|
|
|
 |
|
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingCEO Forum Provides Cogent Recommendations on Technology PolicyMay 2001--The CEO Forum, whose membership consists of large education technology firms including hardware vendors and several national education groups such as the National School Boards Association, released a policy paper in March that probably represents some of the most cogent policy recommendations thus far from any group promoting appropriate use of technology in education. Not only does the paper criticize much of the Bush proposal as presented, but also (as pointed out in an invitation-only CEO forum last year on relationships between assessment and education technology) reflects many of the potential unintended effects of the Clinton-Gore technology policy. First and foremost, it calls for a policy that broadens the definition of "student achievement" and calls for methods of assessment to include 21st-century skills. As several participants recommended in the forum last year, state and local districts should include in their academic course offerings and standards many of the "foundations" and "competencies" recommended more than 10 years ago in the U.S. Labor Department's Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills Report and reflected in a recent list of 21st-century skills developed by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. The Bush proposal would focus on narrowly defined academic skills assessed by state tests ? most likely norm-referenced tests. Federal funds could be used to purchase only "advanced technology which has been proven to be effective in increasing student academic scores" on these tests. The report also states: "Too often the assessment link to accountability measures updated standards with outdated tests. Education technology can help reinvent assessments." It calls for a long-term federal education-technology investment strategy, based on a need to develop 21st-century skills and ensure equal access to technology. It also calls for more in-depth explorations of the roles that technology can play in a variety of federal programs, ranging from special education to bilingual to after-school. In recommending increased funding for technology-related professional development, the CEO forum says, "Studies continue to demonstrate that educators' access to professional development remains the single most critical factor in whether or not technology improves student achievement." And it specifically calls for at least 30 percent of all Federal education technology funding to be earmarked for professional development by the year 2003. The policy paper calls for an investment of at least $100 million in research and development that focuses on technology, saying that it "should be used to determine the most effective technology methods to improve student achievement and support the development of assessment tools that measure 21st-century skills." It supports Bush's proposal to create a Web-based clearinghouse of best practices in education technology that would be "an effective way for educators to gain a better sense of the quality of the work achieved by their peers." This stated rationale for a clearinghouse is different from the rationale of state clearinghouses such as the California Software Evaluation Clearinghouse, which are likely to rate software titles according to various criteria. This certainly raises a policy question: Should the U.S. Department of Education be in the business of rating or recommending specific products as having been "proven effective" in increasing student academic achievement? In the recent past, Department involvement in identifying "proven models" has been extremely sensitive and to some extent flawed by political pressures (e.g., the official list under the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program) or has not been taken seriously by some state officials (e.g., California rejected several "technology-based model math products" selected by the Department's Education Technology Panel). Another political hot potato could be the CEO Forum recommendation that "the federal government should provide leadership in the creation of digital content that will help boost student achievement." If the intent is to have the federal government develop curriculum content, it is likely that opponents of a "national curriculum" will surface immediately, as they already have in Congress in response to the Bush proposal to mandate that all states administer the National Assessment of Educational Progress. This recommendation also raises the question of "unfair government competition" with the private sector.
|
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
|
|
NCES Releases Early Estimates on K-12 Statistics for School Year 2000-01The Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics has released its early estimates of K-12 statistics on enrollments, expenditures, etc. for the current school year, which could be helpful in developing or updating marketing plans. K-12 revenues for FY 2000 are estimated to be $364 billion, and are expected to rise to $384 billion in FY 2001. Current expenditures for FY 2001 are estimated to be $334 billion, a 4.6 percent increase over FY 2000, and per-pupil expenditure is estimated to be $7,080. In the District of Columbia and New Jersey, per-pupil expenditure will exceed $10,000 annually, while expenditures in Utah and Arizona are slightly less than $5,000 per student. For FY 2000, the ratio of students to teachers averages 16:1 for K through 12. In spite of a four-year, $5 billion class-size reduction initiative, California, at approximately 21 students, remains the highest in terms of the number of students per teacher. Among the lowest number of students per teacher are large states including New Jersey and Massachusetts, as well as small states such as Vermont and Wyoming.
Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349. |
Click here for a copy of the NCES report. | ||
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers |
|||
