National and State Technology Standards

1) The purpose of the NETP is to reform education through the use of technology in order to ensure that classroom education remains relevant in the 21^st century, and also that the US “remains competitive in the global economy.” This affects teachers because they will need to develop non-traditional lesson plans and find creative ways to incorporate technology into lessons and assignments. This may be difficult for teachers who are not ‘digital natives’ or who have been teaching ‘traditionally’ for many years. This affects students because what was initially viewed as a ‘distraction’ or prohibited in classrooms will be the basis for educational instruction.

2) The main assumptions under which the NETP was developed are:

•Many of the failings of our education system stem from our failure to engage the hearts and minds of students.

•What students need to learn and what we know about how they learn have changed, and therefore the learning experiences we provide should change.

•How we assess learning focuses too much on what has been learned after the fact and not enough on improving learning in the moment.

•We miss a huge opportunity to improve our entire education system when we gather student-learning data and fail to integrate the information and make it broadly available to decision-makers at all levels of our education system—individual educators, schools, districts, states, and the federal government.

•Learning depends on effective teaching, and we need to focus on extended teams of connected educators with different roles who collaborate within schools and across time and distance and who use technology resources and tools to augment human talent.

•Effective teaching is an outcome of preparing and continually training teachers and leaders to guide the type of learning we want in our schools.

•Making engaging learning experiences and resources available to all learners anytime and anywhere requires state-of-the-art infrastructure, which includes technology, people, and processes that ensure continuous access.

•Education can learn much from such industries as business and entertainment about leveraging technology to continuously improve learning outcomes while increasing the productivity of our education system at all levels.

•Just as in health, energy, and defense, the federal government has an important role to play in funding and coordinating some of the research & development challenges associated with leveraging technology to ensure the maximum opportunity to learn.

A concern that administrators might have with these assumptions is that it would take an enormous amount of time and financial resources to implement technology-based infrastructures in classrooms nationwide. Teachers may be concerned about their need to be adequately trained in technology in order to provide quality instruction. They might also be concerned about the advanced planning and preparation required to implement technology into the lesson. Students might be challenged to maintain focus on instructional content and may have concerns about falling behind peers who are more computer literature or have access to technology at home.

3) The five essential areas presented by the NETP as a model of learning include learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. The 21^st century competencies are critical thinking, complex problem solving, collaboration, and multimedia communication. Technology will support the growth of these competencies by creating learning opportunities, through the use of the internet and other web tools, which allow students to prepare for real life situations.

4) The State of Ohio’s Educational Technology Plan aligns with the NETP in that they both propose that technology be incorporated to enhance and reform education, and also that the plan be flexible and adaptable. The two plans are not aligned in respect to whose ideas and input should be incorporated to establish the plan. This is because the State of Ohio’s Educational Technology Plan seeks input from “stakeholders in education” (such as the community, organizations, and students) to design and implement the plan, whereas the NETP seeks to set a nationwide standard and filter it to states and local communities. The likely intention of the NETP’s approach is to ensure uniformity with regards to implementation of the plan.

5) The Ohio’s State Educational Technology Plan aligns with the NETP’s goals and recommendations in the areas of learning, teaching, and productivity because it proposes to provide virtual learning content, deliver quality professional development for teachers, and develop advanced service systems. The two plans are not necessarily aligned in the areas assessment and infrastructure because the Ohio’s State Educational Technology Plan does not specifically propose a method of assessment, nor does it specify goals for infrastructure.

6) As I read Ohio’s State Educational Technology Plan I recognize that there might be barriers to fulfilling this plan. Reasons that it may not be possible to reach these “measurements of success” in the state of Ohio include: students not having access or the skills required to partake in online courses, a number of schools simply not reporting or submitting information appropriately, lack of resources (funding and/or time) for adequate teacher preparation programs, and limited funding or access to actual technological resources.