Budget Clarification Call—Educational Technology
Moderator: Massie Ritsch
February 10, 2010
Coordinator: Welcome and thanks for standing by. At this time all participants are in a listen only mode. At the time of the question and answer session you can press “Star--1” and ask a question. I'd now like to turn the call over to Massie Ritsch. Thank you.
Massie Ritsch: Thanks, (Laurie). A good afternoon or morning to everybody depending on where you are. We are here in Washington, D.C., all at separate locations because of the huge snowstorm here.
We figured if there was any call we had to keep on the schedule, it was the one with the technology folks because you would never forgive us for not being able to pull off a conversation remotely if we weren't in the office.
So thanks for joining us today. We have to speak with you Karen Cator, our Director of the Department’s Office of Educational Technology, and Tom Skelly, our Director of Budget Services, which will leave plenty of time for your questions.
We’re recording the call and transcribing it. We can make that available later on ed.gov in the coming days. Do give us some leeway on the weather there. This call is not intended for press purposes, but we do consider everything here on the record. We'll leave time for your questions at the end, as well as some questions that were submitted in advance through .
So I want to turn things over to Karen next. Many of you know her. She joined us just recently to direct the Ed Tech Office. Prior to joining the department, Karen directed Apple’s leadership and advocacy efforts in education. And before that she was in Alaska working in public education and technology.
So we’re delighted to have her and I'm glad she could join us today. And Karen, take it away.
Karen Cator: Thank you, and thank everybody for joining the call today. Hopefully this is kind of the first of many conversations, and I know many of you. You won't be shy in terms of providing your input and your thoughts on how we move forward.
I think it’s safe to say the President and the Secretary strongly believe that technology, when used creatively and effectively, can transform education much like it’s transformed what’s happened in the private sector.
So across the administration we've been looking really at three things. First of all, getting really focused on what the benefits are. What benefits does technology bring to teaching and learning? Second, what have been the barriers to broad adoption of the best possible uses of technology? And third, what strategic investments could enable progress?
So in the FY 2011 budget that the administration has proposed, there are some across-agency investments. And I'll just name one of them, and that is a focus on research and development.
And one of the examples is within the National Science Foundation; there is a $40 million fund for developing advanced technologies for learning. So we’re really thinking about technology as it pertains to teaching and learning and how we can continue to kind of advance the domain.
Within the Education budget, I think as you know the Secretary has really been focused on transitioning the Department of Education from being an agency of compliance to more of an engine of innovation.
And one of the theories of change here to do that is we need to consolidate the myriad funding streams into fewer pots in an effort to increase flexibility for states and school districts, and integrate the funding in order to achieve state and local goals.
So as you know the (EETT) - our favorite program - Enhancing Education through Technology Fund - has been part of the consolidation. So that fund, EETT, is now part of the larger block of funding which is called Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education.
And it includes literacy, it includes STEM, it includes all of the other subjects that really are important for creating a well-rounded, well-educated student.
So one of the things we definitely know is that successful scale-up and successful integration is absolutely going to require an infusion of technology across programs.
Whether we’re talking about supporting teachers or leaders or whether we’re talking about supporting English language learners or reading or STEM, we know that technology needs to be infused throughout.
So that’s what we’re designing for. But I'll also just add that we know that this requires advancing the leadership capacity of states and districts as well. So one of the things that we do know we do need to invest in through the National Activities Fund is an investment in the capacity building of leadership across states and districts to continue that.
So I'm going to turn it over to Tom Skelly to explain more, but before I do I'd just really like to say that, speaking on behalf of all of the people that I've been working with across the Department, we’re incredibly focused on number one, making progress for all of the nation’s children and we absolutely want to get it as right as possible.
So we’re definitely listening. We’re definitely looking forward to working with all of you, understanding your best ideas, and we definitely want to accomplish the bold innovation goals of this administration. So I'll turn it over to Tom Skelly.
Tom Skelly: Okay, thank you, Karen. Again, the budget is what we see as a historic request in that there has never been a request this large for elementary and secondary education programs in the Department of Education. We've had some higher appropriations obviously, but this is the first time the President’s come out and asked for more money for Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs.
The Secretary’s obviously focused on increasing competition in those programs, so almost all of the increase that has been requested - the $3 billion that’s right now in the budget and up to another $1 billion that could be added later if the ESEA programs are authorized - would go for competitive programs. Things like the Race for the Top, Investing in Innovation fund, and some of these newer activities that will result if 38 programs are consolidated into 11.
One of the programs that would be consolidated would be the Education Technology State Grant Program. It would be covered, we think, in concept by our well-rounded education piece where you have a series of three programs planned that would focus on effective teachers and leaders.
Each of those three could have a technology component. There will be funds reserved from those for national activities and those national activities could support the kinds of things done in education technology programs.
We also have several items that I've mentioned supporting STEM education. We have STEM as an (invitational) grant priority in Race for the Top. We have roughly $150 million out of the $500 million for the Invest in Innovation Fund which would be available for STEM activities.
And then the Effective Teaching and Learning Activity has a $300 million part just for STEM. So I know that’s not technology as you know it for the Education and Technology State Grants, but certainly the "T" in STEM allows for more spending on technology.
With that said, I think we'll see what kinds of questions you've got on the budget or our legislative proposals.
Massie Ritsch: All right, thanks, Tom. And thanks, Karen. (Laurie), why don't we open things up for questions? I may put in one or two from our presubmitted questions before we get started but let’s get folks in the queue. Folks, if you could press “Star-1” on your phone to indicate you want to ask a question.
Coordinator: Yes, press “Star-1,” record your name and when your name is prompted, please record it clearly. One moment.
Massie Ritsch: So while we wait for that, we did take in some questions through , and you can continue to use that email address. We'll try to respond to questions that haven't been answered.
Wanted to kick off with a question we got from John Keller at the Indiana Department of Education. I know a number of State Departments of Ed Technology Directors are on the call, and so I wanted to ask this question right out of the box to Karen and/or Tom.
With the proposal to eliminate the dedicated funding for the Enhancing Education through Technology Program, will there be any federal support for state level capacity building to support the integrated approach that we've talked about here?
Karen Cator: Yes, this is Karen. I think that we definitely understand that that is incredibly important in terms of increasing leadership capacity. And the National Activities money is what’s been identified as the opportunity to do that.
So I think we talked about National Activities money before but definitely what that’s for is for figuring out how to scale up the capacity of leaders, both state leaders and then also in support of district leadership.
And one of the things I've just put on the table is how can we be thinking about how we can best use that money to really scale. How can we use technology to build a leadership capacity? How can we use technology to create, you know, networks of people supporting each other?
So that’s one of the kind of design challenges that we have, is how do we use technology to build this leadership capacity across states and districts?
Massie Ritsch: Okay. Thanks, Karen. (Laurie), do we have any questions on the line?
Coordinator: Yes, we do. The first one is from Donna Steffan, and Mr. Ritsch, I think I have lost you on the...
Massie Ritsch: I'm back in.
Coordinator: Oh, okay.
Massie Ritsch: Donna’s with the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, I believe. Donna, go ahead.
Donna Steffan: Well, currently the ESEA program requires a district to complete and have on file a certified technology plan that focuses on student achievement and raising student academic achievements through educational technology.
Well, in your plans, do you foresee requiring this type of plan which would then also require the districts to show how they interfacing the instructional technology within the other funded areas for effective teaching?
Tom Skelly: I think that’s a great idea. This is Tom Skelly. I think it’s a good idea to have this - not all of our legislation has been written yet and certainly hasn't been adopted by Congress so we haven't figured all of these things out yet. But as you point out that is an element in the current program.
It’s something for technology alone, and I think it would make sense for all of our teaching and learning efforts, both the STEM piece and we have a piece in literacy, and a section that says that the technology program is going into the Well-rounded Learner’s Program.
Donna Steffan: Yes, because right now in Wisconsin we work with our intermediary education agencies and provide training workshops for the district teams to develop these long-range plans. The time is set at 3 years through the FCC time frame.
And in this plan they need to first of all do an assessment on effective teaching and learning using instructional technology. And then they need to plan in their future goals for this.
And that’s part of our certification process. We look at these areas, and I sure wouldn't want to lose this planning piece that is required of our districts through the reauthorization.
Tom Skelly: Well, I think it sounds like in general like a good idea but Arne Duncan has talked many times...
Donna Steffan: Oh, sure.
Tom Skelly: ...about trying to make sure the rules are both loose and tight.
Donna Steffan: Right.
Tom Skelly: But we want it to be up to you to decide how you’re going to do some of these things, that it doesn't have to be, you know, one rule and one requirement for every state and for all districts within the state.
Donna Steffan: I see, because right now in Wisconsin we cannot require of districts anything that’s not required of us to facilitate and to do. So it would be important that in the reauthorization that this element of each district developing a long-range plan for educational technology to remain in the consolidated application and a consolidated grant.
Tom Skelly: Well, it’s an idea that’s worth looking into. But again, I think the idea is to focus more on student achievement and how you’re doing things and less on compliance. That’s a theme of the reauthorization on almost everything he says.
You know as a school superintendent, he’s reminded us that it was less effective to just track how monies were being spent for each individual program and he wants to make sure that we focus on student achievement and having good teachers and good leaders in all schools.
Is there another question, (Laurie)?
Coordinator: Our next question comes from Bruce Umstead. Go ahead.
Bruce Umstead: Hi, this is Bruce Umstead from Michigan, the Michigan Department of Education. We use our Title II D funds to really implement our state education technology plan.
Maybe I'm limited in the toolset I have as a leader, but I've really been able to use those funds to get districts to move and implement some forward thinking instructional models that otherwise we wouldn't be able to do through our competitive program. And I'm a little concerned that I get moved to the back bench without those funds to invest in those programs.
For example, you’re probably familiar with New Tech High. That was a Title II D competitive grant fund award in Michigan this year. We, you know, obviously won't have money to put into that and I haven't seen our district step up and put their other federal funds toward that program.
But we opened the door for the program to run because we had Title II D. I know that program is eligible for other funds, but how do you intend for us to get school districts to actually fund technology-based programs like New Tech High and avoid what we witnessed here in the state, which is the federal funds tend to be consumed by business-as-usual activities?