory reforms, Rhode Is-land schools and libraries can get phone lines for In-ternet access laid at no cost. Free high-speed digitallines have since been added to the agreement.

The deal reflects the kind of resourcefulness oftenfound in a small state with scarce public funds fornew programs. What it lacks in state dollars, RhodeIsland has tried to make up for with deal-cutting,partnerships, and the generosity of private groups.

Even as schoolswere getting theirfirst free phone lines,a network offeringeducators Internetservice was beinglaunched by a part-nership of the statedepartments of edu-cation and libraryand information ser-vices, the Universityof Rhode Island,Brown University,and public televisionstation WSBE-TV.

Called RInet andmaintained at URI,the initiative firstprovided basic ser-vices like e-mail ac-counts and Internetaccess. Additional fea-tures now let educa-

tors and their students publish World Wide Webpages. RInet still functions with a full-time staff ofone, and volunteers carry out much of the work.

Private efforts have also given Rhode Island educa-tors needed hardware. Since 1990, the Warwick-basedChamplin Foundations have given more than $11 mil-lion to allow Rhode Island teachers to buy instruc-tional equipment, often new computers.

Another effort, called Project SMART, seeks to en-sure that such equipment is used for more than pa-perweights. Launched by the RINet partners in1995 with a $750,000 National Science Foundationgrant, Project SMART began by putting about 100teachers each year through a two-week summertraining program.

The hope is to inspire teachers not just to learnhow to use the technology, but also to use it in creat-ing new teaching units. To maximize its impact, Pro-ject SMART is organized so that participants later be-come trainers themselves.

“We didn’t want this to be perceived as computergurus teaching teachers; this is teachers teachingteachers,” says William Fiske, an education technol-ogy specialist who is the state education depart-ment’s only full-time professional staff member de-voted to educational technology.

Project SMART got a tremendous boost last yearwhen the Providence-based Rhode Island Foundationgave $5 million to help expand computer training forteachers. The money allowed 314 teachers to betrained last summer, and more than 2,000 will re-ceive training in the next two years.

To encourage Project SMART participants to con-tinue to develop their new skills, a large part of the$5 million grant is being used to buy laptop com-puters for teachers who go through the program.Within two years, the gift will ensure that aboutone-third of the state’s teachers will have their ownlaptops, and program organizers are hopeful the

computers will spur the educators to swap ideasand design new curricula.

Such private and collaborative efforts have gonefurther in Rhode Island than would be possible in alarger state, but educators there say more stablefunding sources are needed to make the most of edu-cational technology in all the state’s schools.

“There’s going to be a ceiling on those efforts whensomeone has to step up and say, ‘Where are those dol-lars going to come from for a full statewide infra-structure?’ ” Fiske says.

In approving its fiscal 1998 budget, the legislaturelast year included about $1.5 million to be distributedto districts expressly for educational technology—welcome funds, but an amount that doesn’t compareto many of the recent private efforts.

Further, some also worry that many districts willnot—or cannot—commit enough to instructionaltechnology and training. Inequities in per-pupilspending for instruction continue to raise concernsamong state education officials that poorer districtswill lag behind.

“Right now, we’ve got local districts that reallyhave to justify every dollar they spend,” Fiske says.

—JEFF ARCHER

S O U T H C A R O L I N A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.state.sc.us/sde/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Pamela Pritchett (803) 734-8093





Getting South Carolina schools linked to the In-ternet has been a top priority for state legislators andeducation officials for the past two years.

The legislature spent $23 million on educationtechnology in the 1996-97 school year, and it appro-priated another $28 million for 1997-98. From this$51 million technology pot, the state spent $21 mil-lion on linking schools to the Internet and SCINet, theSouth Carolina Information Network.

Another $12 million will be used for hardware,software, file servers, routers, and related trainingand materials. The remaining funds will go to edu-cational television purposes and to help ensure thatevery school in the state has a satellite dish and receiver.

“There’s never been a question about whether weshould spend the money, just how much,” saysPamela Pritchett, the senior executive for educationinitiatives at the state education department. “Forthe most part, businesspeople—who a lot of the leg-islators are—recognize that they have got to havekids with technology skills coming into the work-place. They see it as like paying for electricity—it’sa part of everydaybusiness.”

Thanks to the newfunds, 74 percent ofSouth Carolina’s1,133 schools havehigh-speed access tothe Internet throughwide-area networks.The remaining schoolsare connected onlythrough dial-up tele-phone lines, accord-ing to state data.

The state does nothave data on howmany computersthere are in its class-rooms. But many ofthem are older andnot capable of beingnetworked, accord-ing to the state’stechnology plan.

A peer review team that evaluated South Car-olina’s grant application to the federal TechnologyLiteracy Challenge Fund praised the state’s tech-nology plan, saying it demonstrated the state’s“thorough and commendable planning and forwardthinking about educational technology.” It alsocalled South Carolina’s technology infrastructure“outstanding” and commended the state’s strong ef-forts to elicit support from community groups andthe public at large.

Under areas for improvement, the review teamrecommended that state officials develop a morespecific timeline showing how they plan to meet theplan’s goals and benchmarks. The panel also urgedthem to continue revisiting local needs on a regularbasis, and target funds to districts with higher per-centages of poor students.

Educators say they appreciate that the state ispaying for high-speed digital access lines and con-nectivity charges, eliminating monthly charges foran Internet service provider. Schools, in turn,are responsible for setting up a local-area networkand must buy a router and any other necessaryequipment.

“I don’t think there are too many states that arefunding dedicated access, high-speed connections inall of their schools,” says Clint Mullins, the director oftechnology for the Lexington 2 District in Columbia,S.C. “We have the strong support of a governor who isvery proactive on technology, a supportive superin-tendent, and a strong private-sector partnership thathas worked hard to provide a strong funding base.”

Like many other states, South Carolina hashosted a number of NetDay-style events, coordi-nated mostly at the local level. Even Gov. David M.Beasley has pitched in, pulling wire at W.A. PerryMiddle School in Columbia.

The state also devised some creative strategies toraise additional funds. For $54, South Carolina res-idents can buy an education technology licenseplate, adorned with a bright red apple and a yellowruler, that declares “Public Education: A Great In-vestment.” Thirty-four dollars of the fee goes di-


Rhode Island continued from Page 83


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

8

21

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

30

20 19

11

4248


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

16%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

14%


10%



eevveerr

14%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

14%


15%

Grade 4 Grade 8


rectly to the school district where the car is regis-tered. The rest goes back to the state, which usesan equity formula to redistribute it to poorer dis-tricts. The state estimates that sales will generate$223,000 by the end of this year.

Public- and private-sector organizations thathave aided the state’s technology efforts includeBellSouth, South Carolina Educational Television,and the Lightstar Partners, the state’s independenttelephone companies.

BellSouth, for example, provided 150 volunteersto help schools develop wiring plans and pull wireson SCINet Days, and donated wiring kits to 350schools. It also plans to award $30,000 in mini-grants to teachers, for educational materials ortraining that helps them make better use of tech-nology in the classroom. —MEG SOMMERFELD

S O U T H D A K O T A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.state.sd.us/state/executive/deca/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Jim Parry (605) 394-5315





While South Dakota has made some progress inbringing technology to schools, it still has “a longway to go,” according to the state’s technology con-sultant.

The main problem isn’t the number of comput-ers—the state has plenty. It’s their age, says JimParry, the director of Technology and Innovation inEducation, a nonprofit agency that has workedsince 1986 under contract with the state depart-ment of education to aid technology implementa-tion in the state’s schools.

“My guess is that 75 percent of our computersare obsolete by industry standards,” Parry says.

The state also is behind in providing schools withaccess to the Internet. Although three-quarters ofSouth Dakota districts have such access, only about10 percent of classrooms do, according to Parry.

Other problems are a lack of planning—just a fewdistricts have technology plans—and an ongoingneed for teacher training. “We’re still struggling withwhat you do [with technology] to provide communi-cations-age teaching and learning,” Parry says.

Technology efforts that have been undertaken sofar are almost completely owing to state and fed-eral grant money and to local success in raisingfunds, he says. The South Dakota legislaturemakes no regular or specific contribution to thecause, other than funding about 10 percent of Tech-nology and Innovation in Education’s work in stateschools.

“South Dakota is a state with limited resources.You can’t do everything for everybody,” says DonKirkegaard, the superintendent of the 540-studentBritton school district, which has used grantmoney to further its technology program.

Some districts are looking to the upcoming fed-erally mandated “E-rate” discount on telecommu-nications services as another form of financial aid.

“The expense of a T-1 line is a little out of our

reach right now,” says Lennie Symes, the technol-ogy director for the 2,600-student Huron schooldistrict. “We’re hoping with the E-rate, we’ll be ableto up our bandwidth. Right now, we’ve been addingnew machines and bogging down our system.”

The state government, meanwhile, has em-barked on an ambitious plan to wire every SouthDakota school within the next 18 months. Begunlast year under the leadership of Republican Gov.William Janklow, the “Wiring the Schools” programis intended to allow three-quarters of the studentsin each school to be on the Internet at any giventime, Parry says.

The program is financed not with new legislativefunds, but with federal grant dollars and carryovermoney from various state offices, Parry says. Tokeep costs down, low-security prison inmates aredoing the wiring in schools—an initially controver-sial move that officials say has gradually won ac-ceptance.

The two schools in the Britton district have al-ready been wired under the program.

“We ran miles and miles of computer wire, phonewire, cable TV wire. Our buildings are connectedwith fiber optics. Everything is the latest in tech-nology,” Kirkegaard says.

Parry praises the program, but says schools stillneed more help: “The weak link in the governor’sprogram is … what you hook to the wires after thewires are in the school. The state provides no re-sources for buying file servers, hubs, or the neces-sary pieces to make the wires light up.”

Parry says his agency is encouraging local com-munities to pitch in and buy such equipment.

—JO ANNA NATALE



T E N N E S S E E

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.state.tn.us/education

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Jackie Shrago (615) 532-1229





After years of focusing on the purchase of computers, Tennessee education officials have settheir sights on improving student access to the equipment and on integrating its use into theclassroom.

Since 1993, the legislature has appropriated$127 million for educational technology advance-ments. While the state can’t earmark how districtsspend the money, officials say each has a technologycoordinator and seems committed to the cause.

“I don’t know of any school system in the statethat doesn’t allocate money” for educational technology,” says Amy Bearman, the executive ad-ministrative assistant to the state’s education com-missioner.

Tennessee’s 21st Century Classrooms programhas put computers in about 20 percent of the state’sclassrooms, and the education department’s Con-necTEN project, another major initiative, has con-nected all 1,560 K-12 schools to the Internet.

The state’s next big push will be to increase thecomputer time available to each student and toteach teachers how to incorporate the World WideWeb into the curriculum, officials say.

“The number of machines in a building is notnearly as important as access,” Bearman says.

To measure student access, officials have devel-oped the concept of a connectivity rate, which cal-culates the number of minutes a student uses acomputer divided by the number of computers in aschool.

“If access is only a couple of minutes per weekper child, it’s not any different than a single text-book in a classroom,” says Jackie Shrago, the pro-ject director for ConnecTEN.

A school’s connectivity rate will be one of themajor factors considered this fall when the stateawards the $3.4 million it received from the federalTechnology Literacy Challenge Fund.

Officials say they plan to use the money to helplevel the playing field for schools across the state,especially those that are relatively poor but don’tquite meet the requirements for the federal Title Iprogram.

Because Title I schools receive additional federalmoney that can be spent on technology, they often“have much more [technology] than those schoolsthat almost made it to Title I,” Bearman says.

The connectivity rates will indicate which schoolshave the biggest need for computers, she adds.

As for teacher training, 25 percent of the TLCFmoney will be used to provide incentives for teach-ers who contribute to a project on developing lessonplans that integrate technology in the classroom.The plans will be posted on the Internet.

The efforts will follow the strategy applied by thestate’s Virtual School, founded by Vanderbilt Uni-versity, which was successful in training teachershow to use e-mail to communicate with each otherand share ways touse technology in theclassroom.

“If we can engen-der teachers talkingto each other, thenwe will do much bet-ter,” Shrago says.

While strong bi-partisan supportfrom lawmakers hasprovided the majorsource of funding foreducational technol-ogy, officials say busi-ness partnershipshave also played animportant role.

Large corporationscontributed time andservices to the Con-necTEN effort, waiv-ing phone-line con-nection fees andproviding some teachers with free Internet ac-counts. The nonprofit Connect Tennessee SchoolsInc. helps raise money for districts.

Officials also see the pending “E-rate” discountsas another potential resource, and they plan to co-ordinate with districts in submitting applications tothe Federal Communications Commission.

“This could be an enormous upgrade of our net-work,” Shrago says. —JULIE RASICOT

T E X A S

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.tea.state.tx.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Anita Givens (512) 463-9400





Thirty dollars per pupil per year might not seemlike a great deal of money to spend on educationaltechnology, but, over time, it adds up. In Texas, thetotal has grown to more than $500 million since 1992.

That investment is the largest of a number of ef-forts in Texas over the past decade to bring technol-ogy to the state’s 1,044 districts and 6,465 schools.

“Our strength is we’ve been in the business ofthinking about and planning for technology for a longtime,” says Anita Givens, the senior director of in-structional technology for the Texas EducationAgency. “Plus, we’ve got support from the legislatureon down. This state really values the importance oftechnology.”

A panel that recently evaluated the state’s appli-cation for a federal technology grant agreed, callingTexas “an example of strong commitment from peo-ple across the state.”

Several initiatives currently under way serve asexamples:• The Technology Infrastructure Fund was

created in 1995 in legislation requiring telecommuni-cations companies that are seeking deregulation tocontribute to school technology. Under the plan, thecompanies must provide discounted telecomm-unications services toschools and contribute$150 million a yearover 10 years to effortsto wire K-12 schoolsand other public insti-tutions. So far, Givenssays, 200 schools havereceived money forwiring, with another1,000 about to receivesuch funds.• The Texas Educa-

tion Network servesas an Internetprovider for schoolsand trains teachers inhelping them inte-grate technology intothe classroom andevaluating instruc-tional resources.“Training and contenthave become more im-portant as people get more and more access [to tech-nology],” says Connie Stout, the director of TENET,housed at the University of Texas at Austin. Anotherof TENET’s aims: to train teachers in how to meet thestate’s new curriculum standards, which includetechnology standards for students in kindergarten



Texas continued on Page 88



Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

9

22

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

33

24

40

30

18

24


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

7

21

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2421 22

13

48 45


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

15%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

14%


9%



eevveerr

17%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

15%


16%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Grade 4 Grade 8


through 12th grade.• Through a program called Projects for Educa-

tional Technology, the Texas Education Agency iden-tifies exemplary technology programs statewide andthen awards grants to districts so they can share in-formation about their projects with others.• The Texas Center for Educational Technology, es-

tablished by the legislature in 1990 and located atthe University of North Texas at Denton, evaluatesvarious strategies and programs in educational tech-nology and reports on those that do and don’t work.• A statewide satellite network, known as T-STAR,

links districts, regional educational service centers,and the Texas Education Agency using one-way videoand two-way audio communications. Each district hasa satellite dish allowing it to make use of the system.• Texas’ 20 regional education service centers provide

teachers and others with a place to try out hardwareand software products before deciding to buy. The cen-ters also provide technology training to teachers.

All the efforts statewide could benefit from somecoordination, Givens says, pointing to what she sayswas a weakness in Texas’ overall push to get technol-ogy to schools. “We have a variety of entities in thestate stimulating technology activities, but because ofthe diversity, we have no real coordinated statewideapproach.”

Another need is for sound research on the level oftechnology in schools. Some of the existing research,she says, such as that from Quality Education Data,doesn’t include all districts.

“Generally speaking, the student-to-computer ratiois 10-to-1, but I can’t say we have good accurate dataon what the ratio is,” Givens says. —JO ANNA NATALE

U T A H• State Education Agency Web Site:

www.usoe.k12.ut.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Vicky Dahn (801) 538-7732





Utah has put educational technology high on itslist of priorities.

The legislature’s support dates to 1990, when itpassed the Educational Technology Initiative. Thatmeasure alone has resulted in $87 million forschool technology.

“Though the money never seems like quiteenough, we know we’re very fortunate,” says VickyDahn, the coordinator of instructional technologyfor the state office of education. “We only have480,000 students K-12, and that really puts [theamount of funding] into perspective.”

One reason for the state’s support: Utah is arural state, and peo-ple see technology asa way to help evenout educational op-portunities for stu-dents in remoteareas, Dahn says.

Another reason isUtah’s growing sta-tus as a technologyhub. The state ishome to more than1,500 high-tech firms,and many parents ofschool-age childrenhold technology-re-lated jobs. “It reallyhelps their under-standing of theissue,” Dahn says.

Schools have bene-fited from the firms’presence in otherways, too. Many

schools have formed partnerships with the compa-nies, which have donated hardware, software,human resources, and money, says Republican stateSen. David Steele.

The donations have provided “a strong infusionof technology in schools,” says Steele, the director ofinstructional technology for the Davis school dis-trict.

Although the legislature has given financial sup-port to school technology every year since 1990, themoney was allocated through supplemental fund-ing until 1993. Beginning that year, however, law-makers made technology a line item in the statebudget, Dahn says.

“The legislature has gone from ‘we’ll throw somemoney at you, and once you know the amount, youcan decide what to do with it,’ to long-term line-item funding of educational technology,” she says.That funding pays for computer maintenance andreplacement.

Other funds have supported other efforts. In1994, $5 million was appropriated to help linkschools to the Internet. Today, all of Utah’s sec-ondary schools have Internet access, with T-1 linesor better, Dahn says. As part of the deal, districtsare responsible for connecting their elementaryschools; so far, she says, about 70 percent of the ele-mentary schools have been connected.

Another technology initiative funded by the statelegislature is EdNet, Utah’s interactive video sys-tem. Many schools in outlying areas rely on thesystem to round out curricula that might lack, forinstance, foreign language or advanced mathcourses.

About 9,000 students use EdNet, taking 228courses from remote locations, according to EdwardRidges, the system’s director. Up to half the sys-tem’s use comes from high school students takingcollege courses. They get college credit for their ef-forts and pay no tuition, as long as they are en-rolled in a public high school, Ridges says.

Like other states, Utah has weak spots in its ed-ucational technology program. Chief among them isteacher training.

“Technology isn’t just important for kids’ futures,it’s important for teachers because it helps them dotheir jobs well,” Dahn says. Getting that messageacross, she says, “is a huge in-service task that hasyet to be completed.” —JO ANNA NATALE

V E R M O N T

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.state.vt.us/educ/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Robert Dunn (802) 828-3111





Vermont has had a state technology plan in placesince 1996, but it’s a plan without a clear leader.The state department of education has no desig-nated office of technology and no technology direc-tor at the state level.

As a result, Vermont has “made less progressthan … would have [been] expected” in its technol-ogy program, according to a panel that reviewedthe state’s application for a federal Technology Lit-eracy Challenge Fund grant. In its critique lastMarch, the group said Vermont needs state-levelpeople to “concentrate exclusively on coordinationof technology planning and implementation acrossthe state.”

Vermont’s plan, developed by consultants, makesseveral general recommendations. Among them:that students receive “adequate access” to technol-ogy resources, that teachers receive training in howto use technology to strengthen instruction, andthat state and local governments make funding fortechnology a priority.

The plan makes no attempt to require specific ac-tions on the part of districts, though, and for goodreason, observers say. Vermonters prize local con-trol—so much so, that individual schools have theirown school boards.

“In Vermont, it’s almost impossible to dictate


Texas continued from Page 86

Vermont continued on Page 90


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

7

32

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

15 16 16

8

61

44


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

711

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

20

27

47

18

25

44


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

14%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

14%


12%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Grade 4 Grade 8


anything,” says Craig Lyndes, the data-processingmanager at Champlain Valley Union High Schoolin Hinesburg. “If the state [officials] said, ‘You haveto have a computer for every 4.5 students,’ they’dhave their heads handed back on a platter.”

Still, Vermont’s technology program has edgedforward. According to the research firm Quality Ed-ucation Data, 94 percent of schools and 25 percentof classrooms in the state had access to the Inter-net in 1996.

When considering all types of computers, the stu-dent-to-computer ratio is 7-to-1; when taking intoaccount computers that are 386 megahertz or

higher, the ratio is10-to-1, according toQED.

At the state level,various initiativesare under way to im-prove students’ tech-nological capabilities.Most recently, thestate has contractedwith the Vermont In-stitute for Science,Math, and Technol-ogy to help districtsdevelop technologyplans. To that end,the agency is runningregional training cen-ters, paid for with$100,000 of the $1million that Vermontreceived in TLCFmoney in fiscal 1997,says Frank Watson,

the institute’s executive director.Once districts have approved technology plans

in place, Watson says, they will be eligible to applyfor the “E-rate,” a federally prescribed discount ontelecommunications services.

Other initiatives in the works: At Gov. HowardDean’s urging, the legislature has appropriated$750,000 over three years to help wire schools forlocal-area networks, says Patricia Urban, the chiefinformation officer for Vermont’s state government.In addition, legislators appropriated $300,000 twoyears in a row to provide satellite downlinks forhigh schools. The schools use the downlinks to ac-cess courses from universities.

Vermont has also invested $1 million to open thestate’s wide-area network to schools, Urban says.Under the arrangement, schools pay the state$5,000 a year for a dedicated line or $250 a year fordial-up service that features 25 mailboxes. Urbansays 275 of the state’s 350 districts use the networkto communicate with each other and to access theInternet. —JO ANNA NATALE

V I R G I N I A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.pen.k12.va.us/Anthology/VDOE/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Lan Neugent (804) 225-2757





With a thriving local technology industry and anambitious educational technology plan, Virginiahas built a solid infrastructure in which everyschool in the state is wired to the Internet.

But when it comes to making computers handylearning devices for students in the classroom, theOld Dominion is “a bit slow at the switch,” says Del.Kenneth R. Plum, the chairman of Virginia’s JointCommission on Technology and Science.

“Two-thirds of the gross state product growthcan be attributed to high-tech firms, but the stateis lagging in its use of technology in education,”Plum says. “We are desperately trying to playcatch-up.”

The first goal of Virginia’s six-year technologyplan is to develop thestate’s infrastruc-ture.

Since the stateboard adopted theplan in 1994, the leg-islature has set aside$200 million to assistschools in upgradingand replacing equip-ment and establish-ing school and dis-trictwide networkconnections. And inthe 1996-98 budgetcycle, state leadersapproved a $20 mil-lion expenditure forcalculators for mathand science classes.

As a result of thispublic investment,the ratio of studentsto computers in Vir-ginia schools is currently 9-to-1, down from 13-to-1in 1994, education department figures show. Stateleaders say they hope to reach their goal of a 5-to-1ratio in the next few years.

Noting that half the computers in Virginiaschools are outdated, the state faces the large taskof trying to modernize its infrastructure at thesame time, according to Lan Neugent, Virginia’sacting assistant superintendent for technology.

In addition to multiplying hardware and net-working schools, Virginia’s plan also calls for anytechnological advances to complement the state’snew, rigorous standards of learning. By the end of5th grade, students must “demonstrate a basic un-

derstanding of computer theory including bits,bytes, and binary logic,” according to state stan-dards that will be phased in over the next fewyears.

A few districts have already constructed state-of-the-art technology systems to meet these and othereducational goals.

For example, schools in Fairfax County, an afflu-ent suburb of Washington, had a $34 million tech-nology budget in fiscal 1997 and a 4-to-1 ratio ofstudents to computers.

Some urban and rural school systems have beenexperimenting with distance learning with the helpof local telecommunications companies that haveoffered districts a cut rate on high-speed fiber-opticcable systems.

But on the whole, districts haven’t been givenmuch guidance on how to use technology in innov-ative ways in their classrooms. State officials, oneexpert says, have required schools to arrive at adestination without giving them a map.

“It’s like saying, ‘Use the tools that you aregiven,’ but not telling them how. And that’s a prob-lem,” says Jeff Sun, an educational technology con-sultant with the federally funded Appalachia Edu-cational Laboratory.

In addition, a greater investment needs to bemade in personnel to manage these growing tech-nology systems, Sun says.

While a large district like Fairfax has severalsystemwide managers, 23 school-based teachertrainers, and weekly seminars on the latest soft-ware, smaller districts may have only one person tohandle a range of needs.

Virginia education leaders have recently takensome actions to address teacher training.

The state plans to use 70 percent of the $2.8 mil-lion it won through the federal Technology LiteracyChallenge Fund in fiscal 1997 to bolster teacherpreparedness.

And last spring, the state board proposed makingtechnology training a requirement for teacher cer-tification in Virginia.

Under the plan, which appears headed for ap-proval, teachers would need to have a basic mas-tery of the latest equipment and to log a certainnumber of hours on a computer before they couldbegin working in state schools.

Plum says that he hopes his commission, whichwas formed this summer, will push for legislationthat will continue to modernize the state’s fleet ofschool computers and increase their usefulness inthe classroom.

But that greatly depends on the outcome of thestate’s Nov. 4 election, and whether the new gover-nor will make school technology a priority, Plumsays. “That will affect things dramatically.”

—JESSICA PORTNER

W A S H I N G T O N

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.ospi.wednet.edu/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Cathy Parise (360) 586-3894






Vermont continued from Page 88

Computer AvailabilityPublic school teachers’ report on the availability ofcomputers to students in mathematics classes.

Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

38

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

34

20

32

8

31

63


Grade 4 Grade 8

None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

16%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

18%


17%



eevveerr

18%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

12%


12%


In Washington state, home to the corporate head-quarters of Boeing Co. and Microsoft Corp., educa-tion officials and lawmakers have worked to keeppace with the state’s technologically savvy resi-dents.

Their efforts have put Washington schools “aheadof the curve” when it comes to providing studentsaccess to technology, says Anne Batey, the Washing-ton liaison for the Northwest Regional Technologyin Education Consortium, a federally supported pro-gram that provides technological support to sixstates.

“I think the presence of Boeing and Microsoft hashelped,” adds Dennis Small, an education telecom-munications supervisor at the office of the superin-tendent of public instruction. “It’s brought in a pop-ulation of parents who are aware of high-techpossibilities.”

Almost all of Washington’s districts haveachieved some type of Internet connectivity throughlocal and regional efforts. Now, legislators and edu-cators are installing a statewide computer networkdesigned to provide better, high-speed Internet con-nections to every dis-trict and postsec-ondary institution.The network willalso give schools thecapacity to hold two-way video telephoneconversations.

Established by leg-islation in 1995, theK-20 network has al-ready begun to servethe state’s higher ed-ucation institutionsand its nine educa-tional service cen-ters, regional officesthat provide admin-istrative, instruc-tional, and technicalsupport to districts.In September, thestate began wiringthe districts them-selves.

Chris Gray, the coordinator of instructional tech-nology for the 24,000-student Lake Washingtonschool district, in the Puget Sound region, says thenetwork will offer much better service.

Lake Washington has accessed the Internetthrough its regional network for some time, saysGray, but the connections are not as stable as manywould like.


Washington continued on Page 92


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

5

18

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

27 2934

13

3540


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

14%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

13%


12%

Grade 4 Grade 8


“The teachers want to teach what they haveplanned, and they get frustrated when the net-works are down,” Gray says. “The [state’s] biggestcontribution right now is the vision of getting high-speed connections in each classroom.”

In addition, Washington legislators have fundedcompetitive grants for classroom integration ofcomputer technology for the past three years. Thisyear, legislators allocated $19.5 million, the largestcommitment to date.

“The philosophy is to have access that is fair andequitable,” says Forrest Fisher, the director of thetechnology support center that serves districts insouthern Washington. “Some districts have chosento allocate their resources to technology and somehave not, but they have had an equal opportunity.”

While state and district officials have worked tomake the tools themselves accessible to schools,teacher training has “fallen through the cracks,”Small says.

The state requires that at least 25 percent of itscompetitive grant funds be applied to staff develop-ment, and districts can access some training throughprograms at the nine educational service centers.However, state financial support for widespreadtraining is “still not the greatest,” Small says.

Districts that conduct training programs often doso with local funds, adds Gray, who helped organizea seven-day multimedia training program forteachers in her district.

“We get very limited funds for staff developmentfrom the state,” she says. —JESSICA L. SANDHAM

W E S T V I R G I N I A

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.wvde.state.wv.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Brenda Williams (304) 558-7880





West Virginia is a national leader in bringingtechnology to schools in an equitable way.

The state has installed local-area networks androughly four computers per classroom in all its ele-

mentary schools. It’sbegun to bring com-puters into its sec-ondary schools, and itplans to have all itsschools wired forlocal-area networksand high-speed Inter-net access by nextmonth.

“You can be in therichest school in thestate, or in a schoolwhere the socioeco-nomic factors are dif-ferent, and you’restill going to see thesame computers andsoftware,” says KathyBoone, the projectleader and coordina-tor for the state edu-cation department’soffice of technology

and information systems.Educators in rural, poorer areas of the state

couldn’t be happier.“We are a small district; we don’t have a lot of

discretionary income,” says John Hager, the super-intendent of the Barbour County schools inPhilippi, a rural area with high unemployment.“There’s no way we would be where we are todaywithout state help in the area of technology.”

When West Virginia launched into technologyplanning in 1989, the governor, legislators, andmembers of an advisory committee on technologyrealized that the state didn’t have the money to out-fit all its schools at once with new technology. Sothey took the unusual approach of starting withkindergarten classes and moving on up through thegrades one year at a time.

“It seemed like a slower method, because you hadto share the resources [with all districts],” says RayWoolsey, the superintendent of the Logan Countyschools. “But it was more equitable to do it this way.”

The state implemented a “turnkey solution,” hir-ing two contractors—Josten’s Learning Corp. andIBM—to provide teacher training, hardware, soft-ware, and technical support all at once.

Although the state has provided a lot of technol-ogy, it doesn’t have up-to-date data on how much ofit is in the schools.

“All we know is what we’re purchasing,” saysBrenda Williams, the executive director of the edu-cation department’s technology office. “State dollarsare not the only mechanism to purchase those computers.”

West Virginia’s governors—first, Gaston Capertonand now, Cecil H. Underwood—have led the state’splanning on school technology. Caperton convenedthe first technology committee in 1989, whichplanned the “basic skills” program, the initiativethat brought technology to elementary schools. Theprogram, now in the seventh year of a 10-year plan,is expected to cost the state $70 million; the bill sofar has been $49 million.

Underwood launched the follow-up SUCCESS pro-gram—anticipated to cost $44 million—to put com-puters in secondary schools. In addition, through apartnership between the state and Bell Atlantic—and a few smaller companies that serve schools notcovered by Bell Atlantic—791 of the state’s 888schools have been wired as part of a fiber-optic net-work. The wiring has cost Bell Atlantic $9 millionand the state $6 million.

Fortunately, West Virginians have supportedtechnology spending, says state Sen. Lloyd Jackson,

even though “there’s not a lot of good research outthere to show how these programs have worked, be-cause they’re so new.”

Lawmakers have believed that “future jobs de-pend on people having technology skills,” says Jack-son, a Democrat who chairs the state Senate educa-tion committee.

Since 1989, the legislature has consistently ap-propriated funds for technology, almost entirelyfrom lottery money. From fiscal 1995 to fiscal 1997,the legislature appropriated $52 million. For fiscal1998, the legislature has appropriated $25 million.

The state school board approved the state’s tech-nology plan in October 1996. The legislature doesn’thave to approve the plan, which is currently beingupdated, but education department staff must givemonthly reports on school technology to the Senateeducation committee.

“The legislature has had a close eye on things,”Jackson says. “We set the parameters for the con-tractors.” —MARY ANN ZEHR

W I S C O N S I N

• State Education Agency Web Site: wwwwww..dpi.state.wi.us

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Neah Lohr (608) 266-3856





School technology is a relatively new subject inWisconsin—and, many would argue, an overdueone. According to the state’s own technology plan,completed in December 1996, Wisconsin schools“lack the technology resources necessary to ensurean equitable educational opportunity for all Wis-consin students that will adequately prepare themfor the 21st century.”

Among the plan’s assessments:• Most districts lack comprehensive technology

plans.• State-imposed revenue caps keep local budgets


Washington continued from Page 91

Wisconsin continued on Page 94


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

512

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2419

28

5

43

63


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

2

23

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

812

70

1721

48


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

13%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

10%


9%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Grade 4 Grade 8


from contributing much to school technology.• Districts range greatly in how much they spend

on technology.• Just 10 percent of the state’s districts have full-

time technology coordinators.• Teacher training in technology varies widely

among districts.A drive to improve

school technology,however, is mountingat the state level.

With the comple-tion of its technologyplan,Wisconsin has inhand a roadmap forschool technology thata federal review panelcalled “comprehensiveand forward-looking.”Among other mea-sures, the plan callsfor requiring everydistrict to have itsown technology plan;for giving every class-room access to equip-ment to support video,voice, and data net-works; and for makingtechnology training a

condition of teacher recertification.The plan also calls for a 5-to-1 ratio of students

to modern computers. Last year, the ratio was 8-to-1, according to a study conducted by the WisconsinAssociation of District Administrators and the Wis-consin Education Association Council, but the countincluded old computers as well as modern ones.

Funding to help make the plan’s goals a reality islooming. In the last biennium, the legislature setaside its first contribution to school technology: $40million, available to districts through a competitivegrant program.

Schools will get a far more significant boost inthe 1997-99 biennium, however, under a law passedin October that stems from a proposal put forth byRepublican Gov. Tommy G. Thompson.

Known as Technology Education Achievement inWisconsin, or TEACH Wisconsin, the law will provideblock grants to districts totaling $62 million overtwo years. Every district will get a base sum tospend on technology, along with an additionalamount based on need.

Districts can spend the money where they thinkit will best serve their technology program, saysRobert Cramer, an analyst in the state’s depart-ment of administration.

“There’s a wide spectrum of technology in placein Wisconsin schools,” Cramer says.

In addition, TEACH Wisconsin will provide $100million, over two years, in loans to districts for usein upgrading their electrical wiring and installingcomputer networks. The districts have 10 years torepay the money, but only need to repay half theamount they borrowed, Cramer says.

Yet another provision guarantees every publicschool district and private school at least one high-speed data or video link at a cost of no more than$250 a month. Districts will realize significant sav-ings under such an arrangement—up to $1,000 amonth for a data link and up to $2,000 a month fora video link, Cramer says.

A final piece of the legislation gives a total of $6million over two years to a competitive grant pro-gram for professional development and technicalassistance. That program will be open to regionaleducation agencies and to districts that group to-gether to apply for the funds.

Teacher training in technology is Wisconsin’sgreatest need, according to Neah Lohr, the team

leader in the instruction, media, and technology of-fice of the department of public instruction.

“Our weakness—there’s no question—is theproper use and integration of technology in theclassroom,” Lohr says.

Wisconsin awarded the $3.5 million it receivedthis year from the federal Technology LiteracyChallenge Fund money to districts seeking moneyto boost teacher training. —JO ANNA NATALE

W Y O M I N G

• State Education Agency Web Site: www.k12.wy.us/

• State Education Agency Technology Contact:Linda Carter (307) 777-6252





Wyoming districts are in the unenviable positionof never having yet received a dime in state fund-ing for school technology.

In February, however, the legislature signaled achange in intent by beginning the bidding processfor a telecommunications delivery system that wouldbring data and voice connectivity to all state schoolsby 1999. And in June, lawmakers passed a bill thatwould give $40 million to districts to develop local-and wide-area networks and to train teachers. Thatmoney, however, has yet to be allocated.

Part of the reason for lagging financial support todate is that the state’s funding system is in flux.The Wyoming Supreme Court in 1995 declared thestate’s way of paying for its schools unconstitu-tional; the process has been tied up in court eversince.

“It’s a quagmire,” says Mark Antrim, the directorfor information and communications services forthe Natrona County schools in Casper.

Districts, consequently, have had to rely on theirown resources to acquire technology, using bonds,operating budgets, and money from federal grantprograms such as Goals 2000 and the TechnologyLiteracy Challenge Fund.

One key area where districts have spent themoney is on computers.

The research firm Market Data Retrieval placesWyoming’s student-to-computer ratio at 4-to-1, oneof the nation’s best. But Linda Carter, the programdirector for technology in education at the state de-partment of education, notes that Wyoming hasmany old computers that can’t be networked.

The state technology plan, completed last spring,aims for a ratio of four students per multimediacomputer, Carter says. The current ratio is 18-to-1,according to state data.

“If state funding comes through, that should hap-pen by the year2000,” she says.

Other goals in thestate technology planinclude bringing in-teractive two-wayvideo capability toeach high school. Thestate currently has avideo system thatreaches 27 communi-ties, but its primaryuse is for higher edu-cation and for meet-ings, not K-12 educa-tion, Carter says.

While additionalfunding for technol-ogy in Wyoming iscritical to movingschools forward,Carter says, she alsoencourages districtsto take other stepsthat do not require much money. Such strategies in-clude forming partnerships with businesses, col-leges, and libraries and drafting detailed technol-ogy plans. All 48 districts have technology plans,she says, but they vary in scope.

One district that has helped itself is NatronaCounty. “In two years, we’ve gone from not beingconnected at all to being fully connected,” Antrimsays.

He says the effort is largely the result of stu-dents, teachers, and administrators volunteering towire schools themselves and a $5 million bondissue earmarked for technology. As of this month,Antrim says, every district classroom, as well asevery administrative office in the 12,600-studentdistrict, will have Internet access.

“To me, it’s a seminal step,” he says. “Now that[the infrastructure is in place], technology has a lotof meaning to people.” —JO ANNA NATALE


Wisconsin continued from Page 92


Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

3

10

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

11

1924 22

62

49


None 1 inclassroom


In laboratory

Available Computers



eevveerr

18%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

15%


14%



EEvveerr

18%

Once or twicea week

Almostevery day

Once ortwice amonth

14%


14%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Have you run out of print copies of

Education Week’s special reports?

Or would you simply like to have

all of the articles from a special

report or series at your fingertips?

Education Week has

compiled past special

reports and occasional series on

disk. With these articles on disk,

you can access and search text and

charts from special reports and

series of articles.

Struggling for StandardsEducation Week’s special report “Struggling

for Standards” examines efforts of educators

and policymakers to devise and implement

national academic standards. An essential

“user’s guide” to the standards movement, the

report explores:

• the history of the national standards

movement, from its inception as an abstract

idea to its struggle as an emerging reality;

• efforts of a dozen disciplinary projects

currently underway to develop and

implement academic standards;

• content standards that have been proposed in

each subject based on national documents;

• standard-setting initiatives in all 50 states;

• the experiences of one school district in

writing its own standards.

BONUS!

Also included on the “Struggling for Standards”

disk are five articles that examine trends in

assessment and new ways of measuring what

students know and are able to do.

Breaking The MoldEducation Week’s “Breaking the Mold”

series tracks the work of eight of the

nine design teams selected by the New

American Schools to create “break the

mold” schools.

The ninth of these programs, Roots and

Wings, is described in detail in six articles

also included on the disk.

Focus On: ResearchThis collection of articles appeared in

the “Focus On: Research” section of

Education Week. The articles analyze

recent education research and offer ideas

on how such research can improve

teaching.

Scaling UpEducation Week’s “Scaling Up” series

examines the efforts of reform networks,

businesses, communities, foundations, and

other groups to make quality schools a reality

nationwide. Learn about:

• the New American Schools and its plans to

replicate “break the mold” schools;

• the high-quality professional development

that teachers and administrators need to

support school-based improvement;

• the emergence of resource centers in and

around schools that help students

and their families deal with problems that

prevent learning;

• the debate over Goals 2000.

Also included in this 12-part series are

reflections from a dozen school-reform experts

on what they have learned about “going to

scale” and a resource guide to some of the

nation’s largest school-reform networks.

Available on Disk

Please send me...Quantity

Struggling for Standards @ $6.00*

Breaking the Mold @ $6.00*

Focus On: Research @ $6.00*

Scaling Up @ $6.00*

Shipping and handling included in cost.

TOTAL $

IMPORTANT! Please send the articles on:

please check one: MAC DISK(S) PC DISK(S)

*Contents of the disk are under copyright protection.Duplication of the disk or its contents is authorized only

with payment of $2.00 per disk.

Name

Title

Institution

Address

City, State, Zip

Please send this form and check or money order to:

Education WeekSpecial Reports and Series on Disk

4301 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 250Washington, DC 20008

All orders of $20 or less must beaccompanied by pre-payment.

Special Reports and SeriesEDUCATION WEEK’s

Documents

Technology Counts