Summary and Reflection of the National Educational Technology Plan 2010

Executive Summary of the National Educational Technology (Draft) Plan 2010

Education is the key to the success of our democracy. If our economy and way of life are to survive, our citizens must have the tools needed to compete globally. Now, more than ever, a critical component of good jobs and higher earning power for Americans is a better and more cost-effective education.

The Obama administration education goals by 2020 are:

• We will raise the proportion of college graduates from where it stands now(39%) so that 60% of our population holds a 2-year or 4-year degree.
• We will close the achievement gap so that all students – regardless of race, income, or neighborhood – graduate from high school ready to succeed in college and careers.
  

The aggressive goals present a sizable challenge. This is true especially when one considers that most states and the federal government are projecting budget short-falls and necessary cuts to funding for education. The need for cost-effective and cost-saving strategies that support sound educational practices is clear. We must therefore recognize the profound role technology can have in improving learning outcomes and graduation rates for all Americans.

The plan calls for a radical shift in the way we do business with education in America. Rather than hoping to evolve our thinking, the plan aims to transform our actions. It calls on education systems at all levels to:

• Be clear about the outcomes we seek
• Collaborate to redesign structures and processes for effectiveness, efficiency, and flexibility
• Continually monitor and measure our performance
• Hold ourselves accountable for progress and results every step of the way
  

Reflection of the Plan

At 114 pages this draft is quite lengthy. We might consider that if you want 21st century people to take the time to read it then brevity should be a goal of the final product. As I read through the text I notice several repetitive sections that could have been left out and explanations that could have been perhaps reserved for an appendix.

The reason the report has to be loquacious is because the authors recognize the need to provide the “why” to the changes called for in the report. Stating a goal as lofty as “redesign structures and processes” is all well and good, but educators can be most resistant to change. We may all see, for instance, that the new curriculum is better, but we cannot let go of our old TE. Getting teachers to embrace the idea of teaching through technology will be difficult overnight, but the problem with a slow, systemic approach to reform is that by the time we get teachers use to teaching with iPhones the chip we implant in our eyeballs will be what the students prefer to use.

The key to solving this problem lies in the area of educational R&D. The plan mentions the National Center for Research in advanced Information and Digital Technologies (also called the Digital Promise) which is housed in the Department of Education and would be a non-profit research and development (R&D) department supported by public and private sectors with the mission of transforming learning in America into the digital domain needed to compete in the modern world.

While I like the ideas this plan presents I fear the old mindset is yet too strong to accept such change. It may take new blood trained in new ways (like online courses) in the educational field before change is made. I hope by then the educational world will be ready for the iEye.