[Senate Hearing 107-117]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-117
EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
JULY 25, 2001--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-895 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
Terry Sauvain, Staff Director
Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
HARRY REID, Nevada JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
PATTY MURRAY, Washington KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TED STEVENS, Alaska
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
Professional Staff
Ellen Murray
Jim Sourwine
Mark Laisch
Adrienne Hallett
Erik Fatemi
Adam Gluck
Bettilou Taylor (Minority)
Mary Dietrich (Minority)
Administrative Support
Carole Geagley
Correy Diviney (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening statement of Senator Tom Harkin.......................... 1
Prepared statement of Senator Tom Harkin......................... 3
Opening statement of Senator Arlen Specter....................... 3
Statement of Dr. Margaret Honey, Vice President and Director,
Education Development Center, Center for Children and
Technology..................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Benefits of educational technology............................... 7
Effective software design........................................ 9
The role of the Federal Government............................... 9
Statement of Gail Maxwell, Technology Strategist, Griswold
Community School District, Griswold, Iowa, and the Waitt/Harkin
Innovation Technology Challenge Grant.......................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Statement of Cheryl Williams, President, International Society
for Technology in Education (ISTE)............................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Statement of Thomas Gann, Director, Strategic Alliances for
Global Education Research, Sun Microsystems, Incorporated...... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
The need for networking.......................................... 23
Progress in e-learning........................................... 24
The Federal role................................................. 25
Recommendations.................................................. 26
Statement of Dr. David H. Rose, Ed.D., Co-Executive Director,
CAST........................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Assistive technologies and the present........................... 32
Moving toward the center: the power of digital content for
students with disabilities..................................... 32
Building a better future: universal design of learning
technologies................................................... 34
EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., in room SD-106, Hon. Tom
Harkin (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Harkin and Specter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Senator Harkin. The Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human
Services, Education and Related Agencies will come to order.
This hearing is about what we are going to be doing in the
21st century to improve the learning skills for all of our kids
from the earliest age on through all of their education.
Five or 10 years ago people would argue about whether or
not technology could really help students learn. I think we
have settled that argument. It is not about whether, it is
about how. The ``how'' I think will continue to change as we
develop new processes and we get new technologies. The
computers are expensive. But I think they are worth the money
and they are making differences.
When technology is used well, it can transform education
and it can open minds to new worlds of learning and brighten a
child's future. I have seen how technology can make a
difference and obviously, I am going to see more this morning
about how technology can make a difference.
A few months ago I visited Council Bluffs where some of our
schools are using a Federal grant and a donation from The Waitt
Family Foundation to integrate technologies into primary
grades. Ms. Maxwell is here to talk about that.
I have also visited--and they were demonstrating something
here this morning--the Iowa City-based Break Through to
Literacy, which is using technology for young kids for literacy
improvement and training. I think they are now in over four
thousand schools, if I am not mistaken.
So this technology is booming. It has touched virtually
every aspect of schools and it is not just about putting
computers in the classroom and then walking out the door. I
think, as Ms. Maxwell will explain, the project that we are
doing in Iowa is changing the way teachers teach, and the way
students learn, even for kids who are 6 years old.
I was amazed myself to watch what these little first-
graders were doing with the technology they had and how the
teachers were interacting with them. Of course, the teachers
had to go through some training and be brought up to speed on
it. This one teacher said, ``You know, I knew how to use a
computer before, but I did not know how to tell other people
and other kids how to use this.'' And so the training was
vital. I think technology can get students excited about school
and give them instant access to the Internet, visualize
concepts in a way textbooks cannot, open all new worlds. It can
give all students first-first century skills they need to
succeed in a technology-based workplace.
I could go on for hours, but I think I am probably
preaching to the choir.
I will say one other thing. As many of you know, I am the
chief sponsor of the Americans With Disabilities Act. I have
been involved in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act idea for a long time, 25 years, and the other thing that I
have seen happen with technology is how it has really improved
the learning skills and abilities of special needs kids.
Perhaps that had not been thought of before. But these
technologies now are enabling kids with learning disabilities
to do more than they have ever done before and I would also
like to talk about that today.
How can the Federal Government help make these things
happen for schools all over the country? In particular, what
can this committee do as it writes its appropriation bills to
encourage the effective uses of technology? The education
budget is going to be tight, so we have to be strategic about
how and where we spend our money. I guess the basic question is
should we put it all in block grants as the President has asked
or should we set aside for priorities like teacher training and
community technology centers and other things I am going to
hear about today.
We are fortunate to have an outstanding panel of witnesses
to discuss these topics. We are also lucky to have with us
several of the most innovative and successful education
technology programs in the country.
Immediately following our panel discussion, I invite you
all to move to the back of the room where you can view, along
with me, demonstrations of these exciting technologies.
I will leave the record open for any opening statements
that any other Senators may have. I welcome our witnesses, Dr.
Margaret Honey, vice president at The Education Development
Center and Director for EDC Center for Children and Technology.
Dr. Honey has been working in the educational technology field
for more than 20 years. She received her B.A. in Social Theory
from Hampshire College and M.A. and Ph.D. from Teachers
College, Columbia University.
We have Gail Maxwell, whom I mentioned earlier, a
technology strategist for the Griswold Iowa Community School
District, where she is administering the Federal Technology
Innovation Challenge Grant for two elementary schools.
Cheryl Williams is the president of the International
Society for Technology in Education and vice president of
Education for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Thomas Gann is the director of Strategic Alliances for
Global Education and Research Business Unit of Sun Microsystems
and previously had directed the company's Asia Pacific business
programs.
David Rose, Doctor of Education, is co-director of The
Center for Applied Special Technology, a not-for-profit
organization whose mission is to expand educational
opportunities for individuals with disabilities through the
development and innovative uses of technology.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This is a very distinguished panel of witnesses. We welcome
you here and before we start, I would recognize our
distinguished ranking member, and good friend, the Senator from
Pennsylvania, Senator Specter.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Harkin
Good morning. This hearing of the Senate Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee will now come to
order.
Five or ten years ago, people would argue about whether technology
helps students learn. ``All these computers are so expensive,'' they'd
say. ``Are they really worth the money? Will they really make a
difference in student achievement?''
Well, I'm glad to say we've gotten past that debate. The key is not
whether technology can help students, but how it's used.
When technology is used well, it can transform education, open
young minds to new worlds of learning, and brighten a child's future.
I've seen how technology can make a difference. A few months ago, I
visited Council Bluffs, Iowa, where some schools are using a federal
grant and a donation from the Waitt Family Foundation to integrate
technology into the primary grades.
Technology has touched virtually every aspect of these schools.
They didn't just put some computers in the classrooms and leave. As
Gail Maxwell, one of our witnesses, will explain, this project is
changing the way teachers teach and students learn--even for kids who
are just 6 years old. It was amazing to watch what those little 1st
graders could do.
Technology can get students excited about school. It can give them
instant access to the Internet. It can help them visualize concepts in
ways that textbooks can't possibly match. It can open up a whole new
world for students with disabilities. And it can give all students the
21st century skills they need to succeed in a technology-based
workplace.
I could go on for hours, but I know I'm preaching to the choir.
What I'd like to talk about today is how the federal government can
help make those things happen for schools all over the country. In
particular, what can this committee do as it writes its appropriations
bill to encourage effective uses of technology?
As you may know, the education budget is going to be extremely
tight this year. So we have to be strategic about how and where we
spend the money. Should we put it all in block grants, as the president
wants to do, or should we set some aside for priorities like teacher
training and community technology centers?
We're fortunate to have an outstanding panel of witnesses to
discuss these topics with us today, and I'll introduce them in a
moment. We're also very lucky to have with us a number of the most
innovative and successful education technology programs in the country.
Immediately following our panel discussion, I invite you all to move to
the back of the room, where you can view demonstrations of their
exciting techonolgies.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
commend you for convening this very important hearing on
technology in education. Senator Harkin and I have passed the
gavel of the chairmanship of this subcommittee several times--
12 years, he prompts me--I am not sure that I like it better
when he is the chairman or when I am the chairman. But come to
think of it, I think I like it better when I am the chairman--
only slightly, because we have a real bi-partisan partnership.
I learned a long time ago that if you want to get anything done
in Washington, you have to cross party lines. We have taken the
lead on this subcommittee with enormous increases in funding on
education as well as other matters within the--he wants to be
sure I am properly identified on television--somebody might
think I was Senator Harkin and could cost him votes in the
election cycle.
We have taken the lead on very substantial increases in
funding. Last year we added more than $6 billion to the Federal
share on funding and the addition to the National Institutes of
Health is really a landmark achievement with what NIH has
accomplished in so many lines.
But you hear so often the slogan just do not throw money at
education, do not throw money at anything. So that when you
move into the technology line, then we have a real opportunity
to leverage the funds we have and to try to solve some of the
extraordinarily difficult problems we face in education today.
I had the benefit of schooling in a very small town in
Kansas, Russell, Kansas. Bob Dole and I come from the same
little town, and there were 98 graduates in my high school
class. The debating team was a great opportunity and classes
were small.
It is a little hard for me to take a look at what goes on
in my current hometown, Philadelphia, with the problems they
have in the educational system. There has been a lot of time
and attention, but I think this issue of technology really may
be the key. It really may be the secret.
I would like to pay special recognition to Carnegie
Learning, a Pittsburgh-based firm, and one of the companies
participating in the demonstration. For the past 17 years
Carnegie Learning has been doing research and the past 10 years
testing that research in the classroom. Their learning-by-doing
curricula unites students and teachers and helps them learn
together. And to recognize Miss Libby, vice-president of Sales,
who was here. Just permit me that one parochialism.
But I want to congratulate and thank all of you for being
here today and to express my regrets that we have in an
adjoining room down the hall, actually on the second floor, a
hearing on a dairy compact, which is a matter that I have to
attend.
One of the difficulties of this job is that we have many,
many hearings at the same time and it requires us to leave
somewhere we prefer to stay, but I will follow the hearing with
the transcript and through staff, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Senator Specter.
I would like to now turn to our panel of witnesses. We will
start with Dr. Honey.
I will ask if you could limit your statements to 5 to 7
minutes. If it runs over a little bit, we will understand, but
if you could do that, it will leave time for some discussion
and to see the displays afterwards.
Again, Dr. Honey, welcome, and please proceed.
I might just add that all of your statements will be made a
part of the record in their entirety.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARGARET HONEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR, EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER,
CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Honey. Thank you.
It is a pleasure to be here this morning and in my remarks,
I have been asked to speak briefly to three questions. First,
what are the educational benefits of technology?
Second, what do we now know about how to build quality
software applications?
And third, what should be the Federal Government's role in
advancing educational technology?
After more than two decades of research, we now have
decisive evidence that technology use can lead to positive
effects on student achievement.
Statewide technology implementation efforts have resulted
in improved test scores when well-designed and well-implemented
technologies that support literacy, mathematic and science
learning result in gains for students.
With respect to a growing national concern, like
accountability, technologies have critical roles to play in
helping educators to use data effectively and efficiently to
improve instruction.
Companies like Wireless Generation are pioneering the
development of diagnostic software applications that teachers
can use in their everyday work to collect learning data that
can lead to direct improvement in instruction.
We have also had the pleasure of working with the Library
of Congress in developing their American Memory Fellows
Program, which brings together teachers to create and publish
classroom applications that use the Library's digitized
collections in American history.
Technologies also create new opportunities for students to
express and communicate their ideas. A team of fifth and sixth
graders created a website called ``On My Math Applications''
which includes information and exploration of math in
connection with music, stock market investments, travel,
economic projections and history. This site and hundreds more
like it have been created by students participating in an
academic contest called ThinkQuest.
But technology in and of itself is never the answer. In
more than 20 years of work, we have learned a single lesson
over and over again. No matter how well designed the technology
and how creative individual teachers, if a school is not
prepared to use technology well, there will be little impact on
students' learning.
Leadership, clear educational objectives, sustained
professional development, adequate technology resources and
evaluations that lead to continuous improvement are the
ingredients that make technology work.
And we need to realize that it takes time for schools to
learn to use technology as well.
Several decades of experimentation and research have also
taught us three critical lessons about effective software
design. To be effective, educational software must build upon
what we know from research on learning. It must address real
challenges teachers are facing and make the task at hand easier
to accomplish and it must be applicable across multiple
contexts and multiple curricula by addressing core learning
challenges.
Finally, what role should the Federal Government play?
Federal involvement is critical in two respects, leadership and
funding.
The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational
Technology has provided critical leadership in helping promote
a comprehensive vision for the effective use of technology in
our schools. This office has defined and administered programs,
convened national and regional conferences to bring together
State and local technology leaders, compiled and disseminated a
well-researched library of best practices and put forward two
national technology plans.
Last year the Department of Education released the findings
of the expert technology panel. Of the two exemplary and five
promising programs that were identified, the Federal Government
originally funded all seven. The Department's Challenge Grant
Program, along with the National Science Foundation, made these
and many other innovations possible.
Other Federal initiatives are helping introduce
technologies into schools of education so that our newest
teachers will be effectively prepared to make technology a
substantial partner in the learning process.
And, of course, the E-Rate Program has resulted in a wiring
of over 1 million classrooms, the vast majority of which are in
high poverty communities.
I hope you will conclude from my testimony that we are
getting measurable results from educational technology. That we
know what it takes to make new technology programs successful,
and that the Federal Government must continue to provide
leadership and funding without which this progress would not
have occurred.
I would further hope that as leaders you have the vision to
realize that the progress we have made has prepared us for an
entirely new level of leadership and funding. That it may be
time to conceive of an education initiative on the scale of the
Apollo program or the Genome project. Indeed, I would submit
that the top rating given to education issues in every public
opinion poll suggest that the American people have never been
more ready to be captivated by such a vision.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Within this decade it will be possible to develop the
technologies and to expand the capacity of the educational
system such that every day of school from kindergarten to
college will be an intellectual adventure. It will be possible
for our teachers to see clearly how each child is progressing
and it will be possible to activate all the resources in
school, at home and in our communities to ensure that no child
is left behind.
If we do this, then every other great goal we might set for
this country will surely follow.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Margaret Honey
My name is Margaret Honey and I am a Vice President at the
Education Development Center, an educational not-for-profit, and I
direct EDC's Center for Children and Technology. Our Center,
established in 1980, was one of the first groups to undertake research
and development on educational technology. I have been affiliated with
the Center for 16 years and have been working in the education and
technology field for more than 20 years. It is a pleasure to have an
opportunity to address the committee.
I was asked to speak to the question of what we now know about
technology's effectiveness as a teaching and learning tool and how we
might think about the role of the Federal government in this
enterprise. I have divided my remarks into three sections, each of
which addresses a specific question:
1. What have we learned about the educational benefits of
technology?
2. What have we learned over several decades of experimentation
about how to build quality educational technology applications?
3. What should be the federal government's role in advancing
educational technology?
benefits of educational technology
After more than two decades of research on the benefits of
educational technology we now have decisive evidence that technology
use can lead to positive effects on student achievement.\1\
Specifically,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2000 Research Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in
Schools. Software Information Industry Association. Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--In studies of large-scale statewide technology implementations,
these efforts have been correlated with increases in students'
performance on standardized tests.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J. and Kottkamp, R. West
Virginia Story: Achievement Gains from a Statewide Comprehensive
Instructional Technology Program. Milken Exchange on Educational
Technology, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Software supporting the acquisition of early literacy skills--
including phonemic awareness, vocabulary development, reading
comprehension, and spelling--can support student learning
gains.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2000 Research Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in
Schools. Software Information Industry Association. Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Mathematics software--programs like Carnegie Learning's Algebra
Tutor, for example, that supports experimentation and problem
solving--enables students to embrace key mathematical concepts
that are otherwise difficult for many students to grasp.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Koendinger, K., Anderson, J. Pump Algebra Project: AI and High
School Math. Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon
University, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Scientific simulations, microcomputer-based laboratories, and
scientific visualization tools have all been shown to result in
students' increased understanding of core science concepts.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CEO Forum. Key Building Blocks for Student Achievement in the
21st Century. Washington, D.C. June, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we know that technologies offer teachers and students
opportunities that would otherwise be extremely difficult to realize in
classroom contexts. Assessment, information access, collaboration, and
expression are four areas where educational technologies demonstrate
particular promise--and there is a broad consensus among school
reformers regarding the central importance of these issues for
improving student achievement.
Assessment
With respect to assessment, technologies have critical roles to
play in helping educators to use data effectively and efficiently to
improve instruction.\6\ Companies like Wireless Generation are
pioneering the development of diagnostic software applications that
teachers can use in their everyday work to collect learning data that
can lead to direct improvement in instruction. These applications can
now reside on handheld computers like Palm Pilots, making it possible
for teachers to chart student progress over time, identify where a
student is having trouble, and modify instruction to help the student
succeed. If our goal is for schools to use data to enable all students
to achieve, then these kinds of diagnostic assessment tools are
essential in helping teachers to do this work effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Brunner, C. and Honey, M. Report to the Atlantic Philanthropic
Trust. EDC Center for Children and Technology. July, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information access
During the past decade we have seen a tremendous growth in the
range of archival materials that are available on the web. Digital
archives have been and continue to be developed by museums, libraries,
scientific and other archival institutions. These collections are among
the most exciting resources driving educational interest in information
and multimedia technologies. Collections as diverse as National Center
for Supercomputing's Astronomy Digital Image Library and the holdings
of the Louvre Museum have been digitized and provide classroom teachers
and their students with access to artifacts and information previously
available only to specialized scholars or academic researchers. They
give teachers and students opportunities to work with an extraordinary
array of authentic materials and up-to-date information that would not
find their way into classrooms were it not for the growth and
development of technologies.\7\ Access to this data literally gives all
schools--regardless of their geography or wealth--the potential to have
libraries of unparalleled collections and connections to the same
materials that our nation's greatest universities have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Honey, M. et.al. (1996). Digital archives: Creating effective
designs for elementary and secondary educators. Invited white paper
prepared for the United States Department of Education. http://
www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/honey.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collaboration
Technologies offer many other opportunities to teachers and
students. Consider, for example, the issue of collaboration. Teachers
are the one professional group in our society that is largely isolated
from colleagues during the working day. Phones in classrooms are
uncommon at best and shared planning time for teachers is rare in most
schools. Much of our work at the Center for Children and Technology has
focused on using the communications capabilities of the Internet to
develop new models for teacher professional development and
collaboration that have the potential for providing teachers with
networks of support.
We have worked, for example, with the Library of Congress to
develop the American Memory Fellows program.\8\ This program brings
teams of teachers together in both virtual and face-to-face learning
communities to develop, test, and publish creative classroom
applications that make use of the Library's digitized collections in
American History. Teachers learn how to work with primary-source
archives that include photographs, pamphlets, films, and audio
recordings from American history and culture. Technology makes access
to these materials possible and enables teachers to work together to
build lesson plans and curriculum for their classrooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expression
Technologies also create new opportunities in which kids can
express and communicate their ideas. It is no longer uncommon for
schools to encourage reports in multimedia format or for students to
build web resources that can be used by others. A team of fifth and
sixth graders, for example, created a website called ``Online Math
Applications'' which includes information and exploration of math in
connection with music, stock market investments, travel, economic
projections and history. They use online calculators, stories,
problems, simulations and demonstrations to teach their peers. This
site and hundreds more have been created by students participating in
an academic contest called ThinkQuest.TM \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.thinkquest.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of context
There are thousands of examples of work being done in schools with
technology that lead to important gains in student learning. What is
most important, however, is that we recognize that technology will not
result in measurable gains unless the school context is receptive and
well organized for technology use. In more than 20 years of work, we
have learned a single lesson over and over again--school context is a
critical factor in determining the degree to which educators can
creatively and deeply use technology. No matter how well designed the
technology, how comprehensive the training program, and how creative
individual teachers are, if they work in a context that is not
supportive of and receptive to the use of technology for instructional
purposes the technology will have little impact on students'
learning.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Honey, M., Culp, K.M., & Carrigg, F. (2000). Perspectives on
technology and education research: Lessons from the past and present.
Educational Computing Research (23) 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have learned through our work with numerous school districts
around the country, that if technologies are to be used to support real
gains in educational outcomes, then five factors must be in place and
these factors must work in concert with each other.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Honey, M., & McMillan-Culp, K. (2000). Scale and localization:
The challenge of implementing what works. Paper presented at Wingspread
conference, ``Technology's Role in Urban School Reform: Achieving
Equity and Quality,'' Racine, WI., October 12-14, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. There must be leadership around technology use that is anchored
in solid educational objectives. Simply placing technologies in schools
does little good. Effective technology use is always targeted at
specific educational objectives; whether for literacy or science
learning, focus is the key to success.
2. There must be sustained and intensive professional development
that takes place in the service of the core vision, not simply around
technology for its own sake, and this development must be a process
that needs to be embedded in the culture of schools.
3. There must be adequate technology resources in the school
including hardware and technical support to keep things running
smoothly.
4. There must be recognition that real change and lasting results
take time.
5. And, finally evaluations must be conducted that enable school
leaders and teachers to determine whether they are realizing their
goals, and how to adjust if necessary.
EFFECTIVE SOFTWARE DESIGN
Several decades of experimentation and research in developing
educational software have also taught us some critical lessons. To be
effective educational software must accomplish three things. It must:
--Build upon what we know from research about the key areas of
knowledge acquisition, including both concepts and procedures,
which children must master. Carnegie Learning's Algebra Tutor
and Wireless Generation's Diagnostic Reading Assessment are
both examples of software applications that are substantially
grounded in research about how students learn algebra and how
they master early literacy strategies.
--Address real challenges that teachers are facing, and make the task
at hand easier to accomplish. The most effective software is
always developed in collaboration with teachers and is based on
extensive research done in classrooms, to ensure both
usefulness and effectiveness. IBM's Reinventing Education
Partnerships are a very promising model in this regard.
--Be applicable across multiple contexts and multiple curricula by
addressing core learning challenges, not curriculum specific
skills and tasks. It should not matter, for example, whether my
district uses a balanced literacy curriculum or one that
emphasizes teaching phonics. Effective educational software
should support the processes associated with learning how to
read and be applicable regardless of any specific instructional
approach.
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The Federal role in educational technology is critical in two
respects: leadership and funding. The U.S. Department of Education's
Office of Educational Technology has provided critical leadership in
helping promote a comprehensive vision for the effective use of
technology in our schools. This office has defined and administered
programs, convened national and regional conferences to bring together
state and local technology leaders, compiled and disseminated a well-
research library of best-practices information, and put forward two
national technology plans.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology,
Panel on Educational Technology. ``Report to the President on the Use
of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States.
1997.'' The National Educational Technology Plan. ``E-Learning: Putting
a World-Class Education at the Fingertips of All Children.'' U.S.
Department of Education. December, 2000. Web-Based Education
Commission. The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving From Promise
to Practice. Report to the President and Congress of the United States,
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Government has also been an essential partner in
technology funding. Thirty-five percent of all educational technology
funding has been federal. This is a remarkable figure when compared to
the 6.6 percent that the federal government contributes overall to
education funding.\13\ And the results have been pronounced. Last year
the Department of Education released the findings of the Expert
Technology Panel. Of the two exemplary and five promising programs that
were identified, the federal government originally funded all seven.
The Department's Challenge Grant Program along with the National
Science Foundation made these and many other innovations possible.
Other federal initiatives are helping introduce technology into schools
of education so that our newest teachers will be effectively prepared
to make technology a substantial partner in the learning process. And,
of course, the E-Rate program has resulted in the wiring of over one
million classrooms, the vast majority of which are in high poverty
communities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ http://www.schooldata.com/pr22.html
\14\ CEO Forum. Key Building Blocks for Student Achievement in the
21st Century. Washington, D.C. June, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
I hope you will conclude from my testimony that we are getting
measurable results from educational technology, that we know what it
takes to make new educational technology programs successful, and that
the Federal Government must continue to provide the leadership and
funding without which this progress would not have occurred.
I would further hope that the leaders in this room have the vision
to realize that the progress we have made has prepared us for an
entirely new level of leadership and funding--that it may be time to
conceive of an education initiative on the scale of the Apollo Program
or the Genome Project. Indeed, I would submit that the top rating given
to education issues in every public opinion poll suggests that the
American people have never been more ready to be captivated by such a
vision.
Within this decade it will be possible to develop the technologies
and to expand the capacity of the educational system, such that every
day of school--from kindergarten through college--will be an
intellectual adventure tailored to each student's particular learning
needs. It will be possible for our teachers to see clearly how each
child is progressing, and it will be possible to activate all of the
resources in school, at home, and in our communities to ensure that no
child is left behind.
If we do this, then every other great goal we might set for this
country surely will follow.
Thank you.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Dr. Honey. And now we will turn
to Gail Maxwell of Griswold Community School District.
STATEMENT OF GAIL MAXWELL, TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIST,
GRISWOLD COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
GRISWOLD, IOWA, AND THE WAITT/HARKIN
INNOVATION TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGE GRANT
Ms. Maxwell. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here today
to discuss the integration of technology in our schools. I am a
technology strategist for the Griswold Community School
District in Griswold, Iowa. It is a small rural consolidated
district with approximately seven hundred students.
A little over a year ago we received the Waitt Harkin
Technology Challenge Grant. It is a 3-year grant in conjunction
with the Walnut Grove Elementary School in Council Bluffs, Iowa
and the Loess Hills Area Education Agency in Council Bluffs.
The objective of our grant is to improve student learning
through the effective use of technology in the primary grades
in both a rural and urban setting. The key components of our
grant are staff development to build a vision of what
technology should be in our schools. Awareness and utilization
of teaching strategies that create student-centered project-
based classrooms and the effective use of equipment and
software.
The objectives of our two elementary buildings in Griswold
are to enhance reading comprehension and interactive and
independent writing.
When we began our grant we decided that we did not want to
isolate students by putting just one student at a computer. We
wanted to encourage hands-on learning and we wanted to develop
higher learning/thinking skills. With this in mind, we
purchased one laptop with wireless access for every two
students so that they would work in pairs or small groups and
software that was conducive to student-based, project-based
learning.
We have ongoing staff development, which is very important.
We meet 1 day a month, at least, and often 3 to 4 days during
the summer.
My position is to provide the staff development for the
teachers, assist them in planning and integration and be
available daily in the classrooms with the teachers and
students.
The evaluation of our grant is done by the Metiri Group of
Los Angeles, California. They are looking to establish a
correlation between project activities and student learning.
They are also measuring the impact of this project on the
educator's vision for the role of technology in the curriculum,
advances in teacher proficiency using teaching strategies
involving technology and changes in the learning environment.
We have had many successes in this first year of our grant.
The most important success is the enthusiasm for learning shown
by the students. They took immediate ownership and pride. They
stay on Task Monger when using their laptops. Their reading
levels are higher when they are engaged in accessing
information with them. And their writing has become more
proficient.
The teachers began to do in-depth projects such as WebQuest
involving research skills, collaboration and higher-level
thinking.
When we began this project, our objectives were to improve
reading comprehension and writing skills.
At the end of our first year, we saw growth not only in
those areas, but also in what are called 21st century skills;
collaboration, research skills, technology skills and student
self-direction. These are now a focus for our grant and will be
included in the evaluation. The students in the grant were far
better in these skills than the students not involved in our
grant, who only used a lab on a scheduled basis. What works for
technology in the schools is having it readily available in the
classrooms on a daily basis.
One of the main obstacles that we met was time. It takes a
lot of time for teachers to plan and create lessons and
implement them fully in a day that is already very full for
them.
We also had an obstacle in time and resources for teachers
to attend professional conferences and workshops or visit
innovative sites integrating technology.
Another obstacle that we met was seamless integration. The
teachers often felt they were giving up necessary teaching to
incorporate technology instead of using the technology to teach
the necessary skills. This improved during the year and will
continue to improve with time, use and further training.
We will face our biggest obstacle at the end of the grant.
We will have students that have had state-of-the-art technology
available to them in their classrooms, but at the end of our 3
years, we will be faced with obsolete laptops, software that
needs to be upgraded and limited funds to carry on the project
because of declining enrollment, cuts in State funding and
looming budget cuts.
Because of our successes and our obstacles, these are our
recommendations for the Federal Government.
Please assume a leadership role in providing the vision of
what effective, seamless integration should be in the schools.
Stress the importance of teaching 21st century skills in
conjunction with basic learning. Continue to fund innovative
projects, not just equipment and connectivity, but personnel
and training. Then continue to fund those projects, if
successful, so schools are not forced to discontinue them.
Establish pilot sites throughout the country that effectively
and seamlessly integrate technology in the classrooms. Provide
beginning teachers entering the field with pre-service
opportunities in technology integration. Continue to fund the
E-Rate, which provides discounts for Internet and phone
services and frees money that can be used for technology in
other ways.
Because of the funding of the Federal Government and The
Waitt Family Foundation, we have many plans for our remaining 2
years of the grant. We will continue to work towards that
seamless integration of technology in our classrooms. We will
publish our work, equalize the access of students that do not
have computers at home, stay on the cutting edge of
instructional technology and assist other schools in technology
integration.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We hope the Federal Government continues to provide the
vision, leadership and funding in educational technology so
that all schools can provide equal access to technology and
that they use this technology correctly as a tool to enhance
learning in the classroom.
I invite any of you to visit our classrooms in Griswold to
see technology integration in action.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gail Maxwell
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
be here today to discuss educational technology. I am a technology
strategist for the Griswold Community School District in Griswold,
Iowa, and am coordinating the Waitt/Harkin Technology Grant in our two
elementary schools. Our district is a consolidated rural district with
an enrollment of approximately 700 students. The Waitt/Harkin Grant is
a three-year Technology Innovation Challenge Grant, matched by the
Waitt Family Foundation. It is shared by Walnut Grove Elementary School
in Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Lewis and Elliott Elementary Schools from
the Griswold Community School District, and is in cooperation with the
Loess Hills Area Education Agency of Council Bluffs, Iowa. We have just
completed the first year of this grant. The project has created
demonstration sites where best practices in technology utilization are
integrated into primary classrooms in both rural and urban settings. In
the Lewis and Elliott Elementaries the first year of the grant began
with our multi-age classrooms, which are combination first and second
grades. We will add third grade during the second year and fourth grade
during the third year while maintaining the technology in the previous
classrooms.
The main objective of the grant is to improve essential student
learning through the effective integration of technology into the
existing curriculum. The purpose is to demonstrate the effective use of
technology in the primary grades. There is not much research available
to show the effectiveness of technology in primary grades so this grant
is valuable in providing needed data.
The key components of the grant are:
--Staff Development to build a vision of what is possible
--Awareness and utilization of teaching strategies that create
student centered, project based classrooms (Project-based
learning is a learner-centered teaching approach that draws on
aspects of task-based learning, project work, and self-
instruction. This type of instruction is built around
activities or projects designed by the teacher or student.)
--Effective use of equipment and software
The objectives for Lewis and Elliott Elementary Schools are:
--Students will engage in activities, which will enhance reading
comprehension.
--Students will engage in activities, which will enhance interactive
and independent writing.
Strategies have been developed to meet these objectives.
Decisions for the grant were based on research done prior to
implementation. In our research we found that there were arguments that
technology use in the primary grades would cause isolation by putting
students in front of computers to do skill-based software. Students at
that age need socialization, hands-on learning, and the development of
thinking skills. Taking that into consideration we provided one
wireless laptop for every two students in our multi-age classrooms so
they would work in pairs or small groups. We wanted to make sure the
technology was not used by itself but as a tool to improve student
learning. Our major focus is student-based, project-based learning so
the software available is conducive to this focus. The laptops are
wireless so the students have access to the Internet, the server, and
the printers from anywhere within the buildings. This access makes a
large change in the learning environment, making integration of
technology much easier. We have digital cameras, video cameras,
scanners, video projection units, and microscopes available for the
classrooms. With all of this state of the art technology available,
hands-on learning and the development of thinking and problem solving
skills are encouraged. The most important key to success in this
project, though, is on going staff development to create the vision of
seamless technology integration. My position is provided by the grant
to provide this staff development and to assist the teachers in
planning and integrating the technology correctly into the curriculum
and their classrooms. By being available to the teachers daily I can
create a supportive safety net for teachers and create the staff
development as the staff is ready for the next step in technology
integration. During the first year of the grant I have taken a lead
role in the classroom in developing the vision and modeling instruction
that integrates technology. During the second year my role will be a
team teacher for the classes and in the third year I will be a
consultant while still providing staff development and support.
The Metiri Group, a technology policy, research and consulting
firm, from Santa Monica, CA, is evaluating the grant. The major focus
of the evaluation will be to establish a correlation between the
project activities and student learning in the primary grades. It will
also measure the impact of the project on educators' vision for the
role of technology within the curriculum, advances in teacher
proficiency using teaching strategies involving technology, and changes
in the learning environment.
We have had a very successful first year. At first it was difficult
for the teachers to integrate the technology into their lessons. The
teachers were receptive to the technology but they considered it
something ``extra'' to ``add'' to their day. They did not use the
laptops unless I was in the room to lead the lesson. They soon became
more comfortable with the technology available in their rooms and
realized it could enhance their lessons and provide valuable resources.
This happened quickly because the students learned rapidly. It took
these first and second graders little time to learn to use the tap and
scroll features of a track pad, to access programs and the Internet,
and to save work to a folder on the server. They took immediate
ownership of the laptops, showing pride, enthusiasm and great care in
their use of them.
The teachers began to take ownership by planning lessons that
integrated the technology. They learned to look at their curriculum and
objectives and plan ways technology could enhance and extend a lesson
in ways that would not be possible without technology. By the end of
the school year you could walk by at almost anytime and see the laptops
being used in small groups, centers, or whole group lessons as
comfortably as pencil and paper. The teachers did more in-depth
projects involving research skills, collaboration, and higher-level
thinking. Webquests, which are activities in which information that
learners interact with comes from resources on the Internet and
encourages critical thinking, cooperative learning, authentic
assessment, and technology integration, were often used. Students were
no longer being sent to the lab or a single classroom computer to play
a game or ``do'' a program. The learning became authentic with specific
tasks tied to the curriculum and its standards.
When we began this project our objectives were to enhance reading
comprehension and writing. At the end of the year we saw student growth
in what are called 21st Century Skills:
--Collaboration
--Research skills (Accessing, Processing and Communicating
Information)
--Technology skills
--Student self-direction
--Paraphrasing at high levels
These will now become a focus for the grant and its evaluation. We
also saw an enthusiasm for learning. The students remained on task for
longer periods of time when using the laptops. When the students were
engaged in accessing information with their laptops their reading
levels were higher. We also saw the students working together to solve
problems. At first, working in pairs resulted in one student dominating
the learning and in arguments. By the end of the year we saw
collaboration and problem solving with each pair or group.
We contribute the success of the program to an enthusiastic team
that works together and we believe this is a necessary element of
successful technology use in the schools:
--Teachers connect technology, instructional strategies, and content
to student growth.
--The technology strategist partners with classroom teachers in
identifying resources, planning, teaching and evaluation of
lessons, projects, and activities.
--The administration provides leadership and support for the project,
monitors progress, makes suggestions and recommendations, and
keeps the project objectives on track.
--The technology coordinator maintains the infrastructure and
hardware/software performance.
--The Area Education Agency Consultants assist in staff development
planning and implementation and act in a consulting capacity.
--The parents provide support for the grant goals and objectives by
having a high degree of involvement.
This project would not have been successful, or even possible
without the funding of the federal government and the Waitt Family
Foundation.
The main obstacle we encounter is time. Teachers have so many
demands on them and are expected to do more each year in the same
amount of time. It is hard to find time to plan and create lessons and
implement them fully. We are also faced with finding the time and
resources for our teachers in our rural area to attend professional
conferences and staff development opportunities or to visit innovative
sites that integrate technology effectively. Even though the teachers
feel they are doing a good job of using the technology correctly they
know they are not doing it as seamlessly as possible. They still feel
they are ``giving up'' some necessary teaching to incorporate the
technology. This seamless integration will become easier with use, but
the teachers also need to be able to increase their knowledge base by
attending conferences and workshops and by visiting other innovative
classrooms.
Another obstacle we will face will be at the end of our three-year
grant. We will have students who have had the opportunity of having
state of the art technology readily available in their classrooms. When
they enter 5th grade in 2003 they will not have laptops in their
classrooms. They will need to go to the computer lab. During this first
year of the grant we have found that computer labs are not nearly as
conducive to technology integration. The teachers involved in the grant
have realized it is much easier and more successful to integrate the
technology when it is available at all times in their classrooms.
Computers in the classroom are accessible when students and teachers
need them (you can not always schedule a lab when it is needed), they
become part of the learning environment, they allow flexibility, you
can take advantage of teachable moments, and they are easy to monitor
by teachers. By the end of the school year I saw a large gap in
technology skills between the students involved in the grant who had
access to computers at all times and those students not in the grant
who had to use the lab. We need to continue to provide technology in
the classrooms, as well as staff development and leadership in
technology integration. It would be worthwhile to provide this
technology in all of our classrooms and then track these first graders
throughout their education to see the difference it has made in
learning.
At the end of our three years we will also be faced with replacing
or updating obsolete laptops and upgrading software. With declining
enrollments, cuts in state funding (we lost approximately $30,000 in
technology funds for 2001-2002), and looming budget cuts, it will be
hard to maintain this worthwhile project. We will have collected data
for the use of technology in primary classrooms but we need to maintain
the use in these classrooms by keeping the technology current. Grants
are great but what happens when they run out and the districts cannot
afford to continue the project?
From our successes and from our obstacles I offer the following
suggestions for the federal government:
--Assume a leadership role in providing the vision of what effective,
seamless integration of technology should be in the schools.
Stress the importance of teaching 21st Century skills in
conjunction with the basic learning needed in schools.
--Continue to fund innovative projects, with funding being provided
not only for the equipment but also for personnel and staff
development to assure the success of the project. Then continue
to fund those projects, if successful, so that schools are not
forced to discontinue them for lack of money.
--Establish pilot sites throughout the country that effectively and
seamlessly integrate technology.
--Provide beginning teachers entering the field with pre-service
opportunities in technology integration.
--Continue to fund the e-rate, which provides discounts for Internet
and phone services and frees up money that can be used for
technology in other ways.
In conclusion, I want to share our future plans for the grant. We
will continue to work towards seamless integration of technology,
publish teachers' projects and student work on the Internet, equalize
the access of students who do not have computers at home, stay on the
cutting edge of instructional technology, and share our work and assist
other schools in technology integration. We hope the federal government
continues to provide the vision, leadership and funding in educational
technology so that all schools can provide equal access to technology
and that they learn to use the technology correctly as a tool to
enhance learning.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Ms. Maxwell. Now we will turn to
Cheryl Williams, president of The International Society for
Technology in Education. Ms. Williams.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY FOR TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION (ISTE)
Ms. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to address you today to share my thoughts about the importance
of strong Federal leadership in support of education.
Senator Harkin. Cheryl, would you pull in that mike and
just speak right into it?
Ms. Williams. OK, my teacher voice was not working. Is that
better?
Senator Harkin. That is good.
Ms. Williams. I am currently president of the International
Society for Technology and Education or ISTE. I am also vice-
president for Education at the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting.
For 25 years I have been involved in education; the last 15
of which were around issues surrounding education technology
and school improvement. Most recently, as director of Education
Technology Programs at the National School Boards Association,
and as chairman of the Board of The Consortium for School
Networking or COSN.
Today, however, I am testifying solely in my capacity as
president of ISTE. ISTE and its affiliates represent a large
and diverse membership that includes more than 75,000 teachers,
technology coordinators, administrators and other education
technology professionals.
Our mission is to promote appropriate uses of information
technology to support and improve learning, teaching and
administration in K-12 education and colleges of education.
Today I will highlight five issues that ISTE would like you
to consider as you prepare to make appropriations for fiscal
year 2002 and beyond.
First ISTE strongly supports full funding for the new
Federal Education Technology Block Grant. Over the past several
years, strong and sustained Federal investment in education
technology has played a critical role in the deployment of
hardware, software, Internet connections and technology
training to schools and libraries nationwide.
Two programs that have been of great assistance are the
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the Technology
Innovation Challenge Grant. This Federal involvement has paid
off. During this same time period student-to-computer ratios
have improved from 12 to 1 in 1998 to 7 to 1 as of 2000. Under
both versions of the House and Senate ESEA Reauthorization
bills, a number of Federal education technology programs,
including the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the
Technology Innovation Challenge Grant, would be consolidated
into a single block grant and authorized at $1 billion
annually. It is ISTE's view that the education technology block
grant programs in both versions of the ESEA retain the same
goals as their predecessors. When this subcommittee considers
appropriations for the new block grant, we urge you to continue
Congress's critical commitment to 21st century learning and
fully fund the Education Technology Block Grant.
Second, the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology
Program or PT3 has been very successful in building models to
help pre-service teachers learn to incorporate technology into
education and should be authorized and fully funded. ISTE
believes that it is vital that the new generation of educators
receive ample pre-service training in the basics of technology
operation and curricula integration before they enter the
classroom. The PT3 Program provides competitive partnership
grants to promote collaborations among pre-service teachers,
higher education and real world classrooms.
In 1999 ISTE, in collaboration with education groups and
others, was awarded PT3 funds to develop a series of education
technology standards for students, teachers, and school
administrators known as The National Education Technology
Standards Project or NETS. For both students and teachers, the
NETS project provides guidance on the technology skills that
each should have acquired at various points in their education
and professional development. At least 26 States already have
adopted these standards.
The final component of the NETS project, Technology
Standards for School Administrators, will be released this
fall.
ISTE fervently hopes that the final ESEA package will
contain a separate authorization for PT3. We strongly urge this
subcommittee to fully fund this program.
Third, the success in getting technology to the classroom
means that we need increased funding for broader research on
education technology. ISTE believes that OERI should be
directed to pursue a new research agenda that will deepen
educators' understanding of cognition and the impact of
technology on the learning process.
Further, ISTE proposes the Federal Government establish an
education technology clearinghouse for research and best
practices.
Fourth, ISTE believes that three other education technology
programs merit full funding. The Ready to Learn Program
provides funding for research-based non-commercial education
television programming and online resources for young children.
Ready to Learn Program funds have helped launch such critically
acclaimed programs as Sesame Workshops, Dragon Tales and WGBH
in Boston's Between the Lions. Also the Star Schools Program
has provided distance education opportunities to more than two
million students in six thousand schools nationwide.
And finally, the Community Technology Centers Program
assists low-income urban and rural communities to gain access
to technology by providing grants to public housing facilities,
community centers and libraries.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Fifth and last, the E-Rate Program has been extremely
successful and should be maintained in its current structure.
The E-Rate Program has already provided over $6 billion in
discounts on telecommunications services, Internet access and
internal connections to public and private schools and public
libraries nationwide. The E-Rate has helped ensure that
virtually every library and school building has at least one
Internet connection and that 77 percent of all public school
classrooms have Internet access. And it has done all this
without receiving any Federal funds, relying instead on the
Universal Service Fund. We request that your Subcommittee not
include in your Bill any language that would adversely impact
the E-Rate or its funding stream.
Thank you again for this opportunity to address you today.
I am available to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cheryl Williams
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to address you today to share my thoughts about the
importance of federal support for education technology. My name is
Cheryl Williams, and I am President of the International Society for
Technology in Education--ISTE. I am also Vice-President for Education
at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. For twenty-five years, I
have been involved with issues surrounding education technology and
public school improvement. In my previous position as Director of
Educational Technology Programs for the National School Boards
Association, I collaborated with school district administrators and
school board members to plan and implement education technology
programs. Additionally, I oversaw numerous education technology-related
publications and organized the annual Technology + Learning Conference,
one of the largest annual education technology convenings in the
country. While with NSBA, I also served as Chairman of the Board for
the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN). In my current position
with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I oversee the development
and coordination of the Corporation's educational projects in
conjunction with partners from across the learning community. Today, I
am testifying solely in my capacity as President of ISTE.
One of the highlights of my career was my recent election as
President of ISTE, the leading organization for education technology
professionals. ISTE and its affiliates have a large and diverse
membership that includes more than 75,000 teachers, technology
coordinators, administrators, and other ed-tech professionals. Our
mission is to promote appropriate uses of information technology to
support and improve learning, teaching, and administration in K-12
education and colleges of education. In furtherance of this mission, we
have placed ourselves at the forefront of the technology standards
movement through our National Educational Technology Standards Project
(NETS), which has developed a series of influential standards for
student achievement, teacher skills, and the academic environment. We
also provide research, evaluation, and consulting services to school
districts, public agencies, private foundations, and universities.
Finally, ISTE has been a strong advocate on Capitol Hill for the use of
technology in teaching and learning because we believe that federal
leadership in this area is crucial if students, educators, and
administrators are to reap the full benefits of the Information Age.
Today, I will highlight five issues that ISTE would like you to
consider as you prepare to make appropriations for fiscal year 2002 and
beyond.
First, ISTE strongly supports full funding for the new federal
educational technology block grant.--Over the past several years,
strong and sustained federal investment in education technology has
played a critical role in the deployment of hardware, software,
Internet connections, and technology training to schools and libraries
nationwide. In the past three years alone, Congress has appropriated
nearly $1.7 billion for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF)
and the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant (TICG), two federal
programs that support school district efforts to develop technology
plans, acquire hardware and software, engage in teacher training, and
create innovative technology applications. And this federal involvement
has paid-off: during this same time period, student to computer ratios
have improved from 12 to 1 in 1998 to 7 to 1 as of 2000. Teacher access
to professional development on technology has also improved: as of
1999, over 90 percent of all teachers have access to some technology-
related professional development.
Beyond mere statistics, though, these programs have had a profound
affect on the school districts that have been fortunate enough to
receive grants:
--In Phoenix, Arizona, a grant from the Technology Innovation
Challenge Grant (TICG) program funded an ``Assessment
server''--an online resource that allows teachers to construct
customized tests to provide students immediate feedback. This
classic ``drill and practice'' application turned out to be
particularly useful in teaching ESL students, who oftentimes
are afraid to participate in class and thus may not receive the
special attention that they need. Because of this program,
these students are now receiving consistent feedback and many
are now earning passing grades for the first time.
--Funds from a TICG grant have also launched Project Gen Y in
Olympia, Washington, an innovative professional development
project that allows students and teachers to collaborate on
developing a technology-enriched lesson plan. Through Project
Gen Y, mentor teachers work with students to develop
technology, communication, and project management skills, and
students then work with one of their regular teachers to
develop a lesson plan. Students in grades 3-12, working for a
semester or a year, have completed more than 3,000 projects,
spanning all subject areas. In this student-centered model,
students gain advanced skills in leadership, communication, and
critical thinking, as well a deep familiarity with the subject
content, while their teachers learn technical skills and new
teaching methods.
--In New York, a Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) grant
funded Project Accelerate, which put New York's state
educational standards online in a form accessible to teachers,
and tied them to a series of online courses aimed at preparing
teachers to use these standards. The online courses include
streaming video and interactive modes, and are linked to
curriculum and lesson plans. New features include web authoring
tools, student tutorials, and survey instruments, with more are
being added all the time. Through Project Accelerate, teachers,
administrators, students and parents, from public schools and
private schools, can interact with one another, and improve the
learning experience for everyone.
--In northern Pennsylvania, the Jersey Shore Area School District
used TLCF funds to increase parental involvement and tailor
curriculum to individual students. Parents can check their
children's progress on the Internet, using a secure online
grade book, starting with the 2001-2002 school year. Parents
also have ready access to the teachers via email, voicemail,
and a special Homework Hotline.
--One of the most innovative school computing implementations in the
country came from state funding to the Lemon Grove School
District in California. In this district with a high number of
ESL and at-risk students, technology has freed teachers to
teach and students to learn--and student standardized test
scores in math and reading have risen significantly as a
result. Many of the biggest gains have come from students who
originally had some of the lowest test scores. Lemon Grove's
success has come from involving parents, teachers, and
students. Extensive staff development has prepared teachers to
use the technology, developing web-based instruction and
building research sites for students. Parents can access
lessons, assignments, and school news, through inexpensive
server-based thin-clients that work on a wide variety of
devices--computers, hand-held devices, and others. And
students--with greater access to technology, and a trained
teaching staff--are using technology to learn. In Lemon Grove,
even first graders are creating PowerPoint presentations and
giving them to other children.
Under both versions of the House and Senate Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization bills that the House-
Senate Conference Committee is considering currently, a number of
federal education technology programs, including the TLCF and the TICG,
would be consolidated into a single block grant and authorized at $1
billion annually. It is ISTE's view that the education technology block
grant programs in both the House and Senate versions retain the same
goals as their predecessor programs: equipping our nation's schools
with advanced technology and affording them opportunities to develop
innovative technology strategies and programs to improve teaching and
learning. We have come a long way in the past decade but the task is
far from complete. Current teachers continue to have insufficient
familiarity and comfort with using technology in the classroom and
limited ability to integrate Internet resources into the curriculum.
Most teachers with more than 10 years' experience received little or no
college preparation to effectively utilize technology in the classroom.
When this Subcommittee considers appropriations for this new block
grant, we urge you to continue Congress' critical commitment to 21st
century learning and fully fund the education technology block grant.
Second, the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology
program--PT3--has been very successful in building models to help pre-
service teachers learn to incorporate technology into education, and
should be authorized and fully funded.--Even with the great strides
that schools and libraries have made in acquiring adequate hardware and
software and connecting to the Internet, the full benefit of education
technology cannot be realized if teachers are not trained to use
technology and to integrate it into their daily classroom activities. A
1999 survey by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for
Education Statistics showed that nearly two-thirds of all teachers felt
that they were not prepared or only somewhat prepared to use technology
in their teaching. With 2.2 million teachers expected to be hired over
the next decade to fill new positions and replace retiring teachers,
ISTE believes that it is vital that this new generation of educators
receive ample pre-service training in the basics of technology
operation and curricular integration before they enter their
classrooms.
The federal government has already demonstrated that it recognizes
this need through its dedication of substantial resources to the
Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) program.
Established as an unauthorized program in 1999 and funded at $275
million over the past three fiscal years, the PT3 program provides
competitive grants to partnerships of school districts, colleges of
education, states, industry and others to support innovative programs
that promote collaboration among pre-service teachers, higher
education, and real-world classrooms. The program is focused on
problems identified by research, guided by comprehensive evaluation,
and devoted to developing scalable models of effective uses of
technology to teach.
ISTE, as a recipient of a PT3 grant, knows first-hand the value of
this federal investment. In 1999, ISTE in collaboration with education
groups, curriculum organizations, government entities, foundations, and
corporations, was awarded PT3 funds to develop a series of education
technology standards for students, teachers, and school administrators,
known as the National Education Technology Standards project (NETS).
For students, the NETS project created profiles of technology-literate
students at key developmental points--e.g. grades PreK-2, grades 3-5--
that describe the technology competence that students should exhibit at
the completion of each grade. Similarly, the NETS standards for
teachers include standards for pre-service teacher education, which
provide guidance on the skills that they should have acquired at
various points in their education. For instance, upon completion of the
general preparation component of their program, pre-service teachers
should be able to use content-specific tools to support learning and
research, and use productivity tools for collaborative work. At least
23 states already have adopted these standards and numerous
universities use these standards in their accrediting processes. The
final component of the NETS project, technology standards for school
administrators, will be released this fall. Although still a work in
progress, the new NETS standards will guide administrators in
overseeing and implementing education technology: developing a
technology plan, basing decisions on sound data, and confronting the
social and ethical implications of technology applications.
More typically, though, PT3 grant recipients are consortia of local
school districts and colleges of education that use these funds to
develop model pre-service professional development programs. The
University of Northern Iowa, for example, received a PT3 grant to
video-document classroom teachers, and allow pre-service teachers to
study, via streaming video, the classroom teachers in action. The pre-
service teachers then evaluate their own ability to use technology in
the classroom using the NETS standards as a benchmark. Another example
comes from Mississippi, where a PT3 grant funded Project T-n-T, which
is designed to foster the relationships between pre-service teachers at
Mississippi State University and rural public schools. Project T-n-T
encourages pre-service teachers and supervising teachers to collaborate
on effective uses of technology in the classroom and produce video
simulations and online teacher handbooks on best practices. Finally,
each year in rural northwestern Pennsylvania, a PT3 grant to the ADEPTT
Consortium of three public universities allows more than 1,500 pre-
service teachers gain competencies in video conferencing, databases,
and the use of the Internet in teaching.
Since its birth in 1999, PT3 has been operated by the U.S.
Department of Education as an unauthorized program and has been
generously supported by Congress during the appropriations process.
During this year's ESEA reauthorization debate, the Senate adopted in
Committee an amendment offered by Senators Jeff Bingaman and Pat
Roberts that would separately authorize the program for 6 years with an
authorization level of $150 million. ISTE fervently hopes that the
final ESEA package that emerges from the House-Senate Conference will
contain this separate authorization. We also strongly urge this
Subcommittee, when it sets its fiscal year 2002 appropriations level,
to take into account the pressing need for PT3 as well as the
impressive record of achievement it has built in its short history, and
fully fund this program.
Third, the success in getting technology to the classroom means
that we need increased funding for broader research on education
technology.--Since education is ordinarily not a for-profit enterprise,
the federal government must take upon itself the responsibility for the
majority of education research. The federal government has tasked the
Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI) with the
responsibility of conducting in-depth studies of classroom resources
and education improvement programs. Last year, OERI received an
appropriation of $382.1 million to run its network of research
institutes and regional education laboratories, operate the National
Center for Education Statistics, prepare and administer the National
Assessment of Education Progress survey, and disseminate research via
the National Library of Education and the Education Resources
Information Clearinghouse.
With OERI expected to be reauthorized this year, ISTE is compelled
to seize on this opportunity to acknowledge the important contributions
to education research that OERI's regional laboratories and research
institutes have made, and to advocate for continued federal support for
it through the appropriations process. During the coming
reauthorization process, ISTE also intends to lobby for Congress to
mandate that OERI pursue a new research agenda that will deepen
educators' understanding of cognition and the impact of technology on
the learning process, and further their ability to develop and evaluate
new education practices. Further, ISTE will propose that the federal
government establish an education technology clearinghouse for research
and best practices, so that local and state-level educators have access
to the latest research and most effective instructional models.
A strong research agenda is key to fully exploiting the potential
of technology to transform education. Therefore, ISTE supports funding
specific research and dissemination of results and best practices.
Fourth, the Ready to Learn, Star Schools and Community Technology
Centers programs represent excellent and varied uses of technology to
deliver education and deserve continued support.--ISTE would be remiss
if it not pay tribute to three other programs that foster the use of
technology in teaching and learning, that we believe deserve to be
reauthorized separately, and that merit full funding: the Ready to
Learn program, the Star Schools program, and the Community Technology
Centers program. The Ready to Learn program, which received
appropriations of $16 million in each of the last two fiscal years,
represents Congress' continuing investment in the development of
research based, non-commercial, education television programming and
online resources for young children. Ready to Learn program funds have
helped launch such critically acclaimed programs as Sesame Workshop's
Dragon Tales and WGBH in Boston's Between the Lions, as well as aided
PBS's efforts to create a series of high-quality interactive online
resources for kids, and materials for adults to use to supplement PBS
broadcast programming. The Star Schools program, which has provided
distance education opportunities to more than 2 million students in
6,000 schools nationwide, funds the use of satellites, cable, and the
Internet to provide normally inaccessible education content to small
rural and urban schools. For the current fiscal year, Congress
appropriated $59 million for this program and we believe that it should
be fully funded in fiscal year 2002. Finally, the Community Technology
Centers program assists low-income urban and rural communities to gain
access to technology by providing grants to public housing facilities,
community centers and libraries. Despite its considerable success,
efforts have been made to either eliminate it or transport it from the
U.S. Department of Education to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. We applaud the efforts of Senator Barbara Mikulski to
separately authorize this program and expand its funding. ISTE believes
that these three programs are time-tested and worthy of continued
federal support.
Fifth and last, the E-Rate program has been extremely successful
and should be maintained in its current structure.--By virtually any
objective measure, the E-Rate is a success story. During its first
three years of existence, the E-Rate program has provided over $6
billion in discounts on telecommunications services, Internet access,
and internal connections to public and private schools and public
libraries nationwide. The FCC has estimated that the program has
leveraged an additional $4 billion for infrastructure investments from
state and local governments. In each of the program's first three years
demand for its discounts has steadily increased, with $5.2 billion in
discount requests for Year 4 alone. The E-Rate has helped ensure that
virtually every library and school building has at least one Internet
connection, and that 77 percent of all public school classrooms have
Internet access. And it has done all of this without receiving any
federal funds, relying instead on the universal service fund.
Over the past six months, the Administration has advocated that the
program's list of services eligible for support be expanded to include
software and professional development, even though the program is
already oversubscribed for services that are currently eligible.
Additionally, the Administration suggested that the program be
consolidated with other federal education technology programs, thus
turning it into a formula grant program. Since ISTE is convinced that
the key to this program's success lies in its stable funding stream, we
adamantly oppose any such destabilizing changes. We request that this
Subcommittee follow the lead of the House Appropriations Committee in
its Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill and not include in your
bill any language that would adversely impact the E-Rate.
Thank you for this opportunity to address you today. I am available
to answer any questions of the Committee.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Ms. Williams. Now we
turn to Thomas Gann, Director of Strategic Alliances for Global
Education Research of Sun Microsystems, Incorporated. Mr. Gann.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS GANN, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ALLIANCES
FOR GLOBAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, SUN
MICROSYSTEMS, INCORPORATED
Mr. Gann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I appreciate your leadership on human resources and
education issues, and I also appreciate the interest of the
Committee in general.
Today, Sun Microsystems is a $20 billion global company
focused on providing network solutions in the area of hardware
and software.
We have come a long way since 1982 when we were founded by
four graduate students, two from Berkeley and two from
Stanford. In those days we were making high-performance desktop
computers for the education and research markets. Our computers
from day one came optimized for the Internet and, in fact,
education has been at the core of everything we have been doing
since then.
Today, Sun is fully committed to the K-12 market. In
particular, we want to ensure that this country's future
workers, our kids, get the best possible training moving
forward. You know the key is that the information technology
industry depends on human capital. So investing in human
capital is profoundly in the national interest and certainly in
the interest of information technology industries.
Today, I am here to discuss what is working and what can be
done better to meet the information technology needs of our
schools, teachers, and students. Today, the United States has
made significant headway in bringing access to computer
technology to schools throughout the nation. According to
NetDay, 8 out of 10 teachers think that information technology
is helping students do a better job of learning. This is the
good news.
The bad news is that the current model of educational
computing putting traditional computers in every classroom or
on every desktop can also impose significant drains on
resources in terms of cost, maintenance, and teaching time.
For example, the same NetDay survey found that two out of
three teachers believe that the Internet is not very well
integrated into their classrooms. By not taking full advantage
of the Internet or web-based learning, schools can get bogged
down with expensive hardware, software, continual upgrades,
expensive technical support and a constant need for teacher
retraining. These are expenses that even rich schools have
trouble keeping up with.
In private business, for example, one computer professional
is responsible for servicing 50 to 100 computers. In schools,
each professional is responsible for servicing between 700 to
1,000 computers. This is an impossible task and it forces too
many teachers to spend too much valuable time sorting out
computer problems when they should be spending their time
teaching.
While personal computers have and will continue to have an
important role to play, we believe that a good deal more
attention should be placed on building long-term, reliable
back-end architectures focusing on the benefits of centralized
technology and networking of the district's computing systems.
This, in fact, will facilitate a good deal of communication and
collaboration among parents, teachers and students. The private
sector is already doing this, that is, moving to this model and
the results have been very good in terms of improved
productivity. This anytime/anywhere computing model relies upon
open systems architecture in which information is accessed and
delivered via the Internet. Any number of devices, PC's,
inexpensive network terminals and even cell phones, can access
this system and it all works very well because it is based on
the open standards of the Internet.
The other advantage of this system is that technology
maintenance can be handled at the backend at the school
district level. This further allows teachers to get out of the
business of worrying about technology and back into the
business of worrying about teaching.
The other good news, like in business, entire IT
departments now can be managed outside of the school by telecom
firms or other service providers; thus, further allowing
schools to focus in on their core competencies.
Now we believe the Federal Government really does have a
significant and powerful role to play in making incentives that
help Internet resources be widely and effectively deployed in
schools.
First, the Federal Government should partner with the
States' school districts and the private sector to develop a
clearinghouse of best IT practices. Thus, schools anywhere
around the country can get the benefit of learning from other
school districts.
Second, all levels of government currently spend 2 percent
of their education dollars on technology. We think that number
should be doubled, something closer to about 5 percent.
Third, Sun strongly supports a recommendation made by The
Computer Communications Industry Association to create a system
of national digital school districts. These projects would be
largely modeled on similar projects that have worked quite well
in California and also Pennsylvania. These demonstration
projects would provide funding for the implementation of smart
computing architectures in selected schools around the country.
Best practices learned from these demonstration projects could
then be used to improve the performance of information
technology throughout all of our schools in our nation.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Fourth, we urge all levels of government to support
policies that promote the use and implementation of open
architecture technologies in schools. This will ensure that
schools do not get locked into using any one technology made by
any particular company. This will ensure further that schools
have as many technology options as possible moving forward, and
in fact, in the private sector, we see the trend towards open
systems really growing and it is working well and it is very
inexpensive.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for
giving me a chance to spend time talking about these very
important issues and I look forward to answering any questions
that I might be able to help on. Again, thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Gann
Sun Microsystems, Inc., would like to thank the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education as well as the 107th
Congress for its commitment to improving America's K-12 education
system. As Congress moves to finalize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act in Conference Committee, it is clear that the opportunity
to achieve significant progress toward improving our country's
educational system is now a reality. As focus shifts to the
appropriations process, the work of this committee will become pivotal
to the long-term success of the Education Act and to the realization of
meaningful education reform.
Sun believes that technology can and should play a bigger role in
the education of America's children, and has endorsed the report of the
bi-partisan congressional Web-based Education Commission. To that end,
I am here today to discuss what is working, and what can be done to
better meet the information technology needs of our schools, teachers
and students.
THE NEED FOR NETWORKING
Through numerous public and private initiatives, the United States
has made significant headway in bringing access to computing technology
to schools throughout the nation. Schools are rapidly being equipped
and wired, with nationwide statistics showing tremendous results.
According to a NetDay survey released in March 2001, 97 percent of
teachers surveyed said they had Internet access in their schools and 80
percent had connections in classrooms. Eight out of ten teachers also
believe that computers and access to the Internet improve the quality
of education.
This is the good news. Our nation has embraced the idea that
computers and information technology can advance the learning
environment for our children. The bad news is that the current model of
educational computing--putting a computer in every classroom, or even
on every desk--can also impose a significant drain on resources in
terms of cost, maintenance and teaching time. In addition, without
quality web-based educational content, classroom computing all too
often becomes an exercise in underachievement and can actually
exacerbate the digital divide.
For example, the same NetDay survey found that two-thirds of
teachers agree that the Internet is not well integrated into their
classrooms and only 26 percent of them feel pressure to use it in
learning activities.
For the most part, current public and private initiatives have
concentrated on providing computer hardware to classrooms. Not only is
this insufficient for fully capitalizing on web-based learning
opportunities, it can become a significant drain on available resources
-rife with hidden costs.
The GartnerGroup reports that only 17 percent of the cost of a
personal computer is in the purchase price, with the rest in hidden
maintenance, required upgrades, etc.
Moreover, according to Market Data Retrieval (MDR), 69 percent of
school instructional technology budget allocations are being spent on
hardware, followed by 17 percent on software, and 14 percent on staff
development. Clearly, these are important and necessary categories for
investment--yet the numbers tell a story about hidden technology costs.
By not taking full advantage of the Internet, schools get bogged down
with expensive hardware and software, continual upgrades, expensive
technical support, and a constant need for teacher re-training. These
are expenses that even the most affluent school districts likely have
trouble meeting. To expect less affluent districts--often found in
rural areas and the inner cities--to keep pace is usually not an
option, further contributing to the growth of the digital divide.
For classrooms to realize the benefits of a web-based education
environment--one in which the technology adapts to the needs of the
user, instead of the user adapting to the constraints of the
technology--we must rethink the current computer in the classroom
model, and start thinking about the network architecture that could be
employed by an entire school or school district. A single PC on a
classroom desk doesn't cut it. On the other hand, a computing terminal
on a desk, networked to other classrooms and schools throughout a
school district and beyond can provide a breathtaking array of
educational possibilities--in addition to significant long-term cost
savings.
While personal computers have, and will continue to have, an
important role to play, we believe that less emphasis should be placed
on purchasing this year's model of PC, replacing dated components, and
upgrading software--with more emphasis placed on building long-term,
reliable backend architecture. This means focusing on the benefits of
centralized technology and networking a district's computers by
building systems with scalable servers.
A network-computing model for education envisions a system in which
teachers, administrators, students and communities will all have tools
to enable access to information, web learning, peers, parent-teacher
communities, and greater learning opportunities--anytime, anyplace, by
anyone, on any device. This anytime/anywhere computing model relies
upon an open systems architecture in which information is accessed and
delivered via the Internet.
For example, by building a network framework within schools and
school districts--based on open standards--lesson plans and web-based
instructional content can be seamlessly integrated, for classroom and
at-home access. Other advantages include real-time reporting of student
achievement, which can allow students, parents and administrators to
better track classroom progress, and maximizing efficiency in routine
administrative tasks, such as scheduling and grading.
Using an open systems model, reliable, manageable and secure web-
access is available to every user. This model offers not only
accessibility, but distinct economic advantages in the form of reduced
costs and increased access for students. This should be of vital
importance to educational institutions.
Allowing for ``self paced'' learning can help keep students more
engaged and ultimately, make classroom time more productive for
teachers and students. As average class size grows, student populations
become more diverse. This, coupled with the trend towards
``mainstreaming'' students with special needs, places added pressure on
teachers to give critical one-on-one time. E-Learning can augment
individualized teacher instruction to the benefit of both teacher and
student. In addition, a ``smart'' e-learning program, can adapt itself
to respond to an individual students needs by automatically identifying
areas where mistakes are being made, and directing the lesson in a
manner that specifically addresses problem areas. Lower cost web
devices and the elimination of the need for special software on the
device itself will allow for more students to have direct access from
home or public facilities like libraries, to the Internet and
specifically designed educational content.
Administrators and teachers also appreciate the ability to
collaborate with colleagues, sharing information, lesson plans and
projects, as well as strengthening ties with parents. A networked
system is the only efficient method for achieving a truly collaborative
e-learning environment.
PROGRESS IN E-LEARNING
Industry efforts and public/private partnerships have accounted for
significant progress in providing access to computing technologies
within schools. One example of particular relevance is the SchoolTone
Alliance, an organization of leading education technology and service
providers that includes AOL-Time Warner, Bigchalk.com,
BritannicaSchool.com, Lucent Technologies, and Sun Microsystems.
Collectively, they create web-based portal solutions for content,
communications tools, applications and professional development for the
education community. These education portals are web sites that provide
organized access to the Internet and the delivery of services
specifically tailored to the needs of the education community.
The need for services such as SchoolTone have become abundantly
clear. As we have learned, providing schools with personal computers
and Internet access is not enough, as educators often feel overwhelmed
-unable to fully utilize the tools they already have.
SchoolTone Alliance members believe that by building a portal
computing infrastructure and outsourcing a school's IT needs to service
providers, schools and school districts can expedite the deployment of
technology while reducing the overall costs.
We believe the prospects offered by industry alliances such as
SchoolTone will be the roadmap to the future of education on the
Internet, and will become the preferred method for closing the digital
divide among schools and students across America.
With computing becoming a ``utility'' (similar to dialing a
telephone) and new educational portals delivering quality content over
the web, the economics for the education community can change. A high
maintenance, fixed cost, depreciating infrastructure can become a
maintenance-free, variable cost and easy to use environment . . . one
that levels the playing field for education, and enables educators and
students to focus purely on educational matters.
In private business, it is estimated that a professional technician
is responsible for servicing 50-100 computers. In our schools, each
technician, on average, is responsible for 700-1,000 computers.
Clearly, this is an impossible task, forcing teachers to spend class
time doubling as PC technicians, or worse, meaning substantial downtime
for classroom computers.
The Web-based Commission has also called for stepped-up ``training
and support for educators and administrators at all levels,'' and the
National Education Association recommends that schools devote 40
percent of their technology budgets (up from an average of 17 percent)
to teacher training. Moreover, the National Center for Education
Statistics found that teachers cited a lack of time to learn, practice,
or plan methods for incorporating technology in the classroom as the
greatest barrier to their use of computers and the Internet.
While training is vitally important, and investments in
professional development for teachers is critical, we believe that one
of the most compelling points in favor of the network-centric education
model is that teachers would no longer be required to double as IT
professionals. Technology maintenance would be handled at the backend,
at the school district level, allowing teachers to focus on how they
wish to use the tools at their disposal.
As Web-based education evolves, teachers will be able to free
themselves to teach and students to concentrate on learning, without
the need for sophisticated computer skills to take advantage of the
web.
THE FEDERAL ROLE
Sun believes Federal leadership is the catalyst needed to put all
of our nation's schools in a position to make Internet technology work
for them--and fully realize the promise of web-based opportunities in
education.
We believe that the Federal Government can and should play a
significant role in creating incentives to make Internet resources--
especially broadband access and backend infrastructure--widely
available, and to encourage the development of web-based content
specifically designed for use in education.
The goal of providing the best in technology to America's schools
cannot be measured simply by access to technology and web-based
educational content. The measure of success must be measured by student
achievement.
Recognizing that knowledge management of best practices in the
implementation of education technology does not transcend beyond state
boundaries, to help steer school districts towards the most effective
use of resources and educational techniques, Sun supports the formation
of a national center of excellence to report on best practices.
Too often, technology is implemented without a strategic vision.
The Federal Government, in partnership with state boards of education
and the information technology industry, should become a
clearinghouse--helping states and school districts to avoid duplicating
efforts and wasting resources.
The economic benefits of anytime/anywhere computing are as clear
for cash-strapped school districts as they are for private industry.
Making the most of our educational resources is the key to building the
skilled domestic workforce necessary to ensure America's economic
future.
While progress towards achieving full connectivity will continue,
and no doubt will be achieved, without concurrent development of
meaningful web-based content, we would not be making the most of a
resource with unlimited educational potential. To truly make headway in
closing the digital divide, we must recognize that connectivity is not
the ultimate goal, but rather, a method for enabling access to
meaningful web-based educational content.
For the educational community, connecting schools to the Internet
and to each other will provide benefits in to three key areas:
1. Lower Costs.--District-wide networks will create economies of
scale, with schools sharing costs for backend technology and ongoing
maintenance. This translates into lower IT expenditures for individual
schools, and less need for teachers to be trained as IT specialists.
2. Quality Content.--Developing web-based content will keep
educational resources current. Updating a text book can take years,
while updating a web site takes minutes.
3. Easy Access.--With access to the Internet, any student, anywhere
can take advantage of the best web-based educational resources. This
concept has tremendous implications both for distance learning in rural
areas, and for raising the level of academic achievement in our
nation's poorer, urban schools.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Funding.--Currently two-percent of all public education dollars--
Federal, State, and local--are committed for technology. Sun supports
an increase in funding to five-percent. With the right investments
today, to support teachers' professional development, access by schools
to the latest in broadband technology, and the installation of
district-wide smart network architecture, we will all reap the benefits
of a leaner, stronger educational system, and a better trained, better
prepared workforce for our future. Harnessing the potential of an
Internet-based education model in this way will lead to significant
cost savings for schools, increased access to quality content, and
greater productivity.
Digital School Districts.--Sun supports the Computer and
Communications Industry Association call for a national digital school
district initiative. This model program would provide funding for
implementation of a smart network computing architecture in selected
school districts throughout the country. A two-year Federal allocation
of $52,000,000, to be met through an equal commitment by each
participating state, would provide a big step toward implementing the
vision of the Web-based Commission. Digital school funding would be in
three phases:
--Phase 1.--Create a National Digital School District Initiative as
part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. Fifty-one school districts would be funded, one
in each state and the District of Columbia, based upon a
competitive grant process. The program would be authorized at
$26,000,000 for Phase 1.
--Phase 2.--A second round of funding, at $26,000,000, would create
51 additional Digital School Districts; with states and the
District of Columbia providing matching funds.
--The total Federal commitment would be $52,000,000--with the benefit
of model school districts in every state serving as resources
and demonstration centers. These schools would form the nucleus
of a national center of excellence to report on best practices
by providing tangible examples of how technology can improve
education, achieve cost savings, and deliver education in ways
currently not imagined.
Funding at this level--with a concurrent commitment for in-kind
support by private industry--would be sufficient to equip public
schools with the necessary technology, as well as providing adequate
seed money to encourage the development of meaningful web-based
educational content. The following are two examples of model programs
that should be commended for concentrating resources on technology.
``A model charter school in Napa, California is part of an effort
to start ten new High Tech High Schools throughout California, each
participating school receives a one time matching grant of $2,000,000
for start-up expenses, with private sector companies making significant
donations of equipment, software and services.''
``Pennsylvania's Digital School Districts Initiative seeks to
revolutionize education through the use of technology. From proposals
submitted by schools throughout Pennsylvania, three districts were
selected to serve as pilot programs--each receiving up to $2,000,000 in
state funding, with private companies contributing products and
services.''
Both of these programs have taken the first step, and the lessons
they have learned can form the basis for the broader strategic
initiative to implement the smart network architecture in school
districts throughout the country.
A national network of model schools such as these, located in urban
and rural areas throughout the nation, would become fully functional
centerpieces for web-based learning--allowing area educators to become
acquainted with the concepts and practical applications of e-learning.
With this modest financial commitment, the Federal Government could
become the catalyst for the growth of web-based education--a model for
true educational reform.
Open Standards.--Sun urges public officials at every level to
support policies that promote the development of infrastructure and
content based on open standards. Open standards are needed to make web-
based computing a reality. We need a policy that enforces and rewards
the use of Internet standards such as browser-based applications, IMS,
SIF, HTML, XML, JAVA and JINI and other standards developed by mutual
agreement through standards bodies. The use of open standards will
ensure the broadest participation, greatest innovation, and lowest
costs by providing a technologically level playing field for all.
CONCLUSION
Because schools lack the resources to invest in web-based learning
technologies on their own, the government should adopt policies that
encourage investment in backend infrastructure and content--as well as
changing the metric used to judge success. Access to a personal
computer and the Internet alone are not enough. The metric to measure
success must shift to the ability to access web-based learning
systems--including meaningful digital content.
Without widespread access and use of dedicated education portals,
the power of the Internet to reduce costs for schools, and facilitate
access to the best educational content, will remain unfulfilled.
During recent years, America's hi-tech industries have faced a
critical shortage of skilled workers. Indeed, we've had to appeal to
Congress to increase the level of H1-B visas to allow greater numbers
of highly skilled foreign workers to come to this country. Importing
foreign workers, however, is not the solution that we should rely on in
the future. We must develop a domestic workforce to meet the needs of
an increasingly competitive global economy. We firmly believe that
improving America's primary and secondary education is of the utmost
importance if we are to develop the talent we need.
We have the resources today to make a difference. Working together,
industry and government can provide the roadmap for schools throughout
the country to make the investment in smart, efficient network
computing -giving our children all the advantages they deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Gann, and I want
to get back to talk to you about changing that concept of how
we are doing this. I think it is very exciting.
Now, we will turn to Dr. Rose, co-executive director of
CAST.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID H. ROSE, Ed.D., CO-EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, CAST
Dr. Rose. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me here. It is
indeed an honor to be here and particularly because members of
this committee have been central in passing landmark
legislation, ADA, IDEA, Section 508, that have been critical in
assisting individuals with disabilities in the past.
In particular, students with disabilities now can assume a
right to a free and appropriate public school education and can
expect to find physically accessible educational buildings.
Tragically, however, and that is why I am here today, most
of the curricula, the materials for learning in those
classrooms, are not, in fact, available or accessible to
students with disabilities. At this particular moment in
history, when innovative new educational technologies are
proliferating, we have a unique and urgent opportunity to right
this injustice. I am here to argue that it is a moment of great
opportunity to both save money in the long term and save
students and particularly to benefit all students.
I want to describe three key areas in educational
technology that are significant for students with disabilities:
Assistive technology, digital curricula and universal design.
In each area I want to offer a couple of recommendations.
Assistive technologies are what most people think of when they
think of what technology does for people with disabilities.
Assistive technologies allow people to overcome barriers and
there are visible examples on television all the time.
Matthew, a third-grader, with physical disabilities who
cannot speak or use his arms or legs can use electronic
switches to drive a wheelchair and operate the computer to
write and communicate.
Katherine, a six-grader, who is blind, uses screen reader
technologies to navigate the Internet and do her social studies
homework.
Nina, who has a brain injury that causes her to be aphasic,
uses an electronic augmentative device to speak to her friends
and collaborate on schoolwork.
Even more spectacular, assistive technologies are under
development including devices that can be implanted in the
brain for hearing, for vision, for control of paralyzed
muscles. These essential uses of technology for individuals
with disabilities will require sustained Federal support. There
is simply not enough profit in developing these low incidence
technologies to attract investments of the private sector.
So I make two recommendations. Congress should continue to
fund research and development under part D of IDEA to ensure
that we get powerful new assistive and augmentative
technologies.
And second, Congress should support through technical
assistance grants contracts for the training of assistive
technology specialists so that every school district knows
about these technologies and knows how to use them. I spell out
the recommendations in some more detail.
Second, though, I want to talk about digital curricula
because these recommendations I have made about assistive
technologies often are what people again imagine. And it is
dangerous to view assistive technology as the sole or most
important focus of educational technology for students with
disabilities. Such an orientation places the emphasis on the
individual with the disability as what is broken. We need, in
fact, to concentrate on the curriculum as what is broken. The
environment itself is often hostile to students with
disabilities.
The lesson of ADA, in fact, that Senator Harkin has been an
important part of, is that small affordances built into the
environment, like curb cuts and ramps, are as critical for
access as are the assistive technologies like motorized
wheelchairs.
The same is true for educational materials and methods. We
need to use the new technologies not only to overcome existing
barriers, but also to design better learning environments with
fewer barriers right from the start.
I want to give you an example. In The Concord, New
Hampshire public schools that we have been working with for
about 5 or 6 years, teachers and parents have been engaged in a
painstaking effort to digitize every single piece of their
curriculum. Why are they going to all this trouble? They are
doing it because the digital versions of the books are much
better for students with disabilities. The differences are not
in the content; the digital versions have the same content. The
difference is the flexibility with which that content can be
displayed.
In print versions, the content is permanently fused to
paper. It is fixed. Everybody gets exactly the same thing. In
digital versions, the content is presented dynamically by the
computer. As a result, content can be displayed in many
different ways and adjusted to many different learners.
Let me just give some examples: Imagine in a classroom that
we have worked with, all the students are reading, ``To Kill a
Mockingbird''. In a digital version, Sarah, a student with low
vision can display the text in a very large font so she can see
it.
Bill, a student who is blind, can have the computer display
the text as spoken words, or have the computer print it out
easily on a Braille printer.
Jennifer, a student with severe physical disabilities, can
change the display; turn its pages, with a single blink of her
eye. Michael, a student with dyslexia, can click on a difficult
word to have the computer read it aloud or link it instantly to
a context-based definition.
In these ways, digital versions of traditional curricular
materials can effectively reduce barriers to learning; thereby
reducing the costs associated with expensive later adaptations
and pullout programs.
We can actually do a lot more with digital curricula. In a
recently completed study that we have done through the
Department of Education's OSEP Program, we have digitized books
and we have begun to add more supports and particularly for
students with learning disabilities. These supports are
individualized. While not everybody gets them, students who
need them get them when they want them.
In a study of 109 very severely learning disabled students,
we looked at what would happen when students read novels in
this new format, digital with enhancements for their needs.
The results were stunning. Students who used the digital
text found them more accessible, enjoyable and empowering than
traditional books and by the way, so did their teachers. And
they learned learning comprehension strategies much more
effectively showing highly significant improvements, achieving
half a year's progress after reading only three novels.
Remember again, these are students that have not been
learning a great deal at all about reading. And those showed up
on later standardized tests of reading comprehension. The
control group showed virtually no progress at all with
traditional books. Further, where this approach has been used,
students exhibited fewer behavior problems because they were
engaged in the learning activity itself and felt success.
Where do schools find books like this? Concord is making
its own. This is a local and far too inefficient solution. Many
schools across the country are doing the same thing resulting
in an enormous duplication of efforts as schools all across the
country are beginning to make their own digital versions.
School districts and national publishers also face a
bewildering and contradictory array of local requirements and
formats for such digital technologies. Local solutions cannot
work.
A new piece of proposed legislation, The Instructional
Materials Accessibility Act of 2001, is critical. This bill
provides for the establishment of a single national electronic
file format to be used by publishers when creating electronic
versions of texts.
A consistent standard will greatly facilitate the timely
and efficient conversion of textbooks into digital versions
that are accessible to students with disabilities: Braille,
large print, digital audio and many other specialized versions
like the ones I have mentioned.
The proposed bill further calls for a national electronic
file repository, a central and efficient solution to replace a
hodgepodge of local homemade products.
OSEP, under part D of IDEA, is supporting efforts that
further the development of digital curriculum. For example,
OSEP funds The National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum housed at CAST where research, design, development,
dissemination and training related to digital, accessible
curriculum materials can be furthered.
We hope that Congress will urgently expand this kind of
sustained and systematic work. I have three recommendations in
this area: Congress should support The Instructional Materials
Accessibility Act; Congress should support dissemination and
training for teachers, administrators and parents in using
better digital materials and Congress should support ongoing
research and development to make better and better digitally
supported materials for students.
Lastly, and probably most importantly from our perspective,
is the universal design of learning technologies. Making
traditional books and printed materials accessible via new
technology is necessary now, but it is not a sufficient step if
all learners are to find the opportunities they deserve. In
effect, we are still using new technologies to do old things.
My colleagues in this panel have been describing and supporting
ways to use powerful new technologies to do new things, to
engage all students in active experimentation at a level that
is not possible in traditional classrooms; to communicate about
learning with the students all over the world, to evaluate
their own learning, to construct problem solutions in social
groups and on and on. These technologies are rightly preparing
students for their future.
Unfortunately, the design of most of these learning
technologies does not consider students with disabilities. As a
result innumerable new barriers for students with disabilities
are being created inadvertently as we speak. These powerful new
learning technologies are in their infancy and as yet unformed.
Once formed, disseminated and in wide use, these technologies
will have to be retrofitted, or new assistive technologies
designed to overcome the new barriers being designed while we
are discussing these issues.
An analogy well known to members of this panel will
illustrate my point. A number of years ago the new technology
of television was inaccessible to viewers who were deaf.
Eventually decoder boxes to display captions improved access to
television for deaf viewers. The cost of this retrofitted
technology, several hundred dollars per television, still
excluded many people. Legislation requiring televisions to
include caption display technology led to the development of
small decoder chips costing pennies apiece that were included
in all the new televisions. And the beneficiaries of this
quality, efficient technology include not only those that are
deaf, but hearing individuals in gyms, noisy airports, spouses
retiring at different times and individuals learning English as
a second language.
The concept of building accessibility into learning
technologies from the start is an example of what we call
Universal Design. Well-executed universal design leads to less
expensive solutions and better outcomes.
For the recommendations I make regarding universal design
of learning technologies, Congress should require that any
educational technology developed, maintained, procured or used
by the Federal Government should be universally designed. And I
have several other recommendations on my printed transcript.
In summary, I want to say I commend the Congress for its
leadership and its commitment to students with disabilities.
Fundamental to this commitment, and to all things I have
recommended, is leadership implicit in IDEA. I strongly support
the commitment to fund this important legislation.
In the innovative area of educational technology it is
essential not only to provide support under part B of IDEA, it
is also essential to fund discretionary programs for the kinds
of technology research, training and dissemination I described.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And lastly, the over-arching recommendation I make to you
is that we extend the same kinds of protections now afforded to
physical spaces and to information in the workplace to a new
area, the most important space for our future, the learning
space. Our future as a culture depends on us making learning
spaces, those precious spaces, accessible and supportive to
every student. I believe that if we make the learning spaces of
our schools accessible to all of our children, we will save
both the short-term costs of poorly educating our children at
the present and the long-term costs of not educating them for
their future. This approach will save resources, but most
importantly, it will save children.
Thank you very much for your attention.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David H. Rose
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to be
asked to testify at this important hearing on Education and Technology.
My name is David Rose and I am the co-executive director of CAST, the
Center for Applied Special Technology. I welcome the opportunity to
speak with you today. The fact that I have been asked to testify on the
educational technology needs of disabled students demonstrates that
Congress understands how essential new educational technology is for
ALL students.
Members of this committee were central to the passage of numerous
pieces of landmark legislation over the past 30 years. Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act of 1975, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1988
and 1998, and the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 are all
landmark pieces of legislation. Because of these laws, many things
formerly thought to be impossible for individuals with disabilities are
now not only possible, they are commonplace.
Among those commonplace results is the fact that individuals with
disabilities now have a right to a free appropriate public school
education, and can expect to find educational buildings that are
physically accessible to them. It remains a tragedy, however, that the
curricula--the materials and methods for learning inside those
buildings--are too frequently NOT available or accessible to students
with disabilities.
At this moment in history, when innovative new educational
technologies are being designed and distributed to classrooms, there is
a unique and urgent opportunity to right this injustice. If this
opportunity is seized, the future will see disabled people making
contributions to our society that were envisioned with the passage of
these landmark pieces of legislation. Moreover, the strategic
appropriation of funds at this time will result in more effective use
of educational dollars and a subsequent reduction of people having to
go onto SSI and SSDI programs because they are not qualified to work in
the jobs of the future. The overall benefits will be shared not only by
children with disabilities, but by ALL children.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND THE PRESENT
Most of the existing successes of technology for individuals with
disabilities are examples of ``adaptive'' or ``assistive''
technologies. Assistive technologies are applications (either hardware
or software) that are developed specifically to assist disabled
individuals in overcoming barriers. We are all familiar with
spectacular examples of these technologies:
--Matthew, 3rd grader with physical disabilities who cannot use his
arms or legs, uses electronic switches to drive a wheelchair
and operate his computer to write and communicate.
--Katherine, a 6th grader who is blind, uses screen reader
technologies to navigate the Internet and do her social studies
homework.
--Nina, who has a brain injury that causes her to be aphasic, uses an
electronic augmentative communication device to speak to her
friends and collaborate on schoolwork.
And there are even more spectacular assistive technologies under
development, including ones that are more centrally placed in the
nervous system--implanted technologies for hearing, for vision, for
control of paralyzed muscles. These are essential uses of technology
for individuals with disabilities and their continued development will
require sustained federal support. There is simply not enough profit in
these ``low incidence'' students to attract the strengths of the
private sector.
Therefore, I recommend that Congress should continue to fund IDEA
Part D research and technology development to ensure that new assistive
and augmentative technologies are developed, particularly those that
interface with new learning technologies (see below) and those that
support cognitive as well as sensory and physical access. In addition,
congress should support, through technical assistance grants or
contracts, the training of assistive technology specialists so that
every school district has access to trained individuals who can teach
children to use these powerful technologies in a timely fashion, can
assist their parents in understanding and advocating for their use, and
can assist teachers and administrators in being effective consumers and
implementers of these technologies.
That recommendation notwithstanding, there is a danger in viewing
assistive technology as the sole focus of technology for students with
disabilities. Such an orientation places the emphasis of intervention
on the individual rather than the environment. While developing
powerful technologies for overcoming barriers is a good thing, it must
be balanced by designing environments that have fewer barriers. The
lesson of the ADA is that small affordances built in everywhere, like
curb cuts and ramps, are as essential as powerful motorized
wheelchairs.
The same is true for educational materials and methods. We need to
use the new technologies not only to overcome existing barriers to
learning, but to design environments for learning that have fewer
barriers right from the start.
MOVING TOWARD THE CENTER: THE POWER OF DIGITAL CONTENT FOR STUDENTS
WITH DISABILITIES
In the Concord, New Hampshire public schools, teachers and parents
have recently completed the painstaking task of copying all of their
printed curricular materials into the computer. They now have their own
``digital versions'' of virtually every textbook and printed text used
in their schools. Why did they go to all that bother?
They did it because the digital versions of the books are much
better for students with disabilities. The difference is not in the
content--the digital versions have exactly the same content--the
difference is in the way that content is displayed.
In print versions the content is dried into the paper, and its
display is fixed, immutable, ``one size fits all.'' In digital
versions, on the other hand, content is presented dynamically on a
computer screen. As a result, the power of the computer can be used to
display the content in ways that are highly variable, malleable, and
individualizable.
Imagine, for example, a digital version of ``To Kill a
Mockingbird'' for a 10th grade classroom:
--Sarah, a student with low vision, can display the text in a very
large font so she can see it;
--Bill, a student who is blind can have the computer display the text
as spoken words or have the computer produce it as refreshable
Braille;
--Jennifer, a student with severe physical disabilities can change
the display (e.g. turn the pages) with a single blink of her
eye;
--Michael, a student with dyslexia, can click on a difficult word to
have the computer read it aloud.
In these simple ways, digital versions of traditional curricular
materials can effectively reduce barriers to learning and reduce the
costs associated with more expensive adaptations and pull-out programs.
But it is possible to do more than merely reduce barriers. In a
recently completed research study (with technology developed under
support from U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education
Programs), colleagues at CAST digitized books from local schools and,
using the flexibility of digital text, embedded research-based
strategies for improving reading comprehension. Nearly all of the
students (109) in the study had learning disabilities and were
performing at least two grade levels below their peers. Because of the
digital texts, the level of access and support for reading
comprehension could be adjusted closely to each child--providing the
foundation for highly efficient learning.
The results were stunning--the students who used the digital texts
not only found them more accessible (and enjoyable and empowering) than
students who used traditional books, they learned reading comprehension
strategies much more effectively than their peers, and they showed
highly significant improvements (achieving a half year's progress after
reading only three novels) on later standardized tests of reading
comprehension. Their peers without such digital books did not show any
significant progress at all. Further, where this approach was used,
students exhibited fewer behavioral problems because they were engaged
in the learning activity.
Where can schools get these kinds of digital books? Local solutions
are far too inefficient. While many schools across the country, like
Concord, have begun to digitize their own books, the duplication of
effort is staggering. And it will get worse: most schools are not yet
aware of this capability. The problem is further exacerbated,
particularly for national publishers, by a bewildering and
contradictory array of local requirements and formats.
A new piece of legislation, the Instructional Materials
Accessibility Act of 2001, is critical. This bill provides for the
establishment of a single national electronic file format to be used by
publishers corresponding to texts they publish. This will greatly
facilitate the timely and efficient conversion of textbooks into
versions that are accessible to students with disabilities: e.g.
Braille, large print, digital audio and other specialized formats like
those that I have been describing. The bill further calls for a
national electronic file repository--a central and efficient solution
to replace a hodge-podge of local ones. CAST is already in the process
of developing and launching a major national Web-based resource--The
Universal Learning Center--to provide accessible digital curriculum
materials to teachers and parents.
Having digital, accessible, learning materials in the schools is
essential. Two other things are essential to ensure success. Most
teachers are now unaware of, and unprepared for, the power of digital
resources like these. Congress must ensure that there is support for
the national training and dissemination of teachers, administrators,
and parents in using these more efficient ways of making the curriculum
accessible.
And it is also important to understand that we have only begun to
exploit the power of digital resources: Congress should support ongoing
research and development designed to develop and implement digital
curricula that are infused with the best of research-based
accommodations and enhancements for individuals with disabilities and
their peers.
Projects funded under OSEP from part D funding of the IDEA (e.g.
the National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum housed at CAST)
are already making progress on each of these points, but I recommend
that Congress intensify these efforts lest we miss the opportunity
before us. These efforts will ultimately save resources, and they will
save children.
building a better future: universal design of learning technologies
Making traditional books and printed materials accessible via new
technology is a necessary, but not sufficient, step: in effect it is
using new technologies to do old things.
The more powerful new learning technologies, those that my
colleagues on this panel have been describing, use the new technologies
to do NEW things--to engage ALL students in active experimentation at a
level impossible in ``traditional'' classrooms, to communicate about
learning with other students all over the world, to evaluate their own
learning, to construct problem solutions in social groups, to create
and edit new kinds of media well beyond the limits of writing text.
These technologies prepare students for their future.
Unfortunately, most of these learning technologies are not being
designed with students who have disabilities in mind. As a result,
these new technologies are likely to create new barriers for students
with disabilities, leaving disabled children farther behind.
This is what I meant earlier by the urgency of the opportunity in
front of us. We are at the infancy of these new learning technologies;
they are not yet crystallized. Once they have been ``hardened'' and
disseminated, it will be very expensive and wasteful to retrofit
accessibility into them or to build new assistive technologies to
overcome the barriers they impose.
An analogy well known to members of this panel is important.
Several decades ago television, a new technology, was completely
inaccessible to individuals who were deaf. Over time, decoder boxes
were developed that individuals could buy to put on their televisions
and see captions. These retrofitted technologies were expensive,
purchased at hundreds of dollars apiece. Later, important legislation
was passed to require that the design of televisions include a decoder
chip, a small piece of accessibility that is now built into every
television at only pennies a television. The result is higher quality,
cheaper accessibility for individuals who are deaf. But there is an
additional benefit. The heaviest use of captions is not by deaf people
at all--but hearing individuals in noisy bars and airports, individuals
who are English language learners, exercisers in gyms and so forth.
The concept of building accessibility into the technology from the
start is an example of what is called Universal Design. It is generally
better and cheaper to practice universal design than to retrofit
solutions later. So, at this moment, when we are building new
technologies for learning, we need to ensure that they are universally
designed
It is important to reflect on the recent history of Section 508.
Most government websites were originally created with no awareness of
disability access. Since the law was passed making it essential to
design carefully, there has been enormous expense to retrofit sites.
What can Congress do to ensure that the new technologies are
universally designed right from the start?
First, Congress can take the same kind of leadership as it did in
legislating 508 for the workplace--in this case in the ``learning
place.'' Congress should require that any educational technology
developed, maintained, procured, or used by the Federal government
should be universally designed. Secondly, congress should require that
all educational programs administered or supported by the federal
government use universally designed educational technology. These
actions by themselves would send a clear message that, like 508, would
extend throughout the larger education community.
Second, to ensure rapid dissemination of better educational
technologies, Congress should support the development of research-based
guidelines for school districts, publishers, parents, and
administrators on how to evaluate and select universally designed
educational technologies.
Third, provide funding for continued research and development in
designing, implementing, and integrating better universally designed
educational technologies.
SUMMARY
I commend the Congress for its leadership and its commitment to
students with disabilities. Fundamental to this commitment, and to all
of the things I have recommended, is the leadership implicit in IDEA. I
strongly support the commitment to fully fund this foundational
legislation for our future.
In the innovative area of educational technology it is essential
not only to provide the kinds of support provided under Part B of IDEA,
it is essential to fund discretionary programs that enable technology
research, training, and dissemination--those under Part D. Without that
support we will miss the opportunity, just at this propitious moment,
to turn the power of educational technology in a direction that will
indeed leave none of our children behind.
In specific, I have made recommendations in three areas:
(1) Assistive technologies.--These individual technologies are
essential to overcome the barriers that students with disabilities face
in normal classrooms. Congress should support their continued
development into areas where barriers remain, and should fund technical
assistance to school districts so that they can be effective consumers
of these powerful technologies.
(2) Digital Curricula.--Most existing classroom technologies are
still print based--making it very difficult to use assistive
technologies, and even more difficult to individualize the curriculum
in ways that are necessary for students with disabilities. I recommend
that Congress provide legislation so that every piece of curriculum is
made available in digital format so that it can be easily customized
and made accessible for all students and that Congress fund a central
place for teachers and parents to locate these resources.
(3) Universal Design of Learning Technologies.--As new technologies
are developed for schools, they should be made accessible to all of the
students in the school, right from the start. Congress should support
efforts to make guidelines for the universal design of such
technologies and provide leadership in purchasing, maintaining, and
disseminating such technologies in all of its programs.
The over-arching recommendation that I make to you is that we
extend the same kinds of protections now afforded to physical spaces
and to information in the workplace to a new area, the most important
space for our future--the learning space. Our future as a culture
depends on us to make the learning spaces, those most precious spaces
in the lives of our children, accessible and supportive of every single
child. I believe that if we make the leaning spaces of our schools
accessible to all of our children, we will save both the short-term
costs of miss-educating our children in the present and the long-term
costs of NOT educating them for their future.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Dr. Rose. I was just
making some notes on this. Thank you all. This has been great
testimony and I appreciate your being here and for your
involvement in this.
I would like to start out first by talking with Mr. Gann
about this concept that I think you brought to my attention a
few weeks ago about the idea that we may be going down the
wrong road if we are going to be focusing on a PC on very desk.
We have had other testimony about how much money is going into
hardware. These get outdated and they have to be upgraded all
the time. You have a different concept. Your concept is--what
did you call it--backend?
Mr. Gann. Well, you could call it network centric computing
or Internet computing.
Senator Harkin. Yes. Flesh that out for me a little bit
more. What you are talking about is some kind of a web-based
system that would be district-wide based; maybe State-wide
based? I am uncertain as to how large an area you would cover
with this.
There would be servers in the schools, but would not the
kids still have to have some type of a terminal of some kind,
either a PC or something that they would have within their
classroom. You are not getting around the hardware. You may be
getting around some of the software problems, but I do not know
about the hardware problems. I am a little hazy as to how this
is going to save us money and be more quickly upgradeable in
the future, so could you talk about that a little bit more?
Mr. Gann. Sure. Well, I think a really good analogy to
begin with would be when you go on the Internet today and you
go to a site such as Yahoo!, that site has all the data
aggregated for you. In effect, it is a portal. And what is
really great about a site like that is that you can use really
any number of devices, a PC, or a network computer. Even Palm
Pilots today, these inexpensive hand-helds, have Internet
capabilities that can enable you to log into a portal like
this. What is important about this approach of network
computing, if you will, is that the intelligence is invested at
the backend in servers and storage devices and in software. And
it is based on open systems and open standards. What is really
important here is simply by using a browser, whether from
Microsoft or Netscape, whoever, you can access all of this data
very easily and what is really important is that it becomes a
lot less important what type of device you are using from a
user point of view. So you can use a PC that is current today,
you can use an older PC, you can use other devices, but what is
important is that they are hooked into the Internet with the
browser and that very fact of interoperating with the smarter
system gives schools more choices. So to conclude, you
absolutely will have a role for PC's. It is just that PC's and
other devices can be used longer and more effectively if they
are Internet-enabled with browsers. One of the things that we
see is that older PC's, you know an old Pentium machine, we
have even seen 486 machines that are sort of being given away
for free now, can be significantly refurbished and used in
schools if you put good browsers on them and you really hook
them into a powerful backend.
So it is all about using more devices effectively.
Senator Harkin. Is this being done anywhere?
Mr. Gann. Sure, it is being done a lot in the private
sector----
Senator Harkin. I mean in education.
Mr. Gann. It is also being done in a number of schools.
There is a grade school in Carrolton, Georgia where they have
implemented this. There is also a school in Florida called The
Celebration School, and a school in California in Newark.
Senator Harkin. So your advice to us is as we move ahead in
this--are you saying that perhaps by giving a block grant out
to the States, that States may take this money and give it to
local school districts and in each local school district they
have all the sales people come around and they have got this
system and that system and this system, and so you have a lot
of different systems operating in say, one State, for example?
Are you suggesting that what we might want to do is to try to
move more in the direction of standardization or something of a
backend system? Not telling what kind of backend system they
have to have, but saying that this is where we want the money
to be used; not just in buying laptops and buying software
programs on an individual basis--individual school district
basis, but doing it on a broader statewide basis. Is that what
you are saying, what we ought to be doing is giving that kind
of direction?
Mr. Gann. Well, I think one thing that would be very useful
is to help fund some pilots around the country to experiment
with new innovations and technology, and I think there are a
couple of really important rules that need to apply. One is it
tends to be better when vendors work with open systems and
standards. That ensures that any number of devices, any number
of technologies from different vendors can work together. That
way schools do not get locked into any one technology.
The second piece of advice is if you put the technology
more and more in the backend and focus it on the Internet, you
can get some of the economies of scale that we have been
talking about. So I think it is good to do some pilots and it
is good to do some learning to see what really works well.
Senatro Harkin. How about the rest of you? You've all been
involved in this. You've all had kind of specific things here,
but I think Mr. Gann is putting his finger on a divergent path
that we may be going down. We are going to go one way or the
other. If we decide to go one way, it is going to be hard to
shift to the other, if you see what I mean. Once you start
going down that path, I think it is going to be hard to shift
over. So how do you feel?
Now, Ms. Maxwell, you've been involved in a site-specific,
school-specific program where they are not networked outside
the school, but they are in those classrooms. They have got
their individual programs, and what Mr. Gann is talking about
is something where those students would be hooked up to a
server. They would be able to tap into a broader base of
information than perhaps they have right now. Just from your 1
year of experience in this, how do you think that this might be
better or worse than what you are doing right now?
Ms. Maxwell. We have not locked ourselves into stand-alone
situations. We are networked to a server and we do use the
Internet, actually, probably more than software. I am not quite
understanding, Mr. Gann. Are you going to be like a portal
where you already have these sites available, or software
available? I am not quite with what you are----
Mr. Gann. Well, one of the things that we are seeing,
actually, in the industry is a lot of the mainstream
publishers, McGraw Hill, and other vendors are moving to a more
network-enabled kind of environment. In fact, back here at our
demo, a number of the vendors are showing off technology such
as PLATO and Carnegie Learning that are moving to a more open
web-enabled environment. So I think what is important here is
that a lot of the traditional technologies can be re-engineered
to get the benefit of the Internet while still working with
existing systems such as PC's which, make no mistake, are still
very effective tools.
Ms. Williams. It is my impression that what you are talking
about is technological backend with which I am not familiar,
but what is true, as Gail said, is that most schools are
working in a network environment, not a stand-alone
environment. And the biggest challenge that they are having now
is the bandwidth problem.
Senator Harkin. Is a what?
Ms. Williams. Bandwidth. So if you have--let's just say you
have a school that has a very low computer-to-student ratio, so
you have a possibility of having a lot of kids on line at the
same time and the barrier is that the information just does not
come up fast enough where you cannot navigate it fast enough,
but they are already working in a highly networked environment
since----
Senator Harkin. Networking into schools or outside?
Ms. Williams. Oh, outside. Yes. Because that is the whole
point. They are doing a lot of interacting with other children
or with experts through just plain old e-mail.
Senator Harkin. But what are they networking with? With
whom? With what?
Ms. Williams. To information resources on the web.
Ms. Maxwell. Exactly.
Senator Harkin. OK.
Ms. Williams. We use very little stand-alone software
unless it is a project-based software where we--like word
processing or desktop publishing. We are linked to the
Internet. We do a lot of what are called WebQuests, where we
use--the students are involved in projects that access sites on
the Internet to perform a task and solve a problem. So most of
our usage is already using the Internet and going out to sites
all over the world and like she said, to look at experts, or
talk to experts, or to do e-mail with other students in other
schools. That is what we are doing a lot of already with
project-based learning.
Senator Harkin. Well, the question I have on that is number
one, is it reliable? First of all, you never know who you are
talking to on the Internet. Is it reliable? Has it been
developed to a curriculum-based type of evaluation? Obviously,
we all go on the Internet and do all kinds of things. But my
question is, is having programs that are web-based, as Mr. Gann
is talking about, is that geared toward education, towards all
aspects of education? That is quite different than just getting
on the web now and surfing all around and finding this and
that.
Ms. Maxwell. We do not have the students just out there
surfing the Internet. Everything we do is very structured and
that is where the time comes in on the teacher's part and
myself. We do all of that searching and looking for good
educational sites that are sound and accurate, ahead of time.
That is where the WebQuests are an excellent source because
those are very structured and every site you go to has been
checked and made sure that they are educationally sound. We
make sure everything is tied to our objectives and standards
before we do it.
Senator Harkin. Dr. Honey.
Dr. Honey. I think what we have seen in the last 8 years is
that there has been a tremendous growth in educational content
on the Internet and there has been a tremendous amount of
development and schools like Ms. Maxwell's that are well poised
to take advantage of those resources can use them very
effectively.
But a much greater concern from my point of view is that
not all schools are created equal. And we have growing,
growing, growing disparities in this country, particularly
between urban schools and better endowed, wealthier, suburban,
often communities. The critical difference here is that in
those communities people are either well poised to use the
educational resources of the Internet, or not well poised to
use them, and there is a widening gap.
So there are real issues around how do you help struggling
districts, districts that are facing real serious achievement
problems move in the direction of being able to take advantage
of what has really become an enormous wealth of education
resources.
Senator Harkin. Now you are talking about another slice.
That is another divergence that is taking place out there. In
back of that, I am still trying to figure out whether--now what
Mr. Gann, Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Williams were basically saying is
that is already there. That backend architecture is already
there that they can tap into. But from your testimony, it seems
to me you are saying that, again, we must rethink the current
computer in the classroom models and start thinking about the
network architecture that could be employed by an entire school
or school district.
A single PC on a classroom desk just does not cut it, with
more emphasis placed on building long-term reliable backend
architecture. This means focusing on the benefits of
centralized technology and networking at districts that have
computers, who are building systems with scalable servers, and
on and on. The anytime/anywhere computing model relies upon an
open system's architecture through which information is
accessed and delivered via the Internet.
Well, they say it is already there.
Mr. Gann. Well, the good news is it already is there in a
number of settings.
I think the bad news is there is still more work to be
done. What tends to happen for better or worse is the private
sector tends to move faster in terms of implementing technology
than a lot of public sector environments and I think schools
unfortunately, you know, have been crippled with all sorts of
funding problems and other issues. And oftentimes, technology
does not get quite the attention it should. But the short
answer is that this wave towards network centric or web-based
learning is happening. It needs to happen quicker.
I think the final thing in the real benefit of web
deployment is that it enables applications that are tightly
integrated, such that users can be accessible to the system in
a greater variety of ways. So it is just really using Internet-
type technologies to enhance communication.
Dr. Honey. One other point to add to what Mr. Gann was
saying in his testimony is that this point about the stand-
alone $2,000 computer for every student is not realistic I
think is very true and what I heard him saying is that we are
seeing very rapid changes in that area where devices are
becoming increasingly portable, increasingly smaller, Palm
Pilots, IPAC's, all of those kinds of things can access the
Internet at greatly reduced costs.
Ms. Williams. The other development that I am reminded of
is that there are a number of States that have instituted State
education network infrastructures just to help facilitate these
kind of things, Mo/Net in Missouri, the Florida Education
Research Network. So at a lot of State levels there has been
more sort of sub-network architecture, but there is a lot of
use of the Internet in highly appropriate and mediated ways in
schools. I know the example Ms. Maxwell gave us in the
elementary school. But in secondary science education, I mean
these students are going to primary resources, federally
funded, The National Weather Service, NASA, USGS, and they are
getting real-time data to use in building their knowledge base
about how you do scientific inquiry and actually contributing
to the scientific field in some ways as they enter their data
into open data bases that are accessible internationally.
So there is work being done in that regard, and some really
fine examples of its effectiveness.
Senator Harkin. Let me get onto the bandwidth problem. In
Iowa we do not have the problem. Do we, Ms. Maxwell?
Ms. Maxwell. It is really good.
Senator Harkin. We have no problem with bandwidth. We have
a fiber optic system that goes to every--well, I should say it
goes to every high school. We are now going to every grade
school. I do not know how long that is going to take. That is
going to take a little bit longer, but every high school has
all the bandwidth they need with fiber optics in the State of
Iowa at very low cost, because the State owns the system.
But that is not true in every State. And we do have that
problem. How do you think the Federal Government ought to be
involved in ensuring that elementary and secondary schools
around the country have access to the broad highways? I want
any thoughts you have on that. I mean we are putting this money
in this Bill and we have--where is my table--but what happens
we may be putting a lot of hardware in the schools, but we have
got all this information here and you have got all the PC's out
there and you have got some narrow little constrictor to go
through. Tell me how we solve that.
Dr. Honey. Well, two things, I would say. One is Cheryl
Williams' comment about ensuring that the E-Rate monies
continue to be available. They have been critically important
in bringing bandwidth to schools.
And another initiative that is underway that the Federal
Government surely can take a leadership role in is the
development of Internet Two, which is now going on--I am sure
Mr. Gann can speak more about this from Sun Microsystems'
prospective--but it is taking place in a number of universities
and a number of corporations in the country with Federal money,
some of which I know comes from The National Science
Foundation.
But there is now a movement underway to enable State
networks to connect into the Internet Two backbone, which has a
potential to bring greatly increased bandwidth to schools.
Senator Harkin. I have to move on to the demonstration. My
time is running out.
But Ms. Williams, all of your testimony was basically about
that you strongly support the New Federal Education Technology
Block Grant. Then you went on to talk about how all of the
programs that we have had under the Federal system; The
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, The Technology Innovation
Challenge Grants, The Teacher Training Technology, you mention
these as being very successful programs.
Well, those are not in the block grant program. Well, one
of them is, Teacher Training is in the block grant program. But
The Technology Innovation Challenge Grants and The Technology
Literacy Challenge Fund--do you mention that?
Oh, I am corrected. You did not mention The Technology
Literacy Challenge Fund and The Technology Innovation Challenge
Grants. Somebody else did here.
Ms. Williams. I think I did.
Senator Harkin. But I am just wondering----
Ms. Williams. In a perfect world, we would love those
programs to be continued as they are. We understand that we
need to work within the realities and it appears to us that
there are many things that are underway with the Challenge
Fund, which is administered by the States. And we are hopeful
that the funding levels will remain the same so that the work
that has been started can continue. I think that is the
message.
Senator Harkin. Any of you have any thoughts on The
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund that we had and the
technology grants at all? Again, if this is a block grant--I
mean maybe they will do it and maybe they will not. I do not
know.
Dr. Honey. I think as a nationally run program, it has
demonstrated incredible successfulness. I have served on The
Expert Technology panel and I can tell you that many of the
applications that rose to the top of what was a pretty
comprehensive group of projects were originally seeded with
monies from that program. It has allowed for tremendous
innovation to take place in the education arena.
Ms. Maxwell. As a recipient of one of those grants, they
are great. But our concern is what happens when the grant runs
out?
Senator Harkin. I am sorry, Ms. Williams, you did mention--
you said here, ``Congress appropriated nearly $1.7 million for
The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and The Technology
Innovation Challenge Grant, two Federal programs that support
school district efforts to develop technology plans, acquire
hardware and software and this Federal involvement has paid
off. During this same period, student-to-computer ratios'', et
cetera, et cetera, you went on.
Again, I am not trying to challenge you. I am just trying
to figure out whether or not we ought to just say we would
leave it to the States to do this, or we actually keep these
programs going.
In other words, the block grant could be this big and we
say do with it what you want, or the block grant can be this
big and we say, ``but within that block you have to do these
couple things''. You see what I am saying?
Ms. Williams. I see exactly what you are saying.
Senator Harkin. That is what you are saying?
Ms. Williams. What we were advocating within the realities
of today was that the total funding not be diminished. I would
concur with Margaret Honey that there has been huge innovation
that has been learned and spurred through national programs
that it would be wonderful to be able to continue to leverage
through dissemination and other fashions.
It would be our hope that the whole effort around
supporting innovation with education technology would not be
diminished.
Senator Harkin. Hopefully, we are not going to diminish it
and will boost it even more.
One last thing. Dr. Rose, on Universal Design, who decides?
I mean Universal Design is a wonderful concept, but it may mean
different things to different people. Who decides that?
Dr. Rose. Well, I think one of the things I recommended is
I think more work needs to be done on the guidelines. In fact,
I just want to say that I agree with Mr. Gann. I think that the
centralized way is the way to do it. Then it is much easier at
that level to say, ``And here is what the guidelines are for
what an educational environment on the web should look like'',
and it should be inclusive of all students. It is very much
easier to do that.
The danger in block grants are that push from the national
level to say, ``And all of our educational curricula delivered
on the web delivered in every way should have Universal Design,
and here are the guidelines.'' Congress has supported the
development of guidelines from our best people developing
educational technologies to ensure that those benefits go to
everybody.
Senator Harkin. Yet do you think we should require--that
was your word, I believe--that all curricula be digitally
formatted?
Dr. Rose. Yes.
Senator Harkin. I am not sure I understand that.
Dr. Rose. Well, that is sort of a bit of a retrofit, but
present books really are very difficult for lots of students to
learn from. And then we have to do a lot of expensive things to
try to make them work. And what I am saying is that if we, in
addition to having the printed book, have a digital version,
which, in fact, they were originally made in digital version;
but those are delivered safely to students and their teachers,
and in fact, we can do that individualizing, say, well, Billy
needs this book to read out loud because he is blind. And Sally
is going to need help with the decoding because she is
dyslexic. All of that can be done easily digitally. The printed
book is very hard. We have to hire teachers, we have to send
them to special resource rooms, and you have to do something
else because of the fact that the book does not work very well.
In some States they are starting to do this, to say when
you deliver us a curriculum, deliver us a digital version with
it. And we just think that's the way to do it every time. It is
a much more flexible version and much more accessible. It is
delivering the ramps and curb cuts right with the book.
Senator Harkin. You are focusing mostly on literacy, or on
reading?
Dr. Rose. I am, but I wanted to say that GBH is here and
they have the same--it is true for videos, for audios,
everything can be universally designed. I concentrate a little
bit on the literacy here.
Senator Harkin. Your advice is well taken. I think that we
ought to think about putting something in there on Universal--
is there anything in there on Universal Design? I think that is
something I would be interested in if you or anyone here has
any suggestions.
Dr. Rose. We have a lot, actually.
Senator Harkin. Well, better get them to us.
Dr. Rose. OK.
Senator Harkin. I would like to think about putting that in
the legislation, I think. I mean I am going to think about it
some more. But I like the concept of universal design. I think
it saves going back and redoing things later on.
Dr. Rose. Yes.
Senator Harkin. It is just like now we are beginning to
design architecturally buildings that are universally
adaptable.
Dr. Rose. Yes. It is a lot cheaper to do at the beginning.
And it turns out to benefit everybody and that is true in
education. If you universally design the curriculum from the
start, it has things built into it that are just better for
everybody, just like in architecture.
Senator Harkin. Yes, because as I said at the beginning, I
am really amazed at how much more the technology has done to
help kids with disabilities learn. It is amazing what is
happening.
Well, thank you all very much. I am now going to adjourn
the hearing and then we are going to invite everyone to the
back of the room to view demonstrations. We have eight
companies demonstrating here, Break Through to Literacy,
Microsoft, Carnegie Learning, PLATO Learning, Light Span, Apple
and Power School, Wireless Generation and WGBH.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Thank you all very much for being here, that concludes our
hearing.
[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., Wednesday, July 25, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]