0.2 Newell, p. (march 2010). technology disconnected: teacher  (Page 7/10)

Call for teacher, researcher, and business involvement

By 2000 the National Governor’s Association meeting (the meeting which in 1989 had launched the educational reform that prioritized technological education) was hearing the call from people outside the world of primary and secondary education to include teacher preparation as an important part of including technology in the classroom curriculum. At that meeting Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, underscored the need for teacher training and cautioned that hopes for improving schools by introducing computers may be oversimplified when he stated “Incorporating new technologies into the education process is indeed likely to be an important element in improving our schools, but it will involve more than simply wiring the classroom. To achieve the most effective outcome…we must provide teachers with the necessary training to use them effectively” (Broder, 2000).

The issue of training teachers, the one item of the Executive Order that had not been explicitly addressed by the programs that followed from Clinton’s push for technology in schools, remained unaddressed by the Federal government. Although money was set aside to wire classrooms and provide technology, no similar programmatic push from the government to train teachers in technology use has occurred (Cooper, 2000). This was not the case in other countries that instituted their own version of NetDay: UK Net Year was dedicated to not only wiring all of Britain’s schools by 2002, but to developing curricular materials, teacher education, and public awareness throughout the United Kingdom. Net Day events in UK were not wiring days (since wiring was done by network and telecommunications companies rather than volunteers) but allowed students and adults to gather at schools and other locations to show off curricular materials and interesting projects that demonstrate the value of the Internet in education. Similarly, the European Union sponsored Net Days on the continent and “put priorities on the content side” including permanent teacher-training programs and the encouragement of developing pedagogical content (Magid, 1998). Other nations added into their programs the one crucial item that the United States neglected: teacher training.

Planning and analysis documents used in drafting the 1995 Executive Order indicated that the largest ongoing cost for any technological education program would be for teacher training and support. In support of this training, Clinton had called for the creation of a $2 billion five-year Technology Literacy Challenge Fund to be supported by Federal and corporate funding; this request was not favorably received by the House or Senate (Leiken, 1996). Other groups also had identified the need for funding: the Kick Start Initiative had requested $14 billion per year to be spent on teacher training as well as machine maintenance (Bryant, 1995). Unfortunately for educators, the cost invested in training teachers created a double-edged sword: a shortage of technology workers during the late 1990s assured that those with documented technology skills would be able to make a good living in the corporate world. Given the fact that teachers’ salaries were low, those with technology skills had the opportunity to make significantly more money outside of teaching than they could in their chosen careers in education; this fact was noted when funding for teacher technology training was considered (Press, 1999). Because of the fear that providing technology training would prepare some teachers to leave the world of education, no funding (outside what was provided through the Department of Education’s normal funds) was allotted for training teachers on the new technology.