Three things struck me about this event: First, that there are some pockets of really great thinking and practice. Several educators discussed projects they had undertaken with technology that seem to be having an impact. Some of these were really amazing, like Jan Coleman-Knight's project at Thornton Junior High in Fremont, CA [need link here] that connects entomology and history through technology.
Second, there are still about as many opinions about what the role of educational technology is as there are people who put a little thought into it. In other words, there still isn't a general consensus about what we're trying to accomplish with edtech -- is it student engagement, individualized learning, data collection and analysis, etc? Sadly, because there is no overriding vision, there is an awful lot of wasted energy and money on these programs.
Third, the US DofEd is in a pretty interesting position to help frame the discussion and establish a way of evaluating projects. It won't be along the lines of their recent declaration that five reading and five math programs don't have any impact on student learning. Let me outline exactly what I think the federal department can do:
- Start with a clear definition of digital literacy. There is a notion of "technology literacy" baked loosely into Title IID of NCLB. This was an interesting step, but the feds forgot to define what that was, or place any kind of framework around what states had to declare. Did they have to test their kids? Survey schools? Just state without any back up that their eighth-graders were technology literate? Lots of confusion and missed opportunities there. The feds could establish the definition of digital literacy (and a process for re-evaluating that definition) as well as a mechanism for collecting and reporting the data. This would help states establish benchmarks and work toward a set of common goals for digital literacy among students.
- Along with #1, declare unequivocally that they are in favor of technology. Few doubt at this point that technology is going to play a role in the future and improvement of education (and even if there are doubters, all you have to do is look at that collective spending on instructional technology in districts throughout the US to see how there is an ongoing commitment to instructional technology). Foreign ministries of education see technology as a key to educational excellence going forward (UK's BECTA, Brazil's OLPC interest, etc.). The US DofEd should declare that finding the most effective ways of using technology is a priority.
- Encourage responsible experimentation in digital learning programs. So much money gets spent on so many pet projects throughout the US. Very little of the learning -- both good and bad -- gets captured in a way that benefits more people . The US DofEd could establish a scorecard and reporting mechanism to at least evaluate programs that receive investment for a common set of outcomes -- student achievement, professional development, cost effectiveness, 21st century readiness, etc.
- Establish a set of measures that schools can self-report to articulate their 21st century capabilities. This could be along the lines of the NCLB Blue Ribbon Schools program or other similar programs from the past. I know that some schools are motivated to achieve these designations for a variety of reasons. Whatever the reason, being able to recognize schools for their success in creating at least a digital-aware environment would be meaningful.
wjk
