There is some foundation to the concern that the emphasis on the Internet will take money away from other areas.
"Everything is connected to everything else." This saying is a concept from ancient Eastern religion that was adopted by the environmental movement in the 1960s. It was used to illustrate how, in an industrialized society, action in one part of the country (coal-fired power plants, for example) can create negative consequences (acid rain) in another part of the country.
As we have grown in this country through an industrialized society into an interconnected information society, this saying is more pertinent than ever, and technology -- particularly the Internet -- is driving this interconnectedness. In education, this phenomenon is evident from a variety of perspectives.
For example, technology in education is becoming a significant business. Technology expenditures are pushing the $5 billion level. From the political perspective, the Clinton administration is making technology in education a major priority. The administration has outlined "four pillars" that address professional development, hardware, Internet connections and content:
* All teachers in the nation will have the training and support they need to help all students learn through computers and through the information superhighway;
* All teachers and students will have modem computers in their classrooms;
* Every classroom will be connected to the information superhighway; and
* Effective and engaging software and online reaming resources will be an integral part of every school curriculum.
Governors, state legislatures and state departments of education also have leapt into the fray by providing a variety of incentives for schools to use technology. These incentives range from per-pupil dollars, to grant funds, to required plans for technology. The administration has pointed out time and again -- as any technology coordinator can tell you -- that all four pillars must be addressed to a significant degree.
While the administration, talks, about a need for all four pillars, the pillar with the most foundation in terms of rhetoric and funding is the one to connect every school and library to the Internet. To this end, the President and Vice President have been photographed pulling wires on NetDay. More importantly, they worked hard to establish the Universal Service Fund for Schools and Libraries as a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (see "What You Need to Know: New Discounts Cut the Toll for Driving the Information Superhighway," T.H.E. Journal, 9-97).
As more information spreads to the schools about this fund, we are seeing a classic case of first and second order concerns grow out of the implementation of the E-rate. The initial concerns have focused on a few major issues:
1. Implementation. These are the issues that were dealt with in the September article: How much is my discount? What can I buy? How do I apply for my discount? How can I work with other districts to get even lower prices? Will there be enough money for everyone? Some of the answers to these questions are clear now, but some will not be clear until the application process gets implemented in 1998.
2. Barriers. Some school districts are becoming somewhat jaded about yet another box of money or "partnership" for them to "take advantage of." They have been promised by various levels of government, by foundations and by the private sector of great opportunities, only to find that the box of money was not that big or that the process of applying or the accounting for the money was incredibly burdensome.
One barrier issue is the application process, which, as of this writing, has not been settled. A second barrier issue is the lawsuit and other actions filed by telecommunications companies and others. These actions could have a variety of outcomes, from amending the process of affecting what can be bought, to halting the entire Universal Service Fund. While the odds against halting the fund are very long, it still injects a chilling effect as districts plan for the discounts.
3. Longevity. Current legislation calls for the FCC to re-examine the fund in three years. It is likely that all the FCC commissioners will be new at that time. At that point they could extend the fund with its current level and as it has been implemented. They could decrease or eliminate the fund. Or, they could increase the fund.
Many in Washington and beyond the beltway think that the decision about what happens with the long-term future is primarily dependent not upon lawsuits, but upon school districts. If districts show little interest in the fund and do not exhaust or at least make a significant dent in the fund, it may go away or be reduced dramatically.
While many secondary concerns are being raised as business and education both begin to think about the fund and its ramifications, most are minor and grow from the barrier issues described above. One such secondary concern that is not minor, however, is the extent to which the E-rate may siphon money from the other three pillars.
This concern is now being expressed both by technology coordinators who worry about the people who control the facilities budget dipping into technology money, and by hardware and, particularly, software companies. This concern warrants careful examination as well as some hints on maintaining a balance among the four pillars.
Finding Solutions
There is some foundation to the concern that the emphasis on the Internet will take money away from other areas. Last year, software sales dipped 22% (QED). Meanwhile, the number of schools and libraries connected to the Internet grew by 38% (Market Data Retrieval). There is a seemingly obvious connection (no pun intended) here.
Problem Scenarios:
1. One obvious scenario of how the E-rate could siphon money from other areas would be if a school or district was without a high-quality technology plan. This district could see the money available for the E-rate and decide to purchase only the services available through the E-rate.
Solution: The State Department of Education or their surrogate must approve technology plans. If the state has the resources available to provide a thorough review of plans (which is not true in all states) it could provide technical assistance in restoring balance to the purchasing.
2. A school district has plans to install intranets throughout its schools over a five-year time frame. With the availability of the E-rate, more money can be poured into the project in the short term, and the project can be accelerated.
Solution: No solution may be needed here in that the savings from the E-rate could fund the acceleration of the project. This also requires significant planning, however. A project as large as installing intranets throughout the district is very time and resource intensive.
In addition, the district needs to plan for training its staff to use the system, provide resources for maintaining the system, and have some content and applications to run over the system. In short, the intranets cannot be installed without considering the other pillars. If they are, the boxes and wires will lie virtually dormant or at least be significantly underutilized. The district also needs to keep in mind that funds are available for at least three years and probably longer, so phasing in of a project is very possible.
3. A school district has a fixed technology budget, which is a mix of federal, state and local funds. Based on a previous technology plan, the district has used its limited funds to purchase new computers, upgrade and maintain existing computers, purchase schoolwide licensing agreements for instructional software, and to pay for professional development for teachers and administrators. Where will the matching money come from for the school's share of the E-rate connection and services?
Solution: The solution once again is a high-quality technology plan. The previous plan must be revised to include Internet connection and also should be flexible enough to allow for later revisions. If the school or district has established Internet connection as a high priority, some of the other purchases will have to be revisited and/or delayed and phased in at a later date.
A USA Today editorial (Oct. 7, 1997) cites districts in California and Massachusetts as cutting teaching positions to boost their technology budgets. This is an extreme measure and sure to cause backlash in the use of technology in schools. An Internet connection, even with its initial and ongoing costs, should result in technology dollar savings over the long haul by taking advantage of network software, free or low-cost research opportunities, and a different approach to teaching and reaming. Without the appropriate classroom reform that technology can facilitate, there is no question but that the initial cost will be taken out of other areas of a fixed budget.
Maintaining a Balance
An obvious general solution is for districts to find sufficient funding for all their technology efforts. While this is a pipe dream for most districts, there are more dollars available for technology than ever before. Many states have dedicated technology money, the federal government is providing more and more money through the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TLCF), and grants from the private sector are coming on line more frequently.
For instance, Global SchoolNet Foundation (http://www.gsn.org/csw) and Cisco Systems sponsor a program, supported by Apple, to help districts create their own Web page. These types of programs will proliferate as the private sector attempts to ensure their name is linked with the E-rate. Many of these partnerships will include both eligible and ineligible services.
The most important general solution to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained is careful planning and budgeting. Some technology plans contain outstanding high-level goals and strategies, but they don't put specific dollar amounts on each activity. While this flexibility is helpful in a time of uncertain funding, it can cause some knee-jerk reactions when money becomes available.
Technology plans that follow the guidelines in the E-rate documents should ensure that each of the four pillars is addressed and that they have some relationship to each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment