Digital Discourse / Education Policy

Teachers and Tech

September 20, 2012 By

One of the biggest myths surrounding educational technology has been that teachers will be replaced by computers (or tablets, or software, or any number of technological developments). But the reality is that there is room for both the teacher and education technology in the classroom. Technology is an aid to teaching, not competition for teachers.

Common Core State Standards expect students to gain deeper college and career-ready knowledge and skills, presenting the most significant challenge that schools and teachers must address in the coming years. Among the questions is the role of technology and digital learning. At the same time, many in K12 education are questioning our traditional “seat-time” system and looking to the alternative “mastery” model, again opening up opportunities for technology.

With Mathematics as one of the areas covered by CCSS and common Science standards moving forward as well, STEM leaders are excited about the opportunities in their field. At a recent STEM Vital Signs report release by Change the Equation providing a state-by-state measure of STEM education and related careers, panelist Carolyn Landel, Chief Program Officer of Washington STEM, remarked that the teacher should NOT remain the sole source of educational knowledge in the classroom. The teacher is not going anywhere, but with the amount and depth of material required for coverage in CCSS, there is a need for additional learning opportunities outside the traditional teacher-centered classroom.

This conversation at the event highlighted opportunities for innovative instructional practices made possible through use of technology in the STEM subjects. One person even commented that, “you can’t tell kids Math and Science are fun and then put them in the same boring class”. The need for innovative and effective STEM learning models presents a bright future for digital learning. For example, Change the Equation is releasing an online game-based learning program to show a variety of methods to promote and encourage STEM learning. The future for educational technology and teachers is encouraging in a CCSS future.

 

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

Share|
Filed Under: Education, Education Policy, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,

Leaders or Laggards: The State Role in the Shift to Digital Content

September 7, 2012 By

The focus at the recent annual meeting of the State Instructional Materials Review Association (SIMRA) was the shift from print to digital. While paper weight and book binding standards remain on their agenda, the shift is symbolized in part by this group’s recent name change that replaced “textbooks” with “instructional materials.” I had the opportunity to present at the meeting, and had some timely discussions about the evolving state role in the digital world. Texas (see SIIA webinar), Florida (see SIIA summary) and West Virginia are among the states most proactive in helping lead their schools into the digital content future, while many states (with leadership from their SIMRA-member adoption director) are trying to catch up with their districts and understand their evolving roles and rules. A parallel but accelerated shift to digital is underway in state assessments with the leadership of PARCC and SBAC.

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 SchneidermanMark Schneiderman is Senior Director of Education Policy at SIIA.

Share|
Filed Under: Digital Policy Roundup, Ed Tech Business Forum, Ed Tech Government Forum, Education, Education Policies, Education Policy, Legislation, Personalized Learning, Policy, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Sequestration and Ed Tech

August 30, 2012 By

The looming federal sequestration threatens ever deeper cuts to local education budgets, and potentially to investments in technology and instructional materials.  A recent survey report put out by the American Association of School Administrators gives a glimpse into what various districts and administrators are planning to do if Sequestration cut backs happen. Sequestration is the term for the automatic, across-the-board cuts included in the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA), which raised the federal debt ceiling and put in place annual budget caps. Sequestration was designed as a consequence, should the Super Committee created by the BCA fail to reach its goal of identifying other means to meet the caps. It did fail, and so the cuts will become a reality in January 2013 unless alternative legislation is enacted. If implemented in 2013, the first-year share of the sequestration ($1.2 trillion over ten years) would translate into roughly 8-9% cuts across the board, including approximately $4 billion in education alone.

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

Share|
Filed Under: Education, Education Policies, Education Policy, Policy, Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,

A Digital Learning Framework for Systems Change

June 20, 2012 By

I had the great opportunity last week to speak to the CIOs of the Council of Great City Schools, representing the nation’s largest school districts. While their agenda and roles are traditionally focused on enterprise technologies, their summit focused last week on “Transforming Education through Digital Learning.”

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 SchneidermanMark Schneiderman is Senior Director of Education Policy at SIIA.

 

Share|
Filed Under: Ed Tech Government Forum, Education, Education Policies, Education Policy, Personalized Learning, Policy, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

District Race to the Top Appropriately Prioritizes Personalized Learning

May 22, 2012 By

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today announced a new federal Race to the Top District competition, providing nearly $400 million in school district grants to “personalize and individualize” to “take classroom learning beyond a one-size-fits-all model and bring it into the 21st century.” The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) has long been a leading voice for redesigning education to personalize learning, and applauds the Obama Administration for providing this leadership.

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 SchneidermanMark Schneiderman is Senior Director of Education Policy at SIIA.

 

Share|
Filed Under: Digital Policy Roundup, Ed Tech Government Forum, Education, Education Policies, Education Policy, Personalized Learning, Policy, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

Kentucky’s Implementation of Common Core State Standards Demonstrates Key Role of Technology

April 19, 2012 By

Kentucky was the first state to adopt the Common Core State Standards and has become a pioneer in implementation. Cindy Parker, a representative from the Kentucky Board of Education spoke recently at a National Adolescent Literacy Council event about the challenges and solutions to implementing the Common Core Standards. Kentucky began to implement CCSS for the 2010-2011 school year with very little funding support from state legislature. Educational technology has helped Kentucky by providing new and innovative methods for professional development, curriculum dissemination and teacher support.

A robust teacher training online platform was created to update teachers on the best practices for implementing the new standards. Lack of funding for traditional development methods created unique challenges that were overcome by implementing more flexible and easily accessed digital tools to support Kentucky’s educators.
Examples include:

  • iTunesU is used for podcasts and webinars for professional development of teachers. A monthly webinar with the state’s Education Commissioner and the district Superintendents has been established to create better communication.
  • Race to the Top funding was used to create “Literacy Central,” a website designed to aid teachers in professional learning. Videos, lesson plans, and forums are contained on the website and act as guideposts for teachers.
  • The Continuous Instructional Improvement Technology System (CIITS) was created in partnership with Pearson Schoolnet. This was designed as a one stop online platform for teachers to access CCSS literacy plans.  Modules within the site provide analysis of CCSS requirements and how to incorporate those into day to day classroom activities. Professional growth plans and consolidated professional development resources are also included.

The implementation of the CCSS in Kentucky led to not only classroom technology upgrades and changes, but also important changes in professional development. As new content and new guidelines were introduced, Kentucky reacted by creating technologically savvy teacher training. The important role of technology and digital learning, both for curriculum as well as for professional development, is clear.

SIIA’s recent CCSS webinar and Ed Tech Government Forum session are available to SIIA members seeking additional information about how they can support education’s needs with CCSS aligned content, technologies and resources. Further reading can also be found in Ed Week’s recent article.

 

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

Share|
Filed Under: Ed Tech Industry Summit, Education, Education Policy, Events, Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

SIIA Releases Primer on K-20 Education Interoperability Standards

April 19, 2012 By

SIIA today released a “Primer on K-20 Education Interoperability Standards.” This Primer provides a framework for understanding interoperability standards that facilitate the exchange of information among educational systems, and support the integration of content, data, and components from different technology applications.

The Primer will enable developers of educational applications and digital content to further understand how adoption of interoperability standards can advance both education goals as well as their own business needs. The Primer also provides education leaders with the information needed to embrace interoperability and encourage further standards development. Appendices describe organizations and initiatives that create and promote standards, and define relevant concepts and terms.

The importance of interoperability is highlighted in the pending initiative to develop online assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards, funded with federal Race to the Top grants to the SBAC and PARCC state consortia. SIIA and others have argued for a flexible, modular assessment technology architecture to meet evolving and unique state and local requirements. Such a design requires interoperability standards to enable the seamless migration of test items and student data across applications, as well as the integration of various component technologies.

SIIA is a strong advocate for interoperability standards. This Primer is intended to support those making high-level decisions about when to implement, or require compliance with, interoperability standards by providing education and technology leaders with a broad understanding of the relative maturity of standards, the trade-offs involved with using them, and their short-term and long-term impact.

The Primer was developed under the direction of the SIIA Education Division’s Technical & Development Committee. It was authored by Edward Walker, Executive Vice President, Consulting Services for Education, Inc. The Primer was released to SIIA members in February 2012 and is now publicly available for free at http://www.siia.net/estore/. SIIA grants all parties permission to reproduce and distribute the Primer in print or digital format for non-commercial purposes provided the copyright is attributed to SIIA.

Mark SchneidermanMark Schneiderman is Senior Director of Education Policy at SIIA.

Share|
Filed Under: Ed Tech Government Forum, Education, Education Policy Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »