Convened by the Professional Development Collaborative in the offices of Arthur Andersen Business Consulting
Introduction
In considering LAUSD's Information Technology needs, the importance of Instructional Technology should not be underestimated. Expenditures for Instructional Technology are increasing dramatically, and it is the only use of technology which directly impacts LAUSD's core function, the education of children.
Instructional Technology in LAUSD is at a critical juncture, and unless it is given serious attention and an academic/curricular focus, potentially valuable tools will be misunderstood and misused, to the detriment of LAUSD's students and schools.
On the other hand, the efficacy of these tools is being wildly oversold - not just by vendors, but also by politicians, educators and parents who believe that computers and the internet are the solution to education's problems. LAUSD must approach computers and the internet realistically, understanding what they can and cannot do and what must be done to assure that their use will benefit students. The following points need to be considered:
If educators are to find appropriate uses of technology in the classroom, they must insist that computers and connectivity be implemented only where research has proven them beneficial to learning or where they are clearly superior to previous means of teaching a specific curriculum.
This "curriculum-priority" approach is distinctly different from "learning to teach with technology," which suggests that we are faced with an imperative to abandon teaching methods which have worked for decades, centuries or even millennia - before research has conclusively established whether and in what specific ways instructional technology should enter classrooms.
A Compelling Lack of Evidence
* At present there is little or no evidence that use of computers or the internet improves learning.
Few would disagree that the goal of K-12 education is to produce students who can think, read, write, use mathematics to solve problems, who have a solid base of information about nature, history, geography and culture - in short, students who are prepared for post-secondary education and the world of work. What computers and the internet have to do with achieving this goal is an open question - which must be answered with research rather than anecdotes or faith.
An educated person, who possesses the qualities and base of knowledge mentioned above, experiences the internet differently than someone who is not yet educated. Education provides a structure to which newly-acquired information can adhere. It would be risky to assume, without evidence, that children automatically benefit from "surfing the web," that the information they view is actually understood.
Educators may think of the internet as a new information medium, but children view it as popular culture, an adjunct to movies, television, music, video games and advertising.
In June, 1997, the Los Angeles Times published "Technology Remains Promise, Not Panacea," (6/8/97), which questioned whether computers and connectivity were the solution to education's problems.
The following month, the Atlantic Monthly published "The Computer Delusion," (July 1997) by Todd Oppenheimer, which cited an impressive array of experts and raised serious questions about the wisdom of bringing computers into classrooms.
No refutation of the points made in these key articles has been presented in the past ten months. In fact, the national media has repeatedly raised questions about schools' rush to technology.
At this point, it is not known whether the use of computers and the internet have a lot of value, some value, no value, or whether they might even adversely impact K-12 education. It is not known, for instance, whether use of computers by young children retards socialization or the development of traditional literacy. Nor is it known how use of comparatively skimpy online resources in the humanities affects high school students in their preparation for the rigors of college.
Much has been made of the "motivational value" of computers and internet access, particularly for students who are otherwise unmotivated. While Linda G. Roberts, director of the Office of Educational Technology at the U.S. Department of Education, recently acknowledged that "there is presently little evidence of a connection between computer use and learning" ("Study Shows Disparity in Schools' Internet Access" New York Times 3/11/98), she asserted that "the Internet is proving a great student motivator in classrooms where it has been successfully introduced."
Leaving aside the question of what constitutes "successful introduction" and how common these successes have been, the "motivation" justification is slippery.
Novelty is clearly a factor in this motivation but, if anything obsolesces more rapidly than a computer, it is the novelty of using computers. With each passing year, as kids become computer and internet savvy at earlier ages, with access both at and away from school, novelty will play a diminishing role.
It is also difficult to separate the benefit of computers from what they represent. Dirty campuses, broken furniture, and inadequate books and supplies have sent a message that our students have not failed to receive: that society doesn't care about them enough to make schools decent environments. Bringing in computers, which kids really enjoy, is perceived as a sign that society cares. Is the motivational bump due to the computers themselves or to what they represent? Would cleaner campuses or adequate textbooks achieve a more enduring motivational result?
The Curriculum-Priority Approach: Effective Practices and Professional Development
* Effective Practices have yet to be identified as to how computers and the internet can be used to improve conveyance of curriculum. This precludes meaningful professional development for teachers in use of instructional technology.
Professional development for teachers is a fundamental component of any technology plan. The Office of Technology Assessment, in two 1995 reports, "Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection" and "Education and Technology: Future Visions," underscored the importance of professional development if implementation of educational technology is to succeed. They recommended that 30% of an educational technology budget should be used for professional development. The Educational Testing Service, in its May, 1997 report, "Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools," also identified teacher training as a critical factor.
The professional development of teachers must be grade and discipline-specific. Teachers' needs are inherently different from those addressed by corporate computer training, in which workers are taught to use applications (word processors, databases, spreadsheets, etc.); they are not trained to define the proper business use of these applications, only to operate them in the context of their jobs. Some of this type of training may be needed for teachers with no computer experience, but the challenge for teachers is not to learn to use computers, but to use computers and the internet to improve teaching.
There is a difference between a teacher knowing how to use the internet (how to navigate to a web address, for example, or find a stock quote) and knowing how to use it for valid curricular purposes. With more than 30,000 teachers in LAUSD, it defies common sense to believe that more than a tiny percentage will figure out, absent substantial and effective professional development, how to use instructional technology well.
Before meaningful professional development can occur, effective curricular practices must be identified on a grade-by-grade or course-by-course basis. The challenge is not to identify every way that technology might be integrated into curriculum, but rather those ways which provide clear advantages when compared with traditional approaches. Until conclusive research exists to establish the general value of computers and the internet to learning, it seems sensible to focus on uses which are clearly excellent.
Before certain resources were available on the internet, they were available only with great effort and/or cost, which inhibited their use in K-12 education. Now that they are available, mostly without cost (beyond that of the technology used to access them), teachers can use these resources to curricular advantage. These resources include:
While some excellent uses of computers and the internet in the classroom have been devised, there are far fewer models of how to use these technologies than one might expect. SCORE, the Schools of California Online Resources for Education, is often cited as a key repository of ideas, but when I recently sampled its materials for 10th grade World History and 11th grade American History, most of the resources listed were primary documents (e-texts) which could as easily be made available in print or on CD-ROM. Of the few lesson plans available, none demonstrated innovation in use of technology or internet resources. Indeed, the most substantive lesson plan I found, "What Did the Founders Learn About Rights from Studying British History?" (http://www1.primenet.com/~cce/wlib6.html), contained no technological component whatsoever. It was simply an interesting traditional lesson plan on the web.
The point is not to criticize SCORE, which is in its infancy, so much as to say that there aren't as many effective practices out there as some might assume - at least not at this stage in the implementation of technology in education.
Effective Operational Practices
* Effective Practices have yet to be identified as to how computers and internet connections can be successfully acquired, installed and sustained on school campuses without additional staff or reallocation of existing budgets and personnel. LAUSD's 660 schools face, with minor variations, precisely the same operational problems in implementing technology. If they can procure computers and install wiring, no mean feats, they have no funds with which to sustain the technology. No out-of-classroom certificated positions or classified computer maintenance personnel are budgeted, and these are essential for successful operation.
There has been no additional allocation to Instructional Materials Accounts to pay for toner, ink and paper, which will take huge bites out of school budgets, or to tutoring budgets for supervision of computer and internet use. There is no additional funding for hardware repair or telecommunications problems, both of which are (or soon will be) beyond the present resources of LAUSD's Information Technology Division.
This is a national problem, as a recent New York Times article reported ("Schools May Get Computers, But Can They Afford to Keep Them?" 3/18/98) The article was based on two reports which should be carefully reviewed:"School Technology: Five Districts' Experiences in Funding Technology Programs" (General Accounting Office, 1/98) and "Connecting K-12 Schools to the Information Superhighway" (McKinsey & Co. for the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council).
Leaving the problem to overburdened school administrators is not a viable option. If instructional technology is a priority for schools, it must be accompanied by adequate funds for operation.
At the same time, LAUSD can do a lot to define effective operational practices so that all 660 schools won't have to stumble around in the dark searching for the same understanding and solutions. Some of the issues include:
Quality and Cost Controls
* No controls are in place to assure that software, training and other services from outside vendors will be of high quality or delivered at reasonable cost.
With authority decentralized to clusters, complexes, and individual campuses, controls are desperately needed if schools are to make good choices in acquiring software, training and other services from outside vendors. This especially applies to software which, like textbooks, should be reviewed by experts, both in curriculum and technology, before being approved for purchase.
This review process already exists in the California Instructional Technology Clearinghouse (http://clearinghouse.k12.ca.us/), a cooperative venture by the county Offices of Education. Of the software submitted, only 10% receives the "exemplary" rating and 40-60% receives the "desirable" rating. If a title is not listed in the Clearinghouse database (as many being sold to schools are not), it is because it did not receive an "exemplary" or "desirable" rating or was not submitted for review.
If LAUSD were to insist that at least 80% of software funds be spent only on programs rated by the Clearinghouse as "exemplary" or "desirable," vendors would be forced to submit their products to the Clearinghouse for review. This, in turn, would stimulate improvements in software.
LAUSD's size enables it to negotiate district-wide licenses for software and services, for example a repair contract with a vendor large enough to assure that broken hardware and peripherals can be repaired in a timely manner. It might also be appropriate to contract with a training company for professional development services which meet district specifications (grade and discipline-specific).
Time and Technology
* Is this the right time, technologically, for schools to make large investments in personal computers and wiring? Technology becomes better and less expensive every few months. Businesses can afford to replace technology frequently, but schools can't claim depreciation deductions or assure that future funding will be available to upgrade or replace outmoded technology. Schools therefore need to be smarter than businesses about when and how they "jump in." There are significant developments on the horizon which argue for schools adopting a cautious approach to acquisition of instructional technology.
Personal Computers or Network Computers?
Today's personal computers, while very powerful and not terribly expensive to purchase, are extremely expensive to support. The software on their hard drives must be regularly upgraded and, in a multi-user K-12 environment, regularly maintained. Any computer owner can testify how time-consuming a computer can be, and this is even more true in the complex environment of a school, with multiple users, networks, and security software. Substantial technical support, thus far unbudgeted at most schools, will be essential if hundreds of computers, multiple LANs and telecommunications connections are to be kept in working order.
A potential alternative is Network Computing, which involves a "fat server," which needs to be maintained, and "thin clients," terminals which require little or no maintenance because the operating and applications software run on the server. Network Computing also allows for finer control of system usage and internet access.
There has not yet been enough experience with Network Computing in schools, but before large sums are spent on personal computers, the comparative costs and functionality should be carefully evaluated.
Wireless Technologies
The cost of wiring is extremely high in asbestos-laden schools. Wireless technology is an attractive alternative which might be practicable in the next few years - before most schools can be fully wired.
Flat-Screen Displays
Present display technologies are either extremely expensive or of poor quality for classroom use. Data projectors are also, in some cases, finicky devices too frequently in need of repair. With digital television on the horizon and flat-screen display technology becoming less expensive every few months, it will probably be affordable, within three years, to install a large, high-quality, multipurpose flat-screen display in every classroom for roughly what a less functional, lower-quality data projector costs today.
Whither LAUSD?
* Schools are unclear about why they need technology and about the consequences of its acquisition.
Many teachers and administrators feel pressure to bring computers and the internet into schools but are hard-pressed to say, specifically, why they are needed or how they'll be utilized. These educators underestimate the commitment of resources, both time and money, which technology requires, and assume that its educational uses are well-defined and require only a little professional development.
Painful tradeoffs are required to pay the ongoing costs of technology. Dollars spent on computers aren't available for other purposes, including books, field trips, the arts and custodial staff.
Schools should commit their resources to technology only with eyes open, knowing that its benefits have not been proven and aware that there are attendant philosophical and ethical issues.
When Chris Whittle's Channel One offered to give television sets to schools in exchange for a commitment that students would watch a specially-produced daily news broadcast, many districts balked because commercials were included. These districts, including LAUSD, considered it inappropriate to subject students to advertising during instructional time. Few objections have been raised, however, about the advertising to which students are exposed on the web pages they visit and, unlike Channel One, there is no guarantee that those web pages contain any educational content.
When politicians speak of computers and the internet preparing students for the job market of the 21st century, they are, perhaps unknowingly, making an argument for vocational education - a position they might hesitate to adopt openly.
LAUSD's mission is not vocational education; the District is committed to encouraging all students to complete the "A-F Requirements" for admission to the University of California. A case can be made for requiring computer competency for high school graduation but, if all goes well, today's fourth grader won't be on the job market for another 12 years - until he or she has completed a four-year college degree - and by which time he or she would have had plenty of opportunities to learn the productive use of technology.
If LAUSD wishes to reconsider the role of vocational education in its schools, it should do so openly - and take the heat. The push for computers and the internet should not commit the District to policies or philosophies it would not otherwise adopt.
Conclusion
The rush to bring computers and internet access to every classroom suggests a desperate race, that every moment that students aren't learning on a computer is an opportunity lost and evidence of falling behind. The notion is absurd, of course, but the desperation is genuine.
Schools exist to educate, not to experiment on a generation of students, no matter how deeply educators believe a theory will prove correct. They must keep in mind Thoreau's caution in Walden: "What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true today may turn out to be falsehood tomorrow, mere smoke of opinion, which some had trusted for a cloud that would sprinklefertilizing rain on their fields."
Nonetheless, it is obvious that computers and the internet will have a role in education, which is why it is imperative that LAUSD act now to develop an academic/curricular focus for instructional technology - if only to avoid the chaos and embarrassment which will ensue when it's discovered that technology was not the solution to education's woes, but only a tool we were unprepared to use.
Over the next few months we must establish controls on purchases from outside vendors and begin a concerted effort to define Effective Curricular Practices and Effective Operational Practices for computers and the internet. The curricular practices must be specific, not general, defined by grade, discipline, and course. Relationships with universities should be established and expanded to aid in this mission, and to design research which will conclusively demonstrate what does and doesn't work.
While this involves costs which were perhaps not contemplated, these are unavoidable. Fortunately they bring with them significant benefits, such as the opportunity to strengthen and redefine LAUSD's academic culture and create high-quality, content-rich professional development.
(Reproduced by permission of Alan Warhaftig)