As part of his challenge, President Clinton identified four critical elements -- these have become known as the "four pillars." These are:
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..LVAL <X9Ht 6 b @ ? ]]]]]]]] ? , @ @@ ]]]]]]]] > 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.LVAL [ @ C 3 * ? YYYYYYYY i @ @@ @@ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ ?@ Ben R. OldhamDeanDepartment of EducationGeorgetown College400 E. College StreetGeorgetown40324502-863-8177502-868-7741dforman1@georgetowncollege.edu}qlbM;$ ? ^B{@ Dr. Bill NeuenswanderDepartment of Education ChairEducationBaker UniversityBox 65Baldwin City66006785 594 4518785 594 6721neuenswan@harvey.bakeru.eduupd^NE( ? e|h@ Meghan SmithMarketing & Recruiting AssociateMarketing and RecruitingInternational Data Group, Inc.PO Box 22529Louisville40252800-829-4434, x816502-394-9938msmith@idgtech.comwww.idgtech.comuW? & ^@ Dan L. KingFaculty of Applied Science & EducationBuffalo State University1300 Elmwood Avenue Buffalo14222716-878-4214716-878-5301kingdl@buffalostate.edu|wp\D ? - rP@ Shelley B. WepnerDeanWidener UniversityOne University Place Chester 19013610-499-4297610-499-4623ttth\WO:(($ ? ?@ Dr. Norma L. StricklandDivision of EducationRust College150 E. Rust Ave Holly Springs38635662-252-8000662-252-6107nstrickland@rustcollege.eduymh[K?** ? % !@ James V. BruniDeanLehman College of the City University of New YorkDivision of Education Lehman CollegeBronx10468718-960-8401718-960-7855bruni@lehman.cuny.eduzV%%! ? % p= @ Ofelia GarciaSchool Of EducationLonFor more information about the CEO Forum on Education & Technology, contact:
Kathy RodiIf you are interested in being placed on the CEO Forum mailing list, please fill out the form below. Fields in red are required. B! ~x $ ` h % ~ & ContextIDCopyID PrimaryKey TPMainMeanTemp.*$3 # D TPMainMeanTemp.completed- TPMainMeanTempTPMainMeanTemp$$ @ IdParentIdNameType DateCreate DateUpdateOwnerFlagsDatabaseConnect ForeignName RmtInfoShort RmtInfoLongLvLvPropLvModuleLvExtra setni -x u Id ParentIdName @ @YYYYYYYY k @@ @@ ? @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ ? @ @ @@ @@ ? @ @@ @Blair McNaughtonWilliam Roper Hull SchoolCalgaryCalgaryALiY j $ @@ ? @ @ @@ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? @ @ @ @Jim HebeisenPCWayzataPlymouthMNjfhebeis@ties.k12.mn.usxxvngeY i S @@ @@ ? @@ @ @ @@ @ @ @ ? @ @ @ ? ? @ ? @Les ElsieUTlucastoledoALqqqoidbY h 6 @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ da Walden School of EducationUniversity of MobileP.O. Box 13220 Mobile 36663-0220334-442-2354334-442-2519FortWalden@aol.comsg]VG3 ?? * 5@ Frank J. ZittleDepartment of EducationCameron UniversityNB 1037 Dept. of Education School of Graduate and Lawton 73505580-581-2276frankz@cameron.edu}K9"" ?> @ J. HillLewis-Clark State College500 8th AvenueLewsiton 83501208-799-2260208-799-2820jhill@lcsc.edu/scoleman @lcsc.edug[OJA3 ?= q @ S. DeitzCollege of EducationGeorgia State University30 Pryor Street Atlanta 30303404-651-1011404-651-2555sdeit@gsu.edu|pd_WG/ ?< ) ne@ Dr. Robert EleyAssistant DeanDirector of Teacher EducationUniversity of AkronZook Hall 2128Akron44325-4201330-972-8566330-972-5636reley@uakron.edu}sn`M0" ?; I@ Dr. John Yoder DeanFresno Pacific Graduate SchoolFresno Pacific University Graduate School1717 South Chestnut Avenue Fresno 93702559-453-2200559-453-2001jyoder@fresno.edumD&" ?: & v{>@ Dr. Marilyn A. SheererDeanSchool of EducationEast Carolina University154 Speight Building Greenville 27858252-328-4260252-328-4219sheererm@mail.ecu.edu}xmX@-) ?9 # Uk@ Dr. Ana Maria SchuhmannKean University6 Deer PathHolmedl 07733908-527-2136908-527-1808aschuhma@turbo.kean.edui]QLD9*** ?8 %@ Dr. John BeinkeDeanArkansas State UniversityP.O.Box 940 State University, ARjonesboro72467870-972-3057870-972-3828jbeineke@kiowaymh_?&&" ?7 J@ Kevin Fall, Ph.D.ChairDepartment of Education & CounselingLoyola University New Orleans6363 St.Charles Ave. Campus Box 66New Orleans 70118504-864-7840504-864-7844educate@loyno.eduƵjM)$ ?VC 2 2 N ( ( 2 2 2 2 2 w 2 ID ChapterIDReportIDChNameChapterGraphicGWidthGHeightKilled H$ H w( w w( w w ( PrimaryKeyReportID ReportID1 ( ( cation and Human ServicesLongwood CollegeFarmville23909(804) 395-2051(804) 395-2800davsmith@longwood.lwc.eduwid[[K%! ?i 3 #a@v@ Dr. Paul RestaCollege of EducationUniversity of Texas, Austin1912 Speedway, SZB 438BAustin78712512-471-4014512-471-4655resta@mail.utexas.edu~rmgP5!! ?h 2 LRu@ Martha CollinsDeanCollege of EducationEast Tennessee State University317 Warf-Pickel HallJohnson City37614423-439-7626423-439-7560collinsm@etsu.edu}xlX9%! ?g טu@ David R. TaylorDeanCollege of Education & Human ServicesWestern Illinois University1 University CircleMacomb61455309-298-169309-298-2222DR-taylor@wiu.eduyfK&" ?f 2 0t@ E. Sutton FlyntDeanCollege of EducationAustin Peay State University210 Claxton BldgClarksville37043931.221.7167931.221.1292flynts@apsu.eduwww.apsu.edu/educationvqfV:&" ?e * ~fr@ Judith CoeDeanCollege of EducationUniversity of Central Oklahoma100 N. UniversityEdmond73034405-974-5701405-974-3851jcoe@ucok.eduwww.ucok.edu{ojdS5! ?d 0 #a@p@ Dr. Tom DavisDirector of Technology for Teacher EducationSchool of EducationUniversity of South Carolina, Spartanburg800 University WaySpartanburg29303864 503-5502864 503-5574tdavis@uscs.eduwww.uscs.edu¶_L ?c 5 Ƈm@ Dr. Vanessa C. ZerilloAcademic Program DirectorField-Based Graduate Program in EducationTrinity College of Vermont208 Colchester AvenueBurlington05401802-846-7032802-846-7031vzerillo@trinityvt.eduwww.trinityvt.edu/edsite/kB) ?E {qg]f 9 [ @ @ ? @ @@ @ @@ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? @ @@ ? @Michex & v@ Robin L. SmithSalem CollegePO Box 10548Winston-Salem27108-0548336-721-2658336-721-2683smith@salem.eduxxi]QG:.!!! ?w / w8v@ Dean FelnerSchool of EducationUniversity of Rhode Island70 S. ChafeeKingston02881401-874-4108401-874-5471rfelner@uri.edu|pd_WK1 ?v v@ D. WilliamsCollege of EducationUniversity of Louisiana, LafayetteP.O. Box 42051Lafayette70504337-482-6412337-482-1120dwilliams@louisiana.edu|pkbT2 ?u 9 ]nv@ Dr. Steve RussellOhio Valley College4501 College ParkwayParkersburg26101304-485-7384304-485-3106srussell@ovc.edusg[VK7$$$ ?t 0 v@ Carole KowalskiSchool of EducationSouth Carolina State UniversityP.O. Box 7487, SCSU, 300 College StreetOrangeburg29117803/536-7133803/536-8492ckowalski@scsu.edu{T5"" ?s p=v@ William SumrallCollege of EducationMississippi State UniversityBox 9710Mississippi State39762662-325-9762662-325-8784sumrall@ra.msstate.edu| @ ~ LVAL * 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.
Project Director
CEO Forum on Education & Technology
1341 G Street, N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 585-0209
rodi@itstrategies.com
Introduction and Overview
American schools must provide the opportunity to combine the
best of traditional learning with the unprecedented opportunities
technology offers.
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.
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.
The CEO Forum
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.
Technology and Education Today
Outside school walls, technology has fundamentally transformed
the way people live and work. From ATM machines to e-mail,
technology use is embedded in LVAL + our 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?
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.
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.
From Pillars to Progress
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 m LVAL , ust ensure 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.
STaR Chart
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.
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.
Annual National STaR Assessment
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' LVAL - s
STaR Assessment, 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.
Future Research
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.
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.
SIDEBAR:
Technology in the World Today
Year 1 Recommendations and Challenges
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:
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.
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.
The CEO Forum believes we need to increase national understanding of how to make the most effective use of educational technology in the classroom.
The Four Pillars
In 1996, President Clinton articulated a clear vision for
improving 21st century education through the use of
technology in American schools. Defining "Four Pillars"9
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.
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.10 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.11 In schools serving students from low income homes, Internet access jumped 71% from 1 LVAL 2 995 to 1996.12 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.13
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.
Integrating the Four Pillars
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.
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.
Meeting Educational Objectives & Measuring Benefits
Answering the question of whether integrating
technology into the classroom is a means of meeting
critica LVAL 3 l educational 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.
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.
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.23 Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence may not be enough.
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.
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.
President Clinton's Four Pillars
Hardware
All teachers and students will have modern multimedia computers in their classrooms.Connectivity
Every classroom will be connected to the information superhighway.Content
Effective software and online learn LVAL 4 ing resources can increase students' learning opportunities.Professional Development
All teachers in the nation will have the training and support they need to help students learn using computers and the information superhighway.
A Quick Look At The Four Pillars Today
Hardware
Connectivity
Content
Professional Development
SIDEBAR:
Technology at Work in School14
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"
applicatio LVAL ,X|~/[ @@ @ ]]]]]]]] ~ @ ]]]]]]]] i @@ @ @ @@ ? @@ @ ? @ @ @ ]]]]]]]] ? ? ? ? ]]]]]]]] ? ? ? ? @ ]]]]]]]] @ ]]]]]]]] ns and increase individual 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.
Technology's Potential
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."24 LVAL 6 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.
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.
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
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.
Cycles of Technology Integration
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.
Planning, Investigation and Experimentation.
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 techno-LVAL 9t 6z!M> j |? @ ? ? @ @@ @ @ ? ]]]]]]]] n @ ? ? ? @ @ @ @ @ @ ? ? ]]]]]]]] P @ ? ? @ ? @ @ @ @ ? ? @ ? ? ? ? @ ? ?]]]]]]]] l& @ @@ @@ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @@ @@ @@ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @Maria Isabel SegoviaGraduate from UNCWNCchumbez@hotm logy proponents.Initial Capital Investments.
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.Readjustment.
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.The Emergence of New Work and Organizational Models.
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.
SIDEBAR:
Lessons Learned from Corporate America
Lesson #1
The full benefits of information
technology are difficult to assess with
existing measures.
Lesson #2
Technology is most effectively
leveraged when it is thoughtfully
integrated to meet core objectives.
Lesson #3
Maximizing the benefits of information
technology is a multi-stage process
that occurs over a period of years. LVAL 8 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.
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.
Summary 1997 Results
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."
As we enter the 21st century, every school must work to provide all students27 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.
Low Technology School Profile
In America's "Low Tech" school LVAL 9 s, most computers available to
students lack sufficient memory and processor speed to use
common web browsers or access multimedia content.
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.
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.
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.
Mid Technology School Profile
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.
In today's "Mid-Tech" schools, computers are o LVAL : ften used 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.
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.
High Technology School Profile
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.
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 compute LVAL ; rs.31
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.
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.
Target Technology School Profile
A handful of public schools - about 3% - are fully leveraging
technology to achieve maximum educational benefit.
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.32
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 educatorLVAL `"Nz<h 7 6 @@ ]]]]]]]] X @ ? @ ? @ ? @@ ? ? @ @ @@ @ ? @@ @ @ ? @ ?Carla BartlettMount St. Mary's professional development. The common element in these schools is an excitement about collaborative learning that engages students in relevant, real-world problem solving.
SIDEBAR:
School Technology and Readiness: 1997 Profiles and Findings
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.
Technology Leads to New Organization Models
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.33LVAL X0\Y @ ]]]]]]]] Z ? ]]]]]]]] p @ ]]]]]]]] Institutional 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.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. LVAL > The 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.
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.34
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.
Educational Outcomes
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 LVAL ?
effective 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.
The Integration of Technology into Teaching and
Learning
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.
New Data Needed
Integration and Use
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.
Hardware
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:
Connectivity
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 electronica LVAL @ lly accessible. Future data points
could include:
Content
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:
Professional Development
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:
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
replaLVAL Xiz<hA ? ? ? ? ? ? @ ? ? ? @ ? @ ? ? ? ? ? ?]]]]]]]]
t @ ]]]]]]]] @ ? @ ? ? @ @ @@ @ ? @ @ @ @ ? @ ? @ ? ?Maureen KeyesUW MilwaukeeExceptional EducationMilwaukeeWI414 229-6725mkeyes@uwm.eduvj] @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @@ @@ @ ? @@ @@ @ @ @ ?]]]]]]]] L @ @@ @@ ? ]]]]]]]] V
@@ @ ]]]]]]]] 7 ? ]]]]]]]] \ ? ? ? ]]]]]]]] -
@ @ @ ? @@ @@ @ @ ? @ @ @ @ @@ ? ? ? ? ? ?jkksmsuMOfffddd`] KJ @ @ ? ? ? @ @ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? @K BrownAll StateALooommmd] `
@ @ @ ]]]]]]]] H+ @ ? ? ? @ @ ? @ @ @ ? @ ? @@ ? ? @ @ @ @Paul KaineoricmathematicsALxxxvvkg] @ @ cement for the 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. LVAL B 1.Associated Press, Survey: Internet use has Doubled and
More Women Surfing the Net, March 13, 1997.
2.IDC, Internet Commerce Market Model, 1996.
3.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced
Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997.
4.Butler, Patrick et al., A Revolution in Interaction, The
McKinsey Quarterly, Number 1, 1997.
5.The Children's Partnership, America's Children and the
Information Superhighway, Washington D.C., 1994.
6.Robert B. Reich, The Work of Nations, New York, Random
House, 1991.
7.National Center for Education Statistics, Back To School
Report, 1997.
8.U.S. General Accounting Office, School Facilities Not
Designed or Equipped for the 21st Century, 1995.
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,"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/edtech/html/edtech.html,
1996.
10.QED, 1997.
11.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced
Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997.
12.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced
Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997.
13.Southwest Educational Development Laboratory and Texas
Education Network, The State Networking Report, Spring
1997
14.ETC, ETC Case Study, Carrollton School District,
Carrollton, Georgia, 1996.
15.QED, 1997.
16.QED, Technology in Public Schools, 15th Edition, 1996.
17.National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced
Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, 1997.
18.QED, Technology in Public Schools, 15th Edition, 1996.
19.Software Pu
LVAL !MG/n B @ @ ? @ @@ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?]]]]]]]] @ @@ ]]]]]]]] blisher's Association, 1997 SPA Education
Market Report, 1997.
20.QED, 1997-1998 Technology Purchasing Forecast, 1997.
21.Education Week, Quality Counts: A Report Card on the
Condition of Public Education in the 50 States, 1997.
22.Cable in the Classroom, Teacher Survey, September 1997.
23.See Appendix C
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.
25.The Economist, Paradox Lost, September 28th, 1996.
26.Green, Kenneth C., Steven W. Gilbert, Great Expectations,
Change, March 1995.
27.See Appendix B
28.U.S. Department of Education, Getting America's Students
Ready for the 21st Century, 1996.
29.Cable in the Classroom, Teacher Survey, September 1997
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.
31.Charles Fisher, David Dwyer, Keith Yocam, Education and
Technology: Reflections on Computing Classrooms, 1996.
32.From interview with Marian Peifer, Former Instructional
Technology Curriculum Specialist, Bellevue Public Schools,
Washington, September 1997.
33.EDC Center for Children and Technology, Union City
Interactive Multimedia Education Trial: 1993-1995 Summary
Report, 1996.
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. LVAL D Status Report: The Four Pillars of Education and Technology
Hardware
Trends in the Number of Students per Computer.
How Districts Pay for Computer Hardware.
Number of Students to Multimedia Computer, by State.
Connectivity
Trends in School and Classroom Access to the Internet.
Reported Infrastructure Insufficiency.
Access to the Internet is Not Equal.
Content
The Average Amount of Money Spent on Software and
Online Services, per Student.
Professional Development
Teachers' Likelihood of Using the Internet for Different
Activities.
States Requiring Courses in Educational Technology for
a Teaching License.
Status Report: Hardware
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.
Data Snapshot: Hardware
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 har LVAL E dware 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.
Significant Progress in Bringing Computers Into Schools
Maintenance and Upgrade Costs Are Significant
SIDEBAR:
Maintenance Matters1
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.
Status Report: Connectivity
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.
Data Snapshot: Connectivity
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 m LVAL G onthly
Internet 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.11
Access to Internet Connections and Other Networks Growing in Schools
Connection Speeds Vary Across Schools and Geographic Regions
School Network Connections Primarily State Funded
School Telecommunications Infrastructures Are
Insufficient to Support Networkin LVAL H g Needs
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.20
*Poverty rate categories were calculated using the percent of students eligible for free or reduced price lunches:
Very high = 71% or more
High = 31%-70%
Moderate = 11%-30%
Low = less than 11%
SIDEBAR:
The "Education-rate" Discount
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.
Status Report: Content
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.
Data Snapshot: Content
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.
School Spending for Digital Content and Resources Rising; More Innovative Content Needed
Distance Learning Opportunities Continue to Grow
Data on Student and Teacher Use of Digital Learning Tools Is Mixed
SIDEBAR:
Today's Students are Content Consumers and Content Providers
Status Report: Professional Development
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.
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.31
Data Snapshot: Professional Development
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.33
Professional Development Investment Is Minimal
Teacher Participation In Technology-Related Professional Development Growing Slowly
Limited Time for Training and Limited Access Cited As Key Impediment To Successful Integration
SIDEBAR:
States Requiring Courses in Educational Technology for a Teaching License, 199632
| Alabama | Arizona | Arkansas | California |
| Colorado | Georgia | Kansas | Kentucky |
| Louisiana | Maine | Massachusetts | Minnesota |
| Nebraska | New Hampshire | New Mexico | North Carolina |
| Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania |
| Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee |
| Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia |
| Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming |
Fundamentals of Good Training42
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."
Teachers forming communities of learning43
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."
back to top LVAL O A Word of Caution for the Future:
Ensuring Technology Equity For All American School Children
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.
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.44 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.
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.45 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,46 yet a typical computer-owning family is aLVAL ,X0\Qq 2 ya @@ @ @ @ @ @@ ? @ @ @ @ ? ? @ ? @ ? ]]]]]]]] ؍ `@ ? @ ? @ ? ? ? ? ? ? @ ? @ ? ? ? ? ? ?Dianne SloanWilliams Baptist CollegeElementary EducationWalnut RidgeAR870-886-6741 ext 184dsloan@wbcoll.eduȷi] `@ @@ ? @ @ ? @ ? @ @ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? @no married couple with full-time employment and a family income of $35,000 or higher.47 Computer ownership is almost three times higher in Caucasian households than in African American households.48 To diminish these inequities, access to technology through public schools, libraries and community centers is essential.
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.49
SIDEBAR:
Gender and the Internet50: A Trend to Monitor
A study of teenagers aged 12 to 17 found that:
| Education Objective |
Classroom Technology Use |
Real-World Benefits |
|
Improve higher- order critical thinking skills |
|
Technology adaptive high school graduates with workplace competencies such as information management, inquiry, evaluation, communication, team work and personal initiative. |
| Improve communication |
|
Access to a wider audience of parents, teachers and students. All have more current information about each other. |
| Improve access to remote resources |
|
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. |
| Master basic skills |
|
Students with mastery of core basic skills. Improved standardized test scores across subject areas such as language arts, math and science. |
| Improve student motivation |
|
Lower drop-out rates, improved attendance. |
| Improve technological literacy |
|
Students with basic knowledge of technology and ability to follow computer-based instructions. |
| Improve administrative efficiency |
|
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. |
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).
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.
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.
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. ThrougLVAL ^Bn ͜ @ ]]]]]]]] @ ? @ ? @@ @ ? @ ? ? ? @@ ? @ ? ? ? @ ? @Jeannie PoteruchaPlymouth State CollegeEducationPlymouthNH603-535-2926jeannie@mail.plymouth.edun] 1p ? ]]]]]]]] %v ? ? ? ? ? ? @ @ ]]]]]]]] $ @ @ ? @ @ @ @ ]]]]]]]] 6 `@ ? @@ @ @ ? @ @@ @ @@ @ ? @ @@ @ @@ @ ? @ @@john doeappleasdALooommje] lo @@ ? ? ? @@ ? @ @ @ @ ? ? ? @ @ ? ]]]]]]]] #, @@ ? ? @ ? @ ? ? h Project Ed Tech, QED obtains updated information related to technology on approximately 67% of all public schools every year.
QED Tech Measure Variables
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.
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.1 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.
Bolstered by a recent study that shows a positive correlation between student performance and teacher professional development2 and on our steadfast belief that teachers are a critical link to better learning, this report provides:
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.
Therese Crane, President
Jostens Learning Corporation
Co-Chair, CEO Forum
Alan G. Spoon, President
The Washington Post Company
Co-Chair, CEO Forum LVAL y lKw
9e' S @ @ ? In the next decade, the United States will need over 2.2 million new teachers to fill the nations classroomsa 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 childs potential, and a love of learning that is shared with their students.
These attributes alone arent 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.
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.
Schools of Education should prepare new teachers to integrate technology effectively into the curriculum.
Current teachers and administrators should be proficient in integrating technology int LVAL ] o the curriculum.
Education policymakers and school administrators should create systems that reward the integration of technology
into the curriculum.
CorpLVAL ,X+Tm %C ? ]]]]]]]] i @ ]]]]]]]] Oo @@ @@ @ ? @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? @ ? ? ? ? @CraigYhighAtlantaGApppnggb] a ? @ @ ]]]]]]]] i
@@ ? ? ? ? ? ? @ @ ? @ @ ? @@ @ @ ? @ ? ?AdrianoEEde So PAuloCPDNew YorkNYgersis@ensino.net}urd] i
@@ ? ? ? ? ? ? @ @ ? @ @ ? @@ @ @ ? @ ? ?AdrianoEEde So PAuloCPDNew YorkNYgersis@ensino.net}urd] i
@@ ? ? ? ? ? ? @ @ ? @ @ ? @@ @ @ ? @ ? ?AdrianoEEde So PAul orations and local businesses should collaborate with the education community to help ensure that today's students will graduate with 21st century workplace skills.
Corporations and local businesses should:
Overview
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.3
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 "top
of the line" machines is twice as high as the national average
student-to-computer ratio for less sophisticated machines.4
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.5 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 1997.6 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 1998-1999.7 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 LVAL h "> pt r i \ u e e e u e u e "> 00 r j 5 % % 5 5 5 5 5 "> `r r k u e U E "> r l X e e E e % u u 5 "> 4 r m 5 5 5 5 % % 5 e "> 0/ r n E E "> r o T E E e % e e "> 0 r p e 5 e u E 5 5 % 0> 0) r q e 5 5 e e E U % 0> r r P U % 0> @u r s 5 % U e E U e e 0> 9 r t e e e e U U E % 0> r u L e U e e e e e e 0> 0C r v E E E 5 5 5 0> r w E E u U u % e e 0> @W r x H 5 % % 5 5 5 5 5 ?> pe r y E e U ?> + r z 5 % e % e ?> `c r { D e e u u u 5 e % ?> 08 r | 5 5 e e U E ?> p} r } % E E ?> `t r ~ @ % u % U e e 5 5 ?> 01 r % U to put technology to work on behalf of their students. LVAL a As 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.
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.8 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.9 The real strength of technology in education comes from using the right technology at the right time to meet the right objective.
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.
The bottom line is clear: technology, applied well, can enhance and reinvigo2LVAL >v &@l5 @ @@ @@ @ @@ @@ @@ @@ ? @ @ @@ @ ? @@ ? ? @ @ @Dr. Bill NeuenswanderBaker UniversityEducationBaldwin CityKS785 594 4518neuenswan@harvey.bakeru.edur] @ @ ? ? @ @ ? @ @ @ @ ? ? ? @ ? ? ? @]]]]]]]] @ ]]]]]]]] @ @@ @@ @@ @@ @ @@ @@ ]]]]]]]] [ @ @@ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @Meghan SmithInternational Data Group, Inc.Marketing and Recruiting AssociateLouisvilleKY800-829-4434, x816msmith@idgtech.comǵi] [ @ @@ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @Meghan SmithInternational Data Group, Inc.Marketing and Recruiting AssociateLouisvilleKY800-829-4434, x816msmith@idgtech.comǵi] ; @ ]]]]]]]] e @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @admin2admin2admin2admin2AL555.1212admin2@admin.comwuoic] e @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate 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.
Sidebar: Today's Technology-Rich Society
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 1998-1999.17 Matched against the Department of Education's recommendation that schools allocate at least 30 percent of their technology budgets to professional development,18 current spending is inadequate.
Current Teachers
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.
Members of the public most often cite job readiness as a primary factor in deciding whether computers and technology are effective in education.19 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.20 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.21 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 2006.22 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 1996.23
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 sidebar) in which students must be competent, and therefore schools must teach, for the future.24 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.25
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.26 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 c LVAL e ritical link to ensure that learning.
Future Teachers
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 teachers27
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.28
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.29
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.
Sidebar: Today's Technology-Rich Society
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.
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.
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.
Pre-Service Programs
Definition: 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 "student teaching" -- 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.
Status: 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 b LVAL h enefits 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.30 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.31
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.32
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.33 Modeling teaching styles, however, is often considered an effective method of conveying new skills.
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.34
Initial Licensure/License Renewal
Definition: Teacher licensure is a regulatory function of state government that assures the public that b LVAL i eginning 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.35 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.)
Status: Today, 41 states and the District of Columbia require professional development for licensure and 25 states require "computer education" for initial licensure.36 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.37
This is a critical step in the right direction (see sidebar). 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.
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 po LVAL j rtfolio that shows they can use technology.39 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.40
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.41 Furthermore, while every state has a technology plan, few have taken the extra step to determine the cost of implementing the plan.42 A clear spending plan directed toward reaching specific goals is essential.
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.
In-Service Career Development
Definition: 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.
Status: Technology is an instrument for achieving the ultimate goals of high academic standards and impr LVAL k oved school performance. 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.43
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 "teach with technology, not just about technology."45 (see sidebar) 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.
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.
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 telephon LVAL l es in classrooms so teachers could reduce time walking through hallways to communicate. This simple change saved teachers approximately 15.5 days of time each year.46 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.47
The pattern of professional development in American schools has long been focused on "one shot" 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 sidebar) linked to the program goals of the institution and the performance of teachers and students in the classroom.48
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.
It is important to diff LVAL m erentiate professional development 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.
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 "one-shot" 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.
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 t LVAL n eaching-related activities.49 It is no surprise, therefore, that more than 50 percent of schools still allow technology professional development to be optional.50 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.
Sidebar: A Step in the Right Direction: National Accreditatioin Guidelines38
Sidebar: States Requiring Computer Education for Licensure 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>LVAL J+iDp B @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? ? @ @ @@ ? @ @ @ @@ @@ @@ @ @ ? ? ?Mary JonesButler UnivCOEBirminghamAL412-241-9900urg] ={ @ @@ @ @@ @@ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ ? @@ @ @ @ ? @@Patricia FallbeckBlack Hills State UniversityCollege of EducationSpearfishSD605-642-6329patfallbeck@bhsu.eduɵn] @ @ @ ? @@ @ @@ ? @ @ @ @ @@ @ @@ @ ? @@ @@ ?Glenn ShepherdUNC-AshevilleEducationAshevilleNC828-251-6387shepherd@bulldog.unca.eduxk] Z> | @ @ ? @ @ @@ ? @ @ @ @@ @@ @@ @@ @ ? @ ? @]]]]]]]] O | @@ @ @ @ @@ @@ @ ? ? @ @ @ ? ? ? ? @ ? ?]]]]]]]] W { ? @ @ @ @@ @ @ ? @ @ @ @ @ @ ]]]]]]]] @ @@ @@ @ @ @@ @@ @ @ @ @ @@ @@ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @Jonita S. HaynesAthens StateEducationAthensAL256-233-8187jonita , Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.
Sidebar: A New Way to Discuss Professional Development
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 "New Thinking, New Teaching," 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 www.tminet.org LVAL p To 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.
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.51 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.52 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 sidebar) over time.
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 sidebar).
Stage 1: Entry
Students Learning to Use Technology. 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 par LVAL q ticipation 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.
Stage 2: Adoption
Teachers Use Technology to Support Traditional Instruction. 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 "better typewriter" for completing stories, reports, or other exercises.
Stage 3: Adaptation
Technology Used to Enrich Curriculum. 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.
Stage 4: Appropriation
Technology is Integrated, Used for its Unique Capabilities. Teachers at the appropriation stage view technology
as a relevant tool for teaching and le LVAL r arning and 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.
Stage 5: Invention
Discover new uses for technology. 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.
Tailoring professional development opportunities to teacher and student skills and levels of receptivity can help schoo LVAL s ls ensure that technology is not merely considered inevitable, but is recognized as a valuable tool for creativity, collaboration, and innovation in teaching and learning.
Sidebar: Evolution Not Revolution: Managing Change53
Assistant Principal Dwayne Young is working hard to ensure that Louise Archer Elementary School in Vienna, Virginia is a "safe" 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. "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." For an inside look at Louise Archer, visit
its student-created web site at www.fcps.k12.va.us/louisearcher
Sidebar: Lessons from Corporate America
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.
Putting Professional Development to Work in Schools
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 "Low
Tech" school (with little or no technology in use) to the
"Target Tech" school (the model for innovative use
of education technology).
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.
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, particul LVAL v ar challenges to overcome and specific resources and advantages available.
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.
Sidebar: Motorola Increases Professional Development Investment; Improves Results 57
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.
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.
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-$33 return on every one dollar invested. Motorola was the first u.S. electronics company to outperform its Japanese competitors and, in 1988, was the first large corporatioin to win the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award.
Sidebar: Technology: A Professional DelLVAL xtfXJ<. xj\N@2$|n`RD6( rdVH:, vhZL>0"zl^PB4&
~pbTF8* 35510r R R R R R R S 8 D 9 9 9 9 8 8
8 8
8 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 8 7
7 7 7
7 7 7 7 7 8 : ;
; ;
; ; ; ; velopment Tool for Technology Professionals
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 "telecollaboration consultations" 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. LVAL x The CEO Forum believes there are three cornerstones upon which to build effective plans for technology professional development. Professional development efforts must be:
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.
Principles
1. Set Relevant, Realistic Goals.
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.
North Carolina: High Standards for a High Tech Age Setting Goals and Meeting Them Providing Standards-Based Professional Development Models 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 www.ibm.com/IBM/IBMGives/k12ed/k-12init.htm
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 assembl LVAL y ed by
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 www.ofps.dpi.state.nc.us/OFPS/hm/te/techcomp.htm
Diane Hathaway, Principal of Philadelphia's Hill-Freedman Middle
School, knew that making her school "Target Tech" 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, "mini-clusters"
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.
www.phila.k12.pa.us /schools/hill_freedman/
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 "emerging" user of technology to "e LVAL z xemplary." The tool also helps teachers collect the work from these activities, keep journals that can be shared online, and create personalized plans for growth.
2. Involve All Stakeholders; Capitalize On All Resources.
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.
Involving Teachers in Planning Kids Can!58 Professional Development and The Teacher's Toolbox
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 school LVAL { s. There, they serve on local
technology committees and field suggestions and questions from
their colleagues. To learn more about the committee visit www.cssd.k12.vt.us/tech.htm
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 "Junior Professor"
program to dispel pre-service teachers' notion that technology
is too sophisticated for young students. Butler pairs "Junior
Professors," 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.
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
LVAL |
the district $130,000, weekly. Check out Teacher's Toolbox at
www.kent.wednet.edu:80/toolbox/index.html
3. Link Professional Development to Teacher and Student Needs and Objectives.
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.
A Model of Excellence: Iowa's Graceland College59 Taking Risks, Getting Rewards
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 www.graceland.edu/camplife.academics/education.html
Marna Weiss, music teacher and band director at Lakeland High
School in New York state, was asked to coach a student team entering
LVAL }
a college scholarship 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. "At first I
just wanted to give the team feedback," says Miss Weiss.
"Then the kids' excitement and motivation got to me -- they
were doing extraordinary academic work and loving it." Miss
Weiss was hooked. "I discovered a whole new way to research,
learn, and use technology," she says. "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." For more information
about ThinkQuest, visit www.thinkquest.org
4. Model Best Practices.
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.
Integrating Technology: A First-Hand Look Pyramid to Success Spotlight on Peabody College at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee60 Faculty First at Iowa State61
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 pairin LVAL ~ g
methods professors -- 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 dspragu1@gmu.edu.
For the syllabus of the technology training course, go to mason.gmu.edu/~dspragu1/EDIT504.html
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 "Tag
Team" 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 "tagged" for training.
As new teachers were "tagged" 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 www.jessamine.k12.ky.us/dop/technology.html
At Peabody College, LVAL aspiring teachers are immersed 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 www.peabody.vanderbilt.edu
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, eat@iasta LVAL te.edu
5. Encourage Learning by Doing.
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.
Girls Teaching Girls: Ensuring Equity and Leveraging Experience62 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.
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.
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 informatio LVAL n,
contact Margaret Johnson, District Technology Coordinator, mjohnson@d118.s-cook.k12.il.us
Real Schools, Real Solutions: Professional Development Internship-Style Moving from Under-Performing to Over-Achieving
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.
Carteret County's "Learning Environments for the Next Century"
(LENC) Project gives current teachers the opportunity to "intern" 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 "Units of Practice." 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
www.marine.unc.edu/neusr/modmon/lenc/info/info.htm
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, Wi LVAL llow Bend's education
program was completely 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.
6. Provide Resources, Incentives, and On-Going Support.
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.
A Win-Win Deal Resources Mean Results for Houston Students 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 www.ncate.org/projects/tech/c13.html
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 aLVAL mWL
\ ; @Restaurant(Expensive)Bocaccio925 Eastern AvenueBaltimoreMD (410) 234-13225/3/94Cardex2bddddd\\\VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVHGGGGGE<<<**""
40 * : "@Ms.EstherDysonEstherEDVenture Holdings, Inc.104 Fifth Avenue20th FloorNew YorkNY10011- the classroom. In addition,
the district sets 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 conniee100@aol.com
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.
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.63 The STaR Assessment uses the CEO Forum STaR Chart as a backdrop to illustrate how our schools are doing.
Year 2 Summary
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.
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 prLVAL jgR?@%- > M &@Mr.JosephW.WazJr.JoeComcast Corporation1500 Market StreetPhiladelphiaPA19102 (215) 665-1700(215) 981-7712(215) 981-7607joe_waz@comcast.comJan2/18/97Cardex2bTA PAvhhZYYYYTRFFF44!!! 4ʱ : L @Ms.ElinorGruberElinorDewey Square Group1001 G Street, NWSuite 900 EastWashingtonDC200017037905889(202) 393-1010 Elliott at work: 202-326-8429 Husband- Elliott1/23/97 7/24/97||||||||||||||nnndd_]SSE44""" 4W% # K @Mr.ChickHaydenChickANSI11 West 42nd Street13th FloorNew YorkNY10036 (212) 642-4920(212) 398-0023chayden@ansi.org alt. fax 212/719-09717/30/96Cardex2bTA PA SE}}}}}}}}mmmm__QPPPPKIAA7$$ 4Wڱ : I ,@Mr.RobertHolleymanRobertPresidentBusiness Software Alliance1150 18th Street, N.W.Suite 700WashingtonDC20036 (202) 872-5500(202) 872-5501RobertH@bsa.orgFrancis3/7/97Cardex2bTA HT CIC PA KSȹyxxxxsqgg^HH..% 4ڱ : H @Mr.WilliamPoulosBillOffice of Government AffairsEDS1331 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.Suite 1300 NorthWashingtonDC20004 (202) 637-6708(202) 637-6759bill.poulos@oga.eds.com2/25/97Cardex2bTA L HT PA~}}}}xvll\@@==! 4ڱ : F $@Ms.JanloriGoldmanJanloriCenter for Democracy & Technology1634 Eye Street, N.W.Suite 1100Washington, D.C.DC20005 (202) 637-9800 ofessional 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.
| Year 2 Low Technology School | Year 2 High Technology School |
| Limited Access to modern computer. Student-to-computer ratio of 10:1. Student-to-multimedia capable computer ratio of 25:1. | Significant access to modern computers. Student-to-computer ratio of 5:1. Student-to-multimedia capable computer ratio of 7:1. |
| Older technology. Only 33% of all computers have processors equal to or greater than an Intel 386. | Mostly new technology. 73% of all computers have processors equal to or greater than an Intel 386. |
| Might have Internet access. 39% of these schools have Internet access. | Prevalent Internet access. 90% of these schools have Internet access. |
| Limited number of networked computers. 71% of these schools do ot have access to LANs. | More networked computers. 85% of these schools have access to LANs. |
| lLVAL x9?Z| g . Summit Computers393-^ @Mr.WilliamB.GarrisonJr.BillPresidentTelecommunications Consulting Group, Inc.1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.Suite 500WashingtonDC20004 (202) 626-6294(202) 626-62957/30/96Cardex2bTA ; | |
| Year 2 Mid Technology School | Year 2 Target Technology School |
| Moderate Access to modern computers. Student-to-computer ratio of 7:1. Student-to-multimedia capable computer radio of 12:1. | Ubiquitous access to modern computers. Student-to-computer ratio of 3;1. Student-to-multimedia capable computer ratio of 3:1. |
| Older technology. 57% of all computers have processors equal to or greater than an Intel 386. | New technology. 81% of all computers have processors equal to or greater than an Intel 386. |
| Might have Internet access. 73% of these schools have Internet access. | Ubiquitous Internet access. 95% of these schools have Internet access. |
| More networked computers. 70% of these schools have access to LANs. | Prevalent networked computers. 89% of these schools have access to one or more LANs. |
These four pillars provide a foundation for creating an innovative learning environment that can prepare students for life and work in the digital world.
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.
Hardware
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.
CONTINUED PROGRESS TOWARD INSTALLING COMPUTERS IN SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS PUTTING FUNDS TOWARD MODERNIZATION AND SUPPORT
SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURES REQUIRE ATTENTION
Computers allow students to access educational content and create their own content. However, it is the combination of computers and networks that holds the most educational promise by enabling unprecedented communication and collaboration.
CONTINUED GROWTH OF SCHOOL ACCESS TO INTERNET CONNECTIONS,
SCHOOL NETWORKS, AND CLASSROOM INTERNET ACCESS
E-RATE DELIVERING FUNDING FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INTERNET ACCESS AND INTERNAL CONNECTIONS
COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURES BEING RE-WIRED
Content
The power of technology is that it not only puts new, vast reservoirs of information at students' fingertips, but it allows them to create and disseminate their own information. Assessing the degree to which schools
have integrated digital information into classrooms can be accomplished
only by examining the availability and use of digital content
and digital learning tools.
SCHOOL SPENDING FOR DIGITAL CONTENT AND RESOURCES RISING
STUDENT INTERNET USAGE INCREASING
TEACHER COMPUTER USE
SCHOOLS GETTING ON THE WEB
Professional Development
Well-trained teachers are the keys to successful classroom technology integration. To ensure return on still rising investments in technology, schools must make a commitment to professional development by providing the required support, resources, and time for teachers to learn how
to use technology.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CONTINUES TO LAG BEHIND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
TECHNOLOGY FREQUENTLY INCLUDED AS PART OF TEACHER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TEACHERS USING THE INTERNET MORE
However, just as the presence of technology has the potential to equalize opportunities for students from different backgrounds and different regions, the absence of these resources has the potential to widen the gap and build new barriers.
Although schools are logging onto the Internet at breakneck paces, schools serving poor or non-white students are less likely to have networks and connections to the Internet than those serving affluent or white students. In 1997, 88 percent of schools where less than 11 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch had access to the Internet. That compares to 63 percent of schools where 71 percent or more were eligible for free or reduced price lunches - a difference of 25 percentage points.90 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.91
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 year, schools serving the least affluent students (those in which 81-99 percent of the student body is eligible for free or reduced LVAL price lunches) lowered their student to computer ratio by 18 percent. Schools serving the most affluent students (those in which less than one percent of the student body is eligible for free or reduced price lunch) lowered their student to computer ratio by 24 percent.92
Other indicators are equally alarming. Even when access to hardware exists, students may have unequal learning experiences. One recent study found that at the eighth grade level, 31 percent of white students used computers mostly for simulations and applications, compared with just 14 percent of black students. At the same time, more than half of America's black students had teachers who used computers mostly for drill and practice compared with only 30 percent of white students. The study also showed that the students who used technology for simulations and applications received better test scores than those who used the technology only for drill and practice.93
In addition to inequities in school, there continue to be inequities in homes. As technology minimizes the boundaries of school walls by fostering communication and collaboration with parents and others, disparity in home computer ownership could increasingly impact student education. According to a recent Department of Commerce study, the percent of non-Hispanic white households that own a computer is double that of Hispanic households and African-American households.94
Policymakers recognize the need for equal access to technology. The E-Rate, a subsidy of telecommunications services and equipment for schools and libraries, provides greater discounts to poor and rural schools. Also, school districts may use Title I funds to purchase technology. However, ensuring equity in the use of computers is equally critical. As this report demonstrates, that includes professional development wLVAL ) CarolineM.GettyVice Chair3334 East Coast Highway #441Corona Del MarCA92625949-7@ ?HotelWyndham BristolSunnyvaleCA (408) 747-09997/12/95Cardex2bJJJJJBBB;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;-,,,,,*!!!!! 40 ? @RestaurantChef Chu'sLos AltosCA (415) 948-2696$ @ 7/11/95Cardex2bVVVVVNNNGGGGGGGGGG;;;;;;;;;;;;;;-,,,,,*!!!!! 40 * = @Dr.RobertJ.BonomettiBobExec. Dir., Technology Strategic PlanningBell Atlantic CorporationOne Bell Atlantic Plaza1310 North Court House RoadArlingtonVA22201 (703) 974-1032(703) 974-8828E-mail: robert.j.bonometti@bell-atl.com7/7/95Cardex2bŷ}ffMM$!! 4ڱ * ; ?Ms.ShirleyWaxmanShirley 7531 Coddle Harbor LanePotomacMD208547/5/957/30/97Cardex2b_____WWPJJJJJJJJJJJJJEC<<%%%%%%%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 4W + : @Mr.JamesA.KellerJamesDirectorNational Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center2050 East Iliff AvenueDenverCO80208 (303) 871-2522(303) 871-2500(303) 871-2616E-mail: jkeller@du.edu7/30/96Cardex2bTAȱyyycP**" 4α : 9 @Ms.LauraCampbellLauraDirectorLibrary of CongressNational Digital Library101 Independence Avenue, SERoom LM 637WashingtonDC20540-1300 (202) 707-3300(202) 707-0815LCAM@loc.gov1/24/97 7/29/97Cardex2bTA KS{{pU=**" 4ޱ ; 8 ?Mr. & Mrs.E.GrumbacherE.205 Pinehurst AvenueApt. 2JNew YorkNY10033 6/30/95Cardex2b_____WWWPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPOOOOJH@@9%%%%%## 4W * 7 @Mr. & Mr ith technology for teachers. As the nation moves forward in integrating technology into the classroom, it is imperative that technology be used to remove existing barriers and avoid creating new ones.
STaR Assessment
The CEO Forum's 1998 STaR Assessment is derived from Quality
Education Data's (QED) Technology Measure,™ 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™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.
Each school is assigned a "raw" value ranging from one to seven, where seven indicates the most technology and connections present. When the data listed was improbable, not current, or incomplete, 8,273 schools were excluded.
To simplify the categories, the CEO Forum combined the QED Technology MeCLVAL O , }^: t> }^J.m_G&`? sQE9 @Mr.JimBellisJimAssociation of National Advertisers700 11th Street, NWSuite 650WashingtonDC20001 (202) 626-7806 CIC Recruiting List1/22/97Cardex2bTA REC{{{{{{{ asure categories with similar attributes into single categories. Categories one and two comprise "Low Tech" schools, category three represents ÒMid TechÓ schools, categories four and five comprise "High Tech" schools and categories six and seven comprise "Target Tech" schools.
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 http://survey.qeddata.com
Star Chart
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™. 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. Finally, the Educational Benefits section
is derived from McKinsey and Company. For more information, see
the CEO Forum STaR Chart itself. LVAL
Organizing Principles
The CEO Forum Four Year Agenda
Year 1: In The School Technology and Readiness
Report: From Pillars to Progress (October 1997), the CEO Forum
issued the STaR Chart, a self-assessment tool individual schools
can use to gauge their progress toward integrating technology
to improve education. The CEO Forum issued the first STaR Assessment,
a benchmark measure of national progress toward integrating technology
in education.
Year 2: Focusing on the issue of professional development, the CEO Forum Year 2 School Technology and Readiness Report called Professional Development: A Link to Better Learning (February 1999), includes a status report on educator professional development, an update of the STaR Chart to include new criteria for assessing individual school progress on professional development, and an update of the STaR Assessment.
Year 3: The CEO Forum will update the content section of the STaR Chart, report on the nation's progress inLVAL Y{m z_<# nY9! ~b>eE%F @Mr.MarcRotenbergMarcDirectorEPICElectronic Privacy Information Center666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SESuite 301WashingtonDC20003 (202) 544-9240(202) 547-5482rotenberg@opic.org7/30/96Cardex2bTAŽvvmR-))! 4ޱ : E @Ms.GretchenRhinesGretchenCouncil AssociateCouncil on Competitiveness1401 H Street, NWSuite 650WashingtonDC20005 (202) 682-4292(202) 682-5150rhinesg@compete.org7/30/96Cardex2bTA}||||wukkbQQ77& 4ڱ : D ?Dr.HelenL.SmitsHelenPresident and Medical DirectorHealthRight134 State StreetMeridenCT06450 (203) 630-3356(203) 630-0108hsmits@healthright.com6/27/96Cardex2bwwihhhhcaZZZJJ??! 4ʱ * C @RestaurantFull Kee (202) 371-22332/18/97Cardex2b=====555........................ 40 * B @Mr.DickCorleyDickHewlett-Packard Company3000 Minuteman RoadMS 0046AndoverMA01810-1099 (508) 659-711512/6/96Cardex2bTAxxxqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqcbbbbXVOOH55 4W1 : A ?Mr.AlbertA.FoerAlbert2919 Ellicott Street, NWWashingtonDC20008 (202) 362-8704(202) 966-87116/20/96Cardex2bwwwwwooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhZZLKKKKFD:::""""" 4_ȱ * @ ?Mr.VictorPerlmanVictorAmerican Society of Media Photographers(ASMP)NJ (609) 799-8300perlman@asmp.org6/17/96Cardex2bxxxqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqaaaaaaSRRRRRPPPPPJ### 4W0 * ? @Mr.StephenC.MeierSteveVice President, Public and Government AffairsTimes MirrorTimes Mirro developing and integrating digital content, and update the STaR Assessment.
Year 4: In its final year, the CEO Forum will address the important question of how to measure the impact of technology on student achievement and educational outcomes as well as update the STaR Chart and STaR Assessment. LVAL In the last decade, reports have sounded the alarm: new teachers are not entering the classroom well prepared to use technology. In a definitive report to Congress in 1995, Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) stated:
Despite the importance of technology in teacher education, it is not central to the teacher preparation experience in most colleges of education in the United States today. Most new teachers graduate from teacher preparation institutions with limited knowledge of the ways technology can be used in their professional practice. (OTA, 1995, p. 2)In our technology-oriented society, new teachers are being placed in classrooms without an understanding of how technology can support their teachingor their students learning. As a result, school systems are forced to provide remedial instruction for what should be the most technologically-ready generation of teachers.
State and federal agencies, university governing boards, and the private sector have at last begun to take notice. The American Council on Education (www.acenet.edu) has called on college and university presidents to "move the education of teachers to the center of their professional and institutional agendas." In addition, the U.S. Department of Education recently announced its first technology grant program aimed at preservice teacher education ("Preparing Tomorrows Teachers to Use Technology"). Finally, businesses and foundations havLVAL r l $ "] @Mr.BonnerMillerBonnerGTT Communications, Inc.11940 Jollyville Rd.AustinTX78759 ( ) -2/3/97Cardex2bTAvvvvtlllffffffffffffffffffffff\\\[[[[VTNNN::""" 4Wʑ : \ @Mr.RonHoudlettRonMendes & Mount 1/17/97Cardex2bTA>>>><444-------------------------,,,,,,,,,,, 4W : [ @Mr.AlfredZernikAlfred239 Spruce StreetPhiladelphiaPA19106-39062159250132 2/4/97Cardex2bTAffffd\\\VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVUUKKA?333""""" 4W : Z ?Ms.DorinSchumacherDorinIndustry RelationsPurdue UniversityPurdue Research FoundationHovde HallWest LafayetteIN47907 (317) 494-6954(317) 494-62007/26/96Cardex2bTA PA FA KS{ykkaGG66$ 4ڱ : Y @Mr.StevenCannonSteveSr. Vice President & General CounselCircuit City9950 Mayland DriveRichmondVA23233-1464 (804) 527-4014(804) 527-41641/24/97Cardex2bHT PA KS SE TAxwwwwmkcccQQEE! 4ʱ : W @Mr.MichaelBolandMikeBoland & Madigan700 13th Street, NWSuite 350WashingtonDC20005 (202) 637-0040(202) 637-0041(202) 879-0350Lori12/13/967/23/97Cardex2b{mm_^^^^YWMMD11!!! 4Wڱ $ V ?Ms.RhondaNovelliRhondaSilicon Valley Manufacturing Group (408) 496-18757/24/96Cardex2bccccc[[[TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTFEEEEEEEEEEE### 4W0 * T ?Ms.JillBondJillLeslie Harris2120 L Street, N e also begun to respond to this challenge with their own special grant programs and initiatives.
States are beginning to add technology-related requirements for program approval or licensure, but only three states (North Carolina, Idaho, and Virginia) require programs to assess technologyrelated knowledge and skills of teacher candidates. Clearly, the United States has a long way to go. The children of the Digital Age are too often taught by teachers prepared with techniques more appropriate for the Industrial Age.p LVAL | Ly }eQ-vU4 lC7 z[< cD' 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) (www.aacte.org), and the other in 1998 by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)(www.iste.org) for the Milken Exchange on Education Technology (www.milkenexchange.org), 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.
In 1998, the Campus Computing Project (www.campuscomputing.net) 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 in some areas, but near the bottom in others:
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 and departments on campus.
3. Technology appropriately integrated in courses in all departments
Most teacher candidates take many of their courses in other academic departments on campus (up to 75 percent of coursework in some programs). If teacher candidates are to appreciate how technology supports understanding in all academic areas, it is important that faculty across the campus provide role models for the appropriate integration of technology in teaching. LVAL A : ^8zT.pJ$f@\6xR, U.S. House of Representatives" U.S. House of Representatives" U.S. House of Representati ?Prof.GlennR.FongGlennAssociate Professor Dept. of International StudiesThunderbird15249 North 59th AvenueGlendaleAZ85306-6011(602) 978-7181 /2(602) 978-7156(602) 439-9622(602) 978-7181 /2E-mail: fongg@t-bird.edu9/10/96Cardex2bȷ~vvv19. Connection with the SCDE for continuous growth
As education and technology practices change and grow, todays SCDEs have the opportunity to create a two-way support structure that provides continuing expertise to their graduates. The SCDE should create a learning community that works with alumni throughout their careers, as alumni can be a powerful voice for changeand a resource base that helps fund new initiatives.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 schools 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. LVAL 6. Strategic planning incorporating technology
Technology should be a catalyst that sparks the vision for change within a strategic plan for the SCDE. The plan should take into account how technology can support the overall goals of the teacher preparation program. One of the goals of the strategic plan should be to meet Target Tech goals of the STaR Chart within a reasonably defined time period, with clear indicators for measuring success.
7. Funding for technology internally and via fundraising
This plan must be supported by a line item budget for technology, something that is often missing in the budgets of SCDEs. Data suggests that the teacher preparation institution typically provides only $9 out of every $100 spent on technology. The deans and department chairs that make technology a priority commit more of their budgets to technology and are more aggressive in seeking additional funding from private sources and grants.
8. Hiring, tenure, and promotion of faculty with technology research and teaching expertise
SCDE leaders must set policies that provide incentives for faculty to learn about, experiment with, design and deliver technologically supported instruction. These policies must, in turn, be supported by resources that send a message that technology use is valued as a component of professional practice, and provides tools they need to use technology for research and training. Unless hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions recognize innovative teaching and development activities with technology, faculty will find it difficult to take time away from the pressure to "publish or perish" in order to advance their professional careers.
9. Program guided by NCATE or equivalent technology integration standards
Many states do not require accreditation of the institutions that prepare educators. Today, approximately 500 of the nations 1,300 teacher preparation programs are accredited by NCATE, the National Council for the AccreLVAL dQ ^8zT.pJ$f@ @Mr.GregSchmidtJenny & Greg and Jenny Lyman3940 Morrison Street, N.W.WashingtonDC20015 9/25/96Cardex2bssssskkkdddddddddddddddddddddddddcccc^\RRR8888'
4 * ?Ms.LoisSchifferLois4650 Brandywine, N.W.WashingtonDC20015 9/25/96Cardex2bVVVVVNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGFFFFA?555
4W * @Mr. & Mrs.RichardMountsLinda & Richard3931 Military Road, N.W.WashingtonDC20016 9/26/96Cardex2blllllddd]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]\\\\WUKKK33333$$
4W * @Mr. & Mrs.DavidKendallAnne & David5215 Massachusetts AvenueBethesdaMD20816 9/25/96Cardex2bggggg___XX ditation of Teacher Education (www.ncate.org). NCATE has taken a lead in adopting requirements that emphasize the importance of technology in content, pedagogical and professional standards. They also set high standards for faculty qualifications and institutional resources for teaching and scholarship with technology.
10. Partnerships with K-12 schools around technology
The employers of new teachers have had little to say about teachers' preparation for the classroom. Teacher preparation programs that are moving forward with technology integration find that having partnerships with the K-12 community provides the needed two-way flow of expertise between the faculty in teacher education and K-12 teachers. By working closely with K-12 schools, teacher educators gain a better understanding of the ways that technology impacts student learning and the tools that today's teachers employ as a part of their instructional repertoire. In addition, some schools of education have gone as far as offering a "warranty" on their graduates to certify that they are well-equipped to enter classrooms. Taking this concept one step further, a "technology warranty" could be another way that school systems could focus their hiring on technologically prepared educators. LVAL 11. Access to advanced technologies in SCDE facilities
The SCDE should provide equitable and ubiquitous access for all faculty and students, including those participating from off-campus sites. One or two wired classrooms or labs will not meet the teaching, research, and communication needs of the teacher education community. Innovative solutions should be considered (e.g., mobile computers with wireless telecommunications access available for on-call teaching needs, centralized research facilities for faculty and student use, etc.). The AACTE study found that in most SCDEs, the ratio of students to computers is approximately 10 to 1, higher than the 7 to 1 ratio in higher education overall and the 6 to 1 ratio now found in K-12 schools. Faculty have better access to a computer but still not every full-time faculty member in SCDEs has access. Furthermore, while close to 11 percent of higher education institutions require or strongly recommend microcomputer ownership for students in specific disciplines or programs, less than 2 percent of those SCDEs responding to the AACTE survey require that their teacher education students purchase a computer.
12. Faculty development
Educated in an earlier era, most faculty in colleges of education were not trained to teach with technology. SCDEs face a huge challenge in helping teacher education faculty become more familiar with technology. Many have found it necessary to develop a faculty development program that offers multiple professional development opportunities, going beyond formal workshops to include one-on-one coaching, mentoring from peers, informal show-and-tell content applications and hand-holding support from more accomplished colleagues. Some institutions have recruited students to serve as technology teaching assistants to faculty. Furthermore, new incentives (e.g., summer stipends, mini-grants, and sabbaticals in a K-12 environment) may be necessary to encourage faculty to take the time to learn about technoHLVAL T`h\ME ^8zT.l@" ?Mr.MatthewJ.FlaniganMattPresidentTelecommunications Industry Assn.2500 Wilson Blvd.Suite 300ArlingtonVA22201 (703) 907-7700(703) 907-7727mflaniga@tia.eia.orgMary10/3/96Cardex2bzyyyytrii`OO..%!!
4ڱ * @Mr.WilliamR.MoroneyWilliamPresident & CEOMultiMedia Telecommunications Assn.2500 Wilson Blvd.Suite 300ArlingtonVA22201-3834 (703) 907-7470(703) 907-7478wmoroney@mmta.org2/6/97Cardex2bļ~|ssjYY66'
4ڱ * @Mr.RonDunnRonPresidentInformation Industry Association1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.Suite 700WashingtonDC20036 (202) 986-0280(202) 638-4403rdunn@infoindustry.orgSarah10/3/96Cardex2b{zzzzusii`CC##
4ڱ * ?Mr.WillRogersWillReporter (202) 789-203610/2/96Cardex2bDDDDD<<<5555555555555555555555'''&&&&&&&&&&&
4W * @Mr.RichHaverRichNational Intelligence OfficeCIAVA (703) 482-9918(703) 759-9189 Deutch's Office10/17/96Cardex2b~~~vvvvvvvvvv[[[[[[[[[[[MMM?>>>>><<<<<<99
4ׂ0 * ?Mr.MichaelZuckermanMichaelUSA TodayVA (703) 558-382010/2/96Cardex2bPPPPPHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA33322222000000'''
4W * ?Mr.MikeAntonucciMike (408) 920-569010/1/96Cardex2b?????777000000000000000000000000"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4W 0 ?HotelRitz Carlton Pentagon City1250 South Hayes StreetArlingtonVA22202 (703) 415-50009/30/96Ca logy and change their teaching approaches in order to use it most effectively.
13. Technical support
Whether support comes from the central administration, a team based in the SCDE, graduate assistants or undergraduates serving as technical mentors to faculty and students, it is critical that, should problems arise, friendly and skillful technical support is available, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. LVAL 14. Coursework that integrates technology to enhance learning
Research confirms that stand-alone technology classes may not provide the best way to ensure that basic skills are integrated in ones teaching repertoire. Today, most teacher education institutions have specific information technology course requirements (85 percent in the Milken/ISTE study), but the majority of these are introductory technology classes. They may not be the best vehicle for understanding how technology supports learning in a field. Teacher candidates should be learning to create and apply technology as a means of supporting student learning in all methods and content courses. The AACTE study found that only 40 percent of institutions require their teacher candidates to incorporate technology when they design and deliver instruction on campus.
15. Use of online resources to support learning opportunities
Electronic communication tools can extend the research, communication, and reflection components in traditional courses and provide opportunities to reach learners at a distance. By using these resources in teacher preparation programs, teacher candidates are also exposed to innovative teaching approaches and models for communication.
16. Technology in field experiences and student teaching The CEO Forum, a partnership
of 20 top business and education leaders, urged school systems
and schools of education to take these steps:
The CEO Forum said these efforts
are urgent because public schools are expected to hire at least
300,000 new teachers over the next decade for kindergarten through
grade 12.
"These teachers must prepare
our children for the new world, the new economy, and the new
jobs of the 21st Century," said Dr. Terry Crane, president
of Jostens Learning Corporation and co-chair of the CEO Forum.
"It is essential that they cross the threshold from the
old world of blackboards and print to the new era of computers
and the Internet."
Explaining why the schools' current
efforts fall far short of national needs, the CEO Forum reported
that, during the 1996-1997 school year, only 6 percent of the
technology budgets of school districts throughout the country
were devoted to training. That was only one-fifth of the funding
level recommended by teaching experts in a recent report by the
U.S. Department of Education.
The CEO Forum found that, as
a re* LVAL 6 `" sult 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.
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.
"We want to help our nation's
schools learn from the experience of our nation's most successful
corporations," said Alan Spoon, president of the Washington
Post Company and co-chair of the CEO Forum. "The companies
that have successfully integrated technology into their business
have made major investments in technology-related training for
their employees."
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, it will address student assessment and
outcomes.
The CEO Forum will release the
second of four annual assessment reports in February of 1999.
Members of the CEO Forum on Education
and Technology include: Advanced Network & Services, Inc.,
Apple Computer,Bell Atlantic Corporation, CitySearch, Compaq
Computer Corporation, Computer Curriculum Corporation, Discovery
Communications, Inc., ETC, Flextronics International, Gateway
2000, Jostens Learning Corporation, Julien J. Studley, Inc.,
McKinsey & Company, National Education Association, National School Boards Association, Newcourt Inc., Public Broadcasting
Service, Quality Education Data, and The Washington Post Company.M
16h`k Mr.FrankHungerFrank10th & Constitution Avenue, NwRoom 3143WashingtonDC20530-0001 U.S. Department of Justice]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]SQGG>
4W Mr.JerryHultinJerry4418 Faith CourtAlexandriaVA22311-1127703/671-0031703/695-3141 Department of the Navy Under Secy-11/21/97^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RRFF<:000
4W Mr.CraigHuffmanCraig2501 Q ST., NW. 323WashingtonDC20007202-965-7434 United States Dept of StatexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQEE@>444!!!!!
4W
@@Business & Education Leaders Push Teacher Prep Component of President's Digital Divide Initiative= zn
@CEOs Issue Challenge To Higher Ed This new self-diagnostic tool
asks such questions as: What is your current student-to-computer
ratio? What percent of your classrooms are connected to the Internet?
Does your school provide teachers with regular out-of-class preparation
time for learning and integrating technology into the curriculum?
From the answers to these and other questions, a quick score
can be calculated to determine a category of technology preparedness.
Dr. Therese Crane, President
of Jostens Learning and CEO Forum Co-Chair, says, "Parents
and teachers across the nation need to know how their schools
are responding to integrating technology in the classrooms. We
have seen how technology, and the expansive resources it makes
available, has greatly improved performance in the corporate
world. Our students deserve nothing less than the advantage that
technology brings to the learning process."
The CEO Forum on Education and
Technology, a partnership of 20 leading business and education
leaders, focuses on the relationship between education and technology
in the classroom. The Forum has 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 STaR Chart has already been adopted as one of their
major directed self-assessment tools in North Carolina, Michigan,
Washington, and Pennsylvania.
"In 1997, when we released
our first report, we found that only 3% of American schools can
be called LVAL oH? c Mr.FrankLloydFrank3702 Northampton St. N.w.WashingtonDC20015IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDB888
4W Mr.TobyLitovitzToby8720 Crider Brook WayPotomacMD20854202-362-3867OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCCC><555
4W Mr.BruceLindseyBruce1600 Pennsylvania Ave NwWashingtonDC20500-0005 White HouseffffffffffffffffffOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEC999!!!!!
4W Mr.JosephLiebermanJoeSenate Hart Office Bldg., Rm. 502WashingtonDC20510-0001 U.S. SenateppppppppppppppppppYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOMCCC"""""
4W Mr.JohnLibonatiJohn11 'Target-Tech' schools. These are the schools that have
attained the highest level of technological integration,"
said Alan Spoon, President and CEO of the Washington Post Company
and CEO Forum Co-Chair. "Only 12% are 'High-Tech,' 26% are
classified as 'Mid-Tech,' and 59% fell into the 'Low-Tech' category.
We have called on all Americans to work together to increase
the percentage of 'Target Tech' schools from the 3% to at least
50% by 2005."
The STaR Chart and other information
on the CEO Forum are posted on the website at www.ceoforum.org.
The CEO Forum will release the second of four annual assessment
reports in January of 1999.
Members of the CEO Forum on Education
and Technology include: Advanced Network & Services, Inc.,
Apple Computer, AT&T Capital Corporation, Bell Atlantic Corporation,
CitySearch, Compaq Computer Corporation, Computer Curriculum
Corporation, Discovery Communications, Inc., ETC, Flextronics
International, Gatewa
Many new teachers consider classroom observations, student teaching, and field experiences the most important learning experiences in their teacher preparation program. Student classroom observations should provide opportunities to observe the integration of technology in teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms. Some observations can be enhanced by technology, such as video links that bring the K-12 classroom into the SCDE classrooms, a setting in which a wider range of classroom observations can be offered to students. Wherever possible, student teaching and practicum experiences should be chosen for opportunities that will expose teacher candidates to: best practices in technology inLVAL 1h c;._=qO- a? sQ/
cA
@Ms.Ann MeierBakerAnnDirector, NSBA FoundationNational School Boards Association1680 Duke StreetAlexandriaVA22314-3493 (703) 838-62227036837590abaker@nsba.orgDanielle2/20/977/10/97Cardex2bxvlll\\::!
4ʱ +
@Mr.JerryLinnJerryAssociate Director for Program ImplementationNISTBuilding 820, Room 634820 West Diamond AvenueGaithersburgMD20899 (301) 975-3624richard.linn@nist.gov10/23/96Cardex2bļ}}fPPL<
41 *
@RestaurantSam & Harry's1200 19th Street, N.W.(19th & M)WashingtonDC (202) 296-433310/21/96Cardex2boooooggg________________________QPPPPPNDD:$$
40 *
@Mr.AlexMandlAlexTeligent11 Canal Center PlazaSuite 300AAlexandriaVA22314 (703) 299-4411Annie Morris6/23/97Cardex2bwwwppppppppddddddddddddddddVUUUUPNDD:%%
4W1 *
?Mr.RickyRayRickyTicketsVA (703) 533-160010/17/96Cardex2bEEEEE===555555555555555555555555'&&&&&$$$$$$
4W0 *
@Mr.RodCanionRodChairman of the BoardInsource Technology Corporation363 N. Sam Houston Pkwy EastSuite 1800HoustonTX77060-2413 (713) 890-1045(713) 890-42451/8/97Cardex2bTA}vvlPP11
4ڱ :
@Mr.JohnS.HendricksJohnFounder, Chairman & CEODiscovery Communications, Inc.7700 Wisconsin AvenueBethesdaMD20814 (301) 986-1999 x5200(301) 986-5999john_hendricks@discovery.com418-72-723003/29/52Hei tegration, a range of technology resources, and the design and delivery of instruction that incorporates technology as a learning and problem-solving tool. The AACTE study found that less than one-third (28 percent) of teacher preparation institutions require this during student teaching. Technology links can also help support ongoing supervision and mentoring. LVAL } r TV{
As states are beginning to require that candidates demonstrate technology proficiency that meets content standards, the ultimate measure for the success of a SCDE is the pass rate of their graduates in meeting these standards. In order for students to develop these skills, they should be required to design and deliver instruction incorporating new technologies both on campus and in the student teaching experience. As school districts become increasingly aggressive in competing for candidates with advanced technology expertise, the sucess of SCDEs graduates in the marketplace will be a critical indicator of the quality of their teacher preparation program.17. Understanding and use of technology to enhance teaching and research
As faculty increase their confidence and skill in using technology, they move through a series of stages similar to what the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACoT) identified as levels of teacher expertise in K-12 classrooms. These are defined as:
Entry: Educators struggle to learn the basics of using technology;
Adoption: Educators move from the initial struggles to successful use of technology on a basic level;
Adaptation: Educators move from basic use of technology to discovery of its potential for increased productivity;
Appropriation: Having achieved mastery over the technology, educators use it "effortlessly" as a tool to accomplish a variety of instructional and management goals; and
Invention: Educators are prepared to develop entirely new learning environments that utilize technology as a flexible teaching and learning tool. They begin to "think with technology," designing new ways to solve learning problems that their students may have faced in the past.' m,/6,t b` Ugr@? ~1y0̝cǟFN7]D^(`T{6߱wCϯ34ay[|*|O%
@Mr.MordyPellegMordyMBS/NET6680 Beta DriveClevelandOH441432165316355 (216) 461-76501/29/97Cardex2bnnnnnfff________________________QPPFFA?666''
4W5 * $
?Mr.LarryRuppelLarryService ManagerFitzgeraldWhite Flint Automall11411 Rockville PikeKensingtonMD20895 (301) 881-4000 Dodge(301) 230-9000 Buick1 @ 11/15/96 7/24/97Cardex2bsrrrrmkaaaM9//
41 + #
@Mr.RobertJ.CynkarP.C.BobCooper & CarvinA Professional Limited Liability Co.2000 K St., NWSuite 401WashingtonDC20006 (202) 822-8955(202) 822-896611/18/96Cardex2bTA{yoofX4%%%"
4ޱ "
@Mr.AlanDaleyAlanDirectorBell Atlantic Corporation1310 North Court House Road4th floorArlingtonVA22201 (202) 414-6203(703) 974-5796(703) 974-5117bftr9rs@bell-atl.com5/12/977/10/97Cardex2bǿrrrrmkbbY>>%%
4ڱ + !
?Ms.MaureenO'ConnellMaureen (202) 895-3260moconnell@newscorp.com11/14/96Cardex2b\\\\\TTTLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL666666(''''''''''''''
4W 0 *
@Mr.KennethG.DzuganKenBiblioWorld948 Portland AvenueSt. PaulMN55104-7034 (612) 224-7645(612) 293-0348kdzugan@biblioworld.com //www.biblioworld.com11/18/96Cardex2bqqqqccUTTTTJH@@@--"""
4_ʱ *
@Dr.PamelaJ.HinesPh.D.PamelaSenior EditorAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science1200 New York Avenue, N.W.WashingtonDC20005 (202) 326-6509(202) 289-3649phines@aaas.org11/13/96 7/24/97Cardex2bTAǿhh55("
4ʱ ;
?Mr.Phi 2
1 Alumni: Connections @ 99-side-18.gif:,
0 Students: Competence and Use @ 99-side-17.gifC5)
/ Faculty: Competence and Use` @ 99-side-16.gifB4(
F' @ @ @ @ @ @ / / / / / / / / /
/ /
/
/ /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / ! " # $ %
& ' (
) * + , - . / 0 1 2 nUniversity of Texas, Austin1912 Speedway, SZB 438BAustin78712512-471-4014512-471-4655resta@mail.utexas.edu~rmgP5!! ?h 2 LRu@ Martha CollinsDeanCollege of EducationEast Tennessee State University317 Warf-Pickel HallJohnson City37614423-439-7626423-439-7560collinsm@etsu.edu}xlX9%! ?g טu@ David R. TaylorDeanCollege of Education & Human ServicesWestern Illinois University1 University CircleMacomb61455309-298-169309-298-2222DR-taylor@wiu.eduyfK&" ?f 2 0t@ E. Sutton FlyntDeanCollege of EducationAustin Peay State University210 Claxton BldgClarksville37043931.221.7167931.221.1292flynts@apsu.eduwww.apsu.edu/educationvqfV:&" ?e * ~fr@ Judith CoeDeanCollege of EducationUniversity of Central Oklahoma100 N. UniversityEdmond73034405-974-5701405-974-3851jcoe@ucok.eduwww.ucok.edu{ojdS5! ?d 0 #a@p@ Dr. Tom DavisDirector of Technology for Teacher EducationSchool of EducationUniversity of South Carolina, Spartanburg800 University WaySpartanburg29303864 503-5502864 503-5574tdavis@uscs.eduwww.uscs.edu¶_L ?c 5 Ƈm@ Dr. Vanessa C. ZerilloAcademic Program DirectorField-Based Graduate Program in EducationTrinity College of Vermont208 Colchester AvenueBurlington05401802-846-7032802-846-7031vzerillo@trinityvt.eduwww.trinityvt.edu/edsite/kB) ?F' @ @ @ @ @ @ / / / / / / / / /
/ /
/
/ /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / ! " # $ %
& ' (
) * + , - . / 0 1 2 @ @YYYYYYYY k @@ @@ ? @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ ? @ @ @@ @@ ? @ @@ @Blair McNaughtonWilliam Roper Hull SchoolCalgaryCalgaryALiY j $ @@ ? @ @ @@ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? @ @ @ @Jim HebeisenPCWayzataPlymouthMNjfhebeis@ties.k12.mn.usxxvngeY i S @@ @@ ? @@ @ @ @@ @ @ @ ? @ @ @ ? ? @ ? @Les ElsieUTlucastoledoALqqqoidbY h 6 @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ ' @ @ @ @ @ @ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
r 4w w r 4w ܪ w
r 4w 0 w
r 4w w
r 4w ث w
r 4w , w
r 4w w
r 4w Ԭ w
r 4w ( w
r 4w | w r 4w Э w r 4w $ w r 4w x w r 4w ̮ w r 4w w r 4w t w VC [ N
2
2
2
d
2
2
~2
2
2
2
d
ContactIDNameTitle
DepartmentCompanyAddressCityStatePostalPhoneFaxEmailURL SubmittedDecline
Enrollment ~ ContactID
PrimaryKey 3703/4/977/10/97Cardex2b¼tssssnl\\\EE
4Wʱ` + K
?Conference CallsVialog Conference ServiceAcct Number: 21014 (ITS)(703) 736 70001/7/97Cardex2bkkkkkccc]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]OOOOOOOOOOO6
4 * J
?Washington Counsel, PC1150 17th St., NWSuite 601WashingtonDC20036 1/6/97Cardex2b]]]]]UUUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNIG==4##
4 * I
@Mr.JimBrownJimDistrict Sales ManagerInterPay, Inc.6851 Oak Hall LaneP.O. Box 689ColumbiaMD21045-0689 800-690-5152(410) 290-68404104500074(410) 290-3993(800) 696-6203 x1214 Payroll Contact: Jackie1/30/97Cardex2bܸ~qqqqge]]Q??11
4
G
?Mr.MichaelB.G.FromanMikeDeputy Assistant Secretary for Eurasia and the Mid EastDepartment of Treasury1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashingtonDC20220 (202) 622-0770(202) 622-0658michael.froman@treas.sprint.com1/6/97Cardex2bٺrr\\%!!
4ʱ * F
@Mr.JonathanA.GreenblattJonathanConfidential AssistantU.S. Department of CommerceInternational Trade AdministrationInternational Trade AdministrationU.S. Department of CommerceWashingtonDC20230 (202) 482-5732(202) 456-5557Jonathan_Greenblatt@ita.doc.gov) @ 2/12/977/28/97Cardex2b+++++## Ƽ]BB,$$
4ޱ + {qBpt ! X
?Mr.DonaldE.GrahamDonaldCEOThe Washington Post1150 15th Street, N.W.WashingtonDC20071 1/13/97Cardex2bqqqqqiiibbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbaaaa\ZPPP::''$
4 * W
?Mr.SamGinnSamChairman & CEOAirTouch Communications, Inc.1 California Street21st FloorSan FranciscoCA94111 1/13/97Cardex2b~~~wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwvvvvqobbXEE((
4 * V
?Mr.WilliamEsreyWilliamChairman & CEOSprint Corporation2330 Shawnee Mission ParkwayWestwoodKS66205 1/13/97Cardex2b~~~~~vvvooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnig___CC11#
4 * U
?Mr.MichaelDellMichaelCEODell Computer Corporation1 Dell WayRound RockTX78682 512 728-84005127288366Stephanie McHam512-728-1469stephanie_mcham@dell.com1/13/97Cardex2bppppppppppppppffZYYYYTRHHH>>%%"
4ʱ * T
?Mr.DouglasG.CarlstonDouglasChairman and CEOBroderbund Software, Inc.500 Redwood BoulevardNovatoCA94948-6121 1/13/97Cardex2byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyxxxxnlfffQQ88(!!
4 * S
?Mr.JohnCannavinoJohnPresident & CEOPerot Systems12377 Merit DriveSuite 1100DallasTX75251 1/13/97Cardex2buuuuummmfffffffffffffffffffffffffeeee`^XXN==00!
4 * R
@Mr.KennethOlsenKenPresidentAdvanced Modular Solutions60 Codman Hill Rd.BoxboroMA01719 (508) 266-9700(508) 266-1404kolsen@mod.com1/17/97Cardex2bqqcbbbb][TTTBB((
4ʱ * Q
p @ B Ef X b @ & 1j@ A. Michael DoughertyWestern Carolina University220 Killian BldgCullowhee28723828-227-7311828-227-7388dougherty@wpoff.wcu.eduxl`[RB''' ? * nQ@ Charles V. ScootDirector of Teacher EducationUniversity of Science and Arts of OklahomaUSAO Box 82328Chickasha73018405-574-1237405-574-1220facscottcv@usao.eduxj@@# ? ԥ@ Barat CollegeChairEducationBarat College700 E Westleigh Rd Lake Forest 60045847-604-6320847-604-6377joconnel@barat.eduwk_ZN;.% ? % ŝ@ Dr. Julius Gregg AdamsDirectorSchool of EducationState University of New York at FredoniaThompson Hall E268Fredonia14063716-673-3311716-673-3224adams@fredonia.edulD1) ?
7 ,@ John S. OehlerDeanSchool of EducationVirginia Commonwealth UniversityVCU Box 842020Richmond23284-2020804 828-3382804 828-1323jsoehler@vcu.eduwww.vcu.edu/eduweb/xnfX8%! ? @ E. Lynne WeisenbachDeanSchool of EducationUniversity of Indianapolis1400 East Hanna Av.Indianapolis46227317-788-3285317-788-3300weisenbach@uindy.eduwww.uindy.edu{vjW=*& ?
@ Dr. Beth BarnettDeanSchool of Education & Professional StudiesSalisbury State University1101 Camden AvenueSalisbury 21801410-543-6335410-548-2593bebarnett@ssu.edu}kQ'# ? 贁@ Dr. Margaret FeldnerClark College1550 Clark Drive Dubuque52001319-588-6397319-584-8604mfeldner@clarke.edu||i]QLE4''' ? 3 :b߱@ Dr. M. Paul MehtaDeanCollege of EducationPrairie View A&M UniversityP O Box 4049Prarie View77466936-857-3820936-857-2911pmehta@pvamu.edusncW<($ ? $@ Barbara NourieAssociate DeanIllinois State University5300 College of EducationNormal61790-5300309-438-3910309-438-3813blnourie@ilstu.edu}qgaH//! ? q @ Robert A. CobbCollege of Education & Human DevelopmentUniversity of Maine5766 Shibles Hall Orono 04469-5766207-581-2441207-581-2428racobb@maine.maine.edu~tn\I!! ?
/
[ @ UF7 eQC.iN3 * RestaurantYanyu(202) 686-696804/06/200044444444************************ ?@ Ben R. OldhamDeanDepartment of EducationGeorgetown College400 E. College StreetGeorgetown40324502-863-8177502-868-7741dforman1@georgetowncollege.edu}qlbM;$ ? ^B{@ Dr. Bill NeuenswanderDepartment of Education ChairEducationBaker UniversityBox 65Baldwin City66006785 594 4518785 594 6721neuenswan@harvey.bakeru.eduupd^NE( ? e|h@ Meghan SmithMarketing & Recruiting AssociateMarketing and RecruitingInternational Data Group, Inc.PO Box 22529Louisville40252800-829-4434, x816502-394-9938msmith@idgtech.comwww.idgtech.comuW? & ^@ Dan L. KingFaculty of Applied Science & EducationBuffalo State University1300 Elmwood Avenue Buffalo14222716-878-4214716-878-5301kingdl@buffalostate.edu|wp\D ? - rP@ Shelley B. WepnerDeanWidener UniversityOne University Place Chester 19013610-499-4297610-499-4623ttth\WO:(($ ? ?@ Dr. Norma L. StricklandDivision of EducationRust College150 E. Rust Ave Holly Springs38635662-252-8000662-252-6107nstrickland@rustcollege.eduymh[K?** ? % !@ James V. BruniDeanLehman College of the City University of New YorkDivision of Education Lehman CollegeBronx10468718-960-8401718-960-7855bruni@lehman.cuny.eduzV%%! ? % p=
@ Ofelia GarciaSchool Of EducationLong Island University, Brooklyn Campus1 University PlazaBrooklyn 11201718-488-1055718-488-3472ofelia.garcia@liu.eduzulZ3 ? 1u@ Dr. Jim BowmanDeanCollege of Education & Human ServicesCentral Missouri State UniversityLovinger 2190 warrenburg64093660-543-4272660-543-4167ykJ%! ? I7@ Dr. Celina M. SimaDean of Academic AffairsCollege of EducationUniversity of Illinois, Chicago1040 West Harrison Street Chicago60607-7133312-413-3823312-996-6400celinas@uic.edu³pQ=% ?V ;)F& v
?Ms.CaroleNelsonCaroleCray ResearchEaganMN 2/14/97Cardex2bFFFFF>>>77777777* % 5|
@ Dr. Joan M. MillerMount Saint Mary College330 Powell Avenue Newburght 12550914-569-3264914-569-MSMCjoanm@msmc.eduvj^YO=%%% ?) 0 5m
@ David H. ReillyThe Citadel171 Moulhie Street Charleston 29409843-953-7118843-953-6767Reillyd@c.tadel.edu{{h\PK@-""" ?( 2 i_
@ Dr. Zella McDonaldCrichton College6655 Winchester Road Memphis 38175901-367-3895901-367-3883mcdonald@crichton.comocWRJ5%%% ?' S
@ Dr. George E. UhligDeanCollege of EducationUniversity of South AlabamaUCOM 3600 Moblile 36688-0002334-380-2738334-380-2748guhlig@usamail.usouthal.eduukcY>*& ?& )Q @ O. Cleveland HillDeanCollege of EducationNicholls State UniversityP. O. Box 2053Thibodaux70310504-448-4325504-448-4926educ-och@Mail.nich.eduwww.nich.edu}qlcU<($ ?% @ Edna SzymanskiDeanCollege of EducationUniversity of MarylandCollege Park20742301-405-2336301-314-9890ednas@deans.umd.eduwww.education.umd.eduxl`[OO9%! ?$ & H@ Dr. Glenn ShepherdCoordinator of Educational TechnologyEducationUniversity of North Carolina, AshevilleOne University Heights Blvd.Asheville28804shepherd@bulldog.unca.eduwww.unca.edu/education/ԽzSJ% ?# U`@ Randy EllsworthAssociate DeanCollege of EducationWichita State UniversityBox 131Wichita67230-0131316-978-3301316-978-3302ellswort@twsu.edutjc\D0" ?"
@ Dr. Max RuhlDeanCollege of Education & Human ServicesNorthwest Missouri State University800 University DriveMaryville64468660-562-1617660-562-1096RUHL@mail.nwmissouri.edukH# ? {@ Dr. Rosalind P. HaleXaiver University of Louisiana1 Drexel Drive New Orleans 70125504-483-7536504-485-7909rhale@xula.edu}qe`TE''' ? G@ Dr. Christine M. BahrCoordinatorDepartment of EducationSt. Mary-of-the-Woods College221 Hulman HallSt. Mary of the Woods47876812-535-5227812-535-5144cbahr@smwc.eduvgJ3( ? Bbw< {Z9F+6 a3@ Dr. Louise A. TanneyMaryland State Department of EducationMaryland State Department of Education Division ofBaltimore 21202-2595410-767-0414410-333-8963ltanney@msde.state.md.usëM''' ?5 ) ,@ Doris Q. SimonisCollege and Graduate School of EducationKent State University404 White Hall Kent44242330-672-2580330-672-3246dsimonis@educ.kent.eduxso`K## ?3 7 u@ Dr. Robert Small DeanCollege of Education and Human DevelopmentRadford UniversityP.O.Box 6960Radford 24142540-831-5439540-831-6053rsmall@runet.edu}xpdR($ ?2 % kYQ@ Sr. Margaret Egon, Ed.D.College of Mount St. Vincent6301 Riverdale Ave Bronx 10471718-405-3285718-405-3201megan@cmsu.edu}qe`ZG+++ ?1 [D9@ Dr. Debra L. PonecCreighton University2500 California Plaza Omaha68178402-280-2557402-280-1117dlponec@creighton.eduqeYTO9%%% ?0 5
@ Dr. Michael HorvathSchool of EducationMissouri Southern State College3950 East Newman RoadJoplin 64801-1595417-625-9314417-625-9771horvath-m@mail.mssc.edu~tmX9&& ?/
CpH
@ Dr. A. Cooper College of EducationGeorgia Southern UniversityP.O. Box 8013Statesboro30460-8013912-681-5649912-681-5093acooper@gsums2.cc.gasou.edu}qg]P5!! ?. %
@ Linda Rae MarkertDeanSchool of EducationState University of New York, Oswego200 Poucher Hall Oswego13126315-341-2102-315-341-5407markert@oswego.edu{vp_;($ ?- ) LG
@ Thomas LasleySchool of Education & Allied ProfessionsUniversity of Dayton300 College ParkDayton 45469-0510937-229-3146937-229-3199thomas.lasley@notes.udayton.edu}sl\H ?, О
@ Larry D. BurtonTeaching & Learning DepartmentAndrews UniversityBell Hall 014Andrews University 49104-0114616-471-3465616-471-6374burton@andrews.edu|r_R@"" ?+
d
@ Marylyn B. HadleyDeanCollege of EducationUniversity of Nebraska at KearneyCollege of Education ,FDHL 2134kearney18849308-865-8502308-865-8099hadleym@unk.edu|]<($ ?t +Au)< @ @ @ @ @ @ @
?Mr.BillErwinBillMedia DirectorFamilA '
@ James V. WigtilChairSchool of EducationNorth Dakota State University212 FLCFargo58105701-231-7104701-231-7416jwigtil@plains.nodak.eduuid_W:'" ?@ @ Lynda Walden School of EducationUniversity of MobileP.O. Box 13220 Mobile 36663-0220334-442-2354334-442-2519FortWalden@aol.comsg]VG3 ?? * 5@ Frank J. ZittleDepartment of EducationCameron UniversityNB 1037 Dept. of Education School of Graduate and Lawton 73505580-581-2276frankz@cameron.edu}K9"" ?> @ J. HillLewis-Clark State College500 8th AvenueLewsiton 83501208-799-2260208-799-2820jhill@lcsc.edu/scoleman @lcsc.edug[OJA3 ?=
q @ S. DeitzCollege of EducationGeorgia State University30 Pryor Street Atlanta 30303404-651-1011404-651-2555sdeit@gsu.edu|pd_WG/ ?< ) ne@ Dr. Robert EleyAssistant DeanDirector of Teacher EducationUniversity of AkronZook Hall 2128Akron44325-4201330-972-8566330-972-5636reley@uakron.edu}sn`M0" ?; I@ Dr. John Yoder DeanFresno Pacific Graduate SchoolFresno Pacific University Graduate School1717 South Chestnut Avenue Fresno 93702559-453-2200559-453-2001jyoder@fresno.edumD&" ?: & v{>@ Dr. Marilyn A. SheererDeanSchool of EducationEast Carolina University154 Speight Building Greenville 27858252-328-4260252-328-4219sheererm@mail.ecu.edu}xmX@-) ?9 # Uk@ Dr. Ana Maria SchuhmannKean University6 Deer PathHolmedl 07733908-527-2136908-527-1808aschuhma@turbo.kean.edui]QLD9*** ?8 %@ Dr. John BeinkeDeanArkansas State UniversityP.O.Box 940 State University, ARjonesboro72467870-972-3057870-972-3828jbeineke@kiowaymh_?&&" ?7 J@ Kevin Fall, Ph.D.ChairDepartment of Education & CounselingLoyola University New Orleans6363 St.Charles Ave. Campus Box 66New Orleans 70118504-864-7840504-864-7844educate@loyno.eduƵjM)$ ?m T:{k
@HotelAlexis Hotel1007 First AvenueSeattleWA98104 (800) 426-703320662190093/14/97Cardex2beeeeeM }@ Christine SchniedersDana College2848 College Drive Blair68008402-426-7272402-426-7382cschmied@acad2.dana.eduh\PKF3''' ?L X@ Karen Ensor, Ed.D.Associate DeanPatten College2433 Coolidge AvenueOakland94601510-261-8500510-535-0491ensorkar@patten.eduyma\UA33% ?K lUJ@ Ram Chattulani, Ph.D.Teacher Education DepartmentGrand Valley State University1141 Mak Hall Allendale49401616-895-2091616-895-2330chattulR@gvsu.edu}xoaD(( ?J br;@ Sr. Mary Kremer School of EducationDominican University7900 W. Division River Forest 60805708-524-6471708-524-6665mekremer@email.dom.eduymh[J6## ?H 3 A @ Dr. Sylvia C. PenaDeanSchool of EducationUniversity of Texas at Bronsville80 Fort Brown Brownsville78520956-983-7219956-983-7431scpena@utb.edu {vk]<)% ?G % H@ Dr. Earl H. Duval, Jr.York College of the City University of New York94-20 Guy R Brewer BlvdJamaica11451718-262-2450718-262-2454duval@york.cuny.edu{voX))) ?F 1 8&@ Dee Hopkins College of Education & CounselingSouth Dakota State UniversityBox 507, Wenona Hall Brookings 57007605-688-4321605-688-5765dee-hopkins@sdstate.edu|r]@ ?E 2 [@ Dr. Franklin B. JonesDeanCollege of EducationTennessee State University3500 John Merritt Blvd.Nashville37209(615) 963-5451(615) 963-5483fjones@tnstate.eduzqZ@,( ?D
@ Thomas Harrison DeanCollege of EducationColumbus State University4225 University Avenue Columbus 31907706-568-2212706-569-3134harrison_thomas@colstate.eduytkT;'# ?C 3 i@ Robert J. YingerDeanSchool of EducationBaylor UniversityP.O.Box 97304 Waco 76798254-710-3111254-710-3987Robert_Yinger@baylor.edu{oc^YK:'# ?B : @ Francine M. Tompkins, Ph.D.ChairUniversity of Wisconsin at Green Bay2420 Nicolet DrGreen Bay54311920-465-2137920-465-2232tompkinf@uwgb.edutofW33. ?f ] s+> l WriteRtfSectionToGrid SortRtfGrid3 WriteRtfGridToFile% WriteHtmlGridToFilek SOX % mR@ Dr. William J. Merriman DeanSchool of EducationManhattan College4513 Manhattan College ParkwayBronx10471718-862-7374718-862-8011wmerrima@manhattan.edu{vqSB/+ ?W " ^B@ Dr. Charles l. MistakosRivier College420 Main StNashua 03060603-897-8582603-897-8887cmitsakos@rivier.edu{{g[OJC8*** ?V 6(@ B. WilcoxSchool of EducationIndiana University Purdue University902 W. New York St, Room 3138Indanapolis46202317-274-6862317-278-0209wilcoxb@indiana.edu{pS/ ?U %@ Dr. Dale BanksEducation DepartmentSaint Mary's CollegeMadeleva Hall Box 8 Norte Dame 46556219-284-5630219-284-4878dbanks@saintmarys.eduymh]I5!! ?T * Tk@ Dr. R. Wayne StewartDean of EducationSchool of EducationOklahoma Panhandle State UniversityP.O. Box 140Goodwell73939580-349-2611 x314603-843-1233rwstewart@opsu.eduwww.opsu.edu¶znK8' ?S v<`@ Dr. Roy A. WeaverDeanTeachers CollegeBall State UniversityMuncie47306765.285.5251765.285.5455rweaver@gw.bsu.eduwww.bsu.edu/teachers/pdXSMM8($ ?R % " @ Deborah HanleyDeanSchool of EducationBrooklyn College of the City University of New York2900 Bedford AvenueBrooklyn11210-2889718-951-5214718-951-4816dshanley@brooklyn.cuny.edu¨~k8%! ?Q 3 www@ M. Jean KellerDeanCollege of EducationUniversity of North TexasBox 311337 Denton 76203-1337940-565-2235940-565-4415keller@coefs.coe.unt.eduznd]R9%! ?P sª@ Dr. Gary D. Jewel DeanSchool of EducationAurora University347 S. Gladstone AvenueAurora 60506630-884-5498630-844-5530gjewel@aurora.edu|pkdM<)% ?O ;A@ Dr. Jeanna WestmorelandOuachita Baptist University410 Ouachita StreetArkadelphia 71998-0001870-245-5161870-245-4653zndXE*** ?N 0 ͫ@ Dr. Mary Ann Brockman North Greenville College7801 North Tigerville RoadTigerville 29688864-977-7039864-977-7021mbrockman@NGC.eduwkf[A))) ?
N8kn 5G _t106H _t107I
?Mr.DuffyMazanDuffyPresidentElectric Press11440 Isaac Newton SquareRestonVA22090 (703) 742-3308(703) 742-4648dmazan@eb * . jm@ Tony O'BrienDirector of Teacher EducationTeacher EducationMid-America Bible College3500 SW 119th StreetOklahoma City73170405-691-3800405-692-3165tobrien@mabc.eduwww.mabc.eduzfM< ?a & i$V@ Rebecca F. BlomgrenDirector of Teacher EducationEducationGreensboro College815 W. Market StreetGreensboro27401336-272-7102x262336-271-6334blomgrenr@gborocollege.eduwww.gborocollege.edu˷|r^LC& ?` - T@ Ernest K. DishnerCoordinator, Professional Education ProgramsSchool of Behavioral Sciences & EducationPenn State Capital College777 W. Harrisburg PikeMiddletown17057717-948-6530717-948-6064dishner@psu.eduwww.hbg.psu.eduĸyP$ ?_ " sA @ Sandra S. MetesDeanEducationNotre Dame College2321 Elm Streetmanchester03104603.669.4298kkkk_ZPA/&" ?^ 6@ Dr. Sam YargerDeanSchool of EducationUniversity of MiamiP.O. Box 248065Coral Bables33124-2040305-284-35-5305-284-3003syarger@miami.edu|pfZK8%! ?] & <6۪@ Dr. G. BensteadDepartment of EducationMethodist College5400 Ramsey Street Fayetteville28311910-630-7060910-630-7679benstead@methodist.eduzni]J9"" ?\ : $@ Stephen J. KunthSchool of EducationUniversity of Wisconsin, Eau ClaireBrewer 153Eau Claire 54702-4004715-836-3671715-836-3245kurthsj@uwec.eduxncY6## ?[ q @ Rebecca Liblerschool of EducationIndiana State UniversitySchool of Education Building Terre Haute 47809812-237-2919812-237-4348rLibler@indstate.eduzuiL4!! ?Z 5 cnt@ H.W. Weyers, Ph.DChairDepartment of EducationUniversity of Vermont533 Waterman Bldg, Burlignton 05405802-656-3356802-656-0004hmeyers@zoo.uvm.eduxshU@)$ ?Y Pa@ Dr. Maurice PoeDeanCollege of EducationCalifornia State University, Sacramento6000 J StSacramento95819-6079916-278-5883916-278-6079poem@csus.edu~tja:&" ?
" # $ % & ' ( ) *
+ , - . / 0 1 2 3 5 6
7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A
B C D E F G H J K L M
N O P Q R S T U V W X
Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p r s t u v w x
z { | } ~
| B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!
" # $ % & ' ( ) *
+ , - . / 0 1 2 3 5 6
7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A
B C D E F G H J K L M
N O P Q R S T U V W X
Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p r s t u v w x
z { | } ~
@ Mr.JeffreyWardJeffVice President, Federal PolicyNYNEXGovernment Affairs1300 I Street NWWashingtonDC20005(202) 336-7880(202) 336-7920jeff_ward@bellatlantic.com6/11/97CVD CardexuuuupnddTBB==
4ڑ * Mr.CharlesVestCharlesMITRoom 3-20877 Massachusetts AvenueCambridgeMA02109-4307(617) 253-0148(617) 253-31246/11/97CVD Cardex~~~wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwiii[[[[QOFF/%%"""
4Wڑ
Mr.TimStoneTimVice President & Director of Corporate IntelligenceMotorola, Inc.1303 E. Algonquin RoadSchaumburgIL60196(708) 576-4776(708) 538-22506/11/97CVD Cardex~|rrr\\NN
4ʑ
Mr.PhilipNechesPhilSenior Vice President & Chief ScientistAT&T/NCR1700 S. Paterson Blvd.DaytonOH45479(513) 445-2249(513) 445-63236/11/97CVD CardexrrrrmkeeeOOGG
4ʑ
Mr.NathanMyhrvoldNathanSenior Vice PresidentAdv. Technology & Business DevelopmentMicrosoft CorporationOne Microsoft WayRedmondWA98052-6399(206) 936-7333(206) 936-7329nathan@microsoft.comCharlene Grove425-936-94856/11/97CVD Cardexȴtt_9$
4ˑ`
Mr.GeorgeHeilmeierGeorgePresident & CEOBellcoreBellcore290 W. Pleasant Ave.LivingstonNJ07039-0486(201) 740-3131(201) 740-69356/9/97CVD Cardex|||nnnndbXXD<<44%
4ڑ
Mr.RobertBlauRobertDirector-Policy AnalysisBellSouth1133 21st Street, NWSuite 900WashingtonDC20036(202) 463-4108(202) 463-41946/9/97CVD Cardex}}}oooojh^^UAA88
4ڑ
" # $ % & ' ( ) *
+ , - . / 0 1 2 3 5 6
7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A
B C D E F G H J K L M
N O P Q R S T U V W X
Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p r s t u v w x
z { | } ~
| B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!B!
" # $ % & ' ( ) *
+ , - . / 0 1 2 3 5 6
7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A
B C D E F G H J K L M
N O P Q R S T U V W X
Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p r s t u v w x
z { | } ~
@ ~~pbbbb][QQQ66&&&"
4ʱ " / Mr.ThomasW.CohenEsq.TomDavison, Cohen & Company1701 K Street, NW, Suite 800WashingtonDC20006(202) 835-89792028339536cspitulnik@hopsut.com9/29/97wwiiiiidbXXX<<$$$!
4ʡ . Mr.ChrisLeWinChrisRegional Sales ManagerMedVision301 Fourth Ave. SouthSuite 870 NorthMinneapolisMN55415(612) 317-93086123210663chrisl@medvis.com9/29/97tttttombbS>>55
4ڡ - Mr.JohnA.ClarkJohnJohn A. Clark Company4315 50th Street, NEWashingtonDC20016(202) 362-508820236251529/29/97xxxxxxxxqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqggYYYYYTRHHH44
4_ʡ " + Mr.CharlesBuchwalterCharliePresident & CEOCommunity Sector Systems700 Fifth AvenueSuite 5500SeattleWA98104(206) 467-9061(206) 521-25712064679237CharlieB@CSSI.com9/26/97wwwwrpii_OO77(!!
4ڱ @ " * Ms.BetsyLairdBetsyGovernment Affairs DepartmentInternational Franchise Association1350 New York Avenue, N.W.Suite 900WashingtonDC20005202-628-8000(202) 662-07682026280812betsy@franchise.org9/26/97ʷy__<<
4ڱ @ ) Ms.KimThiboldeauxKimAssistant Director- Public PolicyHoffman-La RocheBuilding 1/5340 Kingsland StreetNutleyNJ07110-11991-800-LA ROCHE9735622985Kim.Thiboldeaux@Roche.com9/26/97zxrr^RRBB!
4ڑ ( Ms.ShawnaKossShawnaIBM CorporationMD(301) 803-1605(301) 588-9417shakoss@us.ibm.comBarbara(301) 803-66089/23/97{{{{{{{{tttttttf__________MMM???111111//////
4W ` " VC ? N
2
2
2
2
2
2
~2
2
2
ContactIDNameEmailTitleCompanyAddressCityStatePostalCountryPhoneFax SubmittedBrochureKilled ContactID
PrimaryKey 1159Dminnich@ellora.com www.ellora.com10/7/97ٿyyeXXCC#
4ڱ@ " J Ms.ChristineVarneyChristineHogan & Hartson LLP555 Columbia Square, 13 Street, NW13th Floor West TowerWashingtonDC20004(202) 637-5600(202) 637-68232026375910cvarney@hhlaw.comLiz Bapst10/7/97ú~|rr];;(((
4Wڱ " I PotteryJaffe PotteryMs. Sally Jaffe1918 S. Taylor RoadCleveland HeightsOH44118(216) 321-987210/7/97ppppppppiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii[[[[[VTCCC0!
4! " H Mr.BoCutterBoWarburg, Pincus466 Lexington Avenue10th FloorNew YorkNY10017(212) 878-61632128789467bcutter@warburgpincus.comLiz10/7/97nnnnddVVVVVQOGG=))
4Wڡ " G Mr.ShellySteinbachShellyAmerican Council on EducationOne Dupont Circle, N.W.WashingtonDC20036(202) 939-930010/6/97xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxjjjjjecYYYBB%%%
4W! " F Mr.JamesV.WasilewskiJimCongressional LiaisonU.S. Department of CommerceNTIA14th & Constitution Ave., N.W.Room 4898WashingtonDC(202) 482-1551202482163510/6/97vXT99$!!
4ޠ " E Mr.SethGordonSethUS Web7220 Wisconsin AvenueBethesdaMD20815(301) 652-52503016525778seth@dc.usweb.comAnne Champlin10/2/97~~~~~~~~qqqqqqqqqq````VVHHHHHCA999$$
4Wʡ " G
f4 e ty T ^ F h ! C:\access8\bui ?Mr.Benl Ov@ Mary Ann JonesDeanCollege of Liberal Arts & EducationTuskegee UniversityMoton Hall, Room 203Tuskegee36088334-724-4191334-724-4196m_jones@acd.tusk.edu|wo[H%! ?k ) COEv@ Richard Howell, Ph.D.Assistant DeanCollege of EducationOhio State University1945 High Street, Arps 149Columbus43210614-688-8541614-688-3942howell.4@osu.eduy_J6( ?j 7 Cv@ J. David SmithDeanSchool of Education and Human ServicesLongwood CollegeFarmville23909(804) 395-2051(804) 395-2800davsmith@longwood.lwc.eduwid[[K%! ?i 3 #a@v@ Dr. Paul RestaCollege of EducationUniversity of Texas, Austin1912 Speedway, SZB 438BAustin78712512-471-4014512-471-4655resta@mail.utexas.edu~rmgP5!! ?h 2 LRu@ Martha CollinsDeanCollege of EducationEast Tennessee State University317 Warf-Pickel HallJohnson City37614423-439-7626423-439-7560collinsm@etsu.edu}xlX9%! ?g טu@ David R. TaylorDeanCollege of Education & Human ServicesWestern Illinois University1 University CircleMacomb61455309-298-169309-298-2222DR-taylor@wiu.eduyfK&" ?f 2 0t@ E. Sutton FlyntDeanCollege of EducationAustin Peay State University210 Claxton BldgClarksville37043931.221.7167931.221.1292flynts@apsu.eduwww.apsu.edu/educationvqfV:&" ?e * ~fr@ Judith CoeDeanCollege of EducationUniversity of Central Oklahoma100 N. UniversityEdmond73034405-974-5701405-974-3851jcoe@ucok.eduwww.ucok.edu{ojdS5! ?d 0 #a@p@ Dr. Tom DavisDirector of Technology for Teacher EducationSchool of EducationUniversity of South Carolina, Spartanburg800 University WaySpartanburg29303864 503-5502864 503-5574tdavis@uscs.eduwww.uscs.edu¶_L ?c 5 Ƈm@ Dr. Vanessa C. ZerilloAcademic Program DirectorField-Based Graduate Program in EducationTrinity College of Vermont208 Colchester AvenueBurlington05401802-846-7032802-846-7031vzerillo@trinityvt.eduwww.trinityvt.edu/edsite/kB) ?w [hf i iid` iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I iip iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiq
31 ? @Mr.Sx & v@ Robin L. SmithSalem CollegePO Box 10548Winston-Salem27108-0548336-721-2658336-721-2683smith@salem.eduxxi]QG:.!!! ?w / w8v@ Dean FelnerSchool of EducationUniversity of Rhode Island70 S. ChafeeKingston02881401-874-4108401-874-5471rfelner@uri.edu|pd_WK1 ?v v@ D. WilliamsCollege of EducationUniversity of Louisiana, LafayetteP.O. Box 42051Lafayette70504337-482-6412337-482-1120dwilliams@louisiana.edu|pkbT2 ?u 9 ]nv@ Dr. Steve RussellOhio Valley College4501 College ParkwayParkersburg26101304-485-7384304-485-3106srussell@ovc.edusg[VK7$$$ ?t 0 v@ Carole KowalskiSchool of EducationSouth Carolina State UniversityP.O. Box 7487, SCSU, 300 College StreetOrangeburg29117803/536-7133803/536-8492ckowalski@scsu.edu{T5"" ?s p=v@ William SumrallCollege of EducationMississippi State UniversityBox 9710Mississippi State39762662-325-9762662-325-8784sumrall@ra.msstate.edu|pkZR6"" ?r + =v@ Dr. Jay CasbonDeanSchool of EducationLewis and Clark College0615 S.W. Palatine Hill RoadPortland97219503-768-7738503-768-7715casbon@lclark.eduxskO8%! ?p 6iv@ Carl R. MartrayDeanCollege of Education & PsychologyUniversity of Southern MississippiBox 5023Hattiesburg39406-5023601-266-4568601-266-4175carl.martray@usm.edu|qiG&" ?o
f[ev@ Mary FutrellDeanGraduate School of Education & Human DevelopmentGeorge Washington University2134 G Street, NWWashington20052202/994-4512202/994-3365lhall@gwu.eduwww.gwu.eduoS# ?n ) h:b_v@ Lawrence JohnsonCollege of EducationUniversity of CincinnatiPO Box 210002Cincinnati45221-0002513-556-2323513-556-9311lawrence.johnson@email.uc.edu|pf\O7## ?m 3 Sv@ Larry HoveyInterim DeanCollege of EducationTexas Tech UniversityPO Box 41071Lubbock79409806-742-1837806-742-2179larry.hovey@ttu.eduwkf_S>* ?' BOpL G $ : ? w@ Bruce StromEducation DepartmentCarroll College100 E. East AvenueWaukesha53186262-524-7130262-524-7571bstrom@cc.eduxl`[SA2 ? & w@ Laura B. TurchiChairEducation DepartmentWarren Wilson CollegeBox 9000Asheville28815-9000828-298-3325828-298-1405lturchi@warren-wilson.eduwww.warren-wilson.eduwkaXP;'" ? v@ Donald L. RobsonDeanCollege of EducationUniversity of Montana108 Education BuildingMissoula59812406-243-5877406-243-6757robsondl@selway.umt.edusnfP;'# ? g:v@ Bobby D. WhetstoneEducation DivisionBirmingham-Southern CollegePO Box 549027Birmingham35254205-226-4812205-226-3065bwhetsto@bsc.eduzni_R7%% ? ) Cv@ Bonnie K. MathiesCollege of Education & Human ServicesWright State University3640 Colonel Glenn HighwayDayton45435-0001937-775-2509937-775-4855bonnie.mathies@wright.eduz`I$$ ? 3 v@ Dr. Hilda MedranoCollege of EducationUniversity of Texas Pan American1201 W. University DriveEdinburg78539956-381-3627956-381-2184medrano@panam.edu}xpX8$$ ?~ '}v@ Robert ShapiroAssociate Dean for Research & Graduate StudiesCollege of EducationUniversity of Kentucky107 Taylor Education BuildingLexington40506859/257-9795859/323-1365rshap01@pop.uky.eduнycO! ?} 2 y@v@ Dr. Terry L. SimpsonMaryville College502 East Lamar Alexandar ParkwayMaryville37804865-981-8106865-981-8010simpson@maryvillecollege.edu~rfaX8''' ?| / ܾv@ David NelsonDeanRhode Island College107 Horace Mann HallProvidence02908401/456-8118401/456-8590dnelson@ric.edurfZUK7## ?{ 7 v@ Gary GalluzzoDeanGraduate School of EducationGeorge Mason University4400 University DriveFairfax22030703-993-2008703-993-2001ggalluzz@gmu.edugse.gmu.eduxslW@$ ?z ! $v@ Dean G. HallCollege of EducationUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 453001Las Vegas89154-3001702-895-3375702-895-4068gehall@nevada.edu|sR3 ?P KZl$p # % $ gw@ Marilyn HaringSchool of EducationPurdue University1440 Liberal Arts and Educ. BldgW. Lafayette47907-1440765-494-2336765-494-5932haringm@purdue.edu{qeE4!! ? 8e|w@ Dr. Grace E. GrantInterim DeanSchool of EducationDominican College50 Acacia AvenueSan Rafael94901415-257-0186415-458-3790grant@dominican.edutoeUD1% ? Ozw@ Sr. Sharon Sullivan, Ph.D.Brecia University717 Frederica Street Owensboro42301270/686-4267270/686-4230sharons@brecia.eduyma\S>--- ? . Otw@ Nydia E. Marini, Ph.DSchool of EducationUniversidad del GuraboPO Box 3030Gurabo00778787-743-7979787-744-5427ut_nmarini@suagm2.suagm.edusgb\Q;(( ? 3 Vw@ Michael WiebeDeanCollege of Education & Human EcologyTexas Woman's UniversityP.O. Box 425769Denton76204-5769940 898-2000940 898-2209mwiebe@twu.eduuo`H$ ? }
2.2 Million Teachers Must Have Technology Skills qe
`@Ken Kay, Executive Director of the CEO Forum, presents at NSBA's Technology + Learning Conference @ zn
@Is Your School Supporting Technology in the Classroom? CEOs Announce Launch of Online Self-Assessment Tool x
@Alan Spoon Testifies Before House Science Subcommittee on Technology ]Q
@High Tech Schools Low Tech Education? CEOs Call for Action to Close the Gapn g[
p@Landmark Business-Education Alliance Praises National Focus on Educational Technology, Calls for Better Planning and Use
U@Business & Education Leaders Advance Education Technology Challenge
`T
@How High-Tech Is Your School? CEO Forum Provides Easy Self-Assessment Tool on the Web nb
`@CEO Forum Urges All-Out Effort to Train Teachers in Technology WK
LVAL Washington, DC -- The CEO Forum on Education and Technology
has created a special new tool for parents and teachers to use
to evaluate technology in their schools. By accessing the "STaR
Chart" self-diagnostic tool at the CEO Forum's website,
parents, teachers, and school administrators can quickly and
easily see where their schools stand in integrating hardware,
software, connections to the Internet, and professional development
with their academic programs.