SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
JOINT HEARING ON OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO THE UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology,
Joint With the
Subcommittee on Basic Research,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Constance A. Morella (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Chairwoman MORELLA. I will call the joint hearing to order. I want to welcome all of you to the joint hearing with the Basic Research Subcommittee on the topic of Overcoming Barriers to the Utilization of Technology in the Classroom.
Today's rapid advancement and technological development has opened us all up to a new and exciting world that, just a few short years ago, seemed unimaginable. With the click of a mouse, technology continues to change the way we live, learn, work, and interact each and every day.
Perhaps, in no other area do we hope to benefit more from the influx of technology in our society than in our Nation's educational system. Successful integration of technology in our schools has the potential to transform the way our children learn, creating new and challenging opportunities to enhance their academic performance.
Students in today's connected classroom are no longer bound, physically, by the bricks and mortar that surround them. Instead, they have at their fingertips the opportunity to explore the world and take in vast amounts of information along the way. We are only just beginning to realize the potential of technology in helping to improve student learning and increase academic performance.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And with new technologies being developed at lightening speed, we can only imagine the promise it holds for the future. Yet, as we approach the beginning of the 21st Century, many schools have been slow to implement a technology-rich learning environment that is crucial for tackling the challenges of the next millennium.
According to a recent report prepared by the CEO Forum on Education and Technology, represented today by Mr. Spoon, only 6 percent of our Nation's schools are at the leading edge or effectively integrating technology into the classroom. More importantly, the report noted that over half of our Nation's schools were considered ''low technology'' or having limited access, if any at all, to mostly outdated computer equipment.
We know there are barriers that schools face in seeking to integrate technology into their curriculum. The costs associated with developing technology savvy in schools are significant. And schools must increasingly weigh the benefits of investing in technology against other competing priorities, such as school maintenance, construction, and the hiring of new teachers.
To-date, the Federal Government has been heavily involved in helping schools integrate technology into the classroom. The General Accounting Office has estimated that at least 27 federal programs provide funding that may be used to purchase, among other things, technologies for schools and libraries.
Yet, despite this significant federal investment in educational technology and the promise it holds for our youth, it is clear that computers, alone, cannot improve our Nation's school systems. Used incorrectly, technology can become a very expensive babysitter, providing little benefit, while stripping schools and districts of scarce resources.
I continue to believe that the classroom teacher is the key, the key to bringing technology into our schools. Many educators simply do not have the training necessary to successfully implement the use of technology in their curriculum in a meaningful way.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And the CEO Forum on Education and Technology found that only 20 percent of full-time public school teachers felt prepared to integrate technology in a classroom; only 20 percent. To address the challenges that schools face in implementing successful technology programs, last February, I introduced H.R. 645, which is the Teacher Technology Training Act.
And that legislation would require states to incorporate technology requirements in teacher training and content standards. The bill also encourages schools, districts to include technology classes in their programs, and colleges and universities to incorporate technology into their education curriculum. Now, our hearing today will explore the appropriate role of technology in K–12 education.
We will look at the role of the Federal Government in helping schools integrate technology into their classrooms in a meaningful way. And we want to examine the barriers that schools face in implementing a successful technology-rich learning environment, and what needs to be done to help teachers and administrators overcome these obstacles.
Finally, we also need to talk about how the private sector can be harnessed to assist schools in their technology programs. Large and small businesses alike have a vested interest in ensuring students have the skills they need to succeed in a workforce driven by the information age. For unless we utilize classroom technology in a meaningful way, we run the risk of graduating students who are really unprepared to succeed in the 21st Century job market.
So, the private sector certainly has a role to play. We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses today. And I do look forward to their testimony. It is now—it gives me great pleasure to yield to the Chairman of the Basic Research Subcommittee, Mr. Nick Smith, for his opening comments.
Mr. SMITH. Well, I also would certainly like to welcome our panelists. And I thank the Chair of the Technology Subcommittee, Representative Morella, for organizing this hearing. The topic certainly is very important as we look for overcoming barriers and assuring that the kind of technology that we can offer today is constructive, in terms of the ultimate success of students in their quest for learning.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today's education technology offers students and teachers access to astonishing amounts of information. And I would include in technology, not only computer and the Web site, but our televisions through satellite feeds. I noticed on my television, I can get three different stations that totally dedicate themselves to motorcycles.
So here, again, an insurmountable amount of information, in terms of motorcycles. It is three more locations from our satellites on motorcycles that I use. But, again, just to point out how much information is out there. And so somehow educators, like our panelists today, need to start assessing how we can utilize so much information.
And what is the reasonable limits of having that information available to kids? And what is the proper balance where we have that information, as opposed to teaching these children and having these students learn how to think?
That ultimately is going to be a greater benefit to themselves, their families, and this Country. I would suggest that the Federal Government puts a lot of money into this issue, literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year. And we hope to ensure that these programs are effective, both educationally effective and cost effective.
As most are aware, there have been concerns raised about how some education technology initiatives, such as the ones involving the E-Rate Tax, for example, have been funded and implemented, in terms of hooking up these schools to the Internet. In terms of those schools that have already taken the initiative of hooking up their schools to the Internet, prior to the availability of this kind of money, have sometimes been short-changed with this new program that government offers with restrictive use for those particular funds.
I would hope the panel today could address one of my concerns about technology in the classroom, a concern I think others share. Namely, are these computers in the classroom helping our children learn to think? And how do we make that decision?
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Two schools in my District, schools that are fairly close to each other geographically, and serve very similar communities, take two totally different approaches to computers in the classroom.
In one, computers are present in the school and available for students to use, but only in designated computer labs. In the other school, students have a series of computers in almost every classroom. And as I walk to the back of some of these classrooms, students sometimes are rapidly changing the programs that they might have on their computer screens.
And so, again, the challenges. And what we would look to you today, as expert witnesses, is the proper balance and the effective use of computers, with information technology such a vital part of tomorrow's education. And what I would ask, Madam Chairman, is the rest of my remarks be inserted into the record. And maybe I can cut my testimony a little, my comments a little short, so that we can hear the expert witnesses.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Without objection, so ordered.
Thank you for your opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Basic Research Subcommittee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, and Mr. Chairperson of the Basic Research. I am pleased to join my colleagues in welcoming our witnesses today to this joint hearing of the Technology and Basic Research Subcommittees on technology in the classroom.
The promise of applications of new information technologies in the schools is by now well known. Such possibilities as instruction tailored to individual students, curriculum enriched through access to remote educational resources, and to powerful new ways to visualize complex information.
Knowledge of the most effective ways for using educational technology is not yet available, nor in general have the effects on student performance been quantified for applications of a particular technology. However, enough evidence has been obtained, particularly from experiments involving technology-rich schools with well-trained and highly-motivated teachers, to drive interest and expanding the access of schools through information technology.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The introduction of educational technology involves two major sets of issues. The first revolves around the acquisition and maintenance of computers and networks. This sounds simple. The reality is that while some schools have new computers, too often, these same schools lack the technology staff necessary to keep these computers operational.
The second major set of issues is the integration of technology into actual classroom instruction. For both, educators and administrators need information about options and best practices, and direct assistance, and teacher preparation and guidance in the use of educational software.
Today, we will review what federal efforts may assist schools in using educational technology. In particular, we will discuss some legislative ideas that have been advanced by our colleagues that address specific aspects of the acquisition and effective use of technology.
I believe that the Federal Government can be a catalyst for constructive change in our schools, if it is, if its relatively small K–12 education investment is wisely directed. I look forward to hearing the views and recommendations of our witnesses on strategies that could lead to more effective deployment and use of educational technology.
And I want to thank the joint Chairs for holding today's hearing on this important topic. I appreciate the attendance of our witnesses, and look forward to the discussion. Thank you.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
We have Mr. Sherwood Boehlert from New York, a very distinguished man interested in education, who is here, who said he had no opening comment.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It gives me great pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the Technology Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Jim Barcia.
Mr. BARCIA. Thank you, Chairwoman Morella.
I want to join you, and Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member Johnson, and the Committee members in welcoming the witnesses, and everyone in the audience to today's hearing. Technology in the classroom is one of those perennial topics, which we have discussed for the past 50 years.
Back in the 1950s, filmstrips and movies were met with great anticipation, as a means to improve the educational experience. In the 1980s, computers were regularly being used as an educational tool. And in this decade, the Internet has become the latest technology to improve education.
While I believe we can all agree that these technology advances have benefitted our students, in our zeal to put these technologies in a classroom, we must also ensure that teachers, administrators, and schools boards know how to best utilize their educational technology investments. A February 1999 Department of Education Report, Teacher Quality, a report on the preparation and qualification of public school teachers, found that only 20 percent of teachers felt well-prepared to work in modern classrooms. This was not a new finding. An Office of Technology Assessment Report, Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection, identified teacher training as the most critical, and generally the most neglected element of ed-tech programs.
H.R. 2534, introduced by my colleague, Mr. Larson, is a required step in developing the policies to ensure that all schools are linked to the Internet. In addition to Mr. Larson's efforts, earlier this year, Mr. Wu and myself, introduced H.R. 2417, the Educational Technology Utilization Extension Assistance Act.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The goal of this legislation is simple: to improve the use of educational technology in kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms. This bill creates Educational Technology Extension Centers to advise K–12 teachers, administrators, and school boards on how to better utilize their existing ed- tech investments, as well as providing advice on new educational technology.
I look forward to hearing the witnesses comment about these Educational Technology Centers, as outlined in H.R. 2417. While I believe that a need exists for these Centers, I want to stress that a number of school districts already provide this type of support. For example, in my hometown of Bay City, Michigan, the Bay Aroneck Intermediate School District provided professional training for nearly 1,000 educators last year.
This type of support is critical in providing teachers with the skills they need to integrate the latest technologies in their classrooms. Legislation, like H.R. 2534, complements these ongoing efforts. In areas where this type of technical advice is not available, H.R. 2417 would begin this important effort.
Given our rapidly changing economy, and increasingly global economic competition, we need to provide our children with the best education possible. Education technology can both enhance the students' educational experience and provide them with valuable job skills. I believe that both of these bills are a step in this direction.
I want to thank our panelists for appearing before the Subcommittees. I look forward to hearing your comments, and also thank Chairwoman Morella, and the Chair also, of course of the, Chairman Smith, excuse me, Nick, of the, yes, of the Committee I used to serve on. My colleague from the Michigan Legislature also, in the past, for calling this very timely hearing. And I look forward to the panelists' comments.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairwoman Morella. Thank you, Mr. Barcia.
Gee, we are overwhelmed with Michiganers here and they all do such a great job. Mr. Boehlert, I recognize you, sir, for any comments you would like to make.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. I want to provide some geographic balance, so from the Northeast. I would like to commend both Chairs for calling this hearing. I think it is extremely important. And I want to take advantage of this opportunity to get on my soapbox once again.
School boards across America are critically important. And I would specifically direct it to Mr. Spoon to use the good offices of the great Washington Post. And I would challenge editors, and publishers, and people identified with such journals across the Nation to challenge corporate America because here is what happens.
When I have a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, or the National Association of Manufacturers, or any other business-oriented group, they constantly tell me about the government spending too much money, about State Governments, Federal Government spending too much money. I listen to them politely. And then I usually ask them a couple of questions.
One, how many employees that you have are on school boards back in their local communities? Then I usually ask them, how many of your corporations have a day care policy? And the reason I do that is because if the business community does not take a greater role in providing inspired leadership, starting at the local level, there is going to be a big void. And there is, in this instance, in terms of getting into the 21st Century with technology training.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And if we want things to operate in a more professional business-like way, we have got to have more professional business people involved in the decision-making starting at the local level. So, I would hope you would take this on advisement and give some consideration.
I would like to know, from the Fortune 500 companies, how many employees of their respective companies are on school boards, because they know how important this subject matter is? And the answer is too few. So, I think there is a great opportunity for you and others so situated to help in the cause. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman MORELLA. I think the Subcommittees would both agree with you, Mr. Boehlert. I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Larson from Connecticut, who is one of the motivators for this joint hearing. Mr. Larson.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me thank my esteemed colleagues and distinguished witnesses for being here. And I want to, again, thank Chairwoman Morella and Chairman Smith, Ranking Members Barcia and Johnson for holding this hearing on this very timely topic before us today. And I would request at the outset that the extent of my remarks be inserted in the record, and will briefly summarize.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. LARSON. The Department of Commerce came out with a report in July 9th of this year entitled Falling Through the Net. And it very dramatically talked about the digital divide that is being created in this country. The digital divide is happening along the lines of race, gender, geographic location, and wealth.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And what they noted is that the problem is getting worse. And it is not just a question of computers in the classroom. It is a question of the total integration of voice, video, and data information, and how to best utilize that. That creates a problem for a number of our public school systems, because clearly, at least in my humble estimation, that is where we have to resolve this specific issue.
And to do so, as was pointed out by Nick Smith, we have to address it on several levels, one of which is teach training. And Chairwoman Morella and Representative Stabenow have put together bills that I think are vitally important and that I am a co-sponsor of.
But also along the lines of teacher training, we have to address a basic infrastructure concern from a technological standpoint. And that infrastructure concern is how do we provide universal, ubiquitous service so that all students have access to the information super highway?
And how do we come up with a means that is the most effective, and the most efficient means of providing voice, video, and data communication within the context of our schools, and that our teachers can utilize in their daily lesson plans, and in their curriculums.
I am looking forward to the testimony here today. And I am delighted, Madam Chairwoman, to have with us a dear friend, and an individual who I have long been an admirer of, Dr. James Fallon, from East Hartford, Connecticut, who is the Superintendent of Schools there.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And just very briefly, if I might, Madam Chairwoman, by way of going forward. He has had a life-long commitment and involvement in the education field. He has received his Bachelor's Degree in Education from Westfield State College in Massachusetts. And he started teaching in the 8th grade in 1964 in East Hartford.
It was not long after that he became an Assistant Superintendent, excuse me, an Assistant Principal, a Principal, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, and now currently the Superintendent of Schools of the East Hartford Public School System.
In short, Jim has worked his way up and has a pragmatic, hand-on, understanding. The Town of East Hartford, which also happens to be my hometown, the schools that he administers comprise of nine elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school, one alternative high school, and one Special Education Transitional Program with approximately 7,000 students, and an annual budget of approximately $57 million.
He also, at the high school, is unique in Connecticut of having over 57 different ethnic groups that matriculate at East Hartford High School. He is on the Oversight and Comprehensive Professional Development Plan for the East Hartford Board of Education, and is co-Chair of the Technology Plan for the East Hartford School District.
Given the topic of today's hearing, I believe that he will provide a unique perspective. And I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to introduce a dear friend and an esteemed colleague, Dr. Jim Fallon.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Larson. And we certainly do welcome Mr. Fallon as one of the people testifying. I would now like to recognize, let us see, Ms. Rivers, I know, was here. And Ms. Woolsey, from California, for any comments.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WOOLSEY. I will yield to Mr. Udall.
Chairwoman MORELLA. You yield to Mr. Udall. I will be happy. Mr. Udall, do you have any opening comments?
Mr. UDALL. I have no opening comments. I am eager to hear the witnesses that have joined us today.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Splendid.
Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Thank you for yielding to him too.
Ms. WOOLSEY. You are welcome. There is nothing more frustrating than being here before somebody else and then getting preempted. I know. Listen, thank you very much, the Chairs and the Ranking Members, for this panel we are going to hear this afternoon. I am one of the few members in the House of Representatives on both the Science Committee and the Education Committee.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And it is crucial, I know that, from both Committees that we prepare our young people for the 21st Century, and that we include technology in all schools for all of our students. Otherwise, they just are not going to be ready for the workforce in the next millennium. Because of that, I have offered an amendment that was passed by the Committee.
My amendment allows the National Science Foundation to review how schools are using technology. And making sure that they use it to the best of their abilities, and that they can share the information between schools so that everybody is not constantly reinventing the wheel.
And I know that is important because we do not want to start over every time we have a school that decides technology is important. But we all do know that technology and education is crucial. One of the other barriers that I am concentrating on in both Committees and here in the House is the question of why young girls decide, by 9th grade, that they are not interested in science, math, and technology?
So, I have a bill called ''Go Girl'' that will mentor and encourage young girls from the 4th grade on, so that they stay with science, math, and technology, stay interested, see the value of it, and make sure that we have a full workforce, not just 50 percent of the brilliant people in the country, but 100 percent having choices in the use of technology.
I want to hear from you. You are the experts. And I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And we have the Commission on Women, Science, Engineering, and Technology working with the National Science Foundation to look at what some of those barriers are to women, minorities, and the disabled.
Okay. We are ready to go. Dr. George Strawn, Executive Director of the Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate at the National Science Foundation. NSF is very involved in a number of Educational Technology Programs.
We also have Mr. Alan Spoon, President of the Washington Post. Mr. Spoon is representing the CEO Forum on Education and Technology. He will share with us some recommendations on how we can better prepare teachers to integrate technology in a classroom.
Also joined by Dr. Elizabeth Glowa. She is the Director for Instructional Technology Support Team, the Office of Global Access Technology at the Montgomery County, Maryland Public Schools; great, great school system. Montgomery County is doing a wonderful job in the area of educational technology. And she will share with us some key ingredients for successful Technology Programs.
Finally, we welcome Mr. James Fallon, the Superintendent of the East Hartford School District. Know your School District is also on the leading edge of technology in the classroom. So, I would now ask the panelists, since it is a policy of the Science Committee to swear in all of those who will testify, if you will stand, raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
The report will indicate responses in the affirmative.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairwoman MORELLA. We have traditionally given the panelists about 5 minutes, could go a little bit over, if necessary, for comments, and then we will open it to the members of both Subcommittees. So, perhaps we will start off with you, Mr. Strawn.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE O. STRAWN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, ARLINGTON, VA; ALAN SPOON, PRESIDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST, WASHINGTON, DC; DR. ELIZABETH GLOWA, DIRECTOR FOR INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT TEAM, OFFICE OF GLOBAL ACCESS TECHNOLOGY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ROCKVILLE, MD; AND JAMES J. FALLON, JR. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, EAST HARTFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT, EAST HARTFORD, CT
Mr. STRAWN. Madam Chairman, Mr. Smith, other members of the Subcommittees, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today. As Ms. Morella said, I am George Strawn, Executive Officer of the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering at the National Foundation, Science Foundation.
Previously, I was Director of NSF's Division of Advanced Networking Infrastructure and Research. I have been involved with information technology since the early 1960s, and specifically with the Internet since the early 1980s. Before coming to the National Science Foundation, I spent most of my career at a research university, both as a computer science faculty member, and as a provider of academic information service technologies.
I would like to thank Mr. Larson, and the other members here today, for their interest and support of educational information technology. Having been involved with both education and information technology all of my career, I strongly believe that information technology is in the early stages of transforming how we learn, just as it is transforming other important aspects of how we work and how we live.
I think Mr. Smith asks an important question when he says, is it transforming how we think? And is it assisting us to think better? And I think the honest answer is we do not know yet. Us true believers think so. As with other dimensions of information technology, sometimes it takes awhile to verify our beliefs.
I further believe that the U.S. citizens are well-served by such Members of Congress as you, who clearly share a vision of the importance of information technology. The National Science Foundation has been a major force in the history of the Internet, as have other federal agencies.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
From 1965 to 1985, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense carried out long-term research in computer networking that resulted in the definition of and early implementations of the Internet. From 1985 until 1995, the National Science Foundation played a pivotal role by building the first and the second national high performance Internet backbone networks. The first was built in 1988.
The second in 1991. Of course, the definition of ''high performance'' is constantly changing. Today, the NSF VBNS high performance network has links that are about 2,000 times faster than the higher performance NSF net of 1988. A part of NSF's contribution to the emergence of the Internet that has much relevance to the proposed Science and Educational Networking Act was our so-called Connections Program.
From the late 1980s to the late 1990s, we have estimated that NSF assisted as many as 2,000 institutions of higher learning to connect to the Internet. And beginning in 1996, we have also forwarded research and development in novel technologies that could lower the cost of and/or lower other barriers to bringing the Internet more quickly to public schools and libraries.
I have a page or so of material that describes our partnering with the private sector, but given time limitations, I would ask that you refer to my written material for that.
I mentioned since 1995, NSF and other federal agencies have been participating in the Next Generation Internet Initiative, which has accelerated advanced networking research, created high performance networking test beds for the research community, and stimulated the emergence of revolutionary science and engineering that require high performance networking.
The agencies participating in this so-called NGI Initiative have also been working closely with the complementary Internet-II project, which is a collaborative venture of more than 100 research universities who are also pursuing advances in high performance networking.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As our previous and continuing activities indicate, NSF has been and continues to be a leader in educational networking. We believe that the time is approaching when lowered cost and increased ease of use of Internet products and services will enable high performance networking in all public schools and libraries.
As you no doubt know, schools and libraries are currently being connected to the Internet at a very rapid pace as a result of the E-Rate Program. In the first year of the Program, 640,000 classrooms were connected to the Internet. This year, $2.4 billion is available to connect an expected 528,000 more classrooms.
Eighty percent of public schools and 50 percent of public libraries participate in the E-Rate Program. Some schools and libraries have already used E-Rate support for high speed large band-width capacity connections. Given the success of this Program, one way that we could add value is to encourage the identification of best educational practices, to provide educators and policy makers with tools for using existing and evolving Internet technologies more effectively as a part of our educational strategy. An often overlooked consideration in this discussion relates to resources required to train teachers and provide the technical support to effectively use Internet technologies in schools and libraries.
These questions cannot be answered, given our current level of understanding about using Internet as an educational tool. But I am, of course, very pleased to hear about Ms. Morella's and others' activity in this area to support additional teacher training in this area.
The need to better understand costs, capabilities, human resource requirements, potential educational benefits of universal high speed Internet access to schools is clear. NSF stands ready to work with Congressman Larson, and the committees, as well as other agencies with a stake in educational technology to develop an effective mechanism to inform policy makers in this rapidly evolving world of networking.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important matter. And I would be happy to try to answer any questions that you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Strawn follows:]
Insert offset folio 37 here 61081A.001
Insert offset folio 38 here 61081A.002
Insert offset folio 39 here 61081A.003
Insert offset folio 40 here 61081A.004
Chairwoman MORELLA. You did a splendid job, also staying within the time limit. Dr. Strawn, and for all of you who are testifying, the entirety of your testimony will be included in the record. So, if you want to digress or synopsize in any way.
We are now pleased to hear from Mr. Alan Spoon.
Mr. SPOON. Madam Chairman, Chairman Smith, Congressman Barcia, other members of the Committee, it really is an honor to be here today representing the CEO Forum on Education and Technology. The CEO Forum is a coalition of corporate and academic leaders who formed a 4-year partnership to assess and monitor progress toward integrating technology in American schools.
Our objective is to help ensure that our Nation's students will achieve higher academic standards through enriched learning, and will be equipped with the skills they need to be contributing citizens and productive workers in the next Century. Our first Report on Hardware and Connectivity, issued in late 1997, found that most schools lacked the hardware and connections needed to truly benefit the students' learning.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While a majority of schools were connected to the Internet, in many cases, it was a single connection, to a single computer, to be shared by scores of students. The CEO Forum also developed what is now known as the School Technology And Readiness or STAR Chart, a self-assessment tool that schools can use to determine their level of technology readiness.
This tool has been sent to hundreds of school districts around the Country, and received strong support from the K-12 community. The State of North Carolina has even adopted the chart as its formal measure of technology integration in schools Statewide.
Our year two report focused on the topic of professional development. And I will have more to say about that in a moment. Our year three report, due out in early 2000, will address the topic of digital content and what broad-band delivery can contribute to the learning process.
The year four report on outcomes and assessment will look at how technology and integration can make a measurable difference in American education. Since the CEO Forum began its work, the number of connected schools has jumped dramatically, from 35 percent to, I am guessing, nearly 100 percent today.
The number of wired classrooms, per school, has also increased substantially, and now stands at 43 or more percent. Encouraging as this progress is, we found very few teachers who could integrate the new technology into their curriculum. They are not being adequately trained to do so, nor is the new generation of teachers.
One-third of our schools of education believe that they are ill-equipped to teach teachers to use technology effectively in the classroom. More than half of the Nation's schools consider technology training and education for teachers optional. Twenty-five states, the number may have changed since, but 25 states as of the time of my report, do not require a computer education for initial licensor.
Only two States, at the time of my report, North Carolina and Vermont, require teaching candidates to demonstrate that they can use technology. We also found the current spending on professional development is inadequate; a false precision, but we found about $5.65 per student, or 5 percent of overall school technology budgets in the last school year, compared to $88 and change for hardware, software, and connectivity.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We think professional development should claim approximately 30 percent of these budgets, mirroring our own level of such investment in the business world, and the Department of Education agrees. Given all of this, it is not surprising that just 20 percent of teachers felt, as you have heard in opening remarks from many of you, 20 percent of teachers felt they were well-prepared to integrate technology into classroom instruction.
This is not good enough. America's elementary and secondary schools are likely to hire two million teachers over the next decade. Those teachers simply must be able to apply the wonders of modern technology in service of their students. In addition, the roughly three million teachers already at work in our public schools must be trained to use technology in the classroom as well.
These teachers are responsible for equipping today's students for tomorrow's workforce. Sixty percent of the jobs available, at the beginning of the next Century, will require technology skills currently held by only 20 percent of the workforce. That is a wide gap. And it cannot be bridged without adequate professional development of America's current, as well as future teachers.
Why is all of this so important? Because the greater use of technology in education can, not only foster productive drill and practice, but can lead as well to higher order of thinking, more collaborative learning, and teamwork, greater use of information resources, and ultimately the customization of learning that will end forever the teacher's perineal imperative to teach to the middle.
With a base level of technology and connections now embedded in American schools, it is time to focus new attention, and energy, and resources on ensuring that tomorrow's and today's teachers are prepared to put technology to work in classrooms for the benefit of their students.
The CEO Forum on Education and Technology recommends the following:
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. Schools of education should prepare new teachers to integrate technology effectively into the curriculum. Accreditation standards, faculty training, licensor and certification, and funding priorities should all be reformed with this objective in mind.
The CEO Forum will soon publish a Teacher Preparation STAR Chart to help schools, colleges, and departments of education assess their level of technology readiness in preparing tomorrow's teachers. The chart should be ready shortly after the first of the year. And it will be made available to every school of education in America.
2. Current teachers and administrators should be proficient in integrating technology into curriculum. To accomplish this objective, continuing education and proficiency standards should be strengthened. Professional Development Programs should be updated. Technology access and technology funding should be increased.
3. Education policy makers and school administrators should create systems that reward the integration of technology into the curriculum. The means adjusting hiring standards, making teacher performance evaluations contingent on successful integration, rethinking student performance assessments to reflect the educational benefits of technology application.
4. And last, corporations and local businesses should work with the education community to help ensure that today's students will graduate with 21st Century workplace skills that we have all talked about already.
Among other things, and there are many, this means working with colleges of education, as we have done for years with business schools, to devise, and encourage, and help fund an effective real world curriculum that demonstrates the power of technology-enhanced teaching.
So, the bottom line is clear, to improve the way teachers teach, the way students learn, and the way students and schools perform, we need to improve technology, professional development throughout a teacher's career. The CEO Forum is committed to this work, and we are very grateful for this Committee's commitment and leadership in this field, as demonstrated by this important hearing today. Thank you.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The statement of Mr. Spoon follows:]
Insert offset folio 47-54 here 61081A.005
Chairwoman MORELLA. Thank you very much, Dr. Spoon.
I would now like to recognize Dr. Glowa, but I wanted to also acknowledge the fact that Mr. Smith from Texas is here with us. Mr. Capuano from Massachusetts has also joined us.
Dr. Glowa, from my Congressional District.
Dr. GLOWA. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Committee. I am the Director of Instructional Technology for Montgomery County Public Schools. Montgomery County has 189 schools with over 133,000 students. We are currently the 11th fastest growing school district in the Nation.
Five years ago, we began the Global Access Project, an initiative to bring technology and on-line resources into every classroom and office. Currently, 100 percent of our schools are networked to the Internet, and about 80 percent of our classrooms. We are continuing this initiative.
The initiative was built on a tripod consisting of training and support, hardware and software, and connectivity. As we have implemented the project, we have been collecting data on the effectiveness of its implementation. This data has provided us with feedback on what has worked, what we need to modify, and the impact of technology on teaching and learning.
Today, I am going to discuss the importance of staff development, in supporting the successful integration of technology in schools. If technology is to realize its powerful potential for improving education, it must be used for more than just automating the traditional methods and practices of teaching. That is the philosophy that we have adopted as we have been integrating technology into the school system.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For staff development to be effective, it must be ongoing, integrated with the school district, and individual school strategic plans, and instructional priorities, and offered collaboratively within a curricular context. In addition, instructional staff, which includes teachers, aids, librarians, and administrators, approach learning to use technology with different skill and comfort levels.
Taking these factors into account and designing staff development programs is essential. In an effective staff development program a variety of approaches are used. In Montgomery County, we use at least 17 different approaches in our Staff Development Programs.
They include coaching, modeling in the classroom, mentoring, student experts, large and small workshops, sharing and collaboration, on-line mentoring and collaboration, trainers of trainers, individualized support, demonstration classrooms, multi-media interactive training, on-line tutorials and courses, cable casting programs over our cable stations, training in the field, sending people to attend conferences and present at conferences, action research, teleconferencing, and just-in-time support. Unless there is a comprehensive Staff Development Program being able to change the teaching practices of teaching, of teachers, becomes a monumental task.
The knowledge and skills that instructional staff need to master extend far beyond learning how to use software programs. Staff must learn to use technology in an instructional context to support teaching and learning. Not only do teachers need to learn to use the equipment and software programs within the contents of the instructional program, they also need to learn how to incorporate a variety of teaching strategies, materials, and resources into their program.
They need to select appropriate teaching strategies and technologies based upon student outcomes. They need to change the way they assess student learning to include a wider range of assessment techniques, including ways to evaluate the use of technology itself. Managing, and scheduling, and instructional use of technology is also a new skill for many teachers.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Administrators not only need to learn to use equipment and the software relevant to their roles, but they also have to learn how to develop and communicate a vision of how technology can support student achievement and staff functioning.
They need to incorporate technology into their local School Improvement Plans. Unless technology is an integral part of a School Improvement Plan, it is considered an add-on, and therefore is not given the attention that it needs. Administrators need to model the use of technology and the role of an active learner.
They need to support staff in learning and using technology as a tool for instruction, as well as for productivity. It is difficult for individual schools to handle all of the aspects of staff development needed to integrate technology into instructional practices.
In the written testimony, I talked about some of the costs and difficulties associated with the integration of technology in classrooms. Primary to overcoming the barriers for schools, are issues related to planning and implementation of staff development.
Schools can provide the instructional context, the just-in-time support, the coaching, and the mentoring that are so essential. Schools are also ideally situated for developing communities of learners. However, based upon research studies and 5 years of experience with supporting the implementation of a County-wide Global Access Initiative, many, if not most, schools have significant problems in the following eight areas:
1. Examining their school achievement data, and developing a School Improvement Plan that incorporates the use of technology as an instructional tool to support student achievement.
2. Defining the skills that students need in developing a sequence of activities to build these skills using technology as a tool, always emphasizing that technology is the tool. It is not the means, it is not the end, but a means to an end.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. Defining skills that teachers need to successfully integrate technology into their instructional program based upon the School Improvement Plan.
4. Developing and implementing an appropriate long-range staff development plan based on a staff needs assessment.
5. Meeting the needs of adult learners who are scattered along a continuum of novice to expert in their knowledge of different software programs and their instructional applications.
Another area is having adequate lab facilities and staff who are experts in technology, instructional strategies, curriculum, and staff development. Having knowledge of and access to human, appropriate human material, and network resources, and having sufficient funds and time to support staff development, given the many demands on staff time.
Support for schools and school districts in developing and implementing comprehensive staff development plans would both benefit staff and students. Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Glowa follows:]
Insert offset folio 61-73 here 61081A.013
Chairwoman MORELLA. Very extensive and well-organized. Delighted you are here, Dr. Glowa. We are now very pleased to hear from Dr. Fallon.
Dr. FALLON. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, the East Hartford School District is an urban, suburban district with a variety of educational settings; nine elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, two magnet schools, one alternative high school, one transitional school, grades k–12, for high risk special education students, and an early childhood head start school.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The student population is 7,958 students. Our minority/majority enrollment is 59.3 percent, and 31.3 percent of all students receive free and reduced priced meals. Students with a non-English home language comprise 15.7 percent of our student body. Four hundred twenty computers are located in classroom settings in the elementary schools.
Seventy computers in laboratory settings at the middle school, and 175 computers in laboratory settings in the high school and alternative school, with some exceptions. Fifty PCs donated by local corporations, computers are purchased or leased new. Staff development for technology has emphasized the infusion of technology into the curriculum.
Basic application training, Microsoft Office, aims at giving teachers the ability to use technology in their daily instruction, and to enable students to use technology as a learning tool. All our schools have access to the Internet. Four work stations in every elementary classroom, grades 3 to 6, and multi-lab access in the middle and high schools. This level of Internet connection has been possible only through a State of Connecticut Infrastructure Grant, not obtained by many school districts, and a special State of Connecticut Economic Development Grant.
Students use the technology for basic research, both CD–ROM and the Internet, for writing exercises, for the creation of presentations, and we are beginning to look at the development of higher level thinking skills. Our district-wide strategic plan contains strategies for the further implementation of information technology into the curriculum.
We have six strategies within our Strategic Plan. Two of those strategies deal with technology. Five years ago, we did not have one strategy that dealt with technology. Funding remains a crucial problem, both for support staff and for technology purchase.
Our approach, up to this point, has been to install the most robust infrastructure we can afford, with the idea of it being able to handle future technology developments. Numerous workshops, funded through our own professional development monies and through outside professional development grants, have continued to be designed to help teachers integrate their teaching with the available technology.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have limited training in system maintenance to six individuals. As wide area networks and their operating systems have become more complex, we cannot rely upon classroom teachers to keep the hardware optional or operational. Major wiring and network configuration is contracted through outside services. The only federal support we presently receive is through a Technology Learning Challenge Grant.
Our purchasing investment decisions are shaped by such factors as ease of use, the kind of system support provided, and the type of grants available. Funding serves as a keystone to all decisions. Two computer laboratories we are presently bringing on-line in the middle and the high school are being setup by commercial vendors that place advertising on their browsers and collect student data.
We have been forced to work with this type of vendor because of our concern for providing our student population with equal access to information technology. Another key component of this decision is the provisions these firms provide for maintenance and repair.
Overhead costs are the bottom 2/3 of the iceberg in implementing computer technology in the schools. The Internet access we provide our students is crucial to their remaining competitive, both in the marketplace and in furthering their education. Most of our families do not have Internet access in their homes. Even telephone service can be very sporadic.
Not to provide these students with training in the use of information technology will lead to a further widening of the racial, social, and economic divide that threatens the very essence or existence of our democracy. By earmarking federal monies to focus specifically on the provision of information tech in all schools, Congress is addressing a major fault line in American society.
New technologies that facilitate the sharing of teaching units, and expertise among teachers in school districts over the Worldwide Web, promise a much more effective use of resources, than has been possible by isolated individual teachers acting alone. These new teaching tools are expensive, though more cost effective than present distant learning technologies.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The development of a critical mass of teaching expertise and experience in the use of information technology in the classroom will provide a reliable continuing source of funding and other kinds of federal support. Laws requiring a greater classroom presence of public utilities, such as cable companies, for example, could further leverage whatever monies the Federal Government cannot furnish. Progress of this nature will not be possible without effective federal legislation. Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Fallon follows:]
Insert offset folio 79-84 here 61081A.026
Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Chairwoman MORELLA. Thank you, Dr. Fallon.
You have all been terrific in your presentations. I am now going to recognize for the first round of questioning Chairman Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Well, let me start out with maybe what I consider tough questions. When should a school upgrade its computers? Do not give me—if you are going to use the word ''obsolete'' or something, define it.
Dr. FALLON. Our plan is that we now have pretty much somewhat in place what we wish to have, at least for the present. In terms of updating, there is no way that we can do it on a yearly basis, in terms of taking care of the changes that we have that are occurring. So, our plan very simply is this.
Every year, we allot 20 percent of the budget that goes toward technology, so we are looking at over 5 years changing our entire system and updating. And that is our plan. So, for example, we have figured roughly——
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. That is sort of the answer I wanted.
Dr. FALLON. Okay.
Mr. SMITH. You are saying roughly every 5 years. Some businesses and companies suggest that when they can improve their efficiency 25 percent, then they upgrade. Some companies decide when they can improve their efficiency 40 percent to try to keep down their cost. And so, I am just wondering in terms of the utilization within schools. Anybody else have any reaction to that?
Mr. STRAWN. Mr. Smith, I would just mention that having just sent a son off to college, who is badgering me for a very expensive computer, he makes the argument that if I can buy him the top of the line now, he thinks it will last him for 4 years. And my addition to——
Mr. SMITH. It will not.
Mr. STRAWN. Well, probably not. He will change his mind 2 years from now. But one rule of thumb is try to use a computer at least until the software you want to use will not run on it anymore. Advances in software often dictate when you cannot use an old piece of hardware.
Mr. SMITH. Well, I mean, that is certainly true. So, you use your old hardware. I mean, it is easy to, if you are going to make your decisions based simply on the new more efficient software, then my guess is you are going to be changing every 2 years or every 2.5 years.
A question that is sort of maybe on the periphery of the discussion of technology education, Mr. Spoon, do you think there is merit in students learning how to read technical journals? I will not even talk about writing technical journals, but reading a technical journal. Would you consider this part of technology skills?
Mr. SPOON. No.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. And so, is there—a broader question. Is it, would you think it is an appropriate part of our K–12 education to move in the direction of helping students be able to read and write technical journals?
Mr. SPOON. No. I—you have heard a phrase used in Dr. Glowa's remarks, ''tools.'' This is what the computers and the network can be. They can be seamless invisible tools for a higher purpose. That does not suggest that some people will have a great appetite for an interest in delving deeply into the possibilities and the capabilities technologically.
There is precious little time in the course of a K-12 education to be turning to trade school kinds of applications in skill development when these tools are available for learning reading, writing, mathematics, history, critical thinking.
Mr. SMITH. Yes. I am just a little nervous about if you go to your local auto mechanic and look at the journal that they are reading, and that they are trying to consume and evaluate, many of them right out of high school, then it seems to me that we have got to be very careful in the goals that we are trying to achieve as we develop these—as we utilize the additional technical tools that are available to us.
And how much traditionally, it seems to me, there has been a great push on the part of parents to say, do what you need to do so my kid can go to the next level up and graduate from a university. And I am just not sure. Mr. Fallon, what is you reaction?
Dr. FALLON. My reaction is the same in terms of technical journals. That is something that we specialize in probably in the junior year of high school, with a certain small segment of the population that is interested in pursuing something like that. But that really is not our goal.
Mr. SMITH. Yes. I am going to query that later in terms of just the need for more of our students, even in the university level, to be able to understand some of these technical manuals. It seems reasonable. Yes, Ms. Glowa.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. GLOWA. One of the things that we are really emphasizing with students is reading for information and being able to read in a variety of contexts. And being able to read whether you call them technical manuals, or being able to read scientific reports is a skill that is stressed across many content areas. There are also computer sciences classes that are very specifically designed for students who want to pursue the computer science area.
They are some of our most popular high school elective classes, and in fact are coming down into the middle school area, by popular demand. So, teaching it as an isolated skill, in terms of reading technical manuals, I am not——
Mr. SMITH. Yes. It is not an isolated skill.
Dr. GLOWA. Right.
Dr. SMITH. It takes a great deal of broad education.
Ms. GLOWA. But teaching it as one of the areas where what we are trying to do is teach students how to read a variety of information and be able to understand it and analyze it is essential.
Mr. SMITH. Let me finish up, Madam Chairman, if I might. Would the millions of dollars government spends in this area, have any studies been published in terms of the educational effectiveness of technology in the classroom? Either now or later, if you could furnish this.
Dr. GLOWA. The U.S. Department of Education had a conference this July that was taking a look at the research that has been published recently on the effectiveness of technology. One of the major studies that just came out, and you may know the authors. I have it memorized as one that was done in West Virginia, where West Virginia did a Statewide initiative and showed concrete results, in terms of basic skill students, basic skills development in elementary students.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another one was another Statewide initiative. And I believe it was Idaho. And they have some very concrete information on that. We have been looking at it for 5 years and have local school system data. That at this point, the U.S. State Department of Education is interested in obtaining.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Did you want to add to that, briefly, Mr. Spoon?
Mr. SPOON. I wanted to add to that.
Chairwoman MORELLA. I think he wanted to add.
Mr. SPOON. Only briefly because it comes from experience outside the classroom. It comes from experience outside the classroom. Please understand that my life experience, other than being an expert parent, perhaps in trying to help my child's education, really is in the business sphere. So, we have to be careful about attributing expertise that our Forum has in the report to my personal experience in teaching. I have not taught in classrooms.
Anyway, we have an education business at the Washington Business at the Washington Post Company called Kaplan Education Centers. And we teach thousands of students every year, over 100,000 students, both in the college, graduate school, and the K–8 level. And we use extensively technology support customization software, networks.
It is clear to us and it is clear to our clientele that it is highly efficient and highly leveraged learning for their purposes, be it advanced chemistry for medical school entry, or preparing for the SAT, or the law boards, or understanding what is required to be competent in the third grade, 6 month of reading. So, my personal experience in the business sphere is one that supports the notion that leveraged learning from computers is well-established.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairwoman MORELLA. Thank you.
I want to recognize now Congresswoman Johnson.
Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I am sitting here thinking that for my State of Texas, we have many jobs, and do not have the people with the proper background and education to fill them. And could very well lose some of those jobs because of it. My concern is not so much whether the students will learn, if they have access to the technology.
My concern is whether or not there should be some new standards set for, in higher education curricula to assist teachers and integrating technology into all of the courses. We find not only very large shortage of teachers, but also a large number of teachers that do not have these skills. And I do not even know where we go to begin to fill this gap.
Could you comment on that?
Mr. STRAWN. Ms. Johnson, a recent publication of the National Research Council, I think, may help us pursue this important matter. It is called Fluency in Information Technology or ''fitness'' to use their terminology. It proposes—it is a current look at what appears to be the most important things to learn at the undergraduate level in information technology to assist young students obtain the right skills.
We hope to work with them and see if we can pursue these matters in the coming time to help spread the word on just how we enlighten our curriculums at the undergraduate level.
Mr. SPOON. I have seen it in schools anecdotally, and more systematically in business. That the power of identifying early champions and creating clearinghouses for best practices through kind of an intense inspirational circle where people understand the benefit of what somebody else has discovered, and follow it, and improve on it.
And efforts to create clearing houses, inspired clearinghouses, and the sharing of best practices are consistent with comments you have heard here would be a way to go. But one of the things our report cited was the lack of time that teachers have. It is a very full-time job, in excess of 40 hours. Much of it, not most of it, but a large part of it spent at home dealing with classroom matters.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And then on top of that, we are expecting teachers to go out on their own initiative, and time, and perhaps expense to complete that cycle. There are funding issues. And there are resource allocation issues, in so far as teacher time that have to be faced. Otherwise, you know, it is just added to the stack of high priorities.
Dr. GLOWA. In terms of whether or not higher educational institutions should have technology as a core component to Teacher Preparation Programs, we are working in a collaborative partnership with the University of Maryland, Hopkins, Towson, and also Montgomery County Community College.
Each one of those universities is looking at their current Teacher Preparation Programs and how they are integrating technology into that. Many of them have classes similar to the classes I took when I was taking my teacher preparation stuff where you go and learn how to use the computer, or learn how to use an application.
What they are moving towards is, as you are actually teaching the science content classes and the math content classes, integrating the technology in those classes as they are being taught so that people learn how to use the technology within the content area. That will have the most impact on teachers knowing how to use technology to teach.
Dr. FALLON. The same situation is now occurring at the University of Connecticut. That just started 2 years ago, in terms of their teacher preparation courses are concerned. That they now are mandating that certain technology courses are a part of the curriculum. So, as these students come out into the workforce, they are somewhat computer literate.
That is somewhat unusual, I might add, in terms of Connecticut. The other universities in Connecticut do not have that component, which is quite interesting. The other thing that has just occurred in Connecticut, as of July 1, every 5 years we undergo renewal of our certification.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And we have to complete a total of 18 Continuing Education Units per year or a total of 90 over 5 years. If you do not complete those, then certainly you will not be renewed for certification. The State of Connecticut has just mandated that 15 hours for all teachers required, in terms of technology courses that have to be taken. That is for our teaching staff that presently exist.
That really gives us the clout that we need, in terms of staff development, in the direction that we are going. So, that is very productive for us.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Actually, piggy-backing on the questions that have been asked, we all know that technology alone is not going to improve the performance in schools. That the key really are the teachers. And the CEO Forum on Education and Technology has made a number of recommendations in this area.
One calls for changing national accreditation standards for schools of education, to require that those schools prepare new teachers and administrators to integrate technology in the classroom. The CEO Forum also recommends implementing new Teacher and Administrator Licensor and Certificate Programs to require proficiency in integrating technology in the curriculum. I wonder, Mr. Spoon, what kind of reaction have you been receiving from administrators and teachers to those recommendations? Are they supportive?
Mr. SPOON. They have been very supportive. It has been encouraging. I think there is, as well, a swell of self-assessed pressure to move up to the front of the class, as far as joining the leaders in matching that standard. But up against that is the absence of resources. And the lack of a systematic kind of accountability. It is easy to talk about effort, but it is more difficult to talk about achievement.
You know, setting feasible goals and being measured thereby. Things have moved positively over the past several years. I recall when my daughter's school was looking for an education technologist, how few schools of education actually had programs where qualified candidates could be found. That is growing.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But if I recall the data correctly within our report, roughly 1/3 of teachers of teaching, graduates of teaching colleges, are coming out of institutions that, you know, having yet signed onto national voluntary accreditation standards for adequacy and competency in technology training. It is disturbing.
That number might be 25 percent now, but that is hundreds of thousands of teachers over time. I, last week, overhear a conversation between a parent and a very able young woman who is in college choosing majors. And she had elected to go on to designate teaching.
The conversation turned, I was not a part of it, to are you going to take any courses in computer technology and skills? And she said, no. I am choosing teaching because I do not have to take those kinds of courses.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Yes. That is the kind of attitude that can occur. I mean, English majors think they do not need to use the Internet. Yet, I have seen some of the best teaching of poetry done with technology in the classrooms. Of course, I grew up and I suppose this would happen with many of your teachers that you currently have, not so much the new ones when ''log-on'' meant throwing a log on the fire. And a ''curser'' did not use the right language.
And it was only 8 years ago when that there were like 50 sites on the Internet. Now, there are like 100,000 per day, people who, you know, get involved with the Worldwide Web, and 100 million new users every year. It is just staggering as it begins to increase.
I did not know whether the rest of you wanted to comment on that at all. Yes, Dr. Fallon.
Dr. FALLON. This year in East Hartford, and I am quite sure you have already done this, but in East Hartford by November 1st, every certified staff member must register on their computer, or on the computers that we have, data in terms of their background. And in addition to that, take an assessment in terms of technology.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And what we will be doing, and this, now, the reason we are able to do this is because we have the help of United Technologies Corporation. And they have assisted us, East Hartford. That is why we are where we are today. And so what is going to be happening is that we then will categorize every certified staff member in terms of technology.
There will be three levels. After that, we then, with the cooperation of United Technologies, have setup a number of courses that our staff will take. So, based on your level, basic meaning you just started off, there will be certain courses that you will take. And we can monitor everything. That also will be a part of the CEU package that I alluded to before.
So, within 3 to 4 years, we are going to have an entire staff that will be, I think, at least right in the middle in terms of technology. The other thing that I say to our staff is there is no choice anymore. There is no choice. I mean, it is here. It is something that we deal with on a daily basis. And it is our responsibility to take these courses and to be computer literate. And that is the direction that we are going.
Chairwoman MORELLA. You are pretty unique. Is Connecticut pretty unique in the Country for doing that?
Dr. FALLON. With all due respect, and I hope not too many people back home are watching this, no. No, Connecticut is not, and that is a major concern in terms of the government, in terms of Connecticut, et cetera. Ironically, we are not one of the leaders in terms of technology. But there are initiatives being established.
And certainly Congressman Larson has been involved historically in Connecticut to begin moving in that particular direction. But ironically, we are not one of the leaders in terms of technology.
Chairwoman MORELLA. You mentioned United Technologies. Dr. Glowa, you know, we have the I–270 corridor. I also know that, I see from the papers you have submitted that you have received some grants, the school system has, to do some collaborative work with some of the business community. And I know looking at the CEO members, you have got a lot of heavy hitters on that list too.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I know that the National Science Foundation would be aware of this too. Are you working, are you getting cooperation from these corporations on the I–270 corridor? Do we need to do something more with getting them involved? How is it working out?
Dr. GLOWA. There are advantages and disadvantages to being a very large school district. One of the disadvantages is working with some of the industries because the fear of showing favoritism toward certain schools. So, we do not get as much of their support from the 270 corridor as we would like to get. We do get support, but not as much as we would like to get.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Why could you not assign them? I mean, you know, work something out like that. Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Spoon about, I am sure the CEO Forum has looked into what more can be done for partnerships?
Mr. SPOON. With all of the resources our membership in similarly situated companies have, that by itself does not cover the extent of the problem. It does not fully address the digital divide issues. We all, I believe, are trying to put our hearts in the right place, and the significant portions of our community budgets in the right place. It does not reach the full extent of it. So, yes, we have another division of our Company that is a cable company.
Every school we go by, we drop a cable line in there, not just for video, but it will be for high speed Internet. And the cable industry is working on that, as our other conduits. I am sure the phone companies have similar offerings to make. The issue though is not hardware and connectivity in our view alone.
The metaphor that I used in talking about this report about 6 months ago was, increasingly we have put the food stuffs, and the condiments, and the pots and pans on the shelves, in the refrigerator, and in the kitchen. Now, it is time to teach ourselves how to become cooks of savory meals.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ingredients are being assembled. And it comes back to the teachers, their competence, their adoption, their enthusiasm, and their excitement. And as I develop the case for our systematic overarching kind of role where, again, I defer to you clearly on what the federal role can be.
Facilitating, stimulating, extensive awareness of where the cutting edge is, creating in a positive way professional peer pressure so that the school system in some other corner of Connecticut looks longingly at what Mr. Fallon is doing and saying, what about us? And the parents in that school district are aware of where the State ranks in a technology readiness self-assessment like the STAR chart represented, you know.
The data behind that represents 80,000 schools filling out questionnaires and updating the data base. That data is nullable and schools are categorizable. And, yes, we all have concerns about issuing lists and being rank ordered. But when it comes to our kids, let nothing stand in the way.
Urging awareness of standing of teachers in their preparation, what percent of our in-service faculty has been through professional development in connection with technology integration in the last 3 years? I will ask that question at the next school board meeting, you know.
It would be interesting to know if that became a standardized kind of reporting fact, how school districts stood. And, you know, one could ask what fraction of teachers coming in for licensor in the 25 states that do not require computer education have determined that, you know, x or y percent of those matriculating, not matriculating, but those enrolling teachers have those skills, or should it just be a requirement? So, there is a horty-tory role for you to play here, in addition to a funding role.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Actually, we are moving in that direction. And I think with our reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary School Act, this is good opportunity we have to do some of those things. My time has elapsed for the first round. I did not know Mr. Strawn, I did not mean to eliminate, leave you out if you—okay, well, we will get to you the next time.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And now I am pleased to recognize Mr. Larson.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. I thank the panelists for their very informative remarks. Let me first, by way of comment, my wife is always quick to remind me that with respect to legislation and with respect to technology, no piece of legislation or technology ever tucks a child in at night, or reads to them, or gives them the kind of nurturing. That there is just simply no substitute for a caring adult.
Let me also add, by way of comment, especially in lieu of the legislation that has been submitted by both, Ms. Morella, Ms. Stabenow, and myself, along the lines of teacher training. That I concur wholeheartedly with Mr. Spoon about the importance of teaching.
Again, referring back to that Department of Commerce report and hearing that was held. There is a need for 350,000 people currently to be employed in the high technology system. I believe it is the business community that ultimately is going to drive this issue.
And in as much as there is going to be a need for some 2 million more teachers over the next 10 years, the component parts that Ms. Morella and others have discussed with respect to our university systems turning out competent, qualified teachers is extraordinarily important. The efforts that the East Hartford School System, in conjunction with United Technologies, demonstrate what partnership, how partnerships can work when the private sector works hand-in-glove, so to speak, with the academic sector in helping to assist and develop that teacher training component.
I have submitted legislation that looks at providing tax credits for teachers who purchase lap top computers and other technology. And I know other members have focused on this concept, as well as the tuition tax credits, to go back and get the kind of education that you need.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And also looking at corporate America, in terms of not wanting to thwart any efforts that are currently going on altruistically in terms of donating time, and hours, and buddying up with school systems, but also providing a tax incentive there for businesses to seek and make sure that they are assisting creating that workforce of the 21st Century that we so vitally need.
But I come to, though I concur with Mr. Spoon about the importance of having that hands-on, there can be no high tech without the high touch of a professionally trained teacher within the context of a classroom. There can be no furtherance of education if we do not use, as you point out, tools to be more diagnostic in our approach, to be more prescriptive with our remedies, and ultimately to be in a position that technology will provide us, as Ms. Morella often says, to be able to individualize instruction.
Now, you are Dr. Fallon or you are Dr. Glowa. And you are in a school system. And you are talking about what is the best means of us getting that technology into the classroom in a universal sense, recognizing that what is right for Hartford may not be right for Hebron, or what is right for Connecticut may not be right for California?
Is it broad-band width? Is it radio wave? Is it infrared? Is it satellite connections? The question that I am seeking to have our experts and the people at NSF grapple with and answer in the business community is, how do we in a most cost effective means provide our superintendents of schools, our school systems, with the infrastructure that they are going to need to carry this out?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And my concern here is two-fold. One, I think that we are being leap-frogged with our own technology by other nations. That is number one. And number two, a point that Dr. Fallon makes about maintenance. How can any superintendent of schools plan today initiating no matter how robust, as Dr. Fallon points out, a system that could be obsolete under Morris Law in 6 to 12 months?
And with, if you will follow Morris Law to conclusion, and at the rate of which technology is changing, without federal intervention, without the collective academic, business, and governmental sectors coming together, I do not see how school systems continue to make these kinds of decisions without bankrupting themselves locally, or getting turned away when they go to bonding referendums.
What would be your thoughts on that? I will start with Dr. Strawn and work down.
Dr. STRAWN. Well, I agree with what you have said. And the need to understand the technology, to find out what is the most effective and efficient way to utilize means of bringing the technology into the classroom is extremely important, since it involves major amounts of dollars and cents. I might parenthetically add, I have to disagree with what Mr. Spoon said about teachers not having time.
My observation is most public school teachers have at least 6 hours a day that they can learn this stuff, between midnight and 6:00 a.m. I would also mention that we are doing what we can at the NSF to help obsolete any studies that we might make about the efficiencies of information technology right now by seeing what we can do to make it 100 times faster, 100 times cheaper, and 100 times easier to use.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In so far as the researchers we support are successful in those three important dimensions. We will simply put more emphasis on those 6 hours that public school teachers have between midnight and 6:00 a.m. to learn even more available and effective technologies.
Mr. SPOON. You ask a very difficult and important question. What do you attack first? Infrastructure, training, and if you apply the shrinking cycle time of new chapters of technology, with the more constant cycle time of people coming up to speed in learning new talents and skills. We could be through three generations of technology before we are a generation of teachers comfortable in using what has since passed.
I think our view is getting faculty, addressing just instructional faculty for the moment, not maintenance because that is a significant issue as well, comfortable with the possibilities, and the dimension of, and the capabilities, and the evolutionary possibilities of technology will make them better able to cope with future cycle changes.
You have to cut into that circle sooner than later. Better to skip a cycle of technology and to have more adoption and utilization of existing platforms that are very powerful and under-utilized, than to get invested in the hardware and the infrastructure without having addressed making faculty comfortable in knowing how to drive the latest car with the latest dashboard.
Because the fact is when you buy that latest car, you are able to figure out eventually how to use the dashboard because you have seen one of those before. But if you do not have any idea which is the front of the car and what the steering wheel is, it is intimidating, whether it is an old technology model or a new one.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, the advocacy here is let us accelerate adoption and comfort at all levels of the system, going back to the teachers' colleges, going back to licensor on entry, going back to commitments on professional training ongoing, and giving support for best practices and clearing houses so that the champions, you know, can make not a 3-year adoption phase to 50 percent of the faculty, but can do it in the course of 18 months. There are even examples in our report of where, there are two examples that are worth noting.
One is a system in the Midwest that is using the kids to teach the teachers because they are ahead of the line and recognizing the kids as a resource. The other is a pyramid scheme. We know we do not like those phrases, but the program is called Tag Team Approach, where every teacher has an obligation to find yet another one, and pass along what they just learned from the last one, and what they could add to it.
It is a way of mushrooming. I am not answering the difficult question that you raised about getting up to speed to support all of this, but I think cutting into the hardware and technology cycle is an appropriate way to get established to handle the change that lies ahead.
Chairwoman MORELLA. We will have another round, Mr. Larson. I wanted to recognize the fact that Mr. Wu is here from Oregon, and on this side of the aisle, Mr. Ehlers. Incidently, today is World Standards Day. I also wanted to, people get hazy when they think of standards, but they are critically important. And this Subcommittee has dealt with it a great deal. But I also wanted to point out that Mr. Ehlers this morning is recognized by the Science Coalition for his work in science.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I also have to comment that it is perfectly appropriate for you to Chair this Committee on Standards Day, since you set a very high standard for all of us. So, we will try to follow that. I am hesitant to ask any questions because I was at other meetings and I missed the testimony.
But being a Title X-professor, I cannot resist making a few comments. Just based on what I have heard during the short time here, it fits into the format of what I think is the problem. And that is finding, training, and keeping good teachers. And a very important part of that is not just recruiting new ones, and training, and keeping them, but also good professional development programs.
And that is one reason I have been fighting very hard and I have been joined at that by Mr. Wu in the Education Committee, fighting hard to keep the Eisenhower Professional Development Program and keep it going. I would also very much like to see in the future, NSF expanding the summer institutes, which it has had for many years.
And which, if I am not mistaken, have been reduced from the hey day of the 1970s. And I think that is a very effective means of keeping the teachers current with respect to using technology in the classroom. So, I hope my personal feeling, as apparent from that, the emphasis has to be on the teacher.
Mr. Larson has observed the importance of the teacher, and the care of the child, and the interaction of the child. But also, we have to recognize our responsibility. And states have to recognize their responsibility. And especially local school systems have to recognize their responsibility to their teachers in terms of professional training, professional development to keep up with the field.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just to give a parallel, we deal every summer with this, or every year, with this problem of extending or expanding H1B Visas for, so that we can bring in engineers and technical people from other countries. At the same time, we have a substantial engineer work for us which is unemployed or under-employed, mostly above the age of 55.
Is it impossible for us to train those teachers to handle the modern day workplace? Is it impossible for them to learn that? I do not know the answer, but I suspect that it might be more beneficial if we have programs to get them trained, rather than just expanding the number of H1B Visas. And the same thing with teachers.
We tend to give up too readily, I think, on teachers who simply say, oh, I cannot do that, when in fact what they need is 4 weeks to be shown that not only can they do it, but they can do it far better than they or anyone else thought. So, I hope we keep that in mind. If anyone wants to respond briefly, that is fine, but I am just delivering my usual sermon. Any comments?
[No response.]
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman MORELLA. I think that means total agreement, I mean as someone who has been a professor.
Mr. EHLERS. Yes. Let the record show that there heads were nodding up and down. Thank you.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairwoman MORELLA. Exactly. Thank you.
It is my pleasure now to recognize Ms. Woolsey from California who has been very patient listening.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
It appears to me that our challenges are great and deep when it comes to bringing technology to the classroom. I mean, not only modern equipment, modern software, we are talking about equipment and software that, like a piece of fruit, rots. And as soon as we get it, it is getting old.
But I see our challenge also is teaching our staff so that they can use the technology to teach, our administrators so they can use technology to manage, our students so they can use technology to learn to create, to research, and also to communicate.
But there is something that we have not been talking about. And that is, and I will get to my question. And my question is should we not be bringing technology to the classroom so that our students can troubleshoot and repair the systems? They can build printed circuit boards, even simple ones. Possibly, they can design software/hardware programs so that when they leave high school, get ready for college, or to go into the workforce, they actually understand technology from many different angles.
Just a few years ago, there was a survey on the jobs that paid a good liveable wage that were not being filled in this Country, that were not college jobs. One of them is a mechanic. Open the hood of a car, you have to know electronics in order to be a mechanic these days.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, will you talk to the possibility of expanding beyond using technology in order, you know, versus understanding technology? Let us start down here with Dr. Fallon.
Dr. FALLON. One of the comments I would make immediately is we have an alternative high school, which is Synergy. It is grade 9 through 12, for those students who have difficulty in a large high school. Three of those students, when they graduated last year, they now have their own technology company.
Ms. WOOLSEY. There you go.
Mr. FALLON. And they, I might add, not that I make a tremendous amount of money, but each of them at the age of 19 is making considerably more money than I will ever think of making. They were very involved at Synergy, in terms of the maintenance of the equipment, et cetera.
Believe it or not, they learned all of that from a custodian that we have at Synergy who is a technology wiz. And so things like that are happening. There are a couple of other districts that have a number of students, and they teach them around the freshman and sophomore years. And they serve in terms of the maintenance.
The problem we have in East Hartford is there is a point at which we have probably five or six people that can deal with the maintenance. But when we start getting more sophisticated, that is where we are fortunate. We bring the people from, I keep mentioning UTC, but they have been fabulous. We bring their experts in, and they pretty much recommend things to us.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, that is the advantage you have with the corporations and their involvement. I might also point out very quickly, we are very involved with the corporate world because we have the School-Business Partnership. And we have everyone that has anything to do with East Hartford involved with us. That is a tremendous assistance for our district.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Create partnership.
Dr. FALLON. I just wanted to say that. Thank you.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Absolutely.
Ms. JOHNSON. Would the gentle lady yield for just one moment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Sure.
Ms. JOHNSON. Have you asked if someone would comment on the compensation for teachers who are well-qualified in the technology?
Ms. WOOLSEY. No, I did not. No, I did not. No. I am asking about—we know that is important. I was going beyond that to this fourth piece. But you can ask, if you would like, on my time.
Ms. JOHNSON. Well, you mentioned that they are making more than you. And I think when teachers graduate, well-skilled from college, they usually will go where the job is going to be the most lucrative. And I think we are losing a lot of prepared people to the private industry right away because they can start making more than a seasoned teacher in that industry. And are we doing anything to try to see how we can level this?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, if the gentle woman will lead—maybe we—could they answer that on the second round of questions? I really want to know what they think about bring youth, having them build in program.
Dr. GLOWA. We have been approaching it in two different ways. One is a formalized way through course work. We have computer science classes that not only deal with programming in C-plus-plus, but they also deal with rebuilding computers, building computer networks. One of our partnerships is with Cisco. So, that we actually teach Cisco classes.
People will come out as certified Cisco. We are exploring the same thing with AAA certification and have Microsoft approaching us for the same kind of thing. So that when students graduate from high school, they graduate with those certifications.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Because I am going to run out of time, and you are answering my questions, and I am feeling good about what you are doing. I would like to ask the two gentlemen, what do you think about bringing—we are talking about teachers not liking technology. Guess what? Most elementary teachers and most teachers in general are female. How are we going to break this circle, okay?
Mr. STRAWN. Well, I strongly support what I believe you said earlier about starting early in the pipeline. If we start at college or even high school, we have probably missed the boat already.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes.
Mr. STRAWN. We need to get the grade school girls enthusiastic, get them going, as I believe was said, or staying in the track of information technology, mathematical skills, quantitative skills. We need to find computer games that are not boring to little girls so that they will be brought in.
Ms. WOOLSEY. There you go.
Mr. STRAWN. That probably emphasize language and other types of things which girls have a natural advantage in over most boys. And I think the Web offers a good chance of that, since there are many language-related skills and artistic activities which also girls have very, very strong traditions of strength in. I think we can do it, if we start early enough.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you.
Mr. SPOON. I do not have a great deal to add to the fine comments that were made. I would just reinforce the fact that the Web is offering a range of choice to engage students of all backgrounds, genders, interests in ways that had not been previously available in the box at the store where the software was wrapped. I am not saying that packaged software is not appealing and powerful, but the Web just multiplies the breadth of interesting possibilities.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, in the past, packaged software has been war games.
Mr. SPOON. We know.
Ms. WOOLSEY. And killing games. That does not appeal to the majority of girls.
Mr. SPOON. Right.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. I have used up my time. I did not mean to cut you off. You were making me feel so good and I knew I was not going to get the other part of my question in. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman MORELLA. That means we are going to be voting. We have 15 minutes before we vote. But you know, apropos of what has been stated, I talked to some of the teachers in Montgomery County Schools. And, you know, I said, what is it that you need? Obviously you know some of the answers. But one of the points that was brought out is that when we have problems with our computers, we have nobody on hand to repair them.
We have to call a company. We have to wait for them to come out. If we could just have some internal mechanism where somebody knows how to repair it right, who is right there. Dr. Glowa, have you heard that or do we have something that addresses that concern?
Dr. GLOWA. It is the same point that Dr. Fallon was talking about, in terms of technological support for computers. We have, at the secondary level, a User Support Specialist in every school, which is a person——
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairwoman MORELLA. You have somebody in every school?
Dr. GLOWA. At the secondary level, we have a User Support Specialist in every school. At the elementary, as we are building out the global access, we are trying to build that support in. But it is one User Support Specialist for every five schools. So, building in that, what we call a part of our infrastructure, to support the equipment in the buildings is absolutely essential, and it is a great frustration.
Chairwoman MORELLA. I am going to recognize Mr. Wu for the last questioning because when we go over to vote, we will have a series of votes. So, we will adjourn the joint Subcommittees. And we would like to ask you, if we could, also submit some questions to you, if members have questions for you to respond.
Chairwoman MORELLA. We also open it up to you to give us any bottom line comments you may have.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Mr. Wu, you have been very patient. I would very much like to recognize you.
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Dr. Strawn, as you alluded to, school teachers have all of the time in the world from midnight until 6:00 a.m. to bone-up on technology. It has been found in the private sector that just grabbing at some numbers, that it cost $5,000 to put a computer, and software, and the wiring on a desk. It may cost $35,000 to get folks adequately trained-up and really get the full benefit from that technology.
It is my impression that the same phenomenon occurs in the classroom for teachers. H.R. 2417, the Education Technology Extension Act, would establish an extension service to provide assistance to K–12 teachers and schools to integrate their existing educational technologies into their curriculum, as well as providing advice on new education technologies.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is modeled on the successful Agricultural Extension Programs, and the successful Manufacturing Extension Programs to help with manufacturing technologies. I might add that the proposed Education Technology Extension Program is voluntary. A school district would participate or not, depending on their perceived needs. I would like the panel to have a chance to comment on this proposed program, before we have to dash off and vote.
Mr. STRAWN. I am not only a believer in that idea, I am also a former practitioner in my previous life at Research University. I attempted to put together, and did put together, and operated a facility much like that to help assist public education in our State. So, I have seen it work. I think it can work, and NSF would be happy to work with you to pursue that interesting and important idea.
Mr. SPOON. The idea has a lot of appeal to me. I would urge that there be an element of mobility built into it, given the distances of schools strewn about districts and states, and that staffing in those kinds of clearing houses is plugged into classroom experience directly, carrying ideas from place-to-place, experience from place-to-place with the credibility of having been in the classroom, as opposed to being an administrative help desk at a distance, you know, offering opinions from on high.
Dr. GLOWA. Having that kind of support for school districts that do not have an internal capacity would be wonderful, I would have to echo. One of the things we have not talked about here is what needs to happen in the curriculum to support technology. And that is absolutely core.
If your curriculum documents and assessments do not support the use of technology, teaching people to use what is not part of the curriculum is not beneficial. So, any kind of advisory group needs to keep that in mind and have that experience.
Dr. FALLON. I need to, or I do not need to, but I certainly would concur in terms of the comments just made by my colleague, to the right, in terms of the entire issue of curriculum. If we are not integrating technology in the curriculum, et cetera, then we are not succeeding in doing what we should be doing. That is just the beginning, in terms of now.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are not there yet, very honestly. I think it is going to be a couple of years before. The other issue that we have, in terms of curriculum, I just share this with you, is our teachers are beginning more and more to use the Internet, in terms of their lesson plans, et cetera.
That, as we all know, is additional time to their very busy schedule. And you have heard from all of us here on this particular panel, that time is probably one of the most important things, as it is for everyone in every particular position that they have.
Mr. Wu. And on that note, I would like to thank the panelists for their time, and yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Wu, and I want to thank them also. It is interesting our last note on the curriculum, which I would think I would like to explore at some other point. Thank you very much for what you have added to the deliberation of these two Subcommittees. I thank you. We are going to adjourn the joint hearing.
I also want to comment on staff, since they are so important. Terry Fish has been great with the Technology Subcommittee; Mike Quear, with the Technology Subcommittee on the Minority side; Sandy Zimmet, Mark Harrington on Basic Research. And thank you all very much. Adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55, the joint hearing was adjourned.]
Insert offset folio 123-159/400 here 61081A.032