Toward 

 A New 

 Golden Age 

In American 

 Education

HOW THE INTERNET, THE LAW 

AND TODAY’S STUDENTS 

ARE REVOLUTIONIZING 

EXPECTATIONS

 National Education Technology Plan 2004

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Offi ce of the Deputy Secretary

Eugene Hickok

Deputy Secretary

Offi ce of Educational Technology

Susan Patrick

Director, Offi ce of Educational Technology

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part 

is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation 

should be: U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Educational Technology, Toward 

A New Golden Age in American Education: How the Internet, the Law and Today’s 

Students Are Revolutionizing Expectations, Washington, D.C., 2004.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Editorial Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

Or via electronic mail, send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov. 

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not 

yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use 

a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 

1-800-437-0833. 

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.org. 

This report is also available at: http://www.NationalEdTechPlan.org.
1

 Toward 

 A New 

 Golden Age 

In American 

 Education

HOW THE INTERNET, THE LAW 

AND TODAY’S STUDENTS 

ARE REVOLUTIONIZING 

EXPECTATIONS
2

Table Of Contents

Letter from the Secretary 4

Executive Summary 6

A Nation on the Move 9

 Improvements Will Be Dramatic 10

 Where We Are Today 12

 Who Are Our Students? 16

 What Are They Telling Us? 19

Tear Down Those Walls: 

The Revolution Is Underway 22

 Success Stories from Schools That Are Leading the Way 23

 State Initiatives 30

 The Explosion in E-Learning and Virtual Schools 34 
3

The Impact of No Child Left Behind 37

A National Education Technology Plan: 

The Future Is Now 39

 Seven Major Action Steps and Recommendations 39

Conclusions 45

Appendices 47

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
4

January 2005

Dear Members of Congress:

As required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, I am 

pleased to submit our vision and recommendations for a National 

Education Technology Plan. 

This report is based on thoughtful input we have received 

from literally thousands of students, educators, administrators, 

technology experts and offi cials of numerous educational 

organizations. It also builds on the recommendations submitted to 

you by Secretary Richard W. Riley in 1996 and 2000.

As you may recall from previous statements I have made on 

this issue, our schools have generally trailed other areas of our 

society in exploring the many opportunities offered by technology. 

Too often, schools have simply applied technology to existing 

ways of teaching and learning, with marginal results in student 

achievement. I am pleased to report that this is now changing quite 

signifi cantly.
5

Teachers and students are transforming what can be done in 

schools by using technology to access primary sources, expose 

our students to a variety of perspectives, and enhance the overall 

learning experience through multimedia, simulations and 

interactive software.

At the same time, teachers, principals and administrators are able 

to better track student achievement and adjust instruction more 

effectively to individual needs.

As detailed in this report, we are already seeing some remarkable 

results, driven by better use of existing technology and, to an 

important extent, by the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act, which 

asks all of us to raise expectations and produce results. There is a 

new fervor in American education, a new creativity – driven in part 

by this generation of tech-savvy students – which I believe bodes 

well for the future of our country. 

I thank you for your continued interest and support in the vital task 

before us. I believe you will fi nd this report both interesting and 

encouraging. As always, I look forward to continuing to work with 

you to turn multiple opportunities for success into reality for our 

nation’s nearly 50 million students.

Sincerely,

Rod Paige

Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
6

Executive Summary

Over the next decade, the United States will face ever increasing 

competition in the global economy. 

To an overwhelming extent, this competition will involve the 

mastery and application of new technologies in virtually every fi eld 

of human endeavor. It will place particular emphasis on the need 

for heightened skills in mathematics and science. 

It is the responsibility of this nation’s educational enterprise 

– including policymakers – to help secure our economic future by 

ensuring that our young people are adequately prepared to meet 

these challenges. Today, they are not. This report explores why 

– and recommends steps to ensure that they will be. 

We have clearly reached a turning point. All over this country, 

we see evidence of a new excitement in education, a new 

determination, a hunger for change. The technology that has 

so dramatically changed the world outside our schools is now 

changing the learning and teaching environment within them. 

Sometimes this is driven by the students themselves, born and 

comfortable in the age of the Internet. 
7

There has been explosive growth in the availability of online 

instruction and virtual schools, complementing traditional 

instruction with high quality courses tailored to the needs of 

individual students. Tests now can be taken online, giving 

students, teachers and parents almost instant feedback. This 

is a major step forward in tracking progress and identifying 

needs. New student data management systems will greatly 

facilitate the collection and use of test, demographic and other 

data for more effectively designing and managing instructional 

programs.

Examples cited in this report illustrate not only the changes now 

taking place in the nation’s school systems, but the often dramatic 

improvements that we are beginning to see in student achievement. 

The new testing, reporting and accountability requirements of the 

No Child Left Behind Act No Child Left Behind Act are accelerating this trend. From being are accelerating this trend. From being 

a Nation at Risk we might now be more accurately described as a 

Nation on the Move. 

As these encouraging trends develop and expand over the next 

decade, facilitated and supported by our ongoing investment in 
8

educational technology, and led by the drive, imagination and 

dedication of a reenergized educational community at every level, 

we may be well on our way to a new golden age in American 

education.
9

A Nation on the Move

Twenty-one years ago, the U.S. Department of Education’s 

National Commission on Excellence in Education published 

the landmark report, A Nation at Risk. It warned 

that “the educational foundations of our society 

are being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity 

that threatens our very future as a nation and a 

people.”2

It made the case that students are not being 

challenged with high quality mathematics 

and science curricula and many students are 

not learning the basic skills. A majority of 

our secondary school students still are not 

grade-level profi cient in reading, mathematics 

or science. The data for minority students 

remain alarming.3 

But change is in the air. Clearly, we must 

innovate for our country to succeed in this time 

of rapidly increasing global competition. This 

innovation is occurring. We see dramatic changes 

taking place in the educational landscape – a new 

excitement in the vast possibilities of the digital 

age for changing how we learn, how we teach, and how the various 

segments of our educational system fi t together – a ferment for 

reform that is bringing changes undreamt of even fi ve years ago 

and unparalleled in our nation’s history. 

“The people of the United 

States need to know that 

individuals in our society 

who do not possess the levels 

of skill, literacy and training 

essential to this new era will 

be effectively disenfranchised, 

not simply from the material 

rewards that accompany 

competent performance, 

but also from the chance to 

participate fully in our 

national life.”

 A Nation at Risk, 19831
10

With one notable exception, No Child Left Behind, these changes 

are being driven by forces in the fi eld. They are being driven by 

the new realities of the digital marketplace, the rapid development 

of “virtual” schools, and the enthusiasm of an amazing generation 

of students weaned on the marvels of technology who are literally 

forcing our schools to adapt and change in ways never before 

imagined. As one high schooler put it, “we have technology in 

our blood.”4

In education, this is a nation on the move and the pace is 

accelerating. Without seeking to overlook the very real challenges 

that remain, we feel the present evidence suggests strongly that we 

may be entering a new golden age in American education. 

Improvements Will Be Dramatic

This report was undertaken by the staff of the U.S. Department of 

Education in response to a request from Congress for an update on 

the status of educational technology. As the fi eld work progressed, 

it became obvious that while the development of educational 

technology was thriving, its application in our schools often was 

not. Over the past 10 years, 99 percent of our schools have been 

connected to the Internet with a 5:1 student to computer ratio.5

Yet, we have not realized the promise of technology in education. 

Essentially, providing the hardware without adequate training in 

its use – and in its endless possibilities for enriching the learning 

experience – meant that the great promise of Internet technology 

was frequently unrealized. Computers, instead of transforming 

education, were often shunted to a “computer room,” where they 

were little used and poorly maintained. Students mastered the 

wonders of the Internet at home, not in school.6 
11

Today’s students, of almost any age, are far ahead of their teachers 

in computer literacy. They prefer to access subject information on 

the Internet, where it is more abundant, more accessible and more 

up-to-date.7 

Progressive teachers, principals and superintendents understand 

this. As examples cited in this report demonstrate, they have 

successfully adapted the endless opportunities presented by 

computer technology and married them in creative and challenging 

ways to the high-level technical capabilities and motivation of their 

students. Students and teachers become partners in the exploration 

of this new universe. 

Thus students, teachers and technology are driving a return to 

educational excellence. But complementing these is what will 

surely be seen as the single most important driver of educational 

progress in the coming decade: the No Child Left Behind Act, 

passed in Congress in 2001 with strong bipartisan support. This 

seminal legislation with its 2014 deadlines is breathtaking in its 

scope and poses powerful goals to the education community. 

Within 10 years it aims to abolish illiteracy and bring millions 

of children currently “lost” to the educational system into the 

mainstream of learning and achievement. It is comparable in 

many ways to this country’s 1960s quest to put a man on the 

moon. Combined with the increased use of new technologies 

and the motivated expertise of today’s students, it means that 10 

years from now we could be looking at the greatest leap forward 

in achievement in the history of education. By any measure, the 

improvements will be dramatic. 
12

Where We Are Today

Why do we need systemic change? It is important to understand 

the national crisis that underscores the demand for accountability 

in education. 

Today, the United States spends more money on education than 

any other nation except Switzerland, averaging more than $8700 

per student (federal, state and local) in constant dollars for 

elementary and secondary education.8

Over the past 20 years, America has 

invested hundreds of billions of dollars 

in education. For the 2003-04 school 

year alone, expenditures at local, state 

and federal levels on elementary and 

secondary education exceeded $500 

billion.9 

Despite this investment, the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) reading scores have remained 

essentially fl at during the same 20-

year period, with 31 percent of our 

nation’s 4th graders scoring at or 

above profi cient on the assessment.10

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is beginning to reverse 

the trend as the nation rises to the historic challenges of access and 

quality set forth by both Brown v. Board of Education and 

“A Nation at Risk.” A Nation at Risk.” 

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Funding (constant dollars) 

 Long Term Trend NAEP Reading Score ESRA Reading Score

25-

20-

15-

10-

 5-

0-

NAEP Reading Scores (Age 9) and

ESEA Funding (in 2004 dollars)

NEPA Scale Score

Finding (in billions of dollars)
13

No Child Left Behind created new standards of accountability. created new standards of accountability. 

Students have to demonstrate improvement over time and be 

profi cient in reading and mathematics. Importantly, achievement 

gaps between different socio-economic backgrounds must be 

identifi ed – and closed – so that all children regardless of race 

and income level can read and do mathematics at grade levels by 

2014. This single piece of legislation has fundamentally altered 

the education landscape. Its premise – that all children can learn – 

is profound in its simplicity but multifaceted in its implementation.

President Bush’s FY2005 budget for education represents continuing 

increases of federal education spending to historic levels with a 49 

percent increase (from FY 2001-2005) for elementary and secondary 

education, including but not limited to:11

• $13.3 billion in Title I funding for disadvantaged 

students, for a total that represents a 52 percent 

increase since FY 2001. 

• $1.2 billion for reading programs, totaling four 

times the amount spent in 2001. 

• $11.1 billion for special education programs, for a 

75 percent increase since 2001.12

No Child Left Behind’s four main principles are:

• Holding schools accountable to show students are 

learning;

• Increasing fl exibility for schools in reaching goals;

• Providing more options for parents to choose outside of lowperforming schools;

• Using research on what works best for student learning.

School Year Source: National Center for Education Statistics

9500-

8700-

6900-

5600-

 4300-

 3000-

Average Expenditures Per Pupil

(for Fall Enrollment)

19

2001

70

1975

1980

1985

1990

1965

1995

-

6900-

-

 4300-

0-

$8,745

Constant Dollars
14

Twelfth Grade Students

Proficient in Mathematics

100% -

75% -

50% -

25% -

 0% -

 White African Hispanic Asian Pacifi c American Disadvantaged

 American Islander Indian/Alaska

 Native Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress 2000

34%

20%

3% 4%

10%

4%

100% -

75% -

50% -

25% -

 0% -

 White African Hispanic Asian Pacifi c American Disadvantaged

 American Islander Indian/Alaska

 Native Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress 2000

28%

23%

3%

7% 9% 6%

Twelfth Grade Students

Proficient in Science

Fourth Grade Students

Proficient in Reading

100% -

75% -

50% -

25% -

 0% -

 White African Hispanic Asian Pacifi c American Disadvantaged

 American Islander Indian/Alaska

 Native 

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress 2003

38% 41%

13% 15% 16% 15%

100% -

75% -

50% -

25% -

 0% -

 White African Hispanic Asian Pacifi c American Disadvantaged

 American Islander Indian/Alaska

 Native 

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress 2003

48%

43%

10% 16% 17% 15%

Fourth Grade Students

Proficient in Mathematics
15

Twenty years of national data show gaps in achievement despite 

spending increases, refl ecting low expectations of performance, 

especially along the lines of racial and ethnic groups. Never before 

have we held schools accountable for how different demographic 

groups are achieving compared to peers in the same schools. For 

4th grade reading, only 41 percent of Whites and 38 percent of 

Asians are profi cient readers. Racial and ethnic breakdowns of 

which students can read show that only 13 percent of African 

Americans, 15 percent of Hispanics and 16 percent of Native 

Americans are profi cient in reading at their grade level. 

The numbers are truly disturbing. Put another way, more than 85 

percent of African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans 

are not profi cient in reading in the 4th grade, according to data 

from NAEP.13 The numbers are similar in mathematics with 90 

percent of African American students not profi cient in mathematics 

in the 4th grade.14 This highlights the importance of using data to 

understand and inform how we make decisions. 

The trend of low expectations compounds as students are passed 

along to the next grade level. By 12th grade, only 3 percent of 

African Americans are profi cient in mathematics, only 4 percent 

of Hispanics, 10 percent of Native Americans, 20 percent of 

Whites and 34 percent of Asian Americans. Few students have 

competence in science or mathematics.15

We must not choose who succeeds. We must ensure that all students 

are expected to learn in schools. 
16

Who Are Our Students?

America’s students are our ultimate constituents. We need to 

listen to them. They have demonstrated that they have a better 

understanding of the intricacies and opportunities presented by 

the technological revolution than many of their elders, notably 

including a generation of teachers and administrators who did not 

have the advantage of growing up with the Internet. 

The nearly 50 million students in our elementary, middle and 

high schools today represent the largest and most diverse student 

body in our history.16 Thirty percent are minorities, meaning that 

our school population is more diverse than this country’s adult 

population.17 

 

A number of studies, confi rmed by fi eld research and feedback 

from students – including nearly a quarter of a million students 

providing input to the U.S. Department of Education – portray 

a capable, conscientious, concerned and optimistic generation, 

determined to succeed. We have data collected from a variety of 

sources to help create a portrait of today’s students. The data will 

surprise you – it is representative of all groups. As one student put 

it, “We’re the kids who are going to change things.”18

Following are some recent statistics which help to defi ne this 

generation of students (sometimes referred to as the Millennial 

generation, or “The Millennials”):19

• 96 percent say that doing well in school is important to their 

lives.20

• 94 percent say they plan to continue their education after high 

school.21

• 88 percent say going to college is critical.22
17

• 49 percent say they may be interested 

in pursuing a career in technology, 

47 percent in business, 41 percent 

in medicine, 35 percent in law, 34 

percent in entertainment and 33 

percent in teaching.23

• 74 percent say they get along with 

their parents extremely well or very 

well.24

• 70 percent participate in community 

service or volunteer work.25

• 76 percent want to learn more about 

the world.26

• 28 percent of high school students 

access foreign news sources via the 

Internet.27

• 90 percent of children between ages 

5 and 17 use computers.28

• Teens spend more time online 

using the Internet than watching 

television.29

• 94 percent of online teens use the 

Internet for school-related research.30

• 24 percent have created their own web pages.31

• 16 percent of teens are shareholders in the stock market.32

• Teens and college students combined 

 spend nearly $400 billion a year.33

Millennials’ use of information and communications technology 

reaches to the youngest ages. The largest group of new users of the 

Internet from 2000-2002 were 2-5 year olds.34 

Today’s Students

• 96 percent say that doing well in 

school is important to their lives.

• 88 percent say going to college is 

critical.

• 70 percent participate in community 

service or volunteer work.

• 28 percent of high school students 

access foreign news sources via the 

Internet.

• 90 percent of children between ages 

5 and 17 use computers.

• 94 percent of online teens use the 

Internet for school-related research.

• Teens and college students combined

 spend nearly $400 billion a year.
18

The U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education 

Statistics found that 72 percent of all fi rst graders used a home 

computer on a weekly basis during the summer35 and by 1999, 

97 percent of kindergarteners had access to a computer at school 

or home.36 Even students from low-income groups without access 

to technology at home seek and fi nd it – using computers at 

schools, libraries or at friends’ homes. 

Millennials feel that education is important. Eighty-eight percent 

of students reported that attending college is critical or very 

important to success in later life; and 91 percent of today’s students 

report having a teacher or administrator who personally cares about 

their success.37 

These studies on the current generation of American students 

suggest a determined generation for whom the Internet appears to 

have stimulated interest in learning in general and, in particular, a 

revival of interest in researching and innovating using technology.

Internet Use 

by Age

100%-

90%-

80%-

70%-

60%-

50%-

40%-

30%-

20%-

10%-

0%- 2-5 6-8 9-12 12-15 16-18 19-24 25-35 36-45 45-55 56-65 85+

Age

2000 2003

100%-

90%-

0%-

0%-

0%-

0%-

0%-

0%-

0%-

0%-

Source: Cole, Jeffrey I., et al. UCLA Internet Report: Surveying the Digital Future, Year Three. UCLA Center for Communication Policy. Feb. 2003; Connected to the Future: A Report on Children’s 

Internet Use. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 2002; Horrigan, John, et al. The Ever-Shifting Internet Population. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 16 Apr. 2003.
19

These are clearly exciting times for both teachers and students. As 

expressed by one superintendent, “The future is now. Our children 

can’t wait.” 38

What Are They Telling Us?

NetDay, a national nonprofi t organization that promotes the 

effective use of technology in schools to enhance student 

achievement, enlisted 210,000 K-12 students representing schools 

in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and on 

American military bases worldwide to go to http://www.netday.org

over a ten-day period in October and November 2003, to complete 

an online survey as part of its fi rst Speak Up Day for Students. 

In March 2004, these fi ndings were issued in a national report 

partially funded by the U.S. Department of Education, entitled 

Voices and Views of Today’s Tech-Savvy Students, to support the 

inclusion of students’ perspectives in the development of the 

National Education Technology Plan.39

Major themes emerged from the students’ comments: 

• Today’s students are very technology-savvy, feel strongly about 

the positive value of technology and rely upon technology as an 

essential and preferred component of every aspect of their lives.

• Students are not just using technology differently today but 

are approaching their lives and their daily activities differently 

because of the technology.

• As students get older, their use of technology becomes more 

sophisticated, but, comparatively, the younger students are on a 

fast track to becoming greater technology users and advocates.

• The access point for technology use, particularly for older 

students, is home-focused, not school-focused.

• Today’s students are ultra-communicators.
20

Student comments from the survey of grades 6-12:

“We would like to have one computer per student, possibly 

a wireless laptop. Software needs to be updated, as well as 

hardware. Infrastructure should be improved to accommodate 

these upgrades. Access is vital, with before and after school hours 

open for use.”

“Hire people to keep the computers running, give us more 

bandwidth and less fi rewall, enable hookups from home, give the 

teachers more training and give us more computer classes. We’re 

also interested in ITV and online classes.”

“I would like them to let us kids sign laptops out of the library and 

there would be enough for everyone in the school. Or they could 

give us a laptop for the year.”

“Students should be allowed to have free access to online 

tutoring.”

Student comments from grades 3-6:

“I think that teachers should be required to go to a technology 

course and extra classes should be available to kids who need help 

working with computers, want to learn more about technology, or 

who just want to have fun.” 

“Teachers could show more videos and web sites to show kids 

more information in social studies and science.”

“I think that students should have laptops to do everything in class. 

We can type our homework, schoolwork, copy notes and things 
21

like that. We should not have to carry heavy books all day long and 

bring all of our books home.” 

“I think that we (schools) could give technology classes to students 

and teachers because our teachers are falling behind the students, 

as they aren’t good with computer programs and software.” 

“I think the teachers could use technology better by learning more 

about it. I think if they learn more about it they could help the 

students better and help them do projects and stories.”

“I really think that we should go to computer lab more often so that 

we can learn more about the world around us and what’s 

going on.”
22

Tear Down Those Walls: 

The Revolution Is Underway

Walls – both physical and philosophical – have held back new, 

more creative and more effective uses of the Internet in schools. 

Virtually every public school has access to the 

Internet.40 Yet in most schools, it is business as 

usual. Computers are enclosed in computer rooms 

rather than being a central part of the learning 

experience. Internet-savvy students are frustrated, as 

is well documented in the 2002 report, The Digital 

Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between InternetSavvy Students and Their Schools.41

The problem is not necessarily lack of funds, but 

lack of adequate training and lack of understanding 

of how computers can be used to enrich the 

learning experience. The good news is that things 

are changing. States, localities and schools are creatively using 

existing resources to restructure money within their existing 

budgets to align technology with improved learning. These 

examples show the benefi ts of realizing effi ciencies and results 

through systemic improvement. Creative new teaching models 

are emerging – frequently in smaller districts – that embrace 

technology to redesign curricula and organizational structures. 

As the following examples from across the country demonstrate, 

the results in educational achievement often have been signifi cant. 

The restrictive walls of the past are being torn down and a 

transformation in teaching is underway. 

“Education is the only 

business still debating the 

usefulness of technology. 

Schools remain unchanged 

for the most part, despite 

numerous reforms and 

increased investments in 

computers and networks.”

 

Rod Paige

U.S. Secretary of Education 
23

Success Stories from Schools That 

Are Leading the Way

Alaska

In 1994, the Chugach School District (CSD) in south central Alaska was

failing by almost all measures: staff turnover exceeded 50 percent; 

students scored lowest in the state on California Achievement Tests; 

business leaders complained that graduates lacked basic skills; and 

only one student in 26 years had graduated from college. 

The school board and district leaders proposed radical changes. The 

district eliminated grade levels as measures of progress and adopted 

a standards-based system with levels of mastery that emphasize 

real-life learning situations. Each student has a learning plan based 

on his or her learning patterns and needs, and must demonstrate 

profi ciency in 10 areas of performance. 

Chugach uses technology to enhance student learning, to improve 

student technology skills, and to improve the effi ciency of its 

academic and administrative operations. Overall student use of the 

Internet increased from 5 percent in 1998 to 93 percent in 2001.

Results have been dramatic. On the California Achievement Test 

reading scores rose from the 28th percentile in 1995 to the 71st 

percentile in 1999; mathematics scores increased from 54th to 78th; 

and language arts scores from 26th to 72nd. Fourteen CSD graduates 

are now attending post-secondary institutions. Annual faculty 

turnover has dropped from more than 50 percent to 12 percent.

Recently, the Chugach district led the formation of the Alaska 

Quality Schools Coalition and 12 districts are replicating its model. 

In 2001, the district was the smallest organization ever to receive 

the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for performance 

excellence in education.42 
24

California 

In the fall of 2002, Poway Unifi ed School District in the suburbs 

of San Diego rolled out Total Information Management System 

(TIM), enabling teachers to log in to view a class and drill down to 

a student profi le. The data warehouse pulls relevant data from the 

student information system, human resources, special education, 

student assessment, and delivers up-to-date, on-command 

information to the teacher. Teachers can fi lter by period, course 

or any of the NCLB fi lters such as ethnicity, gender, or second 

Grades

TEACHER

ASSIGNMENTS

Personal info, schedules, behavior, etc.

Teacher

assignments

Test data

On-time

records

Extra- curriculars, etc.

IEP and compliance data

Budget information

Resources & records

Free and reduced lunch data

HR

SIS

Assessment

Transportation

Food Services

Special Education

Library

Finance

Other

HR SIS

Assessment

Transportation

Library

Food Service

Special Education

Finance

Other

On average, there is little aggregation of student data in today’s school systems. Information is siloed, redundant and difficult t

share. The technologies used — if any — are aging and frequently incompatible. An ideal state has complete aggregation and

alignment. It is easier to ensure that students meet challenging standards, teachers target instruction, parents know teachers a

helping their children, school districts know how to allocate resources effectively and the government knows how schools are 

Improving achievement through Student Data Management

An interoperable system securely

connects all information and technologies

(Student Information Systems)

(Student Information Systems)

Student rep

Grades

Student rep

1. The average state: Isolated silos

of information prevent everyone

from seeing the ‘Big Picture.’

On average, there is little aggregation of student data in today’s school systems. Information is siloed, redundant and difficult to

share. The technologies used — if any — are aging and frequently incompatible. An ideal state has complete aggregation and

alignment. It is easier to ensure that students meet challenging standards, teachers target instruction, parents know teachers are

helping their children, school districts know how to allocate resources effectively and the government knows how schools are doing.

Improving achievement through Student Data Management

Grades

2. The ideal state: A Total Information Management Tool

(Data Warehousing) will aggregate previously siloed data

and create a variety of reports for any audience.

On average, there is little aggregation of student data in today’s school systems. Information is siloed, redundant and difficult to

share. The technologies used — if any — are aging and frequently incompatible. An ideal state has complete aggregation and

alignment. It is easier to ensure that students meet challenging standards, teachers target instruction, parents know teachers are

helping their children, school districts know how to allocate resources effectively and the government knows how schools are doing.

Improving achievement through Student Data Management
25

language learners to compare achievement and identify strengths 

and weaknesses. The profi les have current and historical data as 

well as contact information for the student and parents, and e-mail 

links to other teachers. With this tool, teachers can use the data to 

drive instructional practices – something that was not possible in 

the past. 

Instructional Technology Specialist Stacey Campo trains teachers 

throughout the district to make effective use of this information 

and provides feedback to the information systems division. Charlie 

Student reports

Student reports

RESOURCE

PLANNING

The tool creates reports

that everyone can access

This results in student improvement and enables the

continuous collection of information for future improvements

These reports help inform instruction

and reallocate resources effectively

to

are

doing.

©2004 XPLANE.com®

Students

District Teachers

Federal

State

Parents

Students Teachers District

Federal

State

Parents

Student reports

Student reports

3. The Result: These reports inform

instruction, resulting in continuous

student improvement.

ms. Information is siloed, redundant and difficult to

ble. An ideal state has complete aggregation and

achers target instruction, parents know teachers are

vely and the government knows how schools are doing.

nt Data Management

©2004 XPLANE.com®

Improving achievement through 

Student Data Management

On average, there is little aggregation of student data 

in today’s school systems. Information is siloed, redundant and diffi cult to share. The technologies used 

— if any — are aging and frequently incompatible. An 

ideal state has complete aggregation and alignment. It 

is easier to ensure that students meet challenging 

standards, teachers target instruction, parents know 

teachers are helping their children, school districts 

know how to allocate resources effectively and the 

government knows how schools are doing.
26

Garten, who directs the information systems division, and project 

leader Tracy Jones involved teachers and students in each stage 

of development. TIM is helping all teachers apply differentiated 

instruction to improve learning for all of their students.43 

High Tech High (HTH) in San Diego used a Bill and Melinda 

Gates Foundation grant and funding from the San Diego 

technology business community to start a charter school from 

scratch. Since its launch in September 2000, the school has been 

an innovation leader in using technology and grounding learning 

in the “real world.” Student internships with area businesses are 

built into the schedule and students use technology to conduct 

biotechnology lab experiments, build robots and produce 

sophisticated school projects. Its 400 students are from diverse 

ethnic and economic backgrounds and last year 100 percent of 

HTH seniors were accepted into college. Under Principal and 

CEO Larry Rosenstock’s leadership, technology and intellectual 

rigor are central to the educational experience at HTH – a learning 

experience in an environment which is open to the real world and 

fosters connections to the community. 

The school’s innovations include performance-based assessment, 

daily shared planning time for staff, state-of-the-art technical 

facilities for project-based learning, internships for all students, 

and close links to the high-tech workplace. 

Florida 

The Florida Virtual School, whose motto is “anytime, any place, 

any path, any pace,” grew out of a $200,000 state-level “Break 

the Mold” grant. The threefold aim was to relieve the strain of 

overcrowded schools in the fast-growing Florida districts; to meet 

the demands for high-needs courses; and to make advanced courses 

available to students throughout the state’s 32 rural districts. 
27

Founded in 1997, the state-funded institution serves 21,270 student 

enrollments and employs 150 full-time and part-time teachers. 

Experienced teachers monitor the progress of all students and are 

available to students by telephone or e-mail. 

Ninety-seven percent of the school’s students take only one or 

two courses to fi ll a need not met in their own schools. Minorities 

make up some 30 percent of enrollment. The students come from 

public schools (72 percent), home schooling (21 percent), and 

private or charter schools (7 percent). The majority of students 

are from Florida, but there are students from many other states and 

even as far away as Shanghai. 

Missouri

Peabody Elementary School in St Louis is situated in an urban 

neighborhood marked by abandoned buildings and serves almost 

entirely Title I students from the lowest income families. Principal 

Myrtle Reed had high expectations and through online assessments 

and customized instruction over three years achieved remarkable 

improvement in students’ scores on Missouri Assessment Program 

(MAP) standardized tests.

Reed selected the eMINTS program — enhancing Missouri’s 

Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies — which provides 

200 hours of professional development, coaching and technical 

support for teachers as they use multimedia tools to promote 

critical thinking and problem-solving techniques. 

Peabody students take regular online assessments of their progress, 

allowing teachers to customize instruction to the specifi c needs 

of individual students. Teachers assign online reading instruction 

software and online tutoring programs based on individual 

student’s level of mastery of the curriculum. Working on desktop 

computers, students proceed at their own pace. 
28

Using a technology-rich environment, instruction is personalized. 

Teachers and principals know exactly how students are doing on a 

daily basis. 

The results have been dramatic. In 2001, only 7 percent of 

Peabody third graders could read at grade level. A year later, 

the number improved to 25 percent. In 2003, 80 percent of third 

graders were reading on grade level. Similar stunning results 

occurred in mathematics, science and social studies. 

The success of the program was recognized by an $8.4 million 

grant from the U.S. Department of Education that will help create 

additional eMINTS training and technology in classrooms. The 

St. Louis Post-Dispatch commented that the turnabout at Peabody 

would have been remarkable for any school, but was particularly 

impressive “in a neighborhood where virtually every child is poor, 

a fact that too often translates into low expectations and rockbottom test scores.” The eMINTS program is now available to 

schools nationwide. 

Virginia

Henrico County, a suburban and rural district with 43,000 students 

and 3,000 teachers in 64 schools, supplied every high school 

student their own laptop computer. In Spring 2001, all high school 

faculty received a laptop computer. In Fall 2002, all middle 

school students and elementary school teachers received laptops, 

and in Winter 2002, all middle school teachers received laptops. 

A primary goal of the initiative was to create an environment 

of engaged and active learning, rather than the simple didactic 

approach. Henrico County paid for this laptop program by 

repurposing existing funds, as well as using lease agreements. 

Currently, 28,000 laptops are deployed in Henrico County. What 
29

makes this effort extraordinary is that they have done this with 

$500 less than the state average annual per-pupil expenditure and 

$611 less than the national average. 

In 1994, there were signifi cant numbers of elementary schools 

that did not have a single computer lab, and the total technology 

deployment in the district was relatively sparse, consisting 

primarily of one or two computer labs per middle and high school. 

In 1998, 5 percent of students used the Internet; today all middle 

and high school students are online. 

What is remarkable is what students can do with the technology, 

curricula and good instruction. They are accessing primary 

sources, exploring different perspectives on historical events, using 

geometry simulations in three dimensions to learn mathematics 

and increasing their interactions with teachers and other students 

online. Assessments are online and provide instant feedback. Art 

history courses take virtual fi eld trips to art galleries worldwide.

Henrico offers all students the opportunity to take online courses 

through their laptops – advanced mathematics and science, foreign 

languages and other courses – as well as SAT test-prep courses. 

Individual Education Plans (IEPs) are online and save teachers 

time and effort while enabling updated information.

The success of this initiative would not have been possible 

without direct teacher training and support. Demonstrating their 

commitment to life-long learning, Henrico County Public Schools 

provides a $1,000 per year tuition reimbursement for eligible 

employees. Additional institutes were scheduled and taught by 

master teachers to ensure that the faculty received the training 

needed to successfully use technology as an instructional tool. 
30

Among the numerous awards Henrico has received: The U.S. 

Senate Award for Continuing Excellence and nine U.S. Department 

of Education Blue Ribbon School awards.44

State Initiatives45 

Virginia

Virginia is one of the leading states in developing a model and 

implementing a statewide initiative for integrating data systems 

with statewide online assessments – a partnership between the 

Virginia legislature, the Virginia Department of Education and 

the Governor’s offi ce. The state created Virginia’s Web-based 

Standards of Learning Initiative with the goal that all Virginia 

school divisions would use Web-based systems to improve 

the Standards of Learning instructional, remedial and testing 

capabilities of high, middle and elementary schools by 2009. 

Online delivery of results will be provided to state and local 

administrators for evaluation and planning. To date, Virginia has 

delivered 400,000 assessments online. Specifi c objectives of the 

initiative are to:

• Provide student access to computers at a ratio of one computer 

for every fi ve students.

• Create Internet-ready local area network capability in every 

school.

• Assure adequate high-speed, high-bandwidth capability for 

instructional, remedial and testing needs.

• Establish a statewide Web-based Standards of Learning test 

delivery system.

• Deliver ongoing training to teachers and administrators.
31

New Mexico

Two years ago in New Mexico, the then state education technology 

director was interested in using handheld devices for assessment. 

He approached the directors of the Reading First program and the 

assessment program and convinced them to enter into a reading 

initiative that allowed teachers across the state to assess their 

students’ reading progress, to answer to the accountability required 

by the Reading First program and to provide a low-cost, highly 

motivating system for doing all of this. The results were many 

– technology was infused throughout New Mexico’s schools, 

Reading First funding was shared with the offi ce of education 

technology and data were available in a timely manner, allowing 

teachers to hone in on the skills that need reinforcement. 

Louisiana

Louisiana’s On-Line Professional Development is designed to 

provide professional development for teachers, administrators, and 

school personnel in K-12 school districts. The program includes 

graduate-level online courses, community of learners networks, 

and workshops for specifi c educational needs. Through a variety 

of experiences, it provides learning opportunities and resources to 

support all teachers in their efforts to improve student learning and 

achievement.

The impetus for the program was the need to provide professional 

development for educators that better suited their learning styles 

and their schedules. Initial efforts involved individuals from across 

different divisions of the state department of education (including 

professional development, curriculum, teacher standards, 

instructional technology and school nutrition) and outside experts. 
32

Idaho

The Idaho Student Information Management System or ISIMS 

Project creates a statewide, student information management 

system designed to provide new resources for parents, teachers, 

students and all stakeholders of education in Idaho. The ISIMS 

project is a partnership of the Governor and Legislature, State 

Board of Education, State Department of Education, J.A. & 

Kathryn Albertson Foundation and all school districts in Idaho.

In the 2003 legislative session, the Idaho legislature passed 

legislation requiring all school districts in Idaho to use the ISIMS 

system to the full extent of its availability. The J.A. & Kathryn 

Albertson Foundation dedicated $35 million to the development 

and implementation of the ISIMS system. The plan expands a $3.5 

million pilot program now in place in 13 districts that allows the 

districts to collect, maintain and share student information among 

their schools. The project will build a centralized, uniform system 

that includes a host of web-based resources and tools for education 

stakeholders.

West Virginia

The West Virginia Virtual School (WVVS) was created by state 

senate legislation that became effective on July 1, 2000. It was 

created to offer high quality educational courses to students 

through Internet technology, regardless of school location or size. 

The West Virginia legislature passed the bill based on the following 

fi ndings about virtual learning: 

• West Virginia schools have improved and expanded Internet 

access, which enables schools to offer courses through the 

Internet, and other new and developing technologies. 

• Current technology is available to provide students with more 

resources for learning, and new and developing technologies 

offer even more promise for expanded opportunities. 
33

• A number of other states and other jurisdictions have developed 

Internet-based instruction which is available currently and 

which is being used by schools in the state. 

• To better educate the students of West Virginia, more course 

and class offerings can be made available through technology, 

especially to students who are geographically disadvantaged. 

In the planning stages, educators from all 55 counties participated 

in a “Going the Distance-1999” week-long conference to identify 

and study the issues associated with Virtual Schools. The educators 

were charged to take online classes during the summer. This 

planning group then re-assembled and discussion centered on best 

practices to inform planning of the project. The legislation was 

drafted using the input from this process. 

Arkansas

The state’s Environmental and Spatial Technology Initiative 

(EAST) includes strong relationships between business, 

government and education. These relationships provide awareness 

and access to resources normally not available to educators. The 

EAST philosophy includes:

• Educational experiences that are relevant, challenging, 

purposeful, and student centered. 

• An educational environment that includes state of the art, realworld tools and refl ects a work-like setting. 

• Educators that serve as resource guides, managers, and learner 

facilitators. 

• Learning that is self-directed as much as possible and oriented 

towards real-world projects that engage students in independent 

as well as interdependent roles. 

• High expectations for all students. 

The EAST model has been recognized nationally as an innovative, 

relevant, and successful approach to education. 
34

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) has a regional 

technology program (eSPARC) that focuses on increasing in-home 

access to computers and the Internet, particularly for high-need 

families, in an effort to bridge the digital divide. Pennsylvania 

received a $1.8 million grant from the U.S. Department 

of Education to study the impact of computers on student 

achievement. The study will examine the benefi ts of home access 

for student learning and parental involvement. The evaluation will 

explore a wide range of research questions that focus on whether 

and how in-home computer and Internet access impact students 

and parents, allowing for the promotion of “what works”. In 

addition, PDE will produce and disseminate resultant research 

methodologies and tools that will assist in measuring the impact of 

technology initiatives across program areas, strengthening local, 

state and national evaluative capabilities. 

The Explosion in E-Learning 

and Virtual Schools

Over the past fi ve years there has been an explosive growth 

in online and multimedia instruction (e-learning) and “virtual 

schools.” At least 15 states now provide some form of virtual 

schooling to supplement regular classes or provide for special 

needs.46 Hundreds of thousands of students are taking advantage 

of e-learning this school year.47 About 25 percent of all K-12 

public schools now offer some form of e-learning or virtual school 

instruction.48 Within the next decade every state and most schools 

will be doing so. 

E-learning and virtual schooling are essentially the same product: 

they provide individual online instruction. They are the 21st

century version of distance-learning through correspondence 
35

courses by mail. But through today’s technology they are more 

immediate and, for students, far more enriching. E-learning offers 

fl exibility in the time, place, and pace of instruction. It provides 

teachers the opportunity to create an instructional environment 

that adapts to students wherever and however they need to learn, 

at home or in school. It gives parents a signifi cant choice of 

providers and educators an alternative means of meeting their 

student’s academic needs. In higher education, some 90 percent of 

four-year public institutions and more than half of four-year private 

institutions offer some form of online education.49

Virtual Schools are complete educational organizations that deliver 

courses primarily online. They may be run by state agencies 

(Florida, Illinois, West Virginia), regional agencies and consortia 

(Virtual High School in Massachusetts), universities (University of 

California), local public school districts (Houston Virtual School), 

and more than 80 schools (cyber-charter schools) that received a 

charter from a local district, state board or other sponsor.50

A good example of the impact of virtual schooling is the Florida 

Virtual School (FLVS). Founded in 1997, the FLVS is a national 

leader in providing online, distance education solutions for K-12 

students. Most of its 13,000 students in the 2003-2004 school 

year enrolled for only 1 or 2 courses for a total of 21,270 course 

enrollments. In addition to designing and monitoring the online 

instruction, FLVS teachers communicate with students and parents 

on a regular basis by phone, e-mail, online chats, instant messaging 

and discussion forums. A full 90 percent of its enrollees complete 

and pass FLVS classes. 

For most students, FLVS courses add to what is available in their 

local schools. An online GED preparation course, developed by 

FLVS, is available to working adults through The Florida Adult 

and Technical Distance Education Consortium. FLVS’s 150 
36

certifi ed instructors teach more than 80 courses delivered over the 

Internet to students from Florida, more than 30 other states and 

even foreign countries. Partnering with FLVS, rural or smaller 

school districts can offer a selection of Advanced Placement 

courses or language study for which they would not otherwise have 

the resources. As one teacher from a small, rural Florida district 

has noted: “Online learning ‘evens the playing fi eld’ for rural 

students.”

With more choices available, traditional schools are turning to 

distance education to expand offerings for students and increase 

professional development opportunities for teachers. 
37

The Impact of

No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind, signed into law by President 

Bush in January 2002, is already having a major 

impact on public education. Its ambitious goals, 

to end the achievement gap between rich and poor 

and white and minority students and improve the 

academic performance of all students by 2014, 

are requiring states and school districts across the 

country to reexamine their standards, set targets for 

improvement, introduce rigorous testing, and give 

options to parents. 

Although only three years old, NCLB is producing 

measurable results. Many states have reported 

signifi cant gains in meeting Adequate Yearly 

Progress (AYP) goals for the 2003-2004 school 

year, according to data compiled by the Education 

Trust and the National Alliance of Black School Educators.51 

In nine states – North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 

Kentucky, Alaska, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia and California – 

the proportion of schools making AYP increased by at least 

10 percentage points. Maryland led the nation with 86 percent 

of its public schools making AYP in reading and math scores – 

up 19 percent from the 2002-2003 school year. 

While boosting the performance of all students, schools are 

reporting notably sharp gains for poor and minority children, 

particularly in the elementary grades.52 For example, in Illinois 

from 2001 to 2004 the proportion of Latino fi fth graders achieving 

“We cannot assume that our 

schools will naturally drift toward 

using technology effectively. We 

must commit ourselves to staying 

the course and making the changes necessary to reach our goals of 

educating every child. These are 

ambitious goals, but they are goals 

worthy of a great nation such as 

ours. Together, we can use technology to ensure that no child is 

left behind.” 

– President George W. Bush
38

profi ciency on state math assessments increased dramatically to 

76 percent from 41 percent three years earlier – and the gap with 

white students narrowed to 16 percentage points from the previous 

35 point difference. 

In addition to the many indicators 

of tangible progress, the law is 

stimulating lively debate over 

how to re-think and redesign 

educational models to raise 

standards, retrain educators, 

reapportion budgets, exploit 

new technologies and provide 

students with the technological 

and individual support they need. 

As the Education Commission 

of the States (ECS) has noted, a 

number of states do not yet have 

the technology infrastructure they 

need.53 But progress is being 

made.

The goals have been set and 

the work is underway. As ECS 

concludes in its 2004 Report to 

the Nation, “To many, NCLB 

embodies the nation’s recognition 

of and commitment to two imperatives, one moral and the other 

economic; namely, that education is a civil right, and that a highquality, high-performing education system is vital to maintaining 

America’s competitiveness in the world economy.”54 It is a 

challenge that America can – and must – meet.

“Across America, school teachers did something this 

year that many of them didn’t expect to do. They 

raised their students’ math and reading scores. 

Although some states, such as Oregon and Nevada, 

saw little change or a drop in their scores, overall 

more states and school districts saw test results 

improve rather than decline. In Florida, 10 percent 

more fourth-graders got satisfactory marks on the 

state’s math test than did so last year. In Arkansas, 

14 percent more sixth-graders performed at grade 

level on reading and writing tests. In Chicago, the 

percentage of third- and fi fth-graders passing tests 

rose by double digits. In a majority of the states that 

have released results under No Child Left Behind, 

fewer schools are failing to meet the law’s goals. 

And because teachers are the most important factor 

in student achievement, they deserve at least some 

credit for that.” 

 – National Journal (9/11/04)
39

A National Education 

Technology Plan: 

The Future Is Now The Future Is Now

Technology Plan: 

Seven Major Action Steps 

and Recommendations

1. Strengthen Leadership

For public education to benefi t from the rapidly 

evolving development of information and 

communication technology, leaders at every level 

– school, district and state – must not only supervise, 

but provide informed, creative and ultimately 

transformative leadership for systemic change.

Recommendations for states, districts and individual 

schools include:

n Invest in leadership development programs to develop a new 

generation of tech-savvy leaders at every level.

n Retool administrator education programs to provide training in 

technology decision making and organizational change.

n Develop partnerships between schools, higher education and 

the community.

n Encourage creative technology partnerships with the business 

community.

n Empower students’ participation in the planning process.

“Our children can’t wait. 

The future is now. We need 

to be preparing them for 

a future that few of us can 

even visualize.” 

 

 – Dr. Mark Edwards

Former Superintendent 

Henrico County, VA 

Public Schools
40

2. Consider Innovative Budgeting

Needed technology often can be funded successfully through 

innovative restructuring and reallocation of existing budgets to 

realize effi ciencies and cost savings. The new focus begins with 

the educational objective and evaluates funding requests – for 

technology or other programs – in terms of how they support 

student learning. Today, every program in No Child Left Behind

is an opportunity for technology funding – but the focus is on how 

the funding will help attain specifi c educational goals. 

Funding and budgetary recommendations for states, schools and 

districts include: 

n Determine the total costs for technology as a percentage of 

total spending.

n Consider a systemic restructuring of budgets to realize 

effi ciencies, cost savings and reallocation. This can include 

reallocations in expenditures on textbooks, instructional 

supplies, space and computer labs.

n Consider leasing with 3-5 year refresh cycles.

n Create a technology innovation fund to carry funds over yearly 

budget cycles.

3. Improve Teacher Training

Teachers have more resources available through technology than 

ever before, but some have not received suffi cient training in the 
41

effective use of technology to enhance learning. Teachers need 

access to research, examples and innovations as well as staff 

development to learn best practices. The U.S. Department of 

Education is currently funding research studies to evaluate the 

effective use of technology for teaching and learning. The National 

Science Foundation also provides major support for educational 

research.

Recommendations for states, districts and individual schools 

include:

n Improve the preparation of new teachers in the use of 

technology.

n Ensure that every teacher has the opportunity to take online 

learning courses.

n Improve the quality and consistency of teacher education 

through measurement, accountability and increased 

technology resources.

n Ensure that every teacher knows how to use data to 

personalize instruction. This is marked by the ability to 

interpret data to understand student progress and challenges, 

drive daily decisions and design instructional interventions to 

customize instruction for every student’s unique needs.

4. Support E-Learning and Virtual Schools

In the past fi ve years there has been signifi cant growth in 

organized online instruction (e-learning) and “virtual” schools, 

making it possible for students at all levels to receive high 
42

quality supplemental or full courses of instruction personalized 

to their needs. Traditional schools are turning to these services 

to expand opportunities and choices for students and professional 

development for teachers.

Recommendations for states, districts and schools include:

n Provide every student access to e-learning.

n Enable every teacher to participate in e-learning training.

n Encourage the use of e-learning options to meet No Child 

Left Behind requirements for highly qualifi ed teachers, requirements for highly qualified teachers, 

supplemental services and parental choice.

n Explore creative ways to fund e-learning opportunities.

n Develop quality measures and accreditation standards for elearning that mirror those required for course credit.

5. Encourage Broadband Access 

Most public schools, colleges and universities now have access 

to high-speed, high-capacity broadband communications. 

However, broadband access 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 

365 days a year could help teachers and students to realize the full 

potential of this technology and broadband technology needs to be 

properly maintained.

Recommendations to states, districts and schools include:

n Thoroughly evaluate existing technology infrastructure and 

access to broadband to determine current capacities and 

explore ways to ensure its reliability.
43

n Encourage that broadband is available all the way to the 

end-user for data management, online and technology-based 

assessments, e-learning, and accessing high-quality digital 

content.

n Encourage the availability of adequate technical support 

to manage and maintain computer networks, maximize 

educational uptime and plan for future needs.

6. Move Toward Digital Content

A perennial problem for schools, teachers and students is that 

textbooks are increasingly expensive, quickly outdated and 

physically cumbersome. A move away from reliance on textbooks 

to the use of multimedia or online information (digital content) 

offers many advantages, including cost savings, increased 

effi ciency, improved accessibility, and enhancing learning 

opportunities in a format that engages today’s web-savvy students.

Recommendations to states and districts include:

n Ensure that teachers and students are adequately trained in the 

use of online content.

n Encourage ubiquitous access to computers and connectivity 

for each student.

n Consider the costs and benefi ts of online content, aligned 

with rigorous state academic standards, as part of a systemic 

approach to creating resources for students to customize 

learning to their individual needs.
44

7. Integrate Data Systems 

Integrated, interoperable data systems are the key to better 

allocation of resources, greater management effi ciency, and 

online and technology-based assessments of student performance 

that empower educators to transform teaching and personalize 

instruction. 

Recommendations to states, districts and schools include:

n Establish a plan to integrate data systems so that 

administrators and educators have the information they need 

to increase effi ciency and improve student learning.

n Use data from both administrative and instructional systems 

to understand relationships between decisions, allocation of 

resources and student achievement.

n Ensure interoperability. For example, consider School 

Interoperability Framework (SIF) Compliance Certifi cation as 

a requirement in all RFPs and purchasing decisions.

n Use assessment results to inform and differentiate instruction 

for every child.
45

Conclusions

n There is no dispute over the need for America’s students 

to have the knowledge and competence to compete in an 

increasingly technology-driven world economy.

n This need demands new models of education facilitated by 

educational technology.

n In the realm of technology, the educational community is 

playing catch-up. Industry is far ahead of education. And 

tech-savvy high school students often are far ahead of their 

teachers.

n This “digital disconnect” is a major cause of frustration among 

today’s students.

n Public schools that do not adapt to the technology needs of 

students risk becoming increasingly irrelevant. Students will 

seek other options.

n Some of the most promising new educational approaches are 

being developed outside the traditional educational system, 

through e-learning and virtual schools.

n Reforms within the system will require strong leadership 

and a willingness to restructure the learning environment in 

fundamental ways.

n No Child Left Behind is a powerful catalyst for needed reform.
46

n Today’s technology-literate middle and high school students 

will also be drivers of reform, creating a new student-teacher 

partnership.

n The current ferment within the education community will 

lead to major changes in the way we teach, learn and manage 

public education.

n With the benefi ts of technology, highly trained teachers, a 

motivated student body and the requirements of No Child 

Left Behind, the next 10 years could see a spectacular rise 

in achievement – and may usher in a new golden age for 

American education. 

n This is an exciting, creative and transforming era for students, 

teachers, administrators, policymakers and parents.

Systemic change is being shepherded through the efforts 

of dedicated teachers, administrators, parents and students. 

Technology ignites opportunities for learning, engages today’s 

students as active learners and participants in decision-making 

on their own educational futures and prepares our nation for the 

demands of a global society in the 21st century. century.
47

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
48

APPENDIX A

Joint Federal Activities Promoting 

the Use of Technology in Education

The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Offi ce of Educational Technology 

(OET) resides in the Offi ce 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 . OET helps 

to ensure that ED programs are coordinated with efforts across the federal 

government. 

The most signifi cant 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 Offi ce 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 
49

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

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.

For Further Information

See www.NationalEdTechPlan.org for 

many more resources and additional 

examples on the information presented 

in this report.
50

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 Offi ce 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.
51

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. 

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.

Briefi ngs 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
52

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 Certifi cation 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 Offi cers (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 
53

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 Offi ce of the President, Washington, DC

William Strauss, LifeCourse Associates, Great Falls, VA

Ellen Wartella, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 
54

Leadership for System-Wide Rethinking

Infl uencing 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
55

Tom Clark, TA Consulting, Springfi eld, 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 defi nition 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
56

Melinda Maddox, Alabama Department of Education, Montgomery, AL

Kathleen Madigan, American Board for Certifi cation 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, Affi nity 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
57

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 Unifi ed 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 
58

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 fi rst 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 Unifi ed 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
59

Joe Simpson, Council of Chief State Schools Offi cers (CCSSO), 

 Washington, DC

Irene Spero, Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), Washington, DC

Matt Stein, Eduventures, Inc., Boston, MA

Samuel Stringfi eld, 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 refl ect the new opportunities afforded by technology. These sites 

are well-positioned for the future and are much better insulated from short-term 

funding fl uctuations.

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 Unifi ed 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
60

Commissioned Papers

The Department commissioned several papers from experts to help inform the 

development of the Plan. These include:

Author Paper

Katie McMillan Culp A Retrospective on Twenty Years of 

Margaret Honey Education Technology Policy 

Ellen Mandinach 

 Education Development Center

 New York, NY

 

Chrys Dougherty How States Can Use Information 

 National Center for Educational Technology to Support School 

 Accountability Improvement Under NCLB

 Austin, TX 

Glynn D. Ligon A Technology Framework to 

 ESP Solutions Group Support Accountability and 

 Austin, TX Assessment: How States

 Can Evaluate Their Status for 

 No Child Left Behind

Steve Fleischman The Role of Educational 

 American Institutes for Research Technology in Meeting the Promise 

 Washington, DC of Supplemental

 Educational Services

Bryan C. Hassel How Can Virtual Schools Be a

Michelle Godard Terrell Vibrant Part of Meeting the Choice 

 Public Impact Provisions of the No Child Left

 Chapel Hill, NC Behind Act? 

Glenn M. Kleiman Meeting the Need for High Quality

 Education Development Center Teachers: e-Learning Solutions

 Newton, MA

Susan R. Collins e-Learning Frameworks for NCLB 

 KCH Strategies

 Seattle, WA
61

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 Offi ce 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, 
62

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. 
63

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/ http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2004/pdf/11_2004.pd 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). 
64

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). 
65

17 Ibid. See http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt042.asp

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).
66

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
67

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.
68

For Further Information

See www.NationalEdTechPlan.org 

for many more resources and additional 

examples on the information 

presented in this report.
69
70

U.S. Department of Education 

 Offi ce of the Secretary 

 Offi ce of Educational Technology 

 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. 

 Washington, DC 20202