-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/22081205166333c66074b1042caf72c7.pdf
f960dcc1800ef6993c4b3000886d2cf3
PDF Text
Text
.
i·
THE WHITE HOUSE.
'r
! ,
WASHINGTON
!\UlJUot 17, 1993
MEMO_lIM
FROM:
StlaJECT:
Attached are two brief pap&rs for discussion: the first Qn
!ncressing tha productivity of learn1ng; the second on financing
11fe-long
loa~ng.
Subject to conflicts 1n
sOhedul.c~
could you
join me for a lunch S$ my guest at the White House Mess on
Wednesday; September 6 at noon, and a one-hour seminar as my
sympathat1c critiQs for rethinking how to invest more effectively
.'.
in people learning ~
PJ,eB6e call my assi.stant N1cQle Lindsay at 456-2800 to
eonf.inu. In'the meantime., if you have any commenttl, suggestiona
or questions, f1re away.
co Be Cutter
\yU\
,
•
. \.
�ASKING TIIE RIGHT QUESTIONS ABOUT
EDUCATION, SCnOOLING AND TRAINING?
BACKGROUND:
1. The discussion about reforming education. schooling and trnining in this c:ou.utry fOCUKt$ on
improving the quality of the teachers" the organization and rt&pOllSivencs.a of 1bc schools. and the
curriculum; lowering class $ia; integrating more sttVicesj raising standards for teacher and
student performance, etc. The locus is improving Ihe mCllll$ of scboollng, education and
training-wbothor in lidding a yoar to head start, e>pandlng bead start
ro COY"
all eligible
children, improving k-12 education Or b:aining for scbool-Io-work. wellare-Io-"wk, dislocated
-worker-to-work, or C3I'CCT transitions. Evcu those who tout choice: and market ttu:chanisms as
... llIu:mative .peak ptimarily in """" of improving lb. means of scbooling.
2. Thi.1ocus on imprOving tb. mCllllS of prOduction--5OCD as education, schooling or traiDing-
has not led to any measwable increase in the officiency of schooling this <:enttJty . Yes, we bave
had major lnC11:8SCS in the numbers of students who aneod K-12 and graduate from higb scbool.
in this c:enrury... we have made schooling univ<tsal. Yes, we have made progress in providing
some incn:ased
of eligible pro-school childreo with. nead 51"" as funding has gone
up. But nll of Ibese improvemenls have been incremental nol exponeotinl: as we add schools and
centers for care' or training, as we add teachers and provideIS, as we add RSOW'CC5. th~ ;$
sometimmi a proportional illCt'C85e in the numbers of persons trained, schooled or llUl1ured.
porn""
_.1lI
3. Compated 10 virtually any other industry in Ihe.
century, education has bed at best
minimal gains in productivity. Consider that we grow and dlstn'bute mo.. and _
food loday
... lower coot with only • fraction of 'he !ann... that tilled the lamI allbe tum of the century.
We build better products, more efficiently, on a much more custOJnb:ed basis, with less
environmental poUution. and with far fewer workeIS pet unit of output fhan at the tum of the
century; and, wbert we arc not as effieient~ reSpOnsive, and effective, we Jose production
overseas, We bave whole new iDdustries:--cntc:rtairunent) information. SCt\'icts--barc::ly i.ulagiflcd
at the 11..." of the ccnIury. We have an incr...ln, variety of new technologies that have
1Ovolutionized industries. old and new alike, amllbal are remaking
nail"" and the world ..
• new eoonomy Unfolds alllUOUlld ••• Yet educatlon, .mining. and schooling loolc:, ad, ami
produce much the sam. way they dId at !be tum or the century.
ou,
TIIESIS:
lTS LEARNING, STUPIDI
hi a We< of Rioh.., loel Mokyr begins:
Technological creativity, like all creativity, it au act Of RbcUion.
�.
'.
We need to consider whether such an act of rebellion is essential if we arc to. transform the skills
of aU of our people. We need to cQIlsider whether wt: ate on the cusp of
revolution that
3:
technological
win enable US to cboose a new direClion.
Consi«;ler three, related shifts in thinking:
1. J.t.L.L.:amj"&; Let tht; teaming lAYer BcDn· It is tearning-not edueatiQn~ training, or
schooHng--tliat is ot issue. From lhis perspective. the major problem is thaI WI: know that ev~
. penon in different and unique. If we could invent efficient and efIectlve means of learning.
tbmfQR, we wou1d Dot be satisfied just by findiog the common needs of wost leammi. Instead,
we would try to customize the means of leaming to serve eacD !earner fUld to allow learners: to
proceed at their own patel in their own styles, including by working at learning with one Motber
in palrs or larger groupS. as
as MOlle. Howard Gardner, and others. have begun to speak
to such Ii ~rent ccnception.
wen
Such a reinvented vision of learning might seem to depend on bavinS a wide variety of tutotS
for virtually cv"'" leamer. Yet Iht prim8Iy wotk i, dooc by the leamer. IlOl by the tutOr. As
a result. we <:an begin to imagine a system wbere- the ItamCI connectS up with rotors at various
times, but can also do much of the work of learning OJ] bet own (Of, together. with peera WId
parents). What would be most helpful to Such. ",invented .Y'- of loaming arc a wid. vlUiety
of levelS to assist tbe leamer (and peers, parents and tutors) along a wide variety paths to
leami:aS. We. therefore, call these new tools; Lcarnjne I.c;vClS_
2. II's. tccbnolggy: l..d; the. Rebdlion Begin For such a laming revolution to S'Llcceed, of caun:e,
we win need a 1echn<>logi<al ",volurion as
And, one is on lhe horlroo if !WI al=dy upoe
wen.
us. To date) roost computers have been Imear--yes-not stringing words and bits togethc:r in a
line~ computing numbers, most triggered by ! numericaVaJpbabelkal keyboard 01 a mouse. But
images, sounds, non-tineat information and insights, roUing frames and stop action. interactive:
multi-media ace all coming together. Miniaturization, oompacting of data. new means of
transmitting inlagul sound and information, and so much mort: ate upon us. The potential for
creating all variety of Learning L;vcrs is a rebellion in the making.
3. It's Intc;ractive Entertainment 14 The Gamcs &,&in. FmaUy. the smashing tcbellion is that
tho.w vBriely (and payoff) is not in the hardware or the 'Y'tems soflw... of Leaming Leve..:
in tho """lent, tbe pIOgtam. the enlertainment, the production of the plays and the provisioo
fOf the WteJaCtioDS. Current estimates arc that 1% of tho ~vmuc:s, profits t and jobs an: in
maklns: the bardw_. up to 4% in the systr;m. _ e . and """elbing like 95% in the cooteot.
imagine if
games, entertainment. interactive multi-media, and all manner of cngagi"ll
content all came together with th. revolu!i"" in technOlogy and • lCVolution in loamingt
it·,
roo,
As on added bonus. hetc I•• burgeoning new industry whetc the U.s. bas • """'polltlve cdge 00
the lOst of the world, II the 21st Century i. to be an American Century as Bon Wallentrurg
argues Leamin& Lev... """Id be .,.. of the major keys to cranslatins what he assumes I. our
cuncnt coltund domina.nce illto a major economic Wl\ru:¢, Le.aming Lr:vm could boecome the
meaDS to revolutionize learning-f., all ag..--in America, and around lhe world. Leamin&
could beeomc the biBllCSl growth industry of tht MW Infornultion age: non-ponuling, creative,
�I.
entertaining, creating thousands of new products and markets, millions of jobs, while serving the
nCi:ds of learum of all ages cverywhi!te.
So~
how dotS $ouch a vision inform Qur review of policy?
, • We should explore hO'W we can acate an environmcm where sucl1 a revolution can
proceed apace in a democratic fashion. We should make sure that Chapter I, Head. Start,
Apprenticesbfp, dislocated worker. other transitional training. and family assistan¢e
include .so.a:u:. provision fot iillowmg J'(:rsons in need fun access to l..eaming Leven.
" We should be cautious about betting all of out prosram. and dollars on improving the
¢ld means of education, mrining. and schooling.
.. We should invest some of our pt08f8JD' aod dollars In demonstratiOll6 or Learning .
l..cven.
• In scttlng standards, we need to make
through the use or teaming level>
sun: that they are- recepm-e to achievement
oW. may m:ed 10 rethink how we orpulu Healthy Slart. Head Start, K-12. transitioual
!if8ining so as to be open to a greater variety of meam of deUvering services. States,
loealiti... and pubUc and private providers may aU be affoct<d dramatically.
o We may want to considtT how far alon& such. ",volulion in Icarnicg may be, and whal
we can do to numu:. it. including by creating a hoapilabl. and _ o S inlell......l
property environment.
• We ought to begin planning for a major lcamiag COIlV.mOll with all variety of
teacbeIS, ttainc:rs, educatOtS, nw1urclS. and other public servants.
.. W. should consider whether President Clinton CQuld use his bully pulpit (and make
available the existing resources of our government) to c:all on the private SC(:;tor to make
I...ea.ming Levers One of America's major contributions to the twenty-first ce.ntury. For
example, • national COIIlptlition could he conduct«l annually 10 award the I'Iosideotial
I'tiz,e for the most Innovative Leatnlng Lever for early childhood, chHdhood, early
adolescence and adolescence, young adul. nod adults; for families. lIcbools and libtarieo
or the fUture, career
and lifelong lcaming; for inleractive and portable leamicg
gam.. for the home. school, _
and new, _-stop leamicg and career .cent.... etc.
,,,,,,,,iii,,,,,
Joel Mokyr documents that. over the centuries. major technological advanceo have provided what
most .oconomista faJ1 to comprehend; a veritable "free lund>" in economic growth -- but only
for those societies mart enough to embrace the new i:nnovation AruiIO withstand the inll'Nitable
dlslocatlOtt!l as the meana of production chaogc and the pro-existing equilibrium is. dlmlpted.
l<:amin.iI Lev... oHm our CQ\Illtry .uch • Lever of Ri<bes -- bot only if we arc smart enough
to _k the liberating pme of leaming fot life for CVeI}' person and bold CIIOUgh to embcace the
economic reward of constant persomJ. mnUy. and COJrununity re~.
.
�·.
'.
ASKING TIlE RIGHT QUESTIONS ABOI.IT FINANCING LIFELONG LEARNING?
1. Federal financing of post-secondary edugtjon and ttainlng I, now premised on • hodge
podge ot pl'OlI'iI.IIlS and scpamte funding SlrCanlS, ,.g., fOf apprenticeship and .rudent I.",",
from ])QEd, Jol> TtaiDing PartnettbJp Act from DOl., iOBS frnm HHS, C!C. With !he
exception of the f(:vised student loan program, all ate premised on the federal gcvetnmonc
(ofren in parlnmbJps witb !he Sta[..) funding post-secondary education and training from
C\JfRut apPrOpriations for grants to individuals or to providers. 1b.i$ means that the RlCipient
of the education and training service is given a band-out by current taxpayers and bas no
obUgation to share in any teSultin& inc'.rtMe in earnings; and. given current budget CUD$traiuts
" nd competme. prioriti~. there is virtuaUy nO room {or mcaningfuUy inaeasins investmentS in
a
people~ leaminS _
=oodary _I.
2. The National Scrvk.. Th>st off.". Ille bcgilllllngs of an altenWivc ",_Ism for finrulciDg
education: income contingent loans [0 studen... If structu.r<d properly under federal acdil
",form, the ooly Impact on !he current federal budget of such direct federal loans o.
gu_"""'" Is tbe total present value of (a) any ftderal subsidy in !he In[e,<$I lale, (b) any
guaran",., and/or (oj any projeacd def""lIs on principal and 1m..... repaym""". (In
addition, !hc dbcct federal
are • debt owing to tbe U.S. gevernmct1t and, theretOIl'. can
be coUected djn:ctly by IRS through witbboldiog I"".. and annual lOX rotwns and can be
.ubjec, [0 o!ber colleotion procedures and penalties if not paid.) This means .ba. !he J<cipicnt
of the education and trainlng ..",lee finaDce<! by .be federal govcnuncn[ bas an obligatlOll '0
share ill any resulting inmase in earnings; and there is nQ budgetary limit On the amount of
investm.... tbal tbe Ji:dcral govemmcnt may make available to quallfiod individuals wbo
<:booSlO to botroW to invest in tbeir own leaming t. incr.... !bci1 fu[uro earnings potentiaL
I""",
3. In • world wben: tbe mean. of productloD and !hc nature of work, employment, and finns
are so mpldly changing, we nend to lind • fiscally tcspoIISlblc, adminl_tive1y f..slble, and
economically sound means to fina_ leaming for all inlmstc:d pettonS tluougboul lbe
Uftspan lllat fits our cullllTC and maximizes our potential. Given tbe J.cI< of evide... tbat
any pam""l... form of post-secondary education or llaining is p811l<:ulady well-suited t.
provide !hc ....,...ry oppoItunirles for meaningful learning [brougbout lbe llfcspan In tbe
tmbulent decade, abcnd, why not empower each quallfied individual 10 Invest in bJs or ber
own futute? hl a nation w"lltm federal and state budget C01lSrra.iJU$ do n01 permit gavcnmu::::nt
to spend 10"'" for Ufelong leomlng. alternative means 0' financing mll61 be found. Is ther.
""Y bcfIcr way !ban for llIe federal gCVCrnmC.' to establish a means to _
the
oppommity for tv"", individual 10 take r."""",lbillty for _ O S in their own fUture.
lcamlng "'.., eoch individual will find most nowarding through out bJs or ber own Ufe, and
repaying that mV<:&ttn••, tIuough a ,bal. In their own lifetime earnings? .
mESISt
,
Not only is It lifelong lcamlng, stupldl
It', also stupid not to be••
lllc primary btneficiary of leandng pay for i~
particularly when no ODt:: e~se bas as' much stake in the outcome:.
�;
,
'
,
,
.
'
A Univctsa1 Personal Ufctime learning Trust could provide (he means to finan<:e
lifetime learning through direa. income contingent federal loans to aU mtcfl;:Sted and qualified
learners, Fint) UPlJrr would substitute direct loans to qualified poSt-secondary leamcTf at
any time in their Ufe for the plethora of current federal training and education programs and
bureaucracies. that seek to provide education to SOme for a college education and job training
for a f,w to transition from one job to another or from welfare to a job. UPLIFT would
permit tbc financing of ill lifetime; learning. without regard to onrent federal, state or local
budsct consttaints: we could put ,",ople first by empowering them '0 Inv... in their <>wn
1_&dtroUgllout their U
...,
Second, UPLIFT would pl... the ~o..ibmty for paying for learning on tho•• to
whom it matters the most - the leamer who wiU get out of the education "pcrience only
what h. or she pUIS into it. The &Upply of leaming experi=. would then be driven by what
the whole host of ltamers demand, not wbat current providm offer or what aay govenu:nent
bcIieve$ is tbe next wave Of tbe turu"" Rather than bet on the interloddnS wtbt or llrms
wltb Ilf.time employment as In J.pall or on tbe federally mandated, publi""priva", l13iniDg
and central bank financing of business as I. Germany. UPliFT would encourage all ot our
people to ja.".t In themselves and In ow: future througb taIting ...punsibillty for tbeir own
leaming in lOllS of _
or public, private. for-profit and non-profit, on-campus add
remote: Ieamm& experiences throughout their liveS.
FUlAIIy, In addition to stimulating demand tor I _ g and supply af d!• .,.. lc:aming
experiences, tIPUFl' v.-ould also stimulate a 'Variety of private rna.rJa:t alttrllativcs to_ finance
one or another niche irt lifeloos, iewring. Market safeguards c;ould be included to assure
some quality con.rol: [or example, requiring providers at leamlng "'Peri"""", to disclose
COst$, shon-tmn outcomes, long-tetm ""Idue added; $3Jlctioning providers who misrepresent
or leave. tmil of participallts who default on their income-conllngent n:paymc:nt obligationl;
or encoulasini independent evaluatioD, grading. and r<purtIng of the result> of providers'
services. What 8 shock it might be to all of our prcronceptlons to prove what we now only
tOUl: that inycstment in hUman tapital - i.e., leam.ing - pay. a martel rate Qf Rtum.
ill sum, UPLIFT would provide. n:aI l<lI""Y from the Ointon-Oote Admini6ttation ••
future generations -- tbe federal government using its llmmcial muscle. with both ..,,'''' and
prudeoce, Ie llmm.. the oppommity of all _
to take respunsibility for inveui", in tbeir
own I _ g for life!
�THE WHITE HOUSE
February 9, 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVE BARRAM
HENRY KELLY
FROM:
PAUL DIMOND
BONNIE DEfu'lE
TOM ,KALIL
SUBJECT:
LEARNING TECHNOLOGY R&D
GOAL. OUf goal over the next several weeks is to anSwer the fOllowing· questions:
Can the Admlnislratlon's relevant federal R&D programs (e,g" TRP, ATP,
NTIA, DOEd Technolog)', DOL Labor Market/One Stop, NSF, N!E) playa
role in stimulating. seeding, or othcf".'.'isc fostering a neW learning industry?
If the: answer is ycs) y.-hat is the nature and scope of this. role and how can it be
successfully jmplemented?
PREMISES. OUf major premise is that we arc on the cusp of advances in a number
of domains thaI will enable curricula and learning games to be offered in a way that engages
the learner in content and encourages the learner to choose his or her own pathways to
knowledgc t Wtors, peers, nCt\l.'orks, and learning perforrr.ance-orienled outcomes, One early
stab at supporting this major premisc is attache~ -:- for your infonnation or amusement.
Our first minor premise is that federal R&D programs -- if the RFPs and bidder
confcrcnces arc properly structured -- can catalyze the requisite consonia both (a) to develop
the advances and synergy in the diverse technology domains and, perhaps even more
important, (b) to stimulatc the divcrse contcnts and karning games ~hat will engage learners.
Our second minor premise is that there will be a substantial and increasing market demand
for sucb Jearning lcvers, once developed l from firms (including associations and conS011:i3 of
firms). the federal govcrnment (e.g" DOD), homes (children, parents) incumbent workers,
learners of all ages), and learning centers (libraries, community colleges, Universities, pre
schools, K-12 schools, a new. scI of interactive: distance: learning firms).
'
NEXT STEP. To enable us to test these premises against reality. we agreed tit OUf
meeting ycsLerday to attempt to outline RfP specs for the next round of TRP Challenge
grants. Henry Kelly agreed to take !he: lead in exploring !he potential market demand,
defining the terrain for potcntial R&D ndvJ.nccs and bidder consortia, and c.:mvJssing a few
pr.or reviewc:rs :l:1d po!c!1!ial hidders ~nd uscrs. He will then provide a dmfl outline of RFP
�•
-2
, specs for Our re\'iew and discussion when we next mee! -- on February 24 at 8:30 a.m. in
Room 230 OEon. Hopefully, this process will 21so hc.lp to inform how to proceed with the
other relevant, federal R&D funding pmg;a:ns,
cc Bill Galston
Jack Donahue
l;inda Roberts
Dorothy Robyn
Doug Ross
Mike Smith
�IT'S LEARNING, STUPlD!
,We need to consider whether
\1,'C
nrc on thc ClJS? of a tecblOlogic:al revolution that will enable
to choose a ncw direction for lifelong learning for all Americans. Consider three, related
,shifls ir. payadigms:
'
tiS
L l.Ls....Wrnin,!}:; ur [ht LcarninJ.! Lever Begin. Ii is learning--not education, training, or
schooling~,-that is al issue, from this perspective, the major hurdle has a:ways been ~::tar we
know thaI every person is different and l!.n~que_ If we could invent efficient and effective means
of learning, therefore) we. would not be satisfied just by finding the common needs of most
learners. blstcad, We would try to customize [he Deans of learning to serve each learner .:md to
allow learners to proceed at their Own pace, in their own styles, includ;ng by working at learning
with one another in pairs or larger groups, as well as alone, at home! on the job or at school.
Such a reinvented \'ision of learning might seem to depend on haVing all variety of tulors for
vlrt:lally c".'ery lean:er. Yet the primary work is done by the learner, not by the tutor or teacher.
As a result, we can begin to imagine a system where the learner cOnneC:S up with tutors at
varioos times, but can also do much of the work of learning on her own (or, logether, witil peers
and parents). What would be mOSt hdpfu! to such a reinvented system of learning arc a wide
vade:)' of levers to assist the learner (and peers, parentS and (utors! finns and co-workers) along
a wide variety paths to learning, We, therefore, call these new tools: L::amingUyers ..
2. Its t~tuoJ.Qg;" Let rht Interactive Rebellion Bi:,bin. For such a learning revolution 10 proceed,
of course, we wilt need a lechnologicat revolution as welL And) onc is On the horizon jf not
'already upon us, To date, most computers have been Hnear--yes-no, stringing words and bits.
togc~hcr in a line, computing numbers, most triggered by a numericaValphabetical keyboard. But
icons, images, sounds, non-linear information and insights rOiling frames and SlOp action,
in~eracti\·e multl-media are all coming together. Miniaturization, compacting of data, new means
much more' are upon us, The potenliaI
of transmitting images, sound and infonnation, and
for creating all variety of Learning Le\'ers is a rebellion in the making.
.
j
so
3. It's In!cr3Cli\'~ Erucrta:nmcoi: I.tl..IhC.llames Begin, Finally, the sm:1shing revolution may
be that the real variety (and payofQ is not in the hardware or the systems softv.'are of Learning
Levers: it's in the content) the programs, the entertainment) the production of the plays and the
provision for the interactions with the players. Ccrrent estimates are that 1% of the revenues,
profits. and jobs arc in making the hardware, up to 4% ~i1 the systems sott""\o\'arc, and',..;omcthing
li~c 95% in :he COntent. Imagine if CD's, games, entcl1airunem, interactive multi-medial and
al~ manner of c!1gaging content and multiple pathways to knowledge all camc together with the
rcvolution in lechnoiogy and intcrac:lve communlcation!
Now, here is a pmcntiaily burgeoning new indusl!}' where the U.S. has a competitive edge or:
the resl of the world. If the 21st Century is 10 be an A.l'nerica.n Century as Ben Wattcnburg
a:gI;C$. the:1 Lt3minQ Levers could be.a kc\' to irJ:lSlaline: what he assumes is OUf curren! cultural
.
...
, dO;J!inancc into a major economit; advance for O'Jf flrrns anc for OUt people. H the 21ST century
will belong :0 those firms .1nd n::J!ions who learn how to increase produC::lvity in eyer expanding
scr>icc scc:or as Dxckcr a;gt:cs. then LeO-ming u':ers could provide ihc r"c:ar.s io increase the
skiUs of JH ,"'..:ncri::::u:s, t!:e prod;Jcrh'ilY of OUf workforc:;, and the competi:("cnc::;s of ocr firms
m the cr::~';j::r.g g!t)b! CCUI10r:1Y of :nlo,;n;ll:on :l:,J kno\1.'jcdgc,
-
~
�.
.
".
.-'"
Crafting a Technology and Learning Ch!dlengc {TLC)
lkdsiun Document fOT a Meeting of the
Education, Tr"ining~ and Rt-cmployment (li:TR) \\'orking Group
.(
August 11, 1994
The ETR working group has been preparing options for a nalia,nal program aimed at
using the power of modem information technology to achieve the Administration's
lifelong learning goals -- including Goals 2000 and School-to Work. This paper
summarizes the work completed thus far. The primary purpose of the August 11 meeting
will-be to review a decision memorandum being prepared for the ErR principals on
issues that must be resolved for FY96 budg~t decisions, A draft of the memo is auached.
THE \1SION:
Computer and multi-media technology makes individualized, learner-centered)
exploratory learning possible at affordable prices.
Communication systems can connect homes, schools, workplaces, and vast information
resources by leveraging time at home '(i.e. out of school and not at work)
These learning environments can lead to a major (2-sigma) improvement in learning
productivity (see chart A)
CHALLE:-;CE FOR THE ETR:
The technology of computers, communication systems, and multi-media systems is
advancing at a rapid rate. The Administration's National Infonnation.infrastructure
strategies aimed at ensuring uiuversal physical connectIvity are in progress. Investment
in the development of high..quality interactive learning however. has been much less than
investment in deve!op'rneQt of computer applications for businesses and entertainment.
Education ru:td training markets are fragmented and difficult to "reach since the advantages'
of the new technology require major changes in learning strategies and pedagogic
teclmiques and therefore extensive training for teachers and instructional staff .
OUR APPROACH:
Accelerating the development and adoption of technologies for learning requires
integrated management of a wide variety of federal programs (see Chart B). The specific
~ks
undertaken by working groups are:
1. Craft a coherent program for research, demorulration. and deployment of
teclwology-based approaches to learning produclivif)'. Three key components:
�.. funda:l1t!J1tal research
* \echnology~rorcing demonstrations
.. J,echnology deployment a:ld institution building
We beJieve t/tat tltis lastlllyk requir('s more efficient management ofexirting
research programs,in many different ageucies and, we believe, a major new
program is needed: a community-based grout program/or inllOValions in learning
technology p'atterned roug/zly after tIll! Administration's IdgM), successful
empowerment zone program.
,
2. Eusure that the federal governme1lt e:'«,m:ises leadersllip in the use 0/j1rodtJctit'e
leamillg techllologies iufederal programs
.. technology should be used wherever it is cost~effective in federal programs for
education and training (such as Goals 2000, ESEA, Head Start, and Job Corps)
* effectIve federal procuremenL"i of learning technology can lower the cost and
increase (he quality of training of DoD and federal civilian employees, as well as
stimulate private development of advanced instructional products
3. Effective coordlnation with National Information Infrastructure programs designed '
to provide universal access to the new informatwn superhlgl/way.
THE POLITICAL MESSAGE:
.....
'The Challenge Grant Program penuits a high-visibility opportunity to focus attention on
the administration's accomplishments in reshaping lifelong learning goals and introduces
a p?wcrful new tool for achieving these objectives,
-,
-,
In pankular, the program is a powerful example of defense conversion and dual use
technology -~ much of what can be done is possible because of DoD's extensive
investment in learning technology,
,
v
The program is based on federal partnerships with business as well as with state and local
governments. There are obvious opportunities for creating major new business
opportunities in an area where the US has a clear comparative advantage in world
markets.
and
The program will provide a vivid
'easily grasped example of the payoffs possible
from the Information Superhighway,
Creative management of existing federal programs underscores the power. of the
, "reinventing govem.'n,ent" strategy.
�I'ROGRESS TO DATE
]. -;he ETR established an imemg\!flcy task force 10 explore opportunities for
technology and learning.
2. O:v1B and NSTC, working hi cooperation with ETR, issued guidance asking
agencies to give high priority to technology and learning in their research budgets
.>n May 6, 1994,
3. DoD hosted a workshop for Deputies on July 9th, and a consensus vision
statement (attachment 1) Was developed.
4. A series of interagency working groups are nQW charged with addressing specific
issues. They were asked to review budget issues Ulat must be considered promptly
(to be discussed in the August i 1 meeting), and to prepare a more extensive
document outlining programmatic decisions bY,mid Novef?bcr, 19?4.
c
,
Task..~_~cription
; Design an interagency plan for Research,
, Development and Demonstration on
technology for learning productivity
Digitjzation ~~sources
USing the National Information
Infrastructure for Education and Training
,
,
,
, Procurement for Defense and Federal
,i Civilian Training
,
'-' ( ,
Team Leaders
Sharon Robinson and Lou Finch
cochairs of R&D subcommittee;
NSTC Commit1ee on Education and
Training.
David Lytel
: Tom Kalil
, Jonathan Sallet
I
.
, Mike Scrunidt
,
Use of Learning Technolog.y in Major
i
'
Federal Programs
Outreach
","Challenging competition for learning
comm~ities to develop and use interactive
learning tools
Rob Portman
Mike Schmidt
Jim Kohelenberger
Henry Kelly
Agencies involved include: DoD, DoC, DoL, DoED, HHS, DoT, NASA, DoE,
Smithsonian; US Park Service, National Archivcs"Library of Congress, VA.
National Endowment, for the Humanities, Support provided by MITRE and IDA
'5, . AnAu£usl 5 memorandum from OMB (attacrunenl2) ask5 for a detailed budget
analysis on a small number of high~priority administration R&D a.reas, inclUding
R&D on learning productivity, by September 29. It also suggests that "where
us~ful and appropriate, Committees should review agency contributions prior to
�"
September 9, 1994" in order to ensure that agencies request a balanced program
in the area. TIle NSTC Committee on Education Me Training (CET) is asked to
conduct the review of R&D for learning productivity, The memo specifically
Hotes the close coordination between the eEl' R&D analysis in learning
,echnology and the ETR project
fOCUS OF AUGUST n, 1994 MEETING WILL BE ON CRAFTING A
DECIS10N MEMORANDUM Fon ISSUES nEQUlRING IMMEDIATE
DECISION, SPECIFICALLY:
..
size and structure of the new grant program
•
management and funding for technology and learning R&D and Demonstrations
•
runding for creating and disseminating digital resources
I-iEXT STEPS:
Based on decisions made by the ETR principals and the in-depth review by CET,
agencies will include elements of a coordinated technology and learning program in their
FY96 budgets by 9 September.
ETR task force will continue to define options conc~ming federal programs and
procurements for decision by November 4.
Outreach efforts will solicit advice and guidance from businesses, NGOs, states and
localities, leachers and, following the announcement of the program, help to ensure wide
national participation in TLC programs and objectives.
PROGRESS REPORTS OF THE TASK FORCES WITH nEPOnTS DUE
NOVEMBER 4,
. -;.
.
""
1.- Using Technology 10 increase the effectiveness offederal programs in education and
training
Technology capable ofsignificant advances in learning productivity can make it easier to
achieve the goals of many federal programs, Wise management of procurements made.
under these programs can help stimulate markets. for innovative learning technology. An
interagency task force has been working to identify programs where technology can have
a particularly significant impact and to identify specific changes in program management
that can help secure these benefits.
-,.......
Attachment·1 summarizes the work underway in each of the following programs:
�people familiar with each of these programs are prcparir.g brief analyses of
foHmving topics:
Teams
(If
•
How learning technologies can be used to improve the effectiveness of the
program
•
Specific recommendations for using existing FY95 funding and authority
•
New legislative authority, if any. needed to ensure effective use of
technology
l1)c project teams will work together On common themes and areas where interagency
coordination appears to be particularly useful! including;
• How the programs can use the technological expertise available in other
federal programs
•
.
lmproving methods for federal purchasing of computer hardware and
software for education and training
• . Coordinating purchases ofhardwarc and software by program recipients to
help these recipients get the highest quaHty products at low eost and to
help stimulate markets for high-quality instructional materials,
• qsing the outreach centers availabJe to different programs (Chapler 1,
Head Start, others) to improve communication among program recipients
about instructional technology and improving coordination between these
programs
•
Defining methods for measuring and specifYing quality standards for
educational and training technology and gaining consenS!1s on tedmkal
standards and interoperahiJity
• ". lmproving and coordinating tcch~ical assistance and training
2. Pro(;urementfor Military and Civilian Training
Efficient operation of the federal government depends on maintaining the skills of
its wo_:,Kers. The Nation's secltrity has always depended on the quality of the training
programs available for the unifonned and civilian personnel in the Department of Defense
-- including maintenance of skills in the reserves, The challenge has hecome greater as
new technologies constantly redefine the skill requirements of federal civilian and
milita:y t!'mployees. Defense Training programs, the Office of Personnel Management,
and oihcr federal agencies responsible for federal training arc coordinating their work to
(a) ensun; that federal training makes efficient use of cost-effective training tech~ology
�available on ~hl: market and, (b) procures training proc.uels and services in ways that
stimulate innovations in inslructionallechnoiogy, All federal procurement will be
designed 10 stimulate innovative privat~ firms capable of selling innovative, techno!ogy
ba!icd training systems to civilian as well as to government training organizations.
.
Federal training programs will get more for the public money they spend, and federal
employees will receive better training in less time, if innovativc private businesses
c~mpett~ to provide efficient, low-cost training systems.
3~
Nation:d Information Infrastructure
lmproving the quality of education and training has be;:en one of the key goa}s of
the administration's National Information Infrastructure Task Force, The principles
guiding the NIl are as foHows: encouraging private investment in the NII. promoting and
protecting competition. providing open access to the Nil by consumers and service
providers, preserving nnd advancing universal service to avoid creating n society of
information "haves" and "have nots", and ensuring flexibility so that the newly adopted
rcgulatnry framework can keep pace with the rapid technological and market changes that
pen;adc the communications: and information industries. The ETR task force has
identified a variety of options for applying these principles to the needs of ~ducation
providers. Options include use of existing FCC authority and new state authority
resources potentially available from pending legislation for ensuring universal access,
model practices, the purchasing power of provider operating budgets and home learner
demand, and direct funding fr~m,federal and state agencies. The analysis also includes
optiom: that may make education markets more profitable for communication companies
and software providers.
4. Outreach
This task force is designing 11 program to contact key stakeholders and potential
collaborators in education. training, and state!locaI governments to identifY programmatic
needs. Business interests inc1udc'c:ommunication, entertainment, software publishing as
well a~ business organizatlons with broad interests in' improving the quality orus
education,
The group is planning a series of focUsed woixshops' and seminars this faU aimed at
identIfying the barriers to expansion ofleaming technology in different markets.'
w
Finally, this group will prepare a. cor:prnWlication and events strategy to make the '
Technology and Learning Challenge a major component of the President'S .life~long
learning strategy to empower all American schools and students, firms and workers to
comp(~te and win in the global economy of the 21st century.
�Draft Decision Memorandum
The three decisions outilr.cd below
nex: few \veeks.
\.\~U
be presented iO the principals of the ETR in the
Decision 1: Structure of A New Challenge Grant Program
,\fission:
To stimulate community based design and implementation of creative· new USes of
technology to advance
Jifc~iong
learning (specifically goals-2000 and school to work
objectives)
WilY Is II Needed:
.. major under-investment in content
.. markets for learning technology are fragmented and hard to reach
schools and small businesses
~
pa:11cularly in
• requirements for developers are poorly defined
.. products are limited in scope and successful cO:lcepts seldom move 10 large
markets
A Proposal:. ,
A challenge for learning communities to bring {Ogether the critical elements of a
successful technology application in a way that helps schools, businesses, and the
community as a whole. The grant program would be modeled roughly after the
empowennent zone program. As in the ease;ofthe ernpowennent zone proposals, the
moST inlportant achievement of the challenge'is likely to be !he creation o~ community
teams b.1at can work together to improve interactive learning \vith relatively limited
federa1 assistance. The grants would cover content (e.g. software that allows learners to
experiment and play ...vith ideas in simulateJ::::.n'fironme.r.ts only). Hardware and network
capacity or connections would be provided by the proposal team,
Which Communities Would Be Encouraged ToApply:
. 1. COmmtUlilies linked by geography
2, Virtual communities linked by a common interest such as;
• disabled groups
• groups interested in teaching math, scier.ce, history, or $Orne other
specialty
.
• small businesses with a common training problem
Who Could Propose:
�"
Proposals \vould be solicited from complete learning comJl'.unitics that would need 10
include t~c folk}wing types of participants; school system>.;, cnllcgcs and universi:ies,
local businesses, COnical experts, learning and cognitive development experts, software
designers (broadly defined to include "ideo, music and computer software), and
telecommunication finns.
How Would Tllf! Proposals Be Judged:
• does it offer a creative new vision for using technology to advance lifelong
learning goals: Goals 2000,
training? '
school~to~workl
higher education, incumbent worker
.. If successful. are the results of the strategic vision exportable to other
communities?
..
is there a comprehensive community plan for education and training that will
continue to be suppOrted by the community as an integral part of irs inslruc{iot}al
p~ograms?
• what is the extent of investment by the partners in the plan?
• 'W'hat evidence is there that the proposed program wHi succeed, what bencbmarks
wili be established, and how will progress toward the goals be evaluated?
How Much Would It Cost:
The centra! question is, .tHow large a grant would be needed to get a learning community
to make the effort to craft a proposal and plan and implement the plan?"
A representative estimate is that an adequate program would include:
10·15 grants for $4·6 millio:1iyear for 4 years
100 grants for $500 thousand/yew: for 4 years
total: $100 million/year
Existing Funding Available:
ESEA is likely 10 receive S20~50 million appropriation in FY95 which can be used to
begin this challenge gidllt competition. The program likelY to be It'inited to education
is
for grades K-12 (including school to work but not adUlt training).
Management/Funding Options
However the program is funded, it WQuld operate under the umbrella of an interagency
coordination team (including DoED, DoL, DoD, DoC. DoE. NSF, NEil, NASA. OSTP,
OVI', DPC·NEC, OMB). Funding options arc as follows:
�Optioll (/) Direct al/fundil1g 10 ARPA in DoD
Pro:
• compardtivc ease of adding funding in a respected and experienced R&D
agency
• strong program management abilities
• proven track record in technology for learning
Con:
• pre K-12 education not central to DoD mission
• nol consistent with shift to civilian R&D
• links 10 ESEA progr..un, Goals 2000 and school to work would be unclear
Oplio" (.2) Direcl all funding /n DoED
Pro:
• mission covers most relevant learning communities
• DoED needs a [oeased R&D program supporting its mission
,. builds on ESEA funding available in FY95
Con:
administration difficulties in getting education programs through r:levant
appropriations committees
.little experience with managing R&D challenge process
.,
Opium (3) Combined program will, progfams for chJldren and youth (pre
sch(}o/ through school to work and college) funded through DoED and
programsfor adultsfunded "!rough DoD/ARPA.
Pro:
..
..
most likely to acJlicvc total funding needed
follows successf~.d mode1 of Empowerment Zones using HUD ang USDA
funding
Con:
..
..
..
'C
'"""
mQre complex management
funding would require dealing with more Congressional committees
couid discourage proposals combining programs for ~hildren and adults
."
,
�What Could The F(:deral Gopemmel1l Oller Willners Olher Titan Direcl Challenge
Gram FUlfding
• digital resources needed by the project would receive high priority in federal
decisions about which federal data should be digitized first (e,g. in the
, Smithsonian or National Archives)
• access to technical assistance from federal laooratories, NASA, or other facilities
(possibly prearranged as a part of the application process)
• access to funding for connectivity by combining a TLC~grant application with
appliClltion for DoC/NTtA
• Access to NEH program funding by combining the application Vfith an NEH
application
• access to state funding for hardware by combining federal and state decision
reviews
�DECISION 2: IM/'ROVED MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATiON PROGRAMS
AiMED AT TECHNOLOGY FOR LEARNfNG
Observation: Research, Development, and Demonstrations aimed at improving learning
technology is as important a focus of public researcn funding as R&D for health. energy,
the environment. and other key public goals which have traditi,onally received major
federal R&D support. Fragmented and uncertain markets and high risk have discouraged
private R&D
~-
the primary exceptions being entertainment markets and projects focused
, ,on sophisticated military or industrial training requirements. We do IW1 currently have a
well balanced federal R&D program on technology and learning. and fragmented
management runs a high risk of poor use of existing assets.
Recommendations (approveldisappro1.e);
(1) Effective coordination of federal R&D on technology and learning is essential. The
Subcommittee on Education and Training technology ofthe NSTCJCET should
prOVide the management resources needed fO craft a derailed plan/or Jederal
activities in this area, eSlimale the priority and funding recommendedfor each
major R&D area, and recommend ho~ each participating agency can b~st
contribute to the research needed (Ii list ojcritical R&D areas prepared by the
CET is listed in auachmcnr 4, )
(2) Demonstrations of learning teclmology that stress the 5tate*of~the art are critical
for identifying research needs and testing concepts in realistic learning
environments, Agencies with education and training missions should work willi
the technology agencies in tlte CET group to define a small number of
ambitiQus demonstration projects that could become the focus ofmajor
interagency efforts" The group should propose ways offunding demonslT01ions in
FY95 as well as suggesting appropriatejunding levels/or inclusion in FY96
requests. Attachment 5 shows a represenfative list ofdenumSlrations. .
.' t· •.
�DECISION 3: FUNDING FOR DIGITlZATION
Ob!5erl'Gtioll.' Digital representations of text, sound recordings, data t photographs,
motion pictures, and other infonnation are key raw materials for learning technologies.
Once rligitil.ed these materials can be stored~ copied, and commWlicatcd throughout the
nation and the world at very low cost. The federal government controls access to unique
collections of information whose availability in digital form could greatly accelerate
deveJopment of content and use of Icarn,ing technology.
Recommendations (approve/disprove):
(1) ,The authorization for the Library Services and Construction Act LSCA Title II
,should be changed to encourage use of the funds (FY94 authorization $18 million)
for development and dissemination of digiml resources. The "constructio~" funding
provided by Tit~e II is now spread so broadly by fonnula allocations that US
libraries are not well served by the program. If redirected to take advantage of
emerging information technology, tbe LSCA would provide libraries with powerful
and practical new infonnatiol1 resources.
(2) While adequate funding appears to be .vailable in NASA, NOAA, t;SGS and other
agencies for making technical information available diglut1 form, resources for
digitizing cultural resowces are inadequate. $4 million should ~ made available to
a consortium of Smithsonian [nstitution , the National Archives, and the Library of
Congress for a major coordinated program to digitize historical archives we suggest
picking a specific theme for the FY96 funding, such as social history of the US).
Such a project can not be accommodated within the $)M now planned for the
Smithsonian's FY96 budget request; and additional $1 M for access to electronic
records is needed by the National Archives and will be in their FY96 budget
request.
in
(3) Support the NEH request for an increase in appropriations for digital resources from
$IIM in FY95 to S21M in FY96 .
.•'-' •., (4) "'Phe in·teragency tcam now working with the ETR should deliver a comprehensive
plan for devdoping and disseminating federal digital resources by November 4,
1994 including programs for: (I) R&D on efficient tools for capturing and
disseminating dighal information! (2) building conections. (3) dissemination, and
(4) providing assistance for groups around the cO'!fltry with specific digltization
plans (arts, science, local culture),
,
�Chart A 2 Sigma Learning Shifn
Chan B Federal Programs
-Attachment 1 Vision Statement
Anachment 2 Rivlin Memo
Attachment 3 Federal Programs
Attachment 4 R&D Focus Areas
Attachment 5 Demonstrations
-.
�CHARTA
-
�The Learning Revolution's Core:
Tutor Learning Through
Technology
20
# Students'
,>
I
Classroom
.Students
Achievement
- - - - - - -------------------- - - - - - - - -
ON AVERAGE, TUTORED STUDENTS SCORE BETTER THAN 98%
OF CLASSROOM STUDENTS -- A 2-SIGMA SHIFT
�CHAnT B
-.
�Moniker
Goals 2000
School to Work
Eisenhower
CHART II
Authorit),
Goals 2000 Educate America Act
School to Work Opportunities Act
Vocatkmal Education
, Head Start
Technica! Assistance Centers
Regional Education
Individuals with Disabilities
,
,
,
' Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and
: Science Education Act
Carl D, Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act
Head Start program in the Human Services
Amendments of 1994
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEAl
Goals 2000 Education Act Title 10
Laboratories
Special Education
Compensatory Education
,
,
.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Chapter I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act ofl965 (1994 amendments
pending)
Technology) Educational media. and materials
program for individuals with disabilities, Parr G
ofthe Education of the Handicapped Act 1986
Technology~Rela~d Assislance
for Individuals
with Disabilities Act of 1988 as Amended in
1994
Captioned Films, Television, Descriptive Video
and Educational Media in Pan F of.the
Individuals with Disabilities Act
National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research in the Sm~r'BUsiness
Innovation Development Act of 1982
NIST Manufacturing Extension
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
Program
1988 (1994 amendments pending)
~
�j
Attachment I·
Vision Statement
....
",,'
�Vision: Improving the Productivity nfLearning through I~ltcracth'e Learning Technologies
While virtual1y all other sectOrs of our economy have been transformed by technological
innovation and accompanying structural reorganization in the twentieth century, education and
training in schools looks much like it has for generations, Com;mters and advanced
communication technologies are revolutionizing banking) finance, entertainment., and many other
information~rich hus~esses and helping th~rn tailor services to individual customers, But these
technologies have had little impact on learning productivity. The most advanced
communication system in most classrooms is nol even the telephone but the classroom bell and
the public address system - technologies that have only reinforced the traditional "egg-crate"
confi~tion of~~olated classrooms. All of this is about to change, Three elemcn~ are now
conv~r~ing wl~ the potential to create a revolution in the productivity of learning.
First"a new consensus is emerging about the dynamics of learning: The primary work'of
leamin'g is 'done by the learner not the instructor. All students are different, they 'learn at thdr
own pace. oftl.r'11 in different styles. The work of learning is more engaging for the student if it
· involves active interaction and occurs'in a meaningful context. rather than through passive
· listening or watching in the abstract. In this new perspectivc, the role of the teacher is no longer
that of a talking head standing in front of a class of25 students: the teacher becomes a coach of
, teams of learners, and students of all-ages (inclmting peers, parents; and easHy accessihle experts
and tutors) are the active participants in a community of learning. Students taught by individual
tutors-do better than 98% of students taught in 'standard "mass production" class room settings
>
to
(see figurl~ 1). Emerging technology makes it possible provide learner-centered contexts for
16arning tailored to i'ndividua1s vrithout a prohibitive investment in new matenals or increases in .
i~sttuctional siaff. America's teachers -- and their union leaders -,ate'dernanding thllt schooJs
not be left out of this revolution.
.
Second, tecimological advances in computcrs~ mulli~media, data-storage, and
communication are creating dramatic new ways to communicate complex ideas and experiences,
The pOtential for ~ting a new.generation of interactive leaming tools is upon us. The
technology can c:rea~ interactive learning environments that invite exploration and approximate
the experienc~ of working with individual tutors, We can rea1ize this P9tential. however"only jf _0.
we can bring the creators of,the new technologies together with !pe makers of essential learning; ,
" content to transform games, information,
entertainment into engaging c~cula for all ages,
· j~terests. needs and styles of !earners,
'.
.
and
-
...'.',
Third, divers~ means of transmissi9n and telecommunication are being developed that
~ll enable learners ofaU ages to connect With theSe learning tools ~~ and with other learners l
experts, and tutors - in schools,. workplaces, and homes. Virtualleaming ~orn.munities can '
.thereby be created between coaches, tutors. peers, paren_ts and children, and learners of aU ages to
use these new learning tools at all hour? of the night or dily. 0-':1 weekends, throughout the year:
The extent oflearning and the effectiv~ness of teaching nO longer need be a prisoner' of the
amount cf seat time in a da.')sroom.
Tnc Dep~ment ofDef~nse and m~y. innovative education and training programs around
(
�Page· 2"·
the nation have demonstrated that these three element); ean combine to achieve a sharp increases
in the productivity ofleaming. 000 has achieved such success with new learning tools that it is
rapidly expanding its investment in these innovative teclmOlogies., The inlernctive technologies
have been successfully used to promote learnJng in a diverse range ofjobs (surgeons, nurses,
electronic <L'1d mechanical repair technicians, operators of all kinds of equipment, nnd whole
teams of comba~ts), as well as providing basic and advanced skins in arens like mathematics.
In each of these areas, the participants achieve substantially higher results utlower costs than
would be·possible using traditionalleaming tecimiques, The ODD successes need to be moved
rapidly to civiliim learning. Defense training can also benefit from the gro\\'th of innovative
civilian providers oflearning technology since such businesses can provide improved training
products at lower costs,
The full potential of technologies can only can only be captured if they incorporate
engaging learning content and innovative leaming strategies (Figure 2), To exploit the potential
of such learning technologies. It is: essential that we Hnrl a way to catalyze development of such
effective learning tools for all learners. For example: .
'
. ,
.
• Children's television programming like Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood has
enriched the l~ng experiences of pre~chndren for the past 25 year? even though the
current generatjon of felevision watching is basically a passive experience. "The new'
generation of interactive televisions, video.-games. and other consumer equipment will
pennit - indeed.require -- active participation on the part of children.· The challenge is·
to combine the exPerts on early childhood development. producers of engaging games
and adventures for children, and teclmoJogy expertS to develop a new generation of
children's programming that v.'ill combine exploration! adventure, games, and learning. If
this happens, the first national education goal - all children arriving at school prepared to
learn ~~ will be much easier to reach:
'
.. New ,Information 'systems .make it possible to create learning environments that simulate
experiences ranging fror,n walking through adventures set in synthetic representations of
the historic discoveries in science•. to exploring the biology of synthetic ponds to learning
math 'through 'vivid confrontation with rea1~world problems. They pennit instant access
to state~of~the~art
and exp.e~ise around the gl,obe, Math and science learning
commWlities acros's the country are developing the curricul~ frameworks, and assessment
methods needed to reach the national education goal of preparing
high~school
.
graduates to be fITst in the world in these critical subjects" Realizing ~s potential rnny
well depend on catalyzing a unique collaboration between teachers, subject matter
specialists, entertainment industries, s'o:frn.<ll'e designerS, and communities across the '
data
'':'
t _.
•
•
our
country.
• Only a quarter of high-school graduates complete four years ofcollege. School systems
.around the nation are being challenged by the new School-to- Work program to design
innovative programs (e,g. apprenticeships) to help all students learn io the context of
work and to make a transition fonn learning in schooi to teaming on the job, to higher
�P3ge~3~
education. and to learning for next jobs. Emerging technology can make experiences.
simulating a variety of training on-the~job available in schools and studcnt homes during
the next few yea.'''S. These systems wiil help students demonstrate that they hove the
practical skills and problem~soJving ability needed by employers. Interactive
programming capable of exploiting this potential can be devcloped by encouraging local
businesses, schools, training institutions, and communication businesses to form teams
v.'ith providers of relevant learning conH~m.
.
• Businesses of all sizes recognize that adaptability and flexibility are central to corporate
survival. This flexibility can only be achieved if their workers ~~ as individuals and·as
teams ~~ are able to keep pace with advanced equipment withou~ expensive off-site
training. The kinds of simulated envirorunem now possible with new technologies allow' ". - ","
operators of all typ'es of equipment to learn new levels of competence or quickly re~leam
seldom used skills. But developing the interactive learning systems to realize this
potential will require combining subject~matter experu, experienced trainers, and
software developers ~ a task that ,is well beyond the means of a typical small business or
community college. If interactive learning-experiences can be made available on the job
or at home, the goal of lifelong leaming is within our grasp.
Our challenge is to determine whether and how we·can catalyze the development and depioyment
of interactive learning tools truit can dramatically'improve the productivity i~ng for all
'
Americans. Ifwe suc~ed in this endeavor, we v.111 help'to create an important {eyer for
achieving the Preside.nt's agenda for lifelong learning,
of
--.
�, ,
"
,,
, '
...
"
,
"
�Attachment 2
..
'
Rivlin Memo
�EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
THE DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF DEPARlMENTS AND AGENCIES:
,
FROM:
M
Alice
Rivlin ~:tJ0---:.
Acting Direct~r :~.\ " :.:."
.
SUBJECT,
','
'
.
.
,
....
:: .
,i .
1,'Y-19?6 R&D 'Data Collection 'and Review·
'.
'.~,
...
"-
'
"
'
Oo'May 6.- ,1994. the ,agencies were seot a memoran,dl;lm from ''oMB (M-94~20)'
.
outlining ,the FY 1996 research and dev.elopment (R&D) pqlicY:'prlnciples Bod'priorities.
Auached you ~II find a memo signtd by 'the President's' Science' Ad~sor ,and I provi~g. y'ou
with, the additional FY ;1996 R&D'"data Collection and review information :that' was me'ntioned
to be forthco'ming,m the May 6th m:e~o~andum. Also a~ is a:,iiSt 'o'fNSTC 'agencY - .
'
represen·tatives. You shouid addreSs any , furtJ:er questions yo'u might have ,on this
,
,
memorandum to your agency's NSTC representative.,
.
.
" "
,.' ~ ,
': '."
.,.
'
,
'"
"
':
"
.. '
'"...
-",
,'.~,
,,'
l
,
'::"
.
"
-.""
",'
:'
,
..,
'
,
"
,',.
�.
..
NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
DEPUTIES GROUP ON FY,I996 R&D PRIORITIES
William M. Wise
TImothy Wirth .
Office of 111. Vice President
Department of Slate
Department of Defen;,,' .
,
John Deutch ..
- ;'
Deborah.Knopman
Dep.artnient of the Interior
. ,:
Richard Rominger .
Department of Ait;ieullllre
Department ofCummeiee
David Barram
· D. James Bmr
National Oceanic and Annospheriq ~dministratiOn
Department of Labor
. . .
Robert POrtmlln
bepartment of Heallh and Human Services
D.A. Hendmon
nepalnnent of Trimswrtation'
. . . . .,.
Morumer Downey
Olarles Curti •.
· . Department of Energy
" ........ .
· MacteIeine Kunin'
· Department of Education
.
EnVironmental Protection Agency .
Gary Foley
John R. Dailey·
Natiooill. Aeronautics and Space A<l!liinimalion
NealLaile .' .
. Natiorial SCience FOundation ":
.... .
Alice'M. Rivlin ." . .. . Office o(Management' and Budget.
'. W: Bowman Cutter .'
,'. National Eronomic euunci! '. ."
.. DOmestiC POlicy cOuncil : .
·Bruce' Reed· '.
Joseph. E. Sdglitz.
CoUncil of Eronoinic Advise"
.' .
.
James W; Reed
· . Natloilal Security. CoUncil
.. ."
Harold Varmus . . .. ' . Nati<inal· InsiitutcS of Health
Ari... Control and Disarmament- A~ .....,' "
John Holum
.
. .
..
."'
"
.
....
...• , .
',"
.,
..'.
."
.
"
.
.-'
...
: !-.:' ,-. .....
,
.'
'.- - ~". '.: ??...:' '>-:':};.:. ': ', . ~'.' .
.,: ,,' .
,~,
.~
.
"
..
'
. ..' ..
.
..
'
'
.'
..
.
'"
.
"
..
"
.•...
"
.. .
~
.
.' .
�NOVEMBER 13, 1995
MEMORA.'mUM FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY WORKING GROUP
~
FROM: KINNEY ZALESNE
.
OFFICE OF THE "1C~ - DOMESTIC POUCY
SUBJECT: EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE ORDER
Attached please find a draft of the Educational Technology Executive order, After
consultation "ilh many of the Federal agencies !hat have interests in education, technology,
andlor property disposal, OVP has drafted this Executive Order that will ensure that the
Federal. government meets its commitment to put high..quality computers in America's
classrooms. In particular, the Executive Order would:
1.
• Permit agencies to transfer equipment directly for use in all curricular subjects, not
just math and science (the current Bush order limits donations to mad, and science).
• Allow intennediate transfer of equipment to non-profit reuse and recycling
organizations, so that schools get higher-grade equipment. Under the Bush order, old
equipment is transferred as is. This has quicldy made schools the dumping'grounds
for bottom-of-the-line, srn:plus Federal equipment.
,'.
. '. .
. .
,..
'>. ,
• Permit donation of computers to Head Start and other pre;kindergarten programs.
.
,
"
'. ..
' . ' :. Allow donation to .educational orgW;iZationsl\esid...s SchJlO!.", such as leen Moring
,'""ntp. or liffipiUlls th~ ~t school'a~ childreri for.len!llhy!;eriodsof time.'. ' , ' .......
. ,. ...
'.. '.'
.., '.•'.. ~ '¢~~ ~~riillilyf~r ii~ingcomput~~;';~~tOSCha:,li in&'i~rpris\,'>'< ' , '..... ;.
·Com~d.Empo~Znnes:.
.
~~¥?St importantly, the Order would cM·Ol~
cempii!OOHlA1<J C~le. 'comprehensive.
&
,~
.~ ..
."
'
.• ;,~~
""ila9l~",,!,1
on.lJne.data bow,accessible-to-alt-efigible-Cl,
~
recip~~telephone.n""""""-l'b<> indepetlcl~
~~HnlnSferred by the governmen~ computers lose
,
~
.
their value quickly. They cannot afford to sit around in warehouses while prospective II . I ~..J"
donees undertake lengthy bureaucratic procedures,
_~~
d-~
<Ll.Q.l
Currently, in the attached-this data base is run through the Interagency Learning
draft, - - - .
Technology Officc and modeled On a similar progranl that already transfers educationally
useful Federal equipment to universities, One question for us to address is tl,e
appropriateness ofILTO to serve as.the central agency for our purposes.
,.~
I""""""#~
'11
'.'
o/~'
-tt.,_li.~'/M.LU "vJl iu "'~U
. 1-0
.
to.
uhl',,~-\~\7
'" ~ i» vw::..
C~ ':~'lv6,--
,
v
�The E><ecutive Order would also address, although on a smaller scale, the other three pillars
of the Administration's Educational Teehnology Initiative. Specifically, it would:
. • Encourage Federal employees who have computer expertise to help train America's
teachers, and to give them ongoing teclmical assistance.
• Encourage such employees to help connect America's classrooms, using Federal
time and resotlI'CI!S if a"a1lable.
• And, although nothing in the Order expressly addresses the Content portion of the
Initiative, the establishment of the first three pillars - computers in the classroom,
teacher training, and connectivity - will make the private educational software market
ripe for creating enga!,>ing, mCaningful, children's sothvare.
After comments from this Working Group, OVP will send this Order to the Office of Legal
Colll1Se1 at DOJ to iron out its legal wrinkles. Then, it "ill go through the larger OMS .
circulation process, We look forward to hearing your comments.
.
','
.:'
"
.~
. ,... .
. .
, ..
"
.
"
.
'<
'.
-
.'
"
..
;.
',;;
.',
,
",'
'
"
.:
';
'
. ..
..
.
"
..
"
",
.
...
,
. '. '. ,
',"
','
"
..
..
,'
(:
....-
'
..
�EXECUllVE ORDER
EDUCATIONAL lECHNOLOOY:
ENSURING OPPORnJNITY FOR ALL CHILDREN IN 1HE NEXT CEN1URY
,
In order to ensure that all American children have the skills they need to tluive in. the
information-intensive twenty-lim century, the Federal Government has commilted to work
with the private sector to guide four major developments in American education: I) making
modern computers an integral part of every classroom; 2) providing teachers with the training
and assistance they will need to use new technologies effectively; 3) connecting clnssrooI11s to
the emerging National Information Infrastructure; and 4) encouraging the creation of· .
educational software ,as engaging as the best video game and as inspiring as the fmest tutor.
,
With this Executive Order, the FedernI Govenunent commits its O\\TI, limited resources
to '~lese four vital developments. Fim!, the Order streamlines the donation of excess Federal
computer equipment to all of our nation's classrooms, including pre-kindergarten, for .'
instruction in every subject. This proviSion reflects the Federal Government's commitment to
let no AmeriCan child start school behind, and to provide that once in school, all students
benefit from computern in every field of study. The Order further encourages the donation of
excess FedCra) Computer equipment to other communiiy-hased eduClllional organizations
besides schoo1s, in recDl?11ition of the fact that so much learning takes place outside of class.
.Second, the Order provides for the domition of Fedcrnl time, energy, nm.Iexpertise 'to
.'
"
.teacher. training. Teachers.are the key to uniOcldng teChnologys power to.erihabcc:itudents' :
opportunity in the.lwenty-fjrst centUry.. Teach;:rs mUst receive all tlidraining and'assistance . .' .
tl)ey need ill rriake full· use'of_~ew and =ging teChnologit':;. .
:. '. ' .
......., .
' . -, .
.. -' .
.,
: . , .:. - :.
Third, the cider encoUrageS the use of Federal expertis~ and resources to h~lp suppon .'
the private =to~s commitment to connect clasSrooms to.the National Information
lnfra~tructure. Once the hrulhyar:'!"teachc.r. traini!)g, and connectivity nre in place, the Federal
Government believes that the market will be ripo for the crucial, fourth development: thc
creation of mod~'ffi, excellent software that will help prepare America's children for the
technology they "ill encounter in the workplaces of the twenty-lirst century.
"
.' '
"
"
,"
"
Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including the provisions of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended [15 U.S.C. 3701, 01 seq.], and the Federal
Properly and Administrative Services Act of 1949, ch. 288, 63 Stat. 377 (codified as amended
in scattered sections of the United States Code), it is hereby ordered as follows:
"
�Section I, Efficient Imosfcr: pi EducaliOlllliJy Useful Federal f<1uipment, I JpijtlJded
.i¥.bm Necessary. to School:; and Other Communit):,BasedEducational Organi7ll!ions
(a) To the ""tent permiued by law, all executive departments and agencies
(hereinafter referred to as "agencies") shall give highest preference to schools and other
community-based educational organizations in the transfer or donation of eduClItionally useful
Federal equipment.
,
(b) Agencies shall give particular preference to schools and other community-based
educational organizations located in Enterprise Communities and Empowerment Zones,
(e) Each agency shall, to the extent permitted by law, identifY educationaiJy useful
Federal equipment that it no longer needs and transfer it to a school or community-based
educational organil1ltion by:
(I) Conveying research equipment directly in accordance "ith the
provisions of subsection 3710(1) of the StevCll.SOll-Wydlcr Technology
Innovation Act of 1980, as amended [15 U.S,c. 371O(i)]. -!he transfer',.., 0
of such equipment shall be reported tO,tRe fntuagellCY Lcntning .L~ "a
l:eelmelogy Offke QLTD); . ~ ,.c;.J. "'~ f.o
I'~ '-'t"'-""'" .
m.tu.
"'t
,
.
(2) Reporting excess equipment to the GSA for donation when declared
surplus in accordance witll the pMisions of section 203(D of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended
(40 U.S.C. 484G)]; or '
.. '''.
'
(3) ConveYing equipment, either'directly or tluough GSA, to a non-profit
reuse or recycling program that will promptly upg(llde or refurbish it for
transfer to a school or. conununity,based educatiOnal organi",tion pursuant to
'!bisOrder" ' . " , , : ' , : , '
,""
',',
,',:'
,
,".
.
'.'
: . ..
(d) All transfers 'toscliOOls or corn,nunily-)i:lsed edu~ional orgMizations, whether,
made di"",t1y, through GSA, or through a non:profit reuse or recycling program, shall be
mrule oJ the lowest cost permitted by law.
~.,
{el The availability of educationally useful 'Federal equipmcnt-shall be made kno"TI to
recipients under this Order by all practicable mcms, including the on-line data base [NAMEJ,
designed and monitored for this purpose by'H:iF&. lH'e shall further:
~ 'loc,la..r;!y], ~~tf...-~~~ct.--
(1) issue guidance for'use Of this data basr to ar.n;~;,:, and recipients under
d_
UllS Order; ~~ ~~ ~
,
~ Iv>7t "7 .e.'fr4'vr-'-' }, ,
,W. ~t....."t01v ~ ~
(~ \.,e. ~,)jJ ' a-CA<fV>
(2) oversee Ule collection of data concerning tile availability U11d L'W15fcr of all ~.(
educationally useful Federal equipment pursuant to this Order;
':"
Y'
v.-+o .
(3) provide a standardized gift agreement for
ll<" by
r
tile agoncies; and
,.to, 'tJ:
"'~
~\;:s;
�"
(4) serve as the sole authority on the kind and type of educationally useful
Federal equipment made available regardless of standard Federal classification,
or whether it be capitalized or non-capitalizcd, or reportable or non-reportable.
,
,
(I) The Department of Energy shall provide teclmi
pport to ILTO for
dissemination of information flceming available Fed
ooucationally useful
eral
r .~
equipment. It shall be reO ursed by ILTO for this
ice. In addition, th
eral Counseft"
of the Department of
gy shall serve as
for this executive e!fo and the Program
Manager ofllle
en! of Energy's
property programs for e academic
community shal
e asdirector of impIe
tation at lLTO.
I
~.(;
'-flJ
,
.;.;t
'v<I" Y
(g) A third-party n-profit organization may serve fiscal agent for effi
for ILTO to frn:ter finane' and in-kind participation from th rivate sector. Sup
may also \
be acquired!hrou use of existing arrangemcnL' at ag ies participating wi (LTO.
v
Section 2. Training T;:achen;: Connecting Classrooms '
(a) Each agency thm has employees with e."J'Cr1ise in computer operations shall, in
accordance "ith the guidelines of the Office of Personnel ManagemenL provide and
encourage brief periods of excused absence for those employees to voltmtecr time and •
resources to:
(J) help connect America's classrooms to the National Infonnation
Infrastructure;
(2) help supplement teacher training, preferably in partnership with universities,
State and local school authorities, corporations, and other community-based
organizatio!k<;; and
..
(3) provide ongoing maintenance and teclmical assistance for the recipients of
educationally useful, Federal equipment pursuant to this Order.
'
(b) Each agency deseribed in subsection (a) shall submit, within 6 months of the
issuance of this order, an implementation plan to advance the developments described in this
Order, particularly !hose required in £his section. The plan shall be' ,'9mlstent l'ii.th approved
agency budget totals and shall be coordinated through N:il't'T. D~AI3 .
(e) Nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to bar a recipient of educationally lL<;erJI
Federal equipment from lending !hat equipment, whe£her on a permanent or temporary basis,
to a te&her, udmini.strator, student, employee, or other designated person in furtherance of
educational goals.
:
•
�.
.
Section 3. 12<:finitioos. For the purposes of this order:
(a) tlSchools" means individual public or private education institutions encompassing
pre-kindergnrten through twelfth grade, as well as public school districts.
(b) "Community-based educational organizations" means non-profit, local or stat""icie
entities that are engaged in collaborative projects
schools or that have as their primary
focus the education of children of school age. Such organizations shall qualifY as non-profit
educational organizations for purposes of section 2030) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. Their activities shall further qualify as
tcchnical and scientific education and research activities for purposes of section 3710{i) ofth.
Stevcnson-WydlerTechnology Innovation Act of 1980.
'.
",th
(c) 'Educationally useful Federal equipment" means compnters and related peripheral
tools, including telecommunications and research equipment, that are appropriate for use in
pre-kindergnrten, elementary, or secondary school education.
(d) "Non-profit reuse or recycling progmm" means an organization able to upgrade
computer equipment at no or low cost to the school or community-based educational
organi7Altion that will eVC!ltually take title to it. Such organizations shall constitute non-profit
educational organilJllions for purposes of section 2030) of the Federal Property and "
Administrative Setviccs Act of 1949, as amended. 111eir activities shall further qualify' as
technical and scientific education and rese3rch activities lor purposes of section 371O(i) of the
S:evenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980.
..
-"~.~
',-'
,.
,.
�. ,OMB 'EDUCRTlON
., ,
ID:202-395-4875
DEC 14'95
!6:08 ho.D!3 P,02
..
.."
'
E X E C U'T
T
VB
OFF ICE
,0 F
'I' H E
PRE SID E N T
07-Dec-199> 02:53pm
TO:
TO:
Kenneth F;. Apfel
Robert E. I,i Lan
T :
T~:
:!enry C. Kelly
Michael T, Schmidt
T :
!larry White
FROM:
Paul R. pj mond
"ational Economic Council
~tJBJECT:
Bo Tech Funding
Team, '
This draft inco;t'porates the substance of your good 6u9ges~ions {as well as those
of Greg Simon, Johnathan Salle~, a.nd Mike Smj,ch} . As you will see, th~ form of
the recommendation is for Laura and QVP to convene the principals to discuss.
Let me know if you have any
of
th~
}It-~artburn
or;. this.
principals Clt :!in appropriate time.
Otherwise, we await a convening
,
In the rneantime. we'll xf:l:ep plugging away on trying to pull in mor fruit. from
the outreach effort. get t;.ht! draft. national pun aQ;uared a::!!£ with \';"H,
Communictior.s. and, CVP; and :pr~pare for whatever may even.tuato in the new year.
---
=
Th&nka for your help.
-
Dimond
.,.a:":
v'
•
�1MB EDUCATION
,
ID'202-395-4875
DEC 14'95
DRAFT
D=mbcr 6, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR LAURA TYSON- NBC
OENE SPERllNG • NBC
GREG SIMON - OVP
FROM:
PAUL DIMOND· NBC
TOM KAUL - NEe
BILL CURRY - WH COl1llTlU.llicatons
K1!N APFEL - OMB '
BOB llTAN • OMD
HENRY KELLY - om
MIKE SCHMIDT - DPC
MIKE SMITH - DuEd
IOHNATHAN SALLIITT - DoC
FEDERAL MATCHING GRANTS TO THE STATES FOR
EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
SUBIBCT:
"
We reconnnend that you convene !he relevant Principals at an appropriate time to discuss
whether the President and Vice-President should consider, as one. of the options for new
investments for !he PY97 Budget, • federal matching fund to support State and local efforts to
inc"",,,, !he use of technology in teaching and learning. A••UIIIIIl2Iizcd bolow. w< believe
Illat such • fcderol matching fund would help realize tile goal set by the President and the Vi<;c
President .- tecbnologicallireracy for all children at lbe dawn of Ille 21st century. There is a,
legi,lative authority In place Illat could provide the basis for such • federal matching fund. At
an appropriate time, tbe Priru:>i~ will!herefore need to determine (I) wbe!her ouch. fund is
a viable policy and political option and (b), if !he answer Is yes. !he amount that sbnuld be on
!he table to compete wilb olber priorities as fmal PY97 Budget decisions are made,
"
4
J.
Background. For your information Tab A attaChod summarizes:
•
•
•
•
tbe education technology vision and four component goals (connections. computers.
teacher training and content) esta1>lishod by !he President and Vice-President
their important announcements. events and meetings to date
the schedule of meetings with. wide range of stakeholders thaI willl.ad to !heir
joining in a major announcement find event witli.,the President and Vice-President in
mid-January in advance of the State of lIIe Union Address,
the other federal and non~federal policy propouls and initiatives on which we are now
worlting
�, OMB
.
EDUCATION
ID:202-395-4875 '
DEC 14'95
16:09 No,OI3 P,04
•
Factor, In Cons,d....'ng Federal
MatdIinl: Fund
1. The Extent "fCOSlS. As in cverY~such national chanenge~ money is an issue .... even
if we do everything that we can to craft thil; in initiative lIS • grass·ruots and largely 'lale
local, privale·sector revolution. Given the rapid advances in IeCbnology and the potential
benefits of increasing competition in a rapidly growing market, however, estimating the total
costs for connections, compulers, ",acher training and interactive conlent is difficult; and many
of the costs are falling (e.g., in connections, on-going lclecommunication services, muld
media computing and networking). In addition, schools have been increasing their investment
in aU four of the key components at an annual rate of over 15 % per year for the past several
years. K·12 school!; now spend 1.3% of their approximately $300 billion annual budgel on
these four components; if these U'ends continue, schools arc projecl<:<i to increase these
iove.tlncnIS to over 3.5 % of Ibeir aMus! budget by the year 2005, The federal government.
primarily through Title I, has financeU approximately 20-25% of the awe-local expenditure.
on education teelmology to dale; and local districts are likely to continue to use a substantial.
riliare;'f these federal fund. to defray sOme portion of the costs of education technolOgy for
the foreseeable future.
2. The Ro)e and Test for any Additiona) Fedcm funding. If these ttends continue,
moSt schools in tho country will likely schievo the four components sometime between 2005
and 2010, Any additiooal federal funding should be considered only to extent necessary to
,.talm - in combinatiun with an of the o!ber policy and lIeuon proposals and the leadership
of the President aild Vice-President - a more rapJd ltllD£ition to n:alizige this vision by tbe
i>hOoj ye,ar 2QQQ·2QQ1 jn all 'cDopls, Our recommendAtion, therefore, focusses on these
incremental transition costs and is strictly limited hy the extent addjtional federal fundine can
be stcuclUrcd, to scryc as~ a.l~vcr to promote this famer ramp--up. Ai a result, we do not
.include the on-going operating costs for any particular compoItcllt, We have .lso excluded
incremental costs for llSpects Qf components thai should be met, at least in !.he first instance.
priIruuily by priva!<: !nve,lnlent. Any new federal funding should he fOCUSed where they can
he expected 10 make the moSl difference,·
'
3. The increme.mal Transition CoSts for the Four ConJwDent5. This analysis proceeds
component by component in order 10 reach a lOuli sum of the order of magnitude of costs, As
noted in section 4 ~Jow, however. the exisiJng authori!.mg statute is much more flexible and
permits ,lale, and localities to use !be federal matclling funds OJ) allY of lhe four components as
they deem appropriate.
•
l:.o.tnp.= - $8.5 billion for acquiring in grades 4-12 one modern, network·ready
computer per 4 students in each classroOtll at an average cost of $1,250 per unit and
two rapid color printers for every classroom at • cost of $500 per printer. (This
assumes tiut older computers, with appropriate upgrading, wlll he passed down to
8!Uden!$ in grades K-12 or that much les. costly interactive learning devices will he
developed for use in the early grades. II is all:o possible that schools may cnoos. in
grade" 4·12. different configuration as hardware, connectivity, and nctwor~ing
altemu,tivcs develop - c.g.• a "dumber" networked, even ponable "lenninal" for each
'student. T'be total incremental costs for acquiring and installing s.uch alternative
�.OMB
.
EDlJCilTJON
10:202-395-4875
DEC 14'95
16:10 No.OI3 P.OS
,
.,
configurations is likely 10 be of th~ same order of magnitude.)
...,
.
•
Teacher Itainin~ - $1.5 billion foi the initial basic training of .lIleachers in the use of
computers and educational teChnology. This estimate is based on a one-time cost of
$600 per teacher for the 90% of IeaCners who are nol already u:chnologically literate
aod fl~ly capable of integrating education u:chnology in the daily learning of their
srudents; Ibis cstinlate also assumes that the computer aod software seUers will also
provide an .additional $400 in leClmical training per teacller as • par! of lhe price of
acquiring hardware and software. (Ib.is does not include the: on~going cost& of
professional development that school districts already bear. W. assume that an
increasing proportion of these costs will go toward integrating the u.e of new aducalion
technologies in the regular curriculum and daily learnillg of teachers aod students. We
also believe that new teacher technology netWorks - both formal aod informal -- will
provide additional means for aU teachers to develop DtW skills and strategies for
integrating education techoologies in the daily learning of srudenlS and teachers. Our
esdnmte also excludes anyon-going COOts for teeholcians, technical coordinators and
other support services that may be included in the regular oper.ting budgets of ,choo],
a. education technology becomos au integral part of each da.BrOOm. In other word.,
we would focus on building a foundation of teChnical competence, bUlleave to local
district.< the job of helping teachers integrate fully aod creatively the content of
education lccllllOlogy into the curriculum and the daily learlting of srudents.)
•
EducptioA Software - $2.5 billion for initial iaJuisition and use. (This is a one-time
"kick-start" to assure rapidly growing 'teacher and studen! dernaod for educational
software. The education roftware market may include the purcha.~ of interactive
progrums on CD ROMS, as well as the Initial cost of access to interactive program.
and discovery reSOtlrce~ provide via networks and servers.)
•
Connections .... $0, In 111e first inslance. we exclude Lhe initial incremental cost for
connecting aU schools: and classrooms to .interactive networks. CNe also exclude ..he
on-going operating costs for use of such connections to interactive networks because
these costs will have to be born in the nonnal school operliting budgets a~ education
technologies become an integral part of teaching and learning.) We exclude Ihe ini,ial
incremental connection costs for five rcason.t::
'", ,.,. , .
,'.., . ,
I
First, the President ,"d Vice-President have already called on the private sector
to bear this cost.
Second, we have already succeeded in demonstrating the viability of thi, private
sector approach to connections through announcing Net-Day in calIfornia, as
bave .everal other statos (North Carolina, Iowa. Vermont. Delaware aod West
Virginia.) Major private sector companies are prepared to make additiorud
annOuuceU1Cnts along the.c;e same Hnc-lii. We also pian to orchestrate lhe
announcement of NetRDays in several additional states over the coming months.
Third. the rapid acquisition of Internet-capable computers by schools coupled
with ample "!tick-stan" funding for educational software will provide.
sustained and growing demand by sellools. teachers and stooents (and !brough
�.
uMB EDUCRT! ON
ID;202-395-4875
.
JEC 14'95
16;18 NO.013
.
them to • large proportion cif home.) for the on-going services of the many
pote:nrial competitors ~lth i~.ng-teI1Tl economic incenlive to fInance the initial
connections,
:
Fourth, the cost of initial coilnections is rapidly falling -- for example, fib<:r
optics now cost a fraction of previous cost as demanc1 has grown, and wireless
ronnectlons provide an economical alu:mative to ",,,,neel rural schools (or old
schools whernomc forms of wiring may be made prohibitively expensive due
to til. age Of asbeSios problems of some school buildings).
Finally, the President and Vice President have led &tIpport for the Snow.
Rockef.ller and Universal Service Trust FIlnd provisions in the
Telecommunication Bill in Qrder to provide authority for federal and Slatc
regulators to encourage telecommunication companies t.o connect on ~n
interoperable basis all ",bool••nd etas.<rooms.
At this stage, therefore, it is impomnt to keep the pressure on the private sector and
the regulators to find the means to finance the COfl;(S of initIal COMectiOns to schools
and classrooms. Make no mistake, however. the costs ofthc: initial connections arc
substantial - an estimated $10 billion, In announcing !he federal education tt:chnology
_tching grants to the States, we !herefo", believe that it i, prudent to provide for a
review at the end of the second year to determine wbether our assumptions on this
count arc being born out or whether alternative regulatory or funding'decisions are
appropriate.
4. The Structure of tbe Federal Education IechnOlo~y Matchioa Grants. ·We propose
considering an appropriation of $500 million per year for five years to fund the current
authorization for 'School T.,.;hnology Resource Grants: in Tille ill of the 1994
Reauthorization of IlSEA. This is the Title under which we negotiated the very successful
Tcehnology Learning Challenge Grants -- which have already spurred consortia of local
districts to join with major private sector. university and museum partners to develop and to
integrate innovative, interacuve education prognmming and learning inlo the'dajly learning of
their studentS, Sections 3131-3135 .nd 3137 provide the authorization for federal funding for
eJiiih slate to run its own ';ch.llenge" to CQlalyze the rapid ramp-up of educalion technology so
that it is integrated in the curricUlum, teaching and learning .by teachers and students in aU
classrooms. and parents are encouraged to become involved in the intcraclivc learning of thl)'ir
children.
•
!
.
QualificatiQu tutd MalCh, Tv ~ive funds. a State must submit an application to
the Secretary of Education that (I) includes. ".ystemi<: statewide plan that outlines
long-term stralegies for financing techoology education in the StIlte, " (2) explaill$ how
the private ..ctor, museums and libraries and higher education will be involved in the
pJanning and Implementation, ,ed (3) "meets such o!her criteria as the Secretary may
csrablish .in order' to enable the Slate to provide as.islance to local districts with a high
~ber or percentage of "children in poverty and demonstrate ~ greatest need fOT
technology." The Secretary. therefore, can make this Education Techoology Grant
Program a varjabl!: rnatc!ling fund by, for example, requiring the SLates to match the
federal funding $3-10·$1 fo, "needy" districts and $6-10-$1 for other district •. [Qther
Slate
P.06
�"
OMB ..
EDUCRTlON
'ID:202-395-4875
DEC 14'95
16:11 No,013 P,07
meet
federal funds COUld be used to
tIlis match, TIlis will provide additional a..urance
that Tille I sehcols are not Ion out of the educatiun technology revolution, Most states
are alrClUly preparing education technology plans as a part of their Goals ZOOO
fniti;ltive. which Dl.lCl but are llQL required to be used by a State as a part of th.is_
application,]
•
Local
AwIications Ind Fonnation of Consortia
In qualifyjng states. local districts are
Ihen required to submit an apptitation explaining how they will, in essence, integrale
all four collljlOnelllS of the President', vision into the daily learning of their .rodents in
order to meet challenging content and performance standards, Local di,tricts are
encouraged, as in the Technology Learning Challenge, to ionn consortia with one
another ROd with libraries, museums. higher education, and the private .ector to
integrate education technology in schools and elamooms so that .11 students learn to
higher 'kill levels,
•
Use' Qf Funds, Funds r=ived hy a local district from the statecaa wen be used to
implement all four components of the President'S viRion. This includes the cost of
initi.l connections and linkages to networks, We do no' believe 'hallhe Secretary of
Edur.alion has (he authority under this legislation to prohibit the use of funds for Ibis
purpose, Nevertheless, we can make the ease that the size of our federal funding . "
excludes these initial connection costs. explain the reasons why. and encourage the
States to exclude, in the fint instance, the COSts of such initial connection in their own
strategies for wing !hi>: matching fund '0 finance education IeChnology, In fact, we
could encourage Ule States - through working with their own PUCs, the
.,
telecommunication companies and other connection competit()~s, and their own versions
of NIIT~DAY .. ~ to assure a rapid ramJHlp in initial con~ectjons altne lowest ~dbJe
up~fronl cost to the State and to local school districts.
•
llialoa!ion. The Secretary of Education iI authorized to develop procedures for state
and local cvalualions, The S~ewy is alw requiretllO submit to Congress a summary
of the Stale evaluations in 1998. This is the time when an evaluation of the
-~
assumptions going in1 the aewal experience and results. and any new potentials of the
r.pidly changing technologies will ellllble the President and Vice ·Pre,iden[ to malee
appropriate proposals for modifying the fUnding and hnplementation of tIlis maJehing... ..
grant program, This will permit any necessary mid-couT.6e corrections to assure that .. ~ ~.
tbeir extraordinary vision will be realized in all schools ROd classrooms by the 2000
ZOO I school year.
. Conclus.ion~ We believe that lbe Olller policy and action initiatives summarized in Tab A
attached will contribute much to realizing the education t<:chnology goal, of the President and
!be Vi<:e President by the turn of !be century, Many may even be more innovative and
exciting [hall this federal malching fund proposal, MQreovcr. we will be working hard to
ensure the maximum level of private, volutltary. and. 8tate~local governmf..'1ltal action. We
believe that proposing this education technology matching fund is. however. critical to the
success of the overall i.nitiative for five reasons:
�.
OMS ,t:1JUeRTl ON
"
,
ID:202-395-4875
DEC 14'95
16:12 No,013 P.08
.
•
it is """"",ary to achieving the stati:d goa! of ensuring thet all children are
tecl>nologically Ii",ra", by the
of the 2/st century,
•
it assures credibility for an of the leaacrship •• and the other policy and action
initiatives - provided by the President and Vice President.
,•
dawn
it demonstrates that the President and ViCCo-President are serious, smart, lind prudent in
proposing additional funds and a matching structure that is desigfled for the .ole
purpose of catalyzing the more rapid achievement of goals to meet the clear national
intef(~st.
•
i( demonstrates that the President and Vice PreS'ident am continue to provide lhe
.
leadership in making key national investments to achieve national goal, while balancing
the hudget.
•
by relying on an existing authorization that was designed to implemen~ a key priority of
the President and Vice President and was approved by broad bi-pattisan majorities in
both Houses, it requires the current Republican Congress to choose among three
options - (I) to join the common ground already established by the President and Vice
President and the previous Congr"" in funding the audtorized JDalCrung fund, (2) to
propose and, negotiAte it better a.lternative 10 achieve me same goals. or (3) to. .
demonsn-.te partisan oxtremism by obj.cting to an initialive that is widely suPPOrted by
the American people and the major private sector players who care about this issue.
. .:
~.
"
...
'
�,
••
":~,1119/96
l{):oJ
IilIOO2l010
MEl\10RA,'iDUM FOR
Laura Tyson
DonBacr
Gene Sperling
Bruce Reed
FROM:
Jonathan Sallet
Paul Dimond
Henry Kelly
Lind. Roberts
Greg Simon
Mike Schmidt
S{;BJECT:
Pursuing the President's EduClIrional Technology
Initiative in 1996
DATE:
January 18, 1996
The first half of 1996 offers an opportunity for the President to preSent a compelling
vision to the nation ofstudents across America using technology as a tool to expand their.
, education and their livesl ,opportunities. That vision can be summed up in the chaUense already
anJ10unced by the President •• to ensure that all ofK-12 students are technologically literate by
the dawn ofthe 21st century. The goal of technological literacy means more than simply teaclUng
cbildren how to operate a computer; it is the oapston. of the four pillars that the President has
announced: (computers, connections, teacher development & educational software) and, \>"'ith
those pillars. it serves as the fulcrum with which our children can move the world,
We suggest that the President:Vi.ce President and several Administratiol! officials
announce the creation of a National Report Card on Edu-eational Technology that would be
. issued at the end ofeach &chool year for the next five years by stakeholders representing all of the
involved communities., including state.!local governments, educators, teacherS; businesses,
studentS and parents at a natiooal summit to be c.onvened by rhe federal government. The
. National Report Card would tell the nation how well we are advancing 00 the critical goals
outlined by the President:
.... The number of mode~ multimedia computers availabl~;(;·each stud.;nt in ·each
classroom;
- Tne percentage ofclassrooms connected to each other and the outside world~
- The percentage ofteachers who are ready to use technQlogy in their teaching; and
1
�".
~1/19/96
10:04
Ia!OOJ/010
- The extent 10 which educational software ar.Jl similar materials are available to students
for use in their classrooms.
The meeting at which the Report Card i. issued would also provide an opportunity for
stakeholders to announce further actions Ul achieve each ooe ofthese goals.
At the end of January (hopefully in the State ofthe Union and at the stand-alone evenl
discussed below), the President would announce the!,.t the end of this school year, he would
convene the first such conference to issue the first such assessment and forge a consensus on
what must be done, In order to demonstrate the kind ofactions. that are necessary to ensure that
the national grade keeps going up and up, the President would, at the same timo, announce
actions, directed at each of the four goals, that can now be taken by the federal government,
businesses and educators, indeed, at the initi~ rol1·out the President could stand next to a large
blank, or interim, report card in order to help demonstrate what needs to b. done.
This memorandum "ill discuss the background of the President', educational technology
initiative and suggest how the National Report Card can be launched.
J. BaCkground
Almost two years ago~ the Vice President challenged Americals business to connect every
classroom (along with libraries, hospitals and clinics) to the Infonnation Superhighway by the year
2000, He emphasized the importance of ensuring that: our students are not left out of the
Information Society and of guaranteeing that our society is not divided between information
"haves" aod information "have DOts", A few weeks later, the President repeated this challenge in
his State of the Union Address. In the first part of 1995, the Vice President boilt on that vision
when he launched the Department ofEducation', Technology Learning Challenge Grants.
This fall, the President - in San Francisco and Washington - voiced his desire to ensure
that all American children are technologically literate by the dawn of the 2 I 51 Century. He
pledged that: the Administration would soon unveil a national vision detailing ho'., ,the nation
would fulfill this goal through the accomplishment offout principles:
- making computers available to every K-12 student,
.... connecting those computers to each other and the outside world,
- ensuring that teachers are able to develop their technological skills so that they are able
to use technology effectively in the classroom, and
- stimulating the supply ofeducational software and associated materials that will form a
critical part of each srudent's leamicg exparien<:e.
2
�91/19/98
10;04
The core of the President's vision is, ofcourse. the enonnous gains in educational
achievement that can be achieved using the new technology - gains whieb depend on achieving
the four SpecifiC goals, Students must be prepared for work whieb requires high level. of skills in
traditional subjects and in modem technology. Adequate investment in educational technology
can create Jearning environments which can adapt themselves to the need and interest of
individual., combine formal Jearning with Jearning through exploration and solving practical
problems, give toaebe" rieb tools to develop challenging assignments, tie classrooms and
stUdents' homes to a worldwide web of information resources and assistance. and the schools
closer to parents, local businesses. and other parts ofrhe COIIL'l1uruty. '
We will promote people, not just technology_That is why we JOOSt energize a national
effort that. through combined private and public contributions, win demonstrate r,oocretely to
Americans why their children will be advantaged when the President's vision is realized and wiU
demonstrate that a critical masS of resources is available to get the job underway" That work
should fearnre American's biggest corporate llJImes, ,eachers, parents and, of COUTse, students
themselves,
The President and the Vice President have already laid the foundation for that effort by
meeting with top CEO's, including Mlchael Eisner, Gerald Levin and George LUeilS, in September
and October, Since then Administration officials have met witb parents' groups, educators and
businesses; talked with teachers; and. at the beginning ofDecember, convened day-long sessions
'lAIith stakehoiders_ From this intensive outreach effort, several conclusions have appeared:
fim, leadership by the President and the Vice President is absolutely essential, Unlike
great national missions of the past, the pursuit of the President's vision will not be run and
financed by the federal government, Rather, citizens at every level ofgovernment must
come to beUeve that the goal is important and their contributions, vital. Only the buUy
pulpit of the Presidency cail issue a ehaUenge that reaches to every school board. teachers'
lounge. classroom and living room in America.
.\
SesOnd. a considerable consensus already exists that the President!s principles accu~ately
grasp the essence of the agenda that must be accomplished. Thus. there is less dtmandJor
the creation afthe details of policy execution and mot. demand for the overarching vision
that only the President can provide.
I!l!rJ!. • great deal of effort is underway already - but it tends not to be widely kn.m:n'ana'
information about current resources can be hard to come by, That means that • good deal
can be accomplished througb non-fedend efforts th.t explain the importance of
educational technology to American citizens and that make information about existing
activities more accessible- ~~ if those efforts are connected to the message from the
President and Vice President,
3
�;,; •
,,
~1/1a/96
10:0$
e202 4-&2 4636
fal 00$/010
FolUlh. considerable enthusiasm ex;sts for further efforts - from businesses, educlUOrs and
parents. :.1lU1y high-tecb::lologybw.inesse. have included educational technology in their
business plan, because they see a growing market far technology hardware and
educational materials. Some efthose, and some others, are willing to pledge public
service activities around the nation, such as the NetDay 96 effort (lUInounced by the
Presid"nt in September) that will connect 20% ofCalifornia classrooms by the end of the
school year. Educational associations, local scbool officWs and teacner.' group' are also
ready to do mete along the lines of what the President already lUInounced -- the creation
cfthe U.S. Technology Corps and the American Teclmolagy Honor Society. And, of
course'., the federal government's a.ctions will catalyze other efforts, For example. 500
pubti.,·private partnership. competed for tbe Federal Challenge grants to develop the next
generation oflearning tools. But - and this is an important point - we cannot expect to
••scmole on a single day in a single place all of the resources necessarY to do the whole
job (as it will be detailed in the President's national vision). The goal should be to
assemble a critical mass of resources that, with the Presi.dent's lasdersrup and eni:rgy, will
set olf a c.ain reaction that propels the nation forward.
The opportunity is. therefore. ripe for the President to unveil his national vision as the
launching pad for. national effOrt that will combine Presidentialleadersrup with implement.tion
in every oommunity. Where, in the last century, neighbnrs came together to build a schoolhouse
or raise a barn, AmeriClUlS now can raise their schools to the technological level demanded by th~
next century.
u:. Launching the ='Iationaillipnrt Card
The President's cballenge to the nation - that every student be teclmologically literate by
the dawn of the 21 st Century - provides the opportunity for the Administration to Ianneh a
national effort through a nl:W kind ofnational mission - one that is based on Ptesiderltial
leadership and shared resources.
.
The President will announce thet tbe administration will issue regular reports indicating
how well thl~ nation is advancing in the areas identified by the four pillars (computers,
communicatjo~ educational content. teacher development) beginning with a henchmark report to
be issued later this year, One could imagine a diagram in wruch the four pillar. are filled as the
•. goal is readied.
The President should also take the opportunity to highlight successful ""amples of
education technology. showipg how the four pillars combine to improve educational expe:i.ences
around the aation.
The greatest obstacle to the implementation of iii. President's four pillars fur educational
technology (computers, connections. teacher development and educational content) is neither
technological or pedagogical, [t comes from the need to answer one question that will be posed
4
�~1/19/S6
10;65
'21'.202 452 4636
tal 00£1010
by taxpayers, parents, teachers and students in every community: "Why in a time oflimited
resources and numerous demands. should we make the special e!fort to ensure that our children
can use technology to be bener educated and to work ond thrive in tne 21st Century?'
Every time we answer this question. we should picture the President sitting at a table in a
local scbooJ~board meeting room v.'ith a dozen parents, or in a teachers' lounge with overburdened
teachers or in a classroom \lo,ith students.
The Pre~ident!s answer should be communicated in m~riple ways:
" Directly, with the bully pulpit ofth. Presideney,
.- By example, through the development of critical pathways that demonstrate to
these parents the concrete benefits that will flow to their children (including
national recognition ofeducators. teachers and students who are outstanding in
their Offurt to bring technology into their sebools, federal programs that fight
against informational apartheid and stimulate new; creative activities ill local
communities~ and better sharing. of i.nforma.tion about cutTent efforts.)
-- Through the marshalling ofprivate actions that will validate the President's
direct message and demonstrate to communities that the President's goals are
achievable.
The National Report Card will demonstrate a shated commitment to progress, as the
grades get higher every year through efforts of all kinds, It will symbolize the neighborly pursuit
of a shared responsibility,
.
ID.. Action (tcens for the Launcb of the National Report Card
Each ofthese goals can be realized in Januery and extended in the coming montha.
(Attached is • tentative senedule of possible Presidential end Vice-Presidential events through
May).
,
January 8-15: Videotaping the P....ident andlor Vic. President, The President',
. Nationallnf·,rmation Infrastructure Advisory Council will b. releasing. IO-minute videotape
Gointly produced by AT&T and Disney) explaining the benefits of the information highway that
would be distributed nationally. It is possible, for example, !hat it will be med. available to video
stores across the nation for free "rentals" by the parents and that it be broadcast on cable
television. We have been invited to -contribute a 60~90 second statement from the President
andlor Vice President that would close tha videotape. This i. an extremely good oppOrtunity,
5
�t202 482 4636
14l007/010
January 29-31: National Report Card. Th, Advisory Council is meeting in
Washington to co""lude its operations and issue its final repon (which is generally supportive of
the Administration's initiatives, although in some areas, particularly enc.typtio~ it \\till ask the
Administration to change its policies). The Council is likely to take further action, as well, on itS
I'Kickstart" initiatives, which are designed to boost citizen involvement in educational and other
public-use technologies. The Advisory Council is itSelf a very distinguished and diverse group
(co-chair.d by Ed McCracken of Silicon Graphics and Del Lewis ofl'\ational Public Radio) with
which the President should meet
Meeting with the COllDcil also offers the opportunity for the President to create the
National Repon Card. and to demonstrate great private-sector s.upport beyond that of the Council
for his nation.ll effort. The public and private initiatives that are being worked on now for
'
possible inclusion support eacll of the President', four principles:
CO:ltent:
- A Presidential instruction to governmental agencies to provide their electronic
information in a manner that is easily available and easily used i>y schoOlChildren,
~-
Create a model for the procurement ofeducational software through the joint
work of the Department-of-Defense schools and the Council of Chief State
Officers,
- Introduce a 'White House educational software Olympics at the end of the
summer in which students could compete using software systems developed over
the summer i>y high-school studentS working with university teams,
-- Announce a pri"llate-sector initiative to create new inter-active compon~nts that
could be used by softwart developers, teachers and students to create new
curricula, like an intelligent periodic table of elements.
- Announce a new charter for the nationls public: broadcasting stations in which
they pledge to continue to provide essential educational resources for all citizens
using 21st CCIltU!y technology: 'We will b. the resource that all citizens,
includin~ students, parents, and teachers routinely seek out wherher they are
seated before a tdevision or a computer screen,. in a classroom,. a Hbrary, a
COIDmu:nlty center, at work (lr at home" (excerpt from their statement], The new
vision was created by the public broadcasting stations themselves,
Tcachet Development
~
A new federal matching program would assist school districts to raise the: funds
needed to train teachers, as well as to purchase new, multi~media computers.
6
�91/19/96
10;oa
, reJ 0081010
- National teachers' associations will create. the nation's first "Teacher Corps",
which win recognize and assist those t""chers who have, by developing their own
technology skills, become a c..'itical resource for the 9Q01o ofteachers who have not,
-- AT&T is working to CTeate a "Teacher and Technology" Summit that will bring
together major companies that have l~cbed teacher-training initiatives (such as
Microsoft lllld U,S, West) with educators to diseuss the future of private-public
collaboration (perhaps in collaboration with a national teachers' summit being
planned by the Department ofEducation),
-- New accreditation and certification standards will be established by national
organizations in order to ensure iliat teachers are technologically prepared,
Connections
-- A new private-public elfort, led by the VICe President, will connect every K-12
school in every empowerment zon~
- The successful implementation ofCalifornia NetDay and the launching of
NetDays in other stateS,
Computers
- A new federal matching program to suppOrt computer purchases by local school
districts (described shove)
- The federal government will donate, and will encourage private business to
donate. millions of dollars worth ofexcess and new computer equipment to
schools, Wherever possible, we must arrange for the upgrading of these
computers to ensure that they have modern,. multi..media capabilities, VolUntary
pri"'l.UI:! iEcentivcs might be created to encourage similar donations by businesses or
consumers,
Each of these, and others, are in the process of being vetted and developed by the inter- ,
agency wor1cing group'~n t:<iucatioJ) techoology,
Finally, the national roll-out could serve as the launching pad for a series of national
communications eifort" That could include the publication by a number of national leaders ofa
"statement ofprinciples ll in support of the President's vision and plans for specific materials
includmg: the AT&T/Disney videotape, a CD-ROM developed to display the President's vision,
new cable programming and an instructional kit from the Software Publishers Association.
7
�\
~lfl&/a6
10:07
tr202 4U 4636
!ilIOOO/010
The purpose is not, ofcourse, to simply announce a lot of activity. Rather,the rel..s. of
the President'. vision, supported by a statenten1 of principles supporting the President's gools and
concrete actions demonstrating how each of the four principles can be achieved, '?om demonstrate
to the nation both the power ofand the path towards the goal oftechnological literacy for all
stUdents.
8
�,
~1/U!9iS
10:07
1:202 482 4636
~010/01O
Attachment 1 ..• Proposed 1996 Schedule
January 23:
State ofthe Union - r.;teration ofthe President's challenge:
January 30(?):
National Report Card with President and Vice President
February 17(?):
Empowerment Zone confereace at which the Vice President
announces the voluntary. private effort that will connect every
K·12 school in an empowerment zone, thus demonstrating tbe
imponance ofpreventi."1g infonnational apartheid,
Marcb 9:
The l'residen~ Vice President and senior Admlnistr.tion officials
work with volunteers in schools in California on "NetDay 96" - the
fu.IfilIment of the President's pledge of September 21, 1995, to
co= 20% of California elllS'roOms -- and engage in related
activities to demonstrate the. full scope of the Presidentls vision,
Mid-March:
The President (and senior Administration oflicials)gives the keynote
address at the conference ofN.tion's Governors organized by IBM
and announces how the model ofNelO.y, along with the other
private and public offans he has announced, """ transform the
nation's schools, possible with the anaouncement ofother state
NelOays,
May:
The President and Vice President appear at the first "National
Report Card" conference at \\l1ich educators, teachers, parents,
businesses - and students - assess the progress made by the end of
the 1995-96 school year and annouru:. further efforts at meeting the
President's goals ,. conjunction with a te<hnology fair that features
leading uses of educational technology from around the nation.
~
...
-. ...
9
.,. - .
~
�16: 2.3
ft202 456 2223
\li 002
WlilTE HOUSE/f\'EC
.
!
.-tJdfJI~f .
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Gene Sperling
Rc:
Dati::
April 17, 1996
As you know, ensuring that all of 0", elilldrcn have access to educational technology
is one of the Pcesidont'. top priorities. He b<liev.. that educational techl\Qlogy, used
correctly, can help improve student perform~, reduce drop-out rates and abe>cnteeism. anu
help pcepare our children for the wo,kploce of the 21st century. Although technology is not
the answer to all of the problG~s associaled with OUt' educational system. we think it cao
make a real difference. Already, teachers are usin& this new tecbnology to in""",," p"'cotol
involv~cut, exchange lesson plans, keep up with the latest developments in their field, and
tailor the curriculum the needs of individual student:;. Students are using the techudogy to
access digitallibrarles. rake "virtual field trips" Mayan ruins Or Ihe: bottom of tbe ocean.
coll3borate 'With their peerS from allover the world On science ptoJects and publish their
schoot newspaper on the lntcwet.
j
aearly~
the Presidcntls Educational Technology Initiative will not be a success without
ct1.':ativity and resoW'cis from the private sector. The White House is delighted that Mi.
Redstone is interested in playing a leadership role. We would welcome tbe opportunity to
work with him in any way that he (ccl~ is appropriate.
At your request, I h.J.ve developed a list o~rivate-sector led initiatives that
Mr. Redstone mlght want to coru;ider. The cost projections are based On the best d>ta we
;,ave av";lahlc, but should be viewed as IOUgb estimates.
As we developed this list, we tried to describe pOtential initiatives that would:
1.
Significantly advance America's progress towards meeting the President's
challenge ill one or more of the 4 "piHars" (computers. networks) reacher training.
educational soltwore and applications):
Capture Ihe pubUo imagination because of its seo!'" and visioD. Our S<llSe from
taLking to you is that Mr. Redstone ,was. interested in a. major project tbat would rise
.bove tho run-of-tIl"-miil cOIpOrate philanthropy in educalionallcchnology.
1
�~003
1r202 4S0 2223
3.
frOm the private: sector and other stakeholdels. This "leverage"
could he done in: a number of ways.
.
Leverage
II
1'eSOllJ'Ct;S
He could help finance the deployment of educational technology in • particular
city, and clJaUonge other business lude", to Iawich similar initiatives in their
communities.
•
He GOuld help underwrite the capital costs associated 'With an educational
technology initiative if the stat<> and local school district was willing to COntmit
to paying the opet1Itional costs.
_, v,~L
tft ,~.{j~ :"~P.fur"
f.v "'r(l.,l'>-~i!w ) , . j ' r '
10
~ projects by tlJoir "MY -... .... hlghly leveraged. ASpme- companies have
t"' (.\f~~dCIlts. teachers, and programmers involved in developing.
,- ~ I • .<
~l\'~\...t~(tx"'c:
educational content by offering a small amount of prize money. (~YMrp";:'· t!St"i)J{~'~~"'';)
~'f,(?Vf:.i:. tfcfw~~ie ~r."":c;:,~,/) 1\) .......'(2/ S'-':H.'~'!j':C;":<b)'
\-
4.
Promote partnerships betwc.on tbe business commlmity, teach."., parents, aod the
commlmily. One of the exciting things about Nero.y, for example, was that 20,000
people volU!Ileered to hop install wire in California schools. Some parents were so
""palled by the ",ndition of their children'. schools that we painted the walls, replaced
tile broken windows, and fixed the lighting. Many of the "buman" oonnections tbat
wer. made are lasting well beyond March 91h.
�f4j004
WIU'I'E nOUSIVNEC
"5"202 456 2223
PrQject: Fund compu"rs. teacher trai.ning. ~ofiware, and ne~k connectivity in all schools
in one or more major American cities.
Descriptlon/ratiouale:
"
Develop and fund comprehensive strmgy that eddIe"e, aU four pillars in one or mor.
major American city.
"
This would help addIe.. the 'equity' issue -- the concCUl that thls tcclmology wiu
1esult in polarization between information nhavcs" and "bav~ DOts."
•
Cost for initial deplOyment (assuming either the "partial classroom" or "full classroom"
medels developed by McKinsey) is $610 - $%5 per student. The On-going
operations and maintonance cost is $155-275 per student per year. The deployment
coo.. would probably be spread over some period of rime (e.g. 5 years).
The 'fuU classroom" includes 1 computer per 5 students, 3 local area network tbat
connecrs aU of the eDmputen; witbiD the school, • high-speed COllllection (15
megabits/second) to the outside world, bardwate equipm<:nt such as file servers,
pnntcis. and scanners, software and online service subScription services, and teacher
"
training. The 'partial classroom" model is similst to the 'full classroom", except that
only 50 I'V"TtXnt of tbp~wou1d have,computen;.
L
~ '"3' ""<".' ~.
""-:-'·I·"'"l,'i.~ /
r"---'" '
'
l!~' ,.,
"
y
[
~O)'"
"i, , ) ,;
'.'#'"
_Ii',~_",.,_".
~< ..
t
'to . '.
,:
,...,
'-
A
f 'I "/ a, .... ·.~
....
.<••',\, •.;;.,;I ·''''',i'
,
"
,
m'I<~-'--"_'
..
Organize the business community in a giVOIl city (e.g. Los Ang.e1es) to raise tbe
money or provide the equjpment and technical assistance. An organization called
SmOn Valley led by John Young is playing tbis role ill SilleDn Valley.
•
Get a commitment from the state or local govemmcut to pay fm Iecurriug costs.
a
Challenge other business leaders to playa similar role in their community.
Costs for iUustrati•• major U.S. dll..
y>!'o-s%S)
)
Stud.nts (x
$~'- $61
•
million
Atlanta
63K
Boston
Cleveland
Los Angeles
58K
660K
;'463 - S637 million
New York
9501;.
Phil1!delpbla:
209K
$Jl'" -$202 willion
76K
3
,
•
, ( ""
�04/23/96
16:24
~oos
'5'202 456 2223
Proj~;
Significantly expand training oppo!1Ulli;ics for teachers so that they feci comfortable
usia, this technology in the classroom. Goal is to move teachers as far as possible along the
following "fJdH f\tages":
Entry: No experience, struggling to cope
AdolltiOO; Suca:ssful use ar • basic level
Aru.plion: Discovery of potential in a vaneI)' of applications.
Appropriation: Mastery over tbc teclJnology.
Invention: Develops new learning ski1J..s USing technology.
Options
..
Train all [or SOme pcro;:ntagel of tbc new t""cbers entcrillg the workforce. This is
roughly 4 percent of the rota! number of 2.S million teachers; or 100,000. Assuming a
cost of SI,OOO - $2,000 por teacher, ttris would cost $100 - $200 million. $2,000
pays for 2 weeks of intensive training with addition.al follow-up dW;ing the COUIS. Of
.
lnl'
the schoo! year.
'0"-'\ '" M .f0AJ r5 i~ ~tL.if "-' o;e;- "0,01.1.-" l,..
\.I,.J'\n"e¥~t-ha.~ P-£~(.u"'('i.·n'~ C!:;..~ fA:'f..fl'lr...-~.
"O/{.J,..1 ;;;h.:_
Train 10 pc.rcent of all new teac.hers, and give: them a lap-top. In cxchangc~ ask lliat 'f'$,,lJ I
they Cfimmit to £lain another 5 tea.chers during the course of tbe school year. Cost is rw
$30-$40 million.
...; t(o..t.i'l ( ,)
0",,_
1
a
-
!j ':.
Train every prinCipal. This is important because the move (owards site-based
management makes principals key decision-makerS in wbetheT a school adopts
edu<;<lt;ional techno!ogy. There are 84,0011 public schools, so tbe COSt would he $84
milliou - $168 n;illion. Training all of the principals in California and giving them
laptops would cost $36-$48 nrillion.
"
Finance a "raffle" for atl teach",. tbat sign up to be "21st Century Teachers"; those
teachers that are already technologically literate that agree to improve their skills ~d
to train another 5 t""cbers during the course of the school year. Assuming 100,000
teachers signed up, and you wanted. every teacher to have a 1 in 20 chance of getting
a laptop, this would cost $10 nriDiOD.
"
4
"d.....'-4 ~Jtk;/
,J
c.ftt"t I (tt /11·
f'h :FI"
J,(f,\'t
:.J.
�04/2.1/9&
11'1:24.
'8"202 456 2223
WEATE ROD5£/J'.'EC
Project Hclp sponsor an "Internet Schoolho~" to expand lDtcrnet-acccssible courseware
omd educational resource.... in different subjects.
-'If::
De.s<:rlption:
II
Although tho'e is a loxge amI .-.pidly growing amoWlt of educational materilll On the
lnl<lmct, it is otten pOOrly organized. of WleVen quality, and offeIs spotty <overage oj
subject materials.
8.
Recelltly, there have been some efforts made to build partneIShips between
professional soci<:tl<s, profe5SoIS, software develope~, /llld high-school teacher.; to
expaI1d the availability of bigh-<juaUty. peer-reviewed instructional material on the
Intemet in palticular subjects.
Ii
Some COnl~¢$ have sponsored efforts by museums to go on-line, or arc making
scientific iDsuuments (supercomputers. radio telescope!;) available for on-line USc.
The National Science FoundatiOll, for cxa.·nple, is funding: the creation of a Virrual
DeparlJDent of Geography. Over the next llrree years, more than 30 geo&!"phy
professors from arotmd the country will develop mteractive: course modules covertng
the entire discipline. Because the professors are willing to donate their rime. the cost
of this project i. only $300,000.
..
Expens believe that there is also a need '0 develop sottv...,e "building blocks" that
can be used fOT educational applicariOllS. These wouid include an intelligent period
table of elemClll$ for chemistry; bilingual dictionaries for forcip language training,
and 2-D am! 3-D graphing tools for geometry and calculus. Widespread availability
of these building blocks can dramatically reduce the time and cost required to develop
l!ducational applications.
Th. A<!ministtation would .1>0 like 10 see "virtual office hours" sponsored by leading
professional societies. This would allow profession.:. to take turns answering student
questiolls, and in the process, build up-useful databases of frequently asked ruestions.
II
We beJieve that this is a very highly leveraged activity because (a) the distrihution
cost of making: networked courseware to student., is essentially zero; and (b) there is a
tremendous opportunity to recruit volunteers such as profe.~OIS.
COli!:
;Q
Very credible projccrs could be started for as little: AS $1-2 mlilion per subject area..
5
'
�iill001
i'roject: Fund univczsity-based "centers of eXc<:ilencc" tbat would conduct R&D in
educational technology.
Description:
"
We .rc still al thl: beginning stag'" of understanding how lecIlnology <lin be used to
make life-long learning. more productive:. More research is need in areas such as:
Authorlllg tools (Reduoc time and expert"'" required to develop mullimedia
applicalions1;
Evaluation and assessment (what worts);
,
lntelligent tuton; for individualized instruction (program can tell what kind of
mistukcs • student is making);
Development of standards for reusa.ble software "objects",
•
This is also a "high leverage" activity. For example. the NSF-funded National Center
~or Supercomputing Applications developed Mos.aic, the fim graphical browser far the
World Wide Web. Otaduates from this program left to start NclScape, which now has
• market capitalizalion of over $4 billion!
Cost
~
A higb··impact program could be started with 5 centerS,at a cost of $500,000 to $2
million per year over 5 years ($2.5 to $10 million). This could leverage efforts by .he
National Science Foundation to establish CeutJ;'I:) for Collaborative Research OIl
Learning Technologies,
.
'1If/ L
.,
,
:':'/
6
..
,,~. ' 't ,' :
.
-_.
...",--'-'
�•
,
,
....
'
<
THE WHITl, HOUSE
WASH [J'.;GTON
Octobor 3. 1996
MEMO,'/ NDUM FOR GENE SPERIlNG
GREG SIMON
MIKE SMITH
FROM:
PAUL DIMOND 11)
SUBmCi:
TECHNOLOGY U'IERACY CHALLENGE
CC:
LAURA TYSON
KEN APFEL
BARRY WHITE
nM KOHLENBERGER
Attache': ,., good summary from Naomi TInkI'paugh in Barry's shop describing how the
·FY97 ",'1 "priation implements all of the key elements of the PI1:sidenr. proposed
Teehno}w:' Uteraey CMl}enge, As you will see, we have complete authority -- .rd
substan!i: ',y all of the funding l'tquCSled for the first-year of. five-year ramp-up .- to .
implemCl.: the President's proposal,
This is w) cendous launching pao for implementing the President's vision for using ;;dueation
tecbnoJo n as a lever to enable studeD.ts to learn the skills tb~y need to thrive' at tht: (lawn of
the new , ,nrury, DoEd is working on a draft appUcatioo, to which OMB will give '."?editc,)
review s;:' thaI tlle proc~ss o~ preparing state plans and local innovation granTS c.."Ul !:'~gin by
the end ,:': the month. We also have in place a &ood cadre of private scetor plnyer:; '"ho arc
prepnn::c, j'l announce that they wm lead the e.ilillpaigns in states and localities aero:. ~ the
country t'l put up at least an equal private: sector match.
.TQgeth'!:, ·with all of the Net-Days and other possible a..""lllOUncements described in Tom
.Ka1il'~ P):·')~rjous memo, these affinnative bi-pattisan co~ssional and private Seeter
response· to the fusidcnt's Te<;htiology Literacy CbaHel1ge provide a unique oppornnity for
the Presl i·All and Vice President to deD;lonstrate how they arc leading tbe country ti the 21.st
cenrury. Any announcement should higbliHht the
S1Iccess
of the President and Vic' President
... ~
in provir;';~l& tllc vision a!ld leadership and successfully catalyzing the federal suppu"t. the
~.';::.
private sector match. and a flcnole process to enable states and local communities. reachers
and scb()llis. parents and srudents to join in new partnership to put the worlq's stofl!~ouse of
lmowledt,e and a brighter future
at
the fingertips of eVe!)' child,
.
The suo:,ssful launch of the Technology Uteracy Challengo willll!;gin the proces" ~r
cffectiv,:-·!· increasing the capacity and commitment of schools to purchase CdUcatll).1
teclIDc'.,'; 1 and integrate it into the daily learning of students l!Ild t""chen;. The 11"::: wiU
help 9C':1{ .. )l$ become intcgr.:U parts of a \-ibront. expanding, and con~ta."lt1y imprtWir.g market
with deco':a5ing com - rather than the poor stepchildii;. or charity cases 01 the p 1S!. [
~lieve f:~Jat any Presidential announcement of a. proposed direction for imp1cmclltlr,S th'!
Univer~[
zoo I»!
Service Trust Fund should supporUhis bnsic message and essential PQlki',
�" '.
Education Technology
.
..
FY95 Enacted
Tcclutolci~)'
• SO.O million
SO.O million
.
Literacy
Chon""3"rund
FY97R<q=t
FY97 Enacted
S250.0 million
; $100.0 milUen
I
,
.
"
Local
FY%EDacted
9.S
,
•
60.0
57.0
(about Sl7Mfor,
17 new awords;
S43Mfor
,
~ntinu8.tions)
,
,
W.O
10.0
10.0
10.0
3.0
Innovation
38.0
(about S23M ror
2S new awards
and: SISM for
continuations)
0.0
5.0
0.0
(19 awords)
Challeng' )'und
-
Reg'] Tec-!"ieal
,
Assist3.l'1t.,.
Cent....
.
.,
Fcdemi
Leadcrihi;J
Activitie!L
,
,
,
,
"._-
,
,
,
TechnoJolti Li!!:mliY CbaJlen~. f!lDd
Th,e Prosicl:'lrt.lasr Febrnary, challenged the plIbJic II!Id private """""" to eollabonrte w,th oro:
lIIlolhor to l.clp onsuro that all cbil<lren oro tochnologically literAte by the dawn ofilic 21 st
<enlury. "r,:ppcd with tho eommunication, math, science. and critical thinking skills ...sential
for sue<:<~" hl the Informallon Age.
.
,
To help jill,ilI thIs challenge. the rresident announced. new 12 billion. five-year Teclu,ology
Lill!J1lt)l ChnIlenge Fund thlli would provide formula grants to States to st;mula«l Sial!!. local.
imd pri..~ sector pannerslrips fucused on II1l1y Intogl1!tinS leclInology into teaching .m;, '
Jea.mins. n,c initlative would also a:c1drcss the pen:iS1ent inequities: that must be elimlJ!,!:ed in
the distribuflon ofup-ttW1atc: technology 'to schools irpoor students II1'C to be afforded the same
educationl~ opportunities lIS mOTe edvantaged studentt. The spccific goals ofth. Chalkogc Fund
-' include tho following:
• ,
•
•
•
'
to provide ,ea<:bers with the training and support they need 10 help students loam thmugh
mod<!m technology;
to provide all ~cn and students with oeeen to modem «>mputcrs in their c!esStOoms;
1<, <::Jsun: that every cJ....."",. is COlutCCtcd 10 the Information Superhlghwny; tnd
to pt:wide effective and engaging .software: nnd on..linc leming resO\L~es that l.YiU be an
integmi part of every school curriculum .
.• !
�..
"" , ...
.'
~-
Fu1fliing. 'rho Technology Lircrary Challenge Fund will provide fl1:llI1ts to States under !he
authority of title m ofthe Elementary and 8ccondiIIY EdUC!)tion Act. Each Stale will be eligible
10 ...""iv<: • mar. ofthc total appropriation equal to its ~ of funds under part A oftitl. I,
cxeepllb", '0 StlI" "ill reeelve less 'hen on<-balf ofone pen:cnl or !he "Pl'roprlatcd "'"ount.
States will lISe their funds to award grant" on a eott'lp¢1itive b~s. to local school districts.
Stal~ will h.ve maximum floxibility to accomplish the goats outlined above, and, In aro.r to
receive fun< I" will have to meet only Inre. ""!UUl:mcntJl:
•
SJJn· i Slnitl;iy: dovelop • stratellY that enables every school in the SlAte to meet '.he foUl'
goal, by the dawn ofth. 21 .. """''''Y, eomplote with benchmark. and timetables S<:'! by
the
~itate;
fri~<',lte
Sectpr PNlnmbip: demonstrate significant private-sector participation ~~d
". coni"itments that lIhould at IClI$t malch the am"""t ofFedCfll! support; and
~l<lll Prollms lteJxm l<! tb. Publi,,: ensure accounlJlbilitY by publicly reporti"S at the
end ofevery school year on how it will achieve its strategy in the most cost·cffc.::tive
mSl'1?er and on progress made in achieving its bencbma.rks.
Challenge f ,nd. may be used to: ""'Iuire hnrdware, software, ani! oonnectivity linkageS; l'mvide
pr.ofeeiona: development in the integration oftecmn"Jogyinto the curric:ulum; and dcrvt:lop .
ripplicatiom oftechnojcgy '" <U!'POl1 challenging I..",jng oetiviti.. and opponunHi•• 1'1r all
students.
To ensure tlJ~ Indian r<SOtVations are allocated an appropriate level offunding, the FY97
apP"'l'riatlOllS language includes a provision !hat li<\ts aside ono-balf of one percent or the
amount available for this program ror the outlying ...... to be distriblllud based on th.ir relalive
need as det'tmilled by.he S~.
Tho Se.relary will give priority 1ft the award of these f\ll1d, '0 Ihe diStricts with the be" .1.""
enrolling the latgest concentration" of poor students, and demonstr'ting!he greotest ne: d. for
,echnololY.
Local Comm,mity Challenge Optl"". Distrio:ts in States WI ohoose not to portleipate in the
program (if th.... any such States) will not be precluded flQm benefitlng from the Challenge
Fund. 'The ,.Y97 app:ropriatio"" language wiU allow !he Secretmy or Education 10 reserve tbe'
funds of 0:0:' Stale! that chnose not 10 participate ill !he program (rather than reallocating them
. amOl1£ other. Statu) and to provide districts in the Slate with the opportunity to compem for.
shote ofthe funds. In tha event. State'. fimds are res<:rved.. the Seereta:y will announce a
competition in the F• •", Ragister mtrictcd tQ sc:bool di.tricts in that StoIC. In onler to
compete, districts Will have 10 mm the !hr•• ~q.irem",u othorwisc ",,!uired ofthe State. but
for the n:spr.ctive district only, j~e•• a district s\.ratcgy. private sector partnership, and :ar.; lual
report to tb~.poblic.
'Rea.rsessmenl and RevIew. Tho Technology Literacy Ch.Uengel'und will peovic!. fum!i:lg for
five years., th.an be subject 10 a ,unset provision to alJow a review OCWhllt has ~ #~mplished.
and a ,.,...••ament ofwbcthcr it is still ncocsSl/')', and Ifse at what level of funding.
Sf 01 1
�• UM!J t.l)IJLH I .iUN
''''poet <fFY97 appl'Opriati.IIS. Although th. Administration requested $250 ",ilIion for the
Te(:hnolof,:' Lileraoy Clu!Ilenge fund, FY97.cna¢!ed only provides $200 million wniel In""""
thot the fb"nul. gntI1lS that 1$"'", r=ive will bo smaU... than they would have boen otherwise.
Loca) Innovatjon CbaIJem ~nd .
The fund. ,e'1.uested fur the Locollnnovation Ch.lIenee fund win eomplem<n! !Undo ",.d.
avail.bk ; . Slatt' under the Technology Li\cnlcy Challenge Fund, by providing f1ve.;,-,ar
competilj~c awards to consortJa that include poor $thoal districts to develop innovative.:
applieatio'ns ofteehnology. The Sttm~ I;m.nt funds will heJp build the infrastructure for
in!egratinr technology into every classroom, These funds wiU help sbow the way by ~"?l'orting
part.n¢'r'S:hip! or business. industry, and local schools Umt propose innovative approaclw~ to
improving 'lUdcnlS' (includins adult leame,,') neIlievemonl with technology, whether 'h."Ough
classroo.m applications for students. new hardwarr:, better :SDftw~ the development 0.1 new
ne\WQrk p,,,juoIs fOI school use, or new and more cfl'ecuve approach.. 'to professional
devetoptne-'ll. The result should be innOVAtion and models from which eQ~itie:s 1lG-:'O'SS the,
country,;w· benefit The demonstrntion ofstrlllcgi'. and new uses of'cclmology will
campl.In"'·,' tb. Technology Lilln'11CY Chall.nge Fuad.
Fui-uJlng. l' (97 funding will support both ong<>in~ prcjeG'5 ""d ruowawards. The inif' .:.
'echnol"B) "hallcng. gnmt competition in 1995. originaUy referred to lIS the Technology
Le.ming Ch1lenec (Tt.C), attructed over 500 SJ>plic.tions, many of which were the w<>rk of
<:oolition. orbusinesscs aad !cleeommunicatlons prc\idm working With ..nools, universities,
and other commurury learning centers. The 1996 competition attracted 586 applications, about a
130 ofwhic.'t
.ulm1itted by SJ>plicllIlts n:jcctad in the tirst mu"d. In 1995 19l\1M""'"
received a""'ards~ in 1996 2S gmntees. will receive new awards; and in 1991 about 17 gJ::\!ltee9 ~
wm
expected tn rccci~ neW awards.
.
impact "f,P tP7 uppropr'atI01lS. Although the AdministrotiOll r.q=d $60 million fo: the
Locallnnm\llt1on Ch.llenge Fund, FY97 enacted only prcvidcs $57 million which mean. that
rother than '.".jng about 17 new awards, the Depm1'Illent of Eduat!on Will only be abic III issue
About 14 n('.w aw-!rds.
.
~
Fedeml.l.(:i~~!mbll'
,
Aqlyitln
IMpact ofFY97 apl"?prjati01U. ~ltbol!llh the Administration requested $5 million for 'Fodera!
\..eAdership Aethines·Cfor conferences arid work,bops), during 'he fino! ncgotiOlions the .
Deportment ufEducation decided III not include "l'propriations language for this activity in tho
fl."., «mfc:r'lI<;e agreement ""d to not push for Ihe funding (tbe Departmen! backed out of
pushin~ for this funding in FY96 lIS well).
!
I
�'I
.
.
SUm.rllii...-Y of Childrens' Provisions in Telecom Reform Bill:
(1) The Sl1owe-Rockefeller provision requires te.lecolllUlunlcations serVice providers to give
schools discounts sufficient to make service affurdable (FCC will define the level of
discount). Providers will be reimbursed out of the universal service fund.
(2) The Univ"",a1 Service Principles of the bill are very few (seven or eight). One of these is
the principle that kids in classrooms should get access to advanced telecommunications
services.
(3) The Educational Technology Corp provision authored by Senator Moseley-Braun would
make eligible for federal funds an existing non-profit organization. This entity would fund
educational technology and serve as a clearinghouse. The technology corporation receives no'
funding in this bill and probably won't aoytitno soon.
(4) The Internet Indecency provision prohibits the sending of indecent content to minorS Or
display of such material in a manner .vaillIDle to minors. The Commission's is given
. authority under the provision to describe effective new content screening tocbnologies. Us.
of an FCC-recommended technology is admissible as evidence that a proVidet of indecent
content qualifies for a "good faith efforts" defense to prosecution.
(5) The V-Chip provision gives the cable and b,oatieasting industries one y..... to develop
rules for rating video programming containing violent. sexual. or indecent content. If the
indusUies rail to develop rules, the FCC is given authority to creare an edvisory committee to
recommend a system for rating. The FCC is. gIven authority as well to prescribe rules
requiring a distributor to transmit a rating to television re<:eivet's for blocking if the distributor'
has rated a video program.
The legislation requires that all sets over a certain sjze include the blocking feature - in
compliance with Commission rules.
-
'.
(6) Creation of a technology fund by industry -- to "encoll.l:llge" TV and electronics equipment
manufacturers to facilitate the development of blocking technology - is "encouraged" by the
legislation.
'"
'.,
,
(7) Cable provisions increase the maximum. fllle for transmitting obscene programming on
cable from $10,000 to $100,000; requires cable operators to block programming upon
subscriber request; requires cable operators offeting indecent p,ogramming on sex channels to
block such programming so that non-subscribers don't receive it .
.',"
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Clinton Administration History Project
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cinton Administration History Project
Council of Economic Advisers
Department of Commerce
Central Intelligence Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of Defense
Corporation for National Service
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Justice
Domestic Policy Council
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
General Services Administration
Small Business Administration
Social Security Administration
United States Agency for International Development
National Economic Council
Office of Management & Budget
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Personnel Management
Office of Science & Technology Policy
Office of the Vice President
United States Trade Representative
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-2001
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The Clinton Administration History Project describes in detail the accomplishments of President Clinton's Administration for the period 1993-2001. The records consist of the histories of 32 agencies or departments within the Executive Branch. In general, each organization associated with the Project submitted a narrative history along with supporting documents. These narrative accounts are primarily overviews of the various missions, special projects, and accomplishments of the agencies. The supplementary records include substantive memos, press releases, briefing papers, and publications illustrated with photos and charts.</p>
<p>Agencies:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Council+of+Economic+Advisers&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Council of Economic Advisers</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Central+Intelligence+Agency&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Central Intelligence Agency</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Commerce&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Commerce</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+the+Interior&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of the Interior</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Defense&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Defense</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Corporation+for+National+Service&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Corporation for National Service</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Council+on+Environmental+Quality&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Council on Environmental Quality</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Justice&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Justice</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Domestic+Policy+Council&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Domestic Policy Council</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Education&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Education</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Energy&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Energy</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Environmental+Protection+Agency&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Environmental Protection Agency</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Federal+Emergency+Management+Agency&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Federal Emergency Management Agency</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+General+Services+Administration&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the General Services Administration</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Health+and+Human+Services&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Health and Human Services</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Housing+and+Urban+Development&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Housing and Urban Development</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Labor&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Labor</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+National+Economic+Council&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the National Economic Council</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Office+of+Management+and+Budget&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Office of Management and Budget</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Office+of+National+Drug+Control+Policy&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Office of National Drug Control Policy</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Office+of+Personnel+Management&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Office of Personnel Management</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Office+of+Science+and+Technology+Policy&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Office of Science and Technology Policy</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Office+of+the+Vice+President&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Office of the Vice President</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Small+Business+Administration&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Small Business Administration</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Social+Security+Administration&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Social Security Administration</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+State&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of State</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Transportation&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Transportation</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+the+Treasury&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of the Treasury</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+United+States+Agency+for+International+Development&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the United States Agency for International Development</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the United States Department of Agriculture</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+United+States+Trade+Representative&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the United States Trade Representative</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Veterans+Affairs&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Veterans Affairs</a></p>
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36051">Collection Finding Aid</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
1474 folders in 111 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
NEC – Education/Technology Initiative [5]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
History of the National Economic Council
Clinton Administration History Project
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-2001
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 42
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/Administration-History-finding-aid.pdf">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/1497354">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/24/2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
1497354-nec-education-technology-initiative-5
1497354