I’d like to follow and elaborate on Anne Bryant’s highlighting of the recent groundbreaking collaboration in Baltimore, MD and Hillsborough County, FL. These districts show us how unions and management can work together around the tough questions of who should remain in teaching and who deserves the highest recognition.

In Hillsborough County, school leaders and teachers examine the distribution of ratings together to ensure a common understanding of satisfactory and excellent teaching. They collect and jointly review a rich set of data that enables them—and holds them accountable—to identify individuals who should not be in teaching and taking action to remove these teachers.

In Baltimore City, the new compensation structure builds in rigorous hurdles for reaching each new stage on the career path that must be confirmed by a joint committee of teachers and leaders. Together they have moved beyond the questions of who stays and who goes to create evaluation information that informs hiring, assignment to teams, professional development and career rewards. As importantly, these districts are designing systems that emphasize collective performance as well as individual contribution and recognize the differences in teacher expertise and experience when assembling teams.

As districts face cuts this year, there is no time to lose in getting all on board to track a range of data on teacher contribution. Even without perfect data or evaluation tools, the combination of observations implemented with fidelity, student test scores, attendance, and other available information can shed important light on teacher contribution (see The Teaching Job: Restructuring for Effectiveness). Unfortunately, most districts will face budget cuts again next year. If they don’t devote resources today to implementing existing evaluation systems more rigorously or building new ones, they will be forced to cut some of their most energetic and talented teachers.

I’d like to follow and elaborate on Anne Bryant’s highlighting of the recent groundbreaking collaboration in Baltimore, MD and Hillsborough County, FL. These districts show us how unions and management can work together around the tough questions of who should remain in teaching and who deserves the highest recognition.

In Hillsborough County, school leaders and teachers examine the distribution of ratings together to ensure a common understanding of satisfactory and excellent teaching. They collect and jointly review a rich set of data that enables them—and holds them accountable—to identify individuals who should not be in teaching and taking action to remove these teachers.

In Baltimore City, the new compensation structure builds in rigorous hurdles for reaching each new stage on the career path that must be confirmed by a joint committee of teachers and leaders. Together they have moved beyond the questions of who stays and who goes to create evaluation information that informs hiring, assignment to teams, professional development and career rewards. As importantly, these districts are designing systems that emphasize collective performance as well as individual contribution and recognize the differences in teacher expertise and experience when assembling teams.

As districts face cuts this year, there is no time to lose in getting all on board to track a range of data on teacher contribution. Even without perfect data or evaluation tools, the combination of observations implemented with fidelity, student test scores, attendance, and other available information can shed important light on teacher contribution (see The Teaching Job: Restructuring for Effectiveness). Unfortunately, most districts will face budget cuts again next year. If they don’t devote resources today to implementing existing evaluation systems more rigorously or building new ones, they will be forced to cut some of their most energetic and talented teachers.

I’d like to follow and elaborate on Anne Bryant’s highlighting of the recent groundbreaking collaboration in Baltimore, MD and Hillsborough County, FL. These districts show us how unions and management can work together around the tough questions of who should remain in teaching and who deserves the highest recognition.

In Hillsborough County, school leaders and teachers examine the distribution of ratings together to ensure a common understanding of satisfactory and excellent teaching. They collect and jointly review a rich set of data that enables them—and holds them accountable—to identify individuals who should not be in teaching and taking action to remove these teachers.

In Baltimore City, the new compensation structure builds in rigorous hurdles for reaching each new stage on the career path that must be confirmed by a joint committee of teachers and leaders. Together they have moved beyond the questions of who stays and who goes to create evaluation information that informs hiring, assignment to teams, professional development and career rewards. As importantly, these districts are designing systems that emphasize collective performance as well as individual contribution and recognize the differences in teacher expertise and experience when assembling teams.

As districts face cuts this year, there is no time to lose in getting all on board to track a range of data on teacher contribution. Even without perfect data or evaluation tools, the combination of observations implemented with fidelity, student test scores, attendance, and other available information can shed important light on teacher contribution (see The Teaching Job: Restructuring for Effectiveness). Unfortunately, most districts will face budget cuts again next year. If they don’t devote resources today to implementing existing evaluation systems more rigorously or building new ones, they will be forced to cut some of their most energetic and talented teachers.

As someone who came to education after ten years in the tech world, I am an ardent user of and cheerleader for technology in life. But after fifteen years working in schools, and reading the research literature on technology use in education, I’ve noticed several patterns that suggest that we have not yet figured out how—or even if—technology helps kids learn.

1. LACK OF LEGITIMATE PRO-TECHNOLOGY STUDIES. The first book on education I ever read was an annual compendium of studies on the use of technology in education. The editors of that book concluded that there was at that time (in 1995) no body of reliable replicable evidence showing significant links, of cause or correlation, between technology use and improvements in learning. Just this week, another such study landed in my inbox (“ Scaling the Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology and Student Achievement”). Here’s the conclusion from the abstract: “…the introduction of home computer technology is associated with modest but statistically significant and persistent negative impacts on student math and reading test scores. Further evidence suggests that providing universal access to home computers and high-speed internet access would broaden, rather than narrow, math and reading achievement gaps.” I find it hard to believe that closing the digital gap at home might make things worse. But it’s hard to argue with research and this study’s conclusion isn’t that different from the conclusions of similar studies I’ve read over the last fifteen years.

2. LACK OF CORRELATION BETWEEN INCREASED SOCIETAL USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND AGGREGATE LONGITUDINAL IMPROVEMENT IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT NATIONWIDE. As Mr. Finn and many others in this forum have often reminded us, student achievement hasn’t improved much since “A Nation at Risk” was published in 1983 and education reform was born. At that time, the Mac wasn’t out, Microsoft was still hawking DOS, and IBM’s new “PC” was just beginning to penetrate the corporate world. Computers in schools were few and far between, computer use in the home was limited as well, and the educational software industry was nascent. Since then, however, the ratio of computing devices to kids in schools has improved dramatically, as has the ratio of computing devices to kids at home, and there are now thousands of software and hardware offerings for computer-aided learning. If technology had a positive impact on educational achievement, we would likely see a statistically significant correlation between increased technology use and improvement in student learning across our nation as a whole. Sadly, such a correlation doesn’t seem to exist.

3. ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE FROM MY EXPERIENCES IN 1-TO-1 COMPUTING PROGRAMS. I’ve worked in maybe a dozen schools that had 1-to-1 computing programs. All experienced the same evolution. During the first year, kids did poorly because they paid more attention to their computers than to their teachers. In subsequent years, computer use was restricted. If student achievement improved, it did so because of improvements in instruction and less, not more, computer use.

I have about half a dozen other categories of evidence I could present, but they all point to the same conclusion: technology has yet to impact student achievement in significant and reliably postive ways.

My faith in technology as a human enabler is not shaken by this. But I think we should all ponder two relevant ideas: (1) The persistent belief in our society that simply giving kids technology will help them learn; and (2) The incongruous nature of the partnership we have created between curriculum content and technological application; most of what we want kids to learn is probably best learned from people, not machines.

It is my experience that kids do in fact learn many things when they have computers. It’s just that they don’t necessarily learn things like reading, writing, math, social studies, and science very well. A good example is graphic design and multimedia. Many kids amaze me with their skills in these areas. Obviously, these skills have been developed through access to technology. But these skills are not valued in school and don’t show up anywhere in the data we collect on student achievement. Developing these skills also appears to have little effect in the aggregate on general academic performance.

Because we have chosen to standardize our schools on a very limited range of subject matter, because testing has further narrowed our pursuit of a wide-ranging and rigorous contemporary curriculum, and because we fiercely guard the sacred turf of old-fashioned arbitrary “platonic” categories for subjects rather than acknowledging the inherently interdisciplinary nature of modern life, my hunch is that we’re bumping up against a conceptual wall or that we’re stuck for now at a point of diminishing returns. Computers can do a lot for learners. But what we most want kids to learn may possess an essential socio-cultural component that machines cannot address—at least not currently.

Other technology-inspired “learnings”, while abundant and obvious, might be of questionable value. For example, many kids master the intricate workings of virtual environments like Facebook, MySpace, and Second Life. A few kids even learn how to download porn through proxy servers so their parents can’t block it. But, like madd skillz with multimedia, we don't seem to value these things very much. In fact, I suspect many of us would like to discourage this kind of learning altogether.

All kinds of learning can and do happen when kids have computers. The value of that learning, however, has yet to be determined, or even explored in any serious way. We’re so caught up in the wonder of technology, and the unchallenged belief that more of it equals more learning, that we haven’t thought much about what kids learn with technology or how it helps them learn. At this time, we have no theory of technology use in education and, therefore, no way to make reliable predictions about the relationship between technology use and learning. We also seem reluctant to admit that technology use by young people might have negative effects.

The canonical work on the potential pitfalls of widespread technology use in society is Edward Tenner’s “Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences.” Tenner’s thesis is simply this: technology gives us freedom; the price of freedom is vigilance; so in order to assure that technology is helpful we must be vigilant in maintaining our understanding of its effects.

In education, at least, we’ve never displayed any vigilance of this sort to my knowledge. We don’t even want to admit, for example, that working at computer screens for long periods of time can impair the visual development of young children, or that teenagers who might spend 30-40 hours a week on computers and cell phones can develop chronic repetitive strain injuries. Furthermore, regardless of the number of studies showing that technology has little impact on academic achievement, we prefer to maintain the fiction that technology is unquestionably good for kids’ education. As I stated previously, technology use by children has increased dramatically in the last 27 years yet academic achievement has not. Clearly, technology is not a panacea; it may not even be a plus.

The other thing I’ve learned is that technology tends to increase social isolation. Kids rush home from school to text each other all afternoon. Years ago they actually used to talk in person or at least on the phone. Even kids with phones prefer to text rather than to talk. The same thing often happens in technology-based learning: students are either learning alone by design or they end up learning alone as a result of learning through technology. So much real-world knowledge is gained through social interaction, and this knowledge is difficult to capture in digital learning environments, even when users can communicate with one another electronically.

Finally, I have always contended that the “technology in education” issue should be reframed from a “what” problem to a “how” problem. We have for decades now focused almost solely on what technology should be available to teachers and students. But we have devoted almost no energy to understanding how technology should best be used to enhance learning. This is probably why we haven’t yet seen the increases in student achievement we might have expected in light of the explosion of technology use by students and their teachers.

As a former educational software developer, and a perennial geek, I’m always excited about new technology. I am also willing to acknowledge that the quality of teaching in our country is so low that some students might learn more from machines than they would from our worst teachers. But as low as that bar is, most technology has yet to reach it. It’s almost preposterous to believe but I don’t think a single major longitudinal study exists which clearly establishes a causal link between technology use and increased academic achievement for K-12 learners. Despite being pro-technology, I maintain a “wait and see” attitude about technology in education.

My prediction is that technology will one day have a significant impact on student learning. But I think this change in the current state of affairs will have more to do with changes in human beings than changes in machines. Technology is a tool. And after all these years, we still don’t know how to use it very well to help kids learn. If we ever get over our fetishization of technology in education, and decide to investigate how it actually works, I think we’ll begin to see some progress. But until we can come up with better ideas than DreamBox-style eduvideo games, or some billionaire’s “bright idea” of digitizing bad textbooks for the iPad, I think I’d rather have kids taught by people.

In our World of Learning, education systems must be rich, integrated and distributed learning environments. The most successful innovations in technology and education will not be ones designed to replace teachers, but ones designed to capture and amplify great teaching.

It’s encouraging to see Governors Jeb Bush and Bob Wise taking the lead on this worthy and forward-thinking learning segment with the Digital Learning Council.

For starters, policymakers can support successful models that have seamlessly incorporated technology into learning, such as School of One, New Tech Network (highly scalable with 62 schools in 14 states) and others. One provides individualized instruction with the benefit of structured learning modules; the other provides a project-based learning environment that is guided by a robust technology platform. Next, they can address the problem of access and competency (which is what the council aims to do).

Two-thirds of American homes report having Internet access, according to U.S. Census figures. Of those who don’t, most say it’s because they can’t afford it. This is a barrier that must be addressed, and soon, particularly as digital learning becomes more prevalent.

What’s more, today many students use cell phones to text and send messages, but the ability to “surf the net” still requires the more expensive “smart phones” coupled with costly monthly data plans or rare access to free wireless local area networks. A 2008 study in Ohio determined that broadband was available to more than 90 percent of residents, but only half subscribed to the service and we know access is a problem in high poverty neighborhoods and in isolated rural counties. Policymakers can achieve great gains in the advancement of the promise of technological benefits in the classroom simply by working to create a more easily accessible and affordable infrastructure for access.

Other obstacles are not quite so tangible.

Technology is often seen as a silver bullet in school reform – and we can talk all day long about how it can open up worlds of learning and play a role in the democratization of education. But until we can seriously examine how to move beyond simply transferring text from a printed page to the screen of a device, we will continue to lose ground in computer literacy and access to technology as we have in so many other critical areas of education.

The potential for using online tools to transform learning falls apart if you don’t bring the teachers along in the process and adopt a school or district-wide collaborative, transparent culture. And the potential for using online tools to transform learning falls apart when the online tools are developed only to supplement established textbook driven pedagogy. That’s why real integrated learning systems are having such success in schools that adopt them.

The growing demand for greatly improved student outcomes combined with continued budget shortfalls in most states is creating a “General Motors Moment” for education; the product was already lackluster and now there is far less revenue to continue turning out what people weren’t buying anyway. Just as General Motors has been forced to reevaluate how it does business, so must education. And if the new electrically powered Chevy Volt is the future of General Motors, technology can be the future for education.

To this point, education has trailed most other sectors in effectively applying new technologies to boost productivity and outcomes, but now is the time to move from thinking about technology as an add-on tool to ensuring that technology is integrated into all educational settings.

In the recent report The Online Learning Imperative: A Solution to Three Looming Crises, I argue that effective online technology can help bring high-performing content into every low-performing classroom and help students meet higher expectations. A large percentage of teachers plan to retire in the next decade; retention rates for newly-hired teachers are abysmal; and in course areas like STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math), qualified teachers are hard to find, recruit, and hire. Because of these reasons, placing a “highly qualified” physics teacher in every physics classroom is not likely. What is likely, however, is joining high-quality content with an effective teacher via readily available online technology.

As Tom Vander Ark points out in his post below, online-learning programs can join high-quality content and instruction with a teacher in the classroom who effectively guides the students. In such an environment, world-class content—which can come literally from anywhere in the world—is “blended” with effective pedagogy. Likewise, I predict that the old maxim “the best way to learn is to teach” will result in classroom teachers mastering online content to become “highly qualified” in both pedagogy and content knowledge.

There are many other applications for online learning that range from credit recovery to virtual schools to Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. As Michael Horn, coauthor of Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns and head of Innosight Institute recently pointed out to me, online learning should reasonably be held to even higher standards than those of traditional brick-and-mortar instruction. As is the case with Florida Virtual School, reimbursement can be based on student performance and not simply on traditional inputs.

With almost every state facing budget shortfalls, online instruction can also positively affect the states’ financial bottom lines and student performance. For example, rather than paying three Chinese language instructors to teach a limited number of students in three different schools, one instructor could reach all the students through online instruction and students would no longer be bound by rigid time schedules.

In a short amount of time, General Motors had to implement new processes for increasing product quality while addressing lesser revenues. Online learning provides many of the same opportunities for education.

Bill Tucker, managing director at the Education Sector, submitted the following to this week's question:

While there will likely always be a gap, with more affluent students gaining first access to the latest technologies, an over-emphasis on this gap misses the larger opportunity. The most important applications of technology allow us to think in new ways about challenges that were previously thought unsolvable. One classic example, immediately apparentto any traveler in a developing nation, is the ubiquity of mobile phones, providing access to millions that were previously too isolatedand costly to serve with conventional phone lines.

There are four "unsolvable" challenges, among the many, where technologyoffers a compelling opportunity for educators and policymakers to applynew models, thinking, and approaches to close gaps:

* Access to Effective Teaching and Challenging Course Content - In almost any state, particularly those with isolated rural regions, it was previously almost impossible for a governor to ensure that every studentcould access high quality foreign language, advanced science and math,and AP courses. There just were not enough teachers in these subjects,nor where there enough students for each course to make it cost effective. Virtual learning has changed that dynamic. But, despite evidence to the contrary, many educators think that these opportunities are only for the most gifted and motivated students -- in essence,closing off these newly developed opportunities. Developing the instructional approaches and supports to ensure that all students cansucceed in a virtual environment is essential.

* More Effective Instructional Models - For over a decade, dozens of community colleges and universities have experimented with "course redesign," replacing the traditional large lecture format with new, technology-based approaches that not only increase student engagement, but also result in better learning outcomes and lower costs. These models are particularly effective for students that previously struggled in remediation courses. They are also disruptive to traditional staffing patterns and conceptions of how a college course should be taught. And, despite much evidence of success, they are still not the norm in higher education. Nor, are they on the yet on the agenda for most K-12 reformers.

* More (and Better) Learning Time - We need productivity tools that allow for more student practice and feedback, while at the same time, also give teachers back more time than it takes to train them to use it.

For example, even though students need more practice writing, grading student essays can be time-prohibitive for teachers that might see in excess of 150 students each day. Digital writing tools can capture important data on student writing (grammar, for instance), providing students with instant, automated feedback that gives them more time for practice and the teacher more time for more thoughtful feedback. They don't replace teachers, but allow them to see patterns of errors, focus instruction, and yes, still provide additional individual written feedback.

* Deeper and More Meaningful Assessment - The convergence of powerful computer technologies and important developments in cognitive science holds out the prospect of a new generation of student testing-one that could significantly improve teaching and learning. These technologies, which feature the efficiency and consistency of machine-read scoring along with cognitively challenging, open-ended performance tasks, can help us build assessments that move beyond bubble-filling and, at the same time, offer rigorous and reliable evidence of student learning.

Each of the four ideas above uses technology to increase productivity. But, they also escape the false choice between technology and instructional engagement. As Sherman Dorn notes, there is no magic device. Implementing new, technology-enabled approaches requires time, money, and most of all, a keen understanding of the sometimes difficult changes and new roles and skills required for educators.

As we implement technology, we must hold fast to the importance of effective teaching, student engagement, and strong relationships. But, at the same time, we must also recognize that the Internet increasingly enables educators to significantly alter the experience of schooling.

In many ways, the use of technology in our classrooms can be a great equalizer in providing access to quality instruction to all children. I have witnessed exciting and engaging instruction by teachers willing to invest the time and energy into “re-thinking” their delivery of content with the tools of technology. The problem lies with providing the time and the technology tools to teachers. In the midst of this recession and cuts to public education funding for our base program, it is hard to find the dollars to invest in technology and training. May I suggest that portions of RTTP funds be allocated to innovative uses of technology in the classroom?

Jeb Bush, former Republican Governor of Florida, submitted the following in response to this week's question:

We know all children can learn, but each child learns differently and at different paces. Our challenge, as adults, is to provide a custom-designed education that maximizes every child’s God-given ability to learn.

How do we do this? By harnessing the power of technology and digital learning. A generation ago, this was merely a dream. Today, that dream can be a reality.

Right now, somewhere there is a child who dreams of becoming a forensic scientist. Sadly, that child’s high school does not offer courses in this specific field of study. Digital learning solves this problem. An online course can be accessed from anywhere, anytime, with a computer and internet access.

Digital learning can impact what happens in the classroom too. With technology, a teacher can customize lesson plans, select the best chapters from different textbooks and even tailor schoolwork to the interests of each student.

Our personal and professional lives enjoy the customization that comes from the incredible advances in technology. Now is the time to bring those life-changing innovations to learning.

The Digital Learning Council brings together a diverse group of leaders to define policies to help federal, state, and local policymakers integrate digital learning into education. Bob Wise, former Governor of West Virginia, and I will release these recommendations at Excellence in Action: National Summit on Education Reform 2010 in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, December 1.

Innovative technologies and digital learning can do for education what iTunes did for the music education. And with a personalized education, more students will achieve.

Digital learning is the first chance in history to change the learning curve and extend access to quality education. Personalized digital learning is engaging students and boosting achievement. As learning tools become more powerful and personal, it will boost persistence and performance. Digital learning will make public education more efficient; it will allow us to rethink how and where learning takes place.

Digital learning is extending options to students and families through online learning. Virtual options will double in enrollment in the next few years, but most students will learn in blended settings that combine the best of multiple learning modalities. Blended learning hold the promise of extending quality affordable secondary education to more than 500 million young people worldwide.

The Digital Learning Council, chaired by Governors Bush and Wise, will create policy recommendations for digital learning and will consider questions of program and Internet access, curriculum and instruction, quality and accountability. Teleconferences with about 100 council members begin today. Recommendations will be presented at Foundation for Excellence in Education conference in November.

Most folks start with schools (and the adults in them) and think about how technology will effect how we’ve always done things. The opportunity in front of us requires us to start with the students—what tools and experiences will prepare them for their future? The answers are disruptive but extraordinarily productive.

I know some such as Paul Peterson are as optimistic about technology as Thomas Edison, who was positive that movies would replace textbooks. I am more skeptical.

Some individual teachers and programs can do wonders by harnessing dedicated programs. Whether those proof-of-concept projects are scalable is a different question. The School of One and most pilot programs have access to resources that few schools can expect in the next few years. The reality is that the appropriate and inventive use of technology in education is as much of a tough slog as anything else in a classroom. I know teenagers who thrived in a computer-run algebra class at a middle school, and I also know teenagers who would not benefit and who need regular contact with a teacher. Technology is not a silver bullet.

In addition, I worry about “technological individualization” becoming one more boondoggle that diverts scarce resources to vendors who are far better at marketing than at programming or education. Experienced teachers around the country are already familiar with district administrators and governing boards who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on bells-and-whistles programs that would supposedly save hundreds of hours of time… and ended up being useless.

Finally, we need a rule of thumb on program life-cycle costs to have some rational debates in states and local districts: in the well-run programs that use technology to individualize, how much staff time is spent on support/training and supervising use over a reasonable life for a piece of software (three years)? What is the ratio of such real operating costs to software and hardware expenses?

The bottom line: Technology should be in the service of solid instruction and not the other way around.