Almost a year ago, I presented an overview of the new ISTE NET*S to computer teachers in my district. For the most part, the group was not receptive to the idea of technology integrated into the core curriculum.

Typically, at the elementary sites, the computer lab is used for assessment (Accelerated Readers, All the Right Type, etc.) and for games, with a little bit of MS Office woven in. Middles schools offer more MS Office, with a few sites offering video editing. Our high schools use the computer labs for business courses, some web design, some film, some animations, depending on the site.

Access to computers within the core content areas is pretty limited unless the individual departments or grade levels have considered ordering laptop cars. Connections between the computer lab curriculum and the core curriculum are spotty at best.

I was therefore very excited to learn that you were involved with the NAEP Frameworks. I now had another piece of the puzzle to provide teachers examples of what technology integration might look like. I pulled samples from the NAEP draft and added them to a Tech Standards wiki I set up for the district. I also assured panic-stricken lab teachers that NAEP was still in the draft stages. If you’re used to being evaluated on discrete skills such as “student can move mouse,” the leap into the ISTE NET*S and NAEP must seem like light years.

Change is hard. The messiness of defining “technology literacy” is a huge topic/concept. I appreciate Joe’s hope that the Planning Committee will “evolve this flawed document which appears to be a collection of ideas from various organizations into a meaningful document that will have a positive impact.” I would, however, substitute “flawed” for “initial draft.”

In the meantime, the more examples of technology integration into the core curriculum I can share with teachers, the better prepared we will all be when a final NAEP version is posted. Just found one more great resource this morning from Vermont – http://transformation-technology.wikispaces.com/. In a nutshell: “Given the major shift in emphasis in the Refreshed NETS-S of 2007 from basic skills and productivity tools to creativity, innovation, communication and problem solving, it became clear to many that trying to define the new standards at measurable levels would most likely limit their potential and render them quickly obsolete given the rapidly-changing nature of technology. Instead of taking a more traditional path, we opted to create scenarios in an attempt to paint a possible picture of what these standards might look like as they are integrated into the curriculum at various grade levels.”

Sorry for rambling on, but just wanted to say thanks again to you and your committee members. While district administrators may or may not be familiar with ISTE NETS, they definitely recognize the importance of our “nation’s report card.”

I hope the NAEP Technology Literacy Assessment Planning Committee takes seriously the recommendations for changes that people are putting forth. I attended the June presentation at NECC (which was both poorly attended and poorly received by those in attendance) and since then I have seen little to suggest that the feedback that people have given openly through blogs and articles is being listened to and that the document is changing as a result.

While it’s not Generation Yes’s responsibility to be sure that we are listened to (as I am sure Generation Yes is listening), each stakeholder organization must take implementing the changes we suggest seriously and evolve this flawed document which appears to be a collection of ideas from various organizations into a meaningful document that will have a positive impact.