My October 16 oral testimony is provided below and video archived (at 02:02:40):

On behalf of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) and our 500 high-tech companies, thank you for inviting me today. I am Mark Schneiderman, SIIA’s senior director of education policy.

SIIA agrees with the Commission that, “Future generations of students cannot compete unless we dramatically reform our education system.”

Our industrial-age education practices are largely unchanged over a century or more:
- Too many students are disengaged, not due to lack of technology, but from undifferentiated resources, rote one-to-many instruction, and lack of attention to 21st century skills.
- Time and place are constants, but learning is variable.

Instead, our education system must be fundamentally reengineered from a mass production, teaching model to a student-centered, personalized learning model to address the dramatic change in student daily lives, diversity and expectations.

The mandate is not for marginal change, but for: redesign to free learning from the physical limitations of time, place and paper; and instead customize instructional resources, strategies, and schedules to dynamically address each student’s unique abilities, interests and needs.

The redesign of education can take place without technology and digital learning, but not at scale.  Technology is a teaching force multiplier and a learning accelerator.

This doesn’t mean computers replace teachers, or that all learning takes place online.

It does mean that we use the technology:
1. to collect and analyze extensive student learning data to a degree not otherwise possible;
2. to provide a differentiation of interactive, multimedia teaching and learning resources and student creativity and collaboration tools not possible from one teacher, book or classroom; and
3. to free teacher time from rote and administrative activities to redirect to more value-added instruction.

The result is a more effective teacher, a more highly engaged and better performing learner, and a more productive system.

SIIA’s 2012 Vision K-20 Survey of 1,600 educators found that interest in digital learning is high at about 75%, but only about 25% rate actual technology access and use as high by their peers and institutions.

Here are 10 SIIA recommendations to the Commission and state:

1. Eliminate the Carnegie unit (credit for seat time) as the measure of learning and replace it with a competency-based model that provides credit, progression and graduation based upon demonstrated mastery and performance.

2. Eliminate fixed, agrarian-age definitions of the hours of the school day and the days of the school year and instead provide flexibility for 24/7/365 learning as needed for student mastery.

3. Ensure all teachers have access to a minimum slate of digital tools and supports provided to other professionals, including instructional technology coaches and virtual peer learning networks.

4. Ensure all educators have the skills needed to personalize learning and leverage technology, including by updating the curriculum of teachers colleges as well as teacher licensure and certification requirements.

5. Encourage and support a shift from print-only curriculum to instead provide students with anytime, everywhere access to interactive digital content and online learning.

6. Create a statewide online learning authority for approval and oversight of virtual learning providers to New York students and schools, and loosen arbitrary limits.

7. Invest to ensure equity of technology and digital learning access to change the education cost-curve and provide opportunity to learn, while providing increased local flexibility in the use of state grant funds to meet unique local needs.

8. Set minimum expectations for school/teacher electronic communication with parents and families and support home access to student performance data, assignments and curriculum.

9. Support more flexible higher education policies that end seat-time requirements, allow students to demonstrate prior learning and complete course modules that fit their learning gaps, and receive student aid for study toward skills certifications valued in the job market.

10. Finally, recognize the role of the private sector, which invests hundreds of millions of dollars each year to develop and deliver educational technologies and digital learning. Support public-private research partnerships, and reform the RFP process to enable the private sector to share their expertise, vision and innovative business models.

Our nation’s continued success will require that our educational system adopt modern methods and means to remain not effective and relevant in the 21st century.

On behalf of SIIA and our member high-tech companies, I look forward to working with the Commission to further identify and advance a reform plan for New York education.

Mark Schneiderman is Senior Director of Education Policy at SIIA.

On a recent Alliance for Excellent Education  webinar, SBAC and PARCC leaders provided a good overview of their tasks, deliverables and timelines. Both will pilot their computer-based assessments in the 2013-2014 school year and fully implement in 2014-2015.

SBAC and PARCC are focused on the challenge of testing college and career readiness as defined by CCSS.  SBAC’s goal is to have their high school assessment qualify students for entry level, credit bearing coursework in college or university.  SBAC is working in collaboration with 175 public and 13 private higher education systems to ensure their assessments meet the rigor required by these institutions.

PARCC has established a 5 point assessment scoring scale to address college and career readiness. Students who score a level 4 or 5 will be exempt from college placement tests and will be able to immediately begin credit bearing coursework. A detailed description of the 5 levels can be found on slide 8 of the PARCC presentation.

SBAC and PARC leaders and states acknowledge that collaboration with Higher Education is key in developing accurate and constructive examinations for the common core curriculum, and securing their buy in for placement.

SBAC is releasing new samples on October 9^th that give a better idea of the upcoming assessments.  To learn more about the samples and the implications for curriculum publishers and technology developers, SIIA members are encourage to attend SIIA’s October 11 webinar  that will help companies prepare for the assessment future.

Lindsay Harman is Market and Policy Analyst for the SIIA Education Division.

As background, SIMRA members administer the process used in 20+ states for instructional materials adoption, including identifying curriculum and technical requirements, soliciting publisher submissions, managing the peer review criteria and process, and coordinating the school procurement of approved materials (including with state funds to buy materials in states such as Texas, California and Florida). SIIA has advocated for years the need to update legacy rules that often create barriers to adoption of digital and online resources, and therefore limit local choice. While often this is simply about correcting for unintended consequences of legacy print rules, the issues are often far more complicated and reflect the still evolving views of instructional materials in the digital age. A leading example is dynamic content: State policies have traditionally required that content remain unchanged over the course of the six year adoption cycle, while digital resources can be seamlessly updated to remain current, accurate and meet evolving curriculum and pedagogical needs. Not surprisingly, SIIA has long advocated the flexibility for content to be updated and improved during the period of adoption.

Here are a few other trends identified at the SIMRA meeting:

• State budget shortages continue, causing many states to delay adoption cycles or reduce funding and leaving many teachers and students with increasingly outdated materials.
• Common Core State Standards are central to the process, but many state cycles are not aligned and adjustments are often not possible given the overall budget shortages.
• Fewer states are funding instructional materials. In the traditional model, states paid for instructional materials, providing them the leverage to determine which materials are to be used. That is often no longer the case.
• States are increasingly providing local control such that school districts can buy state approved materials, but can also buy any other instructional resources as well.
• Some states are asking whether they should continue to target only single, primary tools of instruction (i.e., textbooks or their digital equivalents), or whether they should also adopt, for example, digital learning objects and modules to support teachers in dynamically assembling resources to differentiate instruction and personalize learning.
• Some states are allowing the use of instructional materials funds for the purchase of the technology hardware needed to access those materials, though priority in general still for content.

States are working with SIIA, publishers and other stakeholders to address new challenges in reviewing adaptive instructional software and other robust digital content. For example, how do they review the full resource in cases where each student may be provided a unique, dynamic pathway through the content (compared to the relative ease of reviewing a more linear (e)textbook).

Also, as digital content shifts from supplemental to primary, format and platform are also increasingly of concern. State agencies, on behalf of local educators, seek to ensure the content they purchase is accessible from multiple platforms, as well as increasingly from their students’ personal/home devices. Some have floated the requirement that digital content must be accessible from every platform through a common format. While interoperability is a key goal, SIIA recommends for industry evolution of common standards and against regulatory mandates that could block use of many widely used technologies. SIIA instead encourages that states focus on ensuring publishers disclose system requirements to empower local decision makers with the information they need to determine what platforms and resources best meet their needs. This will enable technology innovation and competition, enhance education choice, and ultimately ensure the needs of teachers and students are best addressed.

SIIA encourages states to further lead the print to digital transition. In doing so, they must recognize that there is not yet any single best technology, curriculum or instructional practice solution for the use of digital content. Therefore, most importantly, SIIA encourages states to provide the investment, regulatory flexibility and technical assistance districts need to innovate as educators collectively and individually determine the best path forward.

Mark Schneiderman is Senior Director of Education Policy at SIIA.

According to the AASA report, 52% of all districts surveyed said that they would cut back on technology purchases if the sequestration goes into effect, while 38% would defer textbook purchases and 25% reduce course offerings. The highest cuts would be in personnel and pay for teachers, expectedly since they make up such a large segment of districts budgets.

When specifically looking at the option of deferring technology purchases, there was not much variation by district demographics such as socioeconomic status, community type (rural/urban/suburban), or student enrollment.  However, districts with a high number (70%+) of students in poverty (as measured by the free and reduced lunch program) responded more frequently that they would defer technology spending, with 64% in this category saying they would versus the 52% average across all districts. With 52% of all districts planning to defer technology purchases, the impact of Sequestration on education technology would be very noticeable. Especially since they come on top of previous zero funding of the NCLB II-D Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant program. Managing expectations and making a clear case for the cost savings potential of technology investments will be key for the sector if the Sequester continues. This provides both a challenge and opportunity in the upcoming budget climate.

Meanwhile, while a decision on sequestration could be made by Congress and the President in the coming weeks, more likely is that we will have to wait until after the election or even until the new Congress takes office in January around the time the cuts would go into effect.  One bright spot for education is that Deputy Secretary Miller announced that the sequestration cuts would not impact most education programs until the 2013-2014 school budget year beginning July 1, 2013.

Lindsay Harman is Market and Policy Analyst for the SIIA Education Division.

Most CIOs recognized that their school systems were not adequately meeting the needs of students, and that technology and digital learning must be a core part of the solution. Many talked of a shift from print to digital content. Some highlighted the blending of formal and informal learning. Others were focused on online learning. All seemed to agree with the need to redesign the system through technology.

I presented on the opportunity to shift from a mass-production to a mass-customization model of personalized learning, whereby technology enables teachers and schools to vary the curriculum and instruction – as well as the time, place and pace of learning – to better meet the unique needs of each student.

As the educational challenges and digital opportunities were discussed in Minneapolis last week, a few lessons emerged for managing the systems change to digital learning.

• PD, PD and more PD: The shift to digital is increasingly embraced, but most teachers and administrators struggle to internalize what it looks like and how to get there. They are hungry for examples, and for professional development to grow their skills and change their classroom practice. It is not possible to over-invest in good professional support.

• Vision: Technology and Curriculum/Instruction must create a common vision and operate as a team. Silos must be replaced by communication. IT investment should not drive educational decisions, but can empower them. IT investment must be tailored to specific teaching, learning and administrative processes and be linked to key performance goals and benchmarks.

• Focus: Along with a clear, coordinated vision should come a clear focus. It is critical to identify core learning goals, then the related changes in practice, and then the technologies and related support network necessary for effective implementation. Districts can do anything, but not everything. Technology is evolving quickly, but that should not mean a district shifts its plans simply to have the newest, shiniest technology.

• Leadership: Identifying a vision and maintaining focus requires a sustained leadership effort. Any significant initiative to transform practice and integrate technology will require a five-year business plan that includes the key learning goals, changes in practice, core technologies, teacher supports and benchmarks. This plan must be able to survive any turnover in administration, and perhaps only when it does extend beyond one superintendent will it have the staying power to create meaningful and lasting change. Community support and leadership is therefore critical to sustain initiatives over time.

• Balance Scale with Flexibility: As technology shifts from supplemental to core in teaching and learning, one-off programs will no longer be feasible if the result is isolated data or a requirement for point-to-point systems integration. The solution is an enterprise architecture that empowers teacher and school building decisions to adopt disparate digital resources to meet each of their student’s unique needs, while providing the district-wide platform and standards for their seamless integration into district data and other systems.

• Staged Deployment: Large technology enhancements, as well as changes to policy and practice, must be achieved in sequential phases. Large initiatives cannot and should not be executed in short order. A staged implementation allows piloting to test and refine plans, time for educator training and adoption, and the building out of technical capabilities over time in lieu of resource limitations. Innovation of practice, people, processes, and technologies must all operate simultaneously through a plan that allows for continuous evaluation, modification and improvement.

• Automate & Redesign: Gains can be had from shifting from paper to pixels, from physical to virtual, but most important is to accompany those with a redesign of practice that leverages the new technologies to make more efficient use of people, time and space. Students will be engaged and motivated in their learning not simply by digitizing and virtualizing, but instead by meeting them where they are, helping them understand where they need to go, and empowering them through technology and other tools to get there.

I do not expect these lessons are necessarily new for many. I do hope their reinforcement here will provide educators with a framework of principles to guide the exciting, challenging and necessary digital evolution of our education system. As you continue on the journey to make every day a Digital Learning Day for your students, be sure to pause along the way to ask: How well is my teaching and learning community applying these principles? And please share back any of your own guiding principles.

Note: This blog was first published on June 20, 2012 as a guest blog for the Alliance for Excellent Education’s Digital Learning Day, for which SIIA is a core partner.

Mark Schneiderman is Senior Director of Education Policy at SIIA.

Nearly two years ago, SIIA, in collaboration with ASCD and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), released Innovate to Educate: System [Re]Design for Personalized Learning, based upon the insights and recommendations of some 150 visionary education leaders convened at a 2010 Summit in Boston, Mass. The report provides a roadmap (and examples) to accelerate the redesign of the current, mass production education model to a student‐centered, customized learning model that will better engage, motivate, and prepare our students to be career and college ready. At that time, CCSSO Executive Director Gene Wilhoit noted: “The industrial‐age, assembly‐line educational model – based on fixed time, place, curriculum and pace – is insufficient in today’s society and knowledge‐based economy.”

The Summit attendees identified the following top essential elements and policy enablers of personalized learning:

Essential Elements
1. Flexible, Anytime, Everywhere Learning
2. Redefine Teacher Role and Expand “Teacher”
3. Project‐Based, Authentic Learning
4. Student‐Driven Learning Path
5. Mastery/Competency‐Based Progression/Pace

Policy Enablers
1. Redefine Use of Time (Carnegie Unit/Calendar)
2. Performance‐Based, Time‐Flexible Assessment
3. Equity in Access to Technology Infrastructure
4. Funding Models that Incentivize Completion
5. P‐20 Continuum & Non‐Age/Grade Band System

Ninety‐six percent of Summit attendees identified access to technology and e‐learning as a critical or significant
cross‐cutting platform to implement personalized learning and bring it to scale.

SIIA is pleased to see many of these ingredients included in the draft RTTT guidelines, including to:
- “create student centered learning environment(s) that are designed to: significantly improve teaching and learning through the personalization of strategies, tools, and supports for teachers and students”
- ”allow students significantly more freedom to study and advance at their own pace – both in and out of school”
- “create opportunities for students to identify and pursue areas of personal passion”
- “use collaborative, data-based strategies and 21st century tools”
- “deliver instruction and supports tailored to the needs and goals of each student”
- Provide “The opportunity for students to progress and earn credit based on demonstrated mastery, not the amount of time spent on a topic”
- Provide “The opportunity for students to demonstrate mastery of standards at multiple times and in multiple comparable ways.

SIIA had called for similar priorities in the original State RTTT, proposing then “that the RttT be leveraged to further incentivize a shift from a seat-rime, assembly-line education model to a more flexible, student-centered model built around individual learning needs and pace, anytime-anywhere learning, and differentiated instruction . . . that goes beyond the education reform infrastructure of the four assurances and emphasizes further the transformative reengineering of education service delivery models needed for our students to compete in this digital age and global knowledge economy.”

SIIA is pleased to see education leaders in Washington, DC recognizing the opportunities of a student-centered learning model, and for providing the resources and leadership to support and scale up dozens of locally designed programs that are empowering students and improving student engagement and outcomes. SIIA looks forward to reviewing the proposal details and providing comment on program improvements, as well as to working with education leaders to design and implement personalized learning that leverages technology.

Mark Schneiderman is Senior Director of Education Policy at SIIA.

The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) continues to support our education system’s efforts to reimagine and retool by personalizing learning and leveraging technology and digital learning. SIIA’s latest effort is the March 7-8 Ed Tech Government Forum, which will bring SIIA member technology and education entrepreneurs together with national, state and local education leaders to dialogue about the policies of the New Normal digital age in education. 

The following keynote speakers will share how at the local, state and college levels, they are removing outdated policy barriers and modernizing practices to better meet the individual needs of their students through digital learning:
- Jorea Marple, State Superintendent of Schools, West Virginia Department of Education
- Kaya Henderson, Chancellor, Washington DC Public Schools
- Jay Box, Chancellor, Kentucky Community and Technical College System

We will share examples of how agencies and institutions are Doing More w/Less through Technology and eLearning, featuring Michael Casserly (Council of Great City Schools), Amber Winkler (Thomas B. Fordham Institute) and Todd Wirt (Mooresville, NC Graded School District) which was recently featured in the NY Times. 

And senior officials from state agencies in TN, OH, KY, GA and UT will share their initiatives in digital and open content, online assessment, virtual learning and data systems to meet the goals of Race to the Top and other state policies and ensure students meet the Common Core State Standards.

Throughout, this members-only SIIA forum will support two-way dialogue, enabling technology and digital learning providers to understand the needs of our pK-20 education system, while also providing learning opportunity for education leaders to understand the vision and innovative learning technologies coming from the private sector.

SIIA members not yet plannign to attend, please review the full agenda and speakers and register. For all, SIIA will be sure to help attendees and presenters leverage the results of this discussion to further support all stakeholders in Leveraging the New Normal to improve education and our students’ college and career readiness.

Ed-Tech Government Forum held in Washington, DC
The averted government shutdown ensured that SIIA’s annual Ed Tech Government Forum took place as planned. SIIA brought more than 100 education division members to Washington, DC for discussions with key education leaders about the impact of public policies on the school software market. Attendees networked with more than 150 local and national education leaders, and took advocacy visits to dozens of Congressional offices.

Among the highlights were remarks by Senator Patty Murray, FCC Commissioner Clyburn and U.S. Education Secretary Duncan’s Chief of Staff Joanne Weiss. Session presentations and session summaries will be archived. While education (and education technology) was being cut, SIIA and Senator Patty Murray helped release a report profiling how federal school technology grants helped transform and improve education.

ICANN releases new Guidebook
In other news, ICANN released a new version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook yesterday, continuing the debate over the rollout of new generic top level domains (gTLDs). The Guidebook can be found here. The public comment period runs from April 15 to May 15, and SIIA is working on comments through its constituency group, the Coalition for Online Accountability.

Administration releases NSTIC
On Friday, April 15, the Administration released its National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC). This “private sector-led effort to create a new infrastructure for the Internet, built on interoperable, privacy-enhancing, and secure identity credentials,” was released in conjunction with an event at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The lead Administration agency is the National Institute for Standards and Technology, which announced at the same time that it will be moving forward with a series of workshops on Trusted ID in the coming months.

Web Tracking and User Privacy Workshop to be held
On April 28 and 29, W3C will hold a workshop on Web Tracking and User Privacy at Princeton, New Jersey. Experts from academia, industry, civil society and government will discuss the role of anti-tracking technology to preserve use privacy on the Internet. The agenda can be found here. SIIA’s Director of Public Policy, David Leduc, will join a panel of experts on the first day of the workshop discussing the mechanisms that could be used to implement such a proposal. His submitted paper can be found here. 

House Judiciary Commitee passes patent bill
On patent reform, last week the House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act.

Advocates are mobilizing to respond, contacting their Members of Congress by e-mail and phone and advocating in-person April 13 (at SIIA’s Ed Tech Government Forum, which will also include speakers on government programs and policies of interest to digital learning providers).

SIIA and several education groups (ISTE, CoSN and SETDA) expressed strong concern in a recent statement: “We are deeply disappointed that despite many Members’ understanding of the vital role technology plays in K-12 education in their states and districts, Congress is on the verge of eliminating funding for this critical program. Elimination of the program also is the surest way to devalue the billions of dollars invested over the last two years on improving broadband access to K‐12 schools and directly undercuts ongoing state and federal efforts to deploy education data systems, implement new college and areer‐ready standards and assessments, and address the well-documented STEM crisis. Our educators and students deserve better, and we urge Congress to reverse course and fully fund the EETT program.”

[3/22/11 Update: 14 U.S. Senators called on the Appropriations Committee to restore funding for the EETT program to the FY10 $100 million level. See their letter, along with a supporting statement from education groups including NEA and NSBA.]

EETT is the only federal education program designed to leverage innovation and technology to adequately prepare all of the nation’s children for the competitive 21^st century global economy. Integrating technology among all programs is necessary, but not sufficient, while public R&D supoort is needed but not an alternative for directly supporting schools. This targeted investment is needed to provide leadership and professional development, and to increase the capacity of educators to redesign education to further personalize learning and engage students.

Spread the word to educators and colleagues! Contact your Member of Congress now!

Their appropriate balance is therefore critical to advancing both important goals. The challenges in finding this delicate equilibrium point are being tested (pun intended) now as the U.S. Department of Education and its two Race to the Top Assessment (RTTA) grantee consortia — SBAC and PARCC – consider the scope and form of their deliverables and technology (interoperability) standards.

The $350 million RTTA initiative promises to bring important technology-enabled innovation to assessment — including many long available but not often implemented by states — through the online delivery of more robust (i.e., comprehensive, authentic, timely and adaptive) measurement of student knowledge and skills to inform teaching, learning and accountability. Leveraging this innovation will require changes to teaching and learning, technology investment, interoperability development and adoption, and limits on the scope of RTTA development.

In response to an important RFI by the Department regarding the technology standards to be employed by the RTTA consortia, SIIA supported the requirement that RTTA grantees “maximize the interoperability of assessments across technology platforms and the ability for States to switch their assessments from one technology platform to another.” RTTA could provide the tipping point to K-12 education’s adoption of data and content interoperability standards (see SIIA Primer) that would, for example, enable and maximize our ability to personalize learning.

But these benefits will only be realized if interoperability is properly implemented, and if standardization is balanced with innovation. SIIA’s recommendations to USED (and the RTTA consortia) elaborated on both points.

First, SIIA raised questions about the scope of the consortia’s work. For example, SBAC intends to develop a comprehensive platform of dynamic resources for teachers, administrators, students, and parents, including a system portal and educator dashboard with curricula, interventions and professional development. But SIIA urges the RTTA consortia to focus resources on their core task to develop summative tests and test items, as well as on the interoperability specification for defining assessment types/data, as required under the terms of the funding competition. 

RTTA resources should NOT be diverted to the development of turnkey assessment systems and value-added learning platforms and resources. This focused strategy will best leverage limited RTTA resources on their core mission, recognize and retain the value of varied local instructional technologies, and catalyze innovation of value-added educational technologies.

SIIA is concerned that control by a single entity (or even two) of the assessment content, data and delivery platform (even if open technologies) could lock out, or at least discourage, alternative and related technologies and innovations, as well as then limit the choices of state and local education officials.  Just as Common Core standards should not imply a single curriculum or set of instructional resources and technologies, neither should the assessments.

Second, with regard to the interoperability standards, SIIA recommends the RTTA consortia focus on the technical standards necessary for the migration of test items and student test data across applications and platforms. The further the USED and RTTA consortia get from assessment item interoperability, the more complex the considerations and the more flexibility is appropriate.

For example, standards should not specify in any limiting way a universal methodology for sequencing assessment items, which could undermine rapid developments in the underlying learning sciences, instructional technologies and practices. And interoperability standards must be dynamic enough to support delivery on a wide range of devices and platforms. The standards should focus on what is being transmitted, and less on how. In short, RTTA technology standards decisions should have a key goal of fostering innovation and choice.

Interestingly, while the Department’s RFI suggests a thoughtful and comprehensive consideration of interoperability standards with regard to RTTA, the Obama Administration apparently bypassed such efforts with regard to the recently announced initial $500 million (of a total $2 billion over 4 years) U.S. Department of Labor Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) program, which requires that grantees develop content and courses that, for better or worse, meet SCORM standards. [February, 2011 Update: In response to concerns, DoLabor has adjusted the requirement to allow for other interoperability standards as well.]

RTTA promises to drive improvement in assessment, but that will not fully translate to driving innovation in teaching and learning (and the related technologies) unless the assessments themselves are unbundled from their management and delivery. Adoption of test item and student test data interoperability may fall short of driving that innovation if RTTA comprehensive delivery platforms become the default instructional management system used by state and local agencies.

While tight budgets and common learning standards may tempt education decision makers to standardize instructional technologies, the better long-range course is to instead leverage a minimal set of technology (interoperability) standards to drive the ongoing innovations that students and educators will need moving forward.