U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–895 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–117

EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SPECIAL HEARING

JULY 25, 2001—WASHINGTON, DC

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

TERRY SAUVAIN, Staff Director 

CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director 

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND

EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

Professional Staff 

ELLEN MURRAY

JIM SOURWINE

MARK LAISCH

ADRIENNE HALLETT

ERIK FATEMI

ADAM GLUCK

BETTILOU TAYLOR (Minority) 

MARY DIETRICH (Minority)

Administrative Support 

CAROLE GEAGLEY

CORREY DIVINEY (Minority) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Opening statement of Senator Tom Harkin .......................................................... 1

Prepared statement of Senator Tom Harkin ......................................................... 3

Opening statement of Senator Arlen Specter ........................................................ 3

Statement of Dr. Margaret Honey, Vice President and Director, Education

Development Center, Center for Children and Technology .............................. 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

Benefits of educational technology ......................................................................... 7

Effective software design ........................................................................................ 9

The role of the Federal Government ...................................................................... 9

Statement of Gail Maxwell, Technology Strategist, Griswold Community

School District, Griswold, Iowa, and the Waitt/Harkin Innovation Technology Challenge Grant ....................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

Statement of Cheryl Williams, President, International Society for Technology

in Education (ISTE) ............................................................................................. 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

Statement of Thomas Gann, Director, Strategic Alliances for Global Education

Research, Sun Microsystems, Incorporated ....................................................... 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

The need for networking ......................................................................................... 23

Progress in e-learning ............................................................................................. 24

The Federal role ....................................................................................................... 25

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 26

Statement of Dr. David H. Rose, Ed.D., Co-Executive Director, CAST .............. 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31

Assistive technologies and the present .................................................................. 32

Moving toward the center: the power of digital content for students with

disabilities ............................................................................................................. 32

Building a better future: universal design of learning technologies ................... 34

(1)

EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES,

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., in room SD–106, Hon. Tom

Harkin (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Harkin and Specter.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN

Senator HARKIN. The Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human

Services, Education and Related Agencies will come to order.

This hearing is about what we are going to be doing in the 21st

century to improve the learning skills for all of our kids from the

earliest age on through all of their education.

Five or 10 years ago people would argue about whether or not

technology could really help students learn. I think we have settled

that argument. It is not about whether, it is about how. The ‘‘how’’

I think will continue to change as we develop new processes and

we get new technologies. The computers are expensive. But I think

they are worth the money and they are making differences.

When technology is used well, it can transform education and it

can open minds to new worlds of learning and brighten a child’s

future. I have seen how technology can make a difference and obviously, I am going to see more this morning about how technology

can make a difference.

A few months ago I visited Council Bluffs where some of our

schools are using a Federal grant and a donation from The Waitt

Family Foundation to integrate technologies into primary grades.

Ms. Maxwell is here to talk about that.

I have also visited—and they were demonstrating something

here this morning—the Iowa City-based Break Through to Literacy, which is using technology for young kids for literacy improvement and training. I think they are now in over four thousand schools, if I am not mistaken.

So this technology is booming. It has touched virtually every aspect of schools and it is not just about putting computers in the

classroom and then walking out the door. I think, as Ms. Maxwell

will explain, the project that we are doing in Iowa is changing the

way teachers teach, and the way students learn, even for kids who

are 6 years old.
2

I was amazed myself to watch what these little first-graders were

doing with the technology they had and how the teachers were

interacting with them. Of course, the teachers had to go through

some training and be brought up to speed on it. This one teacher

said, ‘‘You know, I knew how to use a computer before, but I did

not know how to tell other people and other kids how to use this.’’

And so the training was vital. I think technology can get students

excited about school and give them instant access to the Internet,

visualize concepts in a way textbooks cannot, open all new worlds.

It can give all students first-first century skills they need to succeed in a technology-based workplace.

I could go on for hours, but I think I am probably preaching to

the choir.

I will say one other thing. As many of you know, I am the chief

sponsor of the Americans With Disabilities Act. I have been involved in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act idea for

a long time, 25 years, and the other thing that I have seen happen

with technology is how it has really improved the learning skills

and abilities of special needs kids. Perhaps that had not been

thought of before. But these technologies now are enabling kids

with learning disabilities to do more than they have ever done before and I would also like to talk about that today.

How can the Federal Government help make these things happen for schools all over the country? In particular, what can this

committee do as it writes its appropriation bills to encourage the

effective uses of technology? The education budget is going to be

tight, so we have to be strategic about how and where we spend

our money. I guess the basic question is should we put it all in

block grants as the President has asked or should we set aside for

priorities like teacher training and community technology centers

and other things I am going to hear about today.

We are fortunate to have an outstanding panel of witnesses to

discuss these topics. We are also lucky to have with us several of

the most innovative and successful education technology programs

in the country.

Immediately following our panel discussion, I invite you all to

move to the back of the room where you can view, along with me,

demonstrations of these exciting technologies.

I will leave the record open for any opening statements that any

other Senators may have. I welcome our witnesses, Dr. Margaret

Honey, vice president at The Education Development Center and

Director for EDC Center for Children and Technology. Dr. Honey

has been working in the educational technology field for more than

20 years. She received her B.A. in Social Theory from Hampshire

College and M.A. and Ph.D. from Teachers College, Columbia University.

We have Gail Maxwell, whom I mentioned earlier, a technology

strategist for the Griswold Iowa Community School District, where

she is administering the Federal Technology Innovation Challenge

Grant for two elementary schools.

Cheryl Williams is the president of the International Society for

Technology in Education and vice president of Education for the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
3

Thomas Gann is the director of Strategic Alliances for Global

Education and Research Business Unit of Sun Microsystems and

previously had directed the company’s Asia Pacific business programs.

David Rose, Doctor of Education, is co-director of The Center for

Applied Special Technology, a not-for-profit organization whose

mission is to expand educational opportunities for individuals with

disabilities through the development and innovative uses of technology. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

This is a very distinguished panel of witnesses. We welcome you

here and before we start, I would recognize our distinguished ranking member, and good friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN

Good morning. This hearing of the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services,

and Education Appropriations Subcommittee will now come to order. 

Five or ten years ago, people would argue about whether technology helps students learn. ‘‘All these computers are so expensive,’’ they’d say. ‘‘Are they really

worth the money? Will they really make a difference in student achievement?’’

Well, I’m glad to say we’ve gotten past that debate. The key is not whether technology can help students, but how it’s used. 

When technology is used well, it can transform education, open young minds to

new worlds of learning, and brighten a child’s future. 

I’ve seen how technology can make a difference. A few months ago, I visited Council Bluffs, Iowa, where some schools are using a federal grant and a donation from

the Waitt Family Foundation to integrate technology into the primary grades. 

Technology has touched virtually every aspect of these schools. They didn’t just

put some computers in the classrooms and leave. As Gail Maxwell, one of our witnesses, will explain, this project is changing the way teachers teach and students

learn—even for kids who are just 6 years old. It was amazing to watch what those

little 1st graders could do. 

Technology can get students excited about school. It can give them instant access

to the Internet. It can help them visualize concepts in ways that textbooks can’t possibly match. It can open up a whole new world for students with disabilities. And

it can give all students the 21st century skills they need to succeed in a technologybased workplace. 

I could go on for hours, but I know I’m preaching to the choir. 

What I’d like to talk about today is how the federal government can help make

those things happen for schools all over the country. In particular, what can this

committee do as it writes its appropriations bill to encourage effective uses of technology? 

As you may know, the education budget is going to be extremely tight this year.

So we have to be strategic about how and where we spend the money. Should we

put it all in block grants, as the president wants to do, or should we set some aside

for priorities like teacher training and community technology centers? 

We’re fortunate to have an outstanding panel of witnesses to discuss these topics

with us today, and I’ll introduce them in a moment. We’re also very lucky to have

with us a number of the most innovative and successful education technology programs in the country. Immediately following our panel discussion, I invite you all

to move to the back of the room, where you can view demonstrations of their exciting techonolgies.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I

commend you for convening this very important hearing on technology in education. Senator Harkin and I have passed the gavel

of the chairmanship of this subcommittee several times—12 years,
4

he prompts me—I am not sure that I like it better when he is the

chairman or when I am the chairman. But come to think of it, I

think I like it better when I am the chairman—only slightly, because we have a real bi-partisan partnership. I learned a long time

ago that if you want to get anything done in Washington, you have

to cross party lines. We have taken the lead on this subcommittee

with enormous increases in funding on education as well as other

matters within the—he wants to be sure I am properly identified

on television—somebody might think I was Senator Harkin and

could cost him votes in the election cycle.

We have taken the lead on very substantial increases in funding.

Last year we added more than $6 billion to the Federal share on

funding and the addition to the National Institutes of Health is

really a landmark achievement with what NIH has accomplished

in so many lines.

But you hear so often the slogan just do not throw money at education, do not throw money at anything. So that when you move

into the technology line, then we have a real opportunity to leverage the funds we have and to try to solve some of the extraordinarily difficult problems we face in education today.

I had the benefit of schooling in a very small town in Kansas,

Russell, Kansas. Bob Dole and I come from the same little town,

and there were 98 graduates in my high school class. The debating

team was a great opportunity and classes were small.

It is a little hard for me to take a look at what goes on in my

current hometown, Philadelphia, with the problems they have in

the educational system. There has been a lot of time and attention,

but I think this issue of technology really may be the key. It really

may be the secret.

I would like to pay special recognition to Carnegie Learning, a

Pittsburgh-based firm, and one of the companies participating in

the demonstration. For the past 17 years Carnegie Learning has

been doing research and the past 10 years testing that research in

the classroom. Their learning-by-doing curricula unites students

and teachers and helps them learn together. And to recognize Miss

Libby, vice-president of Sales, who was here. Just permit me that

one parochialism.

But I want to congratulate and thank all of you for being here

today and to express my regrets that we have in an adjoining room

down the hall, actually on the second floor, a hearing on a dairy

compact, which is a matter that I have to attend.

One of the difficulties of this job is that we have many, many

hearings at the same time and it requires us to leave somewhere

we prefer to stay, but I will follow the hearing with the transcript

and through staff, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Senator Specter.

I would like to now turn to our panel of witnesses. We will start

with Dr. Honey.

I will ask if you could limit your statements to 5 to 7 minutes.

If it runs over a little bit, we will understand, but if you could do

that, it will leave time for some discussion and to see the displays

afterwards.

Again, Dr. Honey, welcome, and please proceed.
5

I might just add that all of your statements will be made a part

of the record in their entirety.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARGARET HONEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER, CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY

Dr. HONEY. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to be here this morning and in my remarks, I

have been asked to speak briefly to three questions. First, what are

the educational benefits of technology?

Second, what do we now know about how to build quality software applications?

And third, what should be the Federal Government’s role in advancing educational technology?

After more than two decades of research, we now have decisive

evidence that technology use can lead to positive effects on student

achievement.

Statewide technology implementation efforts have resulted in improved test scores when well-designed and well-implemented technologies that support literacy, mathematic and science learning result in gains for students.

With respect to a growing national concern, like accountability,

technologies have critical roles to play in helping educators to use

data effectively and efficiently to improve instruction.

Companies like Wireless Generation are pioneering the development of diagnostic software applications that teachers can use in

their everyday work to collect learning data that can lead to direct

improvement in instruction.

We have also had the pleasure of working with the Library of

Congress in developing their American Memory Fellows Program,

which brings together teachers to create and publish classroom applications that use the Library’s digitized collections in American

history.

Technologies also create new opportunities for students to express and communicate their ideas. A team of fifth and sixth graders created a website called ‘‘On My Math Applications’’ which includes information and exploration of math in connection with

music, stock market investments, travel, economic projections and

history. This site and hundreds more like it have been created by

students participating in an academic contest called ThinkQuest.

But technology in and of itself is never the answer. In more than

20 years of work, we have learned a single lesson over and over

again. No matter how well designed the technology and how creative individual teachers, if a school is not prepared to use technology well, there will be little impact on students’ learning.

Leadership, clear educational objectives, sustained professional

development, adequate technology resources and evaluations that

lead to continuous improvement are the ingredients that make

technology work.

And we need to realize that it takes time for schools to learn to

use technology as well.

Several decades of experimentation and research have also

taught us three critical lessons about effective software design. To

be effective, educational software must build upon what we know

from research on learning. It must address real challenges teachers
6

are facing and make the task at hand easier to accomplish and it

must be applicable across multiple contexts and multiple curricula

by addressing core learning challenges.

Finally, what role should the Federal Government play? Federal

involvement is critical in two respects, leadership and funding.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology has provided critical leadership in helping promote a comprehensive vision for the effective use of technology in our schools.

This office has defined and administered programs, convened national and regional conferences to bring together State and local

technology leaders, compiled and disseminated a well-researched library of best practices and put forward two national technology

plans.

Last year the Department of Education released the findings of

the expert technology panel. Of the two exemplary and five promising programs that were identified, the Federal Government originally funded all seven. The Department’s Challenge Grant Program, along with the National Science Foundation, made these and

many other innovations possible.

Other Federal initiatives are helping introduce technologies into

schools of education so that our newest teachers will be effectively

prepared to make technology a substantial partner in the learning

process.

And, of course, the E-Rate Program has resulted in a wiring of

over 1 million classrooms, the vast majority of which are in high

poverty communities.

I hope you will conclude from my testimony that we are getting

measurable results from educational technology. That we know

what it takes to make new technology programs successful, and

that the Federal Government must continue to provide leadership

and funding without which this progress would not have occurred.

I would further hope that as leaders you have the vision to realize that the progress we have made has prepared us for an entirely

new level of leadership and funding. That it may be time to conceive of an education initiative on the scale of the Apollo program

or the Genome project. Indeed, I would submit that the top rating

given to education issues in every public opinion poll suggest that

the American people have never been more ready to be captivated

by such a vision.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Within this decade it will be possible to develop the technologies

and to expand the capacity of the educational system such that

every day of school from kindergarten to college will be an intellectual adventure. It will be possible for our teachers to see clearly

how each child is progressing and it will be possible to activate all

the resources in school, at home and in our communities to ensure

that no child is left behind.

If we do this, then every other great goal we might set for this

country will surely follow.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]
7

1 2000 Research Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools. Software Information Industry Association. Washington, D.C. 2Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J. and Kottkamp, R. West Virginia Story: Achievement

Gains from a Statewide Comprehensive Instructional Technology Program. Milken Exchange on

Educational Technology, 1999. 3 2000 Research Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools. Software Information Industry Association. Washington, D.C. 4Koendinger, K., Anderson, J. Pump Algebra Project: AI and High School Math. Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1999. 5 CEO Forum. Key Building Blocks for Student Achievement in the 21st Century. Washington,

D.C. June, 2001. 6 Brunner, C. and Honey, M. Report to the Atlantic Philanthropic Trust. EDC Center for Children and Technology. July, 2001.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGARET HONEY

My name is Margaret Honey and I am a Vice President at the Education Development Center, an educational not-for-profit, and I direct EDC’s Center for Children

and Technology. Our Center, established in 1980, was one of the first groups to undertake research and development on educational technology. I have been affiliated

with the Center for 16 years and have been working in the education and technology field for more than 20 years. It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to address the committee. 

I was asked to speak to the question of what we now know about technology’s

effectiveness as a teaching and learning tool and how we might think about the role

of the Federal government in this enterprise. I have divided my remarks into three

sections, each of which addresses a specific question:

1. What have we learned about the educational benefits of technology?

2. What have we learned over several decades of experimentation about how to

build quality educational technology applications?

3. What should be the federal government’s role in advancing educational technology? 

BENEFITS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

After more than two decades of research on the benefits of educational technology

we now have decisive evidence that technology use can lead to positive effects on

student achievement.1 Specifically,

—In studies of large-scale statewide technology implementations, these efforts

have been correlated with increases in students’ performance on standardized

tests.2

—Software supporting the acquisition of early literacy skills—including phonemic

awareness, vocabulary development, reading comprehension, and spelling—can

support student learning gains.3

—Mathematics software—programs like Carnegie Learning’s Algebra Tutor, for

example, that supports experimentation and problem solving—enables students

to embrace key mathematical concepts that are otherwise difficult for many students to grasp.4

—Scientific simulations, microcomputer-based laboratories, and scientific visualization tools have all been shown to result in students’ increased understanding

of core science concepts.5

In addition, we know that technologies offer teachers and students opportunities

that would otherwise be extremely difficult to realize in classroom contexts. Assessment, information access, collaboration, and expression are four areas where educational technologies demonstrate particular promise—and there is a broad consensus among school reformers regarding the central importance of these issues for

improving student achievement. 

Assessment

With respect to assessment, technologies have critical roles to play in helping educators to use data effectively and efficiently to improve instruction.6 Companies like

Wireless Generation are pioneering the development of diagnostic software applications that teachers can use in their everyday work to collect learning data that can

lead to direct improvement in instruction. These applications can now reside on

handheld computers like Palm Pilots, making it possible for teachers to chart student progress over time, identify where a student is having trouble, and modify instruction to help the student succeed. If our goal is for schools to use data to enable

all students to achieve, then these kinds of diagnostic assessment tools are essential

in helping teachers to do this work effectively. 
8

7 Honey, M. et.al. (1996). Digital archives: Creating effective designs for elementary and secondary educators. Invited white paper prepared for the United States Department of Education.

http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/honey.html 8 http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/index.html 9http://www.thinkquest.org/

10 Honey, M., Culp, K.M., & Carrigg, F. (2000). Perspectives on technology and education research: Lessons from the past and present. Educational Computing Research (23) 1.

Information access

During the past decade we have seen a tremendous growth in the range of archival materials that are available on the web. Digital archives have been and continue

to be developed by museums, libraries, scientific and other archival institutions.

These collections are among the most exciting resources driving educational interest

in information and multimedia technologies. Collections as diverse as National Center for Supercomputing’s Astronomy Digital Image Library and the holdings of the

Louvre Museum have been digitized and provide classroom teachers and their students with access to artifacts and information previously available only to specialized scholars or academic researchers. They give teachers and students opportunities to work with an extraordinary array of authentic materials and up-to-date information that would not find their way into classrooms were it not for the growth and

development of technologies.7 Access to this data literally gives all schools—regardless of their geography or wealth—the potential to have libraries of unparalleled collections and connections to the same materials that our nation’s greatest universities have. 

Collaboration

Technologies offer many other opportunities to teachers and students. Consider,

for example, the issue of collaboration. Teachers are the one professional group in

our society that is largely isolated from colleagues during the working day. Phones

in classrooms are uncommon at best and shared planning time for teachers is rare

in most schools. Much of our work at the Center for Children and Technology has

focused on using the communications capabilities of the Internet to develop new

models for teacher professional development and collaboration that have the potential for providing teachers with networks of support. 

We have worked, for example, with the Library of Congress to develop the American Memory Fellows program.8 This program brings teams of teachers together in

both virtual and face-to-face learning communities to develop, test, and publish creative classroom applications that make use of the Library’s digitized collections in

American History. Teachers learn how to work with primary-source archives that

include photographs, pamphlets, films, and audio recordings from American history

and culture. Technology makes access to these materials possible and enables teachers to work together to build lesson plans and curriculum for their classrooms. 

Expression

Technologies also create new opportunities in which kids can express and communicate their ideas. It is no longer uncommon for schools to encourage reports in

multimedia format or for students to build web resources that can be used by others. A team of fifth and sixth graders, for example, created a website called ‘‘Online

Math Applications’’ which includes information and exploration of math in connection with music, stock market investments, travel, economic projections and history.

They use online calculators, stories, problems, simulations and demonstrations to

teach their peers. This site and hundreds more have been created by students participating in an academic contest called ThinkQuest.TM 9

The importance of context

There are thousands of examples of work being done in schools with technology

that lead to important gains in student learning. What is most important, however,

is that we recognize that technology will not result in measurable gains unless the

school context is receptive and well organized for technology use. In more than 20

years of work, we have learned a single lesson over and over again—school context

is a critical factor in determining the degree to which educators can creatively and

deeply use technology. No matter how well designed the technology, how comprehensive the training program, and how creative individual teachers are, if they

work in a context that is not supportive of and receptive to the use of technology

for instructional purposes the technology will have little impact on students’ learning.10

We have learned through our work with numerous school districts around the

country, that if technologies are to be used to support real gains in educational out-
9

11 Honey, M., & McMillan-Culp, K. (2000). Scale and localization: The challenge of implementing what works. Paper presented at Wingspread conference, ‘‘Technology’s Role in Urban

School Reform: Achieving Equity and Quality,’’ Racine, WI., October 12–14, 2000. 12President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology. ‘‘Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K–12 Education in the

United States. 1997.’’ The National Educational Technology Plan. ‘‘E-Learning: Putting a WorldClass Education at the Fingertips of All Children.’’ U.S. Department of Education. December,

2000. Web-Based Education Commission. The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving From

Promise to Practice. Report to the President and Congress of the United States, 2000. 13http://www.schooldata.com/pr22.html

comes, then five factors must be in place and these factors must work in concert

with each other.11

1. There must be leadership around technology use that is anchored in solid educational objectives. Simply placing technologies in schools does little good. Effective

technology use is always targeted at specific educational objectives; whether for literacy or science learning, focus is the key to success.

2. There must be sustained and intensive professional development that takes

place in the service of the core vision, not simply around technology for its own sake,

and this development must be a process that needs to be embedded in the culture

of schools.

3. There must be adequate technology resources in the school including hardware

and technical support to keep things running smoothly.

4. There must be recognition that real change and lasting results take time.

5. And, finally evaluations must be conducted that enable school leaders and

teachers to determine whether they are realizing their goals, and how to adjust if

necessary. 

EFFECTIVE SOFTWARE DESIGN

Several decades of experimentation and research in developing educational software have also taught us some critical lessons. To be effective educational software

must accomplish three things. It must:

—Build upon what we know from research about the key areas of knowledge acquisition, including both concepts and procedures, which children must master.

Carnegie Learning’s Algebra Tutor and Wireless Generation’s Diagnostic Reading Assessment are both examples of software applications that are substantially grounded in research about how students learn algebra and how they

master early literacy strategies.

—Address real challenges that teachers are facing, and make the task at hand

easier to accomplish. The most effective software is always developed in collaboration with teachers and is based on extensive research done in classrooms, to

ensure both usefulness and effectiveness. IBM’s Reinventing Education Partnerships are a very promising model in this regard.

—Be applicable across multiple contexts and multiple curricula by addressing core

learning challenges, not curriculum specific skills and tasks. It should not matter, for example, whether my district uses a balanced literacy curriculum or one

that emphasizes teaching phonics. Effective educational software should support

the processes associated with learning how to read and be applicable regardless

of any specific instructional approach. 

THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The Federal role in educational technology is critical in two respects: leadership

and funding. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology

has provided critical leadership in helping promote a comprehensive vision for the

effective use of technology in our schools. This office has defined and administered

programs, convened national and regional conferences to bring together state and

local technology leaders, compiled and disseminated a well-research library of bestpractices information, and put forward two national technology plans.12

The Federal Government has also been an essential partner in technology funding. Thirty-five percent of all educational technology funding has been federal. This

is a remarkable figure when compared to the 6.6 percent that the federal government contributes overall to education funding.13 And the results have been pronounced. Last year the Department of Education released the findings of the Expert

Technology Panel. Of the two exemplary and five promising programs that were

identified, the federal government originally funded all seven. The Department’s

Challenge Grant Program along with the National Science Foundation made these

and many other innovations possible. Other federal initiatives are helping introduce

technology into schools of education so that our newest teachers will be effectively
10

14 CEO Forum. Key Building Blocks for Student Achievement in the 21st Century. Washington,

D.C. June, 2001. 

prepared to make technology a substantial partner in the learning process. And, of

course, the E-Rate program has resulted in the wiring of over one million classrooms, the vast majority of which are in high poverty communities.14

CONCLUSION

I hope you will conclude from my testimony that we are getting measurable results from educational technology, that we know what it takes to make new educational technology programs successful, and that the Federal Government must

continue to provide the leadership and funding without which this progress would

not have occurred. 

I would further hope that the leaders in this room have the vision to realize that

the progress we have made has prepared us for an entirely new level of leadership

and funding—that it may be time to conceive of an education initiative on the scale

of the Apollo Program or the Genome Project. Indeed, I would submit that the top

rating given to education issues in every public opinion poll suggests that the American people have never been more ready to be captivated by such a vision. 

Within this decade it will be possible to develop the technologies and to expand

the capacity of the educational system, such that every day of school—from kindergarten through college—will be an intellectual adventure tailored to each student’s

particular learning needs. It will be possible for our teachers to see clearly how each

child is progressing, and it will be possible to activate all of the resources in school,

at home, and in our communities to ensure that no child is left behind. 

If we do this, then every other great goal we might set for this country surely

will follow. 

Thank you.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Dr. Honey. And now we will turn

to Gail Maxwell of Griswold Community School District.

STATEMENT OF GAIL MAXWELL, TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIST, GRISWOLD COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, GRISWOLD, IOWA, AND

THE WAITT/HARKIN INNOVATION TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGE

GRANT

Ms. MAXWELL. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here today to

discuss the integration of technology in our schools. I am a technology strategist for the Griswold Community School District in

Griswold, Iowa. It is a small rural consolidated district with approximately seven hundred students.

A little over a year ago we received the Waitt Harkin Technology

Challenge Grant. It is a 3-year grant in conjunction with the Walnut Grove Elementary School in Council Bluffs, Iowa and the Loess

Hills Area Education Agency in Council Bluffs.

The objective of our grant is to improve student learning through

the effective use of technology in the primary grades in both a

rural and urban setting. The key components of our grant are staff

development to build a vision of what technology should be in our

schools. Awareness and utilization of teaching strategies that create student-centered project-based classrooms and the effective use

of equipment and software.

The objectives of our two elementary buildings in Griswold are

to enhance reading comprehension and interactive and independent

writing.

When we began our grant we decided that we did not want to

isolate students by putting just one student at a computer. We

wanted to encourage hands-on learning and we wanted to develop

higher learning/thinking skills. With this in mind, we purchased

one laptop with wireless access for every two students so that they
11

would work in pairs or small groups and software that was conducive to student-based, project-based learning.

We have ongoing staff development, which is very important. We

meet 1 day a month, at least, and often 3 to 4 days during the

summer.

My position is to provide the staff development for the teachers,

assist them in planning and integration and be available daily in

the classrooms with the teachers and students.

The evaluation of our grant is done by the Metiri Group of Los

Angeles, California. They are looking to establish a correlation between project activities and student learning. They are also measuring the impact of this project on the educator’s vision for the role

of technology in the curriculum, advances in teacher proficiency

using teaching strategies involving technology and changes in the

learning environment.

We have had many successes in this first year of our grant. The

most important success is the enthusiasm for learning shown by

the students. They took immediate ownership and pride. They stay

on Task Monger when using their laptops. Their reading levels are

higher when they are engaged in accessing information with them.

And their writing has become more proficient.

The teachers began to do in-depth projects such as WebQuest involving research skills, collaboration and higher-level thinking.

When we began this project, our objectives were to improve reading comprehension and writing skills.

At the end of our first year, we saw growth not only in those

areas, but also in what are called 21st century skills; collaboration,

research skills, technology skills and student self-direction. These

are now a focus for our grant and will be included in the evaluation. The students in the grant were far better in these skills than

the students not involved in our grant, who only used a lab on a

scheduled basis. What works for technology in the schools is having

it readily available in the classrooms on a daily basis.

One of the main obstacles that we met was time. It takes a lot

of time for teachers to plan and create lessons and implement them

fully in a day that is already very full for them.

We also had an obstacle in time and resources for teachers to attend professional conferences and workshops or visit innovative

sites integrating technology.

Another obstacle that we met was seamless integration. The

teachers often felt they were giving up necessary teaching to incorporate technology instead of using the technology to teach the necessary skills. This improved during the year and will continue to

improve with time, use and further training.

We will face our biggest obstacle at the end of the grant. We will

have students that have had state-of-the-art technology available to

them in their classrooms, but at the end of our 3 years, we will be

faced with obsolete laptops, software that needs to be upgraded and

limited funds to carry on the project because of declining enrollment, cuts in State funding and looming budget cuts.

Because of our successes and our obstacles, these are our recommendations for the Federal Government.

Please assume a leadership role in providing the vision of what

effective, seamless integration should be in the schools. Stress the
12

importance of teaching 21st century skills in conjunction with basic

learning. Continue to fund innovative projects, not just equipment

and connectivity, but personnel and training. Then continue to

fund those projects, if successful, so schools are not forced to discontinue them. Establish pilot sites throughout the country that effectively and seamlessly integrate technology in the classrooms.

Provide beginning teachers entering the field with pre-service opportunities in technology integration. Continue to fund the E-Rate,

which provides discounts for Internet and phone services and frees

money that can be used for technology in other ways.

Because of the funding of the Federal Government and The

Waitt Family Foundation, we have many plans for our remaining

2 years of the grant. We will continue to work towards that seamless integration of technology in our classrooms. We will publish

our work, equalize the access of students that do not have computers at home, stay on the cutting edge of instructional technology

and assist other schools in technology integration.

PREPARED STATEMENT

We hope the Federal Government continues to provide the vision,

leadership and funding in educational technology so that all schools

can provide equal access to technology and that they use this technology correctly as a tool to enhance learning in the classroom.

I invite any of you to visit our classrooms in Griswold to see technology integration in action.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GAIL MAXWELL

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here

today to discuss educational technology. I am a technology strategist for the Griswold Community School District in Griswold, Iowa, and am coordinating the Waitt/

Harkin Technology Grant in our two elementary schools. Our district is a consolidated rural district with an enrollment of approximately 700 students. The Waitt/

Harkin Grant is a three-year Technology Innovation Challenge Grant, matched by

the Waitt Family Foundation. It is shared by Walnut Grove Elementary School in

Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Lewis and Elliott Elementary Schools from the Griswold

Community School District, and is in cooperation with the Loess Hills Area Education Agency of Council Bluffs, Iowa. We have just completed the first year of this

grant. The project has created demonstration sites where best practices in technology utilization are integrated into primary classrooms in both rural and urban

settings. In the Lewis and Elliott Elementaries the first year of the grant began

with our multi-age classrooms, which are combination first and second grades. We

will add third grade during the second year and fourth grade during the third year

while maintaining the technology in the previous classrooms. 

The main objective of the grant is to improve essential student learning through

the effective integration of technology into the existing curriculum. The purpose is

to demonstrate the effective use of technology in the primary grades. There is not

much research available to show the effectiveness of technology in primary grades

so this grant is valuable in providing needed data. 

The key components of the grant are:

—Staff Development to build a vision of what is possible

—Awareness and utilization of teaching strategies that create student centered,

project based classrooms (Project-based learning is a learner-centered teaching

approach that draws on aspects of task-based learning, project work, and selfinstruction. This type of instruction is built around activities or projects designed by the teacher or student.)

—Effective use of equipment and software 

The objectives for Lewis and Elliott Elementary Schools are:

—Students will engage in activities, which will enhance reading comprehension.
13

—Students will engage in activities, which will enhance interactive and independent writing. 

Strategies have been developed to meet these objectives. 

Decisions for the grant were based on research done prior to implementation. In

our research we found that there were arguments that technology use in the primary grades would cause isolation by putting students in front of computers to do

skill-based software. Students at that age need socialization, hands-on learning, and

the development of thinking skills. Taking that into consideration we provided one

wireless laptop for every two students in our multi-age classrooms so they would

work in pairs or small groups. We wanted to make sure the technology was not used

by itself but as a tool to improve student learning. Our major focus is student-based,

project-based learning so the software available is conducive to this focus. The

laptops are wireless so the students have access to the Internet, the server, and the

printers from anywhere within the buildings. This access makes a large change in

the learning environment, making integration of technology much easier. We have

digital cameras, video cameras, scanners, video projection units, and microscopes

available for the classrooms. With all of this state of the art technology available,

hands-on learning and the development of thinking and problem solving skills are

encouraged. The most important key to success in this project, though, is on going

staff development to create the vision of seamless technology integration. My position is provided by the grant to provide this staff development and to assist the

teachers in planning and integrating the technology correctly into the curriculum

and their classrooms. By being available to the teachers daily I can create a supportive safety net for teachers and create the staff development as the staff is ready

for the next step in technology integration. During the first year of the grant I have

taken a lead role in the classroom in developing the vision and modeling instruction

that integrates technology. During the second year my role will be a team teacher

for the classes and in the third year I will be a consultant while still providing staff

development and support. 

The Metiri Group, a technology policy, research and consulting firm, from Santa

Monica, CA, is evaluating the grant. The major focus of the evaluation will be to

establish a correlation between the project activities and student learning in the primary grades. It will also measure the impact of the project on educators’ vision for

the role of technology within the curriculum, advances in teacher proficiency using

teaching strategies involving technology, and changes in the learning environment. 

We have had a very successful first year. At first it was difficult for the teachers

to integrate the technology into their lessons. The teachers were receptive to the

technology but they considered it something ‘‘extra’’ to ‘‘add’’ to their day. They did

not use the laptops unless I was in the room to lead the lesson. They soon became

more comfortable with the technology available in their rooms and realized it could

enhance their lessons and provide valuable resources. This happened quickly because the students learned rapidly. It took these first and second graders little time

to learn to use the tap and scroll features of a track pad, to access programs and

the Internet, and to save work to a folder on the server. They took immediate ownership of the laptops, showing pride, enthusiasm and great care in their use of

them. 

The teachers began to take ownership by planning lessons that integrated the

technology. They learned to look at their curriculum and objectives and plan ways

technology could enhance and extend a lesson in ways that would not be possible

without technology. By the end of the school year you could walk by at almost anytime and see the laptops being used in small groups, centers, or whole group lessons

as comfortably as pencil and paper. The teachers did more in-depth projects involving research skills, collaboration, and higher-level thinking. Webquests, which are

activities in which information that learners interact with comes from resources on

the Internet and encourages critical thinking, cooperative learning, authentic assessment, and technology integration, were often used. Students were no longer

being sent to the lab or a single classroom computer to play a game or ‘‘do’’ a program. The learning became authentic with specific tasks tied to the curriculum and

its standards. 

When we began this project our objectives were to enhance reading comprehension and writing. At the end of the year we saw student growth in what are called

21st Century Skills:

—Collaboration

—Research skills (Accessing, Processing and Communicating Information)

—Technology skills

—Student self-direction

—Paraphrasing at high levels 
14

These will now become a focus for the grant and its evaluation. We also saw an

enthusiasm for learning. The students remained on task for longer periods of time

when using the laptops. When the students were engaged in accessing information

with their laptops their reading levels were higher. We also saw the students working together to solve problems. At first, working in pairs resulted in one student

dominating the learning and in arguments. By the end of the year we saw collaboration and problem solving with each pair or group. 

We contribute the success of the program to an enthusiastic team that works together and we believe this is a necessary element of successful technology use in

the schools:

—Teachers connect technology, instructional strategies, and content to student

growth.

—The technology strategist partners with classroom teachers in identifying resources, planning, teaching and evaluation of lessons, projects, and activities.

—The administration provides leadership and support for the project, monitors

progress, makes suggestions and recommendations, and keeps the project objectives on track.

—The technology coordinator maintains the infrastructure and hardware/software

performance.

—The Area Education Agency Consultants assist in staff development planning

and implementation and act in a consulting capacity.

—The parents provide support for the grant goals and objectives by having a high

degree of involvement. 

This project would not have been successful, or even possible without the funding

of the federal government and the Waitt Family Foundation. 

The main obstacle we encounter is time. Teachers have so many demands on

them and are expected to do more each year in the same amount of time. It is hard

to find time to plan and create lessons and implement them fully. We are also faced

with finding the time and resources for our teachers in our rural area to attend professional conferences and staff development opportunities or to visit innovative sites

that integrate technology effectively. Even though the teachers feel they are doing

a good job of using the technology correctly they know they are not doing it as

seamlessly as possible. They still feel they are ‘‘giving up’’ some necessary teaching

to incorporate the technology. This seamless integration will become easier with use,

but the teachers also need to be able to increase their knowledge base by attending

conferences and workshops and by visiting other innovative classrooms. 

Another obstacle we will face will be at the end of our three-year grant. We will

have students who have had the opportunity of having state of the art technology

readily available in their classrooms. When they enter 5th grade in 2003 they will

not have laptops in their classrooms. They will need to go to the computer lab. During this first year of the grant we have found that computer labs are not nearly

as conducive to technology integration. The teachers involved in the grant have realized it is much easier and more successful to integrate the technology when it is

available at all times in their classrooms. Computers in the classroom are accessible

when students and teachers need them (you can not always schedule a lab when

it is needed), they become part of the learning environment, they allow flexibility,

you can take advantage of teachable moments, and they are easy to monitor by

teachers. By the end of the school year I saw a large gap in technology skills between the students involved in the grant who had access to computers at all times

and those students not in the grant who had to use the lab. We need to continue

to provide technology in the classrooms, as well as staff development and leadership

in technology integration. It would be worthwhile to provide this technology in all

of our classrooms and then track these first graders throughout their education to

see the difference it has made in learning. 

At the end of our three years we will also be faced with replacing or updating

obsolete laptops and upgrading software. With declining enrollments, cuts in state

funding (we lost approximately $30,000 in technology funds for 2001–2002), and

looming budget cuts, it will be hard to maintain this worthwhile project. We will

have collected data for the use of technology in primary classrooms but we need to

maintain the use in these classrooms by keeping the technology current. Grants are

great but what happens when they run out and the districts cannot afford to continue the project? 

From our successes and from our obstacles I offer the following suggestions for

the federal government:

—Assume a leadership role in providing the vision of what effective, seamless integration of technology should be in the schools. Stress the importance of teaching 21st Century skills in conjunction with the basic learning needed in schools.
15

—Continue to fund innovative projects, with funding being provided not only for

the equipment but also for personnel and staff development to assure the success of the project. Then continue to fund those projects, if successful, so that

schools are not forced to discontinue them for lack of money.

—Establish pilot sites throughout the country that effectively and seamlessly integrate technology.

—Provide beginning teachers entering the field with pre-service opportunities in

technology integration.

—Continue to fund the e-rate, which provides discounts for Internet and phone

services and frees up money that can be used for technology in other ways. 

In conclusion, I want to share our future plans for the grant. We will continue

to work towards seamless integration of technology, publish teachers’ projects and

student work on the Internet, equalize the access of students who do not have computers at home, stay on the cutting edge of instructional technology, and share our

work and assist other schools in technology integration. We hope the federal government continues to provide the vision, leadership and funding in educational technology so that all schools can provide equal access to technology and that they learn

to use the technology correctly as a tool to enhance learning.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Ms. Maxwell. Now we will turn to

Cheryl Williams, president of The International Society for Technology in Education. Ms. Williams.

STATEMENT OF CHERYL WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION (ISTE)

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

address you today to share my thoughts about the importance of

strong Federal leadership in support of education.

Senator HARKIN. Cheryl, would you pull in that mike and just

speak right into it?

Ms. WILLIAMS. OK, my teacher voice was not working. Is that

better?

Senator HARKIN. That is good.

Ms. WILLIAMS. I am currently president of the International Society for Technology and Education or ISTE. I am also vice-president

for Education at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

For 25 years I have been involved in education; the last 15 of

which were around issues surrounding education technology and

school improvement. Most recently, as director of Education Technology Programs at the National School Boards Association, and as

chairman of the Board of The Consortium for School Networking

or COSN.

Today, however, I am testifying solely in my capacity as president of ISTE. ISTE and its affiliates represent a large and diverse

membership that includes more than 75,000 teachers, technology

coordinators, administrators and other education technology professionals.

Our mission is to promote appropriate uses of information technology to support and improve learning, teaching and administration in K–12 education and colleges of education.

Today I will highlight five issues that ISTE would like you to

consider as you prepare to make appropriations for fiscal year 2002

and beyond.

First ISTE strongly supports full funding for the new Federal

Education Technology Block Grant. Over the past several years,

strong and sustained Federal investment in education technology

has played a critical role in the deployment of hardware, software,

Internet connections and technology training to schools and libraries nationwide.
16

Two programs that have been of great assistance are the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the Technology Innovation

Challenge Grant. This Federal involvement has paid off. During

this same time period student-to-computer ratios have improved

from 12 to 1 in 1998 to 7 to 1 as of 2000. Under both versions of

the House and Senate ESEA Reauthorization bills, a number of

Federal education technology programs, including the Technology

Literacy Challenge Fund and the Technology Innovation Challenge

Grant, would be consolidated into a single block grant and authorized at $1 billion annually. It is ISTE’s view that the education

technology block grant programs in both versions of the ESEA retain the same goals as their predecessors. When this subcommittee

considers appropriations for the new block grant, we urge you to

continue Congress’s critical commitment to 21st century learning

and fully fund the Education Technology Block Grant.

Second, the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to use Technology

Program or PT3 has been very successful in building models to

help pre-service teachers learn to incorporate technology into education and should be authorized and fully funded. ISTE believes

that it is vital that the new generation of educators receive ample

pre-service training in the basics of technology operation and curricula integration before they enter the classroom. The PT3 Program provides competitive partnership grants to promote collaborations among pre-service teachers, higher education and real world

classrooms.

In 1999 ISTE, in collaboration with education groups and others,

was awarded PT3 funds to develop a series of education technology

standards for students, teachers, and school administrators known

as The National Education Technology Standards Project or NETS.

For both students and teachers, the NETS project provides guidance on the technology skills that each should have acquired at

various points in their education and professional development. At

least 26 States already have adopted these standards.

The final component of the NETS project, Technology Standards

for School Administrators, will be released this fall.

ISTE fervently hopes that the final ESEA package will contain

a separate authorization for PT3. We strongly urge this subcommittee to fully fund this program.

Third, the success in getting technology to the classroom means

that we need increased funding for broader research on education

technology. ISTE believes that OERI should be directed to pursue

a new research agenda that will deepen educators’ understanding

of cognition and the impact of technology on the learning process.

Further, ISTE proposes the Federal Government establish an

education technology clearinghouse for research and best practices.

Fourth, ISTE believes that three other education technology programs merit full funding. The Ready to Learn Program provides

funding for research-based non-commercial education television

programming and online resources for young children. Ready to

Learn Program funds have helped launch such critically acclaimed

programs as Sesame Workshops, Dragon Tales and WGBH in Boston’s Between the Lions. Also the Star Schools Program has provided distance education opportunities to more than two million

students in six thousand schools nationwide.
17

And finally, the Community Technology Centers Program assists

low-income urban and rural communities to gain access to technology by providing grants to public housing facilities, community

centers and libraries.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Fifth and last, the E-Rate Program has been extremely successful and should be maintained in its current structure. The E-Rate

Program has already provided over $6 billion in discounts on telecommunications services, Internet access and internal connections

to public and private schools and public libraries nationwide. The

E-Rate has helped ensure that virtually every library and school

building has at least one Internet connection and that 77 percent

of all public school classrooms have Internet access. And it has

done all this without receiving any Federal funds, relying instead

on the Universal Service Fund. We request that your Subcommittee not include in your Bill any language that would adversely impact the E-Rate or its funding stream.

Thank you again for this opportunity to address you today. I am

available to answer any questions you may have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHERYL WILLIAMS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity

to address you today to share my thoughts about the importance of federal support

for education technology. My name is Cheryl Williams, and I am President of the

International Society for Technology in Education—ISTE. I am also Vice-President

for Education at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. For twenty-five years, I

have been involved with issues surrounding education technology and public school

improvement. In my previous position as Director of Educational Technology Programs for the National School Boards Association, I collaborated with school district

administrators and school board members to plan and implement education technology programs. Additionally, I oversaw numerous education technology-related

publications and organized the annual Technology ∂ Learning Conference, one of

the largest annual education technology convenings in the country. While with

NSBA, I also served as Chairman of the Board for the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN). In my current position with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I oversee the development and coordination of the Corporation’s educational

projects in conjunction with partners from across the learning community. Today,

I am testifying solely in my capacity as President of ISTE. 

One of the highlights of my career was my recent election as President of ISTE,

the leading organization for education technology professionals. ISTE and its affiliates have a large and diverse membership that includes more than 75,000 teachers,

technology coordinators, administrators, and other ed-tech professionals. Our mission is to promote appropriate uses of information technology to support and improve learning, teaching, and administration in K–12 education and colleges of education. In furtherance of this mission, we have placed ourselves at the forefront of

the technology standards movement through our National Educational Technology

Standards Project (NETS), which has developed a series of influential standards for

student achievement, teacher skills, and the academic environment. We also provide

research, evaluation, and consulting services to school districts, public agencies, private foundations, and universities. Finally, ISTE has been a strong advocate on

Capitol Hill for the use of technology in teaching and learning because we believe

that federal leadership in this area is crucial if students, educators, and administrators are to reap the full benefits of the Information Age.

Today, I will highlight five issues that ISTE would like you to consider as you

prepare to make appropriations for fiscal year 2002 and beyond. 

First, ISTE strongly supports full funding for the new federal educational technology block grant.—Over the past several years, strong and sustained federal investment in education technology has played a critical role in the deployment of

hardware, software, Internet connections, and technology training to schools and libraries nationwide. In the past three years alone, Congress has appropriated nearly
18

$1.7 billion for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) and the Technology

Innovation Challenge Grant (TICG), two federal programs that support school district efforts to develop technology plans, acquire hardware and software, engage in

teacher training, and create innovative technology applications. And this federal involvement has paid-off: during this same time period, student to computer ratios

have improved from 12 to 1 in 1998 to 7 to 1 as of 2000. Teacher access to professional development on technology has also improved: as of 1999, over 90 percent of

all teachers have access to some technology-related professional development. 

Beyond mere statistics, though, these programs have had a profound affect on the

school districts that have been fortunate enough to receive grants:

—In Phoenix, Arizona, a grant from the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant

(TICG) program funded an ‘‘Assessment server’’—an online resource that allows

teachers to construct customized tests to provide students immediate feedback.

This classic ‘‘drill and practice’’ application turned out to be particularly useful

in teaching ESL students, who oftentimes are afraid to participate in class and

thus may not receive the special attention that they need. Because of this program, these students are now receiving consistent feedback and many are now

earning passing grades for the first time.

—Funds from a TICG grant have also launched Project Gen Y in Olympia, Washington, an innovative professional development project that allows students and

teachers to collaborate on developing a technology-enriched lesson plan.

Through Project Gen Y, mentor teachers work with students to develop technology, communication, and project management skills, and students then work

with one of their regular teachers to develop a lesson plan. Students in grades

3–12, working for a semester or a year, have completed more than 3,000

projects, spanning all subject areas. In this student-centered model, students

gain advanced skills in leadership, communication, and critical thinking, as well

a deep familiarity with the subject content, while their teachers learn technical

skills and new teaching methods.

—In New York, a Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) grant funded

Project Accelerate, which put New York’s state educational standards online in

a form accessible to teachers, and tied them to a series of online courses aimed

at preparing teachers to use these standards. The online courses include

streaming video and interactive modes, and are linked to curriculum and lesson

plans. New features include web authoring tools, student tutorials, and survey

instruments, with more are being added all the time. Through Project Accelerate, teachers, administrators, students and parents, from public schools and

private schools, can interact with one another, and improve the learning experience for everyone.

—In northern Pennsylvania, the Jersey Shore Area School District used TLCF

funds to increase parental involvement and tailor curriculum to individual students. Parents can check their children’s progress on the Internet, using a secure online grade book, starting with the 2001–2002 school year. Parents also

have ready access to the teachers via email, voicemail, and a special Homework

Hotline.

—One of the most innovative school computing implementations in the country

came from state funding to the Lemon Grove School District in California. In

this district with a high number of ESL and at-risk students, technology has

freed teachers to teach and students to learn—and student standardized test

scores in math and reading have risen significantly as a result. Many of the biggest gains have come from students who originally had some of the lowest test

scores. Lemon Grove’s success has come from involving parents, teachers, and

students. Extensive staff development has prepared teachers to use the technology, developing web-based instruction and building research sites for students. Parents can access lessons, assignments, and school news, through inexpensive server-based thin-clients that work on a wide variety of devices—computers, hand-held devices, and others. And students—with greater access to

technology, and a trained teaching staff—are using technology to learn. In

Lemon Grove, even first graders are creating PowerPoint presentations and giving them to other children. 

Under both versions of the House and Senate Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization bills that the House-Senate Conference Committee is considering currently, a number of federal education technology programs,

including the TLCF and the TICG, would be consolidated into a single block grant

and authorized at $1 billion annually. It is ISTE’s view that the education technology block grant programs in both the House and Senate versions retain the same

goals as their predecessor programs: equipping our nation’s schools with advanced

technology and affording them opportunities to develop innovative technology strate-
19

gies and programs to improve teaching and learning. We have come a long way in

the past decade but the task is far from complete. Current teachers continue to have

insufficient familiarity and comfort with using technology in the classroom and limited ability to integrate Internet resources into the curriculum. Most teachers with

more than 10 years’ experience received little or no college preparation to effectively

utilize technology in the classroom. When this Subcommittee considers appropriations for this new block grant, we urge you to continue Congress’ critical commitment to 21st century learning and fully fund the education technology block grant. 

Second, the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to use Technology program—PT3—has

been very successful in building models to help pre-service teachers learn to incorporate technology into education, and should be authorized and fully funded.—Even

with the great strides that schools and libraries have made in acquiring adequate

hardware and software and connecting to the Internet, the full benefit of education

technology cannot be realized if teachers are not trained to use technology and to

integrate it into their daily classroom activities. A 1999 survey by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics showed that nearly

two-thirds of all teachers felt that they were not prepared or only somewhat prepared to use technology in their teaching. With 2.2 million teachers expected to be

hired over the next decade to fill new positions and replace retiring teachers, ISTE

believes that it is vital that this new generation of educators receive ample pre-service training in the basics of technology operation and curricular integration before

they enter their classrooms. 

The federal government has already demonstrated that it recognizes this need

through its dedication of substantial resources to the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) program. Established as an unauthorized program in

1999 and funded at $275 million over the past three fiscal years, the PT3 program

provides competitive grants to partnerships of school districts, colleges of education,

states, industry and others to support innovative programs that promote collaboration among pre-service teachers, higher education, and real-world classrooms. The

program is focused on problems identified by research, guided by comprehensive

evaluation, and devoted to developing scalable models of effective uses of technology

to teach. 

ISTE, as a recipient of a PT3 grant, knows first-hand the value of this federal

investment. In 1999, ISTE in collaboration with education groups, curriculum organizations, government entities, foundations, and corporations, was awarded PT3

funds to develop a series of education technology standards for students, teachers,

and school administrators, known as the National Education Technology Standards

project (NETS). For students, the NETS project created profiles of technology-literate students at key developmental points—e.g. grades PreK–2, grades 3–5—that

describe the technology competence that students should exhibit at the completion

of each grade. Similarly, the NETS standards for teachers include standards for preservice teacher education, which provide guidance on the skills that they should

have acquired at various points in their education. For instance, upon completion

of the general preparation component of their program, pre-service teachers should

be able to use content-specific tools to support learning and research, and use productivity tools for collaborative work. At least 23 states already have adopted these

standards and numerous universities use these standards in their accrediting processes. The final component of the NETS project, technology standards for school administrators, will be released this fall. Although still a work in progress, the new

NETS standards will guide administrators in overseeing and implementing education technology: developing a technology plan, basing decisions on sound data, and

confronting the social and ethical implications of technology applications. 

More typically, though, PT3 grant recipients are consortia of local school districts

and colleges of education that use these funds to develop model pre-service professional development programs. The University of Northern Iowa, for example, received a PT3 grant to video-document classroom teachers, and allow pre-service

teachers to study, via streaming video, the classroom teachers in action. The preservice teachers then evaluate their own ability to use technology in the classroom

using the NETS standards as a benchmark. Another example comes from Mississippi, where a PT3 grant funded Project T-n-T, which is designed to foster the

relationships between pre-service teachers at Mississippi State University and rural

public schools. Project T-n-T encourages pre-service teachers and supervising teachers to collaborate on effective uses of technology in the classroom and produce video

simulations and online teacher handbooks on best practices. Finally, each year in

rural northwestern Pennsylvania, a PT3 grant to the ADEPTT Consortium of three

public universities allows more than 1,500 pre-service teachers gain competencies

in video conferencing, databases, and the use of the Internet in teaching. 
20

Since its birth in 1999, PT3 has been operated by the U.S. Department of Education as an unauthorized program and has been generously supported by Congress

during the appropriations process. During this year’s ESEA reauthorization debate,

the Senate adopted in Committee an amendment offered by Senators Jeff Bingaman

and Pat Roberts that would separately authorize the program for 6 years with an

authorization level of $150 million. ISTE fervently hopes that the final ESEA package that emerges from the House-Senate Conference will contain this separate authorization. We also strongly urge this Subcommittee, when it sets its fiscal year

2002 appropriations level, to take into account the pressing need for PT3 as well

as the impressive record of achievement it has built in its short history, and fully

fund this program. 

Third, the success in getting technology to the classroom means that we need increased funding for broader research on education technology.—Since education is

ordinarily not a for-profit enterprise, the federal government must take upon itself

the responsibility for the majority of education research. The federal government

has tasked the Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI) with the responsibility of conducting in-depth studies of classroom resources and education improvement programs. Last year, OERI received an appropriation of $382.1 million

to run its network of research institutes and regional education laboratories, operate

the National Center for Education Statistics, prepare and administer the National

Assessment of Education Progress survey, and disseminate research via the National Library of Education and the Education Resources Information Clearinghouse. 

With OERI expected to be reauthorized this year, ISTE is compelled to seize on

this opportunity to acknowledge the important contributions to education research

that OERI’s regional laboratories and research institutes have made, and to advocate for continued federal support for it through the appropriations process. During

the coming reauthorization process, ISTE also intends to lobby for Congress to mandate that OERI pursue a new research agenda that will deepen educators’ understanding of cognition and the impact of technology on the learning process, and further their ability to develop and evaluate new education practices. Further, ISTE

will propose that the federal government establish an education technology clearinghouse for research and best practices, so that local and state-level educators have

access to the latest research and most effective instructional models. 

A strong research agenda is key to fully exploiting the potential of technology to

transform education. Therefore, ISTE supports funding specific research and dissemination of results and best practices. 

Fourth, the Ready to Learn, Star Schools and Community Technology Centers programs represent excellent and varied uses of technology to deliver education and deserve continued support.—ISTE would be remiss if it not pay tribute to three other

programs that foster the use of technology in teaching and learning, that we believe

deserve to be reauthorized separately, and that merit full funding: the Ready to

Learn program, the Star Schools program, and the Community Technology Centers

program. The Ready to Learn program, which received appropriations of $16 million

in each of the last two fiscal years, represents Congress’ continuing investment in

the development of research based, non-commercial, education television programming and online resources for young children. Ready to Learn program funds have

helped launch such critically acclaimed programs as Sesame Workshop’s Dragon

Tales and WGBH in Boston’s Between the Lions, as well as aided PBS’s efforts to

create a series of high-quality interactive online resources for kids, and materials

for adults to use to supplement PBS broadcast programming. The Star Schools program, which has provided distance education opportunities to more than 2 million

students in 6,000 schools nationwide, funds the use of satellites, cable, and the

Internet to provide normally inaccessible education content to small rural and urban

schools. For the current fiscal year, Congress appropriated $59 million for this program and we believe that it should be fully funded in fiscal year 2002. Finally, the

Community Technology Centers program assists low-income urban and rural communities to gain access to technology by providing grants to public housing facilities,

community centers and libraries. Despite its considerable success, efforts have been

made to either eliminate it or transport it from the U.S. Department of Education

to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We applaud the efforts of

Senator Barbara Mikulski to separately authorize this program and expand its

funding. ISTE believes that these three programs are time-tested and worthy of continued federal support. 

Fifth and last, the E-Rate program has been extremely successful and should be

maintained in its current structure.—By virtually any objective measure, the E-Rate

is a success story. During its first three years of existence, the E-Rate program has

provided over $6 billion in discounts on telecommunications services, Internet ac-
21

cess, and internal connections to public and private schools and public libraries nationwide. The FCC has estimated that the program has leveraged an additional $4

billion for infrastructure investments from state and local governments. In each of

the program’s first three years demand for its discounts has steadily increased, with

$5.2 billion in discount requests for Year 4 alone. The E-Rate has helped ensure

that virtually every library and school building has at least one Internet connection,

and that 77 percent of all public school classrooms have Internet access. And it has

done all of this without receiving any federal funds, relying instead on the universal

service fund. 

Over the past six months, the Administration has advocated that the program’s

list of services eligible for support be expanded to include software and professional

development, even though the program is already oversubscribed for services that

are currently eligible. Additionally, the Administration suggested that the program

be consolidated with other federal education technology programs, thus turning it

into a formula grant program. Since ISTE is convinced that the key to this program’s success lies in its stable funding stream, we adamantly oppose any such destabilizing changes. We request that this Subcommittee follow the lead of the House

Appropriations Committee in its Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill and

not include in your bill any language that would adversely impact the E-Rate.

Thank you for this opportunity to address you today. I am available to answer

any questions of the Committee.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Ms. Williams. Now we

turn to Thomas Gann, Director of Strategic Alliances for Global

Education Research of Sun Microsystems, Incorporated. Mr. Gann.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS GANN, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ALLIANCES

FOR GLOBAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INCORPORATED

Mr. GANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.

I appreciate your leadership on human resources and education

issues, and I also appreciate the interest of the Committee in general.

Today, Sun Microsystems is a $20 billion global company focused

on providing network solutions in the area of hardware and software.

We have come a long way since 1982 when we were founded by

four graduate students, two from Berkeley and two from Stanford.

In those days we were making high-performance desktop computers for the education and research markets. Our computers

from day one came optimized for the Internet and, in fact, education has been at the core of everything we have been doing since

then.

Today, Sun is fully committed to the K–12 market. In particular,

we want to ensure that this country’s future workers, our kids, get

the best possible training moving forward. You know the key is

that the information technology industry depends on human capital. So investing in human capital is profoundly in the national interest and certainly in the interest of information technology industries.

Today, I am here to discuss what is working and what can be

done better to meet the information technology needs of our

schools, teachers, and students. Today, the United States has made

significant headway in bringing access to computer technology to

schools throughout the nation. According to NetDay, 8 out of 10

teachers think that information technology is helping students do

a better job of learning. This is the good news.

The bad news is that the current model of educational computing

putting traditional computers in every classroom or on every desk-
22

top can also impose significant drains on resources in terms of cost,

maintenance, and teaching time.

For example, the same NetDay survey found that two out of

three teachers believe that the Internet is not very well integrated

into their classrooms. By not taking full advantage of the Internet

or web-based learning, schools can get bogged down with expensive

hardware, software, continual upgrades, expensive technical support and a constant need for teacher retraining. These are expenses

that even rich schools have trouble keeping up with.

In private business, for example, one computer professional is responsible for servicing 50 to 100 computers. In schools, each professional is responsible for servicing between 700 to 1,000 computers.

This is an impossible task and it forces too many teachers to spend

too much valuable time sorting out computer problems when they

should be spending their time teaching.

While personal computers have and will continue to have an important role to play, we believe that a good deal more attention

should be placed on building long-term, reliable back-end architectures focusing on the benefits of centralized technology and networking of the district’s computing systems. This, in fact, will facilitate a good deal of communication and collaboration among parents, teachers and students. The private sector is already doing

this, that is, moving to this model and the results have been very

good in terms of improved productivity. This anytime/anywhere

computing model relies upon open systems architecture in which

information is accessed and delivered via the Internet. Any number

of devices, PC’s, inexpensive network terminals and even cell

phones, can access this system and it all works very well because

it is based on the open standards of the Internet.

The other advantage of this system is that technology maintenance can be handled at the backend at the school district level.

This further allows teachers to get out of the business of worrying

about technology and back into the business of worrying about

teaching.

The other good news, like in business, entire IT departments now

can be managed outside of the school by telecom firms or other

service providers; thus, further allowing schools to focus in on their

core competencies.

Now we believe the Federal Government really does have a significant and powerful role to play in making incentives that help

Internet resources be widely and effectively deployed in schools.

First, the Federal Government should partner with the States’

school districts and the private sector to develop a clearinghouse of

best IT practices. Thus, schools anywhere around the country can

get the benefit of learning from other school districts.

Second, all levels of government currently spend 2 percent of

their education dollars on technology. We think that number

should be doubled, something closer to about 5 percent.

Third, Sun strongly supports a recommendation made by The

Computer Communications Industry Association to create a system

of national digital school districts. These projects would be largely

modeled on similar projects that have worked quite well in California and also Pennsylvania. These demonstration projects would

provide funding for the implementation of smart computing archi-
23

tectures in selected schools around the country. Best practices

learned from these demonstration projects could then be used to

improve the performance of information technology throughout all

of our schools in our nation.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Fourth, we urge all levels of government to support policies that

promote the use and implementation of open architecture technologies in schools. This will ensure that schools do not get locked

into using any one technology made by any particular company.

This will ensure further that schools have as many technology options as possible moving forward, and in fact, in the private sector,

we see the trend towards open systems really growing and it is

working well and it is very inexpensive.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for giving me

a chance to spend time talking about these very important issues

and I look forward to answering any questions that I might be able

to help on. Again, thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS GANN

Sun Microsystems, Inc., would like to thank the Subcommittee on Labor, Health

and Human Services, and Education as well as the 107th Congress for its commitment to improving America’s K–12 education system. As Congress moves to finalize

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in Conference Committee, it is clear

that the opportunity to achieve significant progress toward improving our country’s

educational system is now a reality. As focus shifts to the appropriations process,

the work of this committee will become pivotal to the long-term success of the Education Act and to the realization of meaningful education reform. 

Sun believes that technology can and should play a bigger role in the education

of America’s children, and has endorsed the report of the bi-partisan congressional

Web-based Education Commission. To that end, I am here today to discuss what is

working, and what can be done to better meet the information technology needs of

our schools, teachers and students.

THE NEED FOR NETWORKING

Through numerous public and private initiatives, the United States has made significant headway in bringing access to computing technology to schools throughout

the nation. Schools are rapidly being equipped and wired, with nationwide statistics

showing tremendous results. 

According to a NetDay survey released in March 2001, 97 percent of teachers surveyed said they had Internet access in their schools and 80 percent had connections

in classrooms. Eight out of ten teachers also believe that computers and access to

the Internet improve the quality of education. 

This is the good news. Our nation has embraced the idea that computers and information technology can advance the learning environment for our children. The

bad news is that the current model of educational computing—putting a computer

in every classroom, or even on every desk—can also impose a significant drain on

resources in terms of cost, maintenance and teaching time. In addition, without

quality web-based educational content, classroom computing all too often becomes

an exercise in underachievement and can actually exacerbate the digital divide. 

For example, the same NetDay survey found that two-thirds of teachers agree

that the Internet is not well integrated into their classrooms and only 26 percent

of them feel pressure to use it in learning activities. 

For the most part, current public and private initiatives have concentrated on providing computer hardware to classrooms. Not only is this insufficient for fully capitalizing on web-based learning opportunities, it can become a significant drain on

available resources -rife with hidden costs. 

The GartnerGroup reports that only 17 percent of the cost of a personal computer

is in the purchase price, with the rest in hidden maintenance, required upgrades,

etc. 
24

Moreover, according to Market Data Retrieval (MDR), 69 percent of school instructional technology budget allocations are being spent on hardware, followed by

17 percent on software, and 14 percent on staff development. Clearly, these are important and necessary categories for investment—yet the numbers tell a story about

hidden technology costs. By not taking full advantage of the Internet, schools get

bogged down with expensive hardware and software, continual upgrades, expensive

technical support, and a constant need for teacher re-training. These are expenses

that even the most affluent school districts likely have trouble meeting. To expect

less affluent districts—often found in rural areas and the inner cities—to keep pace

is usually not an option, further contributing to the growth of the digital divide. 

For classrooms to realize the benefits of a web-based education environment—one

in which the technology adapts to the needs of the user, instead of the user adapting

to the constraints of the technology—we must rethink the current computer in the

classroom model, and start thinking about the network architecture that could be

employed by an entire school or school district. A single PC on a classroom desk

doesn’t cut it. On the other hand, a computing terminal on a desk, networked to

other classrooms and schools throughout a school district and beyond can provide

a breathtaking array of educational possibilities—in addition to significant longterm cost savings. 

While personal computers have, and will continue to have, an important role to

play, we believe that less emphasis should be placed on purchasing this year’s model

of PC, replacing dated components, and upgrading software—with more emphasis

placed on building long-term, reliable backend architecture. This means focusing on

the benefits of centralized technology and networking a district’s computers by

building systems with scalable servers. 

A network-computing model for education envisions a system in which teachers,

administrators, students and communities will all have tools to enable access to information, web learning, peers, parent-teacher communities, and greater learning

opportunities—anytime, anyplace, by anyone, on any device. This anytime/anywhere

computing model relies upon an open systems architecture in which information is

accessed and delivered via the Internet. 

For example, by building a network framework within schools and school districts—based on open standards—lesson plans and web-based instructional content

can be seamlessly integrated, for classroom and at-home access. Other advantages

include real-time reporting of student achievement, which can allow students, parents and administrators to better track classroom progress, and maximizing efficiency in routine administrative tasks, such as scheduling and grading. 

Using an open systems model, reliable, manageable and secure web-access is

available to every user. This model offers not only accessibility, but distinct economic advantages in the form of reduced costs and increased access for students.

This should be of vital importance to educational institutions. 

Allowing for ‘‘self paced’’ learning can help keep students more engaged and ultimately, make classroom time more productive for teachers and students. As average

class size grows, student populations become more diverse. This, coupled with the

trend towards ‘‘mainstreaming’’ students with special needs, places added pressure

on teachers to give critical one-on-one time. E-Learning can augment individualized

teacher instruction to the benefit of both teacher and student. In addition, a ‘‘smart’’

e-learning program, can adapt itself to respond to an individual students needs by

automatically identifying areas where mistakes are being made, and directing the

lesson in a manner that specifically addresses problem areas. Lower cost web devices and the elimination of the need for special software on the device itself will

allow for more students to have direct access from home or public facilities like libraries, to the Internet and specifically designed educational content. 

Administrators and teachers also appreciate the ability to collaborate with colleagues, sharing information, lesson plans and projects, as well as strengthening

ties with parents. A networked system is the only efficient method for achieving a

truly collaborative e-learning environment.

PROGRESS IN E-LEARNING

Industry efforts and public/private partnerships have accounted for significant

progress in providing access to computing technologies within schools. One example

of particular relevance is the SchoolTone Alliance, an organization of leading education technology and service providers that includes AOL-Time Warner,

Bigchalk.com, BritannicaSchool.com, Lucent Technologies, and Sun Microsystems.

Collectively, they create web-based portal solutions for content, communications

tools, applications and professional development for the education community. These
25

education portals are web sites that provide organized access to the Internet and

the delivery of services specifically tailored to the needs of the education community. 

The need for services such as SchoolTone have become abundantly clear. As we

have learned, providing schools with personal computers and Internet access is not

enough, as educators often feel overwhelmed -unable to fully utilize the tools they

already have. 

SchoolTone Alliance members believe that by building a portal computing infrastructure and outsourcing a school’s IT needs to service providers, schools and

school districts can expedite the deployment of technology while reducing the overall

costs. 

We believe the prospects offered by industry alliances such as SchoolTone will be

the roadmap to the future of education on the Internet, and will become the preferred method for closing the digital divide among schools and students across

America. 

With computing becoming a ‘‘utility’’ (similar to dialing a telephone) and new educational portals delivering quality content over the web, the economics for the education community can change. A high maintenance, fixed cost, depreciating infrastructure can become a maintenance-free, variable cost and easy to use

environment... one that levels the playing field for education, and enables educators and students to focus purely on educational matters. 

In private business, it is estimated that a professional technician is responsible

for servicing 50–100 computers. In our schools, each technician, on average, is responsible for 700–1,000 computers. Clearly, this is an impossible task, forcing teachers to spend class time doubling as PC technicians, or worse, meaning substantial

downtime for classroom computers. 

The Web-based Commission has also called for stepped-up ‘‘training and support

for educators and administrators at all levels,’’ and the National Education Association recommends that schools devote 40 percent of their technology budgets (up from

an average of 17 percent) to teacher training. Moreover, the National Center for

Education Statistics found that teachers cited a lack of time to learn, practice, or

plan methods for incorporating technology in the classroom as the greatest barrier

to their use of computers and the Internet. 

While training is vitally important, and investments in professional development

for teachers is critical, we believe that one of the most compelling points in favor

of the network-centric education model is that teachers would no longer be required

to double as IT professionals. Technology maintenance would be handled at the

backend, at the school district level, allowing teachers to focus on how they wish

to use the tools at their disposal. 

As Web-based education evolves, teachers will be able to free themselves to teach

and students to concentrate on learning, without the need for sophisticated computer skills to take advantage of the web.

THE FEDERAL ROLE

Sun believes Federal leadership is the catalyst needed to put all of our nation’s

schools in a position to make Internet technology work for them—and fully realize

the promise of web-based opportunities in education. 

We believe that the Federal Government can and should play a significant role

in creating incentives to make Internet resources—especially broadband access and

backend infrastructure—widely available, and to encourage the development of webbased content specifically designed for use in education. 

The goal of providing the best in technology to America’s schools cannot be measured simply by access to technology and web-based educational content. The measure of success must be measured by student achievement. 

Recognizing that knowledge management of best practices in the implementation

of education technology does not transcend beyond state boundaries, to help steer

school districts towards the most effective use of resources and educational techniques, Sun supports the formation of a national center of excellence to report on

best practices. 

Too often, technology is implemented without a strategic vision. The Federal Government, in partnership with state boards of education and the information technology industry, should become a clearinghouse—helping states and school districts

to avoid duplicating efforts and wasting resources. 

The economic benefits of anytime/anywhere computing are as clear for cashstrapped school districts as they are for private industry. Making the most of our

educational resources is the key to building the skilled domestic workforce necessary

to ensure America’s economic future. 
26

While progress towards achieving full connectivity will continue, and no doubt will

be achieved, without concurrent development of meaningful web-based content, we

would not be making the most of a resource with unlimited educational potential.

To truly make headway in closing the digital divide, we must recognize that

connectivity is not the ultimate goal, but rather, a method for enabling access to

meaningful web-based educational content. 

For the educational community, connecting schools to the Internet and to each

other will provide benefits in to three key areas:

1. Lower Costs.—District-wide networks will create economies of scale, with

schools sharing costs for backend technology and ongoing maintenance. This translates into lower IT expenditures for individual schools, and less need for teachers

to be trained as IT specialists.

2. Quality Content.—Developing web-based content will keep educational resources current. Updating a text book can take years, while updating a web site

takes minutes.

3. Easy Access.—With access to the Internet, any student, anywhere can take advantage of the best web-based educational resources. This concept has tremendous

implications both for distance learning in rural areas, and for raising the level of

academic achievement in our nation’s poorer, urban schools.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Funding.—Currently two-percent of all public education dollars—Federal, State,

and local—are committed for technology. Sun supports an increase in funding to

five-percent. With the right investments today, to support teachers’ professional development, access by schools to the latest in broadband technology, and the installation of district-wide smart network architecture, we will all reap the benefits of a

leaner, stronger educational system, and a better trained, better prepared workforce

for our future. Harnessing the potential of an Internet-based education model in this

way will lead to significant cost savings for schools, increased access to quality content, and greater productivity. 

Digital School Districts.—Sun supports the Computer and Communications Industry Association call for a national digital school district initiative. This model program would provide funding for implementation of a smart network computing architecture in selected school districts throughout the country. A two-year Federal allocation of $52,000,000, to be met through an equal commitment by each participating state, would provide a big step toward implementing the vision of the Webbased Commission. Digital school funding would be in three phases:

—Phase 1.—Create a National Digital School District Initiative as part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Fifty-one school

districts would be funded, one in each state and the District of Columbia, based

upon a competitive grant process. The program would be authorized at

$26,000,000 for Phase 1.

—Phase 2.—A second round of funding, at $26,000,000, would create 51 additional

Digital School Districts; with states and the District of Columbia providing

matching funds.

—The total Federal commitment would be $52,000,000—with the benefit of model

school districts in every state serving as resources and demonstration centers.

These schools would form the nucleus of a national center of excellence to report

on best practices by providing tangible examples of how technology can improve

education, achieve cost savings, and deliver education in ways currently not

imagined. 

Funding at this level—with a concurrent commitment for in-kind support by private industry—would be sufficient to equip public schools with the necessary technology, as well as providing adequate seed money to encourage the development of

meaningful web-based educational content. The following are two examples of model

programs that should be commended for concentrating resources on technology.

‘‘A model charter school in Napa, California is part of an effort to start ten new

High Tech High Schools throughout California, each participating school receives a

one time matching grant of $2,000,000 for start-up expenses, with private sector

companies making significant donations of equipment, software and services.’’

‘‘Pennsylvania’s Digital School Districts Initiative seeks to revolutionize education

through the use of technology. From proposals submitted by schools throughout

Pennsylvania, three districts were selected to serve as pilot programs—each receiving up to $2,000,000 in state funding, with private companies contributing products

and services.’’
27

Both of these programs have taken the first step, and the lessons they have

learned can form the basis for the broader strategic initiative to implement the

smart network architecture in school districts throughout the country. 

A national network of model schools such as these, located in urban and rural

areas throughout the nation, would become fully functional centerpieces for webbased learning—allowing area educators to become acquainted with the concepts

and practical applications of e-learning. 

With this modest financial commitment, the Federal Government could become

the catalyst for the growth of web-based education—a model for true educational reform. 

Open Standards.—Sun urges public officials at every level to support policies that

promote the development of infrastructure and content based on open standards.

Open standards are needed to make web-based computing a reality. We need a policy that enforces and rewards the use of Internet standards such as browser-based

applications, IMS, SIF, HTML, XML, JAVA and JINI and other standards developed by mutual agreement through standards bodies. The use of open standards will

ensure the broadest participation, greatest innovation, and lowest costs by providing

a technologically level playing field for all.

CONCLUSION

Because schools lack the resources to invest in web-based learning technologies

on their own, the government should adopt policies that encourage investment in

backend infrastructure and content—as well as changing the metric used to judge

success. Access to a personal computer and the Internet alone are not enough. The

metric to measure success must shift to the ability to access web-based learning systems—including meaningful digital content. 

Without widespread access and use of dedicated education portals, the power of

the Internet to reduce costs for schools, and facilitate access to the best educational

content, will remain unfulfilled. 

During recent years, America’s hi-tech industries have faced a critical shortage of

skilled workers. Indeed, we’ve had to appeal to Congress to increase the level of H1–

B visas to allow greater numbers of highly skilled foreign workers to come to this

country. Importing foreign workers, however, is not the solution that we should rely

on in the future. We must develop a domestic workforce to meet the needs of an

increasingly competitive global economy. We firmly believe that improving America’s

primary and secondary education is of the utmost importance if we are to develop

the talent we need. 

We have the resources today to make a difference. Working together, industry and

government can provide the roadmap for schools throughout the country to make

the investment in smart, efficient network computing -giving our children all the

advantages they deserve. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gann, and I want

to get back to talk to you about changing that concept of how we

are doing this. I think it is very exciting.

Now, we will turn to Dr. Rose, co-executive director of CAST.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID H. ROSE, Ed.D., CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

CAST

Dr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me here. It is indeed an honor to be here and particularly because members of this

committee have been central in passing landmark legislation, ADA,

IDEA, Section 508, that have been critical in assisting individuals

with disabilities in the past.

In particular, students with disabilities now can assume a right

to a free and appropriate public school education and can expect to

find physically accessible educational buildings.

Tragically, however, and that is why I am here today, most of the

curricula, the materials for learning in those classrooms, are not,

in fact, available or accessible to students with disabilities. At this

particular moment in history, when innovative new educational

technologies are proliferating, we have a unique and urgent oppor-
28

tunity to right this injustice. I am here to argue that it is a moment of great opportunity to both save money in the long term and

save students and particularly to benefit all students.

I want to describe three key areas in educational technology that

are significant for students with disabilities: Assistive technology,

digital curricula and universal design. In each area I want to offer

a couple of recommendations. Assistive technologies are what most

people think of when they think of what technology does for people

with disabilities. Assistive technologies allow people to overcome

barriers and there are visible examples on television all the time.

Matthew, a third-grader, with physical disabilities who cannot

speak or use his arms or legs can use electronic switches to drive

a wheelchair and operate the computer to write and communicate.

Katherine, a six-grader, who is blind, uses screen reader technologies to navigate the Internet and do her social studies homework.

Nina, who has a brain injury that causes her to be aphasic, uses

an electronic augmentative device to speak to her friends and collaborate on schoolwork.

Even more spectacular, assistive technologies are under development including devices that can be implanted in the brain for hearing, for vision, for control of paralyzed muscles. These essential

uses of technology for individuals with disabilities will require sustained Federal support. There is simply not enough profit in developing these low incidence technologies to attract investments of the

private sector.

So I make two recommendations. Congress should continue to

fund research and development under part D of IDEA to ensure

that we get powerful new assistive and augmentative technologies.

And second, Congress should support through technical assistance grants contracts for the training of assistive technology specialists so that every school district knows about these technologies

and knows how to use them. I spell out the recommendations in

some more detail.

Second, though, I want to talk about digital curricula because

these recommendations I have made about assistive technologies

often are what people again imagine. And it is dangerous to view

assistive technology as the sole or most important focus of educational technology for students with disabilities. Such an orientation places the emphasis on the individual with the disability as

what is broken. We need, in fact, to concentrate on the curriculum

as what is broken. The environment itself is often hostile to students with disabilities.

The lesson of ADA, in fact, that Senator Harkin has been an important part of, is that small affordances built into the environment, like curb cuts and ramps, are as critical for access as are the

assistive technologies like motorized wheelchairs.

The same is true for educational materials and methods. We

need to use the new technologies not only to overcome existing barriers, but also to design better learning environments with fewer

barriers right from the start.

I want to give you an example. In The Concord, New Hampshire

public schools that we have been working with for about 5 or 6

years, teachers and parents have been engaged in a painstaking ef-
29

fort to digitize every single piece of their curriculum. Why are they

going to all this trouble? They are doing it because the digital

versions of the books are much better for students with disabilities.

The differences are not in the content; the digital versions have the

same content. The difference is the flexibility with which that content can be displayed.

In print versions, the content is permanently fused to paper. It

is fixed. Everybody gets exactly the same thing. In digital versions,

the content is presented dynamically by the computer. As a result,

content can be displayed in many different ways and adjusted to

many different learners.

Let me just give some examples: Imagine in a classroom that we

have worked with, all the students are reading, ‘‘To Kill a Mockingbird’’. In a digital version, Sarah, a student with low vision can display the text in a very large font so she can see it.

Bill, a student who is blind, can have the computer display the

text as spoken words, or have the computer print it out easily on

a Braille printer.

Jennifer, a student with severe physical disabilities, can change

the display; turn its pages, with a single blink of her eye. Michael,

a student with dyslexia, can click on a difficult word to have the

computer read it aloud or link it instantly to a context-based definition.

In these ways, digital versions of traditional curricular materials

can effectively reduce barriers to learning; thereby reducing the

costs associated with expensive later adaptations and pullout programs.

We can actually do a lot more with digital curricula. In a recently completed study that we have done through the Department

of Education’s OSEP Program, we have digitized books and we

have begun to add more supports and particularly for students

with learning disabilities. These supports are individualized. While

not everybody gets them, students who need them get them when

they want them.

In a study of 109 very severely learning disabled students, we

looked at what would happen when students read novels in this

new format, digital with enhancements for their needs.

The results were stunning. Students who used the digital text

found them more accessible, enjoyable and empowering than traditional books and by the way, so did their teachers. And they

learned learning comprehension strategies much more effectively

showing highly significant improvements, achieving half a year’s

progress after reading only three novels.

Remember again, these are students that have not been learning

a great deal at all about reading. And those showed up on later

standardized tests of reading comprehension. The control group

showed virtually no progress at all with traditional books. Further,

where this approach has been used, students exhibited fewer behavior problems because they were engaged in the learning activity

itself and felt success.

Where do schools find books like this? Concord is making its

own. This is a local and far too inefficient solution. Many schools

across the country are doing the same thing resulting in an enor-
30

mous duplication of efforts as schools all across the country are beginning to make their own digital versions.

School districts and national publishers also face a bewildering

and contradictory array of local requirements and formats for such

digital technologies. Local solutions cannot work.

A new piece of proposed legislation, The Instructional Materials

Accessibility Act of 2001, is critical. This bill provides for the establishment of a single national electronic file format to be used by

publishers when creating electronic versions of texts.

A consistent standard will greatly facilitate the timely and efficient conversion of textbooks into digital versions that are accessible to students with disabilities: Braille, large print, digital audio

and many other specialized versions like the ones I have mentioned.

The proposed bill further calls for a national electronic file repository, a central and efficient solution to replace a hodgepodge of

local homemade products.

OSEP, under part D of IDEA, is supporting efforts that further

the development of digital curriculum. For example, OSEP funds

The National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum housed

at CAST where research, design, development, dissemination and

training related to digital, accessible curriculum materials can be

furthered.

We hope that Congress will urgently expand this kind of sustained and systematic work. I have three recommendations in this

area: Congress should support The Instructional Materials Accessibility Act; Congress should support dissemination and training for

teachers, administrators and parents in using better digital materials and Congress should support ongoing research and development to make better and better digitally supported materials for

students.

Lastly, and probably most importantly from our perspective, is

the universal design of learning technologies. Making traditional

books and printed materials accessible via new technology is necessary now, but it is not a sufficient step if all learners are to find

the opportunities they deserve. In effect, we are still using new

technologies to do old things. My colleagues in this panel have been

describing and supporting ways to use powerful new technologies

to do new things, to engage all students in active experimentation

at a level that is not possible in traditional classrooms; to communicate about learning with the students all over the world, to

evaluate their own learning, to construct problem solutions in social groups and on and on. These technologies are rightly preparing

students for their future.

Unfortunately, the design of most of these learning technologies

does not consider students with disabilities. As a result innumerable new barriers for students with disabilities are being created

inadvertently as we speak. These powerful new learning technologies are in their infancy and as yet unformed. Once formed,

disseminated and in wide use, these technologies will have to be

retrofitted, or new assistive technologies designed to overcome the

new barriers being designed while we are discussing these issues.

An analogy well known to members of this panel will illustrate

my point. A number of years ago the new technology of television
31

was inaccessible to viewers who were deaf. Eventually decoder

boxes to display captions improved access to television for deaf

viewers. The cost of this retrofitted technology, several hundred

dollars per television, still excluded many people. Legislation requiring televisions to include caption display technology led to the

development of small decoder chips costing pennies apiece that

were included in all the new televisions. And the beneficiaries of

this quality, efficient technology include not only those that are

deaf, but hearing individuals in gyms, noisy airports, spouses retiring at different times and individuals learning English as a second

language.

The concept of building accessibility into learning technologies

from the start is an example of what we call Universal Design.

Well-executed universal design leads to less expensive solutions

and better outcomes.

For the recommendations I make regarding universal design of

learning technologies, Congress should require that any educational technology developed, maintained, procured or used by the

Federal Government should be universally designed. And I have

several other recommendations on my printed transcript.

In summary, I want to say I commend the Congress for its leadership and its commitment to students with disabilities. Fundamental to this commitment, and to all things I have recommended,

is leadership implicit in IDEA. I strongly support the commitment

to fund this important legislation.

In the innovative area of educational technology it is essential

not only to provide support under part B of IDEA, it is also essential to fund discretionary programs for the kinds of technology research, training and dissemination I described.

PREPARED STATEMENT

And lastly, the over-arching recommendation I make to you is

that we extend the same kinds of protections now afforded to physical spaces and to information in the workplace to a new area, the

most important space for our future, the learning space. Our future

as a culture depends on us making learning spaces, those precious

spaces, accessible and supportive to every student. I believe that if

we make the learning spaces of our schools accessible to all of our

children, we will save both the short-term costs of poorly educating

our children at the present and the long-term costs of not educating them for their future. This approach will save resources, but

most importantly, it will save children.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID H. ROSE

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to be asked to

testify at this important hearing on Education and Technology. My name is David

Rose and I am the co-executive director of CAST, the Center for Applied Special

Technology. I welcome the opportunity to speak with you today. The fact that I have

been asked to testify on the educational technology needs of disabled students demonstrates that Congress understands how essential new educational technology is

for ALL students. 

Members of this committee were central to the passage of numerous pieces of

landmark legislation over the past 30 years. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, Section 508 of the
32

Rehabilitation Act of 1988 and 1998, and the Americans with Disabilities Act in

1990 are all landmark pieces of legislation. Because of these laws, many things formerly thought to be impossible for individuals with disabilities are now not only

possible, they are commonplace. 

Among those commonplace results is the fact that individuals with disabilities

now have a right to a free appropriate public school education, and can expect to

find educational buildings that are physically accessible to them. It remains a tragedy, however, that the curricula—the materials and methods for learning inside

those buildings—are too frequently NOT available or accessible to students with disabilities. 

At this moment in history, when innovative new educational technologies are

being designed and distributed to classrooms, there is a unique and urgent opportunity to right this injustice. If this opportunity is seized, the future will see disabled people making contributions to our society that were envisioned with the passage of these landmark pieces of legislation. Moreover, the strategic appropriation

of funds at this time will result in more effective use of educational dollars and a

subsequent reduction of people having to go onto SSI and SSDI programs because

they are not qualified to work in the jobs of the future. The overall benefits will

be shared not only by children with disabilities, but by ALL children. 

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND THE PRESENT

Most of the existing successes of technology for individuals with disabilities are

examples of ‘‘adaptive’’ or ‘‘assistive’’ technologies. Assistive technologies are applications (either hardware or software) that are developed specifically to assist disabled

individuals in overcoming barriers. We are all familiar with spectacular examples

of these technologies: 

—Matthew, 3rd grader with physical disabilities who cannot use his arms or legs,

uses electronic switches to drive a wheelchair and operate his computer to write

and communicate. 

—Katherine, a 6th grader who is blind, uses screen reader technologies to navigate the Internet and do her social studies homework. 

—Nina, who has a brain injury that causes her to be aphasic, uses an electronic

augmentative communication device to speak to her friends and collaborate on

schoolwork. 

And there are even more spectacular assistive technologies under development,

including ones that are more centrally placed in the nervous system—implanted

technologies for hearing, for vision, for control of paralyzed muscles. These are essential uses of technology for individuals with disabilities and their continued development will require sustained federal support. There is simply not enough profit in

these ‘‘low incidence’’ students to attract the strengths of the private sector. 

Therefore, I recommend that Congress should continue to fund IDEA Part D research and technology development to ensure that new assistive and augmentative

technologies are developed, particularly those that interface with new learning technologies (see below) and those that support cognitive as well as sensory and physical

access. In addition, congress should support, through technical assistance grants or

contracts, the training of assistive technology specialists so that every school district

has access to trained individuals who can teach children to use these powerful technologies in a timely fashion, can assist their parents in understanding and advocating for their use, and can assist teachers and administrators in being effective

consumers and implementers of these technologies. 

That recommendation notwithstanding, there is a danger in viewing assistive

technology as the sole focus of technology for students with disabilities. Such an orientation places the emphasis of intervention on the individual rather than the environment. While developing powerful technologies for overcoming barriers is a good

thing, it must be balanced by designing environments that have fewer barriers. The

lesson of the ADA is that small affordances built in everywhere, like curb cuts and

ramps, are as essential as powerful motorized wheelchairs. 

The same is true for educational materials and methods. We need to use the new

technologies not only to overcome existing barriers to learning, but to design environments for learning that have fewer barriers right from the start. 

MOVING TOWARD THE CENTER: THE POWER OF DIGITAL CONTENT FOR STUDENTS WITH

DISABILITIES

In the Concord, New Hampshire public schools, teachers and parents have recently completed the painstaking task of copying all of their printed curricular materials into the computer. They now have their own ‘‘digital versions’’ of virtually
33

every textbook and printed text used in their schools. Why did they go to all that

bother? 

They did it because the digital versions of the books are much better for students

with disabilities. The difference is not in the content—the digital versions have exactly the same content—the difference is in the way that content is displayed. 

In print versions the content is dried into the paper, and its display is fixed, immutable, ‘‘one size fits all.’’ In digital versions, on the other hand, content is presented dynamically on a computer screen. As a result, the power of the computer

can be used to display the content in ways that are highly variable, malleable, and

individualizable. 

Imagine, for example, a digital version of ‘‘To Kill a Mockingbird’’ for a 10th grade

classroom: 

—Sarah, a student with low vision, can display the text in a very large font so

she can see it; 

—Bill, a student who is blind can have the computer display the text as spoken

words or have the computer produce it as refreshable Braille; 

—Jennifer, a student with severe physical disabilities can change the display (e.g.

turn the pages) with a single blink of her eye; 

—Michael, a student with dyslexia, can click on a difficult word to have the computer read it aloud. 

In these simple ways, digital versions of traditional curricular materials can effectively reduce barriers to learning and reduce the costs associated with more expensive adaptations and pull-out programs. But it is possible to do more than merely

reduce barriers. In a recently completed research study (with technology developed

under support from U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs), colleagues at CAST digitized books from local schools and, using the flexibility of digital text, embedded research-based strategies for improving reading comprehension. Nearly all of the students (109) in the study had learning disabilities

and were performing at least two grade levels below their peers. Because of the digital texts, the level of access and support for reading comprehension could be adjusted closely to each child—providing the foundation for highly efficient learning.

The results were stunning—the students who used the digital texts not only found

them more accessible (and enjoyable and empowering) than students who used traditional books, they learned reading comprehension strategies much more effectively

than their peers, and they showed highly significant improvements (achieving a half

year’s progress after reading only three novels) on later standardized tests of reading comprehension. Their peers without such digital books did not show any significant progress at all. Further, where this approach was used, students exhibited

fewer behavioral problems because they were engaged in the learning activity. 

Where can schools get these kinds of digital books? Local solutions are far too inefficient. While many schools across the country, like Concord, have begun to

digitize their own books, the duplication of effort is staggering. And it will get

worse: most schools are not yet aware of this capability. The problem is further exacerbated, particularly for national publishers, by a bewildering and contradictory

array of local requirements and formats. 

A new piece of legislation, the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act of 2001,

is critical. This bill provides for the establishment of a single national electronic file

format to be used by publishers corresponding to texts they publish. This will greatly facilitate the timely and efficient conversion of textbooks into versions that are

accessible to students with disabilities: e.g. Braille, large print, digital audio and

other specialized formats like those that I have been describing. The bill further

calls for a national electronic file repository—a central and efficient solution to replace a hodge-podge of local ones. CAST is already in the process of developing and

launching a major national Web-based resource—The Universal Learning Center—

to provide accessible digital curriculum materials to teachers and parents. 

Having digital, accessible, learning materials in the schools is essential. Two other

things are essential to ensure success. Most teachers are now unaware of, and unprepared for, the power of digital resources like these. Congress must ensure that

there is support for the national training and dissemination of teachers, administrators, and parents in using these more efficient ways of making the curriculum accessible. 

And it is also important to understand that we have only begun to exploit the

power of digital resources: Congress should support ongoing research and development designed to develop and implement digital curricula that are infused with the

best of research-based accommodations and enhancements for individuals with disabilities and their peers. 

Projects funded under OSEP from part D funding of the IDEA (e.g. the National

Center on Accessing the General Curriculum housed at CAST) are already making
34

progress on each of these points, but I recommend that Congress intensify these efforts lest we miss the opportunity before us. These efforts will ultimately save resources, and they will save children. 

BUILDING A BETTER FUTURE: UNIVERSAL DESIGN OF LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES

Making traditional books and printed materials accessible via new technology is

a necessary, but not sufficient, step: in effect it is using new technologies to do old

things. 

The more powerful new learning technologies, those that my colleagues on this

panel have been describing, use the new technologies to do NEW things—to engage

ALL students in active experimentation at a level impossible in ‘‘traditional’’ classrooms, to communicate about learning with other students all over the world, to

evaluate their own learning, to construct problem solutions in social groups, to create and edit new kinds of media well beyond the limits of writing text. These technologies prepare students for their future. 

Unfortunately, most of these learning technologies are not being designed with

students who have disabilities in mind. As a result, these new technologies are likely to create new barriers for students with disabilities, leaving disabled children farther behind. 

This is what I meant earlier by the urgency of the opportunity in front of us. We

are at the infancy of these new learning technologies; they are not yet crystallized.

Once they have been ‘‘hardened’’ and disseminated, it will be very expensive and

wasteful to retrofit accessibility into them or to build new assistive technologies to

overcome the barriers they impose. 

An analogy well known to members of this panel is important. Several decades

ago television, a new technology, was completely inaccessible to individuals who

were deaf. Over time, decoder boxes were developed that individuals could buy to

put on their televisions and see captions. These retrofitted technologies were expensive, purchased at hundreds of dollars apiece. Later, important legislation was

passed to require that the design of televisions include a decoder chip, a small piece

of accessibility that is now built into every television at only pennies a television.

The result is higher quality, cheaper accessibility for individuals who are deaf. But

there is an additional benefit. The heaviest use of captions is not by deaf people at

all—but hearing individuals in noisy bars and airports, individuals who are English

language learners, exercisers in gyms and so forth. 

The concept of building accessibility into the technology from the start is an example of what is called Universal Design. It is generally better and cheaper to practice

universal design than to retrofit solutions later. So, at this moment, when we are

building new technologies for learning, we need to ensure that they are universally

designed 

It is important to reflect on the recent history of Section 508. Most government

websites were originally created with no awareness of disability access. Since the

law was passed making it essential to design carefully, there has been enormous

expense to retrofit sites. What can Congress do to ensure that the new technologies

are universally designed right from the start? 

First, Congress can take the same kind of leadership as it did in legislating 508

for the workplace—in this case in the ‘‘learning place.’’ Congress should require that

any educational technology developed, maintained, procured, or used by the Federal

government should be universally designed. Secondly, congress should require that

all educational programs administered or supported by the federal government use

universally designed educational technology. These actions by themselves would

send a clear message that, like 508, would extend throughout the larger education

community. 

Second, to ensure rapid dissemination of better educational technologies, Congress

should support the development of research-based guidelines for school districts,

publishers, parents, and administrators on how to evaluate and select universally

designed educational technologies. 

Third, provide funding for continued research and development in designing, implementing, and integrating better universally designed educational technologies. 

SUMMARY

I commend the Congress for its leadership and its commitment to students with

disabilities. Fundamental to this commitment, and to all of the things I have recommended, is the leadership implicit in IDEA. I strongly support the commitment

to fully fund this foundational legislation for our future. 

In the innovative area of educational technology it is essential not only to provide

the kinds of support provided under Part B of IDEA, it is essential to fund discre-
35

tionary programs that enable technology research, training, and dissemination—

those under Part D. Without that support we will miss the opportunity, just at this

propitious moment, to turn the power of educational technology in a direction that

will indeed leave none of our children behind. 

In specific, I have made recommendations in three areas:

(1) Assistive technologies.—These individual technologies are essential to overcome

the barriers that students with disabilities face in normal classrooms. Congress

should support their continued development into areas where barriers remain, and

should fund technical assistance to school districts so that they can be effective consumers of these powerful technologies.

(2) Digital Curricula.—Most existing classroom technologies are still print based—

making it very difficult to use assistive technologies, and even more difficult to individualize the curriculum in ways that are necessary for students with disabilities.

I recommend that Congress provide legislation so that every piece of curriculum is

made available in digital format so that it can be easily customized and made accessible for all students and that Congress fund a central place for teachers and parents to locate these resources.

(3) Universal Design of Learning Technologies.—As new technologies are developed for schools, they should be made accessible to all of the students in the school,

right from the start. Congress should support efforts to make guidelines for the universal design of such technologies and provide leadership in purchasing, maintaining, and disseminating such technologies in all of its programs. 

The over-arching recommendation that I make to you is that we extend the same

kinds of protections now afforded to physical spaces and to information in the workplace to a new area, the most important space for our future—the learning space.

Our future as a culture depends on us to make the learning spaces, those most precious spaces in the lives of our children, accessible and supportive of every single

child. I believe that if we make the leaning spaces of our schools accessible to all

of our children, we will save both the short-term costs of miss-educating our children in the present and the long-term costs of NOT educating them for their future.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Rose. I was just

making some notes on this. Thank you all. This has been great testimony and I appreciate your being here and for your involvement

in this.

I would like to start out first by talking with Mr. Gann about

this concept that I think you brought to my attention a few weeks

ago about the idea that we may be going down the wrong road if

we are going to be focusing on a PC on very desk. We have had

other testimony about how much money is going into hardware.

These get outdated and they have to be upgraded all the time. You

have a different concept. Your concept is—what did you call it—

backend?

Mr. GANN. Well, you could call it network centric computing or

Internet computing.

Senator HARKIN. Yes. Flesh that out for me a little bit more.

What you are talking about is some kind of a web-based system

that would be district-wide based; maybe State-wide based? I am

uncertain as to how large an area you would cover with this.

There would be servers in the schools, but would not the kids

still have to have some type of a terminal of some kind, either a

PC or something that they would have within their classroom. You

are not getting around the hardware. You may be getting around

some of the software problems, but I do not know about the hardware problems. I am a little hazy as to how this is going to save

us money and be more quickly upgradeable in the future, so could

you talk about that a little bit more?

Mr. GANN. Sure. Well, I think a really good analogy to begin with

would be when you go on the Internet today and you go to a site

such as Yahoo!, that site has all the data aggregated for you. In

effect, it is a portal. And what is really great about a site like that
36

is that you can use really any number of devices, a PC, or a network computer. Even Palm Pilots today, these inexpensive handhelds, have Internet capabilities that can enable you to log into a

portal like this. What is important about this approach of network

computing, if you will, is that the intelligence is invested at the

backend in servers and storage devices and in software. And it is

based on open systems and open standards. What is really important here is simply by using a browser, whether from Microsoft or

Netscape, whoever, you can access all of this data very easily and

what is really important is that it becomes a lot less important

what type of device you are using from a user point of view. So you

can use a PC that is current today, you can use an older PC, you

can use other devices, but what is important is that they are

hooked into the Internet with the browser and that very fact of

interoperating with the smarter system gives schools more choices.

So to conclude, you absolutely will have a role for PC’s. It is just

that PC’s and other devices can be used longer and more effectively

if they are Internet-enabled with browsers. One of the things that

we see is that older PC’s, you know an old Pentium machine, we

have even seen 486 machines that are sort of being given away for

free now, can be significantly refurbished and used in schools if you

put good browsers on them and you really hook them into a powerful backend.

So it is all about using more devices effectively.

Senator HARKIN. Is this being done anywhere?

Mr. GANN. Sure, it is being done a lot in the private sector——

Senator HARKIN. I mean in education.

Mr. GANN. It is also being done in a number of schools. There

is a grade school in Carrolton, Georgia where they have implemented this. There is also a school in Florida called The Celebration School, and a school in California in Newark.

Senator HARKIN. So your advice to us is as we move ahead in

this—are you saying that perhaps by giving a block grant out to

the States, that States may take this money and give it to local

school districts and in each local school district they have all the

sales people come around and they have got this system and that

system and this system, and so you have a lot of different systems

operating in say, one State, for example? Are you suggesting that

what we might want to do is to try to move more in the direction

of standardization or something of a backend system? Not telling

what kind of backend system they have to have, but saying that

this is where we want the money to be used; not just in buying

laptops and buying software programs on an individual basis—individual school district basis, but doing it on a broader statewide

basis. Is that what you are saying, what we ought to be doing is

giving that kind of direction?

Mr. GANN. Well, I think one thing that would be very useful is

to help fund some pilots around the country to experiment with

new innovations and technology, and I think there are a couple of

really important rules that need to apply. One is it tends to be better when vendors work with open systems and standards. That ensures that any number of devices, any number of technologies from

different vendors can work together. That way schools do not get

locked into any one technology.
37

The second piece of advice is if you put the technology more and

more in the backend and focus it on the Internet, you can get some

of the economies of scale that we have been talking about. So I

think it is good to do some pilots and it is good to do some learning

to see what really works well.

Senatro HARKIN. How about the rest of you? You’ve all been involved in this. You’ve all had kind of specific things here, but I

think Mr. Gann is putting his finger on a divergent path that we

may be going down. We are going to go one way or the other. If

we decide to go one way, it is going to be hard to shift to the other,

if you see what I mean. Once you start going down that path, I

think it is going to be hard to shift over. So how do you feel?

Now, Ms. Maxwell, you’ve been involved in a site-specific, schoolspecific program where they are not networked outside the school,

but they are in those classrooms. They have got their individual

programs, and what Mr. Gann is talking about is something where

those students would be hooked up to a server. They would be able

to tap into a broader base of information than perhaps they have

right now. Just from your 1 year of experience in this, how do you

think that this might be better or worse than what you are doing

right now?

Ms. MAXWELL. We have not locked ourselves into stand-alone situations. We are networked to a server and we do use the Internet,

actually, probably more than software. I am not quite understanding, Mr. Gann. Are you going to be like a portal where you

already have these sites available, or software available? I am not

quite with what you are——

Mr. GANN. Well, one of the things that we are seeing, actually,

in the industry is a lot of the mainstream publishers, McGraw Hill,

and other vendors are moving to a more network-enabled kind of

environment. In fact, back here at our demo, a number of the vendors are showing off technology such as PLATO and Carnegie

Learning that are moving to a more open web-enabled environment. So I think what is important here is that a lot of the traditional technologies can be re-engineered to get the benefit of the

Internet while still working with existing systems such as PC’s

which, make no mistake, are still very effective tools.

Ms. WILLIAMS. It is my impression that what you are talking

about is technological backend with which I am not familiar, but

what is true, as Gail said, is that most schools are working in a

network environment, not a stand-alone environment. And the biggest challenge that they are having now is the bandwidth problem.

Senator HARKIN. Is a what?

Ms. WILLIAMS. Bandwidth. So if you have—let’s just say you

have a school that has a very low computer-to-student ratio, so you

have a possibility of having a lot of kids on line at the same time

and the barrier is that the information just does not come up fast

enough where you cannot navigate it fast enough, but they are already working in a highly networked environment since——

Senator HARKIN. Networking into schools or outside?

Ms. WILLIAMS. Oh, outside. Yes. Because that is the whole point.

They are doing a lot of interacting with other children or with experts through just plain old e-mail.
38

Senator HARKIN. But what are they networking with? With

whom? With what?

Ms. WILLIAMS. To information resources on the web.

Ms. MAXWELL. Exactly.

Senator HARKIN. OK.

Ms. WILLIAMS. We use very little stand-alone software unless it

is a project-based software where we—like word processing or desktop publishing. We are linked to the Internet. We do a lot of what

are called WebQuests, where we use—the students are involved in

projects that access sites on the Internet to perform a task and

solve a problem. So most of our usage is already using the Internet

and going out to sites all over the world and like she said, to look

at experts, or talk to experts, or to do e-mail with other students

in other schools. That is what we are doing a lot of already with

project-based learning.

Senator HARKIN. Well, the question I have on that is number

one, is it reliable? First of all, you never know who you are talking

to on the Internet. Is it reliable? Has it been developed to a curriculum-based type of evaluation? Obviously, we all go on the Internet and do all kinds of things. But my question is, is having programs that are web-based, as Mr. Gann is talking about, is that

geared toward education, towards all aspects of education? That is

quite different than just getting on the web now and surfing all

around and finding this and that.

Ms. MAXWELL. We do not have the students just out there surfing the Internet. Everything we do is very structured and that is

where the time comes in on the teacher’s part and myself. We do

all of that searching and looking for good educational sites that are

sound and accurate, ahead of time. That is where the WebQuests

are an excellent source because those are very structured and every

site you go to has been checked and made sure that they are educationally sound. We make sure everything is tied to our objectives

and standards before we do it.

Senator HARKIN. Dr. Honey.

Dr. HONEY. I think what we have seen in the last 8 years is that

there has been a tremendous growth in educational content on the

Internet and there has been a tremendous amount of development

and schools like Ms. Maxwell’s that are well poised to take advantage of those resources can use them very effectively.

But a much greater concern from my point of view is that not

all schools are created equal. And we have growing, growing, growing disparities in this country, particularly between urban schools

and better endowed, wealthier, suburban, often communities. The

critical difference here is that in those communities people are either well poised to use the educational resources of the Internet,

or not well poised to use them, and there is a widening gap.

So there are real issues around how do you help struggling districts, districts that are facing real serious achievement problems

move in the direction of being able to take advantage of what has

really become an enormous wealth of education resources.

Senator HARKIN. Now you are talking about another slice. That

is another divergence that is taking place out there. In back of

that, I am still trying to figure out whether—now what Mr. Gann,

Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Williams were basically saying is that is al-
39

ready there. That backend architecture is already there that they

can tap into. But from your testimony, it seems to me you are saying that, again, we must rethink the current computer in the classroom models and start thinking about the network architecture

that could be employed by an entire school or school district.

A single PC on a classroom desk just does not cut it, with more

emphasis placed on building long-term reliable backend architecture. This means focusing on the benefits of centralized technology

and networking at districts that have computers, who are building

systems with scalable servers, and on and on. The anytime/anywhere computing model relies upon an open system’s architecture

through which information is accessed and delivered via the Internet.

Well, they say it is already there.

Mr. GANN. Well, the good news is it already is there in a number

of settings.

I think the bad news is there is still more work to be done. What

tends to happen for better or worse is the private sector tends to

move faster in terms of implementing technology than a lot of public sector environments and I think schools unfortunately, you

know, have been crippled with all sorts of funding problems and

other issues. And oftentimes, technology does not get quite the attention it should. But the short answer is that this wave towards

network centric or web-based learning is happening. It needs to

happen quicker.

I think the final thing in the real benefit of web deployment is

that it enables applications that are tightly integrated, such that

users can be accessible to the system in a greater variety of ways.

So it is just really using Internet-type technologies to enhance communication.

Dr. HONEY. One other point to add to what Mr. Gann was saying in his testimony is that this point about the stand-alone $2,000

computer for every student is not realistic I think is very true and

what I heard him saying is that we are seeing very rapid changes

in that area where devices are becoming increasingly portable, increasingly smaller, Palm Pilots, IPAC’s, all of those kinds of things

can access the Internet at greatly reduced costs.

Ms. WILLIAMS. The other development that I am reminded of is

that there are a number of States that have instituted State education network infrastructures just to help facilitate these kind of

things, Mo/Net in Missouri, the Florida Education Research Network. So at a lot of State levels there has been more sort of subnetwork architecture, but there is a lot of use of the Internet in

highly appropriate and mediated ways in schools. I know the example Ms. Maxwell gave us in the elementary school. But in secondary science education, I mean these students are going to primary resources, federally funded, The National Weather Service,

NASA, USGS, and they are getting real-time data to use in building their knowledge base about how you do scientific inquiry and

actually contributing to the scientific field in some ways as they

enter their data into open data bases that are accessible internationally.

So there is work being done in that regard, and some really fine

examples of its effectiveness.
40

Senator HARKIN. Let me get onto the bandwidth problem. In

Iowa we do not have the problem. Do we, Ms. Maxwell?

Ms. MAXWELL. It is really good.

Senator HARKIN. We have no problem with bandwidth. We have

a fiber optic system that goes to every—well, I should say it goes

to every high school. We are now going to every grade school. I do

not know how long that is going to take. That is going to take a

little bit longer, but every high school has all the bandwidth they

need with fiber optics in the State of Iowa at very low cost, because

the State owns the system.

But that is not true in every State. And we do have that problem. How do you think the Federal Government ought to be involved in ensuring that elementary and secondary schools around

the country have access to the broad highways? I want any

thoughts you have on that. I mean we are putting this money in

this Bill and we have—where is my table—but what happens we

may be putting a lot of hardware in the schools, but we have got

all this information here and you have got all the PC’s out there

and you have got some narrow little constrictor to go through. Tell

me how we solve that.

Dr. HONEY. Well, two things, I would say. One is Cheryl Williams’ comment about ensuring that the E-Rate monies continue to

be available. They have been critically important in bringing bandwidth to schools.

And another initiative that is underway that the Federal Government surely can take a leadership role in is the development of

Internet Two, which is now going on—I am sure Mr. Gann can

speak more about this from Sun Microsystems’ prospective—but it

is taking place in a number of universities and a number of corporations in the country with Federal money, some of which I know

comes from The National Science Foundation.

But there is now a movement underway to enable State networks

to connect into the Internet Two backbone, which has a potential

to bring greatly increased bandwidth to schools.

Senator HARKIN. I have to move on to the demonstration. My

time is running out.

But Ms. Williams, all of your testimony was basically about that

you strongly support the New Federal Education Technology Block

Grant. Then you went on to talk about how all of the programs

that we have had under the Federal system; The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, The Technology Innovation Challenge

Grants, The Teacher Training Technology, you mention these as

being very successful programs.

Well, those are not in the block grant program. Well, one of them

is, Teacher Training is in the block grant program. But The Technology Innovation Challenge Grants and The Technology Literacy

Challenge Fund—do you mention that?

Oh, I am corrected. You did not mention The Technology Literacy

Challenge Fund and The Technology Innovation Challenge Grants.

Somebody else did here.

Ms. WILLIAMS. I think I did.

Senator HARKIN. But I am just wondering——

Ms. WILLIAMS. In a perfect world, we would love those programs

to be continued as they are. We understand that we need to work
41

within the realities and it appears to us that there are many things

that are underway with the Challenge Fund, which is administered

by the States. And we are hopeful that the funding levels will remain the same so that the work that has been started can continue. I think that is the message.

Senator HARKIN. Any of you have any thoughts on The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund that we had and the technology

grants at all? Again, if this is a block grant—I mean maybe they

will do it and maybe they will not. I do not know.

Dr. HONEY. I think as a nationally run program, it has demonstrated incredible successfulness. I have served on The Expert

Technology panel and I can tell you that many of the applications

that rose to the top of what was a pretty comprehensive group of

projects were originally seeded with monies from that program. It

has allowed for tremendous innovation to take place in the education arena.

Ms. MAXWELL. As a recipient of one of those grants, they are

great. But our concern is what happens when the grant runs out?

Senator HARKIN. I am sorry, Ms. Williams, you did mention—you

said here, ‘‘Congress appropriated nearly $1.7 million for The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and The Technology Innovation

Challenge Grant, two Federal programs that support school district

efforts to develop technology plans, acquire hardware and software

and this Federal involvement has paid off. During this same period, student-to-computer ratios’’, et cetera, et cetera, you went on.

Again, I am not trying to challenge you. I am just trying to figure

out whether or not we ought to just say we would leave it to the

States to do this, or we actually keep these programs going.

In other words, the block grant could be this big and we say do

with it what you want, or the block grant can be this big and we

say, ‘‘but within that block you have to do these couple things’’. You

see what I am saying?

Ms. WILLIAMS. I see exactly what you are saying.

Senator HARKIN. That is what you are saying?

Ms. WILLIAMS. What we were advocating within the realities of

today was that the total funding not be diminished. I would concur

with Margaret Honey that there has been huge innovation that has

been learned and spurred through national programs that it would

be wonderful to be able to continue to leverage through dissemination and other fashions.

It would be our hope that the whole effort around supporting innovation with education technology would not be diminished.

Senator HARKIN. Hopefully, we are not going to diminish it and

will boost it even more.

One last thing. Dr. Rose, on Universal Design, who decides? I

mean Universal Design is a wonderful concept, but it may mean

different things to different people. Who decides that?

Dr. ROSE. Well, I think one of the things I recommended is I

think more work needs to be done on the guidelines. In fact, I just

want to say that I agree with Mr. Gann. I think that the centralized way is the way to do it. Then it is much easier at that level

to say, ‘‘And here is what the guidelines are for what an educational environment on the web should look like’’, and it should

be inclusive of all students. It is very much easier to do that.
42

The danger in block grants are that push from the national level

to say, ‘‘And all of our educational curricula delivered on the web

delivered in every way should have Universal Design, and here are

the guidelines.’’ Congress has supported the development of guidelines from our best people developing educational technologies to

ensure that those benefits go to everybody.

Senator HARKIN. Yet do you think we should require—that was

your word, I believe—that all curricula be digitally formatted?

Dr. ROSE. Yes.

Senator HARKIN. I am not sure I understand that.

Dr. ROSE. Well, that is sort of a bit of a retrofit, but present

books really are very difficult for lots of students to learn from.

And then we have to do a lot of expensive things to try to make

them work. And what I am saying is that if we, in addition to having the printed book, have a digital version, which, in fact, they

were originally made in digital version; but those are delivered

safely to students and their teachers, and in fact, we can do that

individualizing, say, well, Billy needs this book to read out loud because he is blind. And Sally is going to need help with the decoding

because she is dyslexic. All of that can be done easily digitally. The

printed book is very hard. We have to hire teachers, we have to

send them to special resource rooms, and you have to do something

else because of the fact that the book does not work very well.

In some States they are starting to do this, to say when you deliver us a curriculum, deliver us a digital version with it. And we

just think that’s the way to do it every time. It is a much more

flexible version and much more accessible. It is delivering the

ramps and curb cuts right with the book.

Senator HARKIN. You are focusing mostly on literacy, or on reading?

Dr. ROSE. I am, but I wanted to say that GBH is here and they

have the same—it is true for videos, for audios, everything can be

universally designed. I concentrate a little bit on the literacy here.

Senator HARKIN. Your advice is well taken. I think that we ought

to think about putting something in there on Universal—is there

anything in there on Universal Design? I think that is something

I would be interested in if you or anyone here has any suggestions.

Dr. ROSE. We have a lot, actually.

Senator HARKIN. Well, better get them to us.

Dr. ROSE. OK.

Senator HARKIN. I would like to think about putting that in the

legislation, I think. I mean I am going to think about it some more.

But I like the concept of universal design. I think it saves going

back and redoing things later on.

Dr. ROSE. Yes.

Senator HARKIN. It is just like now we are beginning to design

architecturally buildings that are universally adaptable.

Dr. ROSE. Yes. It is a lot cheaper to do at the beginning. And it

turns out to benefit everybody and that is true in education. If you

universally design the curriculum from the start, it has things built

into it that are just better for everybody, just like in architecture.

Senator HARKIN. Yes, because as I said at the beginning, I am

really amazed at how much more the technology has done to help

kids with disabilities learn. It is amazing what is happening.
43

Well, thank you all very much. I am now going to adjourn the

hearing and then we are going to invite everyone to the back of the

room to view demonstrations. We have eight companies demonstrating here, Break Through to Literacy, Microsoft, Carnegie

Learning, PLATO Learning, Light Span, Apple and Power School,

Wireless Generation and WGBH.

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Thank you all very much for being here, that concludes our hearing.

[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., Wednesday, July 25, the hearing was

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

Æ