The Path to a New American Education

Reflection on the National Educational Technology Plan 2010 – “Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology”


After having looked at both the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology and the National Educational Technology Plan, I was pleased to see how many basic tenets the two shared. The national plan deals with the same domains at the Texas LRPT and adds an additional area: assessment. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. vi) Some of the similar goals included anywhere, anytime access; a focus on collaborative learning for both students and teachers; specific mention of the need for online instruction (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. xiii) (Texas Education Agency, 2008); and a 1:1 ratio for internet access devices (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. xiii) (Texas Education Agency, 2006, p. 15).


In the national report I was introduced to some new ideas: the first, redesigned schedule and class groupings based on competence and academic interests and needs rather than age, seat-time, and uniform class size. The idea is based on the concept of individualized learning for students that is generated by their interests, specific curriculum needs, and learning styles (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, pp. xii, 12). The report describes the idea of individualized instruction in this way:


For example, a student who learns Russian to read the works of Dostoevsky in their original form and another who orders a surgical kit on eBay to practice sutures on oranges are learning things we would never ask all students to do. But these things are important because they are driven by learners’ own passions. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 12)


Another idea new to me involves the term Universal Design for Learning, or UDL - instruction is designed to be adaptive to the unique needs of learners. It is varied and flexible in presentation, scenario, or student response. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 19) UDL can also be used to create authentic, formative assessment, a priority in the national plan. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, pp. 28-33) This type of assessment is in direct contrast to summative based assessment, for which TAKS is an example. A significant barrier to this type of learning and assessment is inequitable access to online: the FCC term for this inequity is "digital exclusion" (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 19). The FCC and the Department of Commerce are working in conjunction to develop programs which supply online-access infrastructure to all American families and communities. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 53)


I was inspired by the wonderful technologies and programs cited in the report. A class in Singapore utilizes a program called Group Scribbles (networked interactive white boards), and students in Worchester, Massachusetts are using a program called ASSISTment ( a combination of tutorial and assessment that learns about students strengths and needs, monitors progress, and creates data for teacher regarding their thought processes) (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, pp. 28-30). One amazing story involved the use of cell phones in a Virginia middle school. Originally allowed as a stopgap measure to combat a shortage of calculators on an exam, the visionary principal at this school created an environment where student could use a variety of functions on their phones. Students kept up with homework and assignments using the calendar function, took pictures of notes with the camera function, and generated work product through podcasting and video. Understanding the risks, the school had clear expectations and boundaries for students, and specific dialogue about those boundaries. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 54) This is a wonderful example of how students can use personal technology in real-time, real-life learning experiences.


As a teacher, I yearn for professional development that has authentic value to my teaching; that integrates my technology resources and my content areas; and that, most importantly, creates an ongoing collaboration with other teachers. I am pleased to see my values shared in the national plan. The plan calls specifically for creating career-long collaborative learning communities that focus on innovation, best practices, and true integration of real-life technology with real-life learning. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, pp. 49-50) The report zeros in on the heart of the challenge for teachers:


Unfortunately, our education system often fails to give educators the tools to do their job well. We hold educators responsible for student achievement, but we do not support them with the latest technology the way we do professionals in other fields. The technology of everyday life has moved well beyond what educators regularly use to support student learning. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 39)


The report calls for partnership and collaboration between government and foremost innovators in the various fields of technology to solve” high-risk/high-gain R&D projects" (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 76). To me, the most notable of these is the challenge to integrate the goals of individualized instruction, UDL, and real-time data tracking of concept attainment. It seems such a system would reduce the effects of high student mobility in a classroom, allow for more effective monitoring and interventions for at-risk students, and help to create an environment of personal, engaged learning for students who are desperate to find meaning in their education.


Secretary of Education Arne Duncan describes our current educational system “economically unsustainable and morally unacceptable.” (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 2) The plan blazes a path for a brand new era in American education, if only we find the courage to follow it.


Works Cited

Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Texas Education Agency. (2006). Long Range Plan for Technology. Austin: Texas Education Agency.
Texas Education Agency. (2008). Progress Report on the Long Range Plan for Technology. Austin: Texas Education Agency.

The LRPT - A Two Year Report Card

I spent last evening reviewing the Progress Report to the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology (Texas Education Agency, 2008). At 180 pages, it is a lengthy report, touching on all of the domains of the original report, giving updates on progress and challenges, and spotlighting some particular successes. Some of the news was not good: The domain of Teaching and Learning in particular, which specifically deals with the implementation of the technology TEKS in the classroom and the mastery of those TEKS by students, did not fare well. The Teaching and Learning focus area online learning, or TL6, shows 25% of schools as ‘early tech’. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 41) The progress in TEKS implementation (TL4) was also low: there was little change in the overall distribution of districts across the classifications for this area from 2006-08. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 45) Approximately 80% of districts still received a classification of ‘Early Tech’ or ‘Developing Tech’ as a result of their STaR Chart data during this time.


However, the report highlights a number of pilot programs that are showing strong results. One of these programs is the Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP). This program works to change the cycle of piecemeal technology implementation that leaves schools constantly behind the curve in technology and teaching innovation. It works specifically to address the LRPT focus area TL4 (technology TEKS implementation), State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) Standards, and both student and teacher requirements in Title II, Part D of No Child Left Behind (Texas Education Agency, 2008, pp. 9-10). Six critical components of immersion: a wireless mobile computing device, productivity, communication and presentation software, online instructional resources, online diagnostic assessment tools, professional development, and technical support (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 21). The report states, “Equally as important, students are given the same tools as teachers. TIP creates an environment where technology becomes a partner to teaching and learning.” (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 10) I found both the goals and the data on this pilot extremely encouraging. Participating schools were given a ranking based on their levels of implementation, and data was disaggregated according to those levels. The evaluation found that immersion schools had more collaboration and collegiality between faculty members, more parent involvement, and fewer discipline issues. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 12) In terms of state assessments, the report finds that:


- Technology immersion had a statistically significant effect on TAKS mathematics achievement, particularly for economically advantaged and higher achieving students.
- Students who had greater access to laptops and used laptops for learning to a greater extent, especially outside of school, had significantly higher TAKS reading and mathematics scores. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 13)


This data acts as a strong endorsement for the tenets of TIP. However, most significant to me was the data surrounding level of implementation. The report shows that the benefits cited above increased 1) as time spent in the program increased, and 2) as level of implementation increased. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, pp. 15-20) I see this as a case study in how full and ongoing commitment to goals acts as a catalyst for success.


Another fascinating pilot begun since the adoption of the new LRPT is the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN). (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 27) TxVSN provides online coursework for students and professional development/online collaboration opportunities for teachers, which stands in response to the weaknesses revealed in the area of online learning by the STaR Chart data. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 41) Online learning opens up more variety in depth and scope of coursework for students who, because of their geographic location, would not otherwise have access. It also works to ensure that curriculum is being equitably offered in the highest quality format by very highly qualified teachers to all students. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, pp. 30-33) A wide variety of courses is currently available, including art; AP math, English, and science courses; government and economics; and both AP French and AP Spanish (Texas Virtual School Network, 2009). Both high school and professional development courses for TxVSN are vetted though a multi-layer qualification process, including adherence to TEKS and standards set by the Southern Regional Education Board, instruction by trained, content-qualified teachers, and compliance with National Standards of Quality for Online Courses (enacted by iNACOL, the International Association for K-12 Online Learning) (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 29) While some challenges remain, including significant cost and equitable access to online (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 35), the program has opened up new and exciting educational opportunities for students and teachers across the state.


The final program that piqued my interest is the eCP: Electronic Course Pilot. Two school districts, Southwest ISD and to a lesser extent Houston ISD, participated in this program that offers “virtual school” off-site to students in grades 3-8. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 89) The withdrawal rate for Virtual Learning program in Southwest ISD hovered at approximately 30%; the report states that “these numbers underscore the point made frequently in this report that online learning is not a good fit for every student. There is no one educational strategy that is right for every student; online education is no exception.” (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 91) An independent entity evaluated students entering the Southwest ISD program and found that approximately ¾ of the students had a serious deficit in at least one core subject area. Of the students who remained enrolled, almost 90% were promoted to the next grade level (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 92). These numbers offer compelling evidence that students can be effective in a non-traditional school setting, with technology as the centerpiece for learning.


Although there is much to admire, there is still much to be done. NCLB standards and the TEKS call for students to demonstrate technology literacy by eighth grade; however, there is no standardized assessment for technology literacy in Texas at this time. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 51) In 2007 the state legislature authorized a pilot program for assessing technology literacy in eighth grade; the TechLiteracy assessment by Learning.com was selected as the instrument for this pilot program. In 2008 the state average scale score was 216.4; the minimum scale score to meet standards is 220. Although state data for the current school year is not yet available, HEB ISD participated in this pilot, and in 2009-2010, 73% of students in HEB ISD showed mastery on the assessment with an average scale score of 232 (Learning.com, 2010). While these scores exceed the state averages, I believe the technology facilitators in my district would find these results frustrating. The wide scope of ongoing professional development offered in my district does not seem to be translating to success in technology instruction and learning.


I take away from this report an acknowledgement that my classroom and my district, and my state are on the path towards the goals of the LRPT, but we have in no way arrived at our destination. The lessons learned are many, but in short, it will require leadership, vision, and ongoing commitment to create the target 21st century classroom for our students.


Works Cited
Learning.com. (2010). District Report - TechLiteracy Assessment. Portland: Learning.com.
Texas Education Agency. (2008). Progress Report on the Long Range Plan for Technology. Austin: Texas Education Agency.
Texas Virtual School Network. (2009). High School Course Catalog. Retrieved June 5, 2010, from TxVSN: Texas Virtual School Network: https://www.mytxvsn.org/CourseCatalogHighSchool.aspx

Teaching and Learning: Are we following the plan?

In May 2010, the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD administered a Tech Literacy Assessment (Learning.com, 2010) to eighth grade students across the district. The intent was to assess their mastery of skills spelled out in the technology TEKS. Across the district, 73% of students met the Middle School Proficiency Standard; this passing rate is roughly in line with the state average on that same assessment. If this assessment had been TAKS or EOC, this performance would have received an ‘Acceptable’ AEIS Accountability rating. My district sets very specific goals for student achievement, and an ‘Acceptable’ rating would not be in line with those goals. The Texas Education Agency’s Long Range Plan for Technology 2006-2020, or LRPT, outlines the specific goals for different areas (‘domains’) of technological integration into public education. The LRPT introduces the Teaching and Learning domain by saying, “The key to success for all students is the assurance that they are all fully engaged in their learning processes and that there are opportunities in their schools, libraries, homes, and communities that stimulate and initiate this engagement.” (p.17) LRPT Teaching and Learning (T/L) goals state that all students will:

• have access to relevant technologies, tools, resources and services for individualized instruction 24 hours a day/7 days a week.
• use information and communication technologies to collaborate, construct knowledge and provide solutions to real-world problems and situations that are encountered.
• use research-based strategies in all subject areas to improve academic achievement.
• communicate effectively in a variety of formats for diverse audiences. (p.18)

This domain deals directly with student achievement on the technology TEKS, how the technology TEKS are imbedded in content areas, and what teachers, campuses, and districts are doing to improve student performance on the technology TEKS. In reviewing the STaR Chart data (the monitoring instrument for the LRPT) for both my campus and the state, I found that the domain of Teaching and Learning fell far short of target levels. In fact, in 2006 over 70% of reporting schools received a classification of either “early tech” or “developing tech” in the teaching and learning domain. This percentage almost directly reflects the level of tech literacy mastery among eighth graders. The connection that I make from this data: the less often students are afforded robust, dynamic opportunities for student-centered learning with technology in the content areas, the fewer students are exiting eighth grade with appropriate computer literacy.


Failure to take the needed steps forward begins at the top: Texas schools lost millions of dollars in technology funding in 2003 when the state legislature ended the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund and again in 2006 when the Technology Allotment was reduced from $30 to $27.14 per student ADA. (LRPT, 2006, pp. 63-65) Because having anywhere, anytime technology tools and resources available requires significant infrastructure, the loss of these funds severely impedes progress toward that goal. Without that reliable connectivity and access, the goal of complete student access and technology imbedded in all area of instruction simply cannot be realized.


And yet, at its core, the Teaching and Learning domain reflects the ‘boots on the ground’ in the battle to bring education and technology together. We need the supplies, resources and infrastructure; we need the professional training to develop skills and curriculum; we need leadership and tech support that enables new ideas. But in the end, this domain is the one where I can walk in tomorrow and make a difference. I can decide, right now, that in my classroom, the days of pencil and paper standing alone are numbered. 

 Resources: Learning.com (2010). District report – tech literacy assessment. Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD.

Texas Education Agency (2006). Long range plan for technology. Austin, Texas.
Texas Education Agency (2006). STaR chart letter. Austin: Instructional Materials and Education Technology Division.