A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Using Technology to Support Education Reform -- September 1993

Models for the Growth of Education Reform

How can education reform and technology's positive role in that reform proceed? Critics such as Cohen (1988) and Cuban (1986) provide a sobering perspective on the prospects for real change. It won t just happen; certainly the purchase of computers or videodisc players or satellite links, even in much larger quantities than we see today, won t automatically bring about the transformation in student learning activities that reformers envision.

State-Initiated, Top-Down Reform

Although the United States still has the most decentralized education system in the industrialized world, many states are taking a more and more active role, taking on curriculum and programmatic decisions that were formerly district and school prerogatives. California's curriculum frameworks set specific learning goals in seven content areas and suggest instructional approaches. California has also developed a textbook adoption policy that stresses compatibility with the advanced-skills emphasis in its curriculum frameworks. Florida is requiring all schools to develop plans to attain specific state-mandated outcomes. Texas is setting standards for student and teacher workstations and is phasing in standards for access time per week.

The justification for state planning and activity is particularly strong if technology is considered an integral part of reform, because states can garner both technical resources and leverage in equipment and software purchases that would be hard for a school to duplicate.

Previous research on top-down educational innovations (e.g., Berman & McLaughlin 1978) does not engender confidence concerning the efficacy of purely top-down approaches, however. When required to adopt an innovation, districts and schools have a tendency to take on its superficial features without really incorporating its substance. In a recent study of the academic instruction received by disadvantaged students, SRI found that many teachers reverted to more accustomed modes of conventional instruction despite state mandates for new curricula and more innovative materials (Knapp et al. 1992).

The problems with mandated use of technology were illustrated in a middle school studied by Zorfass et al. (1989). When the district decided that all eighth-grade mathematics teachers had to provide Logo instruction once a week for 10 weeks, many teachers felt the program was forced on them.

Uncomfortable with computers in general and Logo in particular, they saw no fit between Logo and what they were trying to teach. Some thought it belonged in sophomore geometry, some in art; others saw no reason for it whatsoever. Feeling that they had too little time to cover the required standard curriculum anyway, they were acutely aware of the time the Logo program took away from their regular program. They went through the motions of teaching Logo, but only a few teachers tried to find interesting ways to teach it or to connect it to the rest of their curriculum.

Classroom-Initiated, Bottom-Up Reform

The opposite of the state-initiated top-down model is a completely grass- roots effort. Under this model, an individual school or even a classroom decides to redesign itself. This model is most in keeping with the reform goal of site-based management and has important advantages in that teachers will better understand and implement an innovation that they themselves develop.

Although laboring within systems that may be more or less hostile to radical change, schools and classrooms are implementing innovative programs. Some of the kinds of project-based, inquiry-oriented work that individual sites are doing with the help of technology are described in preceding chapters. Most of these programs started with one or two individuals who were personally committed to transforming their classrooms with technology.

These local activities deserve to be commended, but we must be concerned that they will remain scattered and hit-or-miss. Some exceptionally dedicated teachers will put in the time and energy to conceive and implement such programs, at least for a while. Their students will benefit from their work and gain a new confidence in their ability to learn using technology. Most students will never receive this kind of instruction, however, if there is no systemic support for it. Although there are anecdotes of innovative methods and materials spreading from one or two classrooms to others within a school, there are also stories of schools dividing themselves into the "project teachers and students" and the "other teachers and students", with the attendant atmosphere of divisiveness. Innovations have a fragile existence, particularly when they are not consistent with a state or district curriculum and accountability measures. Without institutional support, innovations die off when their champion leaves or becomes discouraged. In their study of technology implementation in middle schools, Morocco et al. (1989) found that technology applications were more likely to be sustained when they were considered a school-based effort and cut across multiple classrooms and content domains.

In addition to the greater staying power of innovations supported by the broader educational system, there are significant economic and political arguments for broader-based reform efforts. Initiatives involving telecommunications technologies require larger-scale involvement by their very nature. Economies of purchasing and planning technology acquisitions argue for the involvement of state or regional-level agencies (Council of Chief State School Officers 1991). States also have an important role in guaranteeing equality of access. Student homes vary dramatically in the amount of technology available, and without state action, differences among schools serving advantaged and disadvantaged students are likely to reinforce such inequalities.

Mixed Initiatives

The discussion of the two models above suggests the need for a third, hybrid model of reform implementation. In a hybrid model, the state can provide a structure within which local initiatives receive funding and become part of a dissemination network. Here, the state takes the lead in setting an agenda for reform but recognizes the importance of local initiative and of letting classrooms and teachers "invent themselves." Under this model, the state"s role is to create the structure for reform but not the detailed content. Funding, technical assistance, and waivers from regulations can be used to support local reform. In the technology area, model schools programs, support for inservice training, funding for local development of technology-based materials, and development of a telecommunications infrastructure are some of the steps states are taking.

While providing leadership and support, the state leaves the essential design and implementation issues to local control. California and Washington have funded local school restructuring projects. These states and others have provided support for model technology schools. State funding competitions for technology- enhanced reform programs can serve as a catalyst for local schools and districts to take action. Such competitions often stimulate the formation of local working groups; partnerships with business, the community, and universities; and the generation and elaboration of ideas for improving teaching and learning. Often, even schools and districts that fail to obtain state funding go ahead and implement aspects of the projects they have designed.

There is much more to learn about how this mixed-initiative model gets played out and how state technology reform initiatives can ultimately affect student learning in the classroom. It seems clear, however, that both higher levels of the education system and local schools and teachers will have to be players if we are to really reform the education received by all our students.


-###-
[The Role of Business] [Table of Contents] [REFERENCES (A-B)]

This page was last updated December 27, 2001 (jca)