Six Degrees of Speculation
In the nation's capital, everything is touched by gossip and guesswork. But there's one rumor that merits our attention.
- By Geoffrey H. Fletcher
- 11/09/09
SPECULATION IS AS INDIGENOUS to Washington, DC, as the national monuments;
part of the game is trying to understand which rumors, leaks, and
parcels of inside information are worth heeding and which are not. I think
one bit of speculation now circulating through the Beltway warrants following:
Dedicated funding for technology may not be included in the next
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The rationale for not having a separate funding source for technology is
not new. In 1995 a state legislator asked me: "Why do we need a $30-astudent
technology allotment that can be spent only on technology? You've
said that technology should be integrated into all aspects of education; why
not let each school district make its own decision about how to spend that
$30 per student?" I have heard from a few technology insiders that in DC a
similar rationale is floating around. Technology is just a tool and should be
part of every program, they say. We don't need to send money to the states
for a grant program for technology; we will just encourage each program--
Title I, special education, etc.-- to use technology as appropriate.
Judging from the mere $100 million it included in the budget for Title II-D
of the No Child Left Behind Act, one might assume the Obama administration
would agree with that thinking. And certainly a Congress controlled
by Democrats is unlikely to raise the ante over what a Democratic administration
proposes. A well-placed government relations person in the
technology industry told me, "It will take a dramatic rethinking of
technology in education, a totally different approach, to get more
than $100 million from this Congress with the funding proposed
by this administration."
A short time ago, I brought this very issue to Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan and Jim Shelton, assistant deputy secretary for
innovation and improvement. I asked them if the $100
million in Title II-D money indicated the administration's
support for technology. Both said no, noting there was
$650 million in technology funding in the stimulus bill
already. They implied that support for technology in
future congressional budgets will be connected in
some way to the National Educational Technology
Plan, currently being developed by a team at the
behest of the Department of Education.
You can have your say in that plan by going here. It is not clear yet what
shape the plan will take, what level of K-12 funding
may be recommended, or how that funding may be
distributed. It is, as we say, all speculation.
--- Geoffrey H. Fletcher, Editorial Director
About the Author
Geoffrey H. Fletcher is the deputy executive director of the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA).