Remaking MD: Maryland Plan: Technology in Education Contact: mdk12-editor@umail.umd.edu Posted: 06-17-95 Obtained from Sailor via URL gopher://sailor.lib.md.us:70/00/GovInfo/.md/.agency/.exec/.educ2/.tech_plan THE MARYLAND PLAN TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION ______________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Developed for the Maryland State Board of Education by the Maryland Blue Ribbon Committee on Technology in Education For information, contact: Maryland Business Roundtable for Education 111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 2200 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410/727-0448 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 Background 5 Vision 6 Technology Works 7 Strategy 18 Action Plan 28 Goals 2000 Checklist 44 Appendices (separate document) A. Marketing Plan B. Cost Estimate C. Administration of the Technology Fund D. Standards E. References F. Committee Members EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The vision of technology in education developed by the Blue Ribbon Committee on Technology in Education is: Every learner has the right to have access and use of information and communication resources in the classroom, workplace, home, and community. If Maryland is successful in achieving this vision, every learner will consider technology such as computers and communication systems as the normal tools used in learning. Teachers and administrators will use these tools not only for student learning, but also for their own development, tracking student progress, and keeping families informed and involved in their children's education. Business will benefit since students entering the work force will be prepared to use the technology tools commonly available in the business community. To reach this vision, the Committee developed a strategy to: Ensure access to technology to all learners, Provide ongoing staff support, Incorporate the most effective and efficient technology in all aspects of the education process, Ensure adequate funding, and Assess impact of technology on student achievement. In addition, the Committee developed a plan to market the use of technology to all education stakeholders in Maryland. The Committee further developed an action plan to implement the first phase of the strategy. Keys to the success of this plan are: A Technology Oversight Committee comprising the stakeholders in the community to oversee the plan's implementation and to ensure equal access to technology for all learners. A Division of Instructive Technology (DIT) to provide a clearinghouse on technology, collect and distribute data, identify and communicate best practices, identify funding sources, and assess the needs of the local school systems. This department is the linch pin for technology in education in Maryland, and an enabler to the local school systems. Full support for training and development of staff in the use of technology in education. Funding for training should be approximately 30% of hardware funding and should be required for any hardware purchase. A total cost of approximately $150 million over the next five years for the first phase of implementing the vision which is to support the development of the infrastructure and to ensure equity throughout Maryland schools. Funding for the plan would be made available from existing and new federal, state and local and private sources. A state fund will be available for infrastructure development and will be accessible to local school systems with school improvement plans that include technology and staff development plans. State standards that ensure access to technology throughout the state and full integration of technology in the development and delivery of every curriculum. Local school system's choice of technology to meet their needs. They must have independence in selecting and implementing technology, and must also be accountable for meeting state standards. Effectively integrating technology in improving student achievement. In the course of developing this plan, the Committee commissioned a literature study to determine the impact technology has on educational outcomes. The results showed that the use of technology in most cases significantly raised academic achievement for all children, especially for children with learning disabilities and other handicaps, for at-risk students, and for lower-to-middle ability students. Technology also reduced the time it took children to learn to the same level. In addition, technology improved student attitudes toward education. The children were more motivated, liked school better, liked subjects better, and came to school more often. Self-esteem and self-confidence increased, and dropout rates decreased significantly. Finally, use of technology brought changes in teaching practices. Cooperative learning and peer tutoring occurred. Students took more responsibility for their own learning. Teachers became more facilitators of learning and less mere dispensers of information, and were able to give more attention to students needing help. While technology is not always successful in raising student achievement, the study showed that most failures stemmed from unclear objectives, unreliable and not easily accessible equipment, or the inexperience of teachers in using the technology effectively. In sum, the research showed use of technology in education was successful in raising student achievement more often than not. But successful academic outcomes are not the only reason for using technology in schools. It is absolutely mandatory that students develop competencies in the use of modern information and communication resources so they can enter the work force with the basic technological skills essential for success in the 21st Century. The first steps in implementing the first phase of the plan are to: ~ Establish the committee on technology in education and the division of instructive technology. ~ Develop a baseline on the quantity, quality and usage of technology in Maryland schools. ~ Develop a cost estimate to reach equity and access to technology throughout Maryland. ~ Identify most effective technologies for instruction, management and administration. ~ Begin marketing the plan. ~ Identify current spending on technology by LEAs and investigate other sources of funding within the state and federal governments. INTRODUCTION The State Superintendent of Schools and the Maryland Business Roundtable for Education (MBRT) formed a Blue Ribbon Committee that first met in July 1993 to develop a vision of technology in Maryland education and a strategy to realize this vision. The Committee included representatives of all sectors of the education community, the business community, and the public at large, and it started with the premise that technology will be critical to attaining needed improvements in Maryland education. Only with the help of technology will Maryland be able to: ~ Ensure equal access for all students to advanced or low-enrollment courses; ~ Make teaching expertise of the highest quality available at all learning sites; ~ Provide effective staff development opportunities; ~ Overcome learning barriers for students with special physical, language, and other education needs; ~ Efficiently collect accurate school performance data and assess progress of schools toward education improvement goals; ~ Enhance use of multiple sources of instructional materials (electronic and print), since technology can help ensure that information sources are up-to- date, and ~ Adequately prepare students for the business world which will require competencies in information and communication technologies. While focusing primarily on Maryland's schools, the Committee recognized that learning is a lifelong process that can occur at any time and place. Thus the Committee deemed it essential to define learners as individuals of any age or occupation who seek to acquire additional knowledge and skills. With this broadened view of the learning process, the Committee concluded that the entire community can take responsibility for learning. It saw this as critical to successful reform of Maryland education. The Committee developed this vision: Every learner has the right to have access and use of information and communications resources in the classroom, workplace, home and community. In addition, the Committee defined technology as comprising all hardware, software, and communications systems that enhance instruction through providing learners with the information, skills, and contacts they need to succeed in future social and business environments. Finally, the Committee has been careful to set objectives that complement those of Goals 2000 and include the requirements of the U.S.Department of Education Goals 2000 Technology Plan (see Page 44). The legislation established these objectives: 1. Learning readiness; 2. Higher high school graduation rates; 3. Demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter; 4. Teacher access to means of knowledge and skills improvement; 5. Improvement in students' math and science achievement; 6. Universal literacy and the ability to compete economically; 7. Schools conducive to learning; and 8. Promotion of partnerships and parental involvement. While not the panacea for national education improvement, technology is a powerful tool that can help address many problems implied in the Goals 2000 objectives. This legislation is recognized in the Title II provisions of the law which fund development of a long-range national plan to encourage effective use of technology, provide all students with opportunities to achieve standards, assist states in development of learning technologies, and promote joint activities among federal departments and agencies to enhance use of technology in education. BACKGROUND Environment for Educational Change The nation as a whole, and individual states, are actively seeking ways to improve learning of our students. Recent studies estimate that 65% of future jobs will demand some education beyond high school, 31% will be filled with college graduates, and only 4% will require low level skills. Moreover, it has been estimated that 75% of today's work force will require further training by the year 2000. Yet school dropout rates are rising, in some states running higher than 30%. Researchers have determined that each "class" of dropouts ultimately costs the nation $240 billion in lost income and taxes, and $10 billion for welfare, social services, and criminal justice. Given the growing importance of developing sought-after skills and the rising financial burden of supporting existing school systems, Maryland like every state in the nation must dramatically improve the quality of its education. Maryland is already a national leader in many aspects of educational reform. It has instituted statewide school performance standards, established more rigorous graduation requirements, implemented a state-of-the-art school performance assessment program, and provided targeted assistance to low performing schools. Technology offers tremendous potential for strengthening Maryland school reform efforts; from enhancing school improvement planning by providing site-based school improvement teams with on-line access to and analysis of state and local performance assessment data, to expanding the instructional options and information opportunities of students in resource-poor, low performing schools. VISION "Every learner has the right to have access and use of information and communication resources in the classroom, workplace, home, and community." If Maryland achieves this vision, by the year 2003 every learner in the state will have access to database information and communication resources in classrooms, workplaces, homes, and communities. Maryland will be recognized as a leader in developing and integrating technology throughout the curriculum to provide learners with local, national, and global learning resources. Technology will keep pace with rapid change through continually upgrading and improving resources. The system will be open, flexible, and capable of growth and adaptation to changing needs. Teachers and administrators will receive ongoing, quality staff development based on the most current information available. Schools will keep families informed and involved through a variety of parent educational programs. Schools will have ample funding through multiple sources. Spending will be cost- effective and administered in a carefully planned, equitable manner. Schools will design programs to meet the present and future needs of all customers: students, parents, teachers, administrators, employers, higher education institutions, and communities. They will foster commitment and buy-in as they integrate technology across the curriculum. Goals will be clear, performance-based, and focused on excellence. The primary mission will be to enhance the educational system and improve delivery of instruction to all learners through a technology and communication network that will interface seamlessly with daily life and provide universal access to practical knowledge. It will be user-friendly, based on active learning customized to the student. Overall, this approach to technology and education will ensure exciting and engaging learning opportunities for all. TECHNOLOGY WORKS As a key step in developing this plan, the Committee commissioned a special study of the research literature to determine the impact that technology actually has on educational outcomes. Considerable research and evaluation have been conducted on the effectiveness of technology in instruction and learning. While some hopes and speculations regarding the utility of technology in meeting educational needs have yet to be realized, technology far less powerful than what is currently available has already demonstrated that it can significantly improve educational quality and efficiency. Furthermore, as newly emerging and blueprint technologies supersede those on which research has been conducted, the positive effects are likely to keep increasing. Basic Skills Can Be Acquired More Thoroughly and Quickly with Technology The use of technology, along with many other reform efforts, shows promise of improving students' basic skills, reducing the time needed to learn these skills, and improving students' attitudes toward school. Kulik and Kulik (1987) did a meta-analysis of 199 controlled, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of computer-based education (CBE). The studies covered computer-assisted instruction (CAI), especially as tutorials and drill and practice programs; computer-managed instruction (CMI) in which computers are used to diagnose and keep track of student progress; and computer-enriched instruction (CEI) where they are used as tools (application programs), programming devices, and simulations. In earlier work, Kulik (1983) combined the results of 51 studies involving five different types of applications: drill and practice, tutoring, computer-managed teaching, simulation, and programming the computer to solve problems. In Kulik's 1983 analysis, more than 80% of the studies showed that computer-based instruction groups obtained better scores than control groups. The average difference was 0.32 standard deviations, equivalent to the groups being at the 50th and 63rd percentiles. In their second study in 1987, Kulik and Kulik showed that students generally learned more in classes where computers assisted teaching. The average effect was to raise scores by 0.31 standard deviations. More recent studies showed more impressive differences, and Kulik attributed this finding to better computer-based instruction and more appropriate applications. In another finding in the Orangeburg, South Carolina Public Schools, the high school dropout rate was reduced from 34% to 8% in four years as a result of using computers with at-risk students (Braun, 1990). Two studies compared time needed to learn. One found the same learning level was achieved in 135 minutes using computer-based instruction that took 220 minutes without computers. The other found that learning levels that took 745 minutes to reach with conventional methods took 90 minutes with computer-based instruction, or 12% of the time needed for conventional methods. The author noted that the time differences were certainly great enough to have practical significance (Kulik, 1983). This same effect was found in the 1987 study in which computers helped students learn in 32% less time. Bialo and Sivin (1990) compiled a report on the effectiveness of microcomputers in schools based on a review of 61 articles. They took a separate look at the various applications for which microcomputers were used, partly because they felt that different learning styles might require different types of software. Bialo and Sivin divided their work into three parts: (1) effectiveness of different types of computer applications; (2) student motivation and attitudes; and (3) the effects of computers on social interaction and the learning environment. The first section looked at the following: ~ Computer-based encyclopedia. In a comparison of the use of a computer-based encyclopedia and a traditional print encyclopedia by 8th graders, it was found that the former made it much easier for students to search topics and get printouts of their searches. Term papers of the students who used the computer-based system showed a significantly greater breadth of coverage and greater depth of knowledge. ~ Databases. Juniors and seniors who used databases in the organization and manipulation of data developed significantly better problem-solving skills than those using more traditional methods. ~ "Writing to Read." Studies found the "Writing to Read" program compared favorably with more traditional language arts approaches. ~ Interactive Video. This technology was found to enable students to meet educational objectives in less time, and, in many instances, led to greater student achievement than more traditional teaching methods. In another study, it was found that students using interactive videodiscs significantly outscored those taught by traditional lecture. ~ Telecommunications Networking. Fourth-grade students in California communicated with students in Alaska, Hawaii and other parts of California. Each school published a newspaper with stories from their own school and from the other places. Students in the class that was studied gained an average of three grade levels in language mechanics and two in language expression. A smaller group of students in that class who had volunteered to serve on the editorial board of the paper gained an average of almost four grade levels in language mechanics. Bialo & Sivin said it was time to stop asking if teaching with technology was better, because it had been shown to be. Instead, we should begin to ask more important questions concerning "the best mix of technological capabilities, and the conditions under which these capabilities can be used effectively with various student populations and in different learning environments to meet a wide variety of education goals." The second section of their report concentrated more on the effects of computers on student motivation and attitudes. They found: Almost all students liked using computers: both genders, and most learning disabled students (except for a small percentage of each group who found it too hard to learn to use computers), preschool through college. They could make mistakes without embarrassment, they could get immediate feedback, they liked the graphics and games, and they preferred the feeling of being in control of their learning. Less-skilled elementary students preferred using a word processor that had a speech synthesizer. Computers affected learning in other positive ways. First, they helped students stay on task, which resulted in more time spent learning. There was much less off-task behavior than in a traditional setting: as little as 2% of the time spent in one microcomputer laboratory. Children would persist at tasks that required higher-order thinking skills. Even kindergartners were found to spend 90% of their time on-task. This effect was the same for learning-handicapped and mainstreamed students. Another finding was that computers created more positive attitudes toward school, as did interactive video. Math anxiety lessened in using computers, and this attitude transferred to doing the same math tasks without computers later. Enthusiasm gained for subjects while using computers persisted to non-computer tasks, and when given the choice of continuing on one subject or switching to another one, students chose to continue. In addition, interest in a topic was often prolonged. Students tended to spend longer learning a topic before losing interest or tiring. Improved self-esteem was another benefit of computers. Students sensed a feeling of empowerment. They felt more responsible for, and in control of, their own learning. They felt they had more input in shaping the learning task, and were able to complete assignments that took longer. Students were able to do well on tasks that required problem solving and other higher-order cognitive skills. Use of computers boosted students' judgment of their ability to perform well in a specific situation. They gained an increased sense of self-efficacy. The third section of the Bialo and Sivin report focused on the effects of computers on social interaction in the learning environment. Computer use encouraged cooperative learning and increased content-related student talk. The use of networks led to greater spontaneous sharing of written work without teacher suggestion. Even younger children practiced turn-taking, peer tutoring, and verbal sharing of skills. Working with a partner required less teacher assistance, which freed teachers to work with students who needed individual attention. Emerging research showed that technology could affect the way teachers structure the learning environment and their own role within that environment. They were found to assign more small-group work. One study of learning-disabled students showed that they preferred working with a partner once they had experienced it. Teachers became facilitators of learning as well as disseminators of knowledge. The authors stressed, however, that "Technology cannot affect the ways in which students and teachers interact by itself. Also needed are teachers who are skilled at structuring effective learning environments and who are flexible in the roles they will play." In another study, The National Task Force on Educational Technology in their April 1986 report recognized that the greatest promise of technology is that it has the capability to manage and deliver learning geared to the needs of each student. "Although Americans acknowledge individual differences, we have grown accustomed to a system in which young people are taught in groups with uniform practices and pacing and are evaluated against group norms. The results have been made clear in more than a dozen national reports on education -- a mediocre system that discourages and underserves both the most able and the least able." The Task Force's report set the long range goal to create a system in which an individual learning plan permits each learner to proceed at a rate and pace that is challenging but achievable, makes no unjust comparisons with the progress of others, prevents students from becoming passive and assures positive reinforcement and steady progress. Higher-Order Skills Can Be Improved With the Aid of Technology The higher-order skills that will be needed to support the Maryland economy and the livelihood and welfare of Maryland citizens can be significantly and demonstrably enhanced with technology. For instance, the average achievement level of junior high school general mathematics students on a standardized test of problem solving rose from the 33rd to the 68th percentile over four years of television instruction (Chu and Schramm, 1975). The Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) Program developed by Dr. Stanley Pogrow of the University of Arizona shows gains in thinking skills and social interaction that continue beyond the experimental experience. The HOTS program uses commercially available software to develop in at-risk students the thinking skills of metacognition, inference, decontextualization, and synthesis. As conceived by Pogrow, the HOTS program "is an alternative to Chapter I programs in grades three through six that replaces all compensatory content instruction and drill and practice with thinking skills activities (Pogrow, 1987)." O'Connor & Brie (1994) reported on a study of 13 high schools in which teachers were provided with a computer network, multimedia workstations, and software. In the fall, the teachers were given intense three-day in-service training, and then the year to explore these tools for their use and that of their students. The teachers developed diverse projects and applications. Results of data collected throughout the project were strongly positive. Student communication and hypothesis formation increased notably. The machines and software were used for student reports to each other and enabled below-average students to create, spell, and graph on a par with the best. One teacher reported after the first year, "The worst reports (by students) from this year were better than the best reports from last year before we got the computers." The authors were especially impressed not only by the higher level of performance but also by the reduction in student variation around the higher levels. Because of the technological assistance, teachers included many topics from higher levels of their subjects than they taught before, sometimes necessitating their taking special classes themselves. The use of electronic telecommunications produced many of these same benefits. But telecommunications gave students added insights into real-world issues, incentives to write well, and motivation to research their information carefully. A fourth-grade Cincinnati, Ohio class experienced many new insights in both technological and knowledge areas as a result of being in electronic communication with other students. Cahill (1994) reported greater knowledge of, and insight into, the news and its meaning as a result of exploring current news topics with other students across the country. The use of the computer for writing soared as electronic communication demanded that ideas be put into writing if they were to be shared. Creating full explanations of local history to explain to other students was also motivated by electronic networking. The network enabled students to gather perspectives on a problem or topic from many sites. The author reported the students as being unusually able to communicate their feelings, even in later grades where they were no longer part of the network. Martinelli-Zaun (1993) initiated a Great Lakes Circle project including classrooms in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Quebec, California, Alabama, and New Jersey. She reported on the students' strong motivation to improve their ability to read and write, their increased communication skills, technology skills, and knowledge about themselves and the world. Independent judges rated Israeli students' compositions written for peers on a network significantly higher in overall quality (content, organization, use of language, vocabulary load, and language mechanics) than compositions written for grades from teachers (Bialo & Sivin, 1990). Videodisc technology for instruction and management developed at Utah State University has been shown to be effective in teaching some content, such as telling time, and skills, such as social interaction skills, to children with mild intellectual handicaps (Hofmeister and Friedman, 1985). Technologies can effectively assist management and diagnosis of special-needs students as well as support their instruction. Several programs exist, for instance, that periodically list children due for Individualized Education Program (IEP) review and automatically report necessary data to the other state agencies (Bennett, 1982). Preliminary evaluations of expert systems to diagnose handicapped students as learning disabled indicated that the expert systems' conclusions "were comparable to those of the 'better' human experts and more acceptable than those of the majority of human experts (Parry and Hofmeister, 1986)." Similar studies of the use of expert systems to diagnose reading problems "revealed that the expert system provided more detailed information than human diagnostic reports." Distance Learning Is a Proven Means for Providing Effective Instruction and In- service Training Distance learning refers to instruction and in-service training delivered over a distance via telecommunications or other means, or on-site via technology, and includes at least one of the following characteristics: (1) the instruction supplements or comprises entire course content; and/or (2) the instruction is available from an instructor in real time; and/or (3) the instruction is interactive with the instructor and/or with courseware and is available on student work stations. Telecommunications and computer-based technologies allow delivering instruction to districts where it is currently unavailable in order to ensure access for all students. Such instruction by distance can be provided, and already is to some extent, through a variety of means. Maryland Public Television (MPT), the State's public broadcasting agency, in partnership with the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) and local school systems, provides technology-based instructional resources, staff development opportunities, and public awareness programming to support K-12 education throughout Maryland. To serve the instructional needs of learners in Maryland's 1,200 schools, MPT broadcasts two hours daily of instructional video programs, specifically selected to meet Maryland curriculum goals. In addition, MPT produces original educational video programs, e.g., Baltimore Symphony Orchestra concerts for Maryland Day and African-American History Month, and the middle school mathematics series, NUMBERS ALIVE! Through MPT, teachers also have access to the curriculum resources of the online computer service, Learning Link. In the area of staff development, MPT provides video and online resources and training to help teachers integrate technology into their classrooms (National Teacher Training Institute for Math, Science, and Technology) and explore new curriculum developments (Mathline Middle School Program). As technology becomes increasingly integrated into Maryland schools, MPT is expanding its technological capacity and services to include distance education and multimedia to better support Maryland's educational goals. In addition, Maryland has awarded Bell Atlantic a contract to deploy a statewide distance learning network using two-way, interactive video and audio over a fiber optic digital network. To date, the company has deployed distance learning technology to 20 high schools and community colleges across the state, enabling students in one location to see, hear, and interact with students and teachers in other locations. Bell Atlantic plans to equip every public high school, community college, and four-year public college in Maryland with a distance learning classroom including all the necessary cameras, microphones, and equipment. (See figure on next page). Studies of distance deliverers of instruction generally indicate that students enrolled in distance learning programs exhibit achievement and motivation at least as high as those shown by students in traditional settings. One survey of research on instructional television stated, "The effectiveness of television has now been demonstrated...at every level from preschool through adult education and with a great variety of subject matter (Chu and Schramm, 1975)." Another review of distance education programs has shown there are also some unanticipated benefits: increased communication, cooperation, and coordination between schools and school districts; more parental involvement with courses; and student mastery of technology. Entire distance education courses have been delivered in many categories of media: print, audio, video, and computer. The number of presentation forms and the media chosen help determine the level of interactivity. As can be expected, the more interactivity is allowed, the more the instruction resembles a conventional classroom. The quality of the teaching and program organization are also important factors (Batey and Cowell 1986). Failures of Technology To Produce Expected Benefits Education agencies that install large amounts of technology in their schools hope that their investment will raise scores on student achievement tests and that learning will transfer to other areas. They may also hope that students will become more motivated and have improved self-esteem, and that school dropout rates will decline. Such expectations are appropriate, for many studies show these outcomes occur fairly often. But success is not a certainty. A series of studies found that some of the reasons for the failure of technology investments to produce expected results were: ~ Teachers did not couple the use of technology with changes in their teaching practices (Moonen and Collins, 1992). ~ Research design and/or data were flawed (Baker, Herman and Gearhart, 1989). ~ There were no clear-cut objectives for the outcomes the technology was to produce (Baker, Herman and Gearhart, 1989). ~ Loss of access to computers lead to loss of empowerment (Ross, Smith and Morrison, 1991). ~ Time spent on learning to use computers left less time for curricular subjects (Gilman, Emhoff, Bender, Gower, and Miller, 1991). ~ Tests did not match what was taught (Gilman, Emhoff, Bender, Gower, and Miller, 1991). Such findings suggest the failures may have resulted from how the technology was used, or how its use was measured, rather than from the technology per se. Summary Research cited in this section shows that technology, properly used, has many benefits for education: ~ In academic achievement: -- Higher test scores. -- Improved writing skills. -- Improved problem-solving skills. -- Development of higher-order thinking skills. -- Acquisition of skill in hypothesis formation. -- Faster learning. Students learn as much in shorter periods of time. -- Reduced differences in student performance levels. ~ In student attitudes: -- Like using technology. They enjoy more immediate feedback and the feeling of being in control of one's learning. -- Like classes that used technology better than others. -- Like subjects better. This attitude persists when technology is no longer being used. -- Improved attitude toward school. -- Decreased dropout rates. -- Lessened math anxiety. This attitude persists when technology is no longer being used. -- Consider the quality of instruction better. -- Improved self-esteem. Sense of empowerment from being in control of one's learning and having some responsibility for it. -- Increased sense of own competence. -- Better communications skills. ~ In study habits: -- Stay on-task more. Less off-task behavior while using technology. -- Persist in tasks longer. Finish even very long tasks requiring higher-order thinking skills. -- Find it easier to research information. -- Engage in cooperative learning. -- Increase content-related talk. -- Engage in turn-taking. -- Engage in peer tutoring. -- Become involved with real-world issues, making learning authentic. Research literature study completed by Lynn Kirby, Ph.D. Reference Notes for this Section appear in Appendix E. STRATEGY The Committee's strategy to realize the vision has six components. Maryland must: I. Ensure access to all learners, II. Provide on-going staff support, III. Incorporate the most effective and efficient technology in all aspects of the education process, IV. Market technology in education to all members of the Maryland community, V. Ensure adequate funding, and VI. Assess the impact of technology. Each of these components is outlined. I. ENSURE ACCESS TO ALL LEARNERS The Maryland Board of Education must establish a permanent Committee on Technology in Education (COTE) to ensure that learners, and those who support learning, have appropriate access to technologies for their learning, teaching, and management needs. The Committee will have representatives from local education agencies (LEAs), higher education, business, Maryland State Department of Education, Maryland Congress of Parents and Teachers, students, Maryland Association of Counties, Maryland State Teachers Association, Maryland Association of Boards of Education, Maryland Instructional Computer Coordinators Association, Maryland Association of Student Councils, Maryland General Assembly, Governor's representatives, and the community at-large. It will be supported with expertise from the MSDE staff in a newly established Division of Instructive Technology (DIT), made up of experts in the use of technology in education. The Committee on Technology in Education (COTE), in concert with the DIT, will: ~ Monitor the availability and use of technology in Maryland schools and establish a means to distribute the information; ~ Assess the technology needs reported by each local school system; ~ Provide a clearinghouse on the use of technology in education; ~ Ensure that state standards in the implementation plan for use of technology are being met; (See Appendix D) ~ Ensure that state requirements for staff development in the implementation plan are being met; ~ Ensure that assistive technology devices and/or services are made available to a child with a disability if required and educationally relevant; ~ Ensure adequate and equitable funding for technology throughout the state; ~ Identify new technological skills needed by current and future workers as well as information skills required for a literate citizenry; ~ Sponsor partnerships with other state agencies, school districts, businesses, organizations (such as Chambers of Commerce), and individuals to ensure that the most effective technology and applications are incorporated in the instructional process; ~ Establish a statewide cooperative procurement system to provide local school system with the most cost-effective means to acquire hardware, software, training, communication links, and maintenance, and ~ Provide a "state of the state" technology summary each year that indicates progress toward milestones in the plan. II. PROVIDE ON-GOING STAFF SUPPORT For technology to be effective in schools, teachers must be familiar and comfortable with a variety of technologies that can enhance learning. They must have adequate training in use of these technologies. The committee recommends that 30% of the cost of hardware be allocated for staff training and development. To implement an improved system for staff development in the use of technology, the committee recommends these steps: ~ Assess current effective models for staff development and disseminate information to local school systems: -- Determine criteria for effective staff development models; -- Establish teleconferencing system to disseminate effective staff development models and share implementation strategies; and -- Track and evaluate staff development systems and provide continuous updates. ~ Include staff development for technology in every school improvement plan: -- Include action plans, milestones, and evaluation for technology in staff development in every school system's strategic plan; -- Include action plans, milestones, and evaluation for technology in staff development in every individual school improvement plan; -- Coordinate staff development activities at state, system, and individual school levels; -- Assess state and local staff development needs for technology; and -- Include staff development opportunities in every staff member's on-going work description. ~ Integrate new and appropriate technology into the delivery of staff development: -- Assess the delivery systems and provide demonstration models; and -- Activate pilot sites to demonstrate use of new delivery systems. ~ Assist schools to restructure time available for staff development for technology: -- Collect and disseminate information about various delivery systems; and -- Provide staff development demonstration sites and evaluate effectiveness. ~ Provide professional development activities and incentives to facilitate full integration of technology into education: -- Develop integrated planning teams for staff support of technology; -- Develop the strategic plan to enable teachers and other staff to: - Learn how to operate available equipment and applications; - Evaluate the potential of instructional applications; - Integrate the technology into the curriculum; - Assess assistive technology needs of children with disabilities; - Use technology for administrative and assessment purposes; - Develop a willingness to experiment with technology; and - Facilitate new staff development resources in technology. ~ Provide on-going support at all levels-- state, system, school, community, and higher education: -- Create a support plan for technology that encompasses hardware, software, and on-line technical assistance. ~ Provide Preservice Training According to Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning: "Training in the use of technology will need to be a part of the preparation every entry-level teacher receives. Several factors explain why this training need has not been met: lack of expertise of many education school faculty, insufficient and outdated technology resources, and incomplete understanding and attention to how teaching roles may change as technology changes the teaching environment."1 The following recommendations concern development and implementation of preservice programs in education technology: -- Maryland State Department of Education and higher education officials should join to ensure that licensure criteria require incoming teachers to use technology effectively, and -- College or teacher preparation programs should: - Expand the number of courses in technology and require evidence of technology competency as a component for graduation; - Cooperate with other departments within the college or university to establish basic technology competencies for their students; - Promote research on the effective preparation of teachers in technology and on effective ways of integrating technology in instruction; - Collaborate with individual schools and school districts to develop internships or research opportunities for students to work on projects related to technology; and - Include technology applications and research in courses on educational administration. _____________________ 1 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On? New Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988, p.115.) ______________________ III. INCORPORATE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE EDUCATION PROCESS To use technology most effectively, the MSDE system must take advantage of the most effective and efficient proven technologies that integrate voice, video, data, and graphic outputs in all aspects of education. State standards must include maximum access to technology throughout the state and at all grade levels, and full integration of technology in the development and delivery of every curriculum. A statewide cooperative procurement system can provide the local school systems with the means to acquire the hardware, software, training, communications links, and maintenance to reach the standard. ~ Provide Communications Technology To attain the broadest access to information, the state technology plan must ensure that: -- Access to commercial and private information, communication, and broadcast service networks is affordable for educational institutions; -- Multi-tiered computer networks within the State, local school systems, and schools are available for integration and interaction among systems, schools, classes, and administration; -- A statewide telecommunications system with a "call way" for voice, video, and data is accessible for all citizens and educational institutions; and -- Technological systems such as voice mail, computer-based telecommunications, and instructional television are used to improve school-home communications. ~ Integrated Technology [See Also Appendix D] -- MSDE must set as a standard the integration of technology into all aspects of the school system and learning process: instruction, administration, and management. This includes word-processing, programming, spreadsheets, graphics, and databases for use in all curricula through which students will acquire skills and knowledge directly applicable to higher education and the business and scientific communities. -- It must make certain that technology is easily accessible to students while in school, media center, library, or at home. -- It must encourage use of technology for administration and assessment. Specific uses include: collecting school, local, and state education data; managing information in such forms as portfolios; and analyzing, processing, and timely reporting of assessment activities. -- It must see that technical support staff are developed, trained, and assigned to ensure that technology-based systems are operational and to provide support to the teachers and peer administrative personnel. -- It must identify staff and student competencies for use of technology and integrate them into teaching and learning. -- It must ensure that students have training and access to equipment and software to continue application of their learning in courses throughout their school experience. This learning must be fully accessible to students with disabilities, and provide all students with the skills and knowledge they need to be full participants in higher education and business, and to be productive members of society. -- It must ensure that technology is integrated into the K-12 curriculum as a component in achieving outcomes in specific disciplines with the ultimate goal of changing emphasis from teacher-centered instruction to student-centered learning. State and local specialists in content and instruction as well as higher education faculty should be involved in developing these outcomes. Integrating technology into an environment focused on outcomes should promote skills in making interdisciplinary connections, critical thinking, problem solving, issues analysis, writing, active construction of meaning, multicultural perspectives, and self-assessment. -- It must encourage development of specific K-12 technology in education outcomes through broad-based involvement of education, business, and community stakeholders. These outcomes should include knowledge and application of computer terminology and technical operation, database searching, manipulation and analysis of data, communications technology, library and research programs, and multimedia project and program technologies. -- It should identify the most effective available technologies for instruction, management, and administration. -- Local school systems should develop five-year system implementation plans to acquire and integrate technologies to meet standards in all aspects of the delivery and management of instruction. -- The Maryland State Department of Education should ensure development of three-year local system implementation plans to integrate technology into administration and assessment. IV. MARKET TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE MARYLAND COMMUNITY [See Appendix A] To be effective in enhancing learning, technology must be embraced in all schools and by all members of the learning community. This will require educating all members of the community on the role of technology in education. The committee recommends launching comprehensive marketing efforts to obtain endorsement of the plan by: ~ The business community: -- Chief Executive Officers of MBRT members, and -- Local business organizations (i.e., Chambers of Commerce, High Tech Councils); ~ The education community: -- State and local boards of education, parent teacher associations, local school systems, Maryland State Teachers Association, and Maryland Associations of Elementary/Secondary School Principals, and ~ The community at-large, including elected officials. V. ENSURE ADEQUATE FUNDING The fundamental strategy for funding technology is a basic shift from viewing outlays for technology as one-time capital investments to viewing them as operational expenses (except for infrastructure such as wiring). Continuing investment in contemporary technology is simply a cost of doing business in the Information Age. The committee attempted to estimate the cost of ensuring equity and access to technology throughout the state. However, the information needed with regard to current status within each local school system - plans and funding - is not currently available. Using information from 1989-90, the committee estimated the cost to be $150 million over five years. This would provide the infrastructure for the information highway and equal access to computers, multimedia equipment, long-distance learning and staff support. ~ Funding must be readily available both to acquire contemporary hardware, software, and communications equipment and to support the recurring costs for training, staff development, maintenance, and communications. ~ The necessary infrastructure, the "information highway", must be fully deployed with appropriate funding to subsidize on-demand access with unlimited use. ~ Provisions must be made for funding research and development in the effective use of technologies and in their integration into day-to-day classroom routines. ~ Funding must be viewed as primarily the responsibility of federal, state, and local government, with secondary support through individual learners and their communities and through partnerships between the private and public sectors. ~ Federal funding must continue to support research and development activities and to facilitate the transfer of technology from the laboratory to the public and private sectors. ~ Federal funding must also support the deployment of the national and international "highway," allowing affordable access to all learners. ~ State funding must support infrastructure deployment and the associated on-going costs. ~ The state should establish a technology trust fund to accomplish these ends, based on the local schools system's ability to pay. This should be administered in a manner similar to the Interagency Committee's (IAC) administration of facility building and upgrades. ~ School systems and their local governments must be prepared to invest in technology as line items in annual operating budgets. ~ State and local budgets must be reviewed to determine if reallocation of existing funds can be used to support more use of technology in schools. ~ School systems must provide time and support for staff development. ~ Community funding should provide supplemental support by creating community-based open access to technology through community centers, local schools, local libraries, and business partnerships including community/business technology centers. ~ Community resources should be vehicles for extending access to technology to all potential learners. ~ An educational foundation should be considered to raise funds for technology in education. VI. ASSESS THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY The impact of technology on learning must be reflected in the outcomes desired by the school system. These outcomes must be integral to the curricula, in a developmentally appropriate manner, and be mirrored by classroom, school system, and state performance assessments. These assessments must also address students' and teachers' knowledge of the value of technology as well as their ability to use technology as a tool to facilitate and enhance learning. The assessment system should be modeled after the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program, which measures students' achievement of learning outcomes in relation to rigorous performance standards. Schools, school systems, and the state are held accountable for progress toward meeting the performance standards. The learning outcomes, the performance assessment, and the performance standards are the result of extensive collaboration among teachers, central office staff, state department staff, and the broadly defined stakeholders of education including: higher education, private and public sector employers, labor unions, etc. The results of these assessments, while not directly attributable to the integration of technology into the learning process, will provide an indirect measure of the impact of technology on student achievement. These results should be incorporated into the annual Maryland School Performance Report which gauges the progress of Maryland's schools. This report highlights exemplary achievements and identifies schools and school systems where there are areas of concern. The assessment plan begins with the assumption Maryland educators will develop curricula and instructional strategies that empower teachers to recognize and teach the value of technology in promoting socio-economic growth and development. These activities must contribute to the desired outcome that students understand the value of technology and develop the skills and abilities necessary to use technology effectively to expand their knowledge base. The plan addresses: understanding technology, applying technology, and using technology in promoting personal growth and innovative problem solving. Each component can be defined by desired outcomes. Each outcome, in turn, can be assessed at various developmentally appropriate levels from the beginning of kindergarten through continuing education at the post-secondary level and beyond. Similarly, outcomes and assessments can be defined for teachers and staff in schools, central offices, and the state department. Assessments should cover: ~ Students' understanding of various technologies (word processing, telecommunications, etc.); ~ Students' abilities to use these technologies as learning tools in promoting personal growth and innovative problem solving, and ~ The application of technology by students, teachers, and staff in schools, central offices, and state offices. The development of assessments and the setting of rigorous performance standards as defined in the action steps of the plan must include a broad base of stakeholders at all steps, even though this may entail a protracted process. The power of the assessment system and the utility of rigorous performance standards will depend on achieving consensus through systematic and collaborative efforts. .