Update of 1998 Technology in Education
Report and Recommendations
By Jing Fong
December 2001
Since the October 1998 Technology Alliance Technology in Education Task Force Report & Recommendations were issued, there have been a multitude of changes in technology, education and the fiscal climate of Olympia-some progressive, others posing more challenges.
Key Findings
Connectivity and student computer ratios moot issues.
Connectivity and student to computer ratios are no longer the all-consuming concerns they were back in 1998. Almost every classroom (95%) in the state is connected to the Internet compared to 4 percent in 1994, and the student to computer ratio is 4:1 -in line with its national peers.
What's happening in the classroom is what matters now.
To truly measure the effectiveness of technology in student achievement and learning, one has to note what's happening in the classroom. Many school districts and schools have ambitious, progressive technology plans, but if the teachers aren't getting it, neither are the students.
Change happens slowly.
Transforming an education system, culture and mindset to one that is technology-infused is a step-by-step odyssey that occurs slowly. Different comfort levels with technology exist. Support-funding and practical-varies from district to district, institution to institution. Scheduling so everyone can take part in discussions begets a longer timeline and path.
Some Highlights:
Innovative professional development programs for teachers and administrators reach thousands of educators.
Through a variety of non-profit organizations, including the Smart Tools Academy, Teach the Teachers and the Gates Foundation's Teacher Leadership Project, educators have been infused with hands-on instruction on how to use technology in classroom instruction.
Philanthropy and business provide solid, substantial support.
In the past three years, a number of programs and initiatives have emerged to enlighten educators on best practices of incorporating technology into the curriculum. Though the contribution has been significant, it, nonetheless, hasn't closed the gap between those who get it and are doing it, and those who aren't.
Some Disappointments:
No central leadership has emerged.
There are a number of individual teachers, schools, and school districts that have taken technology by storm. However, no one has assumed the responsibility of developing and carrying out a statewide vision of infusing technology with curriculum so students can learn and achieve to their fullest. As a result, there are also bits and pieces of best practices and instruction hiding in the Internet galaxy waiting to be discovered by those who are less savvy but in need and want of these educational nuggets.
Funding hampered by initiatives and failure to acknowledge technology as basic education.
Generally, school districts still remain reliant on local funding and innovative budgeting to finance their technology efforts. At the state level, Initiative 601, 728 and 732 have influenced the funding climate, and the Legislature, mirroring a majority of society, continues to regard technology as a separate entity - not basic education, but bells and whistles.
In conclusion, it appears that educational institutions in this state have covered the base level by addressing infrastructure needs. Their classrooms are connected to the Internet and they have relatively healthy student-to-computer ratios. Students, as well as teachers, are learning how to use technology at school by using email, by word processing, by creating spreadsheets, and by researching on the Internet. It is skill-building in isolation. The next step is to incorporate technology into learning and creating, and regarding that technology as any basic educational tool, such as paper and pencil. Many are on their way or there-there are some incredible projects and programs out there! Most are not, and therein lies the challenge. How do we move ahead and bring the rest of the schools and districts up to, or at least far closer to, the level of the best?