Participants: Kathy Adkisson, Denise Allen, Sergio Anaya, Kevin Andreyo, Darlene Bailey, Gloria Barber, Nancy Becker, Sandra Becker, Stephen Berkowitz, Diane Bernstein, Jenaine Booker, Linda Brancato, Brenda Brown, David Brown, Dennis Bruno, Daniel Burke, Nancy Carey, Joan Cargill, Pam Chesky, Deborah Chestnut, Larry Cocco, Vicki Cohen, Robert Cole, Mary Ann Conway, James Cummins, Joan Cusano, Stephen Dantine, Edward Denton, Mary Denver, Paula Don, Carl Dragwa, Helenanne Drescher, Michael Esolda, Richard Esperon, Todd Fishburn, Jona French, Steve Garner, James Gist, Albert Glennon, Amy Gordon, Bruce Gordon, Sheila Grap, Regina Greely, Bonnie Hartman, Karen Hartschuh, Wayne Hartschuh, Renee Henderson, Joanne Horvath, Carla Hurchalla, Samuel Iannucci, Nina Ingram, Michael Jacobs, Marlene Johnson, Will Johnson, Buck Jones, Joseph Jones, Thea Jones, Molly Kelley, Karen Kroll, Michael Kunz, Jon Landis, Cheryl Lemke, Elaine Levan, Robert Lipton, Michael Long, Carol Lovejoy, Stephanie Malizia, Janey Mayo, Caroline McDowell, Susan Medio, Judy Mills, Wendy Modzelewski, Anne Mosakowski, Tracey Myszka, Liz Neal, Patricia Null, Joan Pasternak, Robert Patton, Laurence Peters, Ryan Pitcher, Krista Price, Karen Quinn, Joanne Romano, Lance Rougeux, Paula Sandridge, Catherine Schimminger, Karyn Schweiker-Marra, Joseph Seaman, Alexander Schuh, Patricia Sine, Claudia Smarkola, Kalani Smith, Glenn Snelbecker, Christopher Sny, Hank Stankiewicz, Diane Stelacio, Jill Stoltzfus, Julia Stratton, Judith Stull, Louise Tanney, Lisa Tauscher, Ronald Taylor, Carol Teitelman, Doretha Tillman, Michael Toner, Juanita Unhoch, Jan Van Dam, Phyllis VanWinkle, Patricia Vickers, Patricia Weeks, Marion Wells, Melissa Woods, and Katherine Woodward

Welcome (Laurence Peters, Director, MAR*TEC)

Dr. Peters thanked everyone for attending the conference in such numbers. He additionally thanked Ms. Hartman for her help in organizing the event and Dr. Stoltzfus for her added assistance. The issue prompting the conference is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirement that students be technology literate by the eighth grade. He cited a statistic that, as home income drops, so does technology literacy. In the 21st century workplace, people need to be able to communicate and problem solve using technology. He feels the participants need to discuss how policies and procedures can work to support these efforts as well as how to leverage collective resources and foster collaboration between states.

Opening Remarks (Alexander Schuh, Director, FRONTIER 21 Education Solutions)

Dr. Schuh introduced himself and thanked the attendees for coming. At a conference with MAR*TEC a few months ago, he began discussing whether technology is becoming a tool to change the landscape of education and whether everyone has a chance at a high-quality education. The reports have been promising; there are many initiatives supporting disadvantaged groups. Race, family income, and ethnicity are all factors that need to be kept on the table. At the prior MAR*TEC meeting, attendees discussed if there were ideas that addressed technology literacy and equity. The consensus was that there are a lot of issues concerning technology skills and disadvantaged households in that they are not on par with more affluent households. Today's meeting will focus on what the NCLB requirement is really all about. He hopes that everyone can leave the conference with new relationships and good ideas. There will be panelists talking about issues they have faced in their school districts and how they have tackled those challenges.

Ms. Hartman directed the participants to their folders and explained the agenda for the day and how the breakout groups would work. She stressed the importance of the evaluation forms and explained that they are necessary, as MAR*TEC is a federally funded entity. Ms. Hartman referenced the accessibility CD in the attendees' packets and asked everyone to fill out the accompanying questionnaire. There will be a drawing for those who return it. Following the conference, MAR*TEC will post the minutes and supporting materials on the website.

Keynote Address: Technology Literacy and Assessment: Meeting the Challenge (Jan Van Dam, Board President, International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE])

Dr. Van Dam explained that the CEO of ISTE was originally scheduled to be at the conference. He is recovering from surgery and is unable to travel, but she is happy that she could be at the meeting in his absence. Dr. Van Dam started teaching programming in high school in1970. Clearly, we have been talking about technology for a really long time, but we have come a long way. She gave an overview of ISTE and briefly mentioned some of the meetings and publications it is responsible for. There is no doubt that the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) are what has put ISTE on the map. ISTE is playing an increasingly large role in advocacy. When NCLB was passed in 2001, she read the legislation and questioned who would be responsible and accountable for the mandates. Education is a states' rights issue. NCLB has several terms that are repeated throughout. By 2006, there are various requirements including technology literacy by Grade 8. Improving student achievement is the goal along with the Grade 8 standard. There is also the goal of integrating technology into teacher training and curriculum. States will be held accountable for improving achievement and improving teacher abilities. Achievement does include technology literacy; the NCLB language is very clear about that. Why technology literacy? Students bring different expectations and experiences into the classroom. Students have been saying that their classes are becoming less and less engaging. The "cheese" of federal funding for technology has moved. She told the participants to go the Corporation for Public Broadcasting website and read the Grunwald Associates study.

The reasons for technology literacy include NCLB, learning, working, citizenship, and accountability. New environments enable more effective strategies. Over the years, E-rate has changed the learning environment. We are able to have different strategies in the classroom now that we have different tools. ISTE's Center for Applied Research and the Metiri Group are valuable web resources. The challenge for today is determining what is involved in assessing technology literacy. To assess technology literacy, one needs to define it, establish benchmarks for achievement, acquire an aligned and varied measurement system, capture and measure results, organize and interpret results, and report results to inform learning and accountability. She feels that these steps are essential. Of the 50 states, 49 have adopted or referenced NETS. Several issues arise in considering the assessment of technology literacy: purpose, self-reporting versus observation, performance-based, sophistication in levels of use, "embeddedness," etc. These are some of the most talked-about issues. There was a presentation at the National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) involving ISTE/Microsoft online assessment. Microsoft has created online assessments but does not want them used as a high stakes assessment for eighth- grade literacy requirements. ISTE's online technology assessment is free and can be found on their website. ICDL is the international computer driver's license. There are three types of testing right now: knowledge-based, performance-based, and open-ended questions. ISTE, ICDL, and Vantage Learning all have different roles. She reviewed the timeline and cost and hit upon several quality website resources. She thinks the Center for Applied Research in Education Technology (CARET) is very underused. She encouraged participants to check it out: http://caret.iste.org. Most of it is research that has been collected as a clearinghouse. She thanked MAR*TEC for bringing everyone together; she thinks the meeting is invaluable in this respect. She stressed that this is not something that anyone will want to do alone. It is expensive, labor intensive, and highly scrutinized. She urged everyone to work together; she thinks it is the only way to get this done. (Please see PowerPoint for more information.)

Equity and 21st Century Skills (Caroline McDowell, Manager for Education Outreach, Partnership for 21st Century Skills)

Ms. McDowell is with SAP, a technology company that makes business software for accounting. She referenced two reports that were handed out. What the partnership is about is collaboration between public, private, and government entities. For the first 2 years, there were eight partners, the National Education Association (NEA) being one of them. Each partner gave $100,000 in order to move the project forward. They have reached out to other strategic partners including ISTE. The partnership is promoting 21st century skills. She reviewed the elements to building 21st century skills: emphasize core subjects, emphasize learning skills, use tools to develop learning skills, teach and learn in a 21st century context, teach and learn 21st century content, and use 21st century assessments that measure 21st century skills. They wanted to build a vision and get people talking a common language. The second year, they took their report and made it an interactive tool. This year, they are working on assessment, which is a critical piece of all areas. Now they are looking to reach out and diversify their partners. The following year, they want to work on professional development. In the meantime, there are many resources that would be helpful. She demonstrated the navigation of the website's interactive "road map." They are looking for three to five states to pilot the transition piece. She asked if anyone has used the tool. One participant said he has used small pieces to get an overall sense. Another said the Delaware County Intermediate Unit has used the reports for technology leadership training sponsored by the department of education; she has also used it in graduate schools. Another participant has used the reports for grant writing. She asked Ms. McDowell if she would be focusing on the eighth-grade technology literacy requirement. She said yes, they would provide the tools for others to use in building their plan. Another participant said she used the reports to bring educators back into the fold and remind them that, in addition to math and science, technology is a critical component. (Please visit www.21stcenturyskills.org for more information.)

State Educational Technology Planning and Assessment (Robert Patton, Instructional Technology Consultant, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction [DPI])

Mr. Patton thanked MAR*TEC and Dr. Schuh for inviting him. Wisconsin developed a statewide technology plan in 1983, and it has developed from there. Their charge was to create a 3-year technology plan. The plan expands on DPI publications. He reviewed the Wisconsin model standards and the PI 34 teacher licensing standards. EnGauge is a framework for effective technology use in schools; it measures six essential conditions and 35 indicators, which he reviewed. The enGauge survey focuses on 21st century skills, and those skills focus mainly on the student. The survey measures the range of use in the classroom. There are two pieces to the enGauge collection: online data collection and onsite data collection. He showed a website that contains various sources. (Please see PowerPoint for more information.)

Panel Discussion: Improving Equity and Technology Literacy Across School Districts (Moderator: Alex Schuh; Panelists: Melissa Woods, Special Assistant for Special Projects, Montgomery County Public Schools; Kalani Smith, Instructional Specialist, Montgomery County Public Schools; Diane Bernstein, Supervisor of Technology, Monroe Township Public Schools; and Dennis Bruno, Superintendent, Glendale School District)

Ms. Woods began by saying that she cannot overemphasize the importance of collaboration. The issues at hand are leadership, knowledge management, and program funding. Schools and districts need to learn how to use technology in order for students to use technology. They need to support administrative goals, make data easy to understand, and ensure information is easy to access. Program funding is where collaboration makes a big difference. (Please see PowerPoint for more information.)

Mr. Smith gave some background on the grant he is working on. The goal is to increase student achievement. He reviewed the rationale and research. In lower socio-economic areas, the students are not getting the higher order thinking that technology can improve. They are trying to get technology integrated into Maryland's voluntary state curriculum. He reviewed the process they are using, which includes monthly meetings and working as a collaborative group to develop products that are available for review by all members of the consortium. The first step was to create a definition of student technology literacy, then create the standards and a state advisory council. They have gathered stakeholder input and are looking to pilot professional development. They reviewed definitions of other organizations and adopted the definition of the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) with the exception of one word. Based on that definition, they reviewed the national, state, and local standards, and came up with six standards on which to focus. (Please see PowerPoint for more information.)

"Ms. Bernstein showed a short film about the Monroe Township School District in New Jersey and how far its technology has come over the past 6 years. The film highlighted the importance of providing substantial amounts of professional development for the teachers and working to change highly restrictive contract language that can work against technology integration.

"Mr. Bruno began by explaining the rural locale of the Glendale School District. The school district went from antiquated technology to one of the most technologically advanced schools in the nation. The district was awarded several grants that enabled them to make incredible strides with technology. (Please see PowerPoint for more information.)

Dr. Schuh asked if people could identify with Mr. Bruno's situation; many said they could certainly identify. Mr. Bruno informed the audience that his school district auctions off their older computers all the time. He said they developed a community-based lotto for the ISP and have developed a partnership with three other districts. They are now focusing on cell phones. He said the ISP is making money, not the district. Mr. Bruno said he used to stay after school, watch which teachers stayed after school, and offer the technology to them. He felt those that routinely stayed after school were the hardest workers and would be most likely to do the work necessary to integrate technology into their classrooms.

Breakout Session Reports

A. Assessing Technology Literacy in Schools (Facilitator: Jan Van Dam)

1. What is technology literacy? How do we define technology literacy? Should technology literacy be defined strictly by computer-based media issues, or should it be defined more broadly to include information technology? Should computer-based media and information technology issues be combined to prepare for an appropriate technology literacy definition? Discussions need to center around these questions to achieve a consensus regarding the definition of technology literacy.

2. States are dispersed in their equity issues and technology assessment strategies. Schools have different levels of resources to support technology in the classroom. Some school districts have assessments to bring students "up to speed" with basic technology skills while other school districts appear to be more innovative, addressing authentic measurement by combining technology and content issues.

3. There is a challenge to determine whether technology literacy assessments should measure only technology skills or be embedded with content areas. Discussions arose about issues regarding schools having a separate scope and sequence assessment for technology skills versus having an assessment that embedded good use of technology skills and core content skills. There was consensus that students need to have core content skills. There are risks either way in supporting separate or embedded technology assessments. If technology literacy is taught and assessed separately, there is a perception that assessment strategies are moving backwards without focusing on acquisition of technology integration and appropriate content skills. If technology literacy is embedded within content areas, then there is a risk that teachers will not take ownership of the technology assessment, focusing on only their content area assessments. If an embedded approach is used, then there needs to be awareness that technology assessments will look differently within subject specific areas.

4. Questions centered on assessment strategies. The mission of NCLB is to have technology assessments for K-8 students in 2006. How can schools do this? Does every student have to be tested, or can there be a stratified random sampling of students for testing? Although the NCLB calls for K-8 assessments, does that mean schools should not focus on developing high school technology assessments? Individuals felt that planning for K-12 technology assessments was an important issue; having no high school technology assessments could contribute to the digital divide.

5. Resources (including vendors) are now available to help in the development of technology standards and assessments. There are opportunities to use these resources so that schools can achieve their goals in 2006 with support.

6. To make a commitment to move forward with technology assessment issues, states need to come together. States need to decide on their minimum requirements. Then individuals with the appropriate authority from each state can come together to share strategies and tools. There is power in numbers; having states make technology assessment decisions together within a consortium can be a powerful way to affect change in schools.

B. Professional Development Strategies for Teachers and Administrators (Facilitator: Katherine Woodward, Program Director, Teacher Education Department, Graduate School at University of Maryland)

After introductions, Dr. Woodward asked the group to address the following questions:
· What are we doing in our states?
· How do we form partnerships?
· How can MAR*TEC help?
· How do we get students ready if teachers are not ready?
· What is technology literacy?

The initial discussion centered on the question of technology literacy: Are teachers technologically literate? Are they at the appropriate level of proficiency to teach the students? For teachers, does it mean having proficiency in the use the tools of technology for themselves or for adequately integrating technology into the classroom? Are teachers asking students to use technology for higher order thinking? For students, are they able to use technology for collaboration (e.g., e-mail, Internet, attachments)? Is technology literacy about technology skills or about integrating technology into content and into their everyday problem solving? Students should be able to analyze and interpret information via technology. It allows them to communicate and function in society. Students' achievement is assessed in the eighth grade. There was concern for what happens after 8th grade. Are we sending the wrong message to older students and to teachers if we only assess achievement up to eighth grade?

It was decided that it is more important to produce productive citizens and lifelong learners in the 21st century, which by its nature requires technology proficiency. Students need technology to compete in the global world. A tool has one task; the computer is not a tool. It is a resource; it multi-tasks.

The issue of linking technology to student achievement was discussed. It was agreed that it is difficult to link the two, which presents a problem for federal funding since funding sources want the direct impact between scores and achievement. A participant suggested looking at this issue from a different angle. It was agreed that the infusion of technology into the classroom changes pedagogy from traditional to a constructivist delivery system with a hands-on approach. It may be difficult to show the role of technology in student achievement, but there is evidence that does impact student achievement. Since the tool used to facilitate differentiated and authentic instruction is the computer, it is therefore implied that technology impacts student achievement. In addition, technology can document teachers' strategies.

Administrators wanted to know how they could justify their technology expenditure with the research. What information would help them is this area? Is there consensus in the research community as to how and if technology affects student achievement? Should we be looking to research in differentiated instruction? How do we create our own research? Technology teachers, coordinators, and other district personnel indicated that they did not have the time or the background to investigate the research. There was mention that university people could and should share this information with the schools and districts and that there should be collaboration across state lines. It was also mentioned that MAR*TEC could help here. MAR*TEC could offer professional development in the area of scientifically based research and data analysis.

Ms. Carmona-Bell from the NJ DOE suggested that participants should be able to use anecdotal studies and not need aggregate data. In New Jersey, every school district uses the LoTi survey as part of a grant, with a pre- and post-test to help determine the teachers' technology proficiency. This is tied to professional development. She said that New Jersey is doing anecdotal studies to satisfy the grant. They tried other ways that did not work. She indicated that the anecdotal studies look at changes in teacher practices, the things teachers say, and the student work. Ms. Cohen, from Fairleigh Dickinson, mentioned that they use E-portfolios. She said Helen Barrett from ISTE offers training on electronic portfolios. The preservice teachers learn digital storytelling and take this skill into the classroom to use with their students. E-portfolios show evidence of achievement and growth over time. The benefits of E-Portfolios are that they are a source of data, they contain rubrics, and they are reflective. Several questions concerning professional development were brought up:
· Is professional development for teachers in technology literacy mandated or voluntary?
· What are the tiers of certification for technology?
· What do the levels mean?
· Do teachers get paid if they reach various levels?

Participants from Worcester County, Maryland described their professional development in technology literacy for getting teachers to meet the standards. The professional development is voluntary without the use of incentives. However, out of 600 teachers in the county, 200 have earned the local certification. Peer pressure and student pressure encourage teachers to work toward the certification. The certification for the staff reflects, at a minimum, the student standards. Teachers must show proof of competency in six areas (e.g., troubleshooting, use of word processing, spreadsheets, database, Internet research). They are asked to keep a one-week journal of how they and the kids used the computer in the classroom. Participants asked them to share their checklist with others. In another Maryland county, teachers are given mandatory training during prep periods. This training relieves the pressure of after school training and release time. Ms. Mosakowski mentioned aligning curriculum to the standards (ACTS) and best practices for tying technology to higher order thinking. The University of Delaware developed an online site (LOCATE) to facilitate teachers in finding online learning courses for professional development.

Other questions that arose:

· How do you get administrators trained? Administrators often don't know themselves what is technology integration or technology proficiency.
· How can they evaluate if a teacher is doing a good job? Professional development must be offered for administrators as well.
· What are the professional development goals of the local education agencies (LEAs)?

To sum up, the participants wanted to create a listserv for the professional development group. They wanted cross-state collaboration. They also suggested an online database accessible to all educators and searchable by keyword and the defining problem.

C. Regional Collaboration (Facilitator: Wayne Hartschuh, Executive Director, Delaware Center for Educational Technology)

The breakout session on regional collaboration consisted of nine participants (including three state technology officers, four districts, and one regional intermediate unit). The session addressed the practical realities of regional collaboration around the issue of technology literacy. Dr. Hartschuh began by describing regional collaboration as occurring on potentially multiple levels (e.g., state, regional, local). He asked participants how or if regional collaboration was happening already and if so, ways to expand upon this. Sandra Becker, Director of Technology for the Governor Mifflin School District (PA), noted that she is working on eighth-grade literacy and a follow up to 12th grade in her school district and does not have the time to work alone. Ms. Becker's major goal is to meet the eighth-grade standard, and her district is using NETS to assist with this goal. However, there is always more to do, including the assessment component. Therefore, Ms. Becker is eager to talk at length about the promises of regional collaboration; in other words, she is looking for help and cannot go it alone.

Nancy Becker, Instructional Technology Specialist of Prince George's County Public Schools (MD), noted that her district runs a regional technology conference. Every school in the state is invited to come, and presenters come from throughout the region (e.g., VA, PA). Ms. Becker noted that this represents a wonderful professional development opportunity for everyone. The next one is November 13, and all breakout session participants will be invited to attend.

Dr. Hartschuh briefly described the role of SETDA, which provides a collaborative network for state technology officers nationally. SETDA meets approximately twice a year (including once at NECC) and allows state officers to work with each other on various educational technology initiatives. Dr. Hartschuh noted that a "toolkit" results from these biannual meetings that states and districts can then use based on their respective needs, goals, and objectives.

Larry Cocco, New Jersey Department of Education state technology officer, noted that as of April 7, 2004, the New Jersey State Board of Education approved a new state content curriculum standard with a specific technology literacy component. The first standard (8.1) is the literacy part, while the second standard (8.2) addresses technology education. Mr. Cocco noted that a law was passed in New Jersey requiring the State Board to develop this type of technology literacy standard, and revisions are being considered for both 8.1 and 8.2. Mr. Cocco further noted that the federal technology literacy mandates will exactly match what is currently being done at the state level in New Jersey. Additionally, an online rubric is being developed for use by teachers to track students' progress, which could potentially include students from third to fifth grade. By eighth grade, if students have successfully met most parts of the rubric, they will be considered "technologically literate" by the state of New Jersey. Mr. Cocco believes this rubric will only be effective if it both follows the student's progress very closely and remains translucent to the teacher, as well as easily accessible online (i.e., no complicated paper trail). The rubric must still be approved by the governor's office since it remains uncertain whether New Jersey will choose high-stakes testing instead of a rubric to assess technology literacy. The hope is that approval will be given within 6 months, although the level of complexity is enormous. In response to a question from a breakout session participant, Mr. Cocco noted that there is supposed to be a unique student identifier for every student throughout the state, and that this must be in place prior to any rubric being implemented. Dr. Hartschuh asked if there was also a statewide accounting system. Mr. Cocco further observed that there is currently a system in New Jersey moving in that direction. Dr. Hartschuh commented that in Delaware, a student identifier system currently exists, although the state is trying to make improvements so that everyone will be converted over to the same system by next year (i.e., if someone is in the southern part of Delaware, they can instantly be moved to the northern part).

Nina Ingram, Technology Coordinator for Hartford County Public Schools, serves on a grant-funded technology literacy consortium that Mr. Smith talked about during the morning panel. This consortium has a technology liaison program with 50 schools, where one person in each school is the technology contact person. These contact persons get paid for their time with a small stipend and meet twice a month (once for elementary, one for secondary). Professional development training is offered to this group as well, with a train-the-trainer model as part of the technology liaison program and trainers who provide after-school workshops for teachers. Ms. Ingram noted that the entire process has been good for building communication across different schools and staff members. Ms. Ingram's group currently collects data about what is happening (e.g., staff development at the school level) since the consortium is grant funded. Ms. Ingram also mentioned a handheld pilot project currently taking place in middle schools in Maryland. Additionally, Ms. Ingram is working with a teacher using a 32-station handheld program that includes a 32-station charging cart.

Michael Esolda, Technology Director of the Woodbridge Township School District, noted that there are approximately 644 school districts in New Jersey, and his district is in the top 5 to 6, with 30 school buildings and 1,500 building administrators. Additionally, Mr. Esolda's district is largely suburban/urban and is not an Abbott special needs district. At first, the school district had no connectivity and was only provided with Apple IIe computers. Eventually, a structured collaborative effort developed through government, education, and business partnerships to link all 30 buildings using a wide-area network to connect all schools. Mr. Esolda stated that this process is unique in that everything is powered out of the municipal government offices in town. Mr. Esolda further indicated that since this collaborative partnership has been initiated, student achievement is on the rise, and early warning schools are moving out of those categories. The web-based applications currently being used are also proving very helpful. Eventually the county bought into the collaboration and gave $5 million over 5 years to expand the program (e.g., teachers are eligible to receive a computer after accumulating so many hours of professional development instruction). Mr. Esolda stated that he is also president of a volunteer organization that fosters collaborative relationships between government, business, and educational entities. Mr. Esolda noted that no single technology organization in New Jersey takes all of the separate sectors. At present, Mr. Esolda's organization is "taking it slow," but would eventually like to branch out more extensively (e.g., organize conferences like the one today). Mr. Esolda acknowledged the tremendous complexity of the collaborative process, given the many different boards and politics that sometimes come into play. Dr. Hartschuh echoed this acknowledgement of the complexity of working collaboratively by observing that he was extensively involved in wiring schools throughout the entire state of Delaware (with every classroom wired for $24 million).

Regarding the complexity and difficulty in getting things done with so many layers of bureaucracy, Mr. Cocco observed that the Glendale superintendent (Dennis Bruno) went around the bureaucracy and did things himself. In this regard, Mr. Cocco noted that Mr. Esolda's organization should be held up as a model of how to collaborate well.

Doretha Tillman, Director of Adult Literacy at MAR*TEC, briefly described her adult literacy program. Dr. Tillman indicated that she piloted her program on the maintenance and secretarial pool at Temple as well as parents in the community to see if people could work independently at home by using audio resources and online lessons. Dr. Tillman eventually discovered that some people cannot work alone; they need the social interaction part of learning.

Carol Teitelman, Instructional Technology Specialist of the Bucks County Intermediate Unit (IU) (PA) stated that her entire professional life has been about building collaborations. At present, the Bucks County IU is not directly addressing the issue of eighth-grade technology literacy because of other priorities. For example, regarding collaboration, Ms. Teitelman's IU pulls districts together for training and to assist each other with professional development (e.g., training trainers). Ms. Teitelman's IU also works with other service agencies across the state (e.g., collaborating with other IUs). So much of Ms. Teitelman's work involves reaching out to meet common needs or projects that will benefit many different people and groups.

Ms. Ingram asked if the term "personal learning communities" would apply to Ms. Teitelman's collaborative involvements since this term directly applies to Ms. Ingram's technology liaison program in Maryland. Ms. Ingram noted that this type of collaboration is a "win-win" situation because it benefits so many different people. Ms. Teitelman indicated that her IU is similar to Maryland's technology liaison program in the sense of training trainers and forming a community of sorts based on the model of coming together to learn more-a collegial meeting of the minds.

Dr. Hartschuh said Delaware has not yet done anything with technology literacy because the federal government has not yet developed any stringent guidelines. Therefore, for now, it remains a district-level issue to address. But Dr. Hartschuh is in the process of developing a statewide recommended curriculum, with the realization that as this curriculum is pieced together, it must also include the technology literacy by eighth-grade requirement. Therefore, as Delaware develops its math, language, science and other curricular units, the state will build technology directly into the recommended curriculum concepts so that a child moving through elementary school will have the components needed to be technologically literate by eighth-grade. Dr. Hartschuh referred to the CARET online resource mentioned by Jan Van Dam during the keynote address as a tool for assisting with the integration of technology literacy requirements into the statewide curriculum development process.

Dr. Hartschuh further noted the statewide project using the levels of technology integration (LoTi) whereby Delaware has signed a statewide contract with founder Chris Moersch to allow teachers to get trained and subsequently understand what it really means to integrate technology into the curriculum. There are project schools that are serving as models for this LoTi training. Additionally, 28 people have received training for LoTi certification in a train-the-trainer model.

Nancy Carey, Coordinator at the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), currently oversees what Mr. Smith and Ms. Woods are doing with the technology literacy by eighth-grade grant. In this capacity, Ms. Carey works more on leverage points, or the political points that must be clearly communicated to stakeholders, and she has subsequently met with the state superintendent to say that this must be a policy-level initiative, not just based in standards. An advisory council was put together to assist with this process. According to Ms. Carey, Maryland does not want to add more high-stakes testing/standards but rather wants to reflect technology literacy by eighth-grade through an established continuum of growth. Ms. Carey observed that many people from diverse fields attend the planning meetings to assist with this initiative (e.g., technology education staff, special education staff). In addition, Ms. Carey is coordinating professional development for Maryland and is working directly with the state superintendent who is in charge of overseeing the professional development process, which Ms. Carey sees as an excellent setting for collaboration. Indeed, communication and collaboration are key factors, observed Ms. Carey. Regarding additional collaborative efforts, Ms. Carey mentioned SETDA, where she oversees the Innovation and Partnership component and in so doing asks for assistance from ISTE and other relevant organizations. In reference to SETDA's role in promoting collaboration, Dr. Hartschuh noted that as part of SETDA's structured activities, state officers have participated in ISTE initiatives, thereby leading to greater partnership and collaboration.

Ms. Ingram indicated that in her district, accessible technology is also an important piece regarding technology literacy by eighth-grade. Ms. Ingram asked if this is the case in other states. Dr. Hartschuh noted that when he goes into schools in Delaware, the special education students are probably more technologically literate than other students because "it's part of their life" in that they always have technology surrounding them in some form. Of course, there is a separate funding stream for them in this regard, which helps further promote the process. Ms. Carey stated that in Maryland, the superintendent has a special education background, so nothing is done that is not first compliant with Section 508. Dr. Hartschuh said that Delaware also has a major universal design emphasis in what they do. Mr. Cocco stated that in New Jersey, there is also much emphasis around accessible technology, and that special education students and teachers are sent to the ETTC centers for professional development assistance in this regard. The entire state of New Jersey is focused on getting compliant with Section 508 regarding website development, which is being promoted by Mr. Cocco's state officer team. The New Jersey state officer team is trying to get new templates that are 508 compliant since they are not at present. The question is, what are the legal requirements from the federal level regarding states' websites? Mr. Cocco further pointed out the new regulations that every K-12 instrument throughout the country will have to be accessible. If this passes (and it may not be enacted for awhile because publishers are fighting it), this will change everything. Ms. Ingram added that because Maryland currently requires compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), schools already have to pass everything through a system of checks and balances to ensure accessibility before anything is approved.

Mr. Esolda indicated that there is a 12-month school in New Jersey that is special needs specific; here, accessible technology is piloted and sent out to other schools if it works. This process has been difficult to navigate regarding inclusion issues at times. Dr. Hartschuh ended the breakout session by asking if there were other issues to address, including whether people learned anything specific from the morning session that they would be able to apply in their respective states and districts. Dr. Hartschuh noted that he now wants to get more involved in the Technology Literacy Association (TLA) initiative described by Mr. Smith from Maryland because they are already several steps ahead in terms of defining and conceptualizing the issue. Ms. Teitelman indicated that the intermediate unit staff in Pennsylvania is going to e-mail Michael Golden, Director of Educational Technology for the Pennsylvania Department of Education, with their suggestions based on the morning session.

D. Funding Technology Literacy Projects (Louise Tanney, PT3 Director, MSDE)

Before the session began, the conversation centered on the success of Dr. Bruno, the superintendent of the Glendale School District, as discussed in a previous conference session, and how he was able to make such accomplishment. Ms. Tanney officially began the session by suggesting that the group come up with two strategies to present to the rest of the conference participants once the breakout sessions were over. The first question she raised concerned the effectiveness of small jurisdictions versus big ones: Do smaller entities get more accomplished?

Dr. Burke said that budgets are a list of priorities, not money. If your project is not in the budget, nothing will be done. To translate what Dr. Bruno has done to a district the size of New York City's, the cost would be $2 billion. That obviously cannot be done, so other districts must make plans that are more realistic. To Dr. Burke, the key to Dr. Bruno's success is a lot of "out of the box" thinking. The next key is sustaining whatever gets accomplished. The question of how best to sustain projects beyond their grant lives is one that needs to be explored. Dr. Burke laments that too much of the grant-funded research he has been involved with, from both sides, ends up unused once the project is finished.

Ms. Woods pointed out that Dr. Bruno used his district's disadvantages-a very rural and poor district-as advantages in competing for grants and devising partnerships with others. She said that Dr. Bruno's creativity-a superintendent as a technology leader-is very rare. Dr. Bruno had to take on many different roles; he was the IT department for his district. This meant he had total control and could decide how to devote his resources. Ms. Woods made the point that you have to be at the negotiating table in order to have your projects incorporated into the budget. She also said that the focus has to be on student learning, not just getting IT equipment. You have to show that there is a positive effect of technology on learning.

Mr. Kunz said there is too much focus on technology and not enough on student learning. He gave an example of a large grant that provided the recipient with the ability to purchase a great deal of technology to study child obesity. You can get what you want if you show initiative and leadership. Mr. Dantine said that trust with your partners is a key to success. He described a project that his district (Vineland) has with the local government. It includes a metropolitan area network that the school district, the police department, and the fire department all use. In order to create this partnership, they first had to get the trust of the mayor and the local government. Ms. Neal asked the group about the possibilities of getting grants and forming partnerships with entities other than the government. Mr. Kunz gave some details about a partnership his school had with the pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca. The firm asked the school what they needed; the focus was on teaching and student achievement. There was no district involvement in the project; it was between the school and the company.

Ms. Lovejoy then spoke about the situation at her school. She works at an independent school, so they must do things on their own. They created a fundraiser to get the funds for a laptop cart. The school was able to get a lot of support from the students' parents and from the community, and she said that a key to that success was that teachers contributed funds as well. Showing the commitment of the staff to a project will entice others to also help. Dr. Burke mentioned that the state of West Virginia negotiates contracts with suppliers, where local education agencies can take advantage of the state-negotiated price. This allows small jurisdictions to get economies of scale in their technology purchases. Ms. Tanney pointed out that sometimes over the course of a contract, prices come down anyway, perhaps to a level lower than the previously negotiated price. Ms. Woods explained a system in Maryland by which vendors become qualified to provide bids. When an agency needs equipment or services, it negotiates only with those qualified vendors.

Ms. Schimminger suggested a strategy in which you view the parents as customers and you present to them the costs and benefits of projects. She then asked the group their opinions of a computer purchase plan where the school provides half of the money and the parents provide the other half; the parents then get to take the computer home and keep it after 4 years of service. Everyone is trying to find ways to sustain programs, particularly in the aftermath of a period in which a district has had a large grant. How do you keep projects going in the present environment where there is not as much money around? Different strategies must be found. Others suggested that 4 years might be too long of a cycle for Ms. Schimminger's plan because parents might not want a 4-year-old computer. Another potential drawback is a possible lack of demand by parents because they already have the computers they want. Ms. Neal asked the group about the option of leasing computers rather than purchasing them and pointed out that the private sector often uses this option. Ms. Schimminger said that a study indicated that if you have the money you need to purchase the equipment you want, go ahead, because it is more cost-effective. However, if you do not have the money, leasing is an option, and then it can become a line item in the budget; it becomes something you budget for every year, which gives greater certainty for the future.

Ms. Tanney pointed out that private industry is more likely to have the option of leasing rather than purchasing, as they often have greater resources. Mr. Kunz told the group that his district purchases previously leased computers; they are 1 or 2-years-old, but they are good enough for their purposes. The discussion turned back to Dr. Bruno's district; can other districts find a way to sell a service as his did? Ms. Woods said that his district and community is a special case in that they did not have the technology and communications infrastructure that most communities have by now, and the district was able to provide that infrastructure and greatly help itself out at the same time.

Others wondered about the decision-making structure. Mr. Dantine pointed out that the Glendale district is small, so Dr. Bruno has more authority and control than a superintendent of a larger district would have. Mr. Jones then asked about the big drawback of this kind of situation: What happens if the key person is no longer there? Ms. Woods said that the example of Dr. Bruno is unique, but there is still a lot to learn from it. Ms. Tanney said that leadership is key; you need good leadership to get past the roadblocks that always come up. While the circumstances of most districts mean many potential roadblocks to successfully putting a project together, with good leadership and vision, they can be overcome. Ms. Woods pointed out that while there are disadvantages to being a large district, there are advantages as well. There is a larger population base, the potential for the availability of a greater amount of resources, and more opportunities for partnerships with private industry. She spoke of a project in which her district has teamed up with business partners, and these partners provide technology training to district staff members. This is done by letting district staff members participate in the training sessions the businesses are already conducting with their own staffs.

Dr. Burke mentioned the example of the school district in Union City, New Jersey. This district has a lot of technology and uses it to support instruction. The key to this story is that this particular district was failing and ready to be taken over by the state. The school board, in an effort to maintain some control, gave control to an outside group that undertook a process of reforming the district. The threat of state takeover was the impetus to reform and undertake a large infusion of technology. He then asked the group if the accountability that is part of No Child Left Behind could be used as leverage. Mr. Jones said that the others in the room did not have to deal with the roadblocks that districts in New Jersey face. He explained that districts in his state need voter approval of school budgets, and that his particular district's budget has been turned down for the past 6 years. When this happens, there is a process in which the budget gets cut to the desired amount; as one may expect, items that are viewed as less important, such as technology, get cut instead of things like salaries. He went on to explain that this process can be very difficult in areas that are less affluent and areas in which there are a large percentage of older voters. The changing demographics of a region will affect future school budgets.

Ms. Woods pointed out that there are plenty of benefits to having a good school system in a community, but many people fail to understand them. Mr. Jones went on to say that in New Jersey, superintendents have to go out and lobby voters to get their budgets approved. Ms. Woods stated that the conversation needs to be broadened so that information can be shared not only within states but also between them. The conversation also needs to be sustained so that everyone is kept apprised of how projects do over time. Everyone should share his or her ideas so that everyone has an opportunity to compete for grants and create partnerships. Perhaps a web-based tool for sustained conversation, like Blackboard, is a way in which everyone can participate. The goal of technology literacy by eighth grade is not as easy as it may look. Formative and summative assessments must be performed, and a portfolio must follow every student. The session ended with various evaluations of where the states are in relation to each other. Mr. Kunz said Delaware is not very far along in its development of a growth skills chart and said that he thought Maryland was further along than his state. Ms. Woods said that the state of Maryland seeks input and does not look to dictate to districts.

Reporting

Dr. Stoltzfus said that MAR*TEC is trying to take the federal requirements and use them to create a common evaluation tool for the mid-Atlantic region. Even though every school has its own needs, the power of a broad collaboration would be invaluable. She praised the effectiveness of the SON conference calls and the relationships that have formed between the states as a result. Ms. Lemke said that it is all about doing what is right for the kids. We do not want to move from a technology curriculum to a technology class. Everyone needs to realize that technology in a math environment is not the same as technology in an English class for instance. She suggested moving away from the terms "technology" and "tool" and moving toward "authenticity" and "relevancy." An attendee asked about a timeline for the evaluation tool. Dr. Stoltzfus said there would be another conference call soon, followed by a SETDA meeting. She said it would take about 6 months to come up with the tool. Dr. Stoltzfus said she would e-mail the participants with details and would make sure that the conference website stays up; they can look for information there. On the SETDA site, there is an observation tool as well as a student assessment of self-directed learning. Someone commented on the eighth-grade literacy requirement and then asked what happens in high school. Dr. Van Dam said that we have to indeed question whether we are sending a message that is saying, "You're out of eighth grade. You know everything you need to know about technology." We have to pay attention to the scope.