Appendices

A. Joint Federal Activities Promoting the Use of Technology in Education 48

B. How This Plan Was Developed 51

C. Acknowledgements 61

D. Endnotes 63

APPENDIX A

Joint Federal Activities Promoting the Use of Technology in Education

The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office of Educational Technology (OET) resides in the Office of the Secretary of Education. OET provides leadership to maximize technology’s contribution to improving education. OET develops national educational technology policy and implements policy departmentwide supporting the goals of No Child Left Behind. OET helps to ensure that ED programs are coordinated with efforts across the federal government.

The most significant of the joint activities of the U.S. Department of Education and other federal government entities is the Administration’s interagency working group to examine how America’s technological leadership could be better deployed in education and training. The U.S. Department of Education and other agencies across the federal government are promoting the use of technology in education through this Working Group on Advanced Technologies for Education and Training. The interagency Advanced Technologies Working Group fosters and promotes the development, application, and deployment of advanced technologies in education and training in the United States. The Group convenes under the aegis of the President’s National Science and Technology Council. The Department of Education’s Director of Educational Technology and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology serve as co-chairs. Other members include: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Labor, Institute of Museum and Library Services, Library of Congress, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Science Foundation, National Security Agency, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Working Group’s agenda has two main areas of interest. First, inventory and examine federal investments focused on the development of advanced technologies for learning, and the development of digital libraries and other technology-enabled learning resources. The group will then determine how to strengthen this portfolio, and seek partnerships with the private sector, the academic research community, teachers, and other key stakeholders to promote and speed the development of these technologies. Second, the Working Group will explore and prioritize barriers to the commercialization, deployment, and adoption of these technologies. For more information on the Working Group, see http://www.visions2020.gov.

Finally, working together with other federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Education is promoting the value of broadband and other technologies for lifelong learning. Broadband technologies have great educational value as well as far-reaching economic impact and on March 26, 2004, President Bush announced a major broadband initiative with the goal of connecting every home to broadband by 2007.

Links to Federal Resources

For Further Information
See www.NationalEdTechPlan.org for many more resources and additional examples on the information presented in this report.

U.S. Department of Education: The U.S Department of Education administers a number of programs to ensure equal
access to education and promote educational excellence for all Americans, and to make sure that no child is left behind. Visit http://www.ed.gov and http://www.nclb.gov.

Federal Communications Commission: The FCC oversees the Education Rate (E-Rate) program which provides affordable access to advanced telecommunications services for all eligible schools and libraries in the United States. Contact the Schools and Libraries Division at http://www.sl.universalservice.org.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: One of NASA’s top goals is to “inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics”. The NASA website provides excellent online resources for teachers and students at http://www.nasa.gov.

National Science Foundation: NSF makes grants and awards in all areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics education, as well as technology research. Contact NSF at http://www.nsf.gov.

U.S. Department of Agriculture: USDA’s Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grants support telemedicine services and distance learning services in rural areas. Contact the Rural Utilities Service at http://www.usda.gov/rus/

U.S. Department of Commerce: Commerce is focused on America’s competitiveness by furthering innovations in cutting-edge science and technology and providing resources to manage an unrivaled information base.
Contact http://www.commerce.gov

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy: OSTP advises the President on the impacts of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. OSTP leads an interagency effort to develop and to implement sound science and technology policies and budgets and to work with the private sector, state and local governments, the science and higher education communities, and other nations toward this end. Visit http://www.ostp.gov

APPENDIX B

How This Plan Was Developed

In developing this Plan, the U.S. Department of Education actively sought out the advice and insights of a broad range of stakeholders, including students, educators, researchers, parents, higher education and industry leaders. The Department organized meetings for input into the plan and participated in numerous conferences of stakeholder groups at venues around the country; convening meetings with stakeholder groups, other federal agencies, and individual experts to engage them in thinking about the plan; and, soliciting input through the www.nationaledtechplan.org web site. Review the Public Input page for more information on how this Plan was developed.

Over the course of the development of the Plan, the Department received input from over 1,500 individuals and organizational representatives, including from dozens of leading education associations and industry representatives. Input provided by these groups took a variety of forms, including in some cases, summaries of surveys or other consensus activities these groups undertook of their own memberships and/or constituencies. Educators (including current and future teachers and teacher educators) most frequently responded to calls for input. In addition, through a partnership with NetDay, the Department received additional input from another 210,000 K-12 students who participated through their schools in NetDay’s Speak Up Day 2003.

Invitational Meetings to Provide Input into the Plan

Numerous meetings of practitioners, experts, and organizational representatives were convened to publicize the development of the National Education Technology Plan and to seek input and advice. Participants in invitational meetings organized by the Department follow below.

Briefings on the Development of the National Education Technology Plan

Sterlin Adams, National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), Silver Spring, MD
Donelle Blubaugh, National Coalition for Technology in Education and Training (NCTET), Alexandria, VA
Gene Broderson, Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), Washington, DC
Majorie Bynum, Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), Arlington, VA
Tom Carroll, National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF), Washington, DC
Julie Copty, Association of American Publishers (AAP), Washington, DC
Nzigna Damal-Cathie, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), Washington, DC
Buffy DeBreaux-Watts, American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE), Washington, DC
Norris Dickard, The Benton Foundation, Washington, DC
Paul Gardner, Association of Educational Publishers (AEP), Logan Township, NJ
Melinda George, State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), Arlington, VA
Michael Hill, National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), Alexandria, VA
Alisha Dixon Hyslop, Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE), Alexandria, VA
Allan Jordan, North American Council for Online Learning, (NACOL), Boulder, CO
Don Knezek, International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), Washington, DC
Keith Krueger, Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), Washington, DC
Richard Mainzer, Professional Standards and Practice Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), Arlington, VA
Sally McConnell, National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), Alexandria, VA
Sara McPhee, National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEc), Washington, DC
Scott Montgomery, Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Washington, DC
Nancy Reder, National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), Alexandria, VA
Margaret Rivera, American Association of Community Colleges, Washington, DC
Mark Schneiderman, Software & Information Industry Association, Washington, DC
Pat Shea, Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET), Boulder, CO
Irene Spero, NetDay, Irvine, CA
Kendall Starkweather, International Technology Education Association (ITEA), Reston, VA
Barbara Stein, National Education Association, Washington, DC
Kimberly Tulp, Education Leaders Council (ELC), Washington, DC
Julie Walker, American Association of School Librarians (AASL), Chicago, IL
Robert Wickenden, Association of Educational Publishers (AEP), Logan Township, NJ

Exploring the Digital Generation

Research suggests that students today are coming to school with different expectations for their education due in large part to their use of technology in out-of-school settings. Today’s generation of students represents an as of yet untapped impetus for school reform.

Stephanie Azzarone, Child’s Play Communications, New York, NY
Robbie Blinkoff, Context-Based Research Group, Baltimore, MD
Kevin Bryne, Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, Alexandria, VA
Alice Cahn, Coliseum Live Entertainment, New York, NY
Sandra Calvert, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
David Dwyer, Apex Learning, Bellevue, WA
Julie Evans, NetDay, Irvine, CA
Peter Grunwald, Grunwald Associates, San Mateo, CA
Karen Jaffe, Child Trends, Washington, DC
Neil Howe, LifeCourse Associates, Great Falls, VA
Robert Kominski, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC
Greg Livingston, WonderGroup, Cincinnati, OH
Bruce Mehlman, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC
Diana Oblinger, Microsoft Corporation, Apex, NC
Michelle Poris, Yankelovich Partners, Inc., Norwalk, CT
Marc Prensky, games2train, New York, NY
Harrison “Lee” Rainie, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC
Glenda Revelle, Sesame Workshop, New York, NY
Susan Royer, Sesame Workshop, New York, NY
Richard Russell, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC
William Strauss, LifeCourse Associates, Great Falls, VA
Ellen Wartella, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

Leadership for System-Wide Rethinking

Influencing and empowering school leaders to make sound decisions is critical to leveraging the opportunities offered by technology.

Susan Cates, ThinkEquity Partners, San Francisco, CA
Sue Collins, KCH Strategies & Apex Learning, Mercer Island, WA
Chris Dede, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
JoLynne DeMary, Virginia Department of Education, Richmond, VA
Sylvia Diaz, Miami-Dade Public County Schools, Miami, FL
Daniel Duke, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
David Dwyer, Apex Learning, Bellevue, WA
Mark Edwards, Henrico County Public Schools, Richmond, VA
Julie Evans, NetDay, Irvine, CA
Janice Fletcher, Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement, Atlanta, GA
Gordon Freedman, Knowledge Base, Carmel, CA
Mike Hill, National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), Alexandria, VA
Sally Johnstone, WCET, Boulder, CO
Marina Leight, Center for Digital Education, Folsom, CA
Christine Master, Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Miami, FL
Linda Roberts, Darnestown, MD
David Thornburg, Thornburg Center, Lake Barrington, IL
Norma Thornburg, Thornburg Center, Lake Barrington, IL
Kimberly Tulp, Education Leaders Council, Washington, DC
Carla Wade, Oregon Department of Education, Salem, OR
Chris Walsh, KIPP National, San Francisco, CA
Vicki Wilson, Henrico County Public Schools, Richmond, VA

Virtual School and e-Learning Opportunities

Online courses and supplemental services are proliferating and offer increased high-quality choices for students and parents. State and local policies may be inhibiting their growth and adoption.

Jim Benitez, Aventa Learning, Seattle, WA
Cliff Blackerby, Texas Region IV, Houston, TX
Linda Cavalluzzo, The CNA Corporation, Alexandria, VA
Tom Clark, TA Consulting, Springfield, IL
Sue Collins, KCH Strategies, Mercer Island, WA
Barbara Dreyer, Connections Academy, Baltimore, MD
Anita Givens, Texas Education Agency, Austin, TX
Marina Leight, Center for Digital Government, Folsom, CA
Dane Linn, National Governors Association, Washington, DC
Keith Oelrich, KC Distance Learning, Portland, OR
Liz Pape, Virtual High School, Maynard, MA
Linda Pittenger, Kentucky Virtual High School, Frankfort, KY
Randy Rhine, Montana State University-Billings, Billings, MT
Ray Rose, The Concord Consortium, Concord, MA
Art Sheekey, CNA Corporation, Alexandria, VA
Burck Smith, Smarthinking, Washington, DC
Tim Stroud, North American Council for Online Learning, Washington, DC
Bill Thomas, Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, GA
Robert Tinker, Concord Consortium, Concord, MA
Gil Valdez, Learning Point Associates, Naperville, IL
Julie Young, Florida Virtual School, Orlando, FL
Charles Zogby, K12 Inc., McLean, VA

Technology’s Role in Teacher Quality

The definition of a high-quality teaching force must shift with the times – and along with it, colleges of education and professional development providers need to seek out new, innovative ways to train and support educators.

Steven Bossert, Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), Newark, DE
Edward Clifton, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), Arlington, VA
Bobb Darnell, Forest View Educational Center, Arlington Heights, IL
Kathleen Fulton, National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF), Washington, DC
Ronald Gallimore, UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute, Los Angeles, CA
Cathy Gunn, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL), Naperville, IL
Marianne Handler, National-Louis University, Wheeling, IL
Sharnell Jackson, Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, IL
Cheryl Lani Juárez, Miami Museum of Science and Planetarium, Miami, FL
Jim Konantz, California Virtual Academies, Oakland, CA
Melinda Maddox, Alabama Department of Education, Montgomery, AL
Kathleen Madigan, American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE), Washington, DC
Joyce Pittman, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
June Rivers, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
Linda Rosen, Education and Management Innovations Inc., Bethesda, MD
William L. Sanders, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC
Rossella Santagata, LessonLab Inc., Santa Monica, CA
Mark Schlager, Tapped In, Menlo Park, CA
Lajeane Thomas, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA
Bonnie Thurber, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

Drivers of Broadband Deployment

Education may serve as the greatest demand for the expansion of broadband connectivity to schools and homes. In this regard, school leaders have an opportunity and an obligation to shape telecommunications policy as it has the potential to affect schools.

Trent Anderson, Cablevision Systems, Corp., Bethpage, NY
Deb Bonanno, Pearson Digital Learning, Scottsdale, AZ
Holly Davis, Altair Learning Management, Inc., Columbus, OH
Kevin Dellicker, Affinity Group of Harrisburg, LLC, Harrisburg, PA
Richard Edwards, Edwards Training & Consulting, Pearland, TX
John Flores, United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA), Boston, MA
Hudnall Croasdale, Internet 2 Studio, Richmond, VA
Michael Golden, Pennsylvania Department of Education, Harrisburg, PA
Jon Haber, SkillCheck, Inc., Burlington, MA
Chris Israel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC
Mark Kelly, Sprint, Overland Park, KS
David Lois, WiscNet, Madison, WI
Helen Morris, Texas Instruments, Alexandria, VA
Greg Nadeau, U.S. Open e-Learning Consortium, Somerville, MA
Stagg Newman, McKinsey and Company, Candler, NC
Peggy O’Brien, Cable in the Classroom, Washington, DC
Ron Reed, United Learning, Prospect Heights, IL
Michelle M. Roper, Federation of American Scientists, Washington, DC
Terrance Rogers, Advanced Network & Services, Armonk, NY
Garret Sern, EDUCAUSE, Washington, DC
Jim Stewart, Utah Education Network
Tim Stroud, North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL), Washington, DC
Ken Thompson, Mississippi Department of Education, Jackson, MS
John Vaille, Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC), Los Alamitos, CA
Charles L. Wallace, BellSouth, Atlanta, GA

Anytime, Anywhere Technology Access

Increasing numbers of states and districts are seeing value in providing a computing device to each student. Valuable lessons can be learned and shared from these early adopters.

Karen Bruett, Dell, Inc., Round Rock, TX
Jay Bryant, Educational Testing Service (ETS), Princeton, NJ
David Byer, Apple Computer, Inc., Washington, DC
Barbara Catenaci, Beaufort County School District, Hilton Head Island, SC
David Cavallo, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA
Mary Cullinane, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
Rob Darrow, Clovis Unified School District, Clovis, CA
Mark Edwards, Henrico County Public Schools, Richmond, VA
Tom Greaves, The Greaves Group, Palo Alto, CA
Bill Hamilton, Walled Lake Consolidated Schools, Walled Lake, MI
Margaret Honey, EDC Center for Children and Technology, New York, NY
Bob Lally, LeapFrog SchoolHouse, Emeryville, CA
Cheryl Lemke, Metiri Group, Culver City, CA
Mike Lorion, palmOne, Inc., Milpitas, CA
Bette Manchester, Maine Department of Education, Augusta, ME
Raymond McGhee, SRI International, Arlington, VA
Helen Morris, Texas Instruments, Alexandria, VA
Cathie Norris, University of North Texas, Denton, TX
Josh Reibel, Wireless Generation, New York, NY
Phil Richardson, ETG Technologies, Inc., The Woodlands, TX
Saul Rockman, Rockman Et Al, San Francisco, CA
Michael Russell, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA
Bill Rust, Gartner, Inc., Catonsville, MD
Mark Schneiderman, Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), Washington, DC
Jim Schnitz, IBM, Holladay, UT
Dan Schultz, Michigan Virtual University, Lansing, MI
Linda Sharp, AlphaSmart, Inc, Greenwood Village, CO
Elliot Soloway, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Ron Thorpe, Thirteen/WNET, New York, NY
Bruce Wilcox, Harcourt Incorporated, Orlando, FL
Denaya Wininger, Frontier Public School, Red Rock, OK
Andy Zucker, Education Development Center (EDC), Newton, MA

Data-Driven Decision-Making, Accountability, and School Transformation

Having good data to guide decisions in schools and for instruction is critical to ensuring that all the nation’s children achieve. New technological solutions have the potential to generate actionable data about school performance—in many cases for the first time.

Fred Balfour, Align to Achieve, Inc., Watertown, MA
Dean Bergman, Nebraska Department of Education, Lincoln, NE
John Boling, SAS Institute, Cary, NC
David Coleman, The Grow Network, New York, NY
Alvin Crawford, SchoolNet, Inc., New York, NY
David DeSchryver, SchoolNet, Inc., Washington, DC
Charlie Garten, Poway Unified School District, Poway, CA
Joe Kitchens, Western Heights Public Schools, Oklahoma City, OK
Keith Krueger, Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), Washington, DC
Jacqueline Lain, Standard & Poor’s, New York, NY
Eliot Levinson, BLE Group, Washington, DC
Elaine Liftin, Council for Education Change, Davie, FL
Jane Lockett, IBM Business Consulting Services, Orlando, FL
Bob Longo, PowerSchool, Folsom, CA
Maribeth Luftglass, Fairfax County Public Schools, Annandale, VA
Dale Mann, Interactive, Inc., New York, NY
Dean Millot, National Charter School Alliance, St. Paul, MN
Cathy Mincberg, Houston Independent School District, Houston, TX
Allan Olson, Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), Portland, OR
Mike Patterson, Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), Portland, OR
Mark Schneiderman, Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA), Washington, DC
Peter Sibley, Edmin.com, San Diego, CA
Joe Simpson, Council of Chief State Schools Officers (CCSSO), Washington, DC
Irene Spero, Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), Washington, DC
Matt Stein, Eduventures, Inc., Boston, MA
Samuel Stringfield, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Bill Tudor, Scantron Corporation, Irvine, CA
Hugh Walkup, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC
Jeff Wayman, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

Budgeting and Funding Models for 21st Century Education Systems

Federal funds have disproportionately supported the purchasing of technology in schools, but innovative states and districts have rebuilt their budgets from the ground up to reflect the new opportunities afforded by technology. These sites are well-positioned for the future and are much better insulated from short-term funding fluctuations.

Kathleen Brantley, Market Data Retrieval, Shelton, CT
David Byer, Apple Computer, Inc., Washington, DC
John Clement, American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC
Sara Fitzgerald, Funds For Learning, LLC, Arlington, VA
Anne Flynn, National School Boards Association, Alexandria, VA
Jeanne Hayes, Quality Education Data, Inc., Denver, CO
Steve Honegger, American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC
Keith Krueger, Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), Washington, DC
Mark Maine, Pomona Unified School District, Pomona, CA
John Musso, District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, DC
Bill Rust, Gartner, Inc., Catonsville, Maryland
Mark Schneiderman, Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA), Washington, DC
William R. Thomas, Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, GA
Brenda Williams, West Virginia Department of Education, Charleston, WV

Commissioned Papers
The Department commissioned several papers from experts to help inform the development of the Plan. These include:

A Retrospective on Twenty Years of Education Technology Policy
Ellen Mandinach
Margaret Honey
Education Development Center
New York, NY

How States Can Use Information Technology to Support School Improvement Under NCLB
Chrys Dougherty
National Center for Educational Accountability
Austin, TX

A Technology Framework to Support Accountability and Assessment: How States Can Evaluate Their Status for
No Child Left Behind
Glynn D. Ligon
ESP Solutions Group
Austin, TX

The Role of Educational Technology in Meeting the Promise of Supplemental Educational Services
Steve Fleischman
American Institutes for Research
Washington, DC

How Can Virtual Schools Be a Vibrant Part of Meeting the Choice Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act?
Bryan C. Hassel
Michelle Godard Terrell
Public Impact
Chapel Hill, NC

Meeting the Need for High Quality Teachers: e-Learning Solutions
Glenn M. Kleiman
Education Development Center
Newton, MA

e-Learning Frameworks for NCLB
Susan R. Collins
KCH Strategies
Seattle, WA

APPENDIX C

Acknowledgements

We want to express particular appreciation to the National Education Technology Plan Outreach Team which, under the leadership of Douglas Levin of the American Institutes for Research (AIR), assisted us in coordinating input from the public and disseminating information about the Plan development process. Don Knezek and Leslie Conery of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and Melinda George of the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) also provided valuable leadership and guidance. Staff of the outreach team included:

Tarek Anandan, AIR
Sousan Arafeh, AIR
Brenda Aspaas, ISTE
Hilary Cederquist, AIR
Tera Daniels, SETDA
Cecily Darden, AIR
Mike Friedman, AIR
Tracy Gray, AIR
Matthew Green, AIR
Sara Hall, SETDA
Brian Hardwick, AIR
Odaale Lamptey, AIR
Susan Nay, ISTE
Nick Patrick, ISTE
Cindy Phillips, ISTE
Dianne Porter-Lord, ISTE
Lajeane Thomas, ISTE
Mary Ann Wolf, SETDA

Our deepest appreciation goes to John Bailey, former Director of the Office of Educational Technology, for his leadership and vision for the National Education Technology Plan. Others who assisted us at various times throughout the course of our work include: Tim Magner, Helen Soulé, Jeanette Lim, Laura Johns, Pooja Agrawal, Jenelle Leonard, Ray Myers, Cheryl Garnette, Enid Simmons, Peirce Hammond, Adam Honeysett, Karen Cruson, Jim Butler, Julie Evans, David Dwyer, Bruce Mehlman, Peter Grunwald, Jim Flanagan, Myrtle Reed, Mark Schneiderman, Mark Edwards, Jim McColl, Charlie Garten, Sue Collins, Tim Stroud, Gordon Freedman, Bonnie Thurber, Barbara Stein, Tim Fish, Lawrence Lipsitz, Charlie Reigeluth, Julie Young, Larry Rosenstock, Linda Roberts, Richard DeLorenzo and Keith Krueger. Also, the Department owes a considerable debt to NetDay, XPLANE Corporation, and Carter Cosgrove + Company. In particular, John Adams and Robert Cuthriell of John Adams Associates Inc. provided valuable assistance in editing and producing this volume.

Finally, we sincerely appreciate the support and cooperation provided by Anne Radice, David Dunn, Richard Russell, Helen Domenici, Holly Kuzmich, Phillip Bond, Ted McPherson, Ray Simon, Susan Sclafani, Karen Johnson, Laurie Rich, Sally Stroup, Nina Rees, D.J. Nordquist and John Gibbons.

APPENDIX D

Endnotes

1 National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1983). Available online at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

2 Ibid.

3 Mathematics and reading: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 2004 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004).
Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2004/pdf/11_2004.pdf; Science: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 2002 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2002/pdf/12_2002.pdf

4 Jonathan Vasquez, “Are Schools Ready for Today’s Students? A Sneak Preview of the National Educational Technology Plan (NETP).” Keynote panel, annual meeting of the National Educational Computing Conference (NECC), New Orleans, LA, June 20–24, 2004.

5 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994–2002 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).

6 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Young Children’s Access to Computers in the Home and at School in 1999 and 2000 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).

7 Douglas Levin and Sousan Arafeh, The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap between Internet-Savvy Students and Their Schools (Washington, DC: The Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2002).

8 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2002 (NCES 2003-060) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003060.pdf

9 U.S. Department of Education, 10 Facts about K–12 Educational Funding. (2004). Available online at http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html#chart2

10 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. Available online at http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2003/2004452.pdf

11 U.S. Department of Education, “President Bush Proposes Record $57 Billion for FY 2005 Education Budget,” press release, February 2, 2004. Available online at http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/02/02022004.html

12 For funding overview, see U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary, February 2, 2004. Available online at http://www.ed.gov/ about/overview/budget/budget05/summary/edlite-section1.html

13 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation’s Report Card: Reading Highlights, 2003 (NCES 2004-452), by P. Donahue, and W. Grigg (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Available online at http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2003/2004452.pdf

14 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics Highlights, 2003 (NCES 2004-451), by J Braswell, M. Daane, and W. Grigg (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Available online at http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2003/2004451.pdf

15 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2000 (NCES 2003–453), by C. Y. O’Sullivan, M. A. Lauko, W. S. Grigg, J. Qian, and J. Zhang (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2000/2003453.pdf

16 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2002 (NCES 2003-060) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003060.pdf

18 Neil Howe and William Strauss, Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation (New York: Vintage, 2000), 11.

19 Ibid.

20 Horatio Alger Association, The State of Our Nation’s Youth (Alexandria, VA: Horatio Alger Association, 2003).

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Young Children’s Access to Computers in the Home and at School in 1999 and 2000 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics 2003).

29 Harris Interactive and Teenage Research Unlimited, Born to be Wired: The Role of New Media for a Digital Generation – A New Media Landscape Comes of Age. Executive Summary (Sunnyvale, CA: Yahoo! and Carat Interactive, 2003).

30 Amanda Lenhart, Maya Simon and Mike Graziano, The Internet and Education: Findings of the Pew Internet & American Life Project (Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2001).

31 Amanda Lenhart, Lee Rainie and Oliver Lewis, Teenage Life Online: The Rise of the Instant-Message Generation and the Internet’s Impact on Friendships and Family Relationships (Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2001).

32 Junior Achievement, Personal Finance 2004: Executive Summary – JA Interprise Poll on Teens and Personal Finance (Colorado Springs, CO: Junior Achievement, Inc. 2004).

33 Harris Interactive and Teenage Research Unlimited, Born to be Wired: The Role of New Media for a Digital Generation – A New Media Landscape Comes of Age. Executive Summary (Sunnyvale, CA: Yahoo! and Carat Interactive, 2003).

34 Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Connected to the Future (Washington, DC: Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2003).

35 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Young Children’s Access to Computers in the Home and at School in 1999 and 2000 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 2003).

36 Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Connected to the Future (Washington, DC: Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2003).

37 Horatio Alger Association, The State of Our Nation’s Youth (Alexandria, VA: Horatio Alger Association, 2003), 17, 44.

38 Mark A. Edwards, “The Lap of Learning.” The School Administrator Web Edition, April 2003, http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2003_04/edwards.htm.

39 See NetDay, “Voices and Views from Today’s Tech-Savvy Students.” Available online at http://www.netday.org/downloads/National_Findings_Highlights.pdf

40 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994–2002 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 2003).

41 Douglas Levin and Sousan Arafeh, The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap between Internet-Savvy Students and Their Schools (Washington, DC: The Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2002).

42 See Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) Best Practices. Available online at http://3d2know.cosn.org

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 See State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), National Leadership Institute Toolkit 2003. Available online at http://www.setda.org/content.cfm?sectionID=24

46 “Technology Counts ’04, Global Links: Lessons from the World,” Education Week, May 6, 2004.

47 Greg Botelho, “Online schools clicking with students.” CNN.com. August 13, 2004. Available online at http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/08/13/b2s.elearning/.

48 Ibid. See also “Technology Counts ’04, Global Links: Lessons from the World,” Education Week, May 6, 2004.

49 Ibid.

50 Center for Education Reform, National Charter School Directory 2004 (Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform, 2004).

51 Education Trust and National Alliance of Black School Educators, 2004 Accountability and Assessment Results (Washington, DC: The Education Trust, September 2004). Available online at http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/ Press+Room/nabse+progress.htm

52 Ibid.

53 Education Commission of the States, ECS Report to the Nation: State Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, 2004).

54 Ibid, vi.

For Further Information
See www.NationalEdTechPlan.org for many more resources and additional examples on the information presented in this report.

 

U. S. Department of Education
Office of the Secretary
Office of Educational Technology
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20202