Congress on the Future of Content

Congress on the Future of Content
Summary of Hearings
Conducted in Austin, TX and Orlando, FL

Panelists testifying in response to questions about their vision for content over the next five years, delivery of that content, and barriers to their vision becoming reality had remarkably similar elements to their visions and to the barriers impinging upon their visions. Most described the need for an education system that would engage students and prepare them to live and work in the 21st century. The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) has described a strategy to bring such an education system to reality that matches the system panelists portrayed:

1. Visionary leadership for systemic change using technology.
2. Involvement in and ownership of the leaders’ vision among all stakeholders (parents, students, teachers, education leaders, and the business community)
3. Rigorous curriculum, dynamic content, multiple resources, and relevant technology tools (computers and related devices, bandwidth, etc) – including online learning – in all subject areas, accessible by teachers, parents and students.
4. On-going and sustainable professional development for teachers and administrators through such models as instructional technology coaches and technologically linked communities of learners.
5. On-going use of data to individualize instruction in all subjects for all students and to evaluate the effectiveness of various programs.

All of these facets of the strategy are interrelated and crucial for success for all students in the 21st century. While the focus of the hearings was on content, each of these facets of an overall strategy for education was mentioned by virtually all of the panelists in the hearings.

Vision

When discussing content specifically, panelists delineated three general areas of interest – the content, curriculum and teacher strategies, and support for effective use of the content.

Content

Panelists wanted content that was highly engaging to students of the 21st century who are used to texting on phones, using social networks, and playing complex games. They wanted content that could be used flexibly by teachers and students and that could be adaptable to the varying needs of individual students. Finally, panelists recognized that not only were publishers producers of content, but also, more and more, students themselves are producers of content.

Curriculum and teaching strategies

Panelists wanted all content aligned to state standards. They recognized that many teachers desire a scope and sequence, a curriculum, which they can follow to ensure that students address all the appropriate standards. A key component of this is having a variety of assessment strategies embedded into the content and the curriculum to ensure students are making the appropriate progress. The curriculum that panelists described included 21st century skills (e.g., creativity, innovation, collaboration, media literacy, etc.) embedded throughout a more traditional curriculum to ensure students are prepared for a 21st century marketplace. The teaching strategies that the content should support should be focused on project-based, student-directed learning.

Support for effective use of content

Panelists stressed time and again the need for on-going professional development. While there was no general agreement as to what entity should be the primary provider of this professional development, all agreed that publishers had a role and responsibility to ensure that their materials could be used effectively. To the extent that this professional development would go beyond that which traditionally is provided by publishers, districts should be willing to pay for that. All recognized that there are not sufficient computers, bandwidth, and other technologies available in schools, or in many homes. However, the effective use of interactive, engaging content does not require a total 1 to 1 solution, nor should developers of that content need to wait to develop and provide it. Finally, panelists felt that some vetting process to ensure that content is aligned and meets minimum standards for access and use on various systems, is important.

Barriers

The barriers to the common vision that the panelists described often were the lack of the element described in the vision. Thus, panelists identified

• Insufficient access to technology and bandwidth in schools and at home
• Lack of on-going, high-quality professional development
• Insufficient funding for content
• A curriculum tied to age-old subject areas driven by high stakes testing required by NCLB.

However, other barriers also became evident in the hearings.

Vetting and adoption processes

In the 22 adoption states, the vetting and adoption process varies significantly. In most cases, it is an arduous, drawn-out process that discourages many publishers from participating. Those who do participate are often subject to arbitrary and capricious decision-making that can be harmful to publishers’ businesses as well as school districts. While the panelists seemed to want some kind of vetting process, many questioned the appropriateness of current processes for the variety of materials that they wanted to purchase. The vetting and adoption barrier is different in non-adoption states, but in many districts, no less of a concern.

Alternative business models

In many adoption states, a large portion of money for instructional materials is tied up in the adoption process. The lack of flexibility in accessing these funds was a concern for many panelists, as well as some publishers on the task force. If, as some panelists desired, materials could be “chunked” into modules, there is no business model to determine the value of these “chunks” or to buy and sell them.

Intellectual property rights

Publishers, and a few panelists, pointed out that in many current models for content development the use of intellectual property is not flexible enough to include buying and selling materials as some panelists envisioned. These older models that include complex contracting processes can impede the distribution of some instructional materials.

A fragmented market

The education market for instructional materials is highly fragmented and requires publishers to develop for at least 50 different state content standards, not to mention other requirements that states or districts may tack onto a call for content or an RFP. This makes development of materials much more costly.

Complexity of a transition

The environment educators and publishers are facing is complex: publishers trying to address every type of teacher with a vast array of materials; districts with varying levels of technology access and expertise, the more advanced of them demanding materials that do not fit an old model; and a 50-year-old business model for the purchase and use of instructional materials.