RE: Question 1: Technology-What's not in the Plan

Re: Equating Technology with Computers

Although your point is very true--we do seem to neglect the longstanding use of technology in education in science experiments and as specific parts of the science curriculum--the Master Plan RIGHTLY refers to technology as it directly relates to "learning" processes. I.e., "Information Technology" since learning is guided by "information". The subsequent experiences of learning--field trips, lab work, interactive simulations, etc.--all flow downhill from the "textbook" or lesson plans which are "managed" by IT (information technology).

It is obvious to many that IT has fumbled the ball regarding educations. We don't yet have ubiquitous networks that save teachers time and remove the confusion factor from students trying to do their lessons each day.

As a totally biased vendor (I build course management websites), I feel the inertia of institutions and teachers against IT is very "real". "Impossible!" adminstrators shout, "just look at out tech budgets for networking." Alas, it is true, nonetheless. But the fault lies with teh IT industry and the Educational Technology vendors (i.e.--with "me").

When I talk to industry giants, I find that there is a near complete ignorance of the "learning process" as it relates to minute-by-minute activities for students and teachers. As a result the industry produces gee-whiz multimedia and boring spreadsheets and nothing in between.

The Master Plan needs to imediately recognize this industry "lack of expertise" and do something to stimulate competition of products. Only the most die-hard "big government" lackey would suggest that the Department of Education can study the problem and "direct" a solution. Free-enterprise is what will produce the tools of the future; but only if competition is fierce.

Phil