Standard Jet DBnb` Ugr@?~1y0̝cßFNt7˜\(9`{6o߱{CU 3y[:|*| t!́f_Љ$g'DeFx -bT4.0Pb+ K k g /k]F#9c@@@@@@@@@@@ @@?@@@??@@@BobNorthIroquoisEriePA814.899.7646bnorth@iroquois.iu5.orgzvpf_Z^@@@@@@@@?@@@ @ @ @ @ @?????@Dorothy RobinsonO. W. Best Middle SchoolDearborn Heights NO 7Dearborn HtsMI313-278-6200robinsdo@d7.k12.mi.uslZg??@@??ZZZZZZZZ&[ @@@@@@@@@@@@?@ @@@?@@@@@ZZZZZZZZ.@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Gary RamellaUnion CityUnion CityUnion CityNJ201-348-5872gramella@union-city.k12.nj.usthZ@?@@@@@@ @@ @@@@?@@?@ZZZZZZZZV< @@?@@@@@@@@@@ @@ @@@@@@@@@@p smithSmith EleCountyAnytownWV304-555-1234vncZ@@@@@@@@@ @@ @ @@?@@@@@@ZZZZZZZZ@@ZZZZZZZZP@@@@@@@@@@@?@????@?@BRobinsonUnderwoodUnderwoodUnderwoodND701-442-3201barobins@sendit.nodak.edu{peZ@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@Cheryl LeontiCross Creek SchoolBrowardPompano BeachFL954-970-1450leontic@ispchannel.com}iZC @@@@@@ @?? @@ @ @@???@@?@RonPrystawskiBroward CountySunriseFL954 572 1382prystar@mindspring.com{k_Z(??@@@@@@@@@?@@@@?@@@?@ZZZZZZZZq@?@@@ @@@@@@ @@@@@?@@@@@Laura laPernaTedder Elem.Broward CountyPompano BeacgFLllaperna@bellsouth.netwiZ?ZZZZZZZZ  @??@@?@@?? @? @??????@B.BlairClayton JHSClaytonClaytonNM505/374-2596barbalee@plateautel.netypcZJ"@?@@@@@@@@@ @@?@@@@??@@Phil HardingVal Verde HSVal VerdePerrisCA909-940-6100 ext 1055pharding@valverde.eduvhZ???@@ @@@@ @ @ @? @??@??@ZZZZZZZZ@ZZZZZZZZD?ZZZZZZZZ:@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@ZZZZZZZZX@@@@@@@@@ @@ @@@@@?@@@@@Kathy OnarheimManitobaMPSMilwaukeeWI414-645-8035onarhekx@mail.milwaukee.k12.wi.usytjZY@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @@ZZZZZZZZ8@??@@@@@@ @@? @@@@@@@@@@@Susan KonopnickiEdgemontCBECalgaryAK9403)777-6340skonopnicki@home.com{vlZ Y'S '' Y   Y Y  Y Y  Y  Y  Y   Y u Y o Y n Y z Y 2lY  Y  z Y  pY ConnectDatabaseDateCreateDateUpdate FlagsForeignNameIdLvLvExtraLvModule LvPropName OwnerParentIdRmtInfoLongRmtInfoShortTypeniYYIdParentIdName        @@@@@PT LoudermiltIredell-StatesvilleIredellStatesvilleNCtloudermilt@iss.k12.nc.us~iZ@@?@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@PT LoudermiltIredell-StatesvilleIredellStatesvilleNCtloudermilt@iss.k12.nc.us~iZz@@@?@@?@@?? @? @ @???@@@@Helen MackBurt Township SchoolBurt Township SchoolGrand MaraisMI906-494-2521tscaife@up.net|fZ@@@@@@@@@ @@?@@@?@@@?@ZZZZZZZZ@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@?@@@MineMy SchoolMy DistrictMy ToronAL39399932@2.comxk`ZH1 @@@?@@@@@@@@ @ @ @@?@@?@Dorothy RobinsonO. W. Best MiddlesDearborn Hts 7Dearborn Hts.MI313-278-6200robinsdo@d7.k12.mi.uslZf @???@???@ @ @ @?????@@Rosalyn GlavinDunn Middle SchoolRiver Rouge School DistrictRiver RougeMI(313)297-9600 x1630mbreedin@rrouge.k12.mi.us~jZ???@ @@@@ @@ZZZZZZZZ;@??@@@@@@ @@@@ @@@@@@@@M GrahamBattlegroundLincolnLincolntonNC704-735-3146mgrham@lincoln.k12.nc.us{rdZB ???@?@@@?@???????@ZZZZZZZZU???@??????ZZZZZZZZV@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@?@@Robert MorrisJFK High SchoolWest BrightonRochesterNY716-483-9768rmorris@jfkhs.k12.ny.usziZ@??@@@@@@@@ @@ @ @@@?@@@@@@Ned SmithCatholic SchoolsDiocese of ErieEriePA814/824-1240nsmith@eriercd.orgweZo@??@@@@@@@ @@? @ @???@?@Sean KashawlicWestwoodWestwood Community SchoolsDearborn HeightsMI313.292.2440kashaws@mail.wcresa.k12.mi.ustjZ@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@???@ZZZZZZZZT@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@Paul R. WoodBishop Dunne High SchoolDiocese of DallasDallasTX214-339-6561 x223paulwood@aol.comhZ[???@?@@@?@ @??OYsS&Y Y Y  Y 2ACMFInheritableObjectIdSID  AtYObjectId  Root Entry  @ VBA  VBAProject  VBA  dir_VBA_PROJECTPROJECT,0PROJECTwm1  !"#$%&'()*+-./0ɱ0* pHdG1Survey,@ Z= n }9 %J< rst dole>stdole f%\*\G{0002`0430-C 0046}#2.0#0#C:\WINNT\System32\STDOLE2 .TLB# AutomatioFn^DAO>IDAjO@w m@5hE01@5@-350.DLL#Microsoft 3.5 Object Li`brary7VBIDE> VBIPDEKCKE157KProgram Files\Common&Shared\VBAEEXT1.O@NVisual Basic for ApplicBTs Extensibilit3"_@/am  *\G{000204EF-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#4.0#9#C:\PROGRAM FILES\COMMON FILES\MICROSOFT SHARED\VBA\VBA6\VBE6.DLL#Visual Basic For Applications*\G{4AFFC9A0-5F99-101B-AF4E-00AA003F0F07}#9.0#0#C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office\MSACC9.OLB#Microsoft Access 9.0 Object Library*\G{00020430-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#2.0#0#C:\WINNT\System32\STDOLE2.TLB#OLE Automation*\G{00025E01-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#5.0#0#C:\W YSY  Y Y Y  Y  Y Y  Y AttributeExpressionFlagLvExtra Name1 Name2ObjectId Order Y"ObjectIdAttributesibility }9 _x %AccessVBAWin16~Win32MacVBA6#G1Survey,stdole`DAOVBIDEAH   ID="{ACD833A6-79A2-11D4-B37B-0080AD7FC42A}" Name="G1Survey" HelpContextID="0" VersionCompatible32="393222000" CMG="93917BEA0AEE0AEE0AEE0AEE" DPB="2624CE9FF2A184A284A284" GC="B9BB51A252A2525D" [Host Extender Info] &H00000001={3832D640-CF90-11CF-8E43-00A0C911005A};VBE;&H00000000 [Workspace] ijMSysDbAcessVBAData2Forms    Cmdbars  Modules   Reports  Scripts   PropData3Databases  0  Blob DirData4CustomGroups  DataAccessPages    -YSY Y Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y ccolumn grbiticolumnszColumnszObject$szReferencedColumn$szReferencedObjectszRelationship   YYYszObject$szReferencedObjectszRelationshipʾNews Find duplicates for Commitments2ʾNews Find duplicates for Commitments2 ^6"&qC<Yv1b N  : k & W  C t/+  {  $Ƃ$Ƃ\bTNctLLS@LL|@t@NNNNz@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@z@NNN@N@{@MSysAccounts\A@ pp@ppxWx@@    @@  @@@OJmJJMMQkkfJUQkOJmJLJkQkSdi`k `dOo^Qk iQ^JmYdbkWYfkiQfdimk kMiYfmk kvkiQ^ mJL^QkJbksQikML^dM\kMWJfmQikMd``Ym`QbmkMdbmJMmkSYbOOof^YMJmQkSdiMd``Ym`QbmkSYbOOof^YMJmQkSdiMd``Ym`Qbmk:`Q`LQik`kvkJMMQkkdL[QMmk`kvkJMQk`kvkdL[QMmk`kvkhoQiYQk`kvkiQ^JmYdbkWYfkbQskdfQiJmdikkmJi`JYbkmJi`JYb`QJbmQ`fkmJifdYbm`JkmQikmJihoQkmYdbkkmJiiQkfdbkQk mQkmY`dbYQk!mf`JYb"mf`JYb`QJbmQ`f#mffdYbm`JkmQi$mfhoQkmYdbk%mfiQkfdbkQk&JMMQkk^Jvdom`kvkOLko``JivYbSdokQiOQSYbQOjq'jq(,q,,q-,q.llll ll llll!l"l#@pm@MSysAccou @@TablesTPResponsesH2&  @@TablesTPResponsesH2& KN@@TablesTPQuestionsH2& U@'@TablesTPPointMasterL2& '@Գ@TablesTPMainMeanTempN2& Rm@'@TablesTPMain>2& 6@//@TablesTestimoniesH2& KL@QT^L@TablesStarResponsesL2& LFL@.JL@TablesStarQuestionsL2& A-L@ML@TablesStarPointMasterP2& e@L@TablesStarMainMeanTempR2& @B@TablesStarMainB2& @K @TablesOperatorsD2&  @]dp@TablesNews:2& @@TablesMSysRelationshipsT2& @@TablesMSysQueriesH2& @@TablesMSysObjectsH2& @@TablesMSysACEsB2& VL@VL@TablesMSysAccessObjectsT2& @.Pq@TablesMembers@2& XLl@q]l@TablesFind duplicates for Commitments2r2& ؽk@k@TablesFind duplicates for Commitmentsp2& @@TablesContactsB2& t@9k@TablesCommitmentsH2& @@TablesChaptersB2& X@P@TablesCBlocks@2& G6L@(CL@TablesAnswers@2&  @ @ @ @ @         !"#e$i%o&Root Entry w @ VBAw w VBAProjectw w VBAw w dir_VBA_PROJECTPROJECT,0PROJECTwm1  !"#$%&'()*+-./0ɱ0* pHdG1Survey,@ Z= n }9 %J< rst dole>stdole f%\*\G{0002`0430-C 0046}#2.0#0#C:\WINNT\System32\STDOLE2 .TLB# AutomatioFn^DAO>IDAjO@w m@5hE01@5@-350.DLL#Microsoft 3.5 Object Li`brary7VBIDE> VBIPDEKCKE157KProgram Files\Common&Shared\VBAEEXT1.O@NVisual Basic for ApplicBTs Extensibilit3"_@/am  *\G{000204EF-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#4.0#9#C:\PROGRAM FILES\COMMON FILES\MICROSOFT SHARED\VBA\VBA6\VBE6.DLL#Visual Basic For Applications*\G{4AFFC9A0-5F99-101B-AF4E-00AA003F0F07}#9.0#0#C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office\MSACC9.OLB#Microsoft Access 9.0 Object Library*\G{00020430-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#2.0#0#C:\WINNT\System32\STDOLE2.TLB#OLE Automation*\G{00025E01-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#5.0#0#C:\W  @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @vvvvvvvvv v v v vvvvvvvvvvvvv$v% v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v:vCvDvEvAvBvFvGvHvIvJvKv&v'v(v)v*v+ v, v- v.v/v0v1v2v3v4v;v<v=v>v?v@vLvMvNvO{{{{{{{{{ { { {{ { {{{{{{{{{{{{e{e{e{i{i{i{o{ o{!o{"vvvv vv vvvv!v"v#42A}" Name="G1Survey" HelpContextID="0" VersionCompatible32="393222000" CMG="93917BEA0AEE0AEE0AEE0AEE" DPB="2624CE9FF2A184A284A284" GC="B9BB51A252A2525D" [Host Extender Info] &H00000001={3832D640-CF90-11CF-8E43-00A0C911005A};VBE;&H00000000 [Workspace] ijMSysDbAcessVBAData2Forms  w w Cmdbarsw w Modules w w Reportsw w Scripts w w PropData3Databasesw w 0w w Blob DirData4CustomGroupsw w DataAccessPages w w =  @ @ @                              olkSuffolkVA757-638-3315jnosheley@earthlink.netygZ R @@@@@@@@@ @@ @@ @@@@@@@@@@@Anne RassbachThe Prairie SchoolThe Prairie SchoolRacineWI262-260-3845arassbach@prairieschool.com}iZ % @?@@@@@@@@?@@ZZZZZZZZ @@@@@@@@@@@ @@ @@@@@@@@@Sherry WheatHigh SchoolCaboolCaboolMO417-962-3153cdz011@mail.connect.more.net}uhZ F@??@@@@@@ @@@@@@@?@??@Karen DominoWillow RunWillow RunWillow RUnMI734-994-8100kdomino@wash.k12.mi.usthZ y@@@@ @?@@ @ @ @ @ @@ZZZZZZZZ x_@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@????@@@C JohnsonJWP Public SchoolsISD 2835JanesvilleMN507.234.5181cjohnson@jwp.k12.mn.usyeZ 3 @@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@chaoying yanThe Prairie SchoolTPSracineWI262-260-4348cyan@priaireschool.com|hZ @@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@Kim BrownBelleuve EastBelleuve PublicBellevueNE402-669-7164brownkime@hotmail.comteZ gu@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@TesterTest SchoolTest DistrictAL~~obZ @?@@@@@??? @? @????@?@Joanne RitchieRogers City High SchoolRogers City Area SchoolsRogers CityMI(517) 734-4013rcstech@lhi.netjZ 3@@@@@@@??? @? @????@@@Joanne RitchieGrambau E [Name]% ' @ '  [Company]( g [Department]+ g  [Title]& g  [ContactID]* g [Name]% g Commitments'''   G    G Commitments.Company2 ' @ ' Commitments.Department5 g Commitments.Title0 g Commitments.Name/ g Commitments.Company2 g Commitments.ContactID4 g Commitments'''   G  G    G ColumbiaClark LakeMIfZ c@?@@@@@@@@@@ @?@ @??@@@?@pk whitemeachemsyracuse city schoolssyracuseNY315-435-4610pkeil@aol.commdZ 6@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@??ZZZZZZZZ @@@@@@@@@@@@ @@?@ @??@@?@John SheleyTurlington WoodsSuffolkSuffolkVA757-638-3315jnosheley@earthlink.netygZ R @@@@@@@@@ @@ @@ @@@@@@@@@@@Anne RassbachThe Prairie SchoolThe Prairie SchoolRacineWI262-260-3845arassbach@prairieschool.com}iZ % @?@@@@@@@@?@@ZZZZZZZZ @@@@@@@@@@@ @@ @@@@@@@@@Sherry WheatHigh SchoolCaboolCaboolMO417-962-3153cdz011@mail.connect.more.net}uhZ F@??@@@@@@ @@@@@@@?@??@Karen DominoWillow RunWillow RunWillow RUnMI734-994-8100kdomino@wash.k12.mi.usthZ y@@@@ @?@@ @ @ @ @ @@ZZZZZZZZ x_@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@????@@@C JohnsonJWP Public SchoolsISD 2835JanesvilleMN507.234.5181cjohnson@jwp.k12.mn.usyeZ 3 @@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@chaoying yanThe Prairie SchoolTPSracineWI262-260-4348cyan@priaireschool.com|hZ @@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@Kim BrownBelleuve EastBelleuve PublicBellevueNE402-669-7164brownkime@hotmail.comteZ gu@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@TesterTest SchoolTest DistrictAL~~obZ @?@@@@@??? @? @????@?@Joanne RitchieRogers City High SchoolRogers City Area SchoolsRogers CityMI(517) 734-4013rcstech@lhi.netjZ 3@@@@@@@??? @? @????@@@Joanne RitchieGrambau E [Name]% ' @ '  [Company]( g [Department]+ g  [Title]& g  [ContactID]* g [Name]% g Commitments'''   G    G Commitments.Company2 ' @ ' Commitments.Department5 g Commitments.Title0 g Commitments.Name/ g Commitments.Company2 g Commitments.ContactID4 g Commitments'''   G  G    G PrimaryKeyResponseIDSQID }#4.0#9#C:\PROGRAM FILES\COMMON FILES\MICROSOFT SHARED\VBA\VBA6\VBE6.DLL#Visual Basic For Applications*\G{4AFFC9A0-5F99-101B-AF4E-00AA003F0F07}#9.0#0#C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office\MSACC9.OLB#Microsoft Access 9.0 Object Library*\G{00020430-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#2.0#0#C:\WINNT\System32\STDOLE2.TLB#OLE Automation*\G{00025E01-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#5.0#0#C:\WINNT\System32\DAO350.DLL#Microsoft DAO 3.5 Object LibraryH*\G{0002E157-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#5.0#0#C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\VBA\VBEEXT1.OLB#Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications Extensibility }9 _x %AccessVBAWin16~Win32MacVBA6#G1Survey,stdole`DAOVBIDEAH    /'d _ Z g  ~  k  T4z'o6pMg T A -}o@@TPResponses?C@~DDD88888886 @iKN@@TPQuestions?ئ@DDD88888886 @eU@'@TPPointMaster?p@HHH<<<<<<<: @'@Գ@TPMainMeanTemp?أ @JJJ>>>>>>>< @Rm@'@TPMain?x@~:::......., @6@//@Testimonies?ة@~DDD88888886 @KL@QT^L@StarResponses?C@|HHH<<<<<<<: @LFL@.JL@StarQuestions?؛@|HHH<<<<<<<: @A-L@ML@StarPointMaster?p@}LLL@@@@@@@> @e@L@StarMainMeanTemp?# @}NNNBBBBBBB@ @@B@StarMain?x@|>>>22222220 @@K @Operators?G@|@@@44444442 @ @]dp@News?ذ@z666*******( @jWM@;XM@MSysAccessObjects?DDDDDDDDDDB @.1BM@Members?0@~<<<0000000. @ XLl@q]l@Find duplicates for Commitments2?Z@xnnnbbbbbbb` @ ؽk@k@Find duplicates for Commitments?@x@wxll```````^ @@@Contacts?w@z>>>22222220 @t@9k@Commitments?S@yDDD88888886 @ @@Chapters?q@y>>>22222220 @X@P@CBlocks?ا@x<<<0000000. @G6L@(CL@Answers?w@x<<<0000000. @ @\n@UserDefined?A@xDDD88888886 @ mп@\n@SummaryInfo?ؤ@xDDD88888886 @ ?B@I-O@AccessLayout?4MR2KeepLocal T@zz:::::::8 @@@SysRel?.........., @@Scripts?0000000000. @@Reports?0000000000. @@Modules?0000000000. @@Forms?,,,,,,,,,,* @@DataAccessPages?@@@@@@@@@@> @@MSysRelationships>DDDDDDDDDDB @@MSysQueries>88888888886 @@MSysACEs>22222222220 @@MSysObjects>88888888886 @NL@MSysDb?@x:::......., @@@Relationships><<<<<<<<<<: @@Databases>44444444442 @@Tables>.........., M YN Y  Y d Y Ad Y ` Y L( Y LA Y Ad Y d Y L( Y  LAd Y Ad Y Y  Y LAAnswerIDVNumbersReportsReportTitleReportDateReportFocusReportCoverReportContentsFeedbackTypes MonthsStatesLStatesSTerritoryCountriesALALLAALALLAYYAnswerIDPrimaryKey35465789:;<=>?@ A B C D EFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW X!Y"Z#[$\%]&^'_(`)a*b+c,d-e.f/g0h1i2j3k4l5m6n7o8p9q:r;s<t=u>v?w@xAyBzC{D|E}F~GHIJKLMNOPQRSTU      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTe "High Tech". In these schools, students frequently use networked multimedia computers that are connected to the Internet and World Wide Web in the classroom. <P>Many teachers at High Tech schools have integrated technology into the classroom and students use that technology to research, create and communicate as well as to practice basic skills. Students in High Tech schools develop a repertoire of skills enabling exploration of possibilities too cumbersome or difficult without the assistance of technology. A five-year study of Apple Computer's Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) program found that students become independent and collaborative problem solvers, theorists, communicators, record keepers and learners with their computers.<sup>31</Hv1bd5 q N (  h I *  V 2  ^ :  a B #  iJ+ qK" Y pResponseResponseIDSQID Letter:UL@;UL@StarResponses::::::::::: :UL@:UL@StarQuestions::::::::::: :UL@;UL@StarPointMaster>>>>>>>>>>> *L@:UL@StarMainMeanTemp@@@@@@@@@@@ *L@+L@StarMain00000000000 *L@*L@Operators22222222222 *L@*L@News((((((((((( *L@+L@MSysModules288888888888 <b Extended ;aShort :dz@ 9c|@ 8b>@ 7a.@ 6dT@ 5cQ@ 4bF@  3aR@  2d@ 1c@ 0b@  /aq@  .c@  -b@ ,a7@ + dV@ * c1@ ) b@ ( a@ ' cYes & bLimited Availability, % aNo $ cYes # bLimited Availability, " aNo ! cYes  bLimited Availability,  aNo  cYes  bLimited Availability,  aNo cYes bLimited Availability, aNo c0@ b%@ aDial-up Access& cYes bMaybe aNo cYes bMaybe aNo c:@ bOff-site, regular maintenance5  a!Off-site, irregular maintenance7  d6-25:1  cMore than 17:1& @ < LVAL0 X 0  @ @     @@@? @ @? @ @@?@@@@jean whittinghamfrenchs forestwarringahsydneyAL61294517872jmatheso@hutch.com.au|lZ"@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@ @@@@@@@@@@@@Teresa HailPulaski ElementaryPulaski CountySomersetKY{gZ! @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Ronald W PetersonCook High SchoolCook School SystemAdelGA912 896 2213rpeterson@cook.k12.ga.usmZ )@@?@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @@?@??@Howard County ParentqHowrad County SchoolHoward CountyHoward CountyMDqZr @@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@Gayle WilsonNorth Forsyth High SchoolForsyth CountyCummingGA770.781.6637gwilson@forsyth.k12.ga.ushZd @@?@@@@@@@@@@@ @@?@@@@@@Melissa WarrenBrown ElementaryWhitehouse ISDWhitehouseTX(903) 839-5610warrenm@whit.sprnet.org|jZd @@?@@@@@@@@@@@ @@?@@@@@@Melissa WarrenBrown ElementaryWhitehouse ISDWhitehouseTX(903) 839-5610warrenm@whit.sprnet.org|jZG@@?@@@@@@@@@@@ @??@??@j. TroutToombs MiddleToombs CountyGAsdZ@@??@@@@@@ @@ @@@@@@@@@@@@Joanna SeymourSt. Patrick SchoolArchdiocese of DubuqueCedar FallsIA319.277.6781jseymour@cfu.net~jZ??@@ @@@@@ @@? @@@?@@?@ZZZZZZZZF (a focus on digital learning) <FONT SIZE="1"> <UL> <LI><a href="/downloads/report3.pdf">Year 3 Report</a> (PDF version is 742k- please(a focus on outcom(a focus on outcomes & assessment)(a focus on digital learning) (a focus on teacher preparation) (a focus on professional development) (a focus on hardware & connectivity) 2Lz X  q # l U  L RKUR=n7z;y2TennesseeTNDenmark ,1South DakotaSDCzech Republic( ,0South CarolinaSCCyprus" ,/Rhode IslandRICuracao! ,.Puerto RicoPRCroatia  <-PennsylvaniaPACosta Rica$ ,,PalauPWCook Islands  <+OregonORCongo ,*OklahomaOKColombia ,)OhioOHChina, Peoples Republic of,  ,(Northern Mariana IslandsMPChile+$  <'North DakotaNDChannel Islands) ,&North CarolinaNCChad  ,%New YorkNYCentral African Republic. ,$New MexicoNMCayman Islands& ,#New JerseyNJCape Verde Islands* ,"New HampshireNHCanary Islands) ,!NevadaNVCanada , NebraskaNECameroon ,MontanaMTCambodia ,MissouriMOBurundi ,MississippiMSBurkina Faso% ,MinnesotaMNBulgaria ,MichiganMIBrunei ,MassachusettsMABritish Virgin Islands1 ,MarylandMDBrazil ,Marshall IslandsMHBotswana& <MaineMEBosnia  ,LouisianaLABonaire ,twentyoneKentuckyKYBolivia( ,twentyKansasKSBermuda# ,nineteenIowaIABenin! ,eighteenIndianaINBelarus& ,seventeenIllinoisILBelize' ,sixteenIdahoIDBelgium# ,fifteenHawaiiHIBarbados% ,fourteenGuamGUBangladesh& < thirteenGeorgiaGABahrain& , twelveDecemberFloridaFLBahamas.%! . elevenNovemberFederated States of MicronesiaFMAzoresD<8 > tenOctoberDistrict of ColumbiaDCAustria7.*  . nineSeptemberDelawareDEAustralia0%!  .eightAugustConnecticutCTAruba-&"  .sevenJulyColoradoCOArgentina,!  .sixJuneCaliforniaCAAntigua & Barbuda4!  .fiveYear 4 ReportSpring 2001(@report5.gifMayArkansasARAnguilla^TPFAAA4(  w.fourYear 3 ReportSchool Technology and ReadinessSummer 2000b@report4.gifcontents-00.gifSuggestionAprilArizonaAZAndorrasbUI<  /threeTeacher Preparation STaR ChartA Self-Assessment Tool for Colleges of EducationJanuary 2000_@tpreport.gifcontents-99.gifComplaintMarchAmerican SamoaASAmerican Samoaym_-  ?twoYear 2 ReportProfessional Development: A Link to Better LearningFebruary 1999@99report.gifcontents-98.gifComplimentFebruaryAlaskaAKAlgeriaxj^O  /oneYear 1 ReportFrom Pillars to ProgressOctober 1997@97report.gifcontents-97.gifQuestionJanuaryAlabamaALAlbaniawm\NB4  /QJ O  g 3 l 9   R ' p @  \ 1  zM"k>^2S&g< V(m=Y, on-site technicMyanmar  Mozambique  Morocco  Montserrat  Monaco  ~Moldova  }Mexico  |Mauritius  {Mauritania  zMartinique  yMarshall Islands  xMalta   wMali   vMaldives  uMalaysia  tMalawi  sMadeira  rMadagascar  qMacedonia  pMacau   oLuxembourg  nLithuania  mLiechtenstein  lLiberia  kLesotho  jLebanon  iLatvia  hLaos   gKyrgyzstan  fKuwait  eKosrae  dKiribati  cKenya   bKazakhstan  aJordan  `Japan   _Jamaica  ^Ivory Coast  ]Italy   \Israel  [Indonesia  ZIndia   YIceland  XHungary  WHong Kong  VHonduras  UHolland  THaiti   SGuyana  RGuinea-Bissau  QGuinea  PGuatemala  OGuam   NGuadeloupe  MGrenada  LGreenland  KGreece  JGibraltar  IGhana   HGermany  GGeorgia  FGambia  EGabon   DFrench Polynesia  CFrench Guiana  BFrance  AFinland  @Fiji   ?Federated States of Micronesia&  >Faeroe Islands  =Ethiopia  <UnknownZZEstonia ,;WyomingWYEritrea ,:WisconsinWIEquitorial Guinea( ,9West VirginiaWVEngland" ,8WashingtonWAEl Salvador# ,7VirginiaVAEgypt ,6Virgin IslandsVIEcuador# <5VermontVTDominican Republic' ,4UtahUTDominica  ,3TexasTXDjibouti  ,Rw= R ~ T & k A  Y . d :  Z , n@zO U'\,b6R$uHR&chers they eduUkraine  Uganda  Tuvalu  Turks & Caicos Islands  Turkey  Tunisia  Truk   Trinidad & Tobago  Tortola  Tonga   Togo   Tinian  Thailand  Tanzania  Tajikistan  Taiwan  Tahiti  Syria   Switzerland  Sweden  Swaziland  Suriname  Sudan   St. Vincent & the Grenadines$  St. Thomas  St. Martin  St. Maarten  St. Lucia  St. Kitts & Nevis  St. John  St. Eustatius  St. Croix  St. Christopher  St. Barthelemy  Sri Lanka  Spain   South Korea  South Africa  Solomon Islands  Slovenia  Slovakia  Singapore  Sierra Leone  Seychelles  Senegal  Scotland  Saudi Arabia  Saipan  Saba   Rwanda  Russia  Rota   Romania  Reunion  Republic of Yemen  Republic of Ireland  Qatar   Puerto Rico  Portugal  Ponape  Poland  Philippines  Peru   Paraguay  Papua New Guinea  Panama  Palau   Pakistan  Oman   Norway  Northern Mariana Islands   Northern Ireland  Norfolk Island  Nigeria  Niger   Nicaragua  New Zealand  New Caledonia  Netherlands Antilles  Netherlands  Nepal   Namibia  0 `-l= E  d ed and virtually every available technology was infused into the school. The student to computer ratio improved to a ratio of 2:1. Expert teachers trained by the district primarily led the training sessions for their peers. A critical element of the successful transformation was changing the school schedule to allow teachers daily planning time and weekly group planning time. As a result of its innovative efforts, Willow Bend has jumped from one of the district's lowest performing schools to one of its highest performing schools despite high student turnover and a large language minority population.</font> <P> <b>6. Provide Resources, Incentives, and On-Going Support.</b><BR> A collective willingness to create the time and devote the resources to technology professional development is essential. The school community needs mechanisms to enable teachers to focus on professional development activities without jeopardizing their students and without primarily relying on teacher personal time. In addition, schools and districts should accept the risk of trying new ideas and testing creative approaches to help create an environment in which teachers are encouraged to experiment and students are inspired to learn. <P><font color="999999"><B>A Win-Win Deal</B><BR> The new contract between Brunswick City Schools and the Ohio Education Association Union is a win-win deal when it comes to professional development. Under the contract, teachers are paid at the substitute rate to attend professional development workshops durinZimbabwe  Zambia  Zaire   Yap   Western Samoa  Wallis & Futuna Islands  Wales   Wake Island  Virgin Gorda  Vietnam  Venezuela  Vanuatu  Uzbekistan  US Virgin Islands  Uruguay  United States  United Kingdom  United Arab Emirates  Union Island   @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @           ! "!#"$#%$&%'&(')(*)+*,+-,.-/.0/10213456789:;< = > ? @ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS T!U"V#W$X%Y&Z'[(\)]*^+_,`-a.b/c0d1e2f3g4h5i6j7k8l9m:n;o<p=q>r?s@tAuBvCwDxEyFzG{H|I}J~KLMNOP      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ     `e B ? @ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS T!U"V#W$X%Y&Z'[(\)]*^+_,`-a.b/c0d1e2f3g4h5i6j7k8l9m:n;o<p=q>r?s@tAuBvCwDxEyFzG{H|I}J~KLMNOP      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ     f schools where 71 percent or more were eligible for free or reduced price lunches - a difference of 25 percentage points.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">90</a></sup> Also, 84 percent of schools where minority enrollment is less than six percent had access to the Internet compared to 63 percent of schools where minority enrollment is greater than 50 percent -- a difference of 21 percentage points.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">91</a></sup> <P>Though schools in all categories are lowering their student to computer ratios, schools in rich districts are doing it faster. In the 1997-1998 school xxxxTonga    Y N  Y  Y d Y A Y , Y ,JY Y  Y  CopyID MarkerContextIDCopyDestinationUpdatedOperator KilledAJ,AJ,A,JAAJ,AJ,A,JAAJ,AJ,A,JAYYYContextID CopyIDPrimaryKey local-area networks <LI>Whether the school has one or more local-area-networks <LI>Whether the school has a subscription to an on-line service or has Internet access in labs or classrooms <LI>Whether the school has a direct Internet connection <LI>The number of scanner devices per 100 students <LI>The number of VCR units per 100 students enrolled <LI>The percent of all instructional computers that are either Pentiums or Power Macintoshes <LI>The number of multimedia computers (QED-defined) per 100 students <LI>Whether the school has a dial-up Internet connection <LI>The number of digital cameras per 100 students enrolled <LI>The number of administrative computers per 100 students enrolled <LI>The number of projection devices per 100 students enrolled </OL> <P><B>STaR Assessment</B><BR> The CEO Forum's 1998 STaR Assessment is derived from Quality Education Data's (QED) Technology Measure,&#153; which was created by Dr. Henry Becker, Professor of Education at the University of California, Irvine. Drawing approximately 80,000 schools from QED's National Education Database&#153;of more than 87,000 public schools, the QED Technology Measure uses 15 variables to create a single index that measures the hardware and connections present in schools. These variables are listed to the left. <P>Each school is assigned a &quot;raw&quot; value ranging from one to seven, where seven indicates the most technology and connections present. When the data listed was improbable, noxx Truk   v1b@ LVALT 53 @ @For more information about the CEO Forum on Education &amp; Technology, contact: <blockquote> Kathy Rodi<br> Project Director<br> <b>CEO Forum on Education If you've had a favorable experience with a CEOIf you've had a favorable experience with a CEO forum event or publication, please let us know.For more information about the CEO Forum on Education & Technology, contact:
Kathy Rodi
Project Director
CEO Forum on Education & Technology
1341 G Street, N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 585-0209
rodi@itstrategies.com
If you are interested in being placed on the CEO Forum mailing list, please fill out the form below. Fields in red are required.CEO Forum has published two reports and has plans for three more in the next 2 years.The CEO Forum on Education and Technology was founded in the fall of 1996 to help ensure that America's schools effectively prepare all students to be contributing citizens and productive workers in the 21st Century. To meet this objective, the Forum will issue an annual assessment of the nation's progress toward integrating technology into American classrooms through the year 2000.In the spring of 1996, President Clinton issued a challenge to business and community leaders asking for their help in achieving national educational technology goals. Similarly, the Congress, in passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, also made education and technology a national priority.

In order to meet the national challenge, President Clinton identified four substantive components that will be critical to the full integration of technology into the classroom. The CEO Forum has subsequently concluded that, in order to best achieve its mission, its annual assessment should be focused on these four issues:

It is no longer unreasonable to expect that the education offered to the nation's children will be improved through the integration of technology into the classroom, unfortunately many impediments to that integration still lie ahead. For this reason, the CEO Forum will examine the progress that is being made in deploying educational technology throughout the schools, highlight the barriers that prevent its implementation and offer workable solutions that break down these barriers.The CEO Forum on Education and Technology was founded to help ensure that every child in the United States is equipped with the essential technological, critical thinking, and communications skills necessary to compete in the 21st century. The Forum intends to pursue this objective through an annual education and technology assessment aimed at measuring the nation's progress through our public schools. The annual assessment will be based on the School Technology and Readiness methodology that has been developed by the CEO Forum. At its foundation is the integration of four issues that have been identified as critical to the process of teaching and learning: hardware, content, connectivity, and professional development. By regularly highlighting the importance of education technology and monitoring its deployment in the schools, the CEOs seek to accelerate the country's progress in preparing our children for the next century.9  v4V! [ The growth of technology infrastructure in the K-12 sector has been documented in regular data collection (e.g., NCES, Quality Education Data, and Market Data Retrieval), but the data regarding technology expenditures and deployment in the 1,300 institutions that prepare teachers is more limited. Two recent studies, one in 1996 by the the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE) (<a href="http://www.aacte.org">www.aacte.org</a>), and the other in 1998 by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)(<a href="http://www.iste.org">www.iste.org</a>) for the Milken Exchange on Education Technology (<a href="http://www.milkenexchange.org">www.milkenexchange.org</a>), offer a window into the status of technology in teacher preparation institutions nationwide. Though limited (only about 1/3 of institutions responded to either study), the findings indicate that the biggest challenge facing institutions today is preparing faculty to model the effective use of technology as a teaching and learning tool. <p> In 1998, the Campus Computing Project (<a href="http://www.campuscomputing.net">www.campuscomputing.net</a>) conducted the  National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education which targeted chief technology officers (CTOs) at two- and four-year colleges and universities across the country. These results provide another assessment of technology in teacher preparation programs. When asked to compare their information technology components in programs across their campuses, CTOs ranked their education programs high i @@cTestimoniesa@../testimony.cfm;){ `@cNews Releases../news.cfm,s`@cContact Us@../contact.cfm8({`@cWhats New../home.cfm(s@cReportsW@../reports.cfm5%{@dAbout@../about.cfm1#{@cMembersCurrent CEO Forum members:../members.cfmQA{@dHistoryE@../history.cfm5%{@dBackground,F../background.cfm;({@dMission@../mission.cfm5%{.LVAL,F>I , The CEO Forum on Education and Technology was created to follow up on the excellent work done by the President's National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIIAC) in the area of education technology. The NIIAC KickStart Initiative was the first major effort by the private sector to identify the importance of integrating technology into the classrooms and to develop an initiative to make it happen. Then, in February of 1996, President Clinton issued his technology literacy challenge, at which time he challenged leaders from across the country to work together to connect all schools to the Internet by the year 2000. The CEO Forum's founders were excited and energized by the President's challenge. However, many were concerned that once this issue had lost its political momentum, the important work that has been done to date would not continue. To prevent this, these chief executives from both the industry and education communities created the CEO Forum on Education and Technology. <P>As part of his challenge, President Clinton identified four critical elements -- these have become known as the "four pillars." These are: <UL> <LI>Connections -- Ensuring that all schools are connected to the Internet <LI>Hardware -- Ensuring that schools have adequate hardware for instructional use <LI>Content -- Ensuring that appropriate content exists for teachers to integrate into their curricula <LI>Professional Development -- Ensuring that teachers are equipped with the necessary skills to integrate the technology into the curriculum. </ul> <P>Separately, these pillars may have little or no effect on learning. Taken together, these pillars represent the extent to which technology has been adopted in America's schools. The CEO Forum will measure nation's progress in both the individual pillars and their integration. In addition, the Forum is committed to identifying those areas where the country is falling short and offer recommendations as to how to overcome these gaps.  B! 8-555-1212vrlf`Z @??@@@??? @ @ @ @ @?????@PeterCSONewcastleNewcae categories with similar attributes into single categories. Categories one and two comprise &quot;Low Tech&quot; schools, category three represents &Ograve;Mid Tech&Oacute; schools, categories four and five comprise &quot;High Tech&quot; schools and categories six and seven comprise &quot;Target Tech&quot; schools. <P>The QED National Education Database is annually updated by data collected through mail, telephone, and on-line surveys. However, the difficulty of obtaining current technology data on each school means that some data is older than others. More than one-half of the 80,000 schools were updated in the last twelve months. For outdated schools, data is adjusted for likely technology improvements. For more information, see <A HREF="http://survey.qeddata.com/" TARGET="_blank">http://survey.qeddata.com</A> <P><B>Star Chart</B> <BR> The six columns of the CEO Forum STaR Chart -- Hardware, Connectivity, Content, Professional Development, Integration and Use, and Educational Benefits -- were created using a variety of sources. The Hardware and Connectivity sections were created using information from QED s National Education Database&amp;#153. The Content section was compiled from interviews and from logical assumptions about the activities that different technology infrastructures allow. The Professional Development section was compiled from interviews conducted by McKinsey and Company and supplemented by academic research. The Integration and Use section was compiled from interviews and academic research. Fixx United Arab Emirates    @   DateUpdate FlagsForeignNameIdLvLvExtraLvModule LvPropName OwnerParentIdRmtInfoLongRmtInfoShortTypeniYYIdParentIdName        .</FONT> <LI><A NAME="4"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Survey numbers for the student to &quot;top of the line&quot; computer ratio vary. According to 1999 figures from Quality Education Data, the ratio the machines powered by Pentium&#153; or Apple equivalent microprocessors is more than 50:1. Market Data Retrieval reports in its 1998 <U>Technology in Education</U> report that the national average is 14:1.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="5"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. <U>Internet Access in Public Schools</U>, March 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="6"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Ibid.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="7"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Quality Education Data. <U>Technology Purchasing Forecast</U>, 1998-1999.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="8"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Wenglinsky, Harold. Educational Testing Service, <U>Does it Compute</U>? September 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="9"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) NETS Project, <U>National Educational Technology Standards for Students</U>, June 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="10"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">U.S. Department of Commerce. <U>Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide</U>, 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="11"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">U.S. Census Bureau. <U>Statistical Abstract of the United StatexxxxUnited Kingdom    @   NT SIZE="-1">Executive Office the President, President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. Interim Report to the President, August, 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="15"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Wenglinsky, Harold. Educational Testing Service, <U>Does it Compute?</U> September 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="16"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Ibid.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="17"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Quality Education Data. <U>Technology Purchasing Forecast</U>, 1998-1999.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="18"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">U.S. Department of Education. <U>Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century</U>, 1996.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="19"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Milken Exchange on Technology. <U>Second Annual Public Opinion Survey</U>, 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="20"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Congressional Institute for the Future as reported by David D. Thornburg, &quot;Reading for the Future,&quot; <U>Electronic School</U>, June 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="21"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Thornburg, David D. &quot;<I>Reading the Future</I>,&quot; <U>Electronic School</U>, June 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="22"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">U.S. Department of Commerce. <U>The Emerging Digital Economy</U>, April 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="23"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Ibid.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="24"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). <U>What Work Requires of Schools</U>, Department of Labor, 1991.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="25"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Thornburg, David D., &quot;<I>Reading the Future</I>,&quot; <U>Electronic School</U>, June 1998.</FONT> <xxxxUnited States   Y22N  !!22222Y Y Y  Y , Y  Y AdY Y  Y IDChapterIDReportID ChNameChapterGraphic GWidthGHeight KilledAA!AAA!AAA!AYYYPrimaryKeyReportIDReportID1!!; Apple Computer's Classrooms of Tomorrow program; and &quot;<I>WICAT Systems Staff Development Program: Using Technology to Train Teachers in the Use of Technology</I>,&quot; by Janet W. Azbell and James E. Schnitz presented to the Society for Applied Learning Technology, August 25, 1989.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="52"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Green, Kenneth C. and Steven W. Gilbert. &quot;<I>Great Expectations</I>&quot; <U>Change</U>, March 1995.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="53"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Interview with Dwayne Young, November 25, 1998.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="54"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Training Magazine. &quot;<I>Industry Report</I>,&quot; 1997.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="55"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Ibid.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="56"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">International Data Corporation. 1997 <U>Survey of Education Buyers' Needs and Requirements</U>, Report #14651, October 1997.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="57"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Harvard Business School Case Program. Motorola, March 1997.</FONT> <LI><A NAME="58"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Maurer, Dr. Matthew M. &quot;<I>The Junior Professor Project</I>.&quot; Online. The North Central Educational Laboratory Homepage, June 1998 <A HREF="http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/highered/maurer.htm#issue" TARGET="_blank">www.ncrel.org/sdrs/highered/maurer.htm#issue</A></FONT> <LI><A NAME="59"></A><FONT SIZE="-1">Interview with Jack Gittinger, June 1998. Also: Gittinger, Jack. &quot;<I>An Integrated Approach to Educational Technology for Prxxv1b<b>1. Strategic planning incorporating technology</b><br> College or university leaders committed to integrating technology in all aspects of teaching and lInstitutional change comes from the bottom up as well as from the top down, as students, faculty, and alumni take rInstitutional change comes from the bottom up as well as from the top down, as students, faculty, and alumni take responsibility for using technology to advance the teaching and learning goals of the teacher preparation institution.Just as the principal provides the vision for a K-12 school, the dean sets the tone for what will occur in the SCDE. If technology is to be an integral part of the school s vision for the future, the dean, along with the department chairs and directors of teacher education who lead key units in the program, must be committed to using technology as a catalyst for reform.4. Access to advanced technologies in campus facilities
The availability of up-to-date hardware, software, and telecommunications access throughout the campus--in dorms and study areas, in classrooms and faculty offices, in libraries and laboratories--is critical to the education of teacher candidates. This also means that access is available to students both on and off campus.

5. Campus-wide faculty development and technical support
Training and support to use campus facilities is often provided by the larger institution. The campus-wide support network should be a system that makes learning about and using technology a seamless process throughout the institution.1. Strategic planning incorporating technology
College or university leaders committed to integrating technology in all aspects of teaching and learning on campus will be far better positioned to ensure that technology is a part of the learning environment for their students. But university leadership must go further. As the American Council of Education report said in their 1999 Action Agenda for College and University Presidents, the "first and most important action for college and university presidents is to move the education of teachers to the center of their professional and institutional agenda. They must clarify and articulate the strategic connection of teacher education to the mission of the institution."

2. Funding for technology in SCDE
Institutional leadership must translate into financial support for the teacher preparation program. Most SCDEs receive over half (54 percent on average) of their funding from the institution as a whole. Thus, support translates into the dollars needed for building the human and technological infrastructure of the teacher education program. It also means giving the SCDE the green light to seek financial support from those donors (foundations and businesses) whose support has typically been targeted for business, engineering, computer science, and other high visibility colleges  LVAL?F#America's strength as a nation has always depended on a strong education system that prepares its students to be contributing citizens and productive members of the workforce. In today's world, successfully educating students requires new levels of commitment and a call to action from every segment of society. <P><b>Introduction and Overview</b><BR> American schools must provide the opportunity to combine the best of traditional learning with the unprecedented opportunities technology offers. <P>To thrive in today's world and tomorrow's work place, America's students must learn how to learn, learn how to think and have a solid understanding of how technology works and what it can do. American schools must, therefore, provide students with the opportunity to combine the best of traditional learning with the unprecedented opportunities technology offers. <P>Schools cannot do it alone. School board members, teachers and administrators, as well as students, parents, government representatives and community and business leaders, must make a new commitment to a strong, dynamic 21st century education system. <P><b>The CEO Forum</b><BR> The CEO Forum on Education and Technology is a unique partnership among 21 U.S. business and education leaders who are also parents, grandparents and community members. During the last year, Forum members have worked together to leverage their collective experience, commitment and resources to make a difference in American schools. Guided by a shared belief in the need for top-quality education, the CEO Forum defined its mission: to build a common understanding of the issues and realities associated with the use of technology in education today, and to assess how ready our schools are for teaching and learning in the 21st century. <P><b>Technology and Education Today</b><BR> Outside school walls, technology has fundamentally transformed the way people live and work. From ATM machines to e-mail, technology use is embedded in ourLVAL$ personal lives. The same is true at work. Technology is now a primary tool used in every job from shipping and bookstore clerk to corporate CEO. Employers not only expect employees in today's work place to master basic technology use, but increasingly challenge them to use it creatively to trim costs, increase productivity and improve results. But what about technology inside school walls? <P>The explosive growth of the Internet and the World Wide Web coupled with networked technology, creates new and exciting opportunities for melding technology and learning. Capitalizing on these opportunities depends on more than the presence of hardware and access to the Internet in the classroom. As President Clinton articulated in his 1996 Technology Literacy Challenge, our national education and technology objectives must include improvements in "Four Pillars": 1) hardware; 2) connectivity; 3) digital content; and 4) professional development. These Four Pillars provide a foundation for creating an innovative learning environment where students and teachers can reach beyond the confines of a single school building for information, interaction and enrichment. <P>America's schools have made solid progress in the Hardware and Connectivity Pillars in recent years as highlighted in Appendix A. Now, however, schools must continue making progress in these Pillars, while increasing their attention to the equally critical Content and Professional Development Pillars. <P><b>From Pillars to Progress</b><BR> The CEO Forum believes the key to creating the best possible learning environment in 21st century schools is the seamless integration of all Four Pillars throughout the curriculum. The members of the CEO Forum do, however, know technology is not a panacea for all education challenges. In fact, with student populations growing7 and many buildings and facilities aging,8 every school has its own unique priorities that compete for limited resources. In addition, all schools must ensuLVAL'%re that the drive to integrate technology does not supplant the fundamental need to provide all students with basic skills such as reading and math. As corporate America and schools at the leading edge of technology integration have learned, however, technology can be an effective tool for meeting these and other core objectives. <P><b>STaR Chart</b><BR> The CEO Forum has developed the School Technology and Readiness Chart (STaR Chart) to provide a clear framework for assessing how prepared American schools are to meet the education challenges of the 21st century. The STaR Chart describes technology presence, use and integration in a typical school in four school profiles ranging from the "Low Technology" school that uses technology primarily for administrative functions, to the "Target Technology" school that integrates technology throughout the curriculum. The STaR Chart also highlights the potential educational benefits each level of technology integration offers. Together, this information can help a school identify its current educational technology profile and, based on the educational outcomes it values, target its future profile. <P>The STaR Chart is located in the center of this report. The CEO Forum encourages teachers, administrators, school board members, students and parents to pull it out and use it as a tool to gauge whether their school is preparing its students for the 21st century. The CEO Forum also urges technology leaders in every American school to use the STaR Chart to prioritize their objectives and develop an educational technology plan that will help ensure the effective allocation of resources, and the best possible educational outcomes. <P><b>Annual National STaR Assessment</b><BR> Beginning this year and for each of the next three years, the CEO Forum will use the STaR Chart as the backdrop for an assessment of how ready our nation's schools are to effectively use technology to enhance teaching and learning. This year's STaR AsseLVAL&ssment, which is based on hardware and connectivity data collected from nearly 80,000 public schools nationwide as well as supplementary data from various other sources, finds that almost 60% of our nation's schools are "Low Tech" schools, lacking adequate classroom technology. In comparison, only 3% of schools nationwide have fully integrated technology into the classroom. This initial assessment, detailed on page 12, will serve as the baseline measure for the CEO Forum's future assessments. <P><b>Future Research</b><BR> Through its work on this report, the CEO Forum has clarified the need for data to gauge whether students truly benefit from classroom technology. As an increasing number of American schools struggle with decisions about how to allocate limited resources for technology acquisition, upgrades and integration, new measurement tools are needed to assess the cumulative effects of technology on learning. <P>In addition, despite the CEO Forum's unprecedented access to the data resources of Quality Education Data (QED) in preparing this report, more complete and comprehensive future assessments require additional school and classroom data on hardware and connectivity as well as content and professional development. The CEO Forum believes there is also a need for specific data about the extent of technology integration in classrooms. The CEO Forum will conduct new research into these areas and encourages others to help fill the data gaps. <P><b>SIDEBAR:</b><BR> <b>Technology in the World Today</b><BR> <UL> <LI>Nearly 1 out of every 4 adults in the U.S. has access to online services.<sup>1</sup> In addition, the number of global World Wide Web users is expected to grow from 28 million at the end of 1996 to 175 million at the end of 2001.<sup>2</sup> However, only 14% of the nation's classrooms have access to the Internet.<sup>3</sup> <LI>By 1994, 62% of America's workforce was comprised of "knowledge workers" whose primary job responsibilities focused on LVAL'creating, organizing and communicating information -- and demand for such workers is growing.<sup>4</sup> Further, studies indicate that computer-proficient workers will be rewarded with a 10-15% pay premium over workers without such skills.<sup>5</sup> However, most schools are failing to teach the creativity, problem solving and life-long learning skills required in the new economy.<sup>6</sup> </ul> <P><b>Year 1 Recommendations and Challenges</b><BR> Every segment of society has a role to play in ensuring that our nation's students receive the best possible education. To that end, the CEO Forum offers the following recommendations and challenges: <P>The CEO Forum challenges all Americans to work together to develop and implement creative educational technology initiatives that increase the percentage of American schools in the "Target Tech" category from 3% in 1997 to at least 50% by 2005. <UL> <LI>For the next three years, the CEO Forum will issue an annual assessment of national progress toward school technology and readiness using the STaR Chart as a backdrop and the 1997 STaR Assessment as a baseline measure. <LI>To enable more robust future assessments of the state of technology presence and integration in American schools, the CEO Forum will work with others to define and collect additional data, particularly on the integration of hardware, connectivity, content and professional development. <LI>The CEO Forum encourages teachers, students, administrators, school board members and parents to use the STaR Chart in their schools to help identify their school's current technology profile and then, by prioritizing education objectives, develop an educational technology plan that will maximize available resources as the school moves forward to integrate technology into the classroom. <LI>The CEO Forum urges the business community to continue working with educators and community leaders to identify and achieve a set of 21st century education objectives that will ensure that today' LVAL j%s students can succeed in tomorrow's society and work force. <LI>The CEO Forum urges universities, policy makers, research institutions and the private sector to work together to define and develop state-of-the-art measurement tools that will enable a realistic assessment of the effect of technology integration on the process of teaching and learning. <LI>The CEO Forum urges policy makers at the local, state and federal levels to ensure that public schools have the funding they need to acquire and effectively integrate technology and education. </ul> +pj# K  6 \  C }  tI:u]nv + Education Deans and Directors of Teacher Education: SCDE Leadership.pF99-side-12.gifo_S * Roles for the Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education (SCDEs)y@99-side-11.gifqaU ) University Chancellors, College Presidents, Provosts, and All Deans: Campus-wide Infrastructure@99-side-10.gif|p ( University Chancellors, College Presidents, Provosts, and All Deans: Campus-wide LeadershipG@99-side-09.gifxl 'Roles for the College or University as a Whole@99-side-08.gifZJ> &Part II: Understanding the STaR Chart@99-side-07.gifQA5 %The Good News: Investing in Technology Provides the Opportunity to Jumpstart Teacher Preparation Reform@99-side-06.gifw $Key Considerations in Creating the Teacher Preparation STaR ChartZ@99-side-05.gifm]Q #Why a Teacher Preparation STaR Chart?@99-side-04.gifQA5 "Current Use of Technology in Teacher PreparationmF99-side-03.gif\L@ !Preparing a New Generation of Teachers: A National CrisismF99-side-02.gifeUI Part I: Setting the Context@599-side-01.gifG7+ About the CEO ForumXmF98-side-16.gif?/# EndnotesomF98-side-16.gif4$ Year 2 Methodology:jF98-side-15.gif>." A Call for EquityX"gF98-side-14.gif=-!  Data Snapshots: The Four PillarsHfF98-side-13.gifL<0  Summary Profiles}cF98-side-12.gif<,   Background and Summary{cF98-side-11.gifB2&  Principles for Successful Technology Professional DevelopmentobF98-side-10.gifiYM  Improving Student Performance: "Target Tech" Professional Development(l[F98-side-09.gifqaU Meeting Individual Teacher Needs: The Teacher Technology Adoption ProcessBg[F98-side-08.gifueY Technology Professional Development: Critical Throughout a Teacher's Careerd^XF98-side-07.gifwg[ New Urgency0ZUF98-side-06.gif7' Technology in School: An Opportunity for Improvement\XTF98-side-05.gif`PD Section I: Professional Development: OverviewNVQF98-side-04.gifYI= Recommendations'SQF98-side-03a.gif<+ Highlights@598-side-03.gif6& Letter from the CEO ForumQQF98-side-02.gifE5) Acknowledgments@597-side-11.gif;+ Appendices Endnotes0&NQF97-side-10e.gif@/# Appendix DLMF97-side-10d.gif7& Appendix C*IMF97-side-10c.gif7& Appendix B8GMF97-side-10b.gif7& Appendix AD<JF97-side-10a.gif7& End Notes:GF97-side-09.gif5% State Statistics (bad link)97-side-08.gifH8  Future Researchj26FF97-side-07.gif;+ The CEO Forum Star ChartI@597-side-06.gifD4( The CEO Forum's National STaR Assessment>M0EF97-side-05.gifTD8 Lessons From Corporate Americaf.?F97-side-04.gifJ:. From Pillars to Progress`I)?F97-side-03.gifD4( OverviewS"?F97-side-02.gif4$LVAL?Fv1*The true benefits of technology in education can only be attained when all Four Pillars of education and technology are present and integrated into America's classrooms. <P>This is a unique time to grapple with questions of whether and how to meld technology and learning in our schools. In some ways, the prevalence of technology in society is forcing our hand. Outside school walls, technology use and integration has become a forceful presence in life. It seems, then, that schools should play a role in educating students to master the basic mechanics of technology and to understand the possibilities technology offers to learn, work and communicate in new ways. Schools must also continue providing students with basic skills such as reading, writing and computation because technology has few benefits without basic skills. <P>The CEO Forum believes we need to increase national understanding of how to make the most effective use of educational technology in the classroom. <P><b>The Four Pillars</b><BR> In 1996, President Clinton articulated a clear vision for improving 21st century education through the use of technology in American schools. Defining "Four Pillars"<sup>9</sup> as part of his Technology Literacy Challenge, the President called for broadening educational technology objectives to include not only hardware and connectivity, but also digital content and professional development. <P>Schools across the country have taken the first critical steps. The CEO Forum's research shows that technology presence in schools is increasing. Today, the national student-to-computer ratio in American schools is 9:1, representing more than a 50% improvement over the last five years.<sup>10</sup> More American schools have internal networks and access to the outside world than ever before. From 1994 to 1996, the number of schools reporting Internet access nearly doubled.<sup>11</sup> In schools serving students from low income homes, Internet access jumped 71% from 1995 LVALv1+to 1996.<sup>12</sup> While this progress is encouraging, more is needed. Schools serving students from low income homes still lag behind in computer presence and quality of connections. Rural schools also lag behind in terms of connectivity, with slower connections to the Internet than their urban and suburban counterparts.<sup>13</sup> <P>Overall, the CEO Forum's research, which is detailed in Appendix A, indicates that there has been progress in providing computers and establishing electronic networks in the nation's public schools. Nevertheless, inadequate attention and resources have been directed to quality digital content and professional development relating to technical training and classroom technology use. Without increased development in these two Pillars, and the integration of all Four Pillars, technology's potential to improve education will never be realized. <P><b>Integrating the Four Pillars</b><BR> The CEO Forum believes technology's true benefits can only be attained when all Four Pillars of education and technology are present and integrated into the classroom. The CEO Forum also believes that any discussion of technology in learning should be driven by clear education objectives. After all, the pressing question is not about what technology is available or even what a student or teacher does with it, it is about the cumulative effect that technology and its appropriate use will have on individual student performance. <P>Successful educational technology efforts share a common element: a dedicated educator who champions the adoption and integration of technology with energy, enthusiasm and a clear set of educational objectives. Objectives, clearly defined and broadly adopted, provide the foundation for developing plans, making changes and achieving results. <P><b>Meeting Educational Objectives & Measuring Benefits</b><BR> Answering the question of whether integrating technology into the classroom is a means of meeting critical educatLVALv1,ional objectives is difficult. Over the past decade, researchers have established that technology can be a helpful tutorial aid for learning basic reading and math skills. Unfortunately, research has yet to establish the best practices and distinct benefits of integrated classroom technology use. <P>As more and more anecdotal evidence is collected from leading-edge schools, the link between technology use in the classroom and student academic proficiency is becoming increasingly clear. <P>In fact, individual efforts in schools across the country have begun to correlate the use of classroom technology to meet specific education objectives and to identify the resulting real-world benefits.<sup>23</sup> Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence may not be enough. <P>America's public schools have always operated in an environment in which quantifiable measures are required to justify and support spending decisions. While some effort has been made to expand the scope of current education measurements, they still fail to provide comprehensive information about the more intangible benefits of classroom technology integration and use. <P>The CEO Forum believes there is a pressing need to develop new measurement tools capable of more fully describing the effect of technology on learning. The continued inability to capture and understand the results of educational technology integration could short-change America's students by stalling funding for the widespread, innovative use of technology as a tool for improving education. Our schools must be able to make resource allocation and planning decisions based on complete and accurate information. <P><b>President Clinton's Four Pillars</b><BR> <blockquote><b>Hardware</b><BR> All teachers and students will have modern multimedia computers in their classrooms. <P><b>Connectivity</b><BR> Every classroom will be connected to the information superhighway. <P><b>Content</b><BR> Effective software and online learning resourceLVALv1-s can increase students' learning opportunities. <P><b>Professional Development</b><BR> All teachers in the nation will have the training and support they need to help students learn using computers and the information superhighway.</blockquote> <P><b>A Quick Look At The Four Pillars Today</b><BR> <b>Hardware</b> <UL> <LI>In the 1996-1997 school year, the average student to computer ratio was 9:1 and the average student to multimedia capable computer ratio was 16 to 1.15 <LI>In 1995, reports suggest that nearly 60% of school computer purchases were used to replace old and outdated computers, resulting in only a marginal increase in the number of machines available to students.<sup>16</sup> </ul> <P><b>Connectivity</b><BR> <ul> <LI>In 1996, only 14% of classrooms had access to the Internet.<sup>17</sup> <LI>The percentage of schools using local area networks for instruction has increased by nearly 70% every year for the last four years.<sup>18</sup> </ul> <P><b>Content</b><BR> <ul> <LI>In 1995, schools spent $6 million for online and subscription-based services. This is expected to double by 1998.<sup>19</sup> <LI>Forty-nine percent of school districts plan to increase spending on instructional software in 1997-1998.<sup>20</sup> </ul> <P><b>Professional Development</b><BR> <ul> <LI>Only 13% of all public schools reported that technology-related training for teachers was mandated by the school, district or teacher certification agencies.<sup>21</sup> <LI>When asked to rate the greatest barriers to integrating the Internet into the classroom, 50% of teachers cited the "lack of time to train."<sup>22</sup> </ul> <P><b>SIDEBAR:</b><BR> <b>Technology at Work in School</b><sup>14</sup><BR> In 1987, Carrollton County School District in Carrollton, Georgia began to develop a strategic plan to address high drop-out rates and consistent academic failure. The district decided to stress the teaching of "real-world" applications and increase ,LVAL<v1N Y  Y d Y d Y 0d Y 4d Y @d Y @dY  Y 4dY   Y  @d Y  4dY Y Y  ContactIDName Email TitleCompanyAddressCity State PostalCountry PhoneFaxSubmittedBrochure Killed4@4@@44@4@@4YYContactIDPrimaryKeytactIDPrimaryKeyindividual instruction. In 1989, with help from a corporate partner, the district retooled its classrooms with networked computers, televisions, VCRs and computer peripherals. In addition, the district devoted significant resources to staff development. By 1992, the plan was fully operational. By 1996 the drop out rate had been reduced from 24% to 3%. The student failure rate in targeted areas dropped by 30%. Student attendance increased by 20%. The district is so successful that it attracts well over 1,000 out-of-district students willing to pay an out-of-district tuition fee, and an additional 700 students are on the waiting list. <P><b>Technology's Potential</b><BR> In its most recent report, the Presidential Committee on Science and Technology (PCAST) reports that technology can benefit America's students. PCAST reports that: "Most researchers and practitioners in the field of educational technology are already convinced that information technologies have the potential not only to improve the efficacy of our current teaching methods, but perhaps more importantly, to support fundamental changes in those methods that could have important implications for the next generation of Americans."<sup>24</sup>LVAL?Fv1/In the corporate world and the education world alike, the key is using technology, and the expansive resources it makes available, to improve performance and more efficiently achieve concrete objectives. <P>The challenge of integrating technology and measuring the results of that integration is not unique to the education community. For decades, corporate America has steadily increased the presence and use of technology internally and with customers and vendors. This experience may provide the education community with helpful guidance on what is happening in schools across the country. <P>For example, corporate America, like the education community, has been unable to easily quantify the benefits of technology. Anecdotal evidence abounds, yet traditional measures of business success focus on numeric measures such as gains in output and lag time between ordering and processing goods. These traditional business measures do not capture equally important factors such as increased product and service quality or employee satisfaction and motivation.25 <P>Though the parameters of corporate and education community efforts to integrate technology are different, in neither case is technology for technology's sake the key. The key is using technology, and the expansive resources it makes available, to improve performance and achieve concrete objectives. <P><b>Cycles of Technology Integration</b><BR> To better understand the benefits of technology, corporate researchers have identified a four stage cycle of technology integration.26 Below, the CEO Forum recasts the stages to relate to technology integration in the education environment. Currently, most American schools are in the first two stages of this cycle. <blockquote><P><b>Planning, Investigation and Experimentation.</b><BR> As in corporate America, schools go through an initial stage of planning and experimentation in which a few educators begin using technology in new ways. These individuals become technologynLVAL~v1 @g]}y Du#C(@@@@@@@@@@@@@ZZZZZZZZ@.% @Linda Rae MarkertDeanSchool of EducationState University of New York, Oswego200 Poucher Hall Oswego13126315-341-2102-315-341-5407markert@oswego.edu{hB-' ?-)LG @Thomas LasleySchool of Education & Allied ProfessionsUniversity of Dayton300 College ParkDayton 45469-0510937-229-3146937-229-3199thomas.lasley@notes.udayton.edu~ucM## ?,О @Larry D. BurtonTeaching & Learning DepartmentAndrews UniversityBell Hall 014Andrews University 49104-0114616-471-3465616-471-6374burton@andrews.edu}hYE%% ?+ d @Marylyn B. HadleyDeanCollege of EducationUniversity of Nebraska at KearneyCollege of Education ,FDHL 2134kearney18849308-865-8502308-865-8099hadleym@unk.edufC-' ?*%5| @Dr. Joan M. proponents. <P><b>Initial Capital Investments.</b><BR> Once the school or district is convinced of the value of educational technology, initial investments are made to bring technology into the school. Unfortunately, unforeseen costs such as computer maintenance, software and computer upgrades and staff training are often encountered. <P><b>Readjustment.</b><BR> As educators become increasingly comfortable with technology and its potential, they expand the scope of activities which utilize technology. Because technology integration is a learned process, schools must regularly readjust their investments, expectations and teaching methods to best leverage technology. <P><b>The Emergence of New Work and Organizational Models.</b><BR> Ultimately, technology becomes an essential tool for students and educators. It allows flexibility to create new forms of collaborative and inquiry-based learning and, at the same time, improves academic performance.</blockquote> <P><b>SIDEBAR:</b><BR> <b>Lessons Learned from Corporate America</b><BR> <b>Lesson #1</b><BR> The full benefits of information technology are difficult to assess with existing measures. <P><b>Lesson #2</b><BR> Technology is most effectively leveraged when it is thoughtfully integrated to meet core objectives. <P><b>Lesson #3</b><BR> Maximizing the benefits of information technology is a multi-stage process that occurs over a period of years.LVALEFv11With thoughtful planning, creative leadership and clear objectives, every school has the potential to capture the full range of educational benefits that flow from effective technology use. <P>The best assessment of technology in America's schools includes an examination of all Four Pillars working together. The CEO Forum's first annual national School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Assessment is based on available hardware and connectivity data at the individual school level. This 1997 Assessment establishes a baseline measure which will be used by the CEO Forum for each of the next three years to track national progress toward integrating technology into America's classrooms. <P><b>Summary 1997 Results</b><BR> In 1997, 59% of America's schools have no classroom technology or only outdated and inadequate technology. Less than 3% are at the leading edge of effectively integrating technology in the classroom. Twelve percent of schools fall into the High Technology category, having and using technology yet still not devoting adequate time and resources to quality content and professional development. The remaining 26% are Mid-Tech schools, meaning they have and use technology but still consider it an "extra." <P>As we enter the 21st century, every school must work to provide all students<sup>27</sup> with richer educational opportunities so that by 2005, at least 50% of American schools are maximizing the effectiveness of technology in learning. Long-term education and budget planning that incorporates a strategy for acquiring and integrating technology is critical. With thoughtful planning, creative leadership and clear objectives, every school has the potential to capture the full range of educational benefits that flow from effective technology use. <p><img src="graphs/1997_national_star_assement.gif" width=450 height=222 alt="1997 national star assessment" border="0"> <P clear=all><b>Low Technology School Profile</b><BR> In America's "Low Tech" schools, mLVALv12ost computers available to students lack sufficient memory and processor speed to use common web browsers or access multimedia content. <P>Less than half the computers in Low Tech schools have processors equal to or greater than an Intel 386, the minimum processor necessary to access the World Wide Web. There is only one CD-ROM player for every 250 students, limiting access to multimedia CD-ROM resources and educational content. While 60% of Low Tech schools have Internet access, that access reaches only about 12% of Low Tech school classrooms. <P>The computers at the Low Tech school are likely to be in a lab environment, rather than in classrooms. Most Low Tech schools are likely to allocate far less than the 30% of all technology spending to professional development that was recommended by state and local education experts in a recent Department of Education report.28 In fact, 44% of Low Tech teachers have had no technology training.29 Those professional development activities that exist are likely to focus on technical mastery, not classroom use. Teachers that attempt to use technology are usually motivated volunteers who devote personal time to learn about the technology and how it can improve classroom learning. <P>Low Tech schools are likely to treat the cost of technology for education as a one-time capital expenditure and to lack long-term technology plans. These schools may also have received donations of computers without planning for the maintenance, upgrading and professional development necessary to take advantage of the technology. <p><img src="graphs/lowtech.gif" width=600 height=226 alt="Low Tech Schools" border="0"> <P clear=all><b>Mid Technology School Profile</b><BR> In 26% of America's schools, students have access to a blend of old and new technology, but educators lack the professional development and content resources necessary to fully leverage the technology in the classroom. <P>In today's "Mid-Tech" schools, computers are often useLVALv13d to encourage students to complete traditional class work. Most students do not use computers regularly, and software is not regularly upgraded. In these schools, computers are "extras," used by students for isolated, fragmented activities. Students report that computer use is routine, sometimes boring, and only remotely related to the curriculum.30 Computers are rarely used for research or creative functions. <P>The main barrier to technology integration in Mid-Tech schools is the lack of professional development and technical support. A majority of teachers in these schools have had no technology-related professional development. The 26% of American schools in this category would reap much greater benefits from existing technological resources by investing in technology-related professional development and securing staff support for overseeing hardware maintenance, upgrades and connectivity improvements. Without a commitment to on-going planning and investment, a Mid Tech school will soon find itself with inadequate and outdated technology. <P><img src="graphs/midtech.gif" width=600 height=225 alt="Mid Tech Schools" border="0"> <P clear=all><b>High Technology School Profile</b><BR> Twelve percent of the nation's schools are "High Tech". In these schools, students frequently use networked multimedia computers that are connected to the Internet and World Wide Web in the classroom. <P>Many teachers at High Tech schools have integrated technology into the classroom and students use that technology to research, create and communicate as well as to practice basic skills. Students in High Tech schools develop a repertoire of skills enabling exploration of possibilities too cumbersome or difficult without the assistance of technology. A five-year study of Apple Computer's Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) program found that students become independent and collaborative problem solvers, theorists, communicators, record keepers and learners with their computers.<sup>31</LVALB14sup> <P>Although technology is being leveraged in the classroom, lack of on-site technical support in High Tech schools may discourage teachers from using technology to its fullest potential. Even highly experienced, technology-using teachers can become preoccupied with trouble-shooting hardware and software problems which siphon time away from students. <P>To support teachers and ensure consistent access to the technology in their schools, High Tech schools must invest in responsive, reliable technical support. Moreover, High Tech schools must provide steady funding for quality digital content and educator professional development. <p><img src="graphs/hightech.gif" width=600 height=225 alt="High Tech Schools" border="0"> <P clear=all><b>Target Technology School Profile</b><BR> A handful of public schools - about 3% - are fully leveraging technology to achieve maximum educational benefit. <P>The technology integrators and innovators at Target Tech schools have revolutionized the process of teaching and learning to take advantage of all that digital technology offers. In Target Tech schools, the very structure of the school day and the physical layout of the classroom is likely to be different. Class periods may be longer and cover multiple subjects, promoting cross-curricular learning. Desks and work spaces may be bunched together in small groups rather than facing a blackboard.<sup>32</sup> <P>Students and teachers have access to more current and relevant digital resources both in the classroom and online. Teachers tend to be coaches and facilitators rather than lecturers. Students are likely to be more self-directed, following individual learning paths better tailored to their interests and optimum work pace.Students and teachers at Target Tech schools communicate with each other internally, as well as with parents, students, teachers and experts around the country. There is on-site technical support and an on-going commitment to educator professional deNLVAL^v1` 8 Az67(r@John Wills LloydChief Technology OfficerCurry School of EducationUniversity of Virginia405 Emmet Stree South/ P.O. Box 400277Charlottesville22904-4277(804) 924-0759(804) 924-0747JohnL@virginia.educurry.edschool.virginia.edu/ s[@& ?'}R@Dr. Fred HattabaughDeanCollege of EducationUniversity of North AlabamaUNA Boxvelopment. The common element in these schools is an excitement about collaborative learning that engages students in relevant, real-world problem solving. <P><img src="graphs/targettech.gif" width=600 height=226 alt="Target Tech Schools" border="0"> <P clear=all><b>SIDEBAR:</b><BR> <b>School Technology and Readiness: 1997 Profiles and Findings</b><BR> The STaR Assessment offers a quick snapshot of where the nation stands in trying to reach its educational technology goals. The following section profiles typical schools in each of the four STaR categories. Not every school will directly match these profiles, but they will share similar characteristics. The data points highlighted in each profile are pulled directly from the 1997 STaR Assessment. The remaining profile characteristics are based on additional research and case studies. <P><b>Technology Leads to New Organization Models</b><BR> At the Christopher Columbus Middle School, in Union City, New Jersey, school officials, with the support of a corporate partner, supplied computers to all 7th grade students at school and at home. To better integrate the technology and enable cross-curricular learning, the school combined multiple subjects into a single 111 minute communications period. Furthermore, educator professional development time increased from less than eight hours a year to about 40 hours. Teachers now communicate regularly with parents via e-mail, enabling more frequent and timely exchanges about student progress. At Christopher Columbus, nearly 80% of students come from low income homes. The changes brought on through technology have resulted in rising state test scores and improved student attendance.<sup>33</sup>LVAL +?%((EUIn the next decade, the United States will need over 2.2 million new teachers to fill the nation s classrooms a rate of approximately 200,000 per year. Teachers of the new millennium will need a deep knowledge of their field, a thorough understanding of the learning process, a sincere commitment to nurturing a child s potential, and a love of learning that is shIn the next decade, the United States will need over 2.2 million new teachers to fill the nation s classrooms a rate of approximately 200,000 per year. Teachers of the new millennium will need a deep knowledge of their field, a thorough understanding of the learning process, a sincere commitment to nurturing a child s potential, and a love of learning that is shared with their students. These attributes alone aren t enough for teachers to prepare their students to succeed in the Digital Age. Teachers must be comfortable with technology as a tool to engage students and enhance their learning. If new teachers are ill-equipped to use the instructional tools technology has made available, their professional education will be incomplete.

The CEO Forum would like to thank the many people who helped shape and prepare this report. In particular, the CEO Forum would like to thank Quality Education Data (QED), and Professor Henry Becker, for the unprecedented access to their data on the nation's schools. We would also like to thank Heidi Barnhill at QED for all her help synthesizing the data used in this report. We would also like to thank McKinsey & Company for advising us on the methodology for the National STaR Assessment. Special thanks, also, to Donnelle Blubaugh and Cable in the Classroom for early access to data gathered for their upcoming report.

The CEO Forum would also like to thank the many outside education and technology experts who graciously agreed to meet with us and share their reactions to early drafts of this report. The insight and experience they shared resulted in some important improvements to our work.

For further information or additional copies of the CEO Forum Year 1 Report "School Technology and Readiness: From Pillars to Progress," please contact the CEO Forum

1001 G Street, NW
Suite 900 East
Washington, DC 20001
202.393.2260
202.393.0712 Fax
ceoforum@ITSTRATEGIES.comThe interactive STaR chart is now online.LVALFFv17The Nation needs better research on the benefits that technology brings to teaching, learning and the preparation of American students for life and work in the 21st century. <P>In producing this report, the CEO Forum identified significant data gaps where further research is required to gain a better understanding of how the nation, and our individual schools, are integrating educational technology throughout the curriculum. The CEO Forum is not alone in calling for additional educational technology-related research. The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) recently called for an increase in spending on research into the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of technology use in our nation's schools. PCAST reports that in 1995, less than 1/10 of one percent of our nation's expenditures for elementary and secondary education were devoted to research.<sup>34</sup> <P>Research on the benefits that technology brings to teaching, learning and the preparation of American students for life and work in the 21st century is scarce, as is comprehensive data related to all Four Pillars of education and technology. The CEO Forum is committed to filling some of these data gaps over the next three years and urges universities, policy makers and research institutions to join in the challenge. <P><b>Educational Outcomes</b><BR> The CEO Forum believes the goal of all educational technology efforts should be to improve students' education. To date, there has been little conclusive research directed towards measuring the full benefits of technology on the processes of teaching and learning. While some existing measures attempt to address this issue, the CEO Forum believes there is a pressing need to develop new measurement tools capable of more fully describing the effect of technology on learning. The corporate experience and anecdotal evidence from leading-edge technology integrators suggest that technology is, in fact, leading to improvements. More efLVALv18fective means of measuring the nature and extent of these benefits vis-a-vis education objectives is critical to energize wide-spread technology integration efforts in our nation's schools. <P><b>The Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning</b><BR> The CEO Forum has a unique opportunity to collect new data as it prepares its future assessments. The CEO Forum will help define additional data requests to be included in QED's annual survey to the nation's 80,000 public schools. These questions will help to fill many of the data gaps uncovered over the last year, enriching the STaR Assessment in future years. <P><b>New Data Needed</b><BR> <b>Integration and Use</b><BR> Although some data exists on student and teacher technology use, it is not collected on a school-by-school basis. To understand the impact of technology on educational outcomes, we must understand how students and teachers use technology in their classrooms and homes. By tracking usage patterns, including time spent on task and the relevance of task to the curriculum, we can begin to correlate various educational benefits of integrating technology throughout the curriculum. <P><b>Hardware</b><BR> Although technical maintenance and support are essential to fully integrate technology into the classroom, little is known about how schools maintain existing hardware. The lack of information on peripheral equipment is also significant. Hardware data points that would be helpful in future assessments could include: <ul> <LI>school funding and organization of hardware maintenance and support; and <LI>the ratio of students to peripheral equipment such as scanners, printers, digital cameras and video systems. </ul> <P><b>Connectivity</b><BR> While data on school and classroom connectivity exists, there is little data about the type of connection available to students at the school and classroom level. For example, little is known about the degree to which schools are electronically acceLVAL9ssible. Future data points could include: <ul> <LI>the type and speed of connections available in schools and classrooms; and <LI>the percentage of schools in which parents, students, and community members have electronic access to the school from remote locations. </ul> <P><b>Content</b><BR> Research on the availability and use of effective digital content is relatively sparse, in part because digital content development is a rapidly growing field. Future research could include: <ul> <LI>whether classroom teachers have a budget and authorization to buy software; <LI>whether multimedia software is used by students to manipulate information they have found to create new content (e.g. word processors, graphics and presentation programs); and <LI>the amount of content available in various forms (e.g., electronic textbooks, interactive videodisc, computer courseware) that enables teachers to teach and students to learn higher-level critical thinking skills as part of the curriculum. </ul> <P><b>Professional Development</b><BR> Information about planning, spending and results of technology-related professional development is also scarce. In addition, little is known about educator proficiency with instructional technology. Future research could include: <ul> <LI>school funding and planning for technology-related professional development; <LI>teacher access to hardware; <LI>teacher proficiency with and use of educational tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, e-mail, the World Wide Web as well as basic trouble shooting skills; and <LI>teacher participation in professional development via satellite, cable, fiber, online and other distance learning delivery systems. </ul> <P>As more and more schools struggle with resource allocation decisions, an in-depth understanding of the issues and realities associated with the use of technology and education is critical. While technology is neither a panacea for all education challenges, nor a replacement for t: LVALJ  @ @          he best of traditional teaching, it does have significant potential to foster improvements. In the hands of well-trained, enthusiastic educators with access to quality digital content, technology can help meet key education objectives by preparing today's students to be knowledgeable citizens and productive workers in the world tomorrow.LVALGF;1.Associated Press, Survey: Internet use has Doubled and More Women Surfing the Net, March 13, 1997.<br> 2.IDC, Internet Commerce Market Model, 1996.<br> 3.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997.<br> 4.Butler, Patrick et al., A Revolution in Interaction, The McKinsey Quarterly, Number 1, 1997.<br> 5.The Children's Partnership, America's Children and the Information Superhighway, Washington D.C., 1994.<br> 6.Robert B. Reich, The Work of Nations, New York, Random House, 1991.<br> 7.National Center for Education Statistics, Back To School Report, 1997.<br> 8.U.S. General Accounting Office, School Facilities Not Designed or Equipped for the 21st Century, 1995.<br> 9.U.S. Department of Education, Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century, 1996, p.5. or Executive Office of the President, "The President's Educational Technology Initiative," <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/edtech/html/edtech.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/edtech/html/edtech.html</a>, 1996. <br> 10.QED, 1997. <br> 11.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997. <br> 12.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997. <br> 13.Southwest Educational Development Laboratory and Texas Education Network, The State Networking Report, Spring 1997 <br> 14.ETC, ETC Case Study, Carrollton School District, Carrollton, Georgia, 1996. <br> 15.QED, 1997. <br> 16.QED, Technology in Public Schools, 15th Edition, 1996. <br> 17.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997. <br> 18.QED, Technology in Public Schools, 15th Edition, 1996. 19.Software Publis(LVAL8v1b @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @    her's Association, 1997 SPA Education Market Report, 1997. <br> 20.QED, 1997-1998 Technology Purchasing Forecast, 1997. <br> 21.Education Week, Quality Counts: A Report Card on the Condition of Public Education in the 50 States, 1997. <br> 22.Cable in the Classroom, Teacher Survey, September 1997. <br> 23.See Appendix C <br> 24.President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States, March 1997. <br> 25.The Economist, Paradox Lost, September 28th, 1996. 26.Green, Kenneth C., Steven W. Gilbert, Great Expectations, Change, March 1995. <br> 27.See Appendix B <br> 28.U.S. Department of Education, Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century, 1996. <br> 29.Cable in the Classroom, Teacher Survey, September 1997 <br> 30.Indiana's Fourth Grade Project: Model applications of technology, Second Year (1989-1990), Advanced Technology and Indiana State Department of Education, as cited in Software Publisher's Association, The Effectiveness of Technology in Schools, '95-'96. <br> 31.Charles Fisher, David Dwyer, Keith Yocam, Education and Technology: Reflections on Computing Classrooms, 1996. <br> 32.From interview with Marian Peifer, Former Instructional Technology Curriculum Specialist, Bellevue Public Schools, Washington, September 1997. <br> 33.EDC Center for Children and Technology, Union City Interactive Multimedia Education Trial: 1993-1995 Summary Report, 1996. <br> 34.President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States, March 1997.LVALJF=<a name="top"></a>Status Report: The Four Pillars of Education and Technology <P><a href="hardware"><b>Hardware</b></a><br> Trends in the Number of Students per Computer.<br> How Districts Pay for Computer Hardware.<br> Number of Students to Multimedia Computer, by State. <P><a href="#connectivity"><b>Connectivity</b></a><br> Trends in School and Classroom Access to the Internet.<br> Reported Infrastructure Insufficiency.<br> Access to the Internet is Not Equal. <P><a href="#content"><b>Content</b></a><br> The Average Amount of Money Spent on Software and Online Services, per Student. <P><a href="#profdev"><b>Professional Development</b></a><br> Teachers' Likelihood of Using the Internet for Different Activities.<br> States Requiring Courses in Educational Technology for a Teaching License.<br> <P><BR> <a name="hardware"></a><b>Status Report: Hardware</b><BR> Computer labs and computer science courses have been mainstays in America's schools for well over a decade. Now, with the increasing integration of computers into society, the rise in popularity of the Internet and World Wide Web and the rapid advancements in technology, it is increasingly important that educators effectively integrate technology into mainstream curricula. <P><img src="images/TRENDS_IN_THE_NUMBER_OF.GIF" border=0 alt="Trends in the Number of Students Per Computer"><BR clear=all> <P><img src="images/HOW_DISTRICTS_PAY_FOR.GIF" border=0 alt="How Districts Pay for Computer Hardware"><BR clear=all> <P><b>Data Snapshot: Hardware</b><BR> <img src="images/STUDENTS_PER_COMPUTER.GIF" border=0 align="right" alt="Students per Multimedia Computer"> The Hardware Pillar is the easiest to measure and, therefore, has been the subject of the most data collection and research. Significant progress has been made in the Hardware Pillar over the last several years. According to available data, the number of computers in schools is increasing rapidly, though a significant portion of annual hardwarLVAL>e acquisition funds still go toward replacing outdated computers instead of adding new equipment. However, the number of computers in every school tells only part of the story. Schools must now make the appropriate investments necessary to support the hardware (i.e., retrofitting with proper electrical outlets, on-going maintenance.) Finally, as students and teachers begin to successfully leverage this technology, there will be an increasing need for more information about the availability of computer peripherals such as printers and scanners. <P><b>Significant Progress in Bringing Computers Into Schools</b><BR> <ul> <LI>In the 1990-91 school year, the average school had only one computer for every 20 students.<sup>2</sup> By the 1996-1997 school year, that figure had improved so there was one computer for every 9 students - an improvement of over 50%.<sup>3</sup> <LI>To leverage the best available learning resources, students and teachers increasingly need access to multimedia computers. In the 1995-1996 school year, the average ratio of students to multimedia capable computers was 24 to 1.<sup>4</sup> By 1996 - 1997 the average ratio was 16:1.<sup>5</sup> <LI>The Department of Education has recommended that American schools strive to reach a student to multimedia computer ratio of 5:1.<sup>6</sup> </ul> <P><b>Maintenance and Upgrade Costs Are Significant</b><BR> <ul> <LI>In 1995, reports suggest that nearly 60% of school computer purchases were used to replace old and outdated computers, resulting in only a marginal increase in the number of machines available to students.<sup>7</sup> <li>The state of Kentucky estimates that its recurring costs<sup>8</sup> for maintenance and upgrades will equal 22% of its initial costs.<sup>9</sup> School infrastructures are insufficient to support computer technology. <li>In 1995, approximately 42% of all schools and 52% of urban schools reported that they had an insufficient electrical wiring infrastrLVAL?ucture to support computer technology.<sup>10</sup> </ul> <P><b>SIDEBAR:</b><BR> <b>Maintenance Matters<sup>1</sup></b><BR> Planning for maintenance and repair of hardware is necessary to sustain a technology-rich classroom environment. Unfortunately, most schools focus on obtaining equipment without a commensurate commitment to increasing support, upgrading and maintenance capabilities. In one large school district, more than 2,800 pieces of hardware remained broken or neglected at the end of the 1996-1997 school year. On average, it takes technicians in that county about five weeks to complete a repair request. <P><a href="#top">back to top</a> <P><BR> <a name="connectivity"></a><b>Status Report: Connectivity</b><BR> Networked computers - computers that are linked together through telecommunications connections -- differ radically from "broadcast" technologies such as radio, television and even stand-alone computers. Networked computers enable a highly interactive environment where students and teachers can be information consumers, producers and communicators. Over networks, whether local or Internet-based, students and teachers can collaborate with peers to solve problems, exchange ideas and advance learning. <P><img src="images/PERCENT_OF_SCHOOLS_AND.GIF" border=0 alt="Percent of Schools with Internet Access"><br clear=all> <P><img src="images/REPORTED_INFRASTRUCTURE.GIF" border=0 alt="Reported Insufficiencies"><br clear=all> <P><b>Data Snapshot: Connectivity</b><BR> In recent years connectivity in schools has advanced substantially as a result of increased attention from policy makers and community leaders. As a result, schools are quickly gaining Internet access. However, access is still more likely to be centrally located in libraries or computer labs rather than in classrooms. The move to connect individual classrooms will present a huge challenge to schools in the coming years as initial installation costs are compounded by monthly InteLVAL@rnet fees and telecommunications maintenance. To accurately monitor progress in this Pillar, it will be critical to measure and track these costs. Further, many schools must rebuild their physical infrastructure before they can install computer networks. Older, predominantly urban, school buildings require more retrofitting than other school buildings, thus driving up costs.<sup>11</sup> <P><b>Access to Internet Connections and Other Networks Growing in Schools</b><BR> <ul> <LI>In 1994, 35% of public schools in the U.S. had access to the Internet. As of 1996, this number had risen to 65%.<sup>12</sup> <LI>However in 1996, only 53% of schools serving students from low income homes<sup>13</sup> had Internet access. This represents a 71% increase in access from 1995, but is still 12% below the 1996 national average.<sup>14</sup> <LI>In 1996, even with the rise in school Internet connections, only 14% of classrooms were connected.<sup>15</sup> <LI>As of the 1995-1996 school year, 38% of schools used local area networks for some instruction. This percentage has increased by nearly 70% every year for the last four years.<sup>16</sup> </ul> <P><b>Connection Speeds Vary Across Schools and Geographic Regions</b><BR> <ul> <LI>Rural schools are more likely to have slower connections than suburban or urban schools.<sup>17</sup> <LI>Nearly 40% of teachers rated slow modem speed as a major barrier to integrating the Internet into their curriculum.<sup>18</sup> </ul> <P><b>School Network Connections Primarily State Funded</b><BR> <ul> <LI>Although funding strategies differ markedly, approximately 50% of K-12 network development funding comes from state government.<sup>19</sup> <LI>Starting in 1998, some of this financial burden will be eased when the federally mandated "Education Rate" (E-rate) discounts on telecommunications services for schools take effect. </ul> <P><b>School Telecommunications Infrastructures Are Insufficient to Support Networking Needs</b><BR> LVALv1A In 1995, 60% of all public schools reported that they had critical telecommunications infrastructure problems including insufficient phone lines as well as insufficient conduits for network cables.<sup>20</sup> <P><img src="images/ACCESS_TO_THE_INTERNET_IS.GIF" border=0 alt="Access to the Internet is Inequal"><BR clear=all> <P><font size=-1>*Poverty rate categories were calculated using the percent of students eligible for free or reduced price lunches: <P>Very high = 71% or more<br> High = 31%-70%<br> Moderate = 11%-30%<br> Low = less than 11%</font> <P><b>SIDEBAR:</b><BR> <b>The "Education-rate" Discount</b><BR> In implementing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a plan to provide discounts ranging from 20-90% for all commercially available telecommunications services, Internet access and internal connections. Schools serving more students from low income homes will qualify for greater discounts. The discounts will also make adjustments for the higher costs incurred by rural schools. To be eligible, schools must submit comprehensive education technology implementation plans. The FCC set a $2.25 billion annual cap on the discounts, which are scheduled to commence in 1998. <P><a href="#top">back to top</a> <P><BR> <a name="content"></a><b>Status Report: Content</b><BR> The digitization of information has led to more dynamic and interactive educational content. Digitization has also transformed the way educators, parents and students use educational content. Not only can information now be packaged by traditional content creators in new and exciting ways - software, CD-ROMs or online resources - but it can also be used and creatively re-packaged by teachers, students and software publishers. In addition, new tools are available in the digital age allowing individuals to find, organize and create information as never before possible. <P><img src="images/GRAPHS/LEARNERS_LOOP.GIF" border=0 alt="LLVALv1Bearner's Loop"><BR clear=all> <P><img src="images/THE_AVERAGE_AMOUNT_OF_MONEY.GIF" border=0 alt="Money Spent Per Student"><BR clear=all> <P><b>Data Snapshot: Content</b><BR> Assessing the degree to which digital information has been incorporated into classrooms can only be accomplished by examining the availability and use of digital content and digital learning tools. As schools develop and augment their internal information infrastructures, these resources and tools become increasingly sophisticated. For instance, schools with unconnected, older computers begin by using off-the-shelf software. As schools upgrade their computers and connectivity, in-class resources are augmented with multimedia software and additional multimedia resources available on the Internet and World Wide Web. <P><b>School Spending for Digital Content and Resources Rising; More Innovative Content Needed</b><BR> <ul> <li>In 1996-1997, schools spent $494 million on instructional software.<sup>21</sup> Forty-nine percent of school districts plan to increase spending on instructional software in 1997-1998.<sup>22</sup> <li>In 1995, schools spent $6 million on online and subscription-based services. This is expected to double by 1998.<sup>23</sup> <li>In 1996, when QED asked schools to state the future software developments they considered most important, nearly 53% of schools requested "more innovative programs that teach problem solving strategies."<sup>24</sup> </ul> <P><b>Distance Learning Opportunities Continue to Grow</b> <ul> <li>In 1995-1996, nearly 26% of school districts engaged in some form of distance learning. Sixty eight percent of distance learning courses were broadcast via satellite and 25% via cable television.<sup>25</sup> <li>One estimate suggests that nearly 72% of school districts will engage in distance learning by 1998.<sup>26</sup> </ul> <P><b>Data on Student and Teacher Use of Digital Learning Tools Is Mixed</b><BR> <ul> <li>In the 1994-1995 school yLVALv1Cear, 82% of 8th graders reported that they "used computers to write stories or papers." However, 70% of 8th graders reported using a computer once a week or less.<sup>27</sup> <li>While 47% of teachers indicated that their students had access to the Internet for instruction, 60% of these teachers indicated that their students used the Internet less than 30 minutes per week.<sup>28</sup> <li>Further, only 17% of teachers indicated that they used the Internet for classroom instruction. And only 29% of all teachers indicated that they used the Internet "to access curriculum materials."<sup>29</sup> </ul> <P><b>SIDEBAR:</b><BR> <b>Today's Students are Content Consumers and Content Providers</b><BR> <ul> <li>Communicating primarily through e-mail, students from three Washington D.C. area schools created a "<a href="http://tqd.advanced.org/2667/">Black History Tour</a>" on the web in honor of Black History Month as a submission to the ThinkQuest<sup>30</sup> competition. By creating an organized framework for a variety of information, this site has proven to be a helpful research source and has received over one million "hits." <li><a href="http://www.concord.org/proj-vhs.html">The Virtual High School Consortium</a>, sponsored by the Concord Consortium in Massachusetts, asks one teacher in each participating school to develop an Internet-based course. These courses are then offered to the VHS' 43 member schools to augment their existing course offerings. <li><a href="http://www.globalearn.org ">Globalearn</a>, a non-profit group dedicated to educating children on global issues, sends real-life explorers, equipped with satellite uplinks, across continents to explore different cultures and geography. Daily updates are transmitted over the web. Classrooms can subscribe and track the explorer's progress across the continent, learning through new experiences encountered along the way. </ul> <P><a href="#top">back to top</a> <P><BR> <a name="profdev"></a><bLVALB1D>Status Report: Professional Development</b><BR> Well-trained teachers are the key to successful classroom technology integration. Without a teacher's guiding hand, networked computers are expensive investments with questionable returns. Technology-savvy teachers use technology as a tool to provide greatly enriched learning environments for students as well as to improve lesson preparations and administrative efficiency. <P>Educators cannot be expected, however, to become experts on leveraging technology overnight. To move from a technology novice to a true extender of technology's benefits, educator professional development in technology and its use must be supported at the highest levels in a school, and incorporated as part of the on-going professional development required of each educator. Barriers to professional development, including limited teacher access to new technology, lack of school administrator support, lack of resources and lack of time must be eradicated. Furthermore, to be successful, training must be on-going rather than a one-time session.<sup>31</sup> <P><img src="images/TEACHERS_LIKELIHOOD_OF.GIF" border=0 alt="Teachers' Use of the Internet"><br clear=all> <P><b>Data Snapshot: Professional Development</b><BR> The Professional Development Pillar is perhaps the most critical. Trained and enthusiastic educators transform classroom technology from hardware, connections and content into tools for teaching and learning. Despite recent increases, funding for professional development still falls below the level of funding recommended by education experts. Overall, teachers who successfully integrate technology into the curriculum spend more than twice as many personal hours working on computers and participate in formal courses focused on using and teaching with computers.<sup>33</sup> <P><b>Professional Development Investment Is Minimal</b><BR> <ul> <LI>In 1996 - 1997, districts reported that only 6% of the technology budget or $4.18 per pLVALEupil, was spent on technology training for teachers.<sup>34</sup> This is 1/5 of the 30% recommended by education experts in a recent Department of Education report.<sup>35</sup> <LI>In the 1997-1998 school year, this number is expected to increase to $6.66 per student. However, due to increasing instructional technology budgets, this amount remains only 6% of districts' technology budgets.<sup>36</sup> </ul> <P><b>Teacher Participation In Technology-Related Professional Development Growing Slowly</b><BR> <ul> <LI>As of 1994, nearly 50% of full-time teachers participated in a professional development activity that taught the use of technology for instruction.<sup>37</sup> However, only 15% of teachers had at least 9 hours of training in educational technology.<sup>38</sup> <LI>Only 13% of all public schools reported that technology-related training for teachers was mandated by the school, district or teacher certification agencies.<sup>39</sup> </ul> <P><b>Limited Time for Training and Limited Access Cited As Key Impediment To Successful Integration</b><BR> <ul> <LI>In 1996, when asked to rate the greatest barriers to integrating the Internet into the classroom, 50% of teachers cited the "lack of time to train."<sup>40</sup> <LI>A recent study found that the major difference between educators who rated themselves as "comfortable" with their Internet skills and those who were "uncomfortable" was access at home.<sup>41</sup> </ul> <P><b>SIDEBAR:</b><BR> <b>States Requiring Courses in Educational Technology for a Teaching License, 1996</b><sup>32</sup><BR> <CENTER> <TABLE BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0"> <TR> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Alabama</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Arizona</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Arkansas</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">California</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="VLVALqFerdana,Arial">Colorado</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Georgia</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Kansas</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Kentucky</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Louisiana</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Maine</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Massachusetts</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Minnesota</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="14"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Nebraska</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="14"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">New Hampshire</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="14"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">New Mexico</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="14"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">North Carolina</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="14"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Ohio</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="14"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Oklahoma</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="14"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Oregon</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="14"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Pennsylvania</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="25"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Rhode Island</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="25"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">South Carolina</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="25"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">South Dakota</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132" HEIGHT="25"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Tennessee</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Texas</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Utah</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Vermont</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Virginia</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Washington</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT LVALv1?  0 4_>2 B ` @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@?????@Jenny BenvenutoSaint AmbroseNorth ColonieLathamNY518-273-4466boss98@juno.comzkZA ?ZZZZZZZZ@  @@?@@@@@?@@?@@ @?????@@@@Cherrie EdwardsSacred HeartAlbany DioceseTroyNYaclgbs@aol.comykZ? @@@@@@@@@ @@?@@@@@@?@@ZZZZZZZZ> w @@?@@@@@@@@ @@?@@???@@@@Beverly Smith-OsburnAltar Valley SchoolsAltar Valley School District No. 51TucsonAZ520.822.1133bcso@avsd.orgpZ= }@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@?@@@@@Carla PoirierKing TraditionalSchool District #34AbbotsfordAL{iZ< h @@@@@@@@@@ @@ @@@@?@@?@Christine KalishFt. Smallwood Elementary SchoolAnne Arundel County Public SchoolsPasadenaMD410 222 6450ftsmallwood@hotmail.comlZFACE="Verdana,Arial">West Virginia</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Wisconsin</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="132"> <FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Wyoming</FONT></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER> <P><b>Fundamentals of Good Training</b><sup>42</sup><BR> Over the last 10 years, Apple Computer's Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project has established that professional development is a prerequisite to effective use of technology. Says Jacqui Celsi, Apple's Staff Development Manager, "We learned that you must encourage learning by doing, that the learning must be relevant to classroom experience, and that you need to model good practices. We also learned that you have to allow time for reflection and collaboration and that you have to have a strategy for on-going communications." <P><b>Teachers forming communities of learning</b><sup>43</sup><BR> The teachers who enroll in the PBS MATHLINE program have created virtual communities where they share valuable information and advice about effective pedagogy in the context of daily practice. Ninety-five percent of teachers participating in the program strongly agree that "The ability to discuss with other teachers about how to change math teaching is valuable." <P><a href="#top">back to top</a>LVALMFH<b>A Word of Caution for the Future:<BR>Ensuring Technology Equity For All American School Children</b><BR> The CEO Forum believes equal access to classroom technology for all American students is critical. To prepare students to be active members of the community and productive members of the work force, classrooms in all regions of the country and in all communities must be equipped to provide children with stimulating, technology-supported educational environments. <P>Over the past three years, the gap in hardware ownership between affluent schools and schools serving students from low income homes has begun to close. Today, affluent schools have only 3 less students per computer than schools serving students from low income homes (a ratio of 13:1). That number has been reduced by 10 since the 1993-1994 school year when schools serving students from low income homes had 13 more students per computer (a ratio of 26:1) than their affluent counterparts.<sup>44</sup> The allocation of federal funds to rectify the problem through Title I, the Challenge Grant program at the Department of Education, and the TIIAP Program at the Department of Commerce as well as corporate donations may explain the diminished gap. This is a commendable improvement but because the gap remains at 30%, it requires continued and vigilant attention. <P>Reducing the hardware disparity between schools is a critical step. However, it is equally important that equity across all areas of educational technology remains a fundamental priority. Today, schools with higher concentrations of students from low-income families are less likely to have access to the Internet.<sup>45</sup> As schools progress toward full technology integration, care must be taken to leave no student behind. For example, children who have not had access from home could be disadvantaged. By the year 2000, about 60% of American homes are expected to own a personal computer,<sup>46</sup> yet a typical computer-owning family is a marLVALv1b @ @ @                           ried couple with full-time employment and a family income of $35,000 or higher.<sup>47</sup> Computer ownership is almost three times higher in Caucasian households than in African American households.<sup>48</sup> To diminish these inequities, access to technology through public schools, libraries and community centers is essential. <P>Gender-equity must also be ensured. A survey of teenagers found that teenage boys were 10% more likely to have used the Internet or World Wide Web than teenage girls.<sup>49</sup> <P><img src="images/TITLE_ONE_FUNDS_ARE.GIF" border=0 alt="Title One Funds"><br clear=all> <P><b>SIDEBAR:</b><BR> <b>Gender and the Internet<sup>50</sup>: A Trend to Monitor</b><BR> A study of teenagers aged 12 to 17 found that: <ul> <li>Boys are more likely to have surfed the Web: 66% of boys have connected to the Internet or World Wide Web, compared to 56% of girls. <li>Boys are more likely to view the Internet as an entertainment tool, while girls are more likely to view the Internet as a communication tool: 16% of boys think that entertainment is the best thing about the Internet while 9% of girls think the same. Thirty seven percent of girls think that the best thing about the Internet is the opportunity to meet and communicate with other people, while only 28% of boys think the same. <li>Both boys and girls rank access to information as the best thing about the Internet: Fifty one percent of boys and 50% of girls ranked "the information you can get" as the best thing about the Internet. </ul>LVALMFv1J<b>Achieving Education Objectives Through Technology</b><sup>51</sup><BR> Educators and researchers agree that technology is a tool, not a panacea. In skilled hands, technology can deliver tremendous benefits. Applied to existing administrative processes, technology can improve efficiency. When used to create new processes, technology can facilitate the creation of new ways of teaching and learning. <P> <CENTER> <TABLE BORDER="1" CELLPADDING="3" CELLSPACING="2"> <TR> <TD><B><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Education<BR> Objective</FONT></B></TD> <TD><B><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Classroom<BR> Technology Use</FONT></B></TD> <TD><B><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial">Real-World<BR> Benefits</FONT></B></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <B><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Improve higher-<BR> order critical thinking skills</FONT></B></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Computers used by students in project based, learner-centered inquiry.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Student work supported by real world information accessed via CD-ROM or the Internet.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Software simulation programs designed to encourage problem solving.</FONT> </UL> </TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Technology adaptive high school graduates with workplace competencies such as information management, inquiry, evaluation, communication, team work and personal initiative.</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <B><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Improve communication</FONT></B></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Improve communication among students, teachers, administrators, parents and the community. Improved/ instantaneous feed-back time. Community members plugged-in to schools and aware of eLVALv1Kducation issues.</FONT> </UL> </TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Access to a wider audience of parents, teachers and students. All have more current information about each other.</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <B><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Improve access to remote resources</FONT></B></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Teachers and students access libraries, remote information sources, experts. Distance learning applications used.</FONT> </UL> </TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">More informed students who have had access to current, real world information. More informed teachers who are role models for life long learning. Location no longer a barrier.</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <B><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Master basic skills</FONT></B></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Drill and tutorial software provides individualized instruction with immediate feedback in basic subjects.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Educational software provides at-risk students or those with disabilities a tailored educational environment (i.e. synthesized speech lets those with speech impairments &quot;talk&quot; by typing their words into a computer).</FONT> </UL> </TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Students with mastery of core basic skills. Improved standardized test scores across subject areas such as language arts, math and science.</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <B><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Improve student motivation</FONT></B></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">More current information, relevant projects and learner-LVALv1NY Y `kDataIDYAOIndex_@/am  *\G{000204EF-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#4.0#9#C:\PROGRAM FILES\COMMON FILES\MICROSOFT SHARED\VBA\VBA6\VBE6.DLL#Visual Basic For Applications*\G{4AFFC9A0-5F99-101B-AF4E-00AA003F0F07}#9.0#0#C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office\MSACC9.OLB#Microsoft Access 9.0 Object Library*\G{00020430-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#2.0#0#C:\WINNT\System32\STDOLE2.TLB#OLE Automation*\G{00025E01-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#5.0#0#C:\WINNT\Sycentered education improves student interest and motivation.</FONT> </UL> </TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Lower drop-out rates, improved attendance.</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <B><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Improve technological literacy</FONT></B></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Computer classes familiarize students with computers, networks, and multimedia applications.</FONT> </UL> </TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Students with basic knowledge of technology and ability to follow computer-based instructions.</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <B><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Improve administrative efficiency</FONT></B></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Manage school operations more efficiently and effectively (e.g. tracking student attendance, academic progress, school budget compilation).</FONT> </UL> </TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE="-1" FACE="Verdana,Arial">Current and more complete student records. Teachers have more time to devote to students and to acquiring the skills they need to become better educators.</FONT></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER>LVALMF?M<b>The STaR Assessment Methodology</b><BR> The CEO Forum's 1997 National STaR Assessment is derived from Quality Education Data's (QED) Tech Measure which was created by Dr. Henry Becker, Professor of Education at the University of California, Irvine. Using a sample of nearly 80,000 public schools, the QED Tech Measure uses 11 variables to create a single index that measures the hardware and connections present in schools. These variables are listed to the left. <P>Each school is assigned a "raw" value ranging from 1 to 7, where 7 indicates the most technology and connections present. This "raw" value is then adjusted to compensate for differences in schools' technology presence such as the last time in which a school's file was updated or the type of school (e.g. regular, special, alternative). <P>To simplify the categories, the CEO Forum combined the QED Tech Measure categories with similar attributes into single categories. Categories 1 and 2 comprise "Low Tech" schools, category 3 represents "Mid Tech" schools, categories 4 and 5 comprise "High Tech" schools and categories 6 and 7 comprise "Target Tech" schools. <P>The CEO Forum supplemented QED's Tech Measure with information from four additional data sources: 1) demographic and other variables from the same 80,000 school database; 2) data from a survey of over 400 schools that was collected by QED for its 1997 study Internet Usage in Public Schools, which includes the most current information about the percent of schools connected to the Internet; 3) data from a survey of over 400 schools collected by QED for Cable in the Classroom, including information about classroom uses of the Internet and teacher professional development; and 4) interviews of sample schools conducted by McKinsey & Co. <P>The QED National Education Database"! is annually updated by mail and phone surveys. However, the difficulty of obtaining current technology data on each school means that some data is older than others. Through PrLVAL  @ @ @         !rParentIdRmtInfoLongRmtInfoShortTypeniYYIdParentIdName         @@@@?@ @@@??@??@Cheryl AndersonRound Lake High School#116Round LakeILkZ}k `@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@?@@@@@@@Terri SpencerEast Detroit Public SchoolsEast Detroit Public SchoolsEASTPOINTEMI(810) 445-4402Tmspencer@AOL.comiZ|k `@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@?@@@@@@@Terri SpencerEast Detroit Public SchoolsEast Detroit Public SchoolsEASTPOINTEMI(810) 445-4402Tmspencer@AOL.comiZ{k `@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@?@@@@@@@Terri SpencerEast Detroit Public SchoolsEast Detroit Public SchoolsEASTPOINTEMI(810) 445-4402Tmspencer@AOL.comiZzȫ@@@@@ZZZZZZZZy @@@@ @@@oject Ed Tech, QED obtains updated information related to technology on approximately 67% of all public schools every year. <P><b>QED Tech Measure Variables</b><BR> <OL> <li>The number of instructional computers per 100 students enrolled; <li>The number of administrative computers per 100 students enrolled; <li>The number of CD-ROM players per 100 students enrolled; <li>The number of local area network attached computers per 100 students; <li>The number of modems per 10 teachers; <li>The number of laser disc players per 10 teachers; <li>The number of video tape recorders per 100 teachers; <li>The number of individual local area networks in the building; <li>The percent of all instructional computers that were either Macintosh or PCs having a 80386 or more recent processor; <li>Whether the school had a subscription to an online service or Internet access; and <li>The number of Power Macintosh computers per 100 students. </ol>LVALQFv1O1.Washington Times, High Tech Program Doesn't Compute, June 24, 1997, p. A1 <br> 2.QED, Technology in Public Schools, 15th Edition, 1996. <br> 3.QED, 1997. <br> 4.QED, Technology in Public Schools, 15th Edition, 1996. 5.QED, 1997. <br> 6.U.S. Department of Education, Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century, 1996, p.28. <br> 7.QED, Technology in Public Schools, 15th Edition, 1996, p.12. <br> 8.Kentucky estimates that it will replace 1/6 of its computers every year. <br> 9.1996 Update to Commonwealth of Kentucky Master Plan for Education. <br> 10.U.S. Department of Education, Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century, 1996, p.35. <br> 11.U.S. Department of Education, Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century, 1996, p.35. <br> 12.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1996, 1997. <br> 13.Schools serving students from low income homes are those in which 71% or more of students are eligible for free or reduced price school lunch. <br> 14.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997. <br> 15.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997. <br> 16.QED, Technology in Public Schools, 15th Edition, 1996. 17.Southwest Educational Development Laboratory and Texas Education Network, The State Networking Report, Spring 1997, p.17. <br> 18.Cable in the Classroom, Teacher Survey, 1997. <br> 19.Southwest Educational Development Laboratory and Texas Education Network, The State Networking Report, Spring 1997. <br> 20.U.S. Department of Education, Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century, 1996. <br> 21.QED, Educational Technology Trends, 9th Edition, 1997. <br> 22.QED, 1997-1998 Technology Purchasing Forecast, 1997. <br> 23.Software Publisher's Association, 1997 SPA EducatiLVALv1Pon Market Report, 1997. <br> 24.QED, Educational Technology Trends, 9th Edition, 1997. <br> 25.QED, Educational Technology Trends, 9th Edition, 1997. <br> 26.CCA Consulting Inc., Cited in Software Publishers Association, 1997 SPA Education Market Report, 1997. <br> 27.NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1996.<br> 28.Cable in the Classroom, Teacher Survey, 1997. <br> 29.Cable in the Classroom, Teacher Survey, 1997. <br> 30.ThinkQuest is an annual contest that challenges junior high and high schools students to use the Internet as a collaborative, interactive teaching and learning tool. In total, winners receive over $1 million in scholarship money. <br> 31.Interview with Jacqui Celsi, Staff Development Manager, Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT), September 10, 1997. <br> 32.Education Week, Quality Counts: A Report Card on the Condition of Public Education in the 50 States, 1997. <br> 33.Becker, Henry, How our best computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), March 1994, as cited in Software Publisher Association, The Effectiveness of Technology in Schools, '95-'96. <br> 34.QED, 1997-1998 Technology Purchasing Forecast, 1997. <br> 35.U.S. Department of Education, Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century, 1996. <br> 36.QED, 1997-1998 Technology Purchasing Forecast, 1997. <br> 37.Education Week, Quality Counts: A Report Card on the Condition of Public Education in the 50 States, 1997. <br> 38.Education Week, Quality Counts: A Report Card on the Condition of Public Education in the 50 States, 1997. <br> 39.Education Week, Quality Counts: A Report Card on the Condition of Public Education in the 50 States, 1997.<br> 40 Cable in the Classroom, Teacher Survey, September 1997. <br> 40.QED, Internet Usage in Public Schools, 1997 <br> 41.Interview with Jacqui Celsi, Staff Development Manager, Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, LVAL 0 S k (  $<T,/@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@sxxxxxxxxxALppplllf^+m@@@?@@@@@@?@?@?@@^^^^^^^^*m@@@?@@@@@@?@?@?@@^^^^^^^^)l @@@@@@@@@@@?@@?@@@?@@@@@@?Dr. Larry HudsonUniv. of Central FloridaCollege of EducationorlandoFL407.823.2848lhudson@mail.ucf.edup^(W???????????????????^^^^^^^^'@@@@@?@@@^^^^^^^^&_@@^^^^^^^^%_@@^^^^^^^^${@??^^^^^^^^#1?^^^^^^^^"| @@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@^^^^^^^^! @@?@@@@@?@@@@@@?^^^^^^^^ 7@^^^^^^^^@?@?@@?@@@?@@@@???@@@@?HBarrettUAASOEAncAKafhcb@uaa.alaska.edu{{wrmh^U @^^^^^^^^:@@^^^^^^^^@@@@@@@@@?@@?@@?@????^^^^^^^^@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@Art Wolinsky---NA---NABarnegatNJ---NAawolinsky@adelphia.n September, 10, 1997. <br> 42.Rockman et al, Evaluation of PBS MATHLINE, Middle School Mathematics Project 1995-1996, 1996. <br> 43.QED, 1997. <br> 44.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997. <br> 45.Freeman, Laura, Job Creation and the Emerging Home Computer Market, Monthly Labor Review, August, 1996 <br> 46.Freeman, Laura, Job Creation and the Emerging Home Computer Market, Monthly Labor Review, August, 1996 <br> 47.U.S. Department of Education, Getting America's Children Ready for the 21st Century, 1996, p36. <br> 48.Princeton Survey Associates, 1997. Error is plus or minus 5%. <br> 49.Princeton Survey Associates, 1997. Error is plus or minus 5%. <br> 50.McKinsey & Co., unpublished, May 1997LVALQFv1RSince we issued our first report, <I>&quot;The School Technology and Readiness Report: From Pillars to Progress,&quot;</I> in October 1997, there has been solid progress integrating technology into America's public K-12 schools. As our Year 2 School Technology and Readiness Assessment shows, the number of schools effectively using technology has risen from 15 to 24 percent. In addition, almost 80 percent of schools have connections to the Internet. <P>This progress is encouraging. Nevertheless, the gap between technology presence in schools and its effective use is still too wide. We continue to believe the quality of public education in this country depends upon our collective ability to close the gap between technology presence and its effective use in the pursuit of school improvement. <P>Anecdotal evidence suggests that appropriate use of technology has a positive impact on education. Nevertheless, broad-based statistical analysis of the impact of technology in education remains elusive.<sup>1</sup> Our nation is now reaching a stage in which the prevalence of and access to technology is at a threshold level in a significant number of schools. Therefore, we must direct our attention to the use of technology in schools and its impact on student performance. <P>Bolstered by a recent study that shows a positive correlation between student performance and teacher professional development<sup>2</sup> and on our steadfast belief that teachers are a critical link to better learning, this report provides: <UL> <LI>an overview of existing efforts to prepare teachers to use technology to improve education; <LI>a description of the progressive stages educators pass through as they integrate technology into the process of teaching and learning; <LI>a list of principles we believe are essential for developing successful plans for professional development with technology; <LI>information and practical advice about how to make the most of technology iLVALv1 ! o -!4yn schools and classrooms; and <LI>a series of recommendations to help ensure that teachers are well prepared to guide today's students to future success. </UL> <P>We hope the report is helpful and that from it, educators find support, inspiration, and some great ideas they can put to work in their schools. We also hope it prompts decisive action to empower teachers to take advantage of technology as a tool to improve education and student performance. <P><IMG SRC="images/crane.gif" ALIGN="left" BORDER=0 ALT="Crane signature" width=154 height=56> <P clear=all><B>Therese Crane, President</B><BR> <I>Jostens Learning Corporation<BR> Co-Chair, CEO Forum</I> <P><IMG SRC="images/spoon.gif" ALIGN="left" BORDER=0 ALT="Spoon signature" width=172 height=56> <P clear=all><B>Alan G. Spoon, President</B><BR> <I>The Washington Post Company<BR> Co-Chair, CEO Forum</I>LVALQFv1TThis report builds a strong case for better preparing new and veteran teachers to use technology more effectively to help students achieve higher academic standards and to improve education generally. To reach these goals, the CEO Forum recommends the following actions by educators, administrators, and business and community leaders. We realize the recommendations are ambitious, but with community-wide commitment, a national imperative, and adequate support at all levels, they can be achieved. <P>In addition to the following recommendations, the CEO Forum continues its call for new data on the integration and use of technology in our nation's schools. Only then will education technology researchers and analysts have the information they need to conduct broad-based evaluations of the impact of appropriate technology use on student achievement and school performance. <P><IMG SRC="images/1.gif" WIDTH="15" HEIGHT="27" ALIGN="LEFT" BORDER="0" ALT="1"> Schools of Education should prepare new teachers to integrate technology effectively into the curriculum. <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">National accreditation standards for schools of education should be changed by 2000 to require that schools of education prepare new teachers and administrators to integrate technology into the classroom.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Schools of Education should provide faculty with the tools, incentives, and on-going professional development they need to integrate technology into the teacher-training curriculum by 2001.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">New teacher and administrator licensure and certification programs should require proficiency in integrating technology into the curriculum by 2003.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Technology funding for schools of education should be increased.</FONT> </UL> <P><IMG SRC="images/2.gif" WIDTH="17" HEIGHT="26" ALIGN="LEFT" BORDER="0" ALT="2"> Current teachers and administrators should be proficient in integrating technology into thLVALv1Ue curriculum. <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Every state should develop standards for effective continuing education on integrating technology into the curriculum by 2000.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Schools and districts should establish long-term technology related professional development plans and proficiency standards for all teachers and administrators by 2000.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Every teacher and administrator should have ready access to appropriate communications and information technology.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Resources for technology-related professional development should be increased.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Every professional development program should integrate technology as a part of all training components.</FONT> </UL> <P><IMG SRC="images/3.gif" WIDTH="18" HEIGHT="27" ALIGN="LEFT" BORDER="0" ALT="3"> Education policymakers and school administrators should create systems that reward the integration of technology into the curriculum. <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Hiring standards for teachers and administrators should include technology integration proficiency by fall 2000 and they should be mandatory by 2002.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Policymakers and education administrators should make a commitment by 2000 to advocate for technology-inclusive professional development as a means to ensure teacher and student success in the classroom.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Performance evaluations for in-service teachers and school administrators should encourage and reward technology integration and innovation by 2000.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Subject-based curriculum standards and measurements should include appropriate technology integration components by 2002.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Student performance assessments should capture the educational benefits enabled by technology by 2002.</FONT> </UL> <P><IMG SRC="images/4.gif" WIDTH=18 HEIGHT=27 ALIGN="LEFT" BORDER=0 ALT="4"> CorporationsLVALv1 ; %   @ @         and local businesses should collaborate with the education community to help ensure that today's students will graduate with 21st century workplace skills. <P><FONT SIZE="-1">Corporations and local businesses should:</FONT></P> <UL> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Collaborate with schools of education and K-12 schools to provide support and share relevant best practices for integrating technology.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Implement technology leadership seminars for principals and school administrators.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Provide leadership and guidance on skills requirements that exist in their workplaces and provide information to help define and continuously refine a K-12 curriculum to support the development of these skills.</FONT> <LI><FONT SIZE="-1">Work with colleges of education to clarify goals and objectives for continuous faculty professional development that encompasses technology and to ensure availability of adequate resources.</FONT> </UL>LVALQF>1WTo thrive in today's world and tomorrow's workplace, America's students must learn how to learn, learn how to think, and have a solid understanding of how technology works and what it can do. Teachers hold the key. In fact, teachers are perhaps the single most important factor determining the quality of education. <P><B>Overview</B><BR> Technology availability is improving. During the last year, the number of computers in American schools increased 13 percent to create an installed base of 6 million computers.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">3</a></sup> While the increase is encouraging, it is important to note that the technology available outside school walls is often several generations ahead of the technology available inside school walls. For example, at 14:1, the student-to-computer ratio for &quot;top of the line&quot; machines is twice as high as the national average student-to-computer ratio for less sophisticated machines.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">4</a></sup> <P>However, more schools than ever before are connected to the Internet. In three years, from the fall of 1994 to the fall of 1997, the percentage of U.S. public schools with Internet access increased from 35 percent to 78 percent.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">5</a></sup> The number of schools with five or more classrooms with Internet access increased from 25 percent of all schools in the fall of 1996 to 43 percent of all schools in the fall of 1997.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">6</a></sup> During 1997 and 1998, schools spent an average of $30.98 per student on Internet services and are expected to increase that spending to $32.13 per student in 1998-1999.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">7</a></sup> These are commendable signs of progress. Nevertheless, the transformation of classroom technology from hardware, software, and connections into tools for teaching and learning depends on knowledgeable and enthusiastic teachers who are motivated and prepared to pLVALv1bg . no5km${@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@?ZZZZZZZZ#w@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@?@@@@@Judy CongerCommunity HighAnn Arbor PublicAnn ArborMI734-994-2021conger@aaps.k12.mi.uswgZ"?Q@??@@@@@@@? @? @????@?@Jeff McNuttStarr ElementaryPlainwell Community SchoolsPlainwellMIygZ!o @???@@@@@? @? @ @???@?@Christine OwenWestonKearsleyFlintMI810.591.9838Chris@mail.kearsley.k12.mi.us|rjZ @?@@@@@@@@? @? @???@@?@Jeff McNuttPlainwell Middle SchoolPlainwell Community SchoolsPlainwellMIgZ9 @@@@@@@@@@@ @@?@ @@?@@@?@Gary R. CourtTappan MiddleAnn ArborAnn ArborMI734-994-2016court@aaps.k12.mi.usxiZ f@@@@@@@@@@@?@?@@@?@@@?@William MacKayAnn Arbor Preschool and Family CenterAnn Arbor Public SchoolAnn ArborMI994-2303jZ/*@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@?@@@@@Judy CongerCommunity HighAnn Arbor PublicAnn ArborMI734-994-2021conger@aaps.k12.mi.uswgZ:@@@@@@@@@@ @@ @@@ZZZZZZZZ5 @@@@@@@@@@@?@?@@@@@@@@@@William MacKayRoberto ClementeAnn Arbor Public SchoolsAnn ArborMI434-4611|jZҟ@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@J. JohnsonLogan ElementaryAAPSAnn ArborMI734 994 1807johnso12@aaps.k12.mi.us~xfZw @@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@Michele MaddenHaisleyAnn Arbor Public SchoolsAnn ArborMI734.994.1937sjZm}@@@?@@?@@@ @@@@@@??@@@testtesttesttestTNtesttest|vrlf`Z @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@SteveStoneAAPSAnn ArborMI734-994-0000}ynhaZ1 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Art ColleyDanbury Public SchoolsDanburyDanburyCO203-730-2684collea@danbury.k12.ct.us~fZ=@@?@@@@@@@@ @@ @@?@@@@Joanne BeckerWoodhaven HighWoodhaven-BrownstownBrownstownMI734-783-3359beckerj@Woodhaven.k12.mi.usyiZu@?@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @@?@@@@@Roger AndersonSterling ElementaryStandish-SterlingStandishMI517-846-3380randerso@isd.bay.k12.mi.usjZ3@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @@?@@@@@Roger AndersonStandish ElementaryStandish-SterlingStandishMI517-846-3380randerso@isd.bay.k12.mi.usjZ@?@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @??@@?@Roger AndersonCentral Jr/Sr HSStandish-St@ `ut technology to work on behalf of their students.LVALTFv1YAs technology becomes more prevalent in schools across the country, expectations for corresponding improvements in education grow as well. Technology is not a panacea for the challenges facing the education community. However, we believe that when used appropriately, it can be an effective tool for promoting practices shown to improve student achievement and school performance. <P>For instance, when used to teach higher-order thinking skills in middle schools and for learning games in elementary schools computers can have a positive effect on student learning.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">8</a></sup> Appropriately applied technology facilitates and reinforces project-based learning by allowing students to work together to research, analyze, and solve problems creatively. Some believe that drill and practice software can be effective in improving fluency of basic skills and in reinforcing concepts already learned. Many also believe that computer simulation software helps to engage students in the process of learning by enabling them to visualize the lesson or theory and to present complex information in simple formats. However, when not used appropriately, technology can have a negative impact on student performance.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">9</a></sup> The real strength of technology in education comes from using the right technology at the right time to meet the right objective. <P>Experts have long recognized that educating students includes more than classroom learning. In today's society, educating students extends beyond school walls and requires cooperation among schools, parents, health care, and other service providers. Computer and communications technologies, from simple e-mail capabilities to complex service referrals, provide convenient and effective avenues to bolster cooperative efforts necessary to meet the unique needs of a diverse student population. <P>The bottom line is clear: technology, applied well, can enhance and reinvigoratex LVAL v1   @@@  of these lagging efforts, in 1994 only 15 percent of teachers had at least nine hours of training in education and technology. Much of this training is inadequate, the CEO Forum contended, since it concentrates only on using particular pieces of hardware or software, rather than taking a total approach to improving teaching. <P>In contrast, American businesses devote about 30 percent of their formal training programs - which now account for $55.3 billion - to technology training for employees. <P>&quot;We want to help our nation's schools learn from the experience of our nation's most successful corporations,&quot; said Alan Spoon, president of the Washington Post Company and co-chair of the CEO Forum. &quot;The companies that have successfully integrated technology into their business have made major investments in technology-related training for their employees.&quot; <P>The CEO Forum is in its second year of activity, and these recommendations are part of its focus this year on professional development. Last year, the CEO Forum reported that only 3 percent of all schools have attained the highest level of integrating technology into classroom teaching. Next year, the CEO Forum will turn its attention to curricula, and, in its fourth year, i education, making schools richer and more exciting interactive communities of learning for students and teachers alike. We must do more, however, than put technology in schools; we must empower teachers to use it effectively. <P><IMG SRC="images/moving.gif" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0" ALT="Chart - Moving from Traditional to New Learning Environments"><BR clear=all> <A NAME="sidebar"></A><B>Sidebar: Today's Technology-Rich Society</B> <UL> <LI>Almost 40 million American households have a personal computer.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">10</a></sup> <LI>E-mail access has increased by 400% in the past three years.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">11</a></sup> </UL>LVALUFv1[Securing a positive return on rising national investments in hardware and connectivity requires a heightened focus on how these resources are used.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">16</a></sup> Unfortunately, it is difficult to measure &quot;use&quot; of resources in public schools. It is clear, however, that teachers and administrators cannot ensure effective and appropriate use of technology without effective and appropriate training and education. <P>Available data on computer training, which is only the most basic component of overall technology training and education for educators, suggests that the news is not good. In 1998-1999, schools project they will spend $5.65 per student on computer training of teachers. In comparison, schools expect to spend $88.19 on instructional hardware, software, and connectivity in 1998-1999.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">17</a></sup> Matched against the Department of Education's recommendation that schools allocate at least 30 percent of their technology budgets to professional development,<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">18</a></sup> current spending is inadequate. <P><B>Current Teachers</B><BR> Preparing the roughly three million teachers at work in our public schools to use technology effectively is not a priority in terms of spending or practice today. It should be. These teachers are responsible for preparing today's students for life and work in a world heavily dependent on the use and application of technology. <P>Members of the public most often cite job readiness as a primary factor in deciding whether computers and technology are effective in education.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">19</a></sup> There is good reason to do so. In a recent study, the U.S. Department of Labor identifies the 54 jobs with the highest growth potential between now and the year 2005 and only eight do not require technological fluency. None of the eight currently pays more than twice the minimum wage.<sup><a href="reLVALv1\ports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">20</a></sup> Moreover, it is estimated that 60 percent of the jobs available at the beginning of the next century will require skills currently held by only 20 percent of the workforce.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">21</a></sup> In addition, the demand for workers to fill higher-skilled information technology jobs is likely to grow from 874,000 in 1996 to 1.8 million in 2006.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">22</a></sup> Finally, higher skill jobs have higher wages. Overall, compensation in elite jobs grew 2.5 times faster than compensation in blue-collar occupations, and 4.3 times faster than in service occupations between 1987 and 1996.<sup>23</sup> <P>More than ever before, employers in all industries are demanding that their employees have basic technology skills and skills enabled by the use of technology. As far back as 1991, the Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) articulated five areas (see <A HREF="#sidebar">sidebar</A>) in which students must be competent, and therefore schools must teach, for the future.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">24</a></sup> Today, the skills most often called for are essentially the same: that students are technologically fluent, that they learn how to learn, and that they can use technology to communicate, collaborate, and support critical thinking and creative problem solving.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">25</a></sup> <P>K-12 schools play a fundamental role in educating our workforce and their importance will only increase, as the economy becomes more dependent on increased skills and education.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">26</a></sup> Ours is technology-rich society. America's public education system, therefore, has a responsibility to provide students with the skills and knowledge employers demand. Professional development for teachers and administrators that focuses on continuous improvement and encompasses technology integration is a critical LVALv1]link to ensure that learning. <P><B>Future Teachers</B><BR> Better preparing teachers is not a challenge that begins with the teachers already in the classroom; it begins earlier. Over the next decade, K-12 schools are likely to hire roughly two million new teachers<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">27</a></sup> in part to fill vacancies left by retiring teachers and in part to accommodate an increase in the student population. Nevertheless, America's schools of education have only just begun to focus on preparing their students --these future teachers-- to understand, access, and bring technology-based experiences into the learning process. For example, most student teachers enrolled in education programs in the U.S. neither routinely use technology during field experience nor work under master teachers and supervisors who can advise them on the use of information technology.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">28</a></sup> <P>The challenge is further complicated because the faculty at teacher colleges frequently lacks the skills and experience necessary to turn technology into an effective teaching tool for themselves and a learning tool for their students. In fact, most faculty members do not model use of information technology skills in teaching.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">29</a></sup> <P>While this report begins to address the issue of technology education at teacher colleges, it is by no means comprehensive. More work is necessary to address the specific needs and unique role these institutions should play in boosting education technology understanding and effective use. <P><b>Sidebar: Today's Technology-Rich Society</b> <UL> <LI>Almost 40 million American households have a personal computer.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">10</a></sup> <LI>E-mail access has increased by 400% in the past three years.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">11</a></sup> <LI>By the end of January 1998, there were close to 30 million Internet hosts.LVALNY Y  Y d Y 0dY Y Y Y Y Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y Y OperatorIDAssignedNumberNamePasswordSupervisorActivityLogsCopy LinksTestimoniesFeedback DumperForwardingBatcherCreatedProtect Killed@4@4@4@@4@4@4@YYLoginIDPrimaryKey*L@+L@News((((((((((( *L@+L@MSysModules288888888888 ypL@ypL@MSysModules66666666666 ypL@zpL@MSysAccessObjectsBBBBBBBBBBB ypL@ypL@Members...........  ypL@ypL@Find duplicates for Commitments2```````````  ypL@ypL@Find duplicates for Commitments^^^^^^^^^^^ L@zpL@Contacts00000000000 L@L@Commitments66666666666  !PL@L@Chapters00000000000 !PL@"PL@CBlocks........... qL@"PL@Answers...........  qL@qL@UserDefined66666666666  qL@qL@SummaryInfo66666666666  qL@qL@AccessLayout88888888888 qL@qL@SysRel,,,,,,,,,,, qL@qL@Scripts........... qL@qL@Reports........... qL@qL@Modules........... qL@qL@Forms*********** qL@qL@DataAccessPages>>>>>>>>>>> qL@qL@MSysRelationshipsmpDDDDDDDDDDB qL@qL@MSysQueriesmp88888888886 qL@qL@MSysACEsmp22222222220 qL@qL@MSysObjectsmp88888888886 <sup>12</sup> <LI>By 2001, the U.S. Internet economy is projected to total more than $350 billion.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">13</a></sup> </UL>LVALXFv1_Due to the unprecedented presence and prevalence of technology in society, it is no longer sufficient, or perhaps even appropriate, to talk about &quot;technology training&quot; as a goal in education. Educators need much more than intermittent sessions on how to operate computer equipment and software. <P>Teachers, like all professionals, need and deserve ongoing exposure to technology so it becomes a seamless component of instruction that leads to real results for students. They need professional development. <P>Professional development for teachers is an ongoing, long-term commitment that begins with the decision to pursue a career in education and continues, through a combination of formal and informal learning opportunities, for the duration of a career. <P>To become a teacher in our nation's public schools, one typically must follow a three-step path: 1) the pre-service program; 2) initial licensure and periodic license renewal; and 3) in-service career development. <P><b>Pre-Service Programs</b><BR> <b>Definition:</b> The professional preparation of teachers has traditionally occurred through four- or five- year programs administered by colleges of education at institutions of higher education. These programs typically integrate the study of subject matter, student development, and teaching methods. They usually also include a supervised clinical experience -- often referred to as &quot;student teaching&quot; -- where aspiring teachers work in K-12 classrooms under the guidance and supervision of experienced teachers. Teacher preparation programs generally are accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the national professional accrediting organization. <P><B>Status:</B> Now more than ever before, schools, colleges, and departments of education in the United States are beginning to address the challenge of pre-service professional development in technology and technology use. This heightened attention is critical. The benefLVALv1`its of strong teacher preparation programs extend beyond the pre-service teachers they educate. In addition to improving how well students are prepared, well-prepared new teachers share their knowledge with colleagues, model best practices, and motivate other teachers to teach with technology.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">30</A></sup> Yet, while most teacher education institutions report that their technology infrastructure is at least adequate to carry out their current programs, about one third still believe deficiencies in their facilities limit their programs.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">31</A></sup> <P>More than 70 percent of teacher preparation programs require three or more credit hours of instruction in courses focused on technology. About fifty percent of that instruction is part of other classes such as methods and curriculum courses. Importantly, these integrated instructional hours more positively correlate with technology skills and the ability to integrate information technology than do stand-alone information technology courses.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">32</A></sup> <P>Despite the fact that the information technology skills of faculty members at teacher colleges are today comparable to their students' skills, most faculty members do not model the use of information technology skills in their teaching.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">33</A></sup> Modeling teaching styles, however, is often considered an effective method of conveying new skills. <P>The best chance to achieve results is to develop a long-range plan with pre-defined, widely endorsed goals and objectives, including the necessary resources. Nevertheless, schools of education tend to lack written, funded, and regularly updated technology plans.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">34</A></sup> <P><b>Initial Licensure/License Renewal</b><BR> <b>Definition:</b> Teacher licensure is a regulatory function of state government that assures the public that beginningLVALv1a teachers have met specified requirements to practice their profession. Standards for initial licensure vary from state to state, but usually include a combination of degree requirements as well as age and citizenship requirements. Initial licensure standards in all states include the requirement that teachers are prepared in state-approved programs, and 70 percent require clinical experience.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">35</A></sup> Nearly all states require teachers to maintain or renew the validity of their licenses through some form of continuing education or staff development. However, standards for licensure renewal vary widely with respect to the interval for renewal and the approved methods of meeting the requirements (college courses, district workshops, conference attendance, etc.) <P><B>Status:</B> Today, 41 states and the District of Columbia require professional development for licensure and 25 states require &quot;computer education&quot; for initial licensure.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">36</A></sup> The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has recognized the importance of preparing teachers to use technology to achieve higher academic standards. NCATE has issued a series of technology-related curriculum guidelines that schools of education must meet before they receive accreditation.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">37</A></sup> <P>This is a critical step in the right direction (see <A HREF="#sidebar1" TARGET="_self">sidebar</A>). Approximately one third of schools of education that produce two thirds of the country's new teachers are NCATE accredited and, therefore, must meet these standards. <P>States can help ensure that technology-related proficiency standards become a priority in licensing and license renewal procedures in the 21st century. Of the states that have standards for teacher technology preparation, however, only two (North Carolina and Vermont) require teaching candidates to have a portfolio thatLVAL?b shows they can use technology.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">39</A></sup> Though many states provide professional development opportunities for teachers, only three require participation in technology training as a prerequisite for license renewal and only 14 require districts to spend a certain percentage of technology funds on professional development.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">40</A></sup> <P>A survey recently conducted by Education Week finds that every state has a policy plan for education technology and is appropriating funds. Unfortunately, few are addressing continuing inequities among schools in their states or setting requirements for student and teacher proficiency.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">41</A></sup> Furthermore, while every state has a technology plan, few have taken the extra step to determine the cost of implementing the plan.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">42</A></sup> A clear spending plan directed toward reaching specific goals is essential. <P>It also is essential to collect more data about technology use in schools. Today, data collection varies widely from state to state. Without better data on how schools are using technology, it is difficult to assess the impact of technology. An inability to assess the broad impact of technology hampers the ability to make the case for fully funding and implementing technology plans. <P><b>In-Service Career Development</b><BR> <b>Definition:</b> States and school districts must make substantial investments to ensure continuous teacher learning and skill acquisition. The most effective in-service career development activities focus on providing instruction in order to improve student learning. They are site-based, rigorous, sustained, and designed and directed by teachers. Equally important, they balance individual priorities with school and district needs. <P><B>Status:</B> Technology is an instrument for achieving the ultimate goals of high academic standards and improved school perLVALcformance. Therefore, schools should incorporate appropriate professional development with technology at every opportunity. Although many educators and policy analysts consider educational technology a vehicle for transforming education, only 20 percent of teachers feel well prepared to integrate education technology into classroom instruction.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">43</A></sup> <P>The unique ability of technology to enhance the professional performance of teachers and thereby the performance of students and institutions makes it imperative that teachers learn to &quot;teach with technology, not just about technology.&quot;<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">45</A></sup> (see <A HREF="#sidebar2" TARGET="_self">sidebar</A>) The CEO Forum believes that by combining the best of traditional learning with the unprecedented information and resources made available through technology, teachers can better prepare their students to succeed. <P>In-service professional development for educators increases knowledge, reinvigorates teaching, and in many cases, inspires change in teaching practices. Technology-related professional development enables teachers to employ an important tool with value across disciplines and in all departments. Although our focus in this report is almost exclusively on teaching and learning in the classroom, the use of technology impacts administrative and student service functions as well. For schools to accomplish the transformations demanded by 21st century global competition, the application of technology, and hence the development of competent professionals, should cut across all school operations. <P><CENTER><IMG SRC="IMAGES/CHARTPG11.GIF" WIDTH="387" HEIGHT="254" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0" ALT="Prepared Chart"></center> <P>A few examples demonstrate the magnitude of potential time saved from adopting even the most basic technology. Consider, for example, a junior high school in Richardson, Texas that installed telephones in classrooms soLVALv1d teachers could reduce time walking through hallways to communicate. This simple change saved teachers approximately 15.5 days of time each year.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">46</A></sup> In another school, River Oaks outside of Toronto, Ontario, the principal adopted a practice of conducting all logistical communications with his staff via e-mail, thus eliminating the need for administrative discussions in staff meetings. Consequently, River Oaks reduced bi-weekly meetings of 90-100 minutes to three staff meetings per year. This simple approach saved more than three hours in teacher and staff time per month.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">47</A></sup> <P>The pattern of professional development in American schools has long been focused on &quot;one shot&quot; workshops where instructors introduce teachers to a methodology or topic and lead them through exercises to familiarize them with the processes and content. Follow-up study, classroom observations, links to student activity, and measuring results have generally been absent. To be effective today, professional development must be based on a new mode of continuous improvement (see <A HREF="#sidebar3"> sidebar</A>) linked to the program goals of the institution and the performance of teachers and students in the classroom.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">48</A></sup> <P>To enrich learning and obtain the benefits of technology, activities with follow-up and mechanisms for comment in the classroom should be constructed and made available for all teachers. One-time sessions are not particularly effective. As educators begin to experiment with what they learn, new questions inevitably arise. Without some mechanism for addressing questions as they emerge, educators are reticent to try new approaches. Consequently, schools should increase the value of even minimal investments of time and resources for professional development by guaranteeing adequate follow-up. <P>It is important to differentiate professional dLVALv1eevelopment activities according to audience, content specialty, level, function, and contribution to the goals of the institution. All teachers, for instance, can learn to use e-mail to enlist home-school collaboration for their classroom activities, to keep parents informed of homework, and to conduct asynchronous conferences. History teachers can learn to enlist museums and experts through the Internet, while science teachers can learn to locate resource sites and online conversion calculators to aid students in project completion. Professional development with technology should focus on how to use computers, software, and other technology tools to teach, not on mechanics. Similarly, technical experts should not be the sole instructors in professional development programs. While they may be proficient with technology, they often have little understanding and experience using technology to meet core subject matter objectives or broader pedagogical concerns. <P>Ongoing support, including strong participation from principals, administrators, community leaders, and parents can enable all teachers to master new methods and operations, explore new techniques and applications, and observe the effects on student performance. The technology itself can enable them to share best practices and mentor one another. To accomplish this, however, requires a move away from &quot;one-shot&quot; training. It also requires professional development with technology for those making decisions in schools and requires giving a voice in direction, planning, and implementation to teachers with technical expertise and hands-on experience using technology to teach. <P>It also requires making time for professional development with technology. Teachers in our nation's K-12 schools work an average of 45 hours per week with 33 of those hours spent at school. Of the remaining 12 hours, teachers spend slightly more than three on activities involving students and almost nine on other teaching-related activities.<LVALv1fsup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">49</A></sup> It is no surprise, therefore, that more than 50 percent of schools still allow technology professional development to be optional.<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">50</A></sup> Consequently, many dedicated educators sacrifice their personal time to learn about technology. While teachers should always share responsibility for their own professional development, primarily relying on teacher personal time will never enable a culture of effective technology use. Self-directed training should supplement, not substitute for, sanctioned, supported, and continuous professional development. <P><A NAME="sidebar1"></A><B>Sidebar: A Step in the Right Direction: National Accreditatioin Guidelines<sup><A HREF="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">38</A></sup></B> <UL> <LI>Students complete a sequence of courses or field experiences, which allows them to understand technology as it relates to the subjects that they plan to teach. <LI>Students understand how to use technology for instruction, assessment, and other professional reasons. <LI>Faculty members know about current technology-related practices and use them in their teaching and scholarship. </UL> <UL> <LI>Faculty members and students have access to and training in a number of educational technologies. <LI>Institutions provide, maintain, and support computing, communications, and instruction technology at least at the level they do in their other schools or programs. </UL> For more information visit <A HREF="http://www.ncate.org/" TARGET="_blank">www.ncate.org</A> <P><A NAME="sidebar2"></A><B>Sidebar: States Requiring Computer Education for Licensure</B> Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mixico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, WyLVAL3 Washington, DC -- A landmark partnership of 21 top business and education leaders today focused national attention on the relationship between education and technology, and called on all segments of society to work together to ensure that technology is more effectively used to better prepare students for life and work in the 21st century. The members of the CEO Forum on Education and Technology report that while there have been increases in the number of computers in the classroom as well as increases in access to the Internet, only 3% of the nation's schools are currently maximizing educational technology in America's classrooms. <P>&quot;Preparing today's students to be contributing citizens and productive members of tomorrow's workforce requires that American schools combine the best of traditional learning with the unprecedented opportunities technology offers,&quot; said Anne L. Bryant, Executive Director of the National School Boards Association. &quot;The CEO Forum has made a four-year commitment to keep us all on track by assessing where we are and where we need to go.&quot; <Poming. <P><A NAME="sidebar3"></A><B>Sidebar: A New Way to Discuss Professional Development</B><BR> Sue Bastian was tired of sitting through presentations. As President of Teaching Matters, a non-profit organization providing technology training for New York City teachers, she longed for a new way to engage her team in discussions about professional development. She found it in &quot;New Thinking, New Teaching,&quot; a play written and performed by the Teaching Matters staff. The play shows both the challenges and opportunities a school encounters as it seeks to integrate technology into the classroom. Designed for teachers and administrators alike, the play is a comical way to address the serious issues schools face in their quest to improve professional development. For more information on Teaching Matters, visit its website at <A HREF="http://www.tminet.org/" TARGET="_blank">www.tminet.org</A>LVAL[F6hTo be effective, professional development programs need to accommodate the program goals of the institution, the targeted results for students, the level of sophistication of teachers who participate, and the technology available. Since teachers are the linchpins of success for students, their individual requirements for mastering new methods, knowledge, and techniques deserve particular attention. <P>Experience suggests that teachers, even those most enthusiastic about teaching with technology, typically pass through several distinct stages before they become education technology integrators and innovators. Progression through stages of technology adoption and integration is not unique to the education community.<sup>51</sup> For decades, corporate America has witnessed a similar progression as businesses have increased the presence and use of technology, first for internal operations and then for interactions with vendors and customers. Corporate researchers also have identified a cycle of technology integration that progresses through planning, investigation, and experimentation stages to the emergence of new work and organization models.<sup>52</sup> Though not identical to the stages of teacher technology adoption described here, they are similar enough to suggest that technology integration, no matter where it occurs, is a process that evolves (see <A HREF="#sidebar1">sidebar</A>) over time. <P>The following list describes five stages of teacher technology adoption. The list underscores the idea that understanding and using technology well takes time. It also outlines very distinct stages that suggest the need for tailored activities for professional development (see <A HREF="#sidebar2">sidebar</A>). <P><b>Stage 1: Entry</b><BR> <b>Students Learning to Use Technology.</b> At this stage, teachers are not themselves the technology users. If students are using technology, they are using it in ways determined by someone other than the teacher and without particiLVALv1ipation from the teacher. For example, they may have a designated computer lab time taught by a computer teacher. Alternatively, they may have classroom computers that are used for educational software games which students independently use during assigned computer time. <P><b>Stage 2: Adoption</b><BR> <b>Teachers Use Technology to Support Traditional Instruction.</b> Teachers are beginning to use technology usually to enhance their own productivity, mandated either by the school (e.g., electronic report cards) or through their own initiative. Teachers at this stage use technology in a limited way, to do things they already would have done without the technology. They experience an advantage doing traditional tasks with a new tool and begin to see the power of the tool for other applications. For example, a teacher who uses word processing software to prepare a newsletter to parents discovers how much easier it is than using a typewriter. Therefore, the teacher begins to provide opportunities for students to use the computer as a &quot;better typewriter&quot; for completing stories, reports, or other exercises. <P><b>Stage 3: Adaptation</b><BR> <b>Technology Used to Enrich Curriculum.</b> Teachers begin to use technology in ways that are connected to the curriculum, and in ways that are already familiar. Teachers are automating existing practices. For example, a teacher who has located web sites with reference material relevant to a particular lesson is using that material to present the subject matter to the class. Perhaps the teacher is having students use CD-ROM encyclopedias and the Internet as an extension of print resources. Teachers at the adaptation stage tend to direct student inquiry (e.g., pre-selecting web sites) rather than allowing student-directed learning experiences. <P><b>Stage 4: Appropriation</b><BR> <b>Technology is Integrated, Used for its Unique Capabilities.</b> Teachers at the appropriation stage view technology as a relevant tool for teaching and learning aLVALv1jnd they design learning experiences and environments to take advantage of its capabilities to meet objectives and desired outcomes. In the classrooms of teachers at this stage, technology begins to reveal its potential to produce improvements in learning, as students master higher-order thinking skills and more complex concepts and skills than they would have encountered without technology. Students will view technology as a tool to meet their objectives. For example, a student assigned a project on a local environmental issue would be empowered to use the Internet and other technology resources, such as e-mail, to direct a personal approach to the project. The teacher might also allow students to determine individual presentation tools, and arrange for a presentation to the appropriate community organization. <P><b>Stage 5: Invention</b><BR> <b>Discover new uses for technology.</b> At this stage, teachers are redefining classroom environments and creating learning experiences that truly leverage the power of technology to involve students in tasks that require higher-order thinking skills as well as mastering basic concepts and skills. For example, a teacher might create a theme or project around which to center most of the activities of the class for a semester. During that time, the teacher and students would create a project or series of projects that weave learning and demonstration ability in each of the required subject areas. For example, a class project to create a web site for a local business might involve the opportunity for the students to learn about the business, learn about web site creation, hone organizational skills, master content, and apply basic skills. Such a project might look to an outside observer more like a business environment than a conventional classroom, though a wealth of learning would be taking place. <P>Tailoring professional development opportunities to teacher and student skills and levels of receptivity can help schools ensure thLVALv1kat technology is not merely considered inevitable, but is recognized as a valuable tool for creativity, collaboration, and innovation in teaching and learning. <P><A NAME="sidebar2"></A><B>Sidebar: Evolution Not Revolution: Managing Change<sup>53</sup></B><BR> Assistant Principal Dwayne Young is working hard to ensure that Louise Archer Elementary School in Vienna, Virginia is a &quot;safe&quot; place for teachers to become education technology leaders. Louise Archer's education technology plan evolves as the teachers and students evolve, decreasing dependence on school administrators and the in-house computer expert as teacher and student knowledge, needs, and comfort increases. Young, a former teacher at the school, reports that until recently, even some of the teachers in this technology-rich school viewed technology as inevitable, as something they had to accept. Now, he says, teachers are beginning to see the possibilities for themselves. &quot;Our goal is to create an environment that encourages teachers to explore, learn, and determine what's best for them and their students in any given circumstance. We want our teachers to know enough about using technology that they can take the lead in determining whether, when, and how to incorporate it as they work to improve the performance of our students and our school.&quot; For an inside look at Louise Archer, visit its student-created web site at <A HREF="http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/louisearcher" TARGET="_blank">www.fcps.k12.va.us/louisearcher</A> <P> <B>Sidebar: Lessons from Corporate America</B><BR> Over the past decade, successful corporations, non-profit organizations, and government agencies have learned that investing in professional development with technology is instrumental to improving operations, enhancing results and ensuring better service. <UL> <LI>American businesses now invest $60.7 billion per year on formal employee education ensuring that 54.5 million employees receive some level of training  LVAL v1<CENTER><B>ALAN G. SPOON</B><BR> PRESIDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY<BR> AND 1998 CO-CHAIR, CEO FORUM ON EDUCATION &amp; TECHNOLOGY <P> TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE<BR> <P> WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1999<BR> 2:00 PM<BR> 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING </CENTER> <P>Madame Chairman, Congressman Barcia, it is my honor to appear before you today representing the CEO Forum on Education &amp; Technology.</P> <P>The CEO Forum is a coalition of corporate and academic leaders who ve formed a four-year partnership to assess and monitor progress toward integrating technology in American schools.</P> <P>Our objective is to help ensure that our nation s students will achieve higher academic standards through enriched learning and will be equipped with the skills they need to be contributing citizens and productive workers in the next century.</P> <P>Our first report on hardware and connectivity, issued in late 1997, found that most schools lacked the hardware and connections needed to truly benefit students learning. While a majority of schools were connected to the Internet, in many cases it was a single connection to a single computer to be shared by scores of students. </P> <P>The CEO Forum also developed what is now known as the &quot;School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart&quot; -- a self-assessment tool that schools can use to determine their level of technology readiness. This tool has been sent to hundreds of school districts around the country and has received strong support from the K-12 community. The Stat from their employers.<sup>54</sup> <LI>More than 70% of that training takes place in classrooms with live instructors and more than 33% of formal training courses focus on computers.<sup>55</sup> <LI>Spending on technical training is growing rapidly. From 1996-1997, spending per person increased 74% for information services staff training and 33% for business staff.<sup>56</sup> </UL>LVAL[Fv1mThe goal of boosting technology professional development throughout a teacher's career is to reach established educational objectives such as enabling teachers to teach better, students to learn better and communities across the nation to improve their public schools. With a base level of technology and connections now in American schools, it is time to focus new attention, energy, and resources on ensuring that teachers are prepared to put technology to work (see <A HREF="#sidebar1">sidebars</A>). <P><b>Putting Professional Development to Work in Schools</b><BR> To help guide the nation's schools toward better technology-related professional development programs, the CEO Forum has updated its School Technology and Readiness Chart (STaR Chart) which was first released in October, 1997. This self-assessment tool is designed to help K-12 schools chart their readiness to use and integrate technology in teaching and learning. The STaR Chart identifies a continuum of school profiles, from the &quot;Low Tech&quot; school (with little or no technology in use) to the &quot;Target Tech&quot; school (the model for innovative use of education technology). <P>The CEO Forum STaR Chart is an evolving document that changes as technology changes and as school adoption, integration, and use of technology changes. It is not intended to be a measure of any particular school's technology and readiness, but rather a benchmark against which every school can assess its own progress. In the coming year, the CEO Forum will work with leaders at American schools of education to adapt the STaR Chart specifically for teacher colleges. The goal is to create a guide that meets their particular needs and unique role in the teacher education process. <P>In all efforts to apply the assessment tool created by the CEO Forum, it is important to recognize that each school and district is unique. Even in terms of professional development, each district has distinct needs and budget constraints, particular cLVALv1nhallenges to overcome and specific resources and advantages available. <P>Nevertheless, as the STaR Chart indicates, a Low Tech school with one computer in the administrative office and no connection to the Internet should have a technology professional development plan. So, too, should the Target Tech school with a cluster of computers and Internet connections in every classroom. While the plan for every school will be different and will evolve over time, the CEO Forum believes there is always room for improvement and an important action agenda to pursue. <P> <A NAME="sidebar1"></A><B>Sidebar: Motorola Increases Professional Development Investment; Improves Results <sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">57</a></sup></b><BR> As competition and technological innovation transformed the electronics industry, Motorola decided in 1979 to increase its investment in employee training. The Motorola Training and Education Center was born. <P>Motorola required and entitled every employee to spend at least 40 hours per year training. By 1995, corporations were spending an average of one percent of payroll costs on training; Motorola was spending three percent. By 1996, Motorola was spending $200 million per year teaching 142,000 employees skills including foreign languages, computer programming, marketing strategies, and statistics. The results included a dramatic reduction in product defects and time to market and skyrocketing sales figures. <P>Importantly, Morotola was able to measure their cost savings. three separate studies commissioned by the company showed that when skills were taught, reinforced, and measured in terms of later job performance, Motorola reaped a $30-$33 return on every one dollar invested. Motorola was the first u.S. electronics company to outperform its Japanese competitors and, in 1988, was the first large corporatioin to win the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award. <P><A NAME="sidebar2"></A><B>Sidebar: Technology: A Professional DevelopmenLVALv1 Accreditation standards, faculty training, licensure and certification programs, and funding priorities should all be reformed with this objective in mind.</LI> <P>The CEO Forum will soon publish a &quot;Teacher Preparation STaR Chart&quot; to help schools, colleges and departments of education assess their level of technology readiness in preparing tomorrow s teachers. The Chart should be ready by the end of the year, and it will be made available to every school of education in America.</P> <P> <LI><U>Current teachers and administrators should be proficient in integrating technology into the curriculum</U>. To accomplish this objective, continuing education and proficiency standards should be strengthened. Professional development programs should be updated. Technology access and technology funding should be increased.</LI> <P> <LI><U>Education policymakers andt Tool for Technology Professionals</B><BR> At Lucent Technologies, keeping a dispersed team of professionals current on the technologies they service is a formidable challenge. To meet the challenge, the company created the Call Center Institute (CCI), an online resource center and knowledge warehouse accessible at any time, from anywhere. The CCI is home to more than 800 megabytes of information on current call center technologies and applications in the form of case studies, white papers, research articles, training materials, presentations, demonstrations and performance support tools. Not only can Call Center Specialists access the vast array of information through CCI; they can access each other. Whether sharing ideas, experiences, or best practices, the CCI's informal chat rooms, synchronous interactive teleconferencing programs, web-based seminars, and &quot;telecollaboration consultations&quot; with product engineers help this worldwide team stay current and connected. For more information about CCI, contact Alan Chute, Director, Lucent Technologies Center for Excellence in Distance Learning at 513-768-5248.LVALbF3 pThe CEO Forum believes there are three cornerstones upon which to build effective plans for technology professional development. Professional development efforts must be: <UL> <LI>integral to the core mission of the institution; <LI>supported at the highest levels within the organization and the community; and <LI>endorsed and supported by teachers in the classroom. </UL> <P>On this foundation, the CEO Forum offers the following principles to help schools throughout the education system design and implement their own plans for effective technology professional development. <P><B>Principles</B> <OL> <LI><B>Set Relevant Realistic Goals</B> <LI><B>Include All Stakeholders; Capitalize on All Resources</B> <LI><B>Link Professional Development to Teacher and Student Needs and Objectives</B> <LI><B>Model Best Practices</B> <LI><B>Encourage Learning by Doing</B> <LI><B>Provide Resources, Incentives, and Ongoing Support</B> </OL> <P><B>1. Set Relevant, Realistic Goals.</b><BR> Before creating and implementing a technology-related professional development plan, all stakeholders must have a clear vision of the objectives the plan will help meet. It is critical to remember that technology for technology's sake is not the key. The key is creating a plan that will enable teachers to use technology and the expansive resources it makes available to improve student performance and achievement. <P><font color="999999"><B>North Carolina: High Standards for a High Tech Age</B><BR> North Carolina underscores its strong commitment to education technology in its standards for teachers. All new teachers are required to take a state-administered test composed of multiple choice questions on technology and an interactive activity where they must answer questions and manipulate data. In addition, new teachers are responsible for producing a portfolio demonstrating advanced technology skills. Portfolios are assessed by a committee of public school and university faculty members assembled bLVAL3 qy the new teacher's pre-service program. As of this year, current teachers applying for their five-year license renewal also must have amassed 30-50 hours of technology training. Each district is responsible for devising its own plan for meeting this requirement. To find out more about what North Carolina expects of its teachers see <A HREF="http://www.ofps.dpi.state.nc.us/OFPS/hm/te/techcomp.htm" TARGET="_blank">www.ofps.dpi.state.nc.us/OFPS/hm/te/techcomp.htm</A> <P><B>Setting Goals and Meeting Them</B><BR> Diane Hathaway, Principal of Philadelphia's Hill-Freedman Middle School, knew that making her school &quot;Target Tech&quot; would require clear objectives and hard work. The school lacked both a computer cluster and a computer teacher. She would have to serve simultaneously as principal, computer teacher, and repair woman. Nevertheless, under Hathaway's guidance, &quot;mini-clusters&quot; of least six computers and two printers were located in every instructional classroom. All school personnel from teachers to custodians received training at the district training center. Over a period of a year and a half, every available in-service day was devoted to technology training. To ensure that teachers used their training, Hathaway decided to accept lesson plans only by e-mail, posted daily announcements exclusively on the Internet, and evaluated teachers on their use of technology. <A HREF="http://www.phila.k12.pa.us%20/schools/hill_freedman/" TARGET="_blank">www.phila.k12.pa.us /schools/hill_freedman/</A> <P><B>Providing Standards-Based Professional Development Models</B><BR> Through the Reinventing Education grant program, IBM is working with the San Jose Unified School District to develop an electronic tool for teacher professional development. The goal is to help teachers integrate technology into instruction. The tool guides and instructs teachers on activities to help them progress along a continuum from &quot;emerging&quot; user of technology to &quot;exemplaryLVALv1r.&quot; The tool also helps teachers collect the work from these activities, keep journals that can be shared online, and create personalized plans for growth. <P>The district also is implementing two new models of professional development. In one, teacher teams work with specially skilled classroom teachers, engaging in hands-on, classroom-based learning to build upon their teaching skills, especially in the effective uses of technology. Through the second, a teacher (or team of teachers) designs a standards-based project that focuses on an instructional concern that technology potentially could address. Projects are implemented in the classroom, along with any training or other support that might be required, and findings are evaluated and disseminated so that they may be helpful to other teachers. For more information, visit <A HREF="http://www.ibm.com/IBM/IBMGives/k12ed/k-12init.htm" TARGET="_blank">www.ibm.com/IBM/IBMGives/k12ed/k-12init.htm</A></font> <P> <b>2. Involve All Stakeholders; Capitalize On All Resources.</b><BR> Professional development activities must involve all stakeholders from school principals, administrators, and community leaders to teachers, parents, and students. A clear expectation for how technology can meet core objectives is critical and each stakeholder must lend experience and expertise in both the planning and implementation phases. <P><font color="999999"><B>Involving Teachers in Planning</B><BR> The technology committee for the Chittenden South Supervisory District in Hinesburg, Vermont plans and implements technology use in all district schools. The committee, composed of fifteen teachers and media specialists and an assistant superintendent, functions as both a de facto decision-making body and a forum for sharing information among the district's schools. In addition, the committee's meetings function as informal in-service time for the members, providing them with new knowledge and skills to bring back to their home schools. There, thLVAL3 sey serve on local technology committees and field suggestions and questions from their colleagues. To learn more about the committee visit <A HREF="http://www.cssd.k12.vt.us/tech.htm" TARGET="_blank">www.cssd.k12.vt.us/tech.htm</A> <P><B>Kids Can!</B><sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">58</a></sup><BR> As Indiana's Butler University teacher preparation program began working to boost understanding and use of technology in education, Dr. Matthew Maurer wanted to be sure to tap into all available resources. To that end, he designed a &quot;Junior Professor&quot; program to dispel pre-service teachers' notion that technology is too sophisticated for young students. Butler pairs &quot;Junior Professors,&quot; ranging in age from first to fifth grade, with small groups of pre-service teachers. The Junior Professors teach the groups graphics and hypermedia programs. Inevitably, the children's abilities surprise the student teachers. They learn that they must not be afraid to challenge children to use technology. The Junior Professors feel a sense of accomplishment and empowerment. <P><B>Professional Development and The Teacher's Toolbox</B><BR> As part of the district's 40-hour technology training program, teachers in Washington State's Kent School District are taught to use the district's Teacher's Toolbox website. Among other things, the website allows teachers to complete otherwise cumbersome paperwork online, find information on their students, share lesson plans, and sign up for professional development activities. The website gives teachers who might not otherwise use technology a reason to do so. By using the Toolbox, teachers become more comfortable with using technology. This is a first step in preparing teachers to integrate technology into the classroom. An added bonus is that the Toolbox saves teachers' time. The district calculated that simply allowing elementary school teachers to order student lunch online saves each teacher 30 minutes, and the district $1LVALt30,000, weekly. Check out Teacher's Toolbox at <A HREF="http://www.kent.wednet.edu:80/toolbox/index.html" TARGET="_blank">www.kent.wednet.edu:80/toolbox/index.html</A></font> <P> <B>3. Link Professional Development to Teacher and Student Needs and Objectives.</b><BR> Education technology efforts should link to the core lessons a teacher is teaching and to the skills the student is working to acquire. Similarly, skills taught and experience leveraged should be relevant to the learner's life. For the future teacher, that means learning to teach with technology. For the student soon to join the workforce, it means learning technology skills and the use of technology to solve problems and achieve objectives. <P><font color="999999"><B>A Model of Excellence: Iowa's Graceland College</B><sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">59</a></sup><BR> It may seem odd at first that Graceland College's School of Education -- a school with no education technology course -- is a model of excellence. But it is. To foster a more integrated approach to education technology, Graceland eliminated its stand-alone education technology course in 1996. Now, the Educational Technology Coordinator works with other professors to develop education technology modules specific to each course ensuring that students learn how to use technology in the context of different disciplines. Faculty members at Graceland continually improve their education technology skills by consulting with the Coordinator, attending one another's classes during education technology modules, and by participating in supplementary workshops. For more information on Graceland's School of Education see <A HREF="http://www.graceland.edu/camplife.academics/education.html" TARGET="_blank">www.graceland.edu/camplife.academics/education.html</A> <P><B>Taking Risks, Getting Rewards</B><BR> Marna Weiss, music teacher and band director at Lakeland High School in New York state, was asked to coach a student team entering a college scholarshLVALv1uip contest sponsored by ThinkQuest. The challenge: develop a web site to help others learn. Knowing little about the web, Miss Weiss suggested that a computer teacher should help. The students knew the technology, but needed Miss Weiss because she knew about music. Miss Weiss reluctantly agreed. Two years (and two winning ThinkQuest entries later) other teachers now come to Miss Weiss for advice on using computers, software, and integrating the web in their classrooms. &quot;At first I just wanted to give the team feedback,&quot; says Miss Weiss. &quot;Then the kids' excitement and motivation got to me -- they were doing extraordinary academic work and loving it.&quot; Miss Weiss was hooked. &quot;I discovered a whole new way to research, learn, and use technology,&quot; she says. &quot;The kids taught me so much and as they did, they grew intellectually and socially. This has truly been one of the most rewarding and authentic professional development experiences of my career.&quot; For more information about ThinkQuest, visit <A HREF="http://www.thinkquest.org/" TARGET="_blank">www.thinkquest.org</A></font> <P> <b>4. Model Best Practices.</b><BR> Using technology to teach about effectively using technology demonstrates the power of the medium to meet pre-determined objectives. By modeling and setting examples for use, technology best practices become self-evident. <P><font color="999999"><B>Integrating Technology: A First-Hand Look</B><BR> Each prospective teacher at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia sees the power of technology in teaching first-hand when taking a required course that introduces technology use in education. Using databases, office and other software packages, students develop lesson plans, create multi-media presentations, and evaluate the pedagogical utility of different software packages. George Mason is also launching a program to teach future junior high and high school teachers how to use technology by pairing methods professors --LVALv1v those who teach a particular subject -- with technology specialists. At the elementary level, GMU includes a discussion about effective uses of technology for each skill taught. For instance, if the lesson is pedagogical uses of role playing, prospective elementary school teachers will discuss when technology use is appropriate. For more information contact Deborah Sprague at <A HREF="mailto:dspragu1@gmu.edu">dspragu1@gmu.edu</A>. For the syllabus of the technology training course, go to <A HREF="http://mason.gmu.edu/~dspragu1/EDIT504.html" TARGET="_blank">mason.gmu.edu/~dspragu1/EDIT504.html</A> <P><B>Pyramid to Success</B><BR> Imagine a school where 100 percent of teachers are voluntarily active in technology training. Does it seem improbable? It did to Dr. Carol Utay of Jessamine County until she began the &quot;Tag Team&quot; program at Warner Elementary School. The Tag Team works according to a simple pyramid scheme. Initially, a small group of teachers was offered training on the condition that they use their training to create a technology-infused project with a teacher who had not yet been &quot;tagged&quot; for training. As new teachers were &quot;tagged&quot; they similarly agreed to involve another teacher in a technology-infused collaborative project. The snowball effect was impressive. Through the Tag Team program, all teachers at Warner Elementary are involved in technology training. Teachers know that when they join the tag team they will be involved in authentic projects and that their self-selected buddy -- presumably someone they like working with -- will support them through the process. To learn more about Jessamine County's Technology Programs visit <A HREF="http://www.jessamine.k12.ky.us/dop/technology.html" TARGET="_blank">www.jessamine.k12.ky.us/dop/technology.html</A> <P><B>Spotlight on Peabody College at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">60</a></B></sup><BR> At Peabody College, aspiring teachers are immerLVAL?wsed in technology as the faculty models technology-enabled teaching throughout the curriculum. Students routinely use multi-media materials and digital resources in their coursework. For example, students may control video clips of a teacher working with special needs students and then respond interactively to questions. To create such a high-tech environment, Peabody invested in its faculty members by offering them a reduced teaching load for a semester so they could spend time revamping their courses. To learn more about Peabody go to <A HREF="http://www.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/" TARGET="_blank">www.peabody.vanderbilt.edu</A> <P><B>Faculty First at Iowa State<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">61</a></sup></B><BR> Iowa State University made a conscious decision to integrate technology tools into its educational curriculum. Before teaching students however, faculty had to come first. In 1992, Iowa State established a mentoring program for undergraduate and graduate students to mentor faculty members about technology. Ann Thompson, Director, Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching at Iowa State University, says that the program allowed faculty members to weave technology into projects of interest in a non-threatening way. Based on Iowa State survey data about faculty attitudes toward technology, faculty member self-confidence with technology has grown since the program began. Iowa State also offers a minor in educational computing through its school of education. Enrollment is now at 150 students, a 100 percent increase in two years. Iowa State works with the University of Virginia and University of Exeter in England in the Coalition for Innovation in Technology and Teacher Education (CITTE). CITTE defines visions for appropriate technology use in the classroom and produces videos and demonstrations on the effective classroom use of technology. For more information, contact Ann Thompson, <A HREF="mailto:eat@iastate.edu">eat@iastate.edu</A></font> <P> <b>5. LVALxEncourage Learning by Doing.</b><BR> Few techniques are more effective than learning by doing. By creating an environment that empowers teachers and students to learn to use technology through practical experience, institutions can begin to see benefits quickly. Teachers should use technologies such as distance learning, online networking, and web- and computer-based classes to access professional development resources. They should also use technology to communicate and exchange ideas with peers locally and around the globe. Similarly, students should be encouraged to learn by doing and to share new knowledge with peers. <P><font color="999999"><b>Girls Teaching Girls: Ensuring Equity and Leveraging Experience</b><sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">62</a></sup><BR> Palos Consolidated School District 118 in Palos Park, Illinois is working to ensure that the girls in its schools have an incentive to explore and learn with technology and that new expertise is passed to other girls. <P>Through a program called Girls and Technology: Skills, Computers, Awareness, and Peer Empowerment (GATSCAPE), sixth, seventh, and eighth-grade girls at all levels of computer literacy and ability receive unrestricted access to technology both during classes and after school. <P>The program goal is to leverage technology learning to nurture and enhance leadership abilities and problem-solving skills. Through role-playing, real-life situational activities, and games, girls become confident risk-takers willing to collaborate and support one another. The girls are encouraged to convey new skills to other girls formally and informally. <P>The GATSCAPE program was honored at a 1996 summit meeting of the Pioneering Partners Foundation (www.pioneeringpartners.org), a nonprofit that seeks to spread technology use in education by investing in people. The team used the $5,000 grant to expand and enhance the program to touch more students. For more information, contact Margaret Johnson, DistriLVAL`yct Technology Coordinator, <A HREF="mailto:mjohnson@d118.s-cook.k12.il.us">mjohnson@d118.s-cook.k12.il.us</A> <P><B>Real Schools, Real Solutions: Professional Development Internship-Style</B><BR> Carteret County's &quot;Learning Environments for the Next Century&quot; (LENC) Project gives current teachers the opportunity to &quot;intern&quot; with a mentor teacher for two days in an actual classroom. Master teachers are selected to serve as technology mentors. The mentors are responsible for developing technology-infused classroom projects or &quot;Units of Practice.&quot; Over the course of the year, pairs or groups of other teachers will join the mentors and their students for two days to participate in a Unit of Practice. After the internship, participants generate an action plan and timeline for creating their own collaborative, interdisciplinary Unit of Practice. Mentors support participants through a series of follow-up sessions. Conducting professional development directly in the classroom makes it more meaningful and realistic for participants. Moreover, unlike traditional professional development, the training exercise itself benefits students. Through LENC, mentors' students participate in exciting new projects with not one, but several, enthusiastic teachers. To learn more about the LENC project visit <A HREF="http://www.marine.unc.edu/neusr/modmon/lenc/info/info.htm" TARGET="_blank">www.marine.unc.edu/neusr/modmon/lenc/info/info.htm</A> <P><B>Moving from Under-Performing to Over-Achieving</B><BR> When District 15 in Palatine/Rolling Meadows, Illinois decided to transform a disappointing traditional school into a technology rich, high performing school it started with the teachers. All teachers were given the choice of remaining at Willow Bend, the target school, to create a model school or transferring to another school in the district. Ninety-nine percent of teachers decided to stay. Between the spring and fall of 1995, Willow Bend's education program was complLVAL`zetely overhauled and virtually every available technology was infused into the school. The student to computer ratio improved to a ratio of 2:1. Expert teachers trained by the district primarily led the training sessions for their peers. A critical element of the successful transformation was changing the school schedule to allow teachers daily planning time and weekly group planning time. As a result of its innovative efforts, Willow Bend has jumped from one of the district's lowest performing schools to one of its highest performing schools despite high student turnover and a large language minority population.</font> <P> <b>6. Provide Resources, Incentives, and On-Going Support.</b><BR> A collective willingness to create the time and devote the resources to technology professional development is essential. The school community needs mechanisms to enable teachers to focus on professional development activities without jeopardizing their students and without primarily relying on teacher personal time. In addition, schools and districts should accept the risk of trying new ideas and testing creative approaches to help create an environment in which teachers are encouraged to experiment and students are inspired to learn. <P><font color="999999"><B>A Win-Win Deal</B><BR> The new contract between Brunswick City Schools and the Ohio Education Association Union is a win-win deal when it comes to professional development. Under the contract, teachers are paid at the substitute rate to attend professional development workshops during non-school days. The district wins because it pays what it would have paid had a substitute taught while the regular teacher was receiving training. Teachers win because they are paid for their professional development work. In addition and most importantly, students win. They benefit from their teachers' training without being deprived of their regular teacher as they would if the teacher been pulled from the classroom. In addition, the district se&LVAL6v1S  Y   Y Y  Y Y  Y  DY  Y   Y  Y  Y a Y d Y 2Y  Y   Y  jY ConnectDatabaseDateCreateDateUpdate FlagsForeignNameIdLvLvExtraLvModule LvPropName OwnerParentIdRmtInfoLongRmtInfoShortTypenits aside 5 days during the summer for professional development activities it feels are particularly worthwhile. Teachers who choose to attend these sessions are paid the per diem beginning teacher rate. Not surprisingly, nearly all eligible teachers attend. For more information, contact Connie Eskesen at <A HREF="mailto:conniee100@aol.com">conniee100@aol.com</A> <P><B>Resources Mean Results for Houston Students</B><BR> Over the past several years, the Texas Legislature has appropriated more than $25 million to establish field-based and technology-intensive programs in the state. Through the program, the state makes grants to teacher education programs at schools including the University of Houston, Texas Southern University, the University of St. Thomas, and Houston Baptist University. The purpose of the grants is to encourage teacher education institutions to develop their own technology capabilities as well as those of area elementary and secondary schools, and to support methodology courses on-site at the schools. The result is faculty and students working together in technology-enriched school environments. <P>Preliminary data show that this influx of resources is producing results. Students in these technology-enriched schools have increased their achievement on statewide tests in mathematics, reading, and writing. In addition, 43 percent of the teachers involved report that they have changed their teaching practices because of the program. To learn more, visit <A HREF="http://www.ncate.org/projects/tech/c13.html" TARGET="_blank">www.ncate.org/projects/tech/c13.html</A></font>LVALcF |In 1997, the CEO Forum established a baseline measure against which to track the progress of American schools in integrating technology and technology use in classrooms nationwide. This school technology and readiness assessment, called the STaR Assessment, offered a snapshot of where the nation stood in its effort to integrate technology in education to improve academic standards and student achievement. <P>Following up on its commitment to issue an annual update of the STaR Assessment, this section of this report summarizes the Year 2 STaR Assessment of the CEO Forum. Again this year, the STaR Assessment is primarily based on hardware and connectivity data collected as part of a survey of the nation's public schools.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">63</a></sup> The STaR Assessment uses the CEO Forum STaR Chart as a backdrop to illustrate how our schools are doing. <P><B>Year 2 Summary</B><BR> Overall, the assessment shows that schools are making gains. In fact, schools gained in all four STaR categories. The number of schools effectively integrating technology increased from 15 percent to 24 percent while the percentage of schools in the Low to Mid Tech range decreased from 85 percent of schools to 76 percent of schools. Specifically, the percentage of Target Tech schools doubled from three to six percent while the percentage of High Tech schools increased by half. Simultaneously, the percentage of Low Tech schools decreased by five percentage points. Despite such encouraging progress, more than fifty percent of America's schools remain in the Mid Tech and Low Tech categories. <P>These trends, and the information on the following pages, indicate that more students have greater access to better technology than they did last year. More students have access to multimedia computers and the instructional rooms at more schools have connections to the Internet. Although schools continue to make progress in building hardware infrastructures, commitment to teacher profes LVAL v1NY Y  Y Ad Y d Y "d Y "Ad Y Ad Y d Y "dY  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y $Y (Y ,Y 0Y 4Y 8Y <Y @Y DY HY LY PY TRespondantID UserIDname schooldistrictcity state phone emailcompletedonetwo threefourfivesix seven eightnineten eleven twelvethirteenfourteenfifteensixteenseventeeneighteenYYYPrimaryKeyRespondantID UserIDsional development with technology lags behind. As schools continue to put more connected computers into classrooms, the CEO Forum hopes that educators and policymakers will follow the recommendations in this report. To make the most of our national investment in education technology, we must ensure that teachers are well prepared to guide today's students to future success. <P><CENTER><IMG SRC="images/CHARTPG22.GIF" WIDTH="385" HEIGHT="232" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0" ALT="STaR Assessment Chart"></CENTER>LVALcFv1~The following section profiles typical schools in each of the four STaR categories. Not every school in a particular category will directly match these profiles, but they will share similar characteristics. The highlighted data points come directly from the Year 2 STaR Assessment. <table border=0 cellspacing=5> <TR> <TD WIDTH="50%" VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial color=006633 size="2"><B>Year 2 Low Technology School</B></font></TD> <TD witdh="50%" VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial color=006633 size="2"><B>Year 2 High Technology School</B></font></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Limited Access to modern computer.</B> Student-to-computer ratio of 10:1. Student-to-multimedia capable computer ratio of 25:1.</font></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Significant access to modern computers.</B> Student-to-computer ratio of 5:1. Student-to-multimedia capable computer ratio of 7:1.</font></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Older technology.</B> Only 33% of all computers have processors equal to or greater than an Intel 386.</font></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Mostly new technology.</B> 73% of all computers have processors equal to or greater than an Intel 386.</font></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Might have Internet access.</B> 39% of these schools have Internet access.</font></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Prevalent Internet access.</B> 90% of these schools have Internet access.</font></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Limited number of networked computers.</B> 71% of these schools do ot have access to LANs.</font></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>More networked computers.</B> 85% of these schools have access to LANs.</font></TD> </TR> <tr><td colspan=2 height=10>&nbsp;</tLVALv1 @d^6 N  h l   !"#$&'()*,-.012 3 4 5 8 9:;>ACDHIJKLd></tr> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial color=006633 size="2"><B>Year 2 Mid Technology School</B></font></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial color=006633 size="2"><B>Year 2 Target Technology School</B></font></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Moderate Access to modern computers.</B> Student-to-computer ratio of 7:1. Student-to-multimedia capable computer radio of 12:1.</font></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Ubiquitous access to modern computers.</B> Student-to-computer ratio of 3;1. Student-to-multimedia capable computer ratio of 3:1.</font></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Older technology.</B> 57% of all computers have processors equal to or greater than an Intel 386.</font></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>New technology.</b> 81% of all computers have processors equal to or greater than an Intel 386.</font></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Might have Internet access.</B> 73% of these schools have Internet access.</font></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Ubiquitous Internet access.</B> 95% of these schools have Internet access.</font></TD> </TR> <TR> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>More networked computers.</B> 70% of these schools have access to LANs.</font></TD> <TD VALIGN="TOP"> <font face=Verdana,Arial size="1"><B>Prevalent networked computers.</B> 89% of these schools have access to one or more LANs.</font></TD> </TR> </TABLE>LVALfFv1In 1996, President Clinton articulated four pillars of education technology as part of his Technology Literacy Challenge: 1) <A HREF="#hardware">hardware</A>; 2) <A HREF="#connectivity">connectivity</A>; 3) <A HREF="#content">digital content</A>; and 4) <A HREF="#development">professional development</A>. <P>These four pillars provide a foundation for creating an innovative learning environment that can prepare students for life and work in the digital world. <P>The CEO Forum believes the key to creating the best possible learning environment is the seamless integratioin of all four pillars in the natioin's schools. This sectin presents a snapshot of current statistics in each of the four pillars. <P><A NAME="hardware"></A><B>Hardware</B><BR> Though educators require professional development and content resources, they must also be equipped with the tools to enhance learning in the next millennium. Providing hardware is a threshold condition upon which to build new ways of teaching and learning. <P><B>CONTINUED PROGRESS TOWARD INSTALLING COMPUTERS IN SCHOOLS</B><BR> <UL> <LI>In 1997-1998, schools provided one computer for every 7.8 students, an increase of 13 percent from 1996-1997.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">64</a></sup> <LI>More importantly, in 1997-1998, schools provided one multi-media computer to every 12.3 students. This is an improvement of 24 percent from the previous year.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">65</a></sup> </UL> <P><B>SCHOOLS PUTTING FUNDS TOWARD MODERNIZATION AND SUPPORT</B><BR> <UL> <LI>Schools continued to modernize their computer base. Of the 2.6 million computers purchased by schools last year, 40 percent replaced old computers laying the groundwork for the construction of a modern information infrastructure.<sup><a href="reports.cfm?CID=30&RID=2">66</a></sup> </UL> <P>