Find the Latest Resources in Education Today
Nation’s ed-tech chief reacts to budget concerns
Karen Cator on the administration’s FY11 budget proposal: ‘Every pot of money is really an opportunity to purchase technology’
Cator discusses the president's proposed ed-tech budget with eSchool News.
Karen Cator, director of education technology for the U.S. Department of Education (ED), has heard the concerns from ed-tech groups about President Obama’s 2011 budget proposal, which would fold the largest single source of federal funding for school technology equipment, software, training, and support into a larger grant program that aims to promote effective teaching and learning.
The concerns about the lack of a dedicated funding stream for education technology in the 2011 budget are “valid,” Cator said. But she defended the administration’s approach by noting that it encourages the integration of technology throughout all content areas.
“Every pot of money is really an opportunity to purchase technology, or to engage with technologies, to reach the goals of the program,” she said.
In a video interview with eSchool News on March 3, Cator discussed the president’s 2011 budget proposal along with highlights from the new National Education Technology Plan, which her department released in draft form March 5.
Click below to watch Karen Cator’s interview with eSchool News on eSN.TV
Under Obama’s budget plan, the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program would be consolidated along with several other grant programs into a new initiative called Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education.
This new initiative would focus on improving teaching and learning within three areas: Literacy, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math), and Well-Rounded Education (arts, foreign languages, civics and government, history, geography, economics, financial literacy, and other subjects).
According to ED officials, the new initiative would “include a focus on integrating technology into instruction and using technology to drive improvements in teaching and learning” throughout all three areas.
Most of the money would be awarded through competitive grants to state and local education agencies, but ED also would set aside money for national activities, such as grants to support research and technical assistance, grants to “strengthen the use of technology in the core academic subjects”; and a competitive grant program to encourage the development of “high-quality digital educational content for children.”
Ed-tech advocacy groups were not happy with that approach.
“We are deeply concerned about the president’s proposal to consolidate [EETT], which would leave our nation with no dedicated federal education technology funding,” said the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) in a statement. “Eliminating EETT, a program that is essential to making our students college- and career-ready and our teachers the best they can be, would be devastating at every level of our education system.”
Cator said she understands the concerns of CoSN and others. She added that federal officials recognize they need to continue to support state and local leadership capacity when it comes to education technology.
“What we’re really trying to do is understand all of the needs for funding technology,” she said.
Besides supporting core content-area instruction, other areas of the federal budget where Cator said she sees “tremendous opportunities for technology” include making teachers as effective as possible and giving students access to high-quality educational opportunities in rural or underserved areas.
5 Responses to Nation’s ed-tech chief reacts to budget concerns
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
mgozaydin
March 9, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Dear Karen CATOR :
If you try to develope 51 algebra 1 online courses for 51 states you can never find enough money for education. Even somebody says 13900 school districts should have their own algebra 1 . 13900 of them. One never find money for that.
1 or 2 algebra 1 online is enough for all USA 58.000.000 K12 students. Its cost is only $ 1.000.000 a very good one . Almost perfect. For all K12 probably you need 100 online courses. Then $ 100.000.000 is sufficient to solve all K12 problem. We in Turkey spent $ 60.000.000 for 60 courses in Turkey for 15.000.000 K12 students. They can all access the courses free. Thanks to Turk Telecom. Plus we plan to provide 1 to 1 netbooks for $ 6-7 installment to 15.000.000 students. But some people are afraid of losing their jobs. Therefore we fight with that. You will also . Innovation is easy implementation is not .
mgozaydin
March 9, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Dear Karen CATOR :
If you try to develope 51 algebra 1 online courses for 51 states you can never find enough money for education. Even somebody says 13900 school districts should have their own algebra 1 . 13900 of them. One never find money for that.
1 or 2 algebra 1 online is enough for all USA 58.000.000 K12 students. Its cost is only $ 1.000.000 a very good one . Almost perfect. For all K12 probably you need 100 online courses. Then $ 100.000.000 is sufficient to solve all K12 problem. We in Turkey spent $ 60.000.000 for 60 courses in Turkey for 15.000.000 K12 students. They can all access the courses free. Thanks to Turk Telecom. Plus we plan to provide 1 to 1 netbooks for $ 6-7 installment to 15.000.000 students. But some people are afraid of losing their jobs. Therefore we fight with that. You will also . Innovation is easy implementation is not .
PatrickA
March 9, 2010 at 4:27 pm
The main issue of funding is not the immediate need but sustaining the needs over time. Technology changes every 18 months (paraphrase of Gordon Moore’s Law). So regardless if you create a perfect environment today what will happen 18 months or 2 years from now? Will schools be running back to the Government for more money? A cycle that never ends? an infinite computer loop? Schools need to create a self-sustaining system that generates revenue from the user base to provide funds for future tech needs.
Also for teacher training and involvement. The current structure does not provide for either of these needs. We need to move forward towards creating an environment that provides proper alternative revenue streams that do not intrude on the learning experience and yet provide actual valuable information for the students and teachers at NO COST. Please visit my website and see what is available today.
http://www.thecampuscenter.com.
Thank you.
PatrickA
March 9, 2010 at 4:27 pm
The main issue of funding is not the immediate need but sustaining the needs over time. Technology changes every 18 months (paraphrase of Gordon Moore’s Law). So regardless if you create a perfect environment today what will happen 18 months or 2 years from now? Will schools be running back to the Government for more money? A cycle that never ends? an infinite computer loop? Schools need to create a self-sustaining system that generates revenue from the user base to provide funds for future tech needs.
Also for teacher training and involvement. The current structure does not provide for either of these needs. We need to move forward towards creating an environment that provides proper alternative revenue streams that do not intrude on the learning experience and yet provide actual valuable information for the students and teachers at NO COST. Please visit my website and see what is available today.
http://www.thecampuscenter.com.
Thank you.
smodow
March 9, 2010 at 5:13 pm
My principal just eliminated the teaching of computers for the next school year. What is she thinking?? I teach in an inner city school where English is the second language and the students comes from poverty homes. What a disservice she is doing to the community. I am surprised that the Supt has not stopped her.
smodow
March 9, 2010 at 5:13 pm
My principal just eliminated the teaching of computers for the next school year. What is she thinking?? I teach in an inner city school where English is the second language and the students comes from poverty homes. What a disservice she is doing to the community. I am surprised that the Supt has not stopped her.
moodman
March 15, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Ms Cator,
I do hope you read this message. I am an Ed Tech teacher with 33 years experience. My graduate degree is in Educational Technology Leadership. I say that because I have been around, and seen many things develop over the years.
What MOST concerns me about consolidating the money stream is what can (and usually does) happen to large pots of money when government decides to do line-item budgets.
It is all too easy to look at a yearly budget and decide, for example, that such and such part of a budget needs to “reduce by x percentage” in order to balance the budget When incidents like this happen (and they DO happen regularly, especially when political committees meet to respond to an executive order to reduce costs), the original history of why a program exists as a line item in a larger budget gets forgotten.
As it stands now, if the reduction in Ed Tech funding has to happen, Congress must treat it as a separate program subject to separate rules for its increase OR decrease. Because of that rule, the merits of the program can be evaluated on its own merits, instead of it simply being one more line item in a long list of line items.
For this reason, I BEG you to reconsider your position. You know that putting the funds into a large pot means the eradication of the special expertise that is found only in Ed Tech programs. Putting it under the umbrella of one large superfund will destroy the special character that makes Ed Tech what it is. It will simply disappear under the weight of a large bureaucracy that cannot manage it with the precision required for career and technical education subjects.
Your points are well stated, but do they really trump the larger concerns I just stated? Can you guarantee that Ed Tech won’t just become another line item in a bloated bureaucratic Federal agency, with no real power to lobby for itself? History shows that is what would happen. Please don’t give away all the years of effort the Ed Tech professionals have fought for without a fight. Tell Mr. Obama to look at this issue again.
moodman
March 15, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Ms Cator,
I do hope you read this message. I am an Ed Tech teacher with 33 years experience. My graduate degree is in Educational Technology Leadership. I say that because I have been around, and seen many things develop over the years.
What MOST concerns me about consolidating the money stream is what can (and usually does) happen to large pots of money when government decides to do line-item budgets.
It is all too easy to look at a yearly budget and decide, for example, that such and such part of a budget needs to “reduce by x percentage” in order to balance the budget When incidents like this happen (and they DO happen regularly, especially when political committees meet to respond to an executive order to reduce costs), the original history of why a program exists as a line item in a larger budget gets forgotten.
As it stands now, if the reduction in Ed Tech funding has to happen, Congress must treat it as a separate program subject to separate rules for its increase OR decrease. Because of that rule, the merits of the program can be evaluated on its own merits, instead of it simply being one more line item in a long list of line items.
For this reason, I BEG you to reconsider your position. You know that putting the funds into a large pot means the eradication of the special expertise that is found only in Ed Tech programs. Putting it under the umbrella of one large superfund will destroy the special character that makes Ed Tech what it is. It will simply disappear under the weight of a large bureaucracy that cannot manage it with the precision required for career and technical education subjects.
Your points are well stated, but do they really trump the larger concerns I just stated? Can you guarantee that Ed Tech won’t just become another line item in a bloated bureaucratic Federal agency, with no real power to lobby for itself? History shows that is what would happen. Please don’t give away all the years of effort the Ed Tech professionals have fought for without a fight. Tell Mr. Obama to look at this issue again.
dethun
March 16, 2010 at 11:34 am
Will private, non-profit schools be included in this? And what role will the local school district play with them?
dethun
March 16, 2010 at 11:34 am
Will private, non-profit schools be included in this? And what role will the local school district play with them?