[LM_NET] National Educational Technology Plan

[Nancy Willard <nwillard@CSRIU.ORG>]

I have had my head down and blinders on working on another project. (Look
soon for a release of a Powerpoint presentation and booklet for parents on
Raising CyberSavvy Kids: Empowering Children and Teens to Make Safe and
Responsible Choices When Using the Internet! :-))

However, as I have gotten to a final draft stage, I wanted to pause and make
some comments on the National Educational Technology Plan. Only some of you
know my background. I was a special ed teacher of "at risk" (behavioral)
kids, burned out and went to law school, then spent some years as a
computer/technology attorney, prior to getting back into schools with a
focus on technology, and safe and responsible behavior (OK, Not all who
wander are lost).

Because of my years as a computer/technology attorney, I am attuned to the
business development goals of these companies. As an advocate for kids, I am
sorry to tell you that, in my opinion, the National Educational Technology
Plan is not a plan that focuses on the educational needs of kids -- it is a
business growth plan for the educational technology and Internet companies!

Here is some interesting language to rebut my position. This is from the
Software and Information Industry Association's press release on the
National Educational Technology Plan http://www.siia.net/:

"The Plan proposes a cohesive nationwide strategy to accelerate the
deployment of e-learning.  Recommendations  include expanded high-speed
classroom connectivity, investment in digital content, increased
availability of  virtual schooling, integration of education data systems,
and aggressive training for teachers and administrators.

SIIA was an active participant in the Planšs development, submitting
recommendations, participating in outreach  activities, and organizing
forums for SIIA members to submit their comments directly to Department
officials.  A  number of key SIIA recommendations were included in the Plan,
including around digital content, budgeting, and  leadership and training."

So as you look at this plan, pay close attention to the language. Many,
perhaps not all but many, of the provisions related to how school districts
can put more public dollars into the pocket of private industry.

* Increase high-speed access--use public dollars to expand high-speed access
within communities so that access can be sold to people in the community.
(Basically the same approach as E-Rate, funds provided for schools and
libraries increased access generally.)

* Invest in digital content--use public dollars to pay companies to create
digital content and sell this to schools. The Plan uses the term "move
toward digital content" which could be translated as an intent to use
information resources available online to enrich kid's understandings, but
that is not the underlying intent of the plan. They are not talking about
increasing information literacy. This is business development for content
companies. 

* Increased availability of virtual schooling--use public dollars to pay for
kids to take distance education classes offered by for-profit companies.

* Integration of data systems--use public dollars for better software to
integrate educational data. (Actually, I do not have objections to this,
better individualized data can help to improve instruction.)

* Aggressive training for administrators and teachers--training to do what?
Is the important question.

I think it is exceptionally important for educators to have a better idea of
the goals of companies that are seeking to benefit from funds that will
presumably be provided under this plan. This plan was developed primarily to
benefit "them," not our kids. However, there is one advantage. These
companies likely have much better "lobbying muscle" when it comes to getting
Congressional funding for the implementation of this plan.

The only good news within this plan that I can see is that the language is
relatively vague. While the plan may be intended to shift funds in certain
directions to benefit industry, if educators are smart enough, the language
of the plan appears to be flexible enough for educators to incorporate
language into their local technology plans to keep the focus on using
information and technology resources to truly benefit kids.

I also want to make it clear that I am not totally anti-business. Some level
of education-business partnership is necessary. Companies need to make a
profit. But educators need to be in the driver's seat, not the companies.

A last comment. The language in this plan that really irked me was:
"tech-savvy high school students often are far ahead of their teachers."
Yeah, right, NOT. If you go to the NetDay Kids Speak Out document you will
find data that indicates that today's tech-savvy kids are spending the vast
majority of their time gaming and IMing. They may be ahead of their teachers
in the use of these technologies, but most are not ahead of their teachers
in knowing how to find and evaluate online information and incorporate that
information into their understanding of themselves and the world about them.

Nancy

-- 
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use
http://csriu.org
nwillard@csriu.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------
All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET  2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL  4) SET LM_NET DIGEST  * Allow for confirmation.
LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/el-announce/
LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------