POLICY INFORMATION REPORT

Computers and Classrooms

The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools

POLICY INFORMATION CENTER

Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey 08541-0001
 CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Summary and Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
School Access to Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Multimedia Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Cable TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Internet Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Videodisc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Satellite Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Student Use of Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
This report was written by: School Computer Use Information from NAEP . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Student Use of Computers at Home and School . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Richard J. Coley Student Use of Computers for School Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Policy Information Center The Use of Computers in Teaching Reading, U.S. History/
Educational Testing Service Social Studies, and Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Student Use of Computers in Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
John Cradler Computer Coursework and Experience of College-Bound
Council of Chief State Seniors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
School Officers A Profile of the Class of 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Change Over the Decade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Penelope K. Engel
Educational Testing Service Evaluating the Impact of Educational Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
What the Research Shows . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . 34
The view expressed in this Evaluation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . 38
report are those of the An Example from the Field . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . 38
authors and do not necessar- Connecting Teachers and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . 41
ily reflect the views of the Current Status of Staff Development for Technology Use . . . . . 41
officers and trustees of Barriers to Effective Technology Use . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . 43
Educational Testing Service. Models for Connecting Teachers and Technology . . .... . . . . 44
Involving Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . 46
Assessing the Content and Quality of Courseware . . . . . . . . . . . 48
The Instructional Design of Courseware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
The California Instructional Technology Clearinghouse . . . . . . 49
The CITC Evaluation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Guidance for Courseware Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
The Quality of Current Courseware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Integrating Effective Courseware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Incentives for Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
The Costs of Educational Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Estimating the Costs of Technology in Our Schools . . . . . . . . . 57
Cost Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Californias Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Urban/Rural Cost Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Economies in Educational Technology Funding . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

1
PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Education reform and one constant in the The authors wish to

the quality of schools world of technology. thank the following
top the list of national This report is a snap- people for their help
concerns these days. And shot of a rapidly chang- with this report. At ETS,
the use of technology in ing phenomenon; the Tony Cline, Larry Frase,
classrooms shares top picture will have to be and Ellen Mandinach
billing with the standards taken regularly for such contributed advice early
and assessment move- information to be useful. in the project and pro-
ment as ways to improve vided reviews of the
education. Paul E. Barton report. Paul Barton and
Director Howard Wainer of ETS,
This report is about
Policy Information Center
technology in the class- and Margaret E. Goertz
room. It is not an argu- of the Center for Policy
ment for or against Research in Education at
technology, nor a how- the University of Penn-
to-do-it manual. Its sylvania also reviewed
purpose is to inform sections of the report.
to bring together what Quality Education
we know about: Data, Inc. provided pre-
publication access to
the access of schools to their data on technology
technology and the fair- penetration in schools
ness of access among and we are grateful to
students Laurie Christensen and
Jeanne Hayes for their
how technology is used help. Ruth Mary Cradler
in schools of Educational Support
Systems also provided
the effectiveness of assistance.
educational technology Shilpi Niyogi and
Barbara Bruschi provided
issues involved in editorial support and
connecting teachers Carla Cooper did the
and technology desk-top publishing. Rick
Bruce, Rod Rudder, and
the quality of educa- Jim Wert designed the
tional courseware cover. Jim Chewning
managed production.
the costs of deploying Errors of fact or
technology in our interpretation are those
schools of the authors.

This report also

provides a baseline of
information from which
we can track change.
Change, of course, is the

2
SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS
SCHOOL ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY
There are major differences among schools in their
access to different kinds of educational technology.
Students attending poor and high-minority schools
have less access to most types of technology than
students attending other schools.
Ninety-eight percent of all schools own computers. The
current student-to-computer ratio of 10 to 1 represents
an all-time low ratio. The ratio ranges from about
6 to 1 in Florida, Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakota
to 16 to 1 in Louisiana.
While 85 percent of U.S. schools have multimedia
computers, the average ratio of students to computers
is 24 to 1, nearly five times the ratio recommended by
the U.S. Department of Education. The ratio ranges
from about 9 to 1 in Florida to about 63 to 1 in Louisi-
ana. Students attending poor and high-minority schools
have less access than students attending other schools.
About three-quarters of the nations schools have
access to cable TV. This percentage ranges from 91
percent of Connecticuts schools to 36 percent of
Vermonts schools. Students attending poor and high-
minority schools have less access to cable TV than
students attending other schools.
Sixty-four percent of U.S. schools have access to the
Internet, up from 35 percent in 1994 and 50 percent in
1995. In Delaware, Hawaii, New Mexico, and South
Carolina, all schools are connected. Students attending
poor and high-minority schools are less likely to have
Internet access than other students. Only 14 percent of
U.S. classrooms have access to the Internet.
Little more than half of our schools have CD-ROM
drives, ranging from 91 percent of the schools in North
Carolina to only 29 percent of the schools in Vermont.
Students attending poor and high-minority schools
have less access to CD-ROM than students attending
other schools.
Thirty-eight percent of our schools are using local area
networks (LANs) for student instruction. This ranges
from 57 percent of the schools in Colorado, Utah, and
North Carolina, to 16 percent of the schools in Ver-
mont. Students attending poor and high-minority
schools have less access to LANs than students attend-
ing other schools.
About one-third of U.S. schools have videodisc tech-
nology, ranging from 95 percent of Floridas schools to
10 percent of Mississippis schools. Students attending
poor and high-minority schools are more likely than
students attending other schools to have access to
videodisc technology.
Just under one-fifth of our schools have access to
satellite technology, ranging from 50 percent of the
schools in Missouri to only 1 percent of Hawaiis
schools. While students attending high-minority schools
have less access to this technology than students
attending other schools, students attending poor
schools have more access than students attending rich
schools.
USE OF COMPUTERS
Among eleventh graders, writing stories and papers
was the most frequently rated computer use at home
and school. Among fourth and eighth graders, playing
games (presumably at home) was the prevalent
computer use. At all three grade levels, using the
computer to learn things and for writing were highly
rated uses. About half the students said they used a
computer at home.
Nine percent of fourth graders, 10 percent of eighth
graders, and 19 percent of twelfth graders said they
used a computer for school work almost daily. Sixty
percent of fourth graders, 51 percent of eighth graders,
and 37 percent of twelfth graders said that they never
used a computer for school work.
Black and Hispanic fourth graders were more likely
than White and Asian students to report using comput-
ers almost daily.
Fourth graders receiving Title 1 services and those
attending the lowest scoring third of schools reported
more frequent use of computers than other students.
3
 White, Black, and Hispanic twelfth graders were more
likely than Asian students to report almost daily use of
computers.
Twelfth graders receiving Title 1 services and those
attending rural/small town schools were more likely to
report daily computer use than other students.
About 40 percent of fourth-grade teachers used com-
puters to teach reading, U.S. history/social studies, and
geography.
About one-third of eighth-grade teachers used comput-
ers to teach U.S. history/social studies and geography,
and 17 percent reported using the computer to teach
reading.
With a few exceptions, the use of technology to teach
reading, U. S. history/social studies, and geography
was found to be equitable. Among the exceptions:
White fourth graders were more likely than Black
fourth graders to have teachers who used com-
puters to teach geography.
White eighth graders were more likely than their
Black and Hispanic classmates to have teachers
who used computers to teach history.
Students whose teachers indicated that the ability
level of their class was low were less likely than
other students to be taught geography using a
computer.
About half of the nations 13- and 17-year-olds had
access to a computer to learn mathematics.
For college-bound seniors from the Class of 1996, word
processing exposure was the most frequent type of
coursework or experience, followed by computer
literacy, use in English courses, use in solving math-
ematics problems, data processing, computer program-
ming, and use in solving natural science and social
science problems. Only 9 percent of students reported
no computer coursework or experience. Findings by
gender and racial/ethnic group follow:
4
Females were more likely than males to have
word processing experience.
Students from minority groups were less likely to
have courses or experience in word processing
and computer literacy, and less likely to use
computers in English courses and to solve
problems in mathematics and natural science.
Minority group students were more likely to
have courses in data processing and computer
programming.
Females were less likely than males to have
coursework or experience in computer literacy
and computer programming, and less likely to
use computers to solve math and natural science
problems.
Since 1987, the percentage of college-bound
seniors reporting no computer coursework or
experience dropped from 26 percent to 9 percent.
Drops were registered in computer programming
and in using the computer to solve math problems.
Increases were registered in all other areas,
particularly in word processing and in using
computers in English courses.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Research generally agrees that drill-and-practice forms
of computer-assisted instruction are effective in produc-
ing achievement gains in students.
More pedagogically complex uses of educational
technology generally show more inconclusive results,
yet many offer promising and inviting educational
vignettes.
Many ongoing educational technology projects are in
the process of documenting and recording measures of
student motivation, academic outcomes, and other
outcomes such as increased skills in problem-solving
and collaboration.
 Evaluations of educational technology are really
evaluations of instruction enabled by technology, and
the outcomes are highly dependent on the implementa-
tion of the instructional design.
Evaluations of educational technology applications must
confront a number of methodological problems,
including the need for measures other than standard-
ized achievement tests, differences among students in
opportunity to learn, and differences in starting points
and program implementation.
Effects of educational technology on teachers should be
emphasized because teachers remain in the classroom
to influence many generations of students.
CONNECTING TEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY
Research shows that helping teachers learn how to
integrate technology into the curriculum is a critical
factor for the successful implementation of technology
applications in schools.
Most teachers have not had the education or training
to use technology effectively in their teaching.
Only 15 percent of U.S. teachers reported having at
least nine hours of training in education technology in
1994.
In 18 states, teacher education students do not need
courses in educational technology to obtain a teaching
license.
Only 16 percent of teachers currently use telecommuni-
cations for professional development.
Research on the adoption of innovations in schools
consistently points to the key role of administrators in
successful implementation.
Effective staff development for teachers should take
advantage of telecommunications technologies that
allow teachers to interact with each other, take online
courses, and easily access the latest research in their
discipline.
EFFECTIVE COURSEWARE
Effective courseware needs to reflect the research on
how students learn, be matched to national, state, or
district educational standards, and be integrated into
the teaching and learning activities of the classroom.
Research-based criteria for the development of effective
curriculum should also be applied to the development
and selection of educational courseware.
The California Instructional Technology Clearinghouse
has rated only 6 to 8 percent of evaluated courseware
as exemplary, and from 33 to 47 percent as desir-
able. Less than half of the courseware submitted to the
Clearinghouse had sufficient quality to merit review.
Promising directions in courseware development might
include a national clearinghouse; partnerships among
developers, teacher groups, and private and public
agencies; and a determination of courseware needs
that would meet current and emerging curriculum
directions.
THE COSTS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Research shows that the cost of the technology cur-
rently in our schools is about $3 billion, or $70 per
pupil. This cost represents just over 1 percent of total
education spending.
Estimates indicate that it will cost about $15 billion
to make all of our schools technology rich. This is
about $300 per student, 5 percent of total education
spending, and about five times what we now spend
on technology.
Different deployment scenarios are estimated to cost
from $11 billion for a lab with 25 networked PCs in
every school, to $47 billion for a networked PC for
every five students.
The primary upfront factor affecting costs is the
purchase and installation of computers and other
hardware.
5
 Secondary, very high-cost, factors relate to the hiring or
reassignment of technology staff and the training of
staff and teachers.

Telecommunications costs (e.g., Internet access,

telephone bills) are a small portion of total technology
costs, estimated at from 4 to 11 percent.

Connecting schools with cable substantially increases

their technological capacity over that of telephone
wire, but technical problems have to be solved.

Wireless solutions are appropriate and cost-effective

under certain circumstances, such as in old buildings
requiring asbestos removal or in rural areas. Savings
from 20 to 40 percent of the cost of Internet connectiv-
ity have been observed.

Urban/rural disparities in telephone costs exist which

adversely affect rural schools. Significantly higher
percentages of non-metropolitan than metropolitan
schools are located in high-cost service areas.

A variety of technology cost reductions to schools have

been achieved through the configuration of networks,
discounted group rates, donated services, and special
programs.

6
INTRODUCTION

I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system and that in
a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks...
Thomas Edison, 1922

Because education will be much more efficient, it will probably cost less than it does now. This is not a
utopian dream. It is well within the range of an existing technology of teaching.
B.F. Skinner, 1986

There wont be schools in the future... I think the computer will blow up the school. That is, the school
defined as something where there are classes, teachers running exams, people structured in groups by
age, following a curriculum all of that...
Seymour Papert, 19841

Education has always
been susceptible to
silver bullet solutions to
its problems, and impos-
ing a new technology
has often been such a
solution. Yet time after
time, the technology du
jour has collided with
the realities of the class-
room and resulted in
only marginal changes in
how teachers teach and
students learn. Why is
this so? And what are the
prospects for change?
Some researchers
point out that techno-
reformers too often
ignore the main purpose
of schooling, the real
social organization of
schools, and the pressing
daily realities of teaching.
Teachers are seen as part
of the problem and are
burdened with solving
it.2 Yet most of the
teachers in todays
classrooms have had
little training or experi-
ence in technology.
Nationally, only 15
percent of our teachers
had at least nine hours of
training in educational
technology in 1994;
and as of 1996, 18 of
the states did not
require courses in
educational technology
for a teaching license.3
Further, teachers often
have difficulty linking
educational technology
use to local curricula
and integrating it
with instruction and
assessment.
Perhaps another
problem is the coupling
of educational technol-
ogy issues with educa-
tion reform issues. Some
computer advocates
argue that computers
will become integrated
in our schools only
when teachers teach
differently than they do
now and students study
a different curriculum.
Others have suggested
that we can make
headway in getting
teachers to use comput-
ers in instruction if we
stop trying to get teach-
ers to do their jobs
differently and begin
using technology to help
teachers do their jobs as
they do them now. Once
the use of computers is
unhitched from move-
ments to reform teaching
and redesign the curricu-
lum, technology stands a
better chance of assum-
ing an important educa-
tional role.4
We need to remem-
ber at least two impor-
tant things. First, comput-
ers in and of themselves
do very little to aid
learning. The presence
of technology in the
classroom does not
automatically inspire
teachers to rethink their
teaching or students to
adopt new modes of
learning. Although
computers may make
the work more efficient
and more fun, students
use of computers for
various tasks like
writing, drawing, or
graphing does not
tend to radically change
what they would have
done without computers.
Computer technology
may provide powerful
learning opportunities,
but both teachers and
students need to learn
how to take advantage
of them. Second, no
single task or activity
has profound and
lasting effects on learn-
ing by itself. Rather, it is
the whole culture of a
classroom environment
that can have important
effects on learning.5
What is educational
technology? And how is
it used in schools today?
In the broad sense, the
term includes any
resources used in the
education of students.
These can include
methods, tools, or
processes. In practice,
the term was used in
the post World War II
era to mean technolo-
gies such as film strips,
slide projectors, lan-
guage laboratories,
audio tapes, and televi-
sion. Since the advent of
personal computing in
the 1980s, the phrase
has come to refer

7
 Some Milestones in Educational Technology
Although todays technology
reform started about 15 years ago,
technology in the schools goes
back twice as far. The computer-
assisted instruction projects of the
1960s evolved, with the increased
availability of personal computers,
into the CD ROM-based multi-
media learning resources of today.
At the same time, telecommunica-
tions networks burgeoned, greatly
extending the possibility of con-
nections to learning sources across
time and space, via voicemail,
E-mail, direct broadcast via
satellite, and the electronic
resources of the World Wide Web.
The federal government
supported technology for schools
as early as the late 1950s, largely
through funding from the National
Science Foundation and the
Department of Education. More
recently the departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
and Energy, as well as NASA and
the National Endowment for the
Humanities, have offered funds for
educational technology. These
federal efforts have supported
educational television program-
ming and facilities, development of
computer-based instructional
materials, hardware and software
purchases, demonstration projects,
educational technology centers,
distance learning networks,
conferences, evaluations, assistive
technologies for disabled learners,
and more recently, support for
telecommunications networks and
educational technology planning.7
Federal legislation passed in
1994, both The Goals 2000:
8
Educate America Act and the
Improving Americas Schools Act
(IASA), authorized funds for state
and federal educational technology
planning. Five million dollars have
now been distributed under Goals
2000 to nearly all 50 states for
development of state technology
task forces and plans. IASA has
supported federal leadership,
regional technology centers, and
43 large technology challenge
grants to school-business-college
partnerships for technology to
improve learning. It also autho-
rized Americas Technology
Literacy Challenge, for which $200
million were appropriated for FY
1997. Title I of IASA provided
some $450 million, and Title VI
some $60 million, for support of
educational technology in FY
1996.
President Clinton and Vice
President Gore have made
educational technology a high
visibility, high priority issue. In
1996 Clinton called for connecting
every classroom in America to the
information superhighway, with
computers and good software and
well-trained teachers. The White
House announced four educa-
tional technology goals:
1. All teachers in the nation
will have the training and
support they need to help
students learn using com-
puters and the information
superhighway.
2. All teachers and students
will have modern multi-
media computers in their
classrooms.
3. Every classroom will be
connected to the information
superhighway.
4. Effective software and on-line
learning resources will be an
integral part of every schools
curriculum.
Other White House technol-
ogy initiatives include Americas
Technology Literacy Challenge, a
five-year effort to help states
achieve the goals; a 21st Century
Teachers program to recruit
teachers to train others in tech-
nology use; and the Tech Corps
which involves volunteers helping
schools integrate technology into
the classroom.
A National Education Summit
of governors and business,
education, and community leaders,
convened in Palisades, New York
in March 1996, also stressed the
importance of educational
technology. Conference leaders
committed to helping educators
overcome barriers, including
planning for the acquisition and
integration of technology in
schools, the high cost of acquiring
and maintaining technology, the
lack of school technology policies,
resistance to change, and the need
for staff development and curri-
culum change.8 The participants
pledged to subject their states to
public scrutiny through annual
report cards on their progress.
The Federal Communica-
tions Commission (FCC), under
the direction of Chairman Reed
Hundt, has been playing an
important role in making
telecommunications services
accessible to schools, including
enabling schools to create
wireless computer networks,
allowing inexpensive access to the
Internet and other advanced
telecommunications services. As
this report goes to press, the FCC
is developing provisions to meet
the Telecommunications Act of
1996, which requires that
affordable service and access to
advanced telecommunications
services are provided to public
schools and libraries, including
higher discounts for economically
disadvantaged schools and those
located in high-cost areas. A final
FCC decision is expected in May
1997.
The President has continued
his support for educational
technology in 1997 by recom-
mending in his State of the Union
address and budget request a
doubling of the funding for
Americas Technology Literacy
Challenge. For FY 1998, $425
million was requested as the
second installment of a five-year,
$2 billion investment to modern-
ize schools to prepare students
for work in the coming century.
primarily to computer-
based learning, and
most recently to learning
environments established
with computer and
communications tech-
nologies. In short, educa-
tional technology is a
phrase used to refer to
the most advanced tech-
nologies available for
teaching and learning in
a particular era.6
How are educational
technologies being used
in todays classrooms?
At one end of the spec-
trum, computers are
used to deliver tradi- transcend the bound-
tional instruction, e.g.,
software provides drill-
and-practice in multipli-
cation tables. In other
instances, computers
provide students with
experience in technolo-
gies that adults use in
many work situations
word processors for
writing, data bases for
collecting and analyzing
information, and desk-
top publishing software
for publishing. Comput-
ers are increasingly being
used to provide students
with opportunities to
explore microworlds, whether one believes
enabling them to con-
struct new knowledge
and learn basic skills in
useful contexts. Finally,
Internet connections
allowing electronic mail,
file transfer, conferencing,
and access to remote
expertise and informa- students will work. What are the costs of
tion offer tantalizing Meanwhile, those con- deploying technology in
promise to educators cerned about these our schools?
seeking to prepare issues the public,
students for the 21st teachers, educational 1 Quotations from Nira Hativa and
Alan Lesgold, Situational Effects in
century. technology planners, Classroom Technology Implementa-
tions: Unfulfilled Expectations and
In assessing the and policymakers at the Unexpected Outcomes, in Stephen
status of educational federal, state, district, and T. Kerr (ed.), Technology and the
Future of Schooling, Chicago:
technology in our school level need current University of Chicago Press, 1996.
schools, equity issues information about how 2 Larry Cuban, Revolutions that
are paramount. Some technology is being used Fizzled, Washington Post
Education Review, October 27,
reformers argue that in classrooms today and 1996.
technology can be the what are its effects.
3 Education Week, Quality Counts: A
one educational This report attempts Report Card on the Condition of
Public Education in the 50 States,
change that can really to meet that demand for January 22, 1997.
make a difference for information. The aim is
4 Tom Loveless, Why Arent
disadvantaged students, to provide a snapshot Computers Used More in Schools?
allowing them to of where the U.S. is in Educational Policy, Volume 10,
Number 4, December 1996.
terms of technology in
5 Gavriel Salomon and David
aries of their schools. classrooms. We assemble Perkins, Learning in Wonderland:
Others warn that tech- data to answer the What Do Computers Really Offer
Education? in Stephen T. Kerr (ed.),
nology could widen the following questions: Technology and the Future of
Schooling, Chicago: University of
gap between the educa- Chicago Press, 1996.
tion haves and have How much technology
6 Roy Pea, Learning and Teaching
nots. Where available, is in our schools and is with Educational Technologies, in
data in this report are it allocated fairly? H.J. Walberg & G.D. Haertel (eds.),
Educational Psychology: Effective
broken out by demo- Practices and Policies, Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan Publishers, 1996.
graphic categories to How are computers
help determine which used in schools? Is 7 Office of Technology Assessment,
Power On! New Tools for Teaching
way we are heading. access equitable? and Learning, Washington, DC:
1988.
While many educa-
tional technology issues What do we know 8 National Education Summit, 1996
National Education Summit Policy
continue to be debated, about the effectiveness Statement, Sponsored by the
the presence of technol- of educational technol- IBM Corporation, the National
Governors Association, and the
ogy in schools continu- ogy and what are the Education Commission of the States,
Palisades, New York, March 27,
ally expands. This evaluation problems we 1996.
expansion will continue, face?
that computers should How can teachers and
be an integral part of technology be better
education for pedagogi- connected?
cal reasons, or that their
use is justified simply What is the quality of
because of the technical current educational
requirements of the courseware and how is
world in which todays it related to current
educational standards?
9
 Two of the four Technol-
School Access ogy Literacy Challenge
to Technology goals are related to the
presence of hardware in
our schools:
All teachers and students
will have modern multi-
media computers in their
classrooms.
Every classroom will be
connected to the informa-
tion superhighway.
Computers are
becoming ubiquitous in
todays elementary and
secondary schools 98
percent of schools report
owning a computer.1 But
do all students have
equal access to technol-
ogy? This section of the
report examines the
presence of various
types of technologies in
schools in the 1995-1996
school year and focuses
on whether different
types of students, or
students in different
types of schools, have
different access to these
technologies.
This analysis includes
gauging the access to
technology of students
receiving Title 1 services
(a federal program for
our most economically
disadvantaged students)
and for minority students
(students who are of
African-, Asian-, His-
panic-, or Native-Ameri-
can origin).2 In addition,
we show the variation
10
Figure 1: Technology Penetration in U.S. Public Schools,
1995-96
Computers 98
VCRs 97
Multimedia Computers 85
Cable TV 76
Internet Access 64
CD-ROM 54
Networks 38
Videodisc 35
Satellite 19
0 25 50 75 100
Percentage of Schools
Source: QED, 1997.
that exists across the 50 are equipped with local
states. area networks (LANs) and
Figure 1 shows an videodisc players. About
overall picture of technol- one-fifth of schools use
ogy penetration in U.S. satellite technology. Each
public schools in the of these technologies is
1995-96 school year. discussed in the follow-
Nearly all schools have ing sections.
computers and video
cassette recorders (VCRs),
and three-quarters or
more of all U.S. schools
own multimedia comput-
ers and cable television.
Sixty-four percent of
schools have Internet
connections. About half
own CD-ROM drives and
approximately one-third
COMPUTERS
There are 4.4 million
computers in Americas per pupil) have more
classrooms, with the
typical school owning
between 21 and 50. The
Apple platform still leads
in K12 computing with a of 9.7 students per com-
share of 60 percent (41
percent Macintosh and 19
percent Apple II and
IIGS). DOS machines
have 40 percent of the
market.
As shown in Figure 2,
the ratio of students to
computers has declined
from 125 students per
computer in 1984 to the
current ratio of 10 stu-
dents per computer, the
all-time low.
The ratio of students
to computers decreases as
the grade level increases.
Elementary schools have
a ratio of 11 to 1; middle/
junior highs have a ratio
of 9.7 to one; and senior
highs have a ratio of 8.4
to 1. The rate of com-
puter growth has slowed
as districts and schools
have invested in network
and telecommunication
technology. Moderniza-
tion also has had an effect
as older equipment is
retired and replaced.
Technology penetra-
tion can also be exam-
ined by the amount of
discretionary dollars a
district spends per stu-
dent. Discretionary dollars
are dollars spent for
instruction less salaries
and fringe benefits. As
Figure 2: Trends in the Number of Students per
expected, high-spending Computer
districts ($500 or more
120
computers per student, 100
Students per Computer
on average, than other
80
districts. High-spending
districts have an average 60
40
puter, compared to 10.2
students per computer 20
for medium-spending
0
districts, and 10.6 stu- 84 86 88 90 92 94 96
dents per computer for
Source: QED, 1997.
low-spending districts.
What about the
relationship between the Figure 3: Relationship between the Number of
availability of computers Students per Computer and the Percentage of Title 1
and student need? The Students
data show that students 13
with the most need get
Students per Computer
the least access. As seen 12
in Figure 3, the ratio of
11
students to computers
goes up as the percent- 10
age of Title 1 students
increases. Thus, students 9
in schools with the
largest percentage of 8
1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-99
economically disadvan- Percentage of Title 1 Students
taged students have the
Source: QED, 1997.
highest ratio. Addition-
ally, as seen in Figure 4,
schools with large pro-
Figure 4: Relationship between the Number of Students
portions of minority per Computer and the Percentage of Minority Students
students also have the
highest ratios. While 18
schools with less than
25 percent of such 16
Students per Computer
students have a student-
to-computer ratio of 14
about 10 to one, stu-
12
dents in schools with 90
percent or more of
10
minority students have a
ratio of 17.4 to one. 8
1-24 25-49 50-74 75-89 90+
Percentage of Minority Students
Source: QED, 1997.
11
 This pattern of inequity
Figure 5: Number of Students per Computer, by State
is persistent in the data that
Florida 5.9 will follow. Previous
Wyoming 5.9 analyses have shown a
Alaska 6.1
North Dakota 6.2 positive relationship
Nebraska 6.5 between the percentage of
South Dakota 6.6
Kansas 6.8 Title 1 students and com-
North Carolina 7.1 puter availability.3 The
Montana 7.6
Colorado 7.9 general trend was more
Iowa 8.1 technology in poorer
Indiana 8.2
Washington 8.4 schools. This no longer
Minnesota 8.6 appears to be the case.
New Mexico 8.6
Georgia 8.8 While Title 1 funding is
Wisconsin 8.9 designed to help poor
Texas 9.2
Arizona 9.3 schools, these targeted
Utah 9.3 resources are apparently
West Virginia 9.4
Maine 9.5 ineffective in getting these
Oregon 9.5 schools up to par techno-
Kentucky 9.6
Idaho 10 logically with other
U.S. Average 10 schools. Since much of the
Oklahoma 10.1
technology that currently
Virginia 10.2 resides in poor schools is
Arkansas 10.3
New York 10.4
probably due to Title 1
South Carolina 10.5 funds, it is hard to imagine
Missouri 11
Michigan 11
what the technology level
Maryland 11.1 in these schools would be
Connecticut 11.4
Pennsylvania 11.7
like without this federal
Nevada 11.8 program.
Alabama 12.1
New Jersey 12.1
Figure 5 shows the
Illinois 12.2 student-to-computer ratio
Vermont 12.3
New Hampshire 12.7
for each state. While state
Tennessee 12.9 averages can mask dif-
Ohio 13.4
California 13.7
ferences that exist among
Hawaii 13.7 a states school districts,
Rhode Island 13.8
Massachusetts 14.1 averages can be useful in
Mississippi 14.4 recognizing the differences
Delaware 15.3
Louisiana 16 that exist among the states.
Florida, Wyoming, Alaska,
North Dakota, Nebraska,
0 5 10 15 20 25
South Dakota, and Kansas
Students per Computer
lead the states with about
six students per computer,
Source: QED, 1997.
on average. At the other
end, Massachusetts, Missis-
sippi, Delaware, and
Louisiana have student-to-
computer ratios of 14 to
one or more.

12
MULTIMEDIA COMPUTERS than other students.
Figure 6: Relationship between the Number of Students
Figures 6 and 7 show per Multimedia Computer and the Percentage of Title 1
Multimedia systems the dimensions of this Students
include high-speed problem.
computers with large The figures show 40

Students per Multimedia Computer

memory and storage consistent differences in
capacities that are the student-to-multime-
35
augmented with various dia computer ratio in
components and periph- schools educating large
erals that provide sound, proportions of Title 1 30
graphics, and video. and minority students. As
Multimedia computers shown in Figure 6, as the
are important in taking percentage of Title 1 25
advantage of learning students goes up, so
opportunities provided does the ratio of students
by the Internet and the to computers. Schools 20
1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-99
World Wide Web. While where less than 20 Percentage of Title 1 Students
85 percent of the percent of the students
nations schools have qualify for Title 1 have a Source: QED, 1997.
some multimedia com- ratio of about 22 students
puters, in the average per computer, compared
school the ratio of to a ratio of about 32
students to multimedia students per computer in
computers is about 24 schools where 81 per-
to one. According to cent or more of the
the U.S. Department of students are eligible for Figure 7: Relationship between the Number of Students
Education, the optimum Title 1. per Multimedia Computer and the Percentage of
ratio is five to one, Schools with more Minority Students
nearly five times less than 50 percent of
than the current national minority students have 40
Students per Multimedia Computer

ratio.4 higher student-to-multi-

High-spending media computer ratios
35
districts generally pro- than other schools. As
vide students with better can be seen in Figure 7,
access to multimedia most striking is that in 30
computers. The ratio in schools with 90 percent
low-spending districts is or more minority stu-
almost 29 to one, com- dents, the ratio is about 25
pared to a ratio of 23 to 30 students per com-
one in high-spending puter, compared to a
districts. ratio of about 22 to one 20
Students attending for schools with between 1-24 25-49 50-74 75-89 90+
Percentage of Minority Students
schools with large 25 and 49 percent of
concentrations of poor minority students. Source: QED, 1997.
and minority students The ratios by state
have more limited access are shown in Figure 8.
to multimedia computers Differences across states

13
 are large. Florida leads
Figure 8: Number of Students per Multimedia Computer, by State
all states with a ratio of
Florida 8.5 students to multimedia
Alaska 11.2 computers of 8.5 to one,
Nebraska 11.5
North Dakota 12.2 compared to ratios of
Kansas 13 more than 50 to one
North Carolina 14.1
Wyoming 14.2 in Mississippi, Delaware,
South Dakota 14.6 West Virginia, and
Colorado 14.9
Georgia 15.1 Louisiana.
Washington 16.4
Montana 17.6
Utah 18
Indiana 18.4
Arizona 19.1
Iowa 19.3
Oregon 20.3
New Mexico 21
Texas 21.6
Minnesota 21.7
Wisconsin 22.6
Nevada 23.5

U.S. Average 23.7

Maine 25.3
Idaho 25.8
Oklahoma 27
Kentucky 27.1
Virginia 27.8
Maryland 27.9
Vermont 30.3
New York 30.3
Illinois 30.5
Michigan 30.8
Tennessee 31
South Carolina 31.7
New Hampshire 33.5
Alabama 33.7
Missouri 34
Connecticut 34
Pennsylvania 34.9
Arkansas 35.5
California 36.9
New Jersey 37.5
Rhode Island 44.9
Hawaii 46.6
Ohio 47.2
Massachusetts 47.4
Mississippi 50.9
Delaware 52.1
West Virginia 55.5
Louisiana 62.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Students per Multimedia Computer

Source: QED, 1997.

14
CABLE TV There is also a
Figure 9: Relationship between the Percentage of
higher likelihood that Schools with Cable TV and the Percentage of Title 1
Cable television has more advantaged Students
been used as an instruc- schools will have cable 80
tional tool due to its TV available. As shown
availability, price, and in Figure 9, the availabil- 78

Percentage of Schools
programming options. ity of cable was lower in
Educational channels poor schools than in
76
such as the Learning average and rich schools.
Channel and the Dis- In addition, schools with
covery Channel, as well low percentages of 74
as off-hour program- minority students were
ming which can be pre- more likely to have cable 72
recorded make cable a TV than other schools
valuable instructional (Figure 10). 70
supplement for a variety State rankings on Poor Average Rich
of school subjects. school access to cable Percentage of Title 1 Students
Ninety-four percent TV are shown in Figure
of the nations students 11. Cable TV appears to Source: QED, 1997.
are enrolled in school be prevalent in most
districts where cable TV states schools. Alaska
is used in at least one and Vermont appear to
district building. Cur- be exceptions.
rently, 76 percent of our
schools have cable TV,
up 31 percent over the
Figure 10: Relationship between the Percentage of
last four years. Schools with Cable TV and the Percentage of Minority
District size is a Students
strong predictor of cable
80
use. As with most
educational technolo-
gies, the use of cable 78
Percentage of Schools

TV increases with
district size, reaching 99 76
percent of the school
districts with 25,000 or 74
more students. Only
among districts with 72
fewer than 1,000 stu-
dents does cable usage
70
fall, reaching only 55 Low Medium High
percent. These small Percentage of Minority Students
districts are likely to be
located in rural areas Source: QED, 1997.
where cable access may
not be available.

15
 Figure 11: Percentage of Schools with Cable TV, by State

Connecticut 91
Massachusetts 90
New Jersey 87
Hawaii 87
Rhode Island 86
Iowa 86
Colorado 86
Washington 85
Maryland 84
Wisconsin 84
Michigan 82
Delaware 81
Ohio 81
Florida 81
North Carolina 81
Oregon 81
Arkansas 80
Virginia 79
Minnesota 78
Kansas 77
Georgia 77
New York 77
Pennsylvania 76
Kentucky 76
Illinois 76
Alabama 76

U.S. Average 76
Nevada 75
New Hampshire 74
Tennessee 74
West Virginia 73
Missouri 73
South Dakota 73
Indiana 73
Wyoming 72
New Mexico 72
Oklahoma 71
North Dakota 70
California 69
Utah 69
South Carolina 68
Idaho 68
Mississippi 68
Louisiana 67
Maine 67
Texas 67
Nebraska 67
Arizona 61
Montana 59
Alaska 39
Vermont 36

25 50 75 100
Percentage of Schools
Source: QED, 1997.

16
INTERNET ACCESS5 shows the percentage
Figure 12: Relationship between the Percentage of
of schools with Internet Schools with Internet Access and the Percentage of Poor
The availability of access broken out by Students
Internet access allows the percentage of poor
100
students and teachers to students in those
communicate with other schools. While about
90

Percentage of Schools
students and teachers three-quarters of
and to expand their use schools with smaller
of teaching and learning percentages of poor 80
resources. Nearly all of students have Internet
the states have created access, the percentage 70
some form of educational drops to slightly more
network for teachers, than half of schools
60
administrators, and with high levels of poor
students. students.
Sixty-four percent of Figure 13 shows 50
<11 11-30 31-70 71+
U.S. schools had Internet the percentage of Percentage of Poor Schools*
access in the Fall of schools with Internet
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommuni-
1996, a gain of 15 per- access broken out by cations in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996,
February 1997.
centage points in each of the proportion of a
the last two consecutive schools minority stu- *NCES defines poor as eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch.
years. Large schools were dents. A similar trend
more likely to have line occurs the
access than small higher the proportion
schools, and secondary of minority students
schools were more likely within a school, the less Figure 13: Relationship between the Percentage of
to have Internet access likely it is to have Schools with Internet Access and the Percentage of
than elementary schools. access to the Internet. Minority Students
Only 14 percent of all Internet access by 100
public school instruc- state is shown in Figure
tional rooms (classrooms, 14. While all schools in
90
Percentage of Schools

computer or other labs, Delaware, Hawaii, New

and library media cen- Mexico, and South
ters), however, had Carolina have Internet 80
Internet access. This is access, one in five or
more than a four-fold less of the schools in 70
increase since the fall of Ohio, California, Illi-
1994, when only 3 nois, Oklahoma, and
60
percent of all instruc- Texas have access.
tional rooms had Internet
access. 50
<6 6-20 21-49 50+
Data on Internet Percentage of Minority Students
access reveal disadvan- Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommu-
tages for schools enroll- nications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996,
February 1997.
ing large proportions of
poor and minority
students. Figure 12

17
 Figure 14: Percentage of Schools with Internet Access, by State

Delaware 100
Hawaii 100
New Mexico 100
South Carolina 100
Tennessee 99
Georgia 98
Nevada 98
Alabama 95
Florida 95
Vermont 95
Minnesota 90
Rhode Island 90
Utah 90
Arizona 85
Indiana 85
Arkansas 81
Iowa 80
Virginia 80
Oregon 79
North Dakota 78
Colorado 76
Kansas 75
Maine 75
New Hampshire 75
Wisconsin 75
Nebraska 73
New Jersey 72
Alaska 70
Louisiana 70
West Virginia 67
North Carolina 65
Connecticut 64

U.S. Average 64
Wyoming 62
Massachusetts 60
Michigan 60
Washington 55
Kentucky 50
Missouri 50
New York 50
South Dakota 50
Montana 45
Maryland 43
Mississippi 38
Idaho 33
Pennsylvania 33
Ohio 20
California 15
Illinois 13
Oklahoma 10
Texas 10

0 25 50 75 100
Percentage of Schools

Source: QED, 1997.

18
CD-ROM
Figure 15: Relationship between the Percentage of
Schools with CD-ROM and the Percentage of Title 1
CD-ROM is the fastest Students
growing educational tech-
nology. This growth has 60
been spurred by the
increasing availability of

Percentage of Schools
55
multimedia computers and
the decreasing cost of
software available on 50
CD-ROM. Fifty-four per-
cent of the nations
schools now have this 45
technology.
CD-ROM ownership
is related to enrollment, 40
Poor Average Rich
although the difference is
Percentage of Title 1 Students
getting smaller. The larger
the school district, the
Source: QED, 1997.
more likely it is to be
using a CD-ROM drive
for student instruction in
at least one of its schools.
Poor schools are less
likely than rich or average
schools to have CD-ROM Figure 16: Relationship between the Percentage of
technology. These data are Schools with CD-ROM and the Percentage of Minority
shown in Figure 15. The Students
relationship between
60
CD-ROM ownership and
the percentage of minor-
Percentage of Schools

ity students in a school is 55

shown in Figure 16. In
general, the more diverse
a schools student popula- 50
tion, the less likely it is to
own a CD-ROM.
Figure 17 shows 45
the variation in school
CD-ROM ownership
40
across the states. North Low Medium High
Carolina appears at the Percentage of Minority Students
top of the chart, with 91
percent of its schools Source: QED, 1997.
owning this technology.
Fewer than one-third of
Hawaiis and Vermonts
schools, on the other
hand, own a CD-ROM.

19
 Figure 17: Percentage of Schools with CD-ROM, by State

North Carolina 91
Colorado 79
Utah 76
Georgia 75
Iowa 73
Alaska 70
Nebraska 70
Tennessee 66
South Dakota 66
North Dakota 66
Kansas 64
Montana 63
Maine 62
Alabama 61
Washington 61
New Mexico 61
New York 61
Virginia 61
Minnesota 60
Wisconsin 60
Wyoming 59
Oregon 58
Arizona 58
Maryland 58
Indiana 57
Kentucky 56
Idaho 54
South Carolina 54
New Hampshire 54

U.S. Average 54
Texas 53
Arkansas 52
Illinois 50
Missouri 49
Oklahoma 49
Michigan 49
Connecticut 48
California 47
Pennsylvania 45
Mississippi 42
Louisiana 41
Florida 40
West Virginia 39
Massachusetts 38
Delaware 38
New Jersey 38
Ohio 37
Nevada 37
Rhode Island 37
Hawaii 32
Vermont 29

25 50 75 100
Percentage of Schools
Source: QED, 1997.

20
NETWORKS
While Local Area Net-
work (LAN) technology
has been available for
many years, districts have
and North Carolina
Figure 18: Relationship between the Percentage of
have LAN access, the Schools with Local Area Networks and the Percentage of
percentage drops to Title 1 Students
one-quarter or less of
50
the schools in Louisi-
ana, Delaware, Massa-
chusetts, Hawaii, and

Percentage of Schools
only recently begun 45
implementing networks in Vermont.
their schools. Districts use
networks to connect 40
multiple computers to
share information and
35
resources. Thirty-eight
percent of the nations
schools are using 30
networks for student Poor Average Rich
instruction. Percentage of Title 1 Students
Large districts and
large schools are the most Source: QED, 1997.
likely to use networks. In
addition, network owner-
ship rates increase with
grade level 56 percent
of senior high schools use
networks, compared to 43
percent of middle/junior Figure 19: Relationship between the Percentage of
high schools, and 31 Schools with Local Area Networks and the Percentage of
percent of elementary Minority Students
schools. 50
Poor schools are less
likely than average and
Percentage of Schools

rich schools to use net- 45

works. These data are
shown in Figure 18. Figure
19 shows the relationship 40
between networks and the
percentage of minority
35
group students. As shown,
schools with high percent-
ages of minority students 30
have less access to LAN Low Medium High
technologies than other Percentage of Minority Students
schools.
Figure 20 shows Source: QED, 1997.
variation across the states.
While 57 percent of the
schools in Colorado, Utah,

21
 Figure 20: Percentage of Schools with Local Area Networks, by State

Colorado 57
Utah 57
North Carolina 57
North Dakota 56
Alaska 52
Wisconsin 52
Minnesota 52
Alabama 51
Montana 50
Wyoming 49
Georgia 49
South Carolina 49
Texas 48
Kentucky 48
Kansas 47
Washington 47
Maine 46
Iowa 45
Arizona 43
Indiana 42
Arkansas 41
New Mexico 41
West Virginia 41
Maryland 40
Oregon 38

U.S. Average 38
Idaho 37
Nebraska 37
Tennessee 37
Mississippi 36
Oklahoma 35
Connecticut 35
Virginia 34
New York 33
Nevada 32
Pennsylvania 31
Michigan 31
Florida 30
Missouri 30
Illinois 30
South Dakota 30
Rhode Island 29
Ohio 29
New Jersey 28
California 28
New Hampshire 28
Louisiana 25
Delaware 23
Massachusetts 22
Hawaii 21
Vermont 16

0 25 50 75
Percentage of Schools
Source: QED, 1997.

22
VIDEODISC
Figure 21: Relationship between the Percentage of
Schools Owning Videodiscs and the Percentage of Title 1
Videodisc technology Students
has been available for
50
nearly two decades and
has changed little com-

Percentage of Schools
pared to other technolo- 45
gies. What has changed
is how this technology is
used in schools. Once 40
used in conjunction with
a computer, videodiscs
are now often used as a 35
presentation tool. Just 35
percent of U.S. schools
30
own videodisc players. Poor Average Rich
As with many of the Percentage of Title 1 Students
other educational tech-
nologies discussed here, Source: QED, 1997.
ownership increases with
district and school size.
Ownership also increases
with grade level.
As shown in Figure
21, there is little differ-
ence in videodisc owner- Figure 22: Relationship between the Percentage of
ship among poor and Schools Owning Videodiscs and the Percentage of
rich schools. Figure 22 Minority Students
shows that schools with
medium and high per- 50
centages of minority
students are more likely
Percentage of Schools

to own videodisc players 45

than schools with low
percentages of minority
students. 40
Figure 23 shows
school videodisc owner- 35
ship by state. Ninety-five
percent of Floridas
schools own videodisc 30
players, compared to less Low Medium High
than one-quarter of the Percentage of Minority Students
schools in the bottom- Source: QED, 1997.
ranking 15 states.

23
 Figure 23: Percentage of Schools with Videodisc Players, by State

Florida 95
North Carolina 74
Utah 65
Texas 61
Tennessee 51
Colorado 48
Virginia 46
Wyoming 45
New Mexico 43
Washington 42
Georgia 40
Arizona 38
Indiana 37
California 37

U.S. Average 35
Maryland 34
Missouri 34
Iowa 33
Alaska 32
Minnesota 31
Ohio 31
Wisconsin 30
Nebraska 29
North Dakota 28
South Dakota 28
Hawaii 28
Alabama 27
Delaware 27
Michigan 26
West Virginia 26
New York 26
Kansas 26
Oregon 25
Kentucky 25
Connecticut 25
South Carolina 25
Nevada 24
Montana 24
New Jersey 23
Pennsylvania 22
Arkansas 21
Massachusetts 21
New Hampshire 18
Louisiana 17
Illinois 16
Rhode Island 15
Idaho 15
Maine 15
Oklahoma 13
Vermont 12
Mississippi 10

0 25 50 75 100
Percentage of Schools
Source: QED, 1997.

24
SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY
Satellite use in
elementary and second-
ary education grew as a
result of increased inter-
est in distance learning
and the increased avail-
ability and variety of
courses and staff devel-
opment programs. Nine-
teen percent of U.S.
schools had satellite
systems in 1995-96.
Unlike most other
technologies, satellite use
for student instruction is
comparatively high in
small school districts.
And while larger schools
are more likely to take
advantage of learning
opportunities via satel-
lite, this method is also
used frequently in small
and medium-sized
schools. Like most other
educational technologies,
usage increases with
grade level.
As shown in Figure
24, schools that are
average in terms of the
percentage of their
students who qualify for
Title 1 services are more
likely to have satellite
dishes than either poor
schools or rich schools.
Figure 25 shows that
schools with low propor-
tions of minority students
are more likely to own
this technology than
schools with average or
high minority concentra-
tions. While 21 percent
Figure 24: Relationship between the Percentage of
of schools with low Schools with Satellite Technology and the Percentage
minority percentages of Title 1 Students
own satellite dishes,
only 15 percent of 35
schools with high
minority concentrations
Percentage of Schools
30
own this technology.
Figure 26 shows the
variation among the 25
states. About half of the
schools in Missouri,
Kentucky, and Montana 20
own satellite dishes,
compared to 5 percent
or less of the schools 15
Poor Average Rich
in Rhode Island, New Percentage of Title 1 Students
York, Maryland, Ver-
mont, and Hawaii. Source: QED, 1997.
Figure 25: Relationship between the Percentage of
Schools with Satellite Technology and the Percentage
of Minority Students
35
Percentage of Schools
30
25
20
15
Low Medium High
Percentage of Minority Students
Source: QED, 1997.
25
 1 Most of the data in this section of
Figure 26: Percentage of Schools with Satellite Technology, by State the report is drawn from Tech-
nology in Public Schools, 15th
Edition. Installed Base Technology
Missouri in U.S. Public Schools, Covering
50
Kentucky 1981-1996. Denver, CO: Quality
49
Education Data. This annual
Montana 45
publication is a census study
Arkansas 39 of public school ownership of
Georgia 37 educational technologies for
Oklahoma 36 student instruction. To order
Texas 36 copies of the report, call QED
Alaska 33 at 1-800-525-5811, email
New Mexico 32 qedinfo@qeddata.com, or visit
Idaho 31 http://www.qeddata.com.
Alabama 29
Mississippi 28 2 There are some differences in the
Arizona 26 poverty and minority measures
Colorado 24 from one type of technology to
Tennessee 23 another. For computers and
West Virginia 21 multimedia computers, QED
Nebraska 21 provides actual percentage
South Carolina 21 groupings. For the other
Kansas 20 technologies, with the exception
Ohio 20 noted below, QED provides
North Dakota 20 broader groupings of schools
Wyoming poor, average, rich; and low,
19
Virginia medium, and high minority. The
19
Oregon data on Internet access are from
19
Washington two sources. The state data are
19 from QED and the poverty and
minority data are from the National
U.S. Average 19 Center for Education Statistics. For
this measure, NCES defines poor
Utah 18 students as those who are eligible
Massachusetts 18 for free or reduced-price lunch.
South Dakota 17
Michigan 17 3 Thomas K. Glennan and Arthur
Iowa 17 Melmed, Fostering the Use of
Pennsylvania 17 Educational Technology: Elements
Louisiana 16 of a National Strategy, Santa
Wisconsin 15 Monica, CA: RAND, 1996.
Indiana 15
Delaware 11 4 U.S. Department of Education,
Minnesota 11 Getting Americas Students Ready
Illinois 11 for the 21st Century, Meeting the
North Carolina 9 Technology Literacy Challenge,
New Jersey 9 June 1996.
Maine 9
New Hampshire 9 5 The state data on Internet access
Nevada 9 are from QED, 1997. The data for
Connecticut 9 poor and minority students are
Florida 9 from Advanced Telecommunica-
California 7 tions in U.S. Public Elementary and
Rhode Island 5 Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, U. S.
New York 4 Department of Education, National
Maryland 3 Center for Education Statistics,
Vermont 2 February 1997.
Hawaii 1

0 25 50
Percentage of Schools
Source: QED, 1997.

26
 This section of the report
Student Use examines data that allow
Figure 1: Students Use of Computers at Home and
School, 1994
of Computers us to see whether and
Grade 4
how computers are
Play games 87
being used in Americas
Learn things 82
classrooms. Some of the
Write stories/papers 68
data in this section is
Use at home 50
drawn from the most Use at library 48
recent assessments that Use at friends home 43
are available from the
Grade 8
National Assessment of Play games 87
Educational Progress Write stories/papers 82
(NAEP). These NAEP Learn things 76
data provide nationally Use at library 57
representative informa- Use at home 50
tion and allow us to Use at friends home 43
examine differences Grade 11
among groups of stu- Write stories/papers 87
dents at different grade Play games 77
and age levels.1 Learn things 71
This section provides Use at library 61
another perspective on Use at home 51
student computer use by Use at friends home 39
presenting data for the
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
more than one million Percentage of Students
college-bound seniors
who took the SAT in
Source: Jay R. Campbell and others, NAEP Trends in Academic Progress,
1996. In addition to prepared by Educational Testing Service under contract with the
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education,
highlighting their high November 1996.
school experiences and
courses related to com-
puters, we can examine examined the ability of tion is reported for
differences between boys students in U.S. history, different groups of
and girls and among geography, reading, and students so that compari-
racial/ethnic groups. mathematics. A key sons can be made.
Changes over the decade component of the assess-
are also described. ment was the contextual STUDENT USE OF COMPUTERS
information collected ATHOME AND SCHOOL
SCHOOL COMPUTER USE from students, teachers,
INFORMATION FROM NAEP and administrators. Students were asked
Topics included the about the contexts in
NAEP is the only frequency with which which they used comput-
nationally representative students are instructed ers at home and in
and continuing assess- using technology, and school. Their answers are
ment of what Americas particularly, whether shown in Figure 1 for
students know and can technology is used in the each of three grade
do in various subject teaching of various levels. Among fourth and
areas. In 1994, NAEP subjects. This informa- eighth graders, playing

27
games at home and than the other students
Figure 2: Students Reports on the Frequency of Com-
school was a prevalent to report almost daily puter Use for School Work, 1994
computer use, followed use of the computer for
by using the computer school work. Grade 4
for learning things, and There are some Almost daily 9
for writing stories or statistically significant Once/twice a week 21
papers. The most fre- differences among
quent use among elev- different groups of Once/twice a month 11

enth graders was writing. students. Never 60

About half of the stu-
dents said that they used Black and Hispanic Grade 8
a computer at home. A fourth graders were Almost daily 10

sizable proportion of the more likely than their Once/twice a week 16

students indicated that
they used a computer in
a library. Fourth graders
were more likely than the
older students to use the
computer to learn things.
On the other hand, eighth
and eleventh graders
were more likely to use
the computer for writing.
STUDENT USE OF COMPUTERS
FOR SCHOOL WORK
In the 1994 NAEP
reading assessment,
students were asked how
often they used a com-
puter for school work.
Figure 2 shows the
breakdowns for each
response category, for
each grade level.
Computer use for
school work increases at
each grade level. At the
fourth grade, 9 percent of
students reported using a
computer in school
almost every day, com-
pared to 10 percent of
eighth graders, and 19
percent of twelfth grad-
ers. Twelfth graders were
significantly more likely
White and Asian
Once/twice a month 23
classmates to report
almost daily use of Never 51
computers in their
Grade 12
school work.
Almost daily 19
Fourth graders receiving Once/twice a week 18
Title 1 services were
Once/twice a month 26
more likely to report
daily computer use than Never 37
were students not
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
participating in this
Percentage of Students
program.
Source: 1994 NAEP Reading Assessment Electronic Data Almanac,
Fourth graders attending Student Questionnaire.
schools that ranked in
the bottom third on
NAEP reported more
frequent use of comput- Twelfth graders attending U.S. history/social
ers than students in rural/small town schools studies, and geography.
higher-scoring schools. were more likely to Figure 3 shows the
report almost daily com- percentage of students
White, Black, and puter use than other whose teachers said that
Hispanic twelfth graders students. they use computer
were more likely than software for instruction
their Asian classmates to THE USE OF COMPUTERS IN in these subjects. About
report almost daily TEACHING READING, U.S. 40 percent of the stu-
computer use. HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, dents in fourth grade
AND GEOGRAPHY had teachers who
Twelfth graders receiv- reported using the
ing Title 1 services were Teachers of fourth computer for instruction
more likely to report and eighth graders were across the three sub-
frequent use than asked whether they used jects. In eighth grade,
students not receiving computer software for about a third reported
these services. instruction in reading, computer use in teach-

28
 Figure 3: Percentage of Students with Teachers Reporting Figure 4: Students Reports on the Availability and Use of
the Use of Computers in Teaching Reading, U.S. HIstory/ Computers in Mathematics, 1994
Social Studies, and Geography, 1994

Used a computer to solve

Reading
math problems
Grade 4 43 Age 13 70

Age 17 62
Grade 8 17
Studied math through
computer instruction
U.S. History/Social Studies Age 13 50

Grade 4 38 Age 17 34

Had access to computer to

Grade 8 32 learn mathematics
Age 13 48

Geography Age 17 52

Grade 4 42 Took a course in

computer programming

Grade 8 34 Age 13 Question not asked

Age 17 29

0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage of Students 30 40 50 60 70
Percentage of Students

Source: 1994 NAEP Reading, History, Geography Assessment Electronic Source: Jay R. Campbell and others, NAEP 1994 Trends in Academic
Data Almanacs, Teacher Questionnaire. Progress, Prepared by Educational Testing Service under contract with
the National Center for Education Statistics, November 1996.

ing U.S. history/social
studies and geography,
and 17 percent reported
using the computer to
teach reading.
There are some
statistically significant
differences among these
groups of students:
Computers were used to
teach reading more in
fourth grade than in
eighth grade.
White fourth graders
were more likely than
Black fourth graders to
have teachers who used
computers to teach
geography.
Fourth graders whose
teachers indicated that
their class was in the
lowest ability group
were the least likely to
have teachers who used
computers to teach
geography.
White eighth graders
were more likely than
their Black and Hispanic
classmates to have
teachers who used
computers to teach U.S.
history/social studies.
STUDENT USE OF COMPUTERS
IN MATHEMATICS
Thirteen and 17-year-
olds were asked a num-
ber of questions about
the availability and use
of computers in math-
ematics instruction.
These data are shown in
Figure 4. About half of
the nations students, at
both age groups, had
access to a computer to
learn mathematics in
1994. Thirteen-year-olds
were more likely than
17-year-olds to study
mathematics through
computer instruction and
to use a computer to
solve mathematics pro-
blems. Nearly a third of
the nations 17-year-olds
had taken a computer
programming course.

29
COMPUTER COURSEWORK A PROFILE OF THE CLASS OF
AND EXPERIENCE OF 1996
COLLEGE-BOUND SENIORS
Figure 5 shows the
The College Board overall frequencies for
annually publishes data each type of computer-
on the coursetaking related course or experi-
patterns of college- ence. For the Class of
bound seniors.2 A look 1996, there were differ-
at these data over the ences for types of com-
last 10 years can give us puter coursetaking and
some information on the experience. Figure 6
level of coursetaking shows computer course-
related to computers, taking in 1996 broken
and some information out by gender and race/
on trends. Students were ethnicity.
asked whether they had Word processing
any coursework or exposure was the most
experience in certain frequent nearly three-
areas. The response quarters of the students
options (verbatim) were had experience. There
as follows: was little difference
between boys and girls,
I have had no course but members of certain
work or experience in minority groups were
this area less likely to have word
Computer literacy, aware- processing experience
ness, or appreciation than were White and
Data processing Asian students.
Computer programming About half of the
(BASIC, COBOL, FOR- Class of 1996 had course-
TRAN, PASCAL, etc.) work or experience
Use of the computer to in computer literacy. Mexican/American,
solve math problems Females and minority
Use of the computer to group students were less and Puerto Rican stu-
solve problems in the likely than males and
social sciences White students to have
Use of the computer to such experience. While racial/ethnic groups to
solve problems in the 54 percent of White
natural sciences students had computer
Use of the computer in literacy experience, only
English courses 41 percent of Black and
Word processing (use of Puerto Rican students did. math problems by 27
the computer in writing Forty-four percent of
letters or preparing the Class of 1996 had
papers) used a computer in their
English course, with
females (45 percent)
slightly ahead of males
30
Figure 5: Percentage of College-Bound Seniors*
Reporting Computer Use or Experience, 1996
Word Processing 72
Computer Literacy 51
Use in English Courses 44
Math Problems 27
Data Processing 26
Computer Programming 24
Natural Science Problems 12
None 9
Social Science Problems 8
0 20 40 60 80 100
*Who Took the SAT
Percentage of College-bound Seniors
Source: 1996 College-Bound Seniors: A Profile of SAT Program Test Takers,
The College Board, 1996
(42 percent). The biggest Hispanic/Latino seniors
difference was that were the least likely to
use a computer in class
Hispanic/Latino, Black, to solve math problems,
although this difference
dents were less likely was small.
than students from other Data processing was
taken in high school
use a computer in by about one-quarter
English class. of the Class of 1996.
Computers were While the differences
used in school to solve between the racial/
ethnic groups were
percent of the seniors. small, this was an area
Males (30 percent) were where students from
ahead of females (25 minority groups were
percent). And again, more likely than White
Black, Mexican Ameri- students to take this
can, Puerto Rican, and particular coursework.
Figure 6: Computer-Related Coursework or Experience of College-Bound Seniors* by Gender and
Race/Ethnicity

Word Processing Computer Literacy

Female 75 Male 55
White 74 White 54
Asian American 73 Other race/ethnicity 52
All 72 All 51
Other race/ethnicity 70 American Indian 51
American Indian 69 Female 48
Male 69 Mexican American 48
Mexican American 68 Asian American 47
Hispanic/Latino 67 Hispanic/Latino 47
Puerto Rican 64 Black 41
Black 63 Puerto Rican 41

0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75

Use in English Course Math Problems

White 47 Male 30
Female 45 White 28
All 44 All 27
Asian American 44 American Indian 27
American Indian 43 Asian American 27
Other race/ethnicity 43 Other race/ethnicity 27
Male 42 Black 26
Mexican American 37 Female 25
Hispanic/Latino 33 Mexican American 25
Black 32 Puerto Rican 24
Puerto Rican 30 Hispanic/Latino 23

0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75

Data Processing Computer Programming

Asian American 29 Asian American 31
Black 29 Male 29
American Indian 28 Black 25
Mexican American 28 Hispanic/Latino 25
Hispanic/Latino 27 Mexican American 25
Male 27 Other race/ethnicity 25
Other race/ethnicity 27 All 24
All 26 Puerto Rican 24
Female 26 White 23
Puerto Rican 25 American Indian 22
White 25 Female 20

0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75

Natural Science Problems Social Science Problems

Male 14 American Indian 9
Asian American 13 Asian American 8
Other race/ethnicity 13 Male 8
White 13 Other race/ethnicity 8
All 12 All 7
American Indian 12 White 7
Female 10 Black 6
Hispanic/Latino 9 Female 6
Black 8 Hispanic/Latino 6
Mexican American 8 Mexican American 5
Puerto Rican 8 Puerto Rican 5

0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75
Percentage of Students Percentage of Students
*Who took the SAT

Source: College-Bound Seniors unpublished data, The College Board.

31
 Along with data
processing, computer
programming was a sub-
ject more likely to be
taken by minority group
students, although the
differences are not large.
There is quite a difference
between boys and girls in
taking computer program-
ming, however this The percentage of
coursework was taken by
29 percent of the boys
and only 20 percent of
the girls.
Fewer students used
computers to solve
natural science and/or
social science problems.
Only 12 percent of
college-bound seniors
used computers in
natural science 14 points from 44 to 24
percent of the males and
10 percent of the females.
Asian and White students
were more likely than
other students to use
computers this way. Only
7 percent used computers
to solve social science
problems. Again, minority
group students were less
likely than other students
to have this experience.
While not shown in
the figure, only 9 percent
of the Class of 1996
reported no computer
experience in high
school. Puerto Rican stu-
dents (13 percent) were
more likely to report no
experience than other
students.
32
CHANGE OVER THE DECADE natural science problems
(up 6 points), and social
Figure 7 shows a science problems (up
line graph for each area 3 points).
of computer course-
work or experience
1 Because NAEP data provided in this
from 1987 until 1996. section of the report are both cross-
sectional and trend, students are
In general, students assessed at different ages and
used technology more grades. Thus, some data reported
are for 17-year-olds, eleventh
as the decade wore on. graders, and twelfth graders.
2 These data are for 1996 high school
college-bound seniors graduates who participated in the
SAT program during their high
reporting no computer school years. Composed of over
experience dropped one million students, this group
represents about 93 percent of
from a high of 26 students entering four-year
institutions and about 48 percent
percent in 1987 to only of all first-year students who enter
9 percent in 1996. The college each year.
percentage of students
reporting coursework
or experience in com-
puter programming
dropped 20 percentage
percent. There was a
small drop in the
percentage of students
using technology to
solve math problems
from 30 to 27 percent.
Increases were
registered during the
decade in all other
areas. The largest
increases were in word
processing (up 36
percentage points, from
36 percent in 1987 to 72
percent in 1996) and in
using computers in
English courses (up 32
percentage points, from
12 percent in 1987 to 44
percent in 1996).
Smaller increases are
seen in computer
literacy (up 10 percent-
age points), data pro-
cessing (up 7 points),
 Figure 7: Percentage of College-Bound Seniors* Reporting Coursework in Various Subjects or Experience, 1996

Computer Programming Computer Literacy Word Processing

60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20 20

Percentage of Students
0 0 0
87 90 93 96 87 90 93 96 87 90 93 96

Math Problems Data Processing Use in English Course

60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20 20

Percentage of Students
0 0 0
87 90 93 96 87 90 93 96 87 90 93 96

Natural Science Problems Social Science Problems No Computer Experience

60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20 20

Percentage of Students
0 0 0
87 90 93 96 87 90 93 96 87 90 93 96

*Who took the SAT.

Source: 1996 College-Bound Seniors: A Profile of SAT Program Test Takers, The College Board, 1996.

33
 Will the use of comput- difficult the evaluation. In trying to deter-
Evaluating the ers in teaching funda- This section also mine what is known
Impact of mentally change the describes some of the about the effectiveness
way we educate chil- methodological problems of educational technol-
Educational dren, preparing them to that arise in attempting to ogy, the RAND Corpora-
live and work produc- evaluate the impact of tion held a workshop for
Technology tively as the new millen- technology on teaching both researchers who
nium begins? What is and learning. had studied the effec-
the evidence that using tiveness literature and
educational technology WHAT THE RESEARCH practitioners who were
can transform teaching SHOWS involved in schools that
and learning and made extensive use
improve student achieve- The first part of this of technology. On this
ment? This section of the section describes the basis, RAND drew
report provides a brief evidence on the effec- the following broad
and select summary of tiveness of technology conclusion:2
the research on the used for computer-
effectiveness of educa- assisted instruction, Numerous studies of a
tional technology in basic skills instruction, wide variety of specific
elementary and second- and drill-and-practice applications of technol-
ary education. Reviews types of software. The ogy show improvements
of this research are next section considers in student performance,
available from other evidence available on student motivation,
sources as well, and the impact of more teacher satisfaction, and
the findings are fairly educationally complex other important educa-
consistent.1 types of technology tional outcomes.
Rudimentary uses of applications. Until new
computers in teaching, and ongoing evaluations James Kulik, a
e.g., using drill-and- of cutting edge technol- conference participant
practice software to ogy applications are who has spent more
teach addition and available, the projects than a decade analyzing
subtraction, appear to be described here represent studies of the use of
effective and efficient. some of the best avail- computers for instruc-
More pedagogically able evidence. tion, summarized his
complex uses of the Rudimentary findings. A research
computer, e.g., using the Technology Applica- approach called meta-
Internet in small groups tions. Computer-based analysis allowed him to
to conduct collaborative instruction can individu- aggregate research
research, often show alize instruction and findings of many studies
inconclusive results, give instant feedback of computer-based
while sometimes offering to students, even instruction. Kulik sum-
promising and inviting explaining the correct marized these findings
educational vignettes. answer. The computer as follows:
To further complicate is infinitely patient and
matters, it appears that non-judgmental. This At least a dozen meta-
the more complex and motivates students to analyses involving over
sophisticated the instruc- continue. 500 individual studies
tional design, the more have been carried out to

34
 answer questions about Computers do not,
the effectiveness of however, have positive
computer-based instruc- effects in every area in
tion. The analyses were which they were studied;
conducted indepen- the average effect of
dently by research teams computer-based instruc-
at eight different re- tion in 34 studies of
search centers. The attitude toward subject
research teams focused matter was near zero.
on different uses of the
computer with different It is important to
populations, and they note that, for the most
also differed in the part, the programs
methods they used to reviewed by Kulik were
find studies and analyze developed prior to 1990
study results. Nonethe- and tended to emphasize
less, each of the analyses drill and practice. Kuliks
yielded the conclusion findings are similar to
that programs of com- those of J.D. Fletcher,
puter-based instruction who studied the cost
have a positive record effectiveness of using
in the evaluation technology in military
literature.3 training. In short,
Fletchers studies of
Kulik drew the computer-based instruc-
following conclusions tion in military training
from this work: repeatedly show gains
of about one-third in
Students usually learn training time.4
more in classes in which More recently, the
they receive computer- Software Publishers
based instruction. Association commis-
sioned an independent
Students learn their consulting firm to pre-
lessons in less time pare a meta-analytic
with computer-based report on the effective-
instruction. ness of technology
in schools. Research
Students also like their from 1990 to 1995 was
classes more when they included, and 176 studies
receive computer help in were analyzed. This
them. report concludes that
the use of technology as
Students develop more a learning tool can make
positive attitudes toward a measurable difference
computers when they in student achievement,
receive help from them attitudes, and interactions
in school. with teachers and other
students. With respect tends to be of higher
to achievement, positive quality than writing
effects were found for all produced for in-class
major subject areas, in use only.
preschool through higher Technology has also
education, and for both been shown to have
regular education and other effects on students.
special needs education. The use of technology in
Student attitudes toward the classroom improves
learning and student self- students motivation and
concept were both found attitudes about them-
to be increased consis- selves and about learn-
tently in a technology- ing. Technology-rich
rich environment across schools report higher
the studies included. In attendance rates and
general, (although not lower dropout rates than
necessarily for low- in the past. Students are
achieving students who found to be challenged,
tended to require more engaged, and more
structure) student control independent when using
(self-pacing) was found technology. By encour-
to be one of the more aging experimentation
positive factors relating and exploration of new
to achievement when frontiers of knowledge
technology was used.5 on their own through the
Numerous studies use of technology,
have demonstrated that students gain a greater
technology is particularly sense of responsibility
valuable in improving for their work produc-
student writing.6 For ing higher-quality assign-
example, the ease with ments that reflect the
which students can edit increased depth and
their written work using breadth of their knowl-
word processors makes edge and talent. And
them more willing to technology energizes
do so, which in turn students, because they
improves the quality of often know more about
their writing. Studies its operation than do
have shown that students their teachers.7
are more comfortable More Cognitive
with and adept at critiqu- Applications of Tech-
ing and editing written nology. The RAND
work if it is exchanged report goes on to say
over a computer network that the more cognitive
with students they know. applications of technol-
And student writing that ogy are more difficult to
is shared with other evaluate the research
students over a network data are less extensive,
35
the data that exist are
harder to organize, and
new evaluation designs
are often needed. These
more cognitive applica-
tions can engage stu-
dents in authentic tasks,
often with other stu-
dents, using computer
network software and
databases that are
intended not only to
improve subject matter
learning, but to develop
skills in cooperation,
communication, and
problem solving. Evi-
dence on the effective-
ness of some of these
technology applications
is provided below.
A recent report by
Beatrice Berman and
her colleagues at the
American Institutes for
Research provides
descriptions and findings
of several recent studies
and ongoing projects
that investigate the
implementation, effec-
tiveness, and role of
technology with large
numbers of teachers and Fourth-grade students
students in the context
of educational reform
efforts.8 Until new and
ongoing evaluations of
cutting-edge educational
technology projects are Sixth-grade students
available, the findings
from the projects cited
below represent the best
of currently available
research.
argue that the study
provides additional
36
The Role of Online Com- evidence that online
munications in Schools: access can help students
A National Study. This become independent,
project, conducted by critical thinkers, able to
CAST (Center for Applied find information, orga-
Special Technologies), is nize and evaluate it, and
based on the premise then effectively express
that online use is best their new knowledge
introduced into schools and ideas in compelling
within the context of ways.9
what is already happen-
ing in the classroom. The Technologys Role in
study compared the Education Reform. This
work of 22 fourth- and is a four-year national
sixth-grade classes in study conducted by
seven urban school Barbara Means and
districts half with Kerry Olson and their
access to online commu- colleagues, which seeks
nications and the Inter- to understand how
net and half without. The technology can support
student work was part of constructivist teaching at
a semi-structured instruc- the classroom level, and
tional unit completed to describe and analyze
over a two-month per- technology implementa-
iod. The goal was for all tion factors. Schools or
classes to study issues of projects were selected
civil rights by research- for study which served
ing civil rights topics, substantial numbers of
sharing information, and poor students. The
completing a final pro- most common effects
ject. CAST researchers on students were an
found that: increase in motivation
and improvements in
academic performance.
with online access Overall, the researchers
scored significantly reported that the use of
higher on two of nine technology in their case
learning measures study schools had a
positive effect. Of the
eight single-school sites,
with online access seven reported lower
scored significantly than average rates of
higher on four of nine teacher turnover, six
learning measures reported higher student
attendance rates, and
The CAST researchers five had higher test
scores than a compari-
son group. Fewer
disciplinary incidents
were also reported.10
Union City Interactive
Multimedia Education
Trial. The Union City,
New Jersey, school
district implemented a
five-year plan that
included a significant
investment in technology
to support its curriculum
reform goals. Bell
Atlantic worked with the
city, the state board of
education, and the
Education Development
Centers Center for
Children and Technology
to carry out a technology
trial at two schools.
While the districts
comprehensive reform
program has yielded
substantial gains in
student progress, results
at Christopher Columbus
Intermediate School are
even more encouraging.
Columbus students
had the highest overall
pass-rates of any
district school on
practice administrations
of New Jerseys Early
Warning Test.
More Columbus
students qualified for
the ninth-grade honors
program than did
students from any other
city school.
The Columbus School
has held the districts
best attendance record
 for both students and
faculty for the past two
years.
The school had the
highest number of
transfers in and the
fewest numbers of
transfers out between
1993 and 1995.11
Higher Order Thinking
Skills Program (HOTS).
Begun in the early 1980s
as an alternative
approach to Title 1,
HOTS has evolved into a
widely used and effective
intervention for disad-
vantaged fourth- through
seventh-graders. HOTS is
a pull-out program
created to build the
thinking skills of students
through exposure to a
combination of comput-
ers, drama, and Socratic
dialogue, which are
combined via a detailed
and creative curriculum.
Recent reports note the
following results:
Increased thinking and
social confidence of
participating students
Doubled national aver-
age gains on reading
and math test scores
Ten to 15 percent of the
Title 1 and learning
disabled students made
the honor roll in 1994,
suggesting a transfer of
the students cognitive
development to learn-
ing specific content
Increased perfor- Ability to teach others Communicated
mance on measures effectively about
of reading compre- Greater problem- complex processes
hension, meta- solving and critical-
cognition, writing, thinking skills Used technology
components of IQ, routinely and
transfer to novel Greater self-confidence appropriately
tasks, and GPA and self-esteem
Became independent
HOTS students also Apple Classrooms of learners and self-
outperformed a Tomorrow (ACOT). starters
control group of ACOT focused on the
students in a tradi- changed instructional Knew their areas of
tional Title 1 program practices and student expertise and shared
on all measures12 learning that occurred that expertise sponta-
when extensive access neously
Assessing the Growth: to technology was
The Buddy Project provided at the class- Worked well colla-
Evaluation, 1994-95. room level. In its initial boratively
The state of Indiana, years (before laptops),
along with the Lilly each student and Developed a positive
Endowment and teacher was given two orientation to the
Ameritech, sponsored computers, one for future13
this project that home and one for
supplied students with school. Over 10 years of CHILD (Computers
home computers and research, the ACOT Helping Instruction and
modem access to the project says that inde- Learning Develop-
school. An assessment pendent researchers ment).14 This project
of the project indicated found that ACOT was a five-year investi-
significant differences students not only gation in nine Florida
between seven Buddy continued to perform elementary schools that
Project classrooms well on standardized began in 1987. Over
compared to three tests but were also 1,400 students partici-
non-Buddy Project developing a number pated and their teachers
classrooms in different of competencies not received training which
schools. Positive effects usually measured. included not only the
included: According to this technological compo-
research, ACOT nents of the program
An increase in all students: (three to six computers
writing skills were placed in each
Explored and repre- classroom) but also
Better understanding sented information emphasized establishing
and broader view of dynamically and in a team environment
math many forms with other teachers in
the project. Much of the
More confidence with Became socially aware students daily routine
computer skills and more confident involved self-paced
interactions in a learn-
37
 ing station environment.
Student empowerment
was a key concept of the
project. Standardized test
scores indicated a posi-
tive and significant result
across all grades, schools,
and subjects, with the
largest effects appearing
for students who had
been in the program for
more than one year.
When surveyed, none
of the nine schools
expressed dissatisfaction
with the project, five
were planning to expand
their level of participa-
tion, and nine new
schools were about to
become involved.
EVALUATION ISSUES
When we try to
determine the effective-
ness of educational
technologies we are
confronted by a number
of methodological and
practical issues. First, we
need to remember that
technology is only one
component of an instruc-
tional activity. Assess-
ments of the impact of
technology are really
assessments of instruc-
tion enabled by technol-
ogy, and the outcomes
are highly dependent on
the quality of the imple-
mentation of the instruc-
tional design.
According to Roy
Pea, the social contexts
of technology uses are
crucial to understanding
38
how technology may achievement may be the most important
influence teaching and affected by students evaluative lesson is the
learning. Whatever else attitudes about them- absolute necessity for
is effective, it is not selves, school, and researchers to remain
educational technolo- learning, and by the flexible in applying their
gies per se. The social types of interactions that methodological knowl-
contexts are all impor- go on in schools. edge in a field setting,
tant. They include not In addition, techno- i.e., to make continuous
only the technology but logical changes are adjustments in all
its content, the teaching likely to be nonlinear, aspects of implementa-
strategies used both and may show effects tion and assessment
in the software and not only on student efforts to gain a more
around it in the learning, but also on the thorough understanding
classroom, and the curricula, the nature of of technologys impact
classroom environment instruction, the school on teaching and learn-
itself. It is a recurrent culture, and the funda- ing activities.17
finding that the effects mental ways that teach- A final issue is that
of the best software can ers do their jobs.16 evaluators are often
be neutralized through Ellen Mandinach chasing a moving target.
improper use, and that and Hugh Cline have While policymakers and
even poorly designed explored many of the the public may want to
software can be cre- challenges to the scien- know whether investing
atively extended to tific examination of in a particular type of
serve important learn- technologys impact on statewide computer
ing goals.15 education and suggest network is worthwhile,
There are also a the need to focus on by the time evaluation
host of methodological longitudinal design, data are collected and
issues to confront. First, multiple methods, analyzed, the particular
standardized achieve- multiple levels of analy- network may be obso-
ment tests may not sis, and systems analysis lete and another invest-
measure the types of in lieu of traditional ment opportunity
changes in students that methodologies. Tradi- presents itself that needs
educational technology tional research designs to be explored.
reformers are looking are inadequate, inappro-
for. New measures, priate, and often ask the AN EXAMPLE FROM
some of which are naive question, Does it THE FIELD
currently under devel- work? The impact of
opment, would assess technology is too multi- Finally, this section
areas that many believe faceted for such a simple describes the experi-
can be particularly question. There is ences of a team of
affected by using new impact on: students researchers at Educa-
technologies, such as learning and motivation; tional Testing Service
higher order thinking. classroom dynamics, (ETS) that is currently
There is also a including interactions grappling with the issues
need to include out- among students, teach- involved in documenting
come measures that go ers, and the technology; and evaluating the New
beyond student achieve- and schools as formal Jersey Networking
ment, because student organizations. Perhaps Infrastructure in Educa-
tion Project, funded by
the National Science
Foundation, which is
aimed at enhancing
elementary and second-
ary science education
through the use of the
Internet.18
The projects goal is
to connect 500 schools to
the Internet, to train
teachers to access and
use the Internet and,
ultimately, develop
science curricula that
draw from the Internet
and its wealth of real-
time data. Gita Wilder,
who heads the evalua-
tion effort, has identified
four issues that have
arisen from the New
Jersey project and prob-
ably apply to any effort
to evaluate technology-
based innovation in
schools and classrooms.
1. It is impossible to
systematically assess
cognitive and achieve-
ment outcomes for
students without
addressing variations in
their starting points and
differences in program
implementation. Such
issues include the variety
of forms that project
implementation takes,
the rapid rates of change
in hardware and soft-
ware, and the inevitable
need for additional
information on the pro-
gram, e.g., in changes in
infrastructure, budget,
school or district sup-
port, and teacher
background.
2. It is simplistic to
suggest that the intro-
duction of technology,
given variations in
starting points and
implementation, can
produce comparable
outcomes among
classes and students.
3. While the motivational
and attentional benefits
of technology for
students have been
widely reported, the
cognitive and achieve-
ment effects have not
been as consistently
cataloged. There is a 1 See, e.g., http://www.mcrel.org/
need for scholars and
teachers to:
work together to
develop hypotheses 2 Thomas K. Glennan and Arthur
about how students
cognitive processes
and school achieve-
ment might be affected 3 See James A. Kulik, Meta-Analytic
by the consistent and
innovative application
of technology
test these hypotheses 4 J.D. Fletcher, D.E. Hawley, and
in small and con-
trolled studies
design larger-scale 5 Jay Sivin-Kachala and Ellen R.
field studies that test
the results under a
range of classroom
and school conditions 6 U.S. Department of Education,
4. Finally, although it is
common practice to act
as though change in
teaching practice is
relatively unimportant in
the catalog of expected
outcomes, it is important
to realize that the
teacher is the constant
in the equations. Stu-
dents move on and are
affected by conditions
that are both cumulative
and changing; teachers
remain to influence
many generations of
students. Teacher effects
should be considered as
important as student
effects, and probably
more influential in the
long run.
impact. Also see John Cradler,
Summary of Current Research
and Evaluation Findings on
Technology in Education,
(http://www.fwl.org/techpolicy/
refind.html).
Melmed, Fostering the Use of
Educational Technology: Elements
of a National Strategy, Santa
Monica, CA: RAND, 1996.
Studies of Findings on Computer-
based Instruction, in E.L. Baker
and H.F. ONeil, Jr. (eds.),
Technology Assessment in
Education and Training, Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994.
P.K. Piele, Costs, Effects and
Utility of Microcomputer Assisted
Instruction in the Classroom,
American Educational Research
Journal, 27, 1990, pp. 783-806.
Bialo, Report on the Effectiveness of
Technology in Schools 1990-1994,
Washington, DC: Software
Publishers Association, 1994.
Getting Americas Students Ready
for the 21st Century, Meeting the
Technology Literacy Challenge,
June 1996.
7 U.S. Department of Education,
1996.
8 Beatrice F. Birman and others, The
Effectiveness of Using Technology
in K12 Education: A Preliminary
Framework and Review,
Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research, January
1997.
9 For more information on this
project, see Center for Applied
Special Technology, The Role of
Online Communications in
Schools: A National Study,
Peabody, MA: CAST, 1996. Also,
see http://www.cast.org/
stsstudy.html.
10 For information on this project,
see Barbara Means and Kerry
Olson, Technologys Role in
Education Reform: Findings from
a National Study of Innovating
Schools, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and
Improvement, 1995.
11 For more information on this
project, see M. Honey and A.
Henriquez, Union City Interactive
Multimedia Education Trial: 1993-
95 Summary Report, Princeton, NJ:
Educational Development Center,
Inc., Center for Children and
Technology, 1996.
12 For more information on HOTS,
see S. Pogrow, Using Computers
and Other Visual Technology to
Combine Process and Content, in
A. Costa and R. Liebman (eds.),
When Process Is Content: Toward
Renaissance Learning, Corwin
Press, 1996.
13 For more information, see Apple
Computer, Inc., Changing the
Conversation about Teaching,
Learning, and Technology: A
Report on Ten Years of ACOT
Research, Cupertino, CA: 1995.
14 This description is drawn from
Elizabeth Wellburn, The Status of
Technology in the Education
System: A Literature Review (http:/
/www.etc.bc.ca/lists/nuggets/
EdTech_report.html).
15 Roy Pea, Learning and Teaching
with Educational Technologies, in
H.J. Walberg & G.D. Haertel
(eds.), Educational Psychology:
Effective Practices and Policies,
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan
Publishers, 1996.
16 U.S. Congress, Office of
Technology Assessment, Teachers
and Technology: Making the
Connection, OTA-EHR-616,
Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, April 1995.
39
17 E. B. Mandinach, and H. F. Cline,
Methodological Implications for
Examining the Impact of Technol-
ogy-based Innovations: The
Corruption of a Research Design.
Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association,
Chicago, 1997.

18 This information was provided in a

personal communication between
Gita Wilder and Richard Coley of
ETS, March 5, 1997.

40
 Goal 1 of President
Connecting Clintons National Tech-
Teachers and nology Literacy Chal-
lenge states that:
Technology
All teachers in the nation
will have the training
and support they need
to help students learn
using computers and
the information super-
highway.
This goal reflects the
growing recognition that
staff development and
ongoing technical assis-
tance are prerequisites
for effective and sus-
tained applications of
technology in education.
To achieve this goal,
technology training will
need to reach teachers
and administrators as
well as future educators
in preservice programs.
There is also an increas-
ing awareness of the
need for preservice and
inservice training that is
informed by research on
effective instructional
practices and emphasizes
teaching strategies that
draw on a variety of
technologies across the
curriculum.
The importance of
teacher training in the
use and integration of
technology is docu-
mented by empirical
research conducted in
California schools that
were recipients of tech-
nology grants. The study
concluded that at least 30
percent of any educa- hours of educational
tional technology budget technology training in
should be earmarked for 1994. The percentages,
teacher staff develop- by individual states,
ment with follow-up range from a low of 8
support and assistance. percent to a high of 28
Similar findings have percent with most states
been reported in other ranging between 10 and
states.1 20 percent. The nation-
This section of the wide average is 15
report begins with a brief percent. And as shown
overview of teachers in Figure 2, 32 states
preparation to use require teacher candi-
educational technology dates to take courses in
in the classroom. It educational technology
discusses barriers to in order to obtain a
helping teachers use license.2
technology in their A recent survey from
teaching, and describes the National Center for
some current thinking Education Statistics
about and practices in provides additional
staff development, information about cur-
including the use of rent levels of teacher
telecommunications and access to technology
the involvement of training. Thirteen percent
administrators. Finally, of all public schools
based on current re- have mandated telecom-
search and experience, munications training for
several suggested direc- teachers either by local
tions for staff develop- regulations or state
ment are offered. statute. The survey
indicates that a third (31
CURRENT STATUS OF STAFF percent) of the states
DEVELOPMENT FOR provides incentives for
TECHNOLOGY USE telecommunications
training, and only about
If our ambition is to 16 percent of teachers
provide technology currently use telecommu-
training and support for nications for professional
all teachers, a fair ques- development across the
tion seems to be, how country. However, the
far are we from reaching rapid increase in school
that goal? Results from a level access to the
recent survey shown in Internet from 35
Figure 1 delineate the percent in 1994 to 65
percentage of teachers, percent in 1996 to 87
by state, who had percent projected for
received at least nine 2000 may signal new
41
 opportunities for teacher
Figure 1: Percentage of Teachers Who Had at Least Nine Hours of Training in access to professional
Education Technology in 1994
development through
telecommunications.3
Washington 28 In 1995, the Office of
Kentucky 28
Hawaii 23 Technology Assessment
North Carolina 22 (OTA) conducted a
Alaska 21
South Dakota 21
comprehensive study of
Utah 20 teachers and the effective
Wyoming 20
Florida
use of technology in
20
Colorado 20 schools. The key findings
Vermont 18 of this study include:
Georgia 18
Tennessee 18
Montana 18 Most teachers have not
Texas 18
North Dakota 17
had suitable training to
West Virginia 17 prepare them to use
Wisconsin 16
Nebraska
technology in their
15
Connecticut 15 teaching.
Maryland 15
Kansas 15
Iowa 15 In a majority of schools,
Oregon 15 there is no onsite support
California 15
Minnesota 15
person officially assigned
Massachusetts 15 to coordinate or facilitate
New York 15 the use of technologies.
Idaho 15

U.S. Average 15 To use technology

Nevada 15 effectively, teachers need
Virginia 14
Maine 14 more than just training
New Hampshire 14 about how to work the
Arizona 13
Indiana 13
machines and technical
Alabama 12 support.
Mississippi 11
South Carolina 11
Rhode Island 11 Schools and school
New Jersey 11 districts are using a
Louisiana 11
Delaware 10 number of different
New Mexico 10 approaches for training
Michigan 10
Pennsylvania 10
teachers and implement-
Missouri 10 ing technology.
Illinois 10
Arkansas 10
Ohio 8 Lessons from experienced
Oklahoma 8 implementation sites
suggest that those who
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 wish to invest in technol-
ogy should plan to invest
Percentage of Teachers
substantially in human
Source: Education Week, Quality Counts: A Report Card on the Condition of Public Education in the 50 resources.
States, January 22, 1997

42
 the training and/or
Figure 2: States Requiring Courses in Educational Technology for a Teaching License,
1996 support needed to
resolve the problems.

Many feel the need for

WASHINGTON

MAINE
more technical and
MONTANA NORTH DAKOTA MINNESOTA

OREGON
pedagogical knowledge
VT
IDAHO WISCONSIN NH not just about how to run
SOUTH DAKOTA MA
WYOMING MICHIGAN
NEW YORK
CT the machines, but also
RI
IOWA PENNSYLVANIA
about what software to
NEVADA NEBRASKA
NJ
UTAH ILLINOIS
IN
OHIO
DE
use, how to integrate it
COLORADO
KANSAS
WV
MD
into the curriculum, and
VIRGINIA
CALIFORNIA
MISSOURI
KENTUCKY how to organize classroom
NO. CAROLINA

ARIZONA OKLAHOMA
TENNESSEE activities using technology.
ARKANSAS SO.
NEW MEXICO CAROLINA

MS
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
Many school, district, and/
TEXAS LA
or state assessment
ALASKA systems rely heavily on
FL standardized achievement
tests, which can be a
HAWAII barrier to experimentation
States requiring courses or equivalent with new technologies
because teachers are not
Source: Education Week, Quality Counts: A Report Card on the Condition of Public Education in the 50
States, January 22, 1997.
sure whether the results
they are seeking will be
reflected in improved
Support for technology Schools should avoid BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE student test scores.
use from the principal acquiring technology for TECHNOLOGY USE
and other administrators, technologys sake. Issues created by technol-
from parents and the Developing a technology The OTA study found ogy itself are also factors
community, and from plan at the local site in that helping teachers to be dealt with, including
colleagues can create a support of school learn how to integrate those related to copyright
climate that encourages improvement goals and technology into the and intellectual property
innovation and sustained involving teachers in the curriculum may be one rights, privacy of student
use. planning process are of the most critical records, and control of
important steps in factors for successful student access to objec-
Although sites have ensuring that the technol- implementation of tionable materials.
made significant ogy will be used by those technology applications
progress in helping it is intended to support.4 in schools. The study Inevitable technical
teachers learn to use also identified some and logistical problems
generic technology, Given the speed with major challenges facing that are part and parcel
tools such as word which technology is teachers as they try to of using technology are
processors, databases, changing and changing come up to speed with why teachers consistently
and desktop publishing our lives, the research technology applications: emphasize the need for
programs, many still and survey data make it onsite assistance. Com-
struggle with how to clear that the task of Many teachers encounter mon problems include
integrate technology into training the current and technical and logistical machines that wont work
the curriculum. future teaching force is problems and often lack as promised, restricted
formidable.

43
access to locked closets
filled with equipment,
media carts that must be
scheduled and shared
among many classrooms,
equipment that remains
broken for weeks or even
months because no one
knows how to fix it, and
the long time taken to
process repair requests.
When teachers were asked
to cite the one factor that
would most likely deter-
mine whether or not they
would use a computer in
teaching, one teacher
summed it up:
If I could have a few hours
one-to-one with a really
competent teacher that has
used itjust let me ask
questions [about] what Im
afraid of about a com-
puter, what I dont under-
stand.5
MODELS FOR CONNECTING
TEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY
The challenge of
integrating technology into
schools and classrooms is
much more human than it
is technological. It is not
fundamentally about
helping people to operate
machines. Rather, it is
about helping teachers
integrate these technolo-
gies into their teaching as
tools of a profession that
is being redefined through
the process.6
The National Staff
Development Council
(NSDC) recently com-
44
pleted a comprehen- nature of teaching and forms and bulletin
sive study of the learning in the techno- boards, are the services
lessons learned about logical age. While these most frequently used for
staff development in are activities that many professional purposes.
the past 20 years. educators may not even
From this study, NSDC view as staff develop- Working as the only com-
developed a set of ment, new paradigms of puter specialist in the
staff development professional develop- school and district, it is
guidelines that can be ment that reflect new invaluable to me to have
applied to the devel- understandings about contact with other pro-
opment of teacher teaching and learning fessionals using comput-
capacity to implement are gradually becoming ers in new and innova-
any educational a reality.8 tive ways. Informal
innovation or initia- Using Telecom- questions can be asked.
tive, including the munications. These Help can be received in
educational applica- new staff development an inexpensive way.
tion and integration of paradigms are supported Discussions on software,
technology.7 by the resources and equipment, and pro-
These guidelines tools made available grams can be generated.
reflect a constructivist through telecommunica- District Computer
perspective. Rather tions and other new Specialist 9
than receiving knowl- technologies. In the past,
edge from experts educators were limited Educators report a
in training sessions, to opportunities they range of incentives for
teachers and administra- could access in person. using telecommunica-
tors should collaborate Now, with a computer, tions as a professional
with peers, researchers, telecommunications resource. Networking
and students to make access, and video- activities play a critical
sense of the teaching conferencing, educators role in increasing pro-
and learning process in from all over the country fessionalism and reliev-
their own contexts. can interact with each ing the isolation typi-
Staff development other, take online cally experienced by
would include activi- courses, and readily teachers. Teachers view
ties such as action access the latest research the opportunity to
research; conversa- in their discipline. communicate with other
tions with peers about In fact, educators teachers and share ideas
the beliefs and are increasingly using as one of the major
assumptions that guide telecommunications for benefits of this technol-
individual instruction; professional develop- ogy. Obtaining rapid
reflective practices ment activities. A study feedback on curricular
such as journal keep- by the Center for Tech- issues and other topics
ing; projects involving nology in Education of professional interest,
families and commu- found that collegial and keeping current on
nity members in exchanges, including subject matter, peda-
student learning; and communicating via gogy, and technology
actively contributing to e-mail to colleagues trends are also impor-
the growing body of and posting questions or tant incentives.
knowledge about the exchanging ideas on
 I have been able to meet
and work and learn with
such a variety of educa-
tional professionals that it
is rather like being in
continuous attendance at
a large international
conference.
High School
Science Teacher10
A Variety of
Approaches. Education
institutions across the
country are developing
approaches to helping
teachers use technology
from which others can
benefit. The approaches
differ, depending upon
the existing resources
(human and technologi-
cal) at a site, the visions
the sites have developed
for how technologies are
to be used and what
problems they can
address, and the leader-
ship and support that are
available to meet those
goals. These approaches
include the following:
Developing technology-
rich classrooms, schools,
or districts, in which local
expertise in various
applications of technol-
ogy can be developed
and shared
Training master teachers,
who then serve as
resources or mentors
for their colleagues
Providing expert resource
people from other dis-
ciplines, such as others. There are
librarians, computer numerous additional
coordinators, or volun- examples of effective
teers from business, strategies for supporting
parent, and student teachers needs for
groups professional develop-
ment in this age of
Giving every teacher a technology and tele-
computer, Internet communications. The
access, and the training following projects
and time to develop have been or are cur-
personal confidence rently being studied to
and expertise inform the educational
community of effective
Training administrators practices.
so they can serve as
technology supporters Challenge Grants for
and guide efforts with- Technology in Educa-
in their schools or tion. Forty-four Chal-
jurisdiction lenge Grants have been
funded in the first two
Establishing teacher or years of this program.
technology resource These federally funded
centers, ideally with research projects are
ease of teacher access testing innovative ways
through online services of using technology and
telecommunications to
Establishing telemen- involve teachers and
toring programs communities in the
development of new
Incorporating technol- curricular resources, use
ogy into existing staff of telecommunications
development programs to deliver courses to
students throughout
Promoting individual- the United States, train
ized planning for staff teachers in new techno-
development logical skills, and create
online learning commu-
Delivering interactive nities for teachers across
staff development via the projects. In the first
satellite and Internet year, over one million
students were served
Many schools com- and thousands of
bine several of these teachers were trained to
approaches, and there make effective use of
is no clear evidence computers in their
that any one model is classrooms.
more successful than
Vanguard for Learning.
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) and
the Department of
Defense Dependent
Schools (DoDDS) are
studying strategies for
creating learning com-
munities of students,
educators, families, and
military base personnel
related to the unique
needs and resources of
the particular commu-
nity, and for integrating
these strategies into the
school system. The
professional develop-
ment model is one of
action research in which
collaborative teams of
teachers are designing
classroom-based projects
which integrate new
technologies with
research-based instruc-
tional practices. Support
is provided in-person
and online and includes
an online university
course.11
The Well Connected
Educator. The goals of
this NSF-funded project
include creating an
arena for educators to
publish; disseminating
lessons learned; provid-
ing a forum for the
discussion of educa-
tional technology issues;
encouraging reflective
practice and collabora-
tion; and promoting
thinking among teach-
ers, administrators, and
others in the education
45
 community about the
impact of technology on
learning and education
reform. All elements of
The Well Connected
Educator are peer-
reviewed. The articles are
read by an editorial
board supervised by the
editorial director of the
International Society of
Technology in Education
(ISTE). Forums are
carefully moderated and
monitored by a team of
expert moderators.
The Cupertino (CA) Model
Technology Schools
Project. This project
developed and studied
the Personalized Learning
Plan (PLP) a strategy
for professional develop-
ment. The PLP was
developed by individual
teachers to identify the
specific staff development
and technology-based
training they needed to
more effectively integrate
technology into their
teaching. The evaluation
of the PLP process
showed that when
teachers identified their
staff development needs
and when these needs
were met through
customized training, there
was a positive impact on
classroom instruction and
there was a significant
increase in the use
of technologies in the
model schools. Further,
teachers became more
innovative in developing
46
curriculum and applica- NSFs National School include principals in
tions of technology. Networking Project uses school-based teams
telecommunications to chosen to receive
The Apple Classroom of support hundreds of intensive training in
Tomorrow (ACOT). This telementors around the technology use. For
project lasted nearly a country. The Milken example, the Apple
decade and has pro- Family Foundation is Classroom of Tomorrow
vided information on supporting statewide Teacher Development
the support teachers telementoring projects Center Project looks at
need to integrate established as part of the commitment of the
technology in order to state Technology Literacy principal when selecting
foster new ways of Challenge Fund plans. teacher teams for train-
student learning. ing. Not only are princi-
Strategies for supporting INVOLVING pals encouraged to
the professional needs ADMINISTRATORS attend portions of the
of teachers included training program with
team teaching and Research on the the teacher team, but
planning, modified adoption of innovations they also must commit
school schedules for in schools consistently to the following condi-
planning and instruc- points to the key role of tions: release time for
tion, technology skills administrative leaders in teachers to attend
development related to successful implementa- project training sessions;
specific teaching needs, tion. Involved and time for teachers to
use of source materials supportive superinten- meet and plan each day;
to support curriculum dents are essential to time for teachers to
planning, and reflection district-wide reform reflect on practice; and
on student progress to efforts, and principals acknowledgment of the
modify teaching prac- are key to implementa- importance of their
tice. This project and its tion within the school teachers efforts to the
outcomes are described building.12 Research has rest of the staff.
in another section of consistently found that Since 1990, Indiana
this report. when administrators are has sponsored a state-
informed about and wide training program
Telementoring Pro- comfortable with tech- specifically for princi-
grams. These programs nology, they become pals. In its first two
are numerous and are key players in leading years, the Principals
supported by states as and supporting technol- Technology Leadership
well as research grants. ogy integration activities Training Program served
The state of Hawaii has in their schools.13 almost 400 Indiana
used telementoring for Some technology principals. Over the
the past several years implementation efforts course of a year, each
to foster collegial are building on these principal takes four days
training across islands; lessons by including of professional training
Californias Telemation principals or other key with other principals at
Project uses telecommu- administrative staff in a central site. By sched-
nications to bring training opportunities uling sessions at differ-
teachers together from offered to teachers. One ent points in the year,
all regions of the state; such approach is to the program built in
time for principals to go
back to their schools,
practice what they
learned, and talk to staff
and better define what
they needed and wanted.
In the workshops,
principals learned about
a broad range of technol-
ogy and software avail-
able for classroom and
office use and had a
chance for hands-on
exploration of a large
collection of equipment.
Participating princi-
pals have been very
enthusiastic about the
Technology Leadership
Program. In addition to
reporting increased
knowledge and confi-
dence with respect to
In summary, the
overriding theme of this
section of the report has
been the importance of
staff development for
effective use of technol-
ogy in schools. From
interviews with teachers
and educational tech-
nology leaders and a
review of the literature,
we begin to see that
effective technology
training for teachers
reaches beyond profi-
ciency in using comput-
ers and draws on
lessons learned about
implementing effective
staff development and
instructional reform in
schools. To tap into the
power of technology as
Involve administrators as
participants with teach-
ers in staff development
programs on technology
use and integration in
the curriculum
Provide the release time
needed for teachers to
apply what they learned
in training
Provide follow-up
support for implementa-
tion of technology skills
learned in training
Give teachers access to
resources needed to
implement what was
learned in training
Facilitate communica-
5 Janet Schofield, Computers and
Classroom Culture, New York:
Cambridge University Press, in
press.
6 Barbara Means, et al., Using
Technology to Support Education
Reform, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, 1993.
7 Dennis Sparks, A Paradigm Shift in
Staff Development, Education
Week, March 1994.
8 John Cradler and Elizabeth Parish,
Telecommunications and
Technology in Education: What
Have We Learned by Research and
Experience?, WestEd Regional
Laboratory, October 1995.
9 Margaret Honey and Andres
Henriquez, Telecommunication
and K-12 Educators: Findings from
a National Survey, New York, NY:
Center for Technology in
Education, Bank Street College of
Education, 1993.
10 OTA, 1995.
11 John Cradler, Ruthmary Cradler and
Peggy Kelly, Vanguard Profes-
sional Development Quarterly
Report, October 15, 1996. (Report is
available via email from
cradler@cerfnet.com).

technology use, partici-
pating principals said
they were more capable
of creatively using capital
project funds, writing
an educational tool,
research and experience
indicate that staff
development should:
tions among teachers
use telecommunications
technologies to help
teachers communicate
and share their profes-
12 OTA, 1995.
13 U.S. Congress, Office of Technol-
ogy Assessment, Power On! New
Tools for Teaching and Learning,
Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1988.

grants, or justifying Be driven by a clear sional experiences

expenditures to school
boards. After the training,
many principals con-
ducted training for their
teachers; others reported
that they were better
equipped to think
comprehensively about
the technology in their
schools and how best to
use it. Principals rated an
update session, held the
following year, as very
valuable, and most
principals endorsed the
need for some kind of
ongoing refresher
programs.
understanding of the
local needs of teachers 1 John Cradler, et al., The Analysis of
the Impact of California Educa-
tional Technology Regional and
Local Assistance Programs,
Emphasize hands-on conducted for the California State
experience, especially Department of Education, WestEd
Regional Laboratory, 1992.
for technology use
2 Education Week, Quality Counts: A
training Report Card on the Condition of
Public Education in the 50 States,
January 22, 1997.
Use peer coaching
rather than lecture 3 National Center for Education
Statistics, Advanced Telecommuni-
format cations in U.S. Public Elementary
and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996,
U.S. Department of Education,
Integrate technology Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, February 1997.
training into other staff
4 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
development programs Assessment, Teachers and
in the school and Technology: Making the Connec-
tion, OTA-HER-616, Washington,
district DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, April 1995.

47
 Goal 4 of President potential of technology designed to support
Assessing the Clintons National Tech- as a tool for teaching and specific learning objec-
Content and nology Literacy Chal- learning. The challenge tives with consideration
lenge is that: is two-fold: To develop for the research on how
Quality of products that extend students learn have the
Effective software and learning opportunities highest probability of
Courseware on-line learning beyond what can already producing desired learn-
resources will be an be offered with tradi- ing outcomes.2 Next,
integral part of every tional instructional courseware needs to be
schools curriculum. media, and to provide matched to national, state,
resources and processes district, or local standards.
Computer software, to enable educators to Finally, the courseware
video, distance learning select and use course- must be integrated into
courses, and online ware in ways that help the teaching and learning
resources are expanding students meet high activities of the classroom.
rapidly. The U.S. Depart- standards. This section provides
ment of Education Research consistently an overview of a process
estimates that over shows that curriculum for the effective design,
20,000 educational soft- content, instructional selection, and integrated
ware titles have been strategies adjusted to utilization of technology
developed (including learner needs, along with in order to maximize its
CD-ROM and multimedia sufficient incentives and impact on learning.
packages), more than a opportunities to learn are Figure 1 describes this
million students take the major keys to process visually. The
courses through distance effective teaching and road map illustrates the
learning via networks learning. Consequently, process suggested for,
every year, and every when technology is first, evaluating course-
day hundreds of new brought into the instruc- ware based on defined
home pages are added to tional equation, it is standards and priorities,
the Internets World effective to the extent and second, selecting
Wide Web.1 These that it supports and and integrating course-
instructional resources enhances these keys. ware into instructional
(hereafter referred to as In other words, if tech- practice.
courseware) have the nology is applied to The following sec-
potential to improve inadequate content and tions of this report
learning by engaging instructional strategies, address several issues
students in experiences the desired educational regarding the current
not previously accessible outcomes will be elusive. status of courseware and
on a large scale. Any examination of describe current efforts
The rapidly increas- the impact of courseware to evaluate courseware.
ing access to and use of on learning must start A recent assessment of
technology in education, with an assessment of the quality and content
as shown in previous the extent to which such emphasis of courseware
sections of this report, resources are designed to in several subjects is also
are creating a corre- target specific learning provided. The section
sponding need for the objectives and curricu- concludes by suggesting
development of course- lum standards. Products several actions shown by
ware that exploits the that are carefully research and experience

48
 Figure 1: Courseware Evaluation and Application Road Map

Courseware Evaluation and Selection

Educational standards Devise courseware

Evaluate courseware Select courseware
and instructional evaluation guidelines
against guidelines for instruction
priorities and rubrics

Courseware Application

Review and select Develop plans to Deploy courseware

Determine
courseware suited integrate and use and measure impact
instructional needs
to local needs courseware on learning

to be effective in course-
ware development.
THE INSTRUCTIONAL
DESIGN OF COURSEWARE
In 1988, Policy
Analysis for California
Education (PACE) com-
missioned an analysis of
technology in education
and the conclusions of
that report remain valid
today.3 For the past 15
years, research has
shown that all types of
instructional materials are
generally more effective
when their development
has been informed by
learning research. For
example, a study of
teaching and learning
found that careful
instructional planning,
clearly defined objec-
tives, clear presentation,
student interaction,
opportunities for feed-
back, and time engaged
in on-task behavior
together have the great-
est probability of
increasing learning.4
Further studies by
Robert Slavin found
that instructional pro-
grams were effective
when they adopted
models or validated
practices that presented
consistent and convinc-
ing evidence of instruc-
tional effectiveness.5
Research-based
criteria for the develop-
ment of effective cur-
riculum and instructional
strategies should also be
applied to the develop-
ment and selection of
educational courseware.
Research has found that,
too often software and the software should
designers focus on the
technical qualities of
their programs rather
than attending to the
kind of learning experi- distributed. It is the
ence that should be content and instructional
created.6 design rather than the
Other research has courseware per se that
concluded that materials will influence learning.
are often selected for The following sections
their broad content or discuss a tested process
topic with little consid- for applying content and
eration for their fit with instructional design to
learners needs, or for both the selection
the delivery system and development of
most appropriate for the courseware.
learning objectives.
Without serious integra- THE CALIFORNIA
tion into the curriculum, INSTRUCTIONAL
technology may bring TECHNOLOGY
change without im- CLEARINGHOUSE
provement.7
The criteria for In 1985, the Califor-
courseware develop- nia State Department of
ment should reflect the Education determined
components for effec- that technology could
tive curriculum and serve as a catalyst for
instructional strategies implementing the state
curriculum frameworks
be field tested for and student perfor-
effectiveness in produc- mance standards. In
ing desired effects order to utilize technol-
before being widely ogy for this purpose it

49
was necessary to estab- lines are used to both community, and system- program objectives are
lish and determine the inform the selection of wide needs. The guide- clear
extent to which existing existing courseware lines also include
courseware had the and influence the standards for technical technology used is an
potential to support the development of new features, user features, effective medium for
frameworks and stan- courseware. training and support the content
dards. What emerged The California needs of teachers, as
from this process was a Curriculum Frameworks well as legal compliance. content is current and
statewide courseware and national education These guidelines are accurate
consumers guide for standards are the basis listed in the box on the
educators. The concept for the content guide- next page. presentation design is
evolved into the estab- lines.9 And because technically accurate
lishment of the state- most textbook publish- 2. Establish Courseware and can maintain
funded California ers heed Californias Assessment Training. student interest
Instructional Technology curriculum standards, A training program
Clearinghouse (CITC) in due in part to the size of based on the Courseware support materials pro-
1987. the California market, Evaluation Criteria and vided are helpful
Today, the CITC is a the CITC is as close to a Guidelines was devel-
major and unique national clearinghouse oped. The training is audio and visual
resource for courseware as exists today. This designed to provide features are clear and
evaluations and was the section describes the educators with the appropriate for
only source found by CITC and its evaluation capacity to conduct classroom viewing
this reports authors that process. in-depth courseware
conducts and dissemi- evaluations and to test technical quality and
nates analyses and THE CITC EVALUATION the courseware with publisher support are
evaluations of course- STRATEGY students in classrooms adequate
ware based on educa- to determine student
tional standards.8 Most The CITC uses a reaction. b. Products are then
commercially developed five-step strategy that each reviewed by two
courseware is submitted begins with the devel- 3. Conduct Courseware experienced reviewers
to the CITC. The U.S. opment of guidelines Reviews. Evaluators to determine the extent
Department of Edu- and continues on to next assess the commer- to which the products
cations Office of Educa- include training, course- cial courseware made meet the CITC guide-
tional Technology ware reviews, identify- available by most lines or rubrics.
recommends the CITC as ing courseware needs, publishers. The major
a national resource for and dissemination. This steps in the review c. Products that pass steps
courseware reviews and strategy includes the process are outlined a) and b) are then tried
evaluations. following steps: below: out with students.
Over the past 12
years, the CITC has 1. Develop Courseware a. All courseware are pre- d. Curriculum specialists
involved curriculum Evaluation Criteria screened to determine if review the products to
specialists and teachers and Guidelines. they meet the basic determine appropriate
in the development and These guidelines were essential criteria. These match to the content
application of guidelines informed by state and include: recommended in the
for analyzing courseware national curriculum California instructional
with respect to content, standards and instruc- appears to cover resources evaluation
quality, and technical tional requirements as California curriculum instruments (which are
features. These guide- well as student, staff, and performance applied to all state-
standards

50
 adopted materials,
including textbooks), the
state curriculum frame-
works, and the state
content and performance
standards.
e. Products are given a final
rating.
f. Descriptive annotations
for programs rated as
exemplary or desirable
are prepared and entered
in the CITC database for
access on the Web,
CD-ROM, or in printed
form.
4. Identify Courseware
Needs. After the review-
ers determine the specific
courseware that meet the
CITC Guidelines, this
information may be used
to determine needs and
priorities for the develop-
ment of new courseware
to fill the gaps where
there are not existing
products.
5. Clearinghouse Infor-
mation Dissemination.
The CITC provides
electronic access to
information about
courseware that meets
the CITC Guidelines. The
exemplary products are
displayed at selected
county offices of educa-
tion and regional service
agencies.
THE CITC EVALUATION GUIDELINES
Recently, the CITC revised and expanded the guidelines for the evaluation of courseware. The
guidelines are designed to provide a single set of rubrics that can be applicable to the evaluation of all types
of courseware used in schools today, including rubrics for evaluating educational resources on the Internet.
The guidelines are intended to define criteria of excellence that can provide suggested directions for those
publishers and producers who strive to improve their products.10
The new guidelines are organized into five sections, each with several subsections:
1) Content
curriculum content, including match with standards and curriculum frameworks
legal compliance (not racially or gender biased, etc.)
2) Instructional Design
creative teaching and learning approaches are embedded
critical thinking and decision making activities are embedded
information literacy such as online searches is emphasized
stereotypes are avoided, variety of cultures and career roles are included
English learners (ESL) are supported
challenged learners needs are addressed in specific ways
3) Program Design
objectives and pedagogy are clear and relevant
effective use of technology for the content
interactive strategies allow focus on instruction, not program mechanics
motivating for all students
customizing features for teachers and/or students
online access, as appropriate
skills-building programs involve learners beyond drill-and-practice
4) Assessment
classroom management methods to chart student progress
assessment strategies are well-designed for a wide range of needs
5) Instructional Support Materials
presentation and organization of materials is clearly written
support materials are provided in print or printable form
Each of the guidelines is evaluated by three categories of evaluation rubrics or ratings:11
Exemplary makes an excellent case for recommendation
Desirable makes a good case for recommendation
Minimal makes a minimal case for recommendation
Only courseware judged to be exemplary or desirable are recommended for use in the schools.
Excellence in technical and instructional quality is expected, but that alone is not enough to recommend
any program for schools.
The CITC rubrics provide educators with a description of what to look for when applying each of the
rating criteria to each of the rubric categories. For example, to have an excellent rating for curriculum
content the evaluator must observe that. . . .
. . .the program covers the content recommended in Californias instructional resources evalua-
tion instruments, curriculum frameworks, and content and performance standards.
51
GUIDANCE FOR COURSE- by a statement from a available, states and development of software
WARE DEVELOPERS software publisher: districts can work closely and online resources are
with software producers discussed.
Like textbook pub- We definitely need to develop software that As Table 1 shows,
lishers, software publish- teachers to help identify meets the needs and only between 6 and 8
ers consult existing good softwareto put goals of their students. percent of the course-
curriculum frameworks some models out there ware across all subject
and standards to inform that producers can THE QUALITY OF CURRENT areas were rated as
the design of course- emulate. Teachers need COURSEWARE exemplary by the CITC
ware. Several states have to be involved in separat- and from 33 to 47 per-
translated their curricu- ing the wheat from the CITC data are consis- cent as desirable from
lum frameworks and chaff. 12 tently showing that 1991 to 1995. The pro-
standards into software effective courseware grams evaluated were
development guidelines. The recent U.S. varies greatly in availabil- only those that passed
Such guidelines were Department of Education ity. The most recent the initial screening
used to help guide the report, Getting Americas findings about the process which rejects
development of several Students Ready for the quantity of courseware programs that are clearly
exemplary multimedia 21st Century, says that recommended by the out of alignment with the
programs. These include states and districts have CITC for each subject curriculum frameworks,
Vital Links, Science an important role to play area, for multidisciplinary do not meet legal com-
2000, and others devel- in ensuring that effective use, and for cross-grade pliance criteria, or clearly
oped as part of the educational software is applications are provided lack the technical quality
Software Development available for students and below.13 The implications for consideration by the
Partnership Program their teachers. To ensure of these findings for the reviewers. About 42
jointly funded by Florida, that suitable software is future planning and percent of all course-
Texas, and California.
Earlier partnerships
included products such Table 1. Number and Percentage of Courseware Rated as Exemplary,
Desirable, and Not Recommended by the CITC from 1991 to 1995
as Voyage of the Mimi,
which combined the use
91-95
of video and computer 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Average
programs, and the Star
Schools distance learning
programs. Number and
# % # % # % # % # %
Percent
Because these
programs were devel- "Exemplary" 20 8 12 8 10 6 21 9 16 8
oped in close partner-
ship with state and local "Desirable" 78 33 74 47 70 39 89 40 78 39
curriculum designers,
researchers, and teach- Not
138 58 71 45 101 56 113 51 106 53
Recommended
ers, they emerged as
some of the most com- Programs
236 157 181 223 200
Evaluated
prehensive and sustain-
able programs to be Source: CITC Software/CD-ROM Data Base, http://tic.stan-co.k12.ca.us.
developed to date. These
findings are supported

52
ware submitted to the
CITC passed the initial
screening. Changes in
curriculum priorities
along with advances in
technology necessitate
an annual re-evaluation
of programs. However,
many 1991 programs are
still in the database since
they were advanced
enough to remain as
desirable or exemplary.
These data suggest an
overall need for addi-
tional courseware that
meets content-based
criteria as defined by the
CITC, as well as further
study on this issue.
Table 2 provides
data on the numbers
and percentages of
courseware accepted for
review and then rated as
exemplary and desirable
for mathematics, sci-
ence, English/language
arts, and history/social
studies.
As the data indicate,
the highest percentage
of courseware accepted
for CITC review was
classified as emphasizing
science, with English/
language arts second,
followed by history/
social studies and
mathematics. It should
be noted that some
programs are cross-
curricular and are rated
as more than one sub-
ject. This accounts for
the fact that the total
programs across subjects
is greater than the total
Table 2. The Number and Percentage of Programs Rated as Exemplary and
Desirable for Science, Mathematics, History/Social Science, and English/Language
Arts, 1995
Total Accepted
Curriculum
Topic
Number
Mathematics 135
Science 295
English/Lang-
242
uage Arts
History/Social
208
Studies
Total
637
Accepted
Source: CITC Software/CD-ROM Data Base, http://tic.stan-co.k12.ca.us.
programs reviewed. The
differences between
subjects in terms of
ratings are probably not
significant as the range is
from 74 to 82 percent for
desirable and 21 to 26
percent for programs
rated exemplary.
Data are not yet
available to examine the
ratings by grade level
groupings. However,
such an analysis is being
conducted as part of an
effort to determine
specific subject areas for
specific grade levels
where there are holes
in terms of available
products.
In general, it appears
that there is a need, as
reported by the CITC
reviewers, for more
exemplary or desirable
Desirable
Percent Number Percent
21 107
47 235
38 191
33 153
516
programs at all grade
levels in all subject
areas. Reviewers often
comment that more
courseware is needed
that provide more in-
depth treatment of
subjects, and that utilize
multiple technologies
especially the Internet.
Future research
should identify the
specific reasons that
programs were not
accepted for in-depth
review and analysis and
what needs to be done
to correct the weak-
nesses in such prod-
ucts. Also, data should
be collected on the
areas in the curriculum
where there is a lack of
exemplary and desir-
able programs, along
with recommendations
Exemplary
Number Percent
82 28 21
80 60 20
79 51 21
74 55 26
81 121 20
about the types of
products needed to fill
these holes.
Once acceptable
products are identified,
research needs to be
conducted on the
comparative impact of
exemplary and desirable
programs vs. other
programs in terms of
impact on teaching and
learning. The CITC
assumes that exemplary
programs will produce
a greater impact on
learning than desirable
or non-acceptable
programs. However,
research does not exist
to either support or
refute this assumption.
Presently, a study being
conducted for the
Department of Defense
Schools (DoDDS) will
53
be testing the hypo-
thesis that greater student
benefits will result with
courseware that meets
CITC and DoDDS
standards.14
INTEGRATING EFFECTIVE
COURSEWARE
The most highly
rated courseware is only
effective to the extent
that it is effectively
integrated into instruc-
tion. A lesson learned
from numerous model
technology school
projects, including the
California Model Tech-
nology Schools and the
Apple Classroom of
Tomorrow (ACOT), is
that the successful
integration of technology
in classrooms implies a
change in the underlying
strategies of classroom
teaching. These innova-
tions require a clear
vision and an implemen-
tation plan based on
available resources,
student needs, and
school goals. Educators
need to develop a road developed set of indi-
map or plan to achieve vidual staff develop-
the desired goals.15
A systematic process
for integrating technol-
ogy into the curriculum
was developed and
validated within several
projects over the past 10
years. The process
involves the develop-
ment of a classroom
level Technology Integra-
54
tion Plan (TIP) whereby cisco and Monterey development of course-
the teacher individually Peninsula Unified School ware with an emphasis
or as part of a team Districts and then on online resources. The
develops a detailed adapted to the Model Department of Defense
plan for the integration Technology Schools in has recently funded
and use of technology California and the President Clintons
within the context of Statewide Telemation Courseware Development
classroom curriculum Project. Currently the TIP Project within DoDDS at
and instruction. In process is being applied approximately $20
applying this process, to the NSF-supported million. This project is
educators select course- model technology designed to promote
ware that has already schools project in evaluation and research
been recommended by DoDDS, as well as the on existing and emerg-
the CITC and then DoDDS Presidents ing courseware and
incorporated into Technology Initiative online resources. It is
school and classroom- testbed sites. TIPs apply hoped that this will
level TIPs (see Figure national, state, or local result in an array of new
2). In general, the TIP curriculum standards state-of-the-art learning
process identifies needs with some application of technologies and integra-
and desired outcomes selected desirable or tion strategies that can
for students and teach- exemplary courseware to be adapted on a national
ers and describes a plan support and expand basis. The program may
that supports district learning related to those also support expansion
and local school standards. Each TIP is and scaling up of K12
improvement plan also based on the spe- courseware emerging
priorities.16 cific instructional needs from NASA, NSF, DARPA
The TIP also identi- of teachers and students (Defense Advanced
fies materials and staff and supports the local Research Projects
development resources school-wide instructional Agency, which funds
needed and an evalua- improvement plan. The research in DoDDS
tion plan to determine TIP can be viewed as a schools), and others.
ongoing changes separate mini-project
needed to adjust the with its own evaluation NEXT STEPS
plan. The completed to be conducted by
TIP provides a carefully teachers.17 An examination of
the current status of
INCENTIVES FOR RESEARCH courseware suggests
ment needs for teachers AND DEVELOPMENT that the following
to pursue when imple- activities may be pro-
menting technology. Funding for R & D in ductive in increasing the
The TIP process courseware development development of and
evolved from extensive has been inconsistent and access to effective
research on the applica- uncoordinated. The educational courseware.
tion and integration of recent legislation known
technology into teach- as the Technology Lit- A national courseware
ing and learning. The eracy Challenge Grants is clearinghouse could
process was developed promoting partnerships be established that
in the South San Fran- with business in the includes both commer-
 Figure 2: Integrating Technology into the Curriculum

School/Classroom Level Technology Integration Planning

Software & Online Resource Reviews Instructional

Needs
Determined
Students School S
Commu
Review of Desired
Instructional Outcomes
Standards- Technology Established School
based Resources Improvement
District Priorities &
Guidelines Planning Priorities
for Software
Curriculum Standards
Evaluation
TIP
Integrating and
CMS
Implementing
Recommended
Technology into Instructio
Instructional Curriculum and
Technology Selection of Desirable Resourc
Instruction
Clearinghouse & Exemplary Programs Hardwar
Staff Dev
Courseware Commun
Procurement
Based on
Reviews Impact
Evaluation
Evaluation
Recommendations TIP
based on TIP
Implementation
Revision

55
 cial and public domain
resources.
Additional incentives
could be provided to the
courseware industry to
produce additional
products in partnership
with national, state, and
local education agencies.
Interagency development
of courseware could
include the Department
of Education, Department
of Defense Educational
Activities, National
Science Foundation,
NASA, and others as
appropriate.
The specific development 7 D. Considine, Media, Technology,
needs for courseware that
would meet current and
emerging curriculum and
instructional priorities at
the national, state, and
local levels could be
determined.
Assessment strategies
should be embedded into
new products and should
reflect the tasks and
applications intended by
the products and that are
linked to educational
standards.
A national information
and support system could
be used to enable
educators to access and
use the courseware being
made available through
recent national and state
educational technology
initiatives.
56
1 U.S. Department of Education, found in the CITC Guidelines for
Getting Americas Students Ready the Evaluation of Instructional
for the 21st Century, Meeting the Technology Resources for California
Technology Literacy Challenge, Schools (1997).
June 1996.
12 U.S. Department of Education, 1996.
2 John Cradler and Elizabeth Parish,
Telecommunications Technology 13 The CITC data base is available
and Education: What Have We from http://tic.stan-co.k12.ca.us.
Learned from Research and The CITC is directed by John Vaile
Experience?, WestEd Regional and Ann Lathrop.
Laboratory, October 1995.
14 More information is available from
3 John Cradler, Policy Recommenda- cradler@cerfnet.com.
tions for Program Improvement
with Educational Technology in 15 Eva Baker, Joan Herman and Maryl
California Schools, Policy Analysis Gearhart, Does Technology Work
for California Education, 1988. in Schools? Why Evaluation Cannot
Tell the Full Story, in Charles
4 C.W. Fisher and others, Teaching Fisher and others (eds.), Education
Behaviors, Academic Learning and Technology: Reflections on
Time and Student Achievement: Computing in Classrooms, San
An Overview, in Time to Learn, Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Washington, DC: National Institute
of Education, 1980. 16 School improvement plans are the
school-wide plans used in most
5 Robert E. Slavin, Making Chap- states to annually define a school-
ter 1 Make a Difference, Phi wide instructional program.
Delta Kappan, October 1987.
17 For more information on TIP, see
6 W. Harvey, Designing Educational John Cradler and Elizabeth Parish,
Software for Tomorrow, SRI Planning and Instructional
International, May 1985. Integration, in Telecommunications
and Technology in Education: What
and Teaching: Whats Wrong and
Have We Learned from Research
and Experience?, WestEd Regional
Why, School Library Media Laboratory, October 1995.
Quarterly, Summer 1985 and C.
Mojkiwski, Technology and
Curriculum: Will the Promised
Revolution Take Place? NASSP
Bulletin, February 1987.
8 A few other states and some
national agencies provide
clearinghouses that serve as a
catalogue of resources without
reference to curriculum standards
and alignment. These clearing-
houses do not rate the courseware
against a set of criteria, but do
provide annotations and
descriptions of the courseware.
9 The curriculum frameworks were
developed over the last decade by
teachers and subject area experts
and were designed to articulate
rigorous academic content and
exemplary teaching strategies.
These voluntary frameworks are
linked to staff development, the
state assessment program, and the
state textbook adoption process.
National education standards
include those of the National
Council of Teachers of Mathemat-
ics, the National Science Teachers
Association, and the New
Standards Project.
10 CITC Guidelines for the Evaluation
of Instructional Technology
Resources for California Schools,
1997.
11 The rubrics with complete
operational definitions can be
 Two of the Technology
The Costs of Literacy Challenge goals
Educational call for installing comput-
ers in all American
Technology public schools and
connecting them to the
information superhigh-
way. This will require
significant resources. But
how much will it cost?
Some of the answers
can be found in several
sophisticated studies
which model costs.
In this section of the
report we review several
major national studies,
the experience of the
state of California, as well
as that of two school
districts to estimate costs
for different scenarios of
technology deployment.
We also discuss some
cost and practical issues
related to cable and
wireless technologies,
and consider some of the
cost concerns of rural
parts of the country.
Finally, some information
on how various school
districts have reduced
technology costs is
provided.
ESTIMATING THE COSTS OF
TECHNOLOGY IN OUR
SCHOOLS
Technology costs
depend on a number
of factors, such as the
quality and quantity
of purchases of hard-
ware e.g., computers,
local area networks
(LANs), servers, routers,
and other connections this page), and the type
the quality and fre- of connectivity (e.g., tele-
quency of teacher and phone lines, cable, or
staff training, and the wireless) also affect
time period over which costs.
the deployment occurs. Other cost factors
Courseware (such as include improvements to
instructional software, the existing school
CD-ROMs, videos, or infrastructure (e.g.,
electronic services), the electrical heavy-ups,
bandwidth of the con- retrofitting for asbestos
nection (see the box on removal, cooling and
THE BANDWIDTH FACTOR
Bandwidth refers to the amount of information that can be transmitted
over a network within a given time. The concept is often illustrated by a
pipe that permits only a certain amount of water to flow through it. Only
a certain amount of digital information, or bits, can be transmitted
through wires or cables per second. Typical telephone lines most
commonly move information at 14.4 thousand bits per second (kbps),
which means about a 30-second wait for one full-color computer
screen of information from the Internet. This capacity falls within the
definition of narrowband.
Higher phone line speeds, ranging from 56 kbps up to 1.5 million bits
per second (mbps), are referred to as wideband. Included in this
range are the ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) lines which
provide for speeds from 56 to 128 kbps, significantly reducing the time
required to receive information, and T1 lines at over 1.5 mbps, which
allow 24 students fast, concurrent access to networks.
Although definitions vary, broadband generally refers to speeds
greater than 1.5 mbps and is associated with fiber optic or coaxial
cable. It permits rapid transmission of data, voice, and video for
advanced technology uses such as desktop videoconferencing,
networked simulations. and virtual field trips.1 Authors of the TIAP
report (see below) use Tolstoys War and Peace to distinguish between
wideband and broadband transmission rates. Transmitting the entire
contents of that classic work requires 26 seconds via wideband, but
only one second by broadband.2
The cost of broadband is, as expected, significantly higher than lower
capacity access, and until fairly recently was considered an unnecessary
luxury for schools. Widespread deployment of broadband to schools,
however, is now a serious and more available option. Some cable
companies are offering free services, and the telephone industry is
developing next-generation Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Lines
(ADSL), challenging cable speed, quality, and flexibility.
57
ventilation systems), into schools.3 Begin- Per-student costs for and 10 percent of total
ongoing technical support, ning with technology technology-rich schools technology costs.
maintenance, and repairs, currently in place, range from $180 to $450,
hardware and software RAND developed a or from 3 to 8 percent of Decisions to fund
upgrades, as well as the rough estimate of the current per-pupil expen- educational technology
initial cost of telecommu- cost of existing tech- ditures. The authors con- are not necessarily
nications connections and nology in schools in sider $300 per student, correlated with ability to
ongoing usage fees (for 1994-95: or 5.3 percent of school pay. Determinations that
telephone, cable or wire- budgets, as a plausible technology is important
less) and for Internet $3.2 billion, about $70 target. can lead states and
access. per pupil, or a little districts to allocate
The following section more than 1.3 percent The costs of providing increased proportions
describes several models of total expenditures technology-rich learning of their resources to
that have recently been environments are not technology.
used to estimate the costs To project costs of inconsequential. Total
of providing technology in a nation of technol- costs to the nation range The McKinsey
our schools under several ogy-enabled schools, from $10 to $20 billion Models6. The McKinsey
different scenarios and they examined the per year, or from three & Company manage-
schedules. While the technology costs of to six times what is ment consulting firm
models and studies gener- eight schools consid- currently spent. reported in 1995 on the
ally include the costs of ered exemplary users costs and feasibility of
hardware, teacher profes- of technology, which The cost of equipment, providing all of the
sional development, were reported upon especially computer nations K12 public
changes in building earlier by Keltner and density, is the primary schools access to the
infrastructure, and wiring Ross.4 factor affecting costs. national information
and LAN connections, The selection of infrastructure (NII)
there is considerable exemplars was based A second major factor over the next five to
variation among the cost on their breadth of affecting total cost is 10 years.
factors and pricing of the technology used in personnel. These schools The report describes
models. Readers who instruction, the use of needed full-time staff four deployment models
desire more than a general technology as an devoted to technology that assume different
cost comparison are educational tool, and operations. In some time-frames (by the year
encouraged to consult the commitment to devot- cases they were newly 2000 and by the year
studies referenced. ing the resources hired; in others existing 2005) and different
necessary to transform teachers took the levels of technology
COST MODELS the school for full responsibility. infrastructure, from
technology use. The multiple computers in
RAND Research. schools, although Staff development costs each classroom to one
Thomas Glennan and not representative in are about $25 per multi-media lab per
Arthur Melmed, on behalf a statistical sense, student, assuming that school. The models
of RANDs Critical Tech- included a spectrum teachers are compen- represent typical choices
nology Institute, and in of student populations sated for this time, either that schools are actually
support of the White and grade levels. Their by hiring a substitute or making and also point
Houses Office of Science student-to-computer by a stipend for extra out the fundamental
and Technology Policy, ratios ranged from 11 time spent. economic breakpoints
developed a broad esti- to 1, to 2 to 1. Find- among options. The
mate of the costs of ings are as follows: 5 Per-student software highest capacities
introducing technology costs are low, between 4 assumed are wideband

58
wireline WAN (Wide
Table 1: Costs of Four Technology Deployment Models
Area Network) connec-
tions (T1 lines of 1.5 National Costs Cost Per Average Cost Per Enrolled Percent of
mbps) to schools in most School Student K-12
Budgets,
cases, although some $ Billions $ Thousands Dollars 2000
wireless radio costs were
Model
estimated for rural Initial Ongoing Initial Ongoing Initial Ongoing Percent
schools.
Lab 11 4 125 45 225 80 1.5
The four computer-
based models and their
Lab Plus 22 7 255 85 460 150 3.0
aggregate costs are
described below: Partial
29 8 340 90 610 155 3.4
Classroom

The Lab: one lab with Classroom 47 14 555 165 965 275 3.9
25 networked PCs per
school by the year 2000. Source: McKinsey & Company, Connecting K-12 Schools to the Information Superhighway, 1995.

The Lab Plus: the

above lab plus one peripherals; professional or all the way to each heating, ventilation, and
computer and modem development; and sup- students desk. air conditioning).
per teacher by the year port. The deployment
2000. phase is five years for Annual per-school costs The largest ongoing cost
the first three models range from $45,000 to is support and develop-
The Partial Class- and 10 years for the $165,000 for the lab and ment of teachers and
room: assumes one-half fourth model. Highlights classroom models, other school professionals.
of each schools class- are provided below: respectively, and annual
rooms are connected per-student costs are $80 The cost of connection
with networked com- The cost of even the to $275, respectively. to the school (e.g., Inter-
puters by the year 2000 most ambitious scenario Initial deployment costs net access, telephone
at a ratio of one PC to is a relatively small per school are $125,000 bills) is a relatively small
five students. Each portion of the public for the lab and $555,000 portion of overall expen-
school has a 1.5 mbps education budget. for the classroom model. ditures (e.g., from 4
connection and an Similarly, per-student percent to 7 percent of
Ethernet LAN across Depending on the initial costs are $225 and initial and ongoing costs,
and within all class- scenario selected and $965, respectively. respectively, for the
rooms. speed of its deployment, classroom model).
the costs of connecting The largest upfront cost
The Classroom: all all K12 public schools is the purchase and The MIT Models.
of the above with all could range from 1.5 installation of hardware. Lee McKnight and
classrooms having a percent to 3.9 percent Computers constituted Russell Rothstein, of
1 to 5 computer to of the total K12 budget about 55 percent of total MITs Research Program
student ratio. nationwide. hardware costs; printers, on Communications
scanners, security sys- Policy, have collaborated
Costs for each model The biggest financial tems, and furniture for several years on the
are shown in Table 1. tradeoff hinges on how stations make up 25 development of cost-
All four models include far into the school the percent; and 20 percent benefit models for K12
a district server and technology is deployed, goes for retrofitting networking. The present
LAN; school server and i.e., to a lab, a classroom, (upgrades for electrical, discussion is based on

59
their most recent publica-
Figure 1: Ubiquitous LAN with Local Server and High-Speed Line Model
tions.7 These authors
Schools
developed five models School
for connecting schools
to the information super- District
highway using no greater Office
Server Server
than wideband connec-
tivity (i.e., neither inter-
LAN LAN
nal nor external connec- 1.5 Mbps
tions exceeded 1.5 1.5 Mbps Internet
Router Router

megabits per second).

The models proceed
from stand-alone com-
puting to ubiquitous net-
working, each with a
different level of techni-
cal complexity, cost, and
functional capability.
They were built using
data from a sample of
technologically advanced
school districts and
schools. For each model,
a range of one-time and
annual costs was com-
puted, from which one
national cost to network
all U.S. schools was
extrapolated.
Each successive
model presents an
expansion of the features
and capabilities available
with expanded digital
telecommunications
infrastructure. All models
use a star network ing that freeware
architecture, whereby
two to 10 schools are
connected to a hub,
which typically resides at
the school district office.
In large districts, multiple
clusters of four to six
schools are each con-
nected to a group hub
that is likely housed at
the district office. Each
Source: Rothstein (1994).
schools LAN is thus
connected to a district
office hub, and every
classroom is connected
to every other classroom
in the school as well as
to the central office.
The models are
based on costs for a
typical school and school
district and represent
average costs of all U.S.
schools and districts.
Schools existing com-
puter and networking
capacities are taken into
account in estimating
costs. Costs of software
are not included, assum-
browsers and E-mail
applications are down-
loaded from the Internet.
The authors acknowl-
edge that cost analysis
of other software should
be included in future
models.
Five models are listed
below, and described in
the Appendix, which
Homes and
Offices
Schools
provide increasing
quality of service
to schools. The less
advanced models require
relatively few computers
per student and lower
network connection
speeds. As they increase
in complexity, the
models require more
computers per student
and higher connection
speeds. Figure 1 illus-
trates the most complex,
high-speed model.
Single PC Dialup
LAN with Shared
training comprise 46
Modem
LAN with Router
LAN with Local Server
and Dedicated Line
Ubiquitous LAN with
Local Server and
High-Speed Line
(Figure 1)
Analyses of the models
show that:
The most significant
hurdle a school will face
in implementing a high-
level model is the initial
investment cost of the
network and computers.
The largest one-time
costs for building the
network are training and
retrofitting.
Support of the network is
the largest ongoing
annual cost. Over the first
five years, support and
percent of the total costs
of networking schools.
There are two major
jumps in the costs of
networking a school: The
first arises when the
school installs a LAN, to
meet the $20,000 to
$55,000 installation costs
per school, and to

60
 employ full-time support
staff at $60,000 to $150,000
per school district. The
second jump occurs when
PCs to support widespread
concurrent network access
are purchased. Hundreds
of thousands of dollars
will likely be needed to
provide multiple PCs in
every classroom. In
addition, many schools
will need major electrical
work, possibly exceeding
$100,000.
Start-up costs increase at
a faster rate than ongoing
costs as network com-
plexity increases. One-
time start-up costs of less
complex models are two
to three times ongoing
costs, but for the more
complex fourth and fifth
models, one-time costs
are five to 15 times the
ongoing costs.
The cost of the network
hardware is only a small
fraction of the overall
costs for connecting to
the NII.
Since costs for telecom-
munications lines and
services represent only 11
percent of the total costs,
tariff rate reductions will
have a relatively small
impact.
The TIAP Models.
Models and costs of
providing fiber-optic
broadband access to
public schools via local
telephone companies of the nation. For compa- Acceleration of deploy-
were developed by the rability with the 20-year ment to the schools
Telecommunications plan, costs for the subse- produces significantly
Industries Analysis quent 15 years have been higher costs. This is due
Project (TIAP).8 The included in the five-year to the fact that more
type of high-speed plan estimates. The equipment is purchased
broadband referred to 20-year schedule assumes in the early stages when
in these models that all schools will be prices are higher and
(greater than 45 mbps) equipped by the end of there will be little sharing
provides enough 20 years, matching the of common facilities with
bandwidth for data pattern of deployment to other customers.
transfer, faxing, voice the nation. Both sched-
communications, and ules assume a nation- Most of the cost of
two-way video services. wide, ubiquitous deploy- providing new technolo-
Three access-to- ment over a 20-year gies is driven by two
technology scenarios period. factors: deploying tech-
(for one, seven, or 26 Costs to both schools nologies too fast, and
computers per class- and local telephone com- providing schools with
room) provided accord- panies are estimated by computing equipment,
ing to two schedules this study, unlike those wiring, and training.
(five years and 20 previously discussed.
years) were modeled These are admittedly Total costs for the five-
and costed out. One bare bones models that year accelerated deploy-
computer per class- focus on installation costs ment plan (extended to
room is called the and do not include include costs over 20
teacher-only access ongoing expenses for years and averaged for
scenario; seven com- maintenance and opera- comparison purposes)
puters per classroom is tions. The current are $1.43 billion per year
called the cluster-of- installed based of PCs in for the teacher-only
students scenario; and the classroom is not taken access scenario, $3.5
26 computers per into account. Unknown billion for the cluster of
classroom is called the or speculative costs, such students model, and
universal access plan. as telecommunications $10.2 billion per year for
The first deploy- rates based on possible the universal access
ment schedule is a five- future discounts to scenario (Figure 2)
year accelerated plan. It schools are also not
assumes that schools included.9 Estimates Total costs for the
will have broadband include costs for hard- 20-year deployment
access and equipment ware and teacher devel- plan averaged over 20
within five years and opment, expenses for years would be $735
that the deployment software and Internet million per year for the
will be uniform access, and costs for local teacher-only access
throughout the period. telephone companies to scenario. The average
In this scenario, new upgrade their networks to annual cost of the
access technologies are provide broadband cluster of students
provided to schools services to schools. model is $1.9 billion;
long ahead of their Findings of the study and the universal
deployment to the rest show that: access plan would
61
 average $5.9 billion per Hardware and Telecom-
year (Figure 2). munications Infrastruc-
ture ($5.7 billion or
As expected, the higher 52 percent)
the density of computers
per classroom, the higher Learning Resources and
the cost. TIAPs estimates Services ($2.9 billion or
show that, regardless of 27 percent)
the deployment plan, the
universal access scenario Staff Development and
costs approximately three Support ($2.3 billion or
times as much as the 21 percent).
cluster-of-students
scenario and seven to eight The Task Force
times as much as the called for equipping
teacher-only scenario. every classroom and
school library with
The average incremental capability for interactive,
investment cost per high-speed transmission
student over the 20-year of full-motion video,
period of each deploy- voice, and data. Six to
ment plan ranges from eight networked multi-
$387 for the teacher-only media computers would
access scenario over the be provided for every
20-year deployment plan, class, along with a
to $4,019 per student for scanner, printer, TV,
universal access under telephone, and other
the accelerated five-year equipment. Every five
plan. classrooms would have
a color printer, VCR,
CALIFORNIAS EXPERIENCE video camera, video disc
player, and LCD panel.
The California Educa- High speed copiers and
tion Technology Task fax machines would be
Force released a report available for every 15
in July 1996 calling for classrooms. In addition
an investment of nearly to school and district
$11 billion to integrate technical staff, $2,000
technology into K12 per person would be
classrooms across the provided for staff
state over the next four support, Software valued
years. The detailed cost at $2,000, upgrades at
work sheet, developed in $200, and other multime-
determining the four-year dia resources at $500
budget, is included in the per classroom were
report.10 The funds budgeted. Connection
required were to be charges of $1,265
apportioned into the per month were also
three major categories: included.
Figure 2: Average Annual Costs for Fiber-Optic Broadband
Deployment to all U.S. Public Schools with Three Scenarios
and Two Deployment Schedules
5-Year Accelerated Plan*
Universal Access $10.2 Billion
Cluster-of-Students $3.5 Billion
Access
Teacher Only Access $1.43 Billion
20-Year Rollout Plan
Universal Access $5.9 Billion
Cluster-of-Students
Access $1.9 Billion
Teacher Only Access $.74 Billion
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Billions of Dollars
*For comparability with the 20-year plan, costs for the subsequent 15 years have been included in the
five-year plan estimates.
Source: Telecommunications Industries Analysis Project, Schools in
Cyberspace: The Cost of Providing Broadband Services to Public
Schools. Presentation to the NARUC Meeting, San Francisco, California,
1995.
For details on two and smaller schools. An
technologies that are analysis that illustrates
relevant to considerations these cost disparities
of technology deploy- was conducted by the
ment in schools cable Rural Policy Research
and wireless communica- Institute (RUPRI) at the
tions with the experi- University of Missouri-
ence of two school Columbia.21 This study
districts with wireless was initiated to inform
technologies, see boxed the Federal Communica-
descriptions. tions Commission of the
negative cost disparities
URBAN/RURAL COST ISSUES in telephone rates
experienced by rural
Telephone and cable schools and to suggest a
connections to the NII way to determine
are much more costly equitable discounts, as
when extended to the required by the Tele-
vast expanses of rural communications Act of
America, with its fewer 1996.

62
 RUPRI researchers
examined the numbers of
schools in seven states22
that fall into high-cost costs, and each school
telephone service areas
as defined by the
National Exchange
Carriers Association.
multiple schools connect
Figure 3: Percentage of Schools in High-Cost Areas, by
through a single hub, Locality
schools share network
pays less for its share
Metropolitan Areas 31
sharing resources
Urban Fringe
between multiple 58
Mid-size Central City

(High-cost refers to networks (data, voice,

service areas where costs
are greater than 114
percent of the national
Mid-size Central City 34
video). There is little
additional cost for
Urban fringe
adding needed tele- 22
Large Central City

average cost per loop.) phone lines when a

Large Central City 21
The schools in the high- school installs a LAN
cost areas were then and puts computer data
categorized according to connections in class-
Non-metropolitan 46
their location in a metro- rooms Areas
politan area or non-
metropolitan area. coordinating purchasing Rural 56

As shown in Figure at the state level.

3, 31 percent of schools
in high-cost areas are
located in metropolitan
areas, compared with 46
percent in non-metro-
politan areas. In metro-
politan areas, only 21
percent of large central
city schools are in high-
cost areas, compared to
58 percent of urban
fringe, mid-size central
Schools in North Large Town 47
Carolina and Kentucky
were reported to have Small Town 35
saved 20 to 50 percent
by purchasing services 0 20 40 60
Percentage of Schools
and equipment at the
state level Source: Rural Policy Research Institute, Preliminary Data Analysis of a
National Merged Data Base as Applied to Implementation of the School
and Library Discount Matrix in Sec. 254 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia, to be published,
negotiating volume May 1997.
discounts and sharing
grams such as: Cables 1 McKinsey & Company, Connecting
links and staff at the K12 Schools to the Information
district level High Speed Education Superhighway, Palo Alto, CA: 1995.

city schools. In the non-
metropolitan areas, 56
percent of the rural
schools are in high-cost
areas.
ECONOMIES IN EDUCATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
Several studies
reported on how some
school districts reduced
educational technology
costs. These include:
adopting the star archi- taking advantage of
tecture design whereby
Connection program or
taking advantage of AT&Ts $150 million
technical support 1995 pledge to spend
available to K12 $150 million over five
schools from nearby years to help connect
colleges and universities schools to the network
taking advantage of free benefiting from local
services offered by cable franchise agree-
various telecommunica- ments or social con-
tions carriers such as tracts with the FCC
free wireless phone which require cable
service or free Internet companies to provide
connectivity free Internet connections
or services as a condition
of franchise renewal or
special industry pro- special rates
2 However, the TIAP authors define
broadband as greater than 45
mbps.
3 Thomas K. Glennan and Arthur A.
Melmed, Fostering the Use of
Educational Technology. Elements
of a National Strategy, Santa
Monica, CA: RAND, Critical
Technologies Institute, 1996.
4 B. Keltner, and R.L. Ross, The Cost
of School-Based Educational
Technology Programs, Santa
Monica, CA: RAND, Critical
Technologies Institute, 1996.
5 Note that Glennan and Melmed
used annualized cost figures and
amortized, rather than actual costs
of hardware, software, teacher
preparation, special furniture, and
cabling. They acknowledge that
ignoring significant one-time costs
of rapid deployment does not
provide an accurate picture of the

63
 level of front-end investment and
CABLE CONNECTIONS estimate that if schools start with
virtually no equipment and phase
the equip-ment and training in
The lines which deliver cable television to homes, schools, and businesses can also connect to the NII. over three years, costs might be
about 70 percent greater in each
A cable modem is used to link computers to cable lines in much the same way ordinary modems connect of the first three years.
computers to telephone lines. These modems provide very fast, digital access to the Internet hundreds of
6 McKinsey & Company,
times faster than conventional telephone modems. The cable industry uses the example of downloading a Connecting K12 Schools to the
picture of the Mona Lisa, that would take 1.4 hours to transfer over typical phone lines. Via cable modem, Information Superhighway.
Report prepared for the National
this down-load takes only 18 seconds. Cable modems cost about $500 each and allow the transmission of Information Infrastructure
full-motion video.11 Advisory Council, 1995.

7 R. Rothstein, Networking K12

Cable in the Classroom, a $420 million industry public service effort was launched in 1989. Free Schools: Architecture Models and
Evaluation of Costs and Benefits,
cable connections, commercial-free educational programming, and teacher training workshops were Masters Thesis, MIT Sloan School
offered to schools across the country. In July 1996, the cable television industry announced a new commit- of Management and the Tech-
nology and Policy Program,
ment, Cables High Speed Education Connection. The industry would equip, free of charge, at least one Cambridge, MA, 1996, and R.
site in every consenting elementary and secondary school that is passed by cable with a cable modem. This Rothstein and L. McKnight,
Technology and Cost Models of
cable modem provides 100 personal computers with basic high-speed access to the Internet.12 Sixteen K12 Schools on the National
cable companies pledged to provide 3,000 schools in about 64 communities with Internet connections. The Information Infrastructure,
Computers in the Schools, 12(1/2)
actual implementation of the program, however, has been slow, and is expected to take place gradually. 1996.

8 Telecommunications Industries
In addition to the cable modem to the school, each individual computer requires a cable modem at a Analysis Project, Schools in
current, but declining, cost of several hundred dollars. The industry estimates a cost of $125 for wiring an Cyberspace: The Cost of Providing
Broadband Services to Public
individual classroom, assuming the school already has a basic cable connection. An amplifier would cost an Schools. Presentation at the
additional $60. Trenching, if required to connect classrooms in separate buildings, would increase the cost NARUC Meeting, San Francisco,
CA, July 1, 1995.
to about $700 per classroom.
9 Telephone conversation with
Carol Weinhaus, TIAP Director,
There are technical and financial hurdles with cable that still must be resolved, and analysts have January 16, 1997.
mixed views about the businesss prospects.13 Experts report considerable noise with less than the highest
10 California Department of
quality cable modems. Difficulties occur in the two-way interactivity on cable that is essential for educational Education, Connect, Compute,
purposes.14 Telephone lines are still necessary in the vast majority of systems to allow for student response. and Compete: The Report of the
California Education Technology
Upstream amplifiers must be installed for every 2,000 feet of cable in order to enable interactivity.15 Thus Task Force, Sacramento, CA,
schools would need to install a double infrastructure until two-way cable can be activated. 1996.

11 Lady Kereford, Area Schools to

Get Glimpse of Future Thanks to
Cables Internet Modem Offer,
WIRELESS CONNECTIONS Nashville Banner, July 10, 1996.

12 Cable Industry to Give Schools

Wireless radio connections are another option for schools to obtain NII access. Both internal wireless Free Internet Access, The New
LANs and external wireless connections are being used to solve problems and save money under certain York Times on the web, July 9,
1996.
circumstances.
13 Cable Firms to Wire Schools to
Internet, Orange County Register,
Old buildings, for example, where the hefty cost of asbestos removal required for wiring greatly July 10, 1996.
exceeds that of wireless LANs, are particularly appropriate candidates. Wireless LANs, however, are generally
14 Remarks by Stagg Newman of
not very popular in schools because of their relatively high cost compared to wired alternatives. An ethernet Bellcore at the FCC Bandwidth
card for a PC now costs about $20, whereas the average wireless LAN card costs $500$700 and provides Forum, Washington, D.C., January
23, 1997.
less than equivalent performance.16
15 Conversation with Wendell H.
Bailey, Vice President for Science
The unobstructed terrain and less heavily used radio spectrum desired for effective wireless communi- & Technology, National Cable
cations are most frequently found in non-urban or suburban areas. Rural schools, therefore, that often Television Association, February
28, 1997.
encounter prohibitively high prices for installing and sustaining dedicated circuitry due to their geographi-
cal isolation, are likely to benefit from wireless technology solutions. In urban or suburban environments, 16 Communication with Dewayne
Hendricks of Warp Speed
however, fixed wireless solutions can be limited due to possible low reliability, requirements for a clear line Imagineering, Fremont, CA., and

64
 Co-Principal Investigator of the
WIRELESS CONNECTIONS , CONT. NSF Wireless Field Test for
Education, on April 2, 1997.

of sight, the fact that only data and digitized video can be transmitted, and the potential for overloading the 17 McKinsey & Company, 1995.

network due to heavy usage.17 18 Unlike most radios today, which

transmit on just one frequency,
spread spectrum radios transmit
The only data found to illustrate cost comparisons of wireless and wired connectivity solutions for on many frequencies at the same
schools were case studies from the National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported Wireless Field Test for time. They can thus increase
efficiency by sending the same
Education. This project is intended to provide comparative data on Internet connectivity by incorporating amount of information as
wireless links into existing or extended wired networks and Internet services in order to collect realistic data conventional radios, using much
less power.
under operating conditions. The investigation is being conducted among rural school districts in Colorados
San Luis Valley and the urban district of Colorado Springs. 19 David Hughes, Report on Air
Academy School District Micro-
wave and Spread Spectrum
The Air Academy School District in Colorado Springs provides the best cost comparison data to date. System, August 28, 1996,
http://wireless.oldcolo.com.
This district of 14,000 students and 28 buildings completed installation of a nearly totally wireless wide area
network in late August 1996. 20 David Hughes, The Connected
Schools of Belen, New Mexico. A
Wireless Success Story, May 20,
Links between 20 of its sites permit communication among schools and to and from the Internet. Of two 1996, http://wireless.oldcolo.com.

bids received, one was from a telephone company for an all-fiber T1 installation providing between-school 21 The Rural Policy Research
links, the servers and LANs, for $1.5 million plus $75,000 per year in monthly service costs via a required Institute, Preliminary Data
Analysis of a National Merged
five-year, $375,000 contract. The other bid, which was accepted, was $601,000 for no-communications-cost Database as Applied to Implemen-
wireless links between the buildings and the servers and wired LANs within the buildings. The cost of wireless tation of the School and Library
Discount Matrix in Sec. 254 of the
equipment (a combination of microwave and spread spectrum radios plus antennas and cabling) was about Telecommunications Act of 1996.
one-third of the total cost.18 The district headquarters serves as the hub, which is linked to the Internet via two Columbia, Missouri: University of
Missouri-Columbia, to be
T1 wired circuits to the MCI Internet Point of Presence in downtown Colorado Springs. The cost per school published, May 1997.
for the 20 sites was approximately $10,000. An NSF researcher reports that the first years operation found no 22 The states included were: Florida,
failures, robust signals, no degradation from weather, and ample bandwidth for Internet multimedia. Maine, Missouri, Nebraska,
Nevada, Texas, and West Virginia.

In summary, the district has a reliable, economical, high-bandwidth, Internet and Intranet, wirelessly
linked wide area network at one-quarter the initial cost of a wired telephone network and with no subsequent
costs except routine maintenance.19

A second case study, of the Belen, New Mexico, Consolidated School District, involved providing LANs to
all eight schools, linking the schools to each other and to one hub school, and connecting to the Internet.
Bids ranged from $800,000 for a microwave wireless solution, $550,000 for a hybrid wired solution, and
$300,000 for a no-license wireless solution. The ultimate cost of the latter accepted bid was about $12,000
per school to get the spread spectrum radio network operating at T1 speeds, and connecting all eight
schools and the district headquarters. Startup software and antenna problems encountered the first year of
operation were resolved satisfactorily.20

The researcher estimates that wireless can save from 20 to 40 percent of the total cost of commercial
telephone Internet connectivity (the local loop cost comparison). The Wireless Field Test Project will produce
diagrams as well as cost and throughput comparisons in October 1997. In addition, a cookbook is being
developed, so that schools and libraries can make better use of wireless than they have in the past.

65
 Costs in the McKinsey
Appendix Models were evaluated
in detail across six
infrastructure elements:
(1) the connection to the
school (i.e., the WANs
that will connect
schools to each other, (3) the hardware, includ-
to their district offices,
and to the NII). These
are external connection
costs including installa-
tion, access and usage
charges for both the
school and district.
Wireline connections
were mostly assumed,
but 27 percent of the
rural schools were
estimated with wireless
radio. Average current
RBOC tariffs, decreas-
ing by 3 percent per
year, were the basis for
cost estimates.
(2) the connection within
the school (i.e., LANs (4) content, including
that will link computers
within the given
schools). These internal
connection costs include
materials and labor for
installing LANs, such as
cabling and network
interface cards, as well
as file servers (for both
school and district),
hubs, and routers. Both
wireline and wireless (5) professional develop-
LAN installation were
estimated at about $200
per node. $63,500 per
school was assumed for
asbestos removal and
retrofitting for one-half
of the older buildings.
66
School servers (three in FTE in the Classroom
the Classroom model) model shared across
were priced at $3,200 the district to help
each and district teachers integrate
servers (two in the technology into the
Classroom model) were classroom. Costs of
10,000 each. training courses were
also included.
ing the computers, (6) ongoing system
printers, scanners, and operations, including
other equipment resources shared across
needed for full func- the district dedicated to
tioning of the technol- designing and operat-
ogy; Multimedia com- ing the systems. Initial
puters were costed at deployment costs for
$1,700 each; printers the Lab and Classroom
(one per classroom) models were estimated
were $555 each; at $5,300 for design
scanners (one per and l/4 FTE and l/2
classroom) were $675 FTE respectively. The
each; furniture stations same FTEs continue on
(one per computer) an ongoing basis.
were estimated at $355
each; and security For each element,
systems (one per room) costs of initial deploy-
were $350 each. ment (including the
purchase and installation
of equipment and
software and on-line first-year operating
service charges; Costs expenses), as well as
of periodic software ongoing operations
upgrades were and maintenance
included, and prepack- (including usage charges,
aged software costs equipment and content
were considered upgrades, and profes-
interchangeable with sional development and
those obtained through support) were estimated.
online services Adjustments were made
for declining prices in
some elements and for
ment for teachers. increased costs in others,
Costs include those such as the greater costs
of substitute teachers of connecting older
(@$100 per day) schools requiring retro-
as well as support fitting and asbestos
resources 1/4 FTE in removal. The models
the Lab model and l.5 also took into account
the amount and quality of
existing infrastructure for
each element. These costs
accounted for the growing
student population, spread
equipment costs over a
10-year period, and
assumed three percent
inflation.
MIT MODELS
Single PC Dialup.
The lowest cost, most
basic connectivity option,
with no internal LAN and
a single connection to the
district office over a
modem and standard
phone line. Only one
person may use the
connection at a time, and
many of the benefits of
connection to the informa-
tion superhighway are not
accessible. One-time
installation costs range
from only $200$500, and Internet access to
annual operating costs
from $200$1,150, per are connected to the
school.
LAN with Shared
Modem. Each school has
a LAN, to which a 28.8
Kbps modem is con-
nected. This gives Internet
access to every computer
on the network through
the district servers 56 at favorable negotiated
Kbps connection. The
model, however, supports
only a few users at a time,
limited by the number of
school phone lines. As in
the previous model, only
text-based Internet appli-
cations (e.g., E-mail,
telnet, gopher) can be
utilized. The signifi- electrical and climate Ubiquitous LAN
cant LAN costs include control systems and with Local Server and
those of wiring enhanced security. One- High-Speed Line. This
(assuming category 5 time installation costs model puts a PC on the
copper wire), network range from about desktop of every student
cards for every net- $47,000 to $114,000, and and teacher and con-
worked computer, and annual operating costs nects them to each other
hardware and labor, from $3,500 to $18,250 and to the Internet. A
totaling $400$500 per per school. 1.5 Mbps line to the
PC. For a school with LAN with Local school supports large
twenty classrooms and Server and Dedicated numbers of concurrent
3-5 PCs in each, the Line. This model pro- users, who are similarly
total LAN costs are vides a file server at connected to the
$20,000$55,000. One- each school, allowing Internet via the district
time installation costs much of the information hub. Assuming 500
range from $22,300 to to reside locally instead students in an average
$66,000, and annual of at the district office, school, every school
operating costs from thus improving perfor- requires about 450 new
$3,600$10,250 per mance. A higher band- PCs for this model. The
school. width connection (1.5 high speed line and the
LAN with Router. Mbps) from the district larger file server and
This model includes a hub to the Internet dial-up system, to
router in each school, permits the entire school accommodate many
instead of a modem, to be served. Higher students, teachers, and
connecting to the speed links enable the parents, who access the
district office and use of limited video, system remotely, signifi-
providing concurrent graphical and text-based cantly increase costs.
network applications. As Retrofitting, electrical,
multiple users. Schools a result, an extensive and air conditioning,
training program and a and security costs are
district and the district well-staffed support also substantial. One-
to the Internet by 56 team are required. Costs time installation costs
Kbps lines. More are increased due to the range from $565,700 to
computers are now larger bandwidth con- $1,277,000, and annual
usable in classrooms, nection and the need for operating costs from
so this model esti- retrofitting costs of the $14,000$50,000 per
mates the purchase of electrical and climate school.
15 new PCs per school control systems and for
increased security. One-
prices of $1,000 time installation costs
$2,000 each. Support range from $95,600 to
and training costs $222,000, and annual
increase with addi- operating costs from
tional users, new dial- $4,000$13,250 per
up lines are needed school.
for remote access, and
significant retrofitting
costs are incurred for
67