Educators respond to national ed-tech plan
Some see a conflict between its call for innovation and other federal school-reform efforts
From staff reports
Read more by eSchool News Staff
Stakeholders say the NETP has much potential, although putting its recommendations into practice could prove challenging.
While many school stakeholders say there’s a lot to like in the new National Education Technology Plan (NETP), such as its emphasis on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and using open educational resources to improve instruction, others are concerned about what they see as a fundamental conflict between the plan’s call for innovation on the one hand and the Obama administration’s continued focus on testing and accountability on the other.
In their blueprint for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have called for higher standards, particularly in the core academic subjects of reading and math, and better use of data to make sure students are meeting these more rigorous standards.
The new NETP, released last month, refers to these broader administration goals—but it also calls on school leaders to reinvent teaching and learning, with a focus on personalizing instruction and infusing 21st-century skills into the curriculum.
Now, some educators are wondering whether it’s possible to achieve the goals outlined in the NETP while simultaneously meeting the tougher ESEA requirements the administration is proposing—and all at a time when school budgets continue to decline.
“In many places, the report discusses critical thinking, complex problem solving, collaboration, and multimedia communication (a.k.a. 21st-century competencies),” wrote Bill MacKenty, an instructional designer at the Hunter College Campus Schools in New York City. “We read about goals of creating inquisitive, creative, resourceful thinkers, informed citizens, effective problem [solvers], groundbreaking pioneers, and visionary leaders. But the report also clearly articulates the importance of data-based instruction and data-based decisions. How does this report imagine education in the context of quantitative data and qualitative experience?”
He continued: “The report says data, data, data. I get it. But the report also says schools can’t be ‘information factories.’ Where do those ends meet?”
MacKenty is one of dozens of educators who’ve left comments for the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on the NETP web site. He’s not alone in seeing a potential conflict between the plan’s call for innovation and the administration’s overall school-reform blueprint.
A commenter identified only as “Shane” noted that “using technology and integrating it into instructional practices will not prepare students for the 21st century without other major changes to the system of education.”
He added: “The focus of the federal and state governments on high-stakes testing is in direct contradiction to creating an environment where humans learn best. Furthermore, it perpetuates the idea that all students should be the same. Students are not the same. People are not the same. … Stop attaching funding to only standardized test scores. Then, perhaps schools could begin moving towards creating an environment where 21st-century skills can develop.”
ED is seeking feedback on the plan as officials look to implement its recommendations. But the comments of MacKenty and others illustrate the many challenges the department will face in bringing its ed-tech plan to fruition.
Another is funding.
mgozaydin
April 15, 2010 at 10:41 am
Standards must be set by DC . Even I say National Curriculum has to be developed in DC by the best educators of the world, NSF, NASA all world educators. Education cannot be left to schools districts.
Education is science. Not everybody can talk about it. Only experts can talk about it.
Deficiency of USA education system is lack of National Curriculum. I am an outsider, so see the situation better than my American friends.
Any comment. mgozaydin@hotmail.com from Turkey educated by American Universities.
mgozaydin
April 15, 2010 at 10:41 am
Standards must be set by DC . Even I say National Curriculum has to be developed in DC by the best educators of the world, NSF, NASA all world educators. Education cannot be left to schools districts.
Education is science. Not everybody can talk about it. Only experts can talk about it.
Deficiency of USA education system is lack of National Curriculum. I am an outsider, so see the situation better than my American friends.
Any comment. mgozaydin@hotmail.com from Turkey educated by American Universities.
feliperazo
April 19, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Hmmm….
I just do not see ANY conflict between “innovation on the one hand and the Obama administration’s continued focus on testing and accountability on the other.” Accountability and testing and of course, teaching, can be innovative and creative, just like elsewhere in the real world. But it takes competent, well focused and responsible organizations supporting this, as mentioned by someone else in a previous comment to this article.
feliperazo
April 19, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Hmmm….
I just do not see ANY conflict between “innovation on the one hand and the Obama administration’s continued focus on testing and accountability on the other.” Accountability and testing and of course, teaching, can be innovative and creative, just like elsewhere in the real world. But it takes competent, well focused and responsible organizations supporting this, as mentioned by someone else in a previous comment to this article.
mccauslind
April 20, 2010 at 9:33 am
I do not see the conflict between innovation and increased testing/accountability. I DO see a HUGE conflict between this and the cuts in funding that we are seeing. You cannot expand on tech infrastructure, come up with innovative ideas and implementations, and continue to force more and more without proportionately increasing the funding to accomplish all of this! I do not know how the rest of the states are faring, but Michigan is bleak!
mccauslind
April 20, 2010 at 9:33 am
I do not see the conflict between innovation and increased testing/accountability. I DO see a HUGE conflict between this and the cuts in funding that we are seeing. You cannot expand on tech infrastructure, come up with innovative ideas and implementations, and continue to force more and more without proportionately increasing the funding to accomplish all of this! I do not know how the rest of the states are faring, but Michigan is bleak!