Schools That Purchase Computers Often Have Problems Using Them

Continued From Page 31

works, and only a few programs priced for network use have reached the market.

The district was gambling that "by the time we got teachers trained," the software problem would be solved, says Michael Summerbell, Fremont-Union coordinator of computer instruction. That hasn't happened yet, though, often forcing teachers like Mrs. Annette to use courseware they consider inferior that isn't copyrighted.

Milliken Publishing has promised "a network solution" by fall, though it has misgivings about network use of its programs. Bodie Marx, vice president in charge of computer software for Milliken, notes, for example, the company's $500,000 investment in its math series. "With an investment like that, it scares us to think that hundreds of students could work from one disk," he says.

Too many school systems are buying computers that can't be integrated with classroom work or existing equipment, says Marc Tucker, a Washington, D.C., analyst of classroom computer policies. Once delivered, the computers go "into the hands of teachers who are frightened by the machines and have no sources for learning how to use them," he says. Mr. Tucker's remedy: schools should allot only 25% of their computer funds to hardware and maintenance. Another 25% should be reserved for software. The remaining 50% should go for planning, teacher training and other support

services.

Topic:

Colorado Commissioner of Education

Responses to Senate Committee Questions on Proposed Mathematics,
Science, and Foreign Language Legislation

In response to your March letter asking for answers to specific questions on the proposed legislation, I would submit the following reactions:

1. Q. Are there pitfalls in a federal mathematics and science initiative? Are other areas being neglected?

A.

The only pitfalls might be as follows:

1. Setting in motion a federal involvement that has no ending.
Some involvement can be justified to achieve a specific national
objective and outcome. After that end has been attained or it
becomes obvious the approaches taken are not having the desired
outcomes, the legislation should be terminated or modified.

2.

B. Q.

A.

Legislative implications of the above statement

The legislation should include a sunsetting provision, i.e.
four years, suggesting to all parties the need to make the
best use of these provisions in the time provided.

It could also argue for including some reporting and evaluation
provision that would advise Congress, states, and the public
on the progress made and the annual status of math and science
teaching and programs in America.

Some provision must be made for the state to address the broader
policy issues relating to recruiting, training, rewarding, and
retaining teachers in these critical areas. Policy makers must
look at state laws, regulations, and practices that may adversely
impact these factors, plus high school graduation or college
admission standards or teacher education and certification.
Unless these components are examined and perhaps changed, the
federal corrective actions initiated are superficial and
short-lived.

Are other areas neglected

There are good arguments for considering a foreign language emphasis in the Senate legislation to address national security and economic development concerns.

Senator Robert T. Stafford

Page two
April 1983

2a. Q. Should there be an intrastate distribution formula?

A. Yes. This would eliminate 50 state arguments over these figures and expedite implementation of programs to address the problems. 2b. Q. Does Congress dilute the effort if funds go directly to school districts in each state?

A. Yes. If all monies go directly to local school districts and
institutions of higher education for training teachers and/or
buying equipment, the educational system is not fully impacted
in terms of the various components listed in A(2) above. Some
monies should be available to state level studies and changes
involving state K-12 and higher educational policy makers.
monies should flow quickly to local districts by a pre-set
distribution formula.

2c. Q.

3. Q.

A.

Other

Ideally, I believe the state/local mix should change over the life
of the legislation (if 4 years, for instance). A higher percent
should go initially to the state level to ensure the development
of a state plan for best utilizing the future monies and preparing
K-12 and higher education fund recipients to have the broadest
vision possible in implementing the federal supplementary legis-
lation. Dollars for state level or institutional policy makers
could be reduced over the four year span with school districts
and representatives of higher education i.e. professors or
departments receiving a greater percentage of the funds.

How do federal funds reach the areas of greatest need?

A. Congress can either assume the problem is general and widespread
or that states should be free to determine the areas of high need.
I would advise Congress to assume the problem is general in nature
and not require extensive legislation (or rules) or state-wide
debates to slow implementation of local and state plans to make
change. Settle the distribution question at the national level
and assume widespread and common problems.

If some monies are provided for state level analysis and discretion, these funds can provide the targeting as a state sees appropriate. The bulk of the funds can be effective in a formula distribution.

Is there a "rule of thumb" in determining the division of funds
between teacher training, equipment or other needs?

With the monies being considered ($50 M to 500 M) I would see these
funds going to support the development of state plans, revisions
of policies relating to science, math and foreign language in-
struction and teacher factors. If these contributions work well
in a state, tax credit plans for businesses helping to supply
equipment to schools and institutions of higher education could
be the stimulus to address the equipment needs.

Senator Robert T. Stafford

Page three

April 1983

4. Q.

A.

A suggested Division of State funds:
(assuming a four year cycle)

Year One

5% State Planning relative to maximizing the value of the
federal monies.

10% Technical Assistance and Management State Agency.
65% School District support.

20% Higher education - teacher training, etc.

Years Two and Three

10% State assistance and managment.

70% School district support.

20% Higher education

Year Four

5% State agency management and evaluation support. 75% School district funds.

20% Higher education.

Should a loan forgiveness provision be provided?

No. It would seem that the mechanics of such programs are not
efficient. Secondly, I would anticipate that individuals utilizing
the "forgiveness provisions" would do so as a plus not as a determinant
of entering the teaching profession. Grants, scholarships, and re-
training of currently unemployed teachers would appear to have a
greater return.

Final Question relative to Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
Position Statement:

Regarding the intrastate distribution, is there a correlation between poverty in a district and that district's deficiency in math and science education?

I am not aware of correlation figures of the nature indicated in the question. I believe the CCSSO concern would relate more to distribution of the federal monies might be most equitable if the variations in district "wealth" were considered. The fiscal strength of the district may not be related to the incidence of poverty within the district.

I will ask the CCSSO legislative liaison to talk with you about any data that may be available in relationship to the question posed.

I hope these comments are helpful to your deliberations.

Sincerely,

Caben M. Frazier

Calvin M. Frazier

President, Council of Chief State School Officers
Colorado Commissioner of Education

CMF/jg

Thank you for your letter of March 10, 1983 in which you ask for NSBA's views regarding the basic structure of a mathematics and science bill. Our specific responses to your questions are attached.

I would like to take this opportunity to re-emphasize our belief in the
importance of an adequate federal response in this area to both American
education and to the general welfare of our nation. We strongly encourage you
to pursue legislation which provides a sufficient level of funding so as to
constitute the broad-based program which is needed. As you may know, NSBA has
developed a bill, the National Education and Economic Development Act (the
NEED bill), which we believe would provide an appropriate delivery system for
the federal undertaking which is required. We hope that our bill, along with
our testimony will be useful to the Subcommittee as you proceed to mark up.

Again, I wish to thank you for the expeditious manner in which you are addressing this critically needed legislation. If NSBA can be of any further assistance to you, please call upon me or our Congressional and Governmental Relations staff.

Sincerely,

pien parent

M. Joan Parent

First Vice President

MJP/MAR/jch

NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW. Suite 600, Washington, DC 20007/(202) 337 7666

serving Ameni an education through school board le adership