The
Regional Invitational Conference
―Leaving No Child Behind: Achieving Equitable Access to Technology‖
Sponsored by
The Mid-Atlantic Regional Technology in Education Consortium (MAR*TEC)
at
Temple University
Center for Research in Human Development and Education
May 16–17, 2002
Philadelphia, PA
Minutes
On May 16–17, 2002 the Mid-Atlantic Regional Technology in Education Consortium
(MAR*TEC) sponsored a two-day invitational conference, ―Leaving No Child Behind—Achieving
Equitable Access to Technology.‖ This invitational conference highlighted three themes:
(1) implementing assistive technologies,
(2) preparing for online assessments, and
(3) maximizing your e-rate funding.
The conference included keynote sessions and small work-group sessions. The emphasis was
placed on local educational needs. Participants had the opportunity to question the speakers, discuss
conference themes in small work groups, and meet their district team to plan for implementation.
Prior to the conference, participants completed a preconference survey (see Appendix A) to
acquaint conference organizers with participants’ local infrastructures.
Thursday May 16, 2002
Plenary Session
The morning session commenced at 9:00 a.m. with an introductory talk by MAR*TEC Director
Laurence Peters on the ―The Changing Nature of the Digital Divide.‖ Dr. Peters noted that at the
beginning of the 1990s the digital divide was defined in terms of number of boxes and wires in schools
and homes that were connected to the Internet. Since most schools are now wired and the gap between the
digital haves and have-nots has begun to close, the nature of the discussion is changing. Now the critical
issues surrounding educational digital divide discussions center on what happens in the classroom when
teachers and students use technology. We need to consider which students use what kind of technology
for what purposes. The debate has shifted from one where numbers dominated the discussion to the
effectiveness and efficiency of use in classrooms.
Dr. Peters' talk focused on the key factors that can ensure that technology is used effectively
regardless of the students’ social-economic levels. He discussed the equitable assess of technology and its
possibilities and constraints and MAR*TEC’s mission of implementing technology into education
through various workshops and demonstration schools. With rapid expansion of home computers and the
Internet there would have to be connectivity between computers and education. He stressed the need for
equity in this connection, especially as poorer school districts are at a disadvantage due to lack of funds.
Dr. Peters also cited the connection of parental knowledge or lack thereof of technology as being
a factor in equitable access. He noted a study that found that students whose parents don’t use computers
at work tend to think that they won’t use them in their work.
The
Next, Ellen Mandinach, educational consultant and former research scientist at Educational
Testing Services gave a thought-provoking talk titled ―Technology: Assessment, Evaluation, and
Research.‖ She began by defining assessment as what a learner learns, evaluation as the learner learning,
and research as encompassing all assessment and evaluation. She believes that evaluation and assessment
require ―taking multiple perspectives of the same phenomena and getting different feedback.‖ The need
for accountability in the implementation of technology in schools and the difficulty in addressing it was
also discussed. She believes that there is a constant need for adjustment in the pedagogical philosophy,
assessment techniques, and strategies. (See Appendix B for her PowerPoint Presentation.)
Following a short break, John Noran, Deputy Director for Outreach and Education
Schools and Libraries Division, presented ―Maximizing Your E-rate Success.‖ The E-Rate was
established as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with the purpose of providing affordable
access to telecommunications services for all eligible schools and libraries, particularly those in rural and
economically disadvantaged areas. E-Rate is way for the government to provide money for needed
technical infrastructure and improvement. The aid given is based on each districts free and reduced lunch
participants. Mr. Noran referred the audience to the websites http://www.fcc.gov/learnnet/ and
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/erateforms/ for more information. (See Appendix C for his PowerPoint
presentation.)
*****
Following lunch, Madeleine Rothberg, Director of Research and Development The CPB/WGBH
National Center for Accessible Media, presented a talk on ―Access to Educational Technology for
Students with Disabilities.‖ She began her talk by presenting a clip from the film ― Star Wars: Episode II
– Attack of the Clones‖ with closed captions and descriptive narrative. She explained that the various
technologies featured are beneficial to the hearing and visually impaired as well as the deaf and blind as
they allow the viewer to experience what the rest of the theatre is experiencing. She also explained the
different laws that aid persons with disabilities, such at sections ADA, 504, 508, IDEA and the
Telecommunications Act.
Genasys, an online assistive technology certificate program, was also discussed. Ms. Rothberg
explained that the purpose of Genasys is to promote the preparation of future teachers who can teach all
students by stimulating catalyst and implementation grantees and existing professional and governmental
networks to integrate and apply knowledge of web accessibility, assistive technology, specialized
software, and universally designed curriculum.
She ended her talk by having the audience participate in ―How The West Was Won,‖ an
educational software program that is now made accessible to the hearing and visually impaired as well as
the deaf and blind. She referred participants to the CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
website (http://ncam.wgbh.org) for more information.
Friday, May 17, 2002
Breakout Sessions
Patricia Hendricks, Technology Coordinator, MAR*TEC, began the morning with an overview of the
breakout sessions, three sessions of nine presentations that were held concurrently in three locations.
Session 1
Carol Kann, Temple Institute on Disabilities, led a talk on ―Screen Magnification as Assistive
Technology.‖ Ms. Carol Kann described the benefits of using assistive technology as well as some of the
devices—both low and high-tech—and their services available. As each state works differently, she
addressed Pennsylvania first.
Pennsylvania has an Assistive Technology Lending Library where one can borrow devices for up
to 6 weeks free of charge. There are 3,000 devices in 10 resource centers, which can be shipped by UPS.
The
The program maintains the devices and produces a regular newsletter. Temple University has a Recycled
Equipment Exchange Program at no charge. There is an Assistive Technology financing program at 4.5%
interest that covers devices, modifications to the home, and anything that is necessary to accommodate a
disability.
New Jersey has six resource centers that serve the entire state. There are online courses to provide
users with accessible websites and evaluate technology, videos, and audios.
Among the products demonstrated were Genie Pro, Big Shot, and Zoom Text in which different
methods of screen magnification were explored. Ms. Kann also demonstrated options in MS Windows
that enlarge font size, icons, and resolution. Individuals who are legally blind most frequently use reading
machines and the JAWS application.
Martha L. Thurlow, National Center on Educational Outcomes University of Minnesota,
presented a discussion via videoconference on ―Increasing Accountability Through Universally
Designed Assessments.‖ She began the discussion by explaining that universal assessments are designed
from the beginning to be accessible and valid for the widest range of students. She believes that is broader
than technology. Universal design is not a new concept .It began for people with disabilities; however, it
is new in regard to assessment and accountability. Educational accountability is mainly based in state and
district assessment, but with the creation of IDEA and Title 1, students with disabilities must be included
in these assessments. Each state and district varies in its approach to the assessment of limited educational
proficiency (LEP) and individual educational plan (IEP) students. Some provide accommodations or
alternative assessment, which is considered valid due to the variations.
She discussed the proposed regulation that introduces universally designed assessment, which
would be ―assessments designed to be accessible and valid with respect to the widest possible range of
students, including students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency.‖ She also
added that universal design assessment is not just for IEP and LEP students but is usable for all students
as it provides precisely defined constructs measuring what it is to measure and removes all cognitive
sensory, emotional, and physical barriers. Universal design assessment provides simple instruction and
procedures allowing for maximum readability by using clear and concise language, introducing one fact,
idea, or process at a time. These assessments focus on the knowledge and skills learned and not on where
the student knows how to respond.
There is also special consideration in regard to the item development. They incorporate
accessibility as a primary dimension of the test specification. The item developers are all trained, and
there is a review panel that is biased and knowledgeable in disability and language matters as well as
gender and cultural issues. Dr. Thurlow contended that the cost for these assessments will be the same
over time and inclusive to all students, allowing for increased accountability. (For the PowerPoint
presentation see Appendix D.)
Pat Sine, Director of the Office of Educational Technology University of Delaware, discussed
―Educational Technology: Can It Ever Be Equitable?‖ Dr. Sine began the talk by asking, ―What does
it mean to have technology in one’s classroom? What happens with the kids? She brings to this her
experience in individual classrooms. In the new No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, most of what
they are promoting is reading first. But there are also technology goals.
She discussed the goals of the ESEA as
allowing for purchasing testing systems that give rapid feedback mainly on reading,
assisting students to become technology proficient by 8th grade, and
ensuring that teachers are able to integrate technology into the curriculum.
The challenge is complicated by unequal access due to race, ethnicity, location, and gender. Unequal
participation by genders is understudied. There is no difference in access but there is in participation
between genders.
The
Many people who bought computers with free Internet access for a year have dropped their service
after the free year, which may account for the drop off on Internet access in surveys.
School computer access follows community access figures: only one half of the nation’s poorest
schools report that students use the Internet. Gender is also a factor: 17% of AP computer class takers are
girls.
A conference participant related her experiences being a woman in computer science classes. It was
hard to break into the classes, but once established, she was accepted.
Another participant contended that most of the software is focused toward male interests. This is true
especially with the games, which provide an early exposure of children to computers. Girls, however, are
very interested in e-mail and chatrooms.
Dr. Sine discussed the relationship of computer science degrees and employment and the new
paradigm in programming. Before, the way teams programmed was to divide up elements and recombine
them. Now, they brainstorm and come up with a problem, which is more similar to the way women
interact.
Delaware is meeting or exceeding goals of computers in the classrooms in our region. From 1984
to 1996 there was a substantial increase in students using computers in school once a week. Dr. Sine
described the strategies undertaken at University of Delaware to achieve technology proficiency with
regard to standards, technology access, classroom management, and curriculum imagination. They
provide personal productivity tools, professional productivity tools, language arts block, and math/science
block courses to integrate technology into these subject courses. They have raised consciousness level of
the faculty to the point that they are now able to eliminate these courses as separate courses.
Standards. Technology standards for administrators are new this year. The first standard is to
learn what the teachers are learning. Training materials are just coming out for administrators. They have
created vignettes on what a day would look like for someone technology proficient up to the standards.
One participant remarked that the administrators are the furthest behind in technology and suggested that
they start with the leadership and work down instead. However, Pat Sine thought that that pressure creates
change. Another participant didn’t like the vignettes, remarking that he sees a teacher running around
with a PDA and wonders whether it is really important for the educational progress in one’s school. He
asked, ―What are the key things they need to know about technology in order to be leaders?‖ Pat Sine
replied that she likes the vignettes because it humbles people who think they already know everything.
Where the principals embraced technology, the use of technology is much higher than in buildings where
they haven’t. The principal should have the vision of what is happening with the technology and be
comfortable. Dr. Sine commented that the problem with the standards is that teachers couldn’t take the
standards and decide what a lesson should look like that implements those standards. They designed a
program called Integrate to help teachers use it.
Classroom management. Dr. Sine noted that 67% of teachers don’t feel comfortable using
computers and so they tend not to use it. She used the image of ―sweepers‖ to define teachers who help
others to use technology in the classroom as lead teachers. The ITLT project supplied this need to
teachers. This model worked well for elementary teachers, and it works best when the principal is
supportive. For middle and high school they created schoolwide listservs because the teachers didn’t want
others in their classrooms. This model has been activated in several districts in the Brandywine and Avon
Grove school districts.
Most teachers haven’t developed the curriculum imagination to use technology. Students learn
things differently because there are technology tools. The problem she sees is that most people see the
problem as integrating technology into the classroom, whereas the point is to integrate technology into
the curriculum. Most of the emphasis of NCLB legislation is on reading and math, and educational
technology applications for these are often limited to testing, record keeping, or drills. Many of the
applications of educational technology are trivial, not representing quality technology integration.
Technology is seen as separate from other educational areas because of specialization, scheduling
needs, or fear on the part of the teacher. She concluded by saying that the best applications of technology
The
are the most difficult to incorporate. (For her PowerPoint presentation see
http://www.udel.edu/sine/equity/index.html)
Session 2
Barry Mansfield, Implementation Specialist, MAR*TEC, discussed ―Measuring Teachers’
Technology Proficiency.‖ Mr. Mansfield gave a hands-on discussion on measuring teachers’ technology
proficiency. He began by asking all participants to sit in teams of two, preferably unknown to one
another, so that they could share information about their particular situations. Various questions were
posed onscreen:
How have you measured technical proficiency of teachers?
What were some successes and problems with your methods?
What did you do with the information? How did you proceed?
Several minutes were spent in small discussion groups of three or four. The issues reported on
from the groups included the inaccuracy of self-assessment, the definition of technical proficiency, and
integration of technology into the classroom situation.
ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) Standards were discussed and a
consensus reached that they are not specific enough to induce district level compliance, which includes
students, principals, and teachers. Mr. Mansfield advised looking at the standards on the Internet to
determine the proficiency targets. He confirmed that self-reported surveys are tainted. Other possibilities
for assessment are classroom observation, testing, and performance-based tasks. A comment was made
that observation is subjective and that the biggest challenge is that many teachers are very uncomfortable
in a constructivist learning environment. Mr. Mansfield posed the question: Should we be pedagogy
specialists or technology specialists? The group agreed the answer is both, but pedagogy comes first.
Also, professional development should not separate technology from other tools; technology needs to be
included but not featured.
In answer to the question, "What do you do with assessment?" Mr. Mansfield guided participants
through the TrackStar website http://trackstar.hprtec.org, a website that allows instructors to organize
websites for use in lessons. He proposed an assignment, came up with a consensus of the 5 most
important ISTE standards for teachers. After several minutes of group work, a pattern formed with
numbers 3, 5, 15, 7, and 9 appearing most frequently. Mr. Mansfield graphed the results.
The online survey program Profiler http://profiler.hprtec.org was also demonstrated, which allows
users to design and customize their own surveys. CEO http://www.ceoforum.org and EnGauge
http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/, educational technology planning and evaluation tools, were introduced
and explained. Mr. Mansfield concluded by giving the website address for his TrackStar presentation:
http://trackstar.hprtec.org, track search 109644.
Judith Stull, Senior Research Associate at the Temple University Center for Research in Human
Development and Education, gave a talk on ―Using Data to Make Decisions.‖ She began by explaining
that there are many issues to be concerned with in regard to educational research. There are key concepts
to deal with such as the ability to generalize. For example, validity can be a problem, as you must know
you are measuring what you think you are measuring. She referred to the Hawthorne study, which is a
case example of internal validity, because the subjects reacted to being tested, not the actual tested
project. There are also factors such as reliability, where the question as to whether the findings be
replicated should be asked, and sampling, because self-selection bias happens too easily. The nature of
relationship, that is, association versus cause and effect, was also discussed as well as the frame of
reference and what should happen.
Dr. Stull also discussed the various sources of error. In regard to errors in the design of the
evaluation she stated that the reactivity to the testing such as raising the awareness based on the pretest,
The
therefore planting the seed, could corrupt the evaluation. Maturation of the subject in respect to the
subject learning the answers from taking entire the test is another source of error. There is also the
problem of the loss of the subject, also known as mortality of the subject, not from death but from
attrition. Another error comes from the misuse of instruments: unclear questions, leading questions,
emotionally toned words, or asking too many questions at a time.
The inability to be objective and using selective or inaccurate observation is an error in analysis.
Imbedded errors or how the scales are arranged is an example of this error. There is also the possibility of
presentation errors, in which incomplete information is presented. Errors in conclusion were also
discussed. The tendency to over generalize is a major error. Reductionism and the resistance to change are
also errors in conclusion. Dr. Stull does believe that a successful model can be made by knowing your
errors and performing quasi-experiments with the appropriate controls.
She concluded by explaining action research as research in which teachers continually collect
data from their students and align their teaching methods and processes to their students’ needs and
knowledge. She believes that action research ―is essentially good teaching as it monitors a student’s
progress,‖ which is the best result of educational research.
Kevin Callahan, Director of Marketing and Client Services, Vantage Learning, presented
“Intellimetric–Technology Applications for Grading Online Assessments.‖ His talk provided a brief
overview of the major online assessment organizations and applications including essay scoring, multiple
choice, computer adaptive, and short constructed response grading tools and how and where they apply in
the educational landscape.
He began by equating the differences between online and traditional assessment programs to that
of the horse and buggy and the car. When cars were invented people were resistant. The same is true with
online assessment. Every technology follows a pattern of initial resistance followed by adoption and
growth.
Mr. Callahan contended that there are several web testing myths: they are unreliable, costly, not
ready for test delivery, not secure. He claimed that it costs $9-15 per student for traditional testing
compared to $1.50 for online testing.
Accountability and assessment have increased importance today. Virginia, Pennsylvania, and
Oregon are already doing online testing. Pennsylvania’s PSSA writing exam doesn’t get results out until
the fall, whereas the online testing results are virtually instantaneous.
He described Internet-based assessment as a complex activity requiring skills and expertise in
technology, education, and assessment. The delivery vehicle changes everything but good testing practice
is a good testing practice.
Mr. Callahan noted some of the downsides to online assessment. Big graphics and scratch paper
are examples of potential problems. These applications also require considerable training.
At present, automated essay scoring are provided by Intelligent Essay Assessor, ETS, and
Vantage Learning-IntelliMetric. The College Board and Pennsylvania (PSSA) are using IntelliMetric. In
their 4th year, they are doing 35,000 students online in a comparability study with the written test.
Pennsylvania offers the option of doing it online by district decision.
Mr. Callahan suggested that essay scoring would be more equitable with online scoring because
of human inaccuracy and subjectivity. Automated essay scoring requires previously scored papers for
models. These programs work through a combination of artificial intelligence, natural language
understanding, machine learning, modeling and emulation of human scorers. A demonstration of
IntelliMetric followed.
Session 3
Peter Mochnal and Larry Bosley of Vantage Learning presented ―MyAccess Instructional Writing
Development Tool.‖ Vantage Learning is a leading provider of online testing and instructional solutions.
Mr. Bosley provided an overview of how essay-scoring technologies are being applied to classroom and
The
individual student instruction. He focused on the various tools that are available and where they fit within
the education market.
Mr. Mochnal gave a demonstration of their new online writing practice and instructional tool. My
Access! ™ is a 100% Internet-based application that allows students to practice their writing online and
have essays scored immediately with diagnostic feedback linked to individualized instruction. My
Access! ™ also provides both teacher and student with portfolios in which the student can monitor
progress and the teacher can receive an accurate view of their students’ performance in relation to class,
school, state, and national standards. Ideally, My Access! ™ provides more one-on-one instructional time
between student and teacher.
However, a participant who is a former English teacher brought up the issue of equality. She
questioned whether this technology has drawbacks for students who have less than stellar typing skills or
a low familiarity with the Internet and its applications. She also questioned whether its scoring
technologies were truly unbiased, holistic, and analytical. Mr. Mochnal and Mr. Bosley ended their
demonstration by citing that these issues are currently being addressed at Vantage Learning and that a
more universal design is being developed. They informed participants that more information about My
Access! ™ can be found at http://www.vantagelearning.com/
Mr. Johann Sarmiento, Director, Advanced Technologies for Learning Temple University Center for
Research in Human Development and Education and Ms. Judi Barnett, Senior Systems Analyst introduced the
concept of the Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) (http://www.sifinfo.org), an industry-supported
technical blueprint for K–12 software that will enable various applications to interact and share data
effortlessly, avoiding duplication of work within a school environment. One of the participants reported that
her director estimated it had taken his secretary 3 months to complete what was essentially 2 weeks of work,
because the systems did not communicate with one another. Mr. Sarmiento estimated SIF could save as much
as 30% of the time and money currently spent.
A participant expressed concern about not wishing to purchase components in stages, yet not
wanting to feel pressured to purchase all the products from one vendor simply to be compatible. Ms.
Barnett explained that this would not be necessary with SIF. She described in detail the experience of an
Upper Dauphin rural district with 1,400 school children, which has not been fully implemented. As she
guided participants through the PowerPoint presentation she explained options, defining and clarifying
many terms and acronyms including SIS (Student Information System) and ZIS (Zone Integration
Server).
Julia Stapleton, Former Director, Office of Educational Technology New Jersey Department of
Education spoke on ―The New ESEA—What Does It Mean for Technology?‖ This presentation was an
informative overview of the new ESEA reauthorization, which has technology funding for districts from 2002
through 2007. It provided participants tips on what to do and caveats to avoid so that they don't miss potential
revenue sources.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was H.R. 1: the first bill in the current Congress. For the
first time, there is a federal technology-funding source. It has more technology dollars than in TLCF.
There is, however, a lot of baggage: testing is required in every year from Grade 3–8.
Accountability is another key factor. It is termed AYP (annual yearly progress) In this legislation
the accountability issue becomes very intense; if over a two-year period progress toward proficiency is
not adequate, parents would have the right to go out and choose another district. The baseline is the 2001–
2002 year. Sanctions will be applied to schools and teachers; by Year 5 schools could be closed down if
they do not adequately progress.
The Technology Provisions are contained in Title II, Part D Enhancing Education Through
Technology, commonly termed ―the new state ed block grant program.‖
Regarding ESEA Applications, districts must apply soon and can consolidate or apply by program.
The
Ms. Stapleton explained that $700 M per year has been allocated for technology funding. Half is
distributed as formula or entitlement; half will go by competition. For example, Pennsylvania gets $22 M:
$11 M entitlement and $11 for competitive grants.
Regarding the competitive grants, state departments of education have the flexibility about how
they want to give the money out, though there are some requirements:
1. High need districts, defined as
Highest % of families below the poverty line, currently based on 1995 and 1997 census. This
hurts districts with recent growth of poor families. In New Jersey this was pegged at 28%.
Schools needing corrective action plans
Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) that receive insufficient amounts from entitlements
School with a substantial need for technology. They found it almost impossible to determine
schools that had this need.
For New Jersey, only about about 100 schools will qualify as ―high need.‖ The May 2002 data will
determine eligible districts.
2. Eligible Partnerships:
The partnerships must include one high need school to apply but can also include a LEA with
effective technology use, a higher education institution, a nonprofit organization, and a for-profit
business.
Year 1 funding is through 9/30/04. The money can be used until this date. The release of funds
are based on state plan approval and the Title I allocation in May 2002. Year 2 is forward funded to
begin 7/1/04 but it can be carried over until 9/30/05. The overall funding levels are good for 5 years.
3. Opportunities:
Transferability Options. School districts are eligible to transfer 50% of some entitlement funds. It
helps to be aware of this early on so that you can lobby.
She advised participants to see the website: How No Child Left Behind Empowers Your School.
Ms. Stapleton noted that other parts of the legislation stipulates funds for technology:
Title V, Part D (II) Community Technology Centers
Title VI, Part A Flexibility to shift dollars (50% can be transferred from the following
Title II(A) professional development
Title II(D) Technology
Title IV (A) Drug Free Schools
Title IV(B) Community Learning Centers
Title VA) Innovative Education
Ms. Stapleton answered questions from participants regarding the details of the ESEA legislation.:
LEAs need to apply to get these funds, but how depends on the state’s application and
process.
The federal application requires a state Tech plan, and USDOE recommends 12 additional
points.
States will determine funding restrictions, but 25% must be spent on ―high quality‖
professional development. If a district has already spent a lot of money on professional
development, they may be exempt from this requirement. LEAs do not need to reapply
annually, but ESEA may require updates.
With regard to nonpublic schools, it will operate similarly to the way Title I works. There are
600 private schools in NJ, many of which are needy.
Districts must be CIPA compliant if not participating in E-rate or if purchasing computers or
Internet access with the funds.
Ms. Stapleton noted that John Bailey of the USDOE has indicated that they will provide research-
based guidance that will be procedural rather than substantive. She closed by speculating that the
accountability parts of the act will be challenged in court because much of it is very vague. (For resources
about the ESEA, see http://www.temple.edu/martec/esea.html)
The
2:00
992 Ritter Annex
School Interoperability Framework (SIF)
Johann Sarmiento
Judi Barnett
Senior Systems Analyst,
Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit
Kiva Auditorium
Julia Stapleton
3:30 p.m. Adjournment