What happens when accountability meets technology integration

What Happens When Accountability Meets Technology Integration John B. Keller and Barbara A. Bichelmeyer

T he No Child Left Behind Act continues to provide a centerpiece for educational discussions. This federal policy has been the object of praise and criticism and has brought standards-based reform into focus for the nation.

In this paper we discuss the ways that standards-based reforms may be at odds with efforts to increase technology integration in K-12 schools. We recognize and value the important role that standards can play in bringing focus to a diffuse curriculum. Our reservations with regard to standards-based reform lie primarily in the de facto hierarchy that has been created when large-scale tests are used to measure only a portion of the knowledge, skills and understandings that the standards represent. The tested curriculum (reading and math) is edging out other important domain and process learning. We believe that the types of learning that are often urged as part of efforts to integrate technology into curriculum and instruction are being discounted in schools since these approaches to learning may not link directly or immediately to rising test scores. We outline how

=- accountability has brought about a shift in curricular focus and discuss several tensions between this shift and effective

g. technology integration. We conclude with suggestions about = how the tensions can be resolved and with ideas for further -.<

z research. a- The issues discussed in this paper are directed toward ~" professional developers, school administrators and policy

makers, in hopes that they will make every effort to develop a strong, locally supported vision for education and advocate professional development that supports the vision.

The de facto mission of schools Whatever the explicit educational mission of schools,

as expressed on school corporation home pages and in faculty handbooks, a more powerful mission statement has

essentially been established for all schools by the accountability movement comprised of high-stakes tests, standards and sanctions. Local goals intoning % world class education for all children" have been effectively supplanted by the language of accountability at the state and federal levels. At the expense of other curricular areas, accountability measures have narrowed the curriculum to the point that raising math and reading scores of all students has become the de facto goal of our nation's schools (von Zastrow & Janc,

2004). Consider the accountability language of the State of Indiana. According to Indiana's Department of Education website (2002), school performance is defined as the sum of all students passing mathematics and English language arts divided by two. (This performance equation for school success can be found at www.state.in.usa/asap/acountability 2.htm#anchor27796.)

The same website states that school improvement is based on increases in achievement over time and that

Volume 48, Number 3 TechTrends 17

If pedagogy is promoted to its rightful rank of

first priority, high achievement and

technology integration will follow.

professional development should be about, "[T]he ideal changes that need to occur in stakeholders' knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward learning that lead to increased student achievement." The state of Indiana makes plain the relationship between professional development and the goal of high test scores.

The language of accountability in Indiana is entirely consistent with the larger national mandate established by the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act commonly referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act, which establishes the 2013-14 school year as the year when adequate yearly progress (AYP) must be shown for all students (Linn, Baker, & Betenbenner, 2002). States are given the freedom to establish what exactly counts as adequate yearly progress (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). A desktop reference (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) accompanying the law states

States must specify annual objectives to measure progress of schools and districts to ensure that all groups of students - - including low- income students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English prof ic iency- reach proficiency within 12 years. States must set intermediate goals that provide for annual adequate yearly progress targets, with the first increase to occur no later than 2004-05.In order to make adequate yearly progress, schools must test at least 95 percent of their students in each of the above groups (p.17).

If there is confusion about how adequate yearly progress will be measured, Elmore (quoted in Cochran-Smith, 2003) puts it clearly: "The federal government... mandates a single definition of adequate yearly progress, the amount by which schools must increase their test scores in order to avoid some sort of sanction" (p. 4).

The strength of the accountability language including the algorithmic definitions of school success and the punitive consequences for failing to meet mandated levels of progress serves to establish the clear mission for schools, effectively trumping other more liberating educational improvement efforts, including efforts to help teachers learn to use and integrate technology (Deboer, 2002). Goodlad (2002) observes the dominating effect of the accountability movement: "The ongoing debate over school policy and practice has narrowed almost exclusively to how to make standards and testing better" (p.20).

Clearly, both state and federal legislation espouse narrow definitions of student achievement leading to similarly narrow notions of professional development. In the current environment of accountability, professional development that raises test scores is professional development that is valued. In recent years, however, professional development efforts have focused on getting teachers to use technology in their classrooms, which has required professional developers to encourage growth in both the technology skills of teachers and growth in the ability to integrate technology with the established curriculum. Ostensibly, such efforts would also lead to increased student achievement, but teachers have viewed these attempts to increase computer use in their classrooms skeptically. This skepticism may stem from the perception that the time it takes to learn how to use computers and integrate them in instruction and learning is only marginally related to raising test scores. In this climate of increasing test scores at all costs, we posit that accountability measures co-opt efforts aimed at increasing the instructional use of the now ubiquitous computers that have been made available at the cost of billions of dollars to taxpayers.

18 TechTrends Volume 48, Number 3

Basic tenets of standards-based education and technology integration Standards-based education

Standards-based education assumes that there is a canon of knowledge that all students should know. Schools are held accountable for helping their students to acquire the knowledge and skills carefully articulated in the standards. Standardized tests are used to determine the degree of this acquisition. The results of standardized tests establish a kind of educational hierarchy, which, in Indiana, ranks schools from those exhibiting "exemplary progress" to those hapless schools on "academic probation".

By the logic of accountability, students who master more of the grade-appropriate standards are more likely to perform well on the tests. Ostensibly, standards should form the basis for the curriculum. However, as Cuban (1995) notes, the curriculum and the tested curriculum may be different. Despite the expanse of carefully crafted standards, which includes knowledge of the traditional disciplines as well as attention to process skills, standardized tests primarily assess math and language standards, although testing of science standards is just around the corner (Linnet al., 2002). The tested curriculum, in effect, has created a hierarchy in the standards as shown in Figure 1. The No Child Left Behind Act assures that standardized testing will play an even more central role in the coming years by its mandate that all states test all children between grades three and eight in math and English.

Rather than be polemical about accountability and standardized testing as others have been (Kohn, 2002), we want to provide a new perspective on how the climate of accountability is impacting important school improvement efforts such as technology integration - - efforts that are part of a holistic approach to educating our young people.

Technology integration The basic premise of technology

integration efforts is that teachers should integrate computers into their everyday pedagogy. The National Educational Technology Standards (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000) view technology integration as the combination of the knowledge and skills of the teaching fields with the application of technologies for the purpose of improving learning.

Technology integration does not happen ipso facto when computers are accessible in schools. Professional development is the necessary nexus between accessible technology and technology integration. Teachers have at least two major concerns as they approach technology integration. First, teachers must learn how to use technology. Then, teachers can be helped to find ways to use that technology effectively with their students, which may include changing teaching practices to take advantage of some of the capabilities and opportunities available with the technology. Additionally, technology integration efforts often encourage new teaching practices. Technology integration is not as simple as convincing teachers to use technology and showing them ways to do it. Technology integration is about transforming the practice of teachers - - a reality that is incredibly difficult to accomplish no matter what the means of transformation.

So far we have discussed how the climate of accountability has established the mission of schools and have examined the basic ideas of standards-based education and technology integration. Next, we turn to three tensions that help us to

Figure 1. A De Facto Hierarchy of Standards


understand the conflict between standards-based education and technology integration.

Tension 1: Traditional vs. progressive pedagogy

The first tension between the goals of accountability and the goals of technology integration can be characterized as a tension between traditional and progressive modes of instruction. Both traditional and progressive pedagogy recognize the importance of standards, but have very different notions about how to approach the hierarchy of those standards.

Traditional instruction tends to approach the standards through the top of the standards hierarchy (see Figure 2). Such instruction has been called the "transmission approach" and is often characterized by the role of teacher as sage on the stage. Drill and memorization are also aligned with traditional pedagogical methods and are used to increase student achievement as measured by standardized tests. Summariz- ing traditional pedagogical approaches, Elmore (2002) observes that "teachers are rewarded for delivering content, not for increasing their own knowledge and skill around how to reach more students at higher levels of understanding" (p.

24). It is difficult to imagine a mode of assessment more consistent with traditional pedagogy than the standardized tests that are now the sole measure of student learning. Indeed it is common to hear of schools which cast off all pretense of progressive pedaogy in the weeks and

Figure 2. Approaches to the Standards days prior to the administration of

these standardized "measures of learning" as classroom upon classroom is led in test preparation sessions. If technology serves a role in such classroom settings, it is one of skill and drill--a use entirely consonant with improving student test performance.

Progressive pedagogy approaches the standards through process skills (see Figure 2). Process skills are the highly prized critical thinking, higher order thinking and problem- solving skills. In contrast to the domain specific standards at the top of the standards hierarchy, process skills such as writing, problem solving, teamwork, communicating and making connections are important skills that cut across content standards (Illinois Department of Education, 2002).

Project-based learning organizes content around meaningful scenarios and is an exemplary method of progressive pedagogy. Students experiencing this method are given opportunities to apply process skills as they research, experiment, construct and present their learning. Project-based learning is a natural approach for many technology integration efforts (Ehman, Bonk, Keller, & Lynch, 2002). Since learning technology skills and implementing project-based learning are time-consuming enterprises, professional development efforts that promote technology integration through the use of project-based learning may have little appeal to teachers comfortable with traditional teaching methods and concerned about covering the tested curriculum. Project-based learning emphasizes learning to learn, curricular depth over breadth and making connections across standards - - notions difficult to reinforce on standardized tests.

Before turning to the second tension, let us clarify our views about teachers and teaching. It is important to point out that, though we have discussed teaching in terms of traditional and progressive approaches to pedagogy, we do not believe that teachers can be neatly classified as belonging to one persuasion or the other. Teaching is "unforgivingly complex" (Cochran-Smith, 2003), and it is simplistic to imagine that understanding the practice of teachers with regard to accountability, standards and technology integration can be grasped by understanding a few variables. What has been discussed to this point and what follows is an attempt to grapple with the complexity of teaching. The assumptions underlying this discussion are that a broad view of learning and achievement requires a broad view of teaching, and a broad view of teaching assumes that instructional methods must vary based on the learning situation. Innovations should not be rejected out of hand because they do not fit within narrow accountability models of education or particular views of technology integration.

Tension 2: Standardized tests vs. performance-based assessment

A second tension between standards-based education and technology integration involves assessment. Some content standards (i.e., math and English) are relatively easy to assess via comparison-friendly methods (e.g., standardized tests). Other standards are more appropriately assessed through authentic performance-based measures. Process skills, including writing, problem solving and communication, are seen as important enough to be included in the standards but require assessment techniques beyond those employed in standardized tests. As a result, it is impossible to compare the students of Minnesota and Georgia with regard to their general ability to communicate while it is feasible to compare their achievement in the content areas of math and English.

The professional development of teachers that urges them to use technology-supported progressive teaching


"... the de facto hierarchy created by the accountability movement stresses an importance among the standards that is inverse of what we think it should be."

methods also encourages performance-based assessment, which does not yield the highly valued comparisons necessary to satisfy advocates of school accountability. Eisner (2001) summarizes this tension aptly:

What the field has not provided is an efficient alternative to the testing procedures we now use. And for good reason. The good reason is that there are no efficient alternatives. Educationally useful evaluation takes time, it's labor intensive and complex, and it's subtle, particularly if evaluation is used not simply to score children or adults but to provide information to improve the process of teaching and learning"(p. 369).

Some advocates of technology integration may suggest that instruction that combines standards with project- based pedagogy provides a means for covering more standards. Realistically, however, two problems exist with such an argument. First, project-based learning makes great demands on classroom time and so, though the combination of standards may be far more meaningful than lessons that address standards in isolation from one anther, project-based learning is likely to address fewer rather than more standards.

Project-based learning is also problematic in the current culture of accountability because of the mismatch between instruction and assessment. For test results to be valid, student learning during instruction should take place in ways that are similar to the ways that they will be assessed. This presents a problem for project-based learning because it is difficult to assess deep and meaningful learning with bubble sheets. Standardized tests simply do not reward synthesis and cross-domain thinking. One could argue that project-based learning ill-prepares students for assessments that focus on domain-centered recall.

All other variables being equal, project-based learning is more demanding on teacher time and effort and represents a pedagogy foreign to some teachers. It is entirely reasonable to think that teachers will choose the means to raising test scores that they see as most effective and efficient. The burden of proof rests on those promoting project-based methods supported by technology.

Tension 3: Technology as central vs. technology as peripheral

The third tension is related to the previous two and surrounds what we call the promise of technology. The claims of technology advocates remain unfulfilled in schools (Cuban, 2001; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001;

Peck, Cuban, & Kirkpatrick, 2002). Technology has not transformed education as advocates have predicted (Cuban, 1986) and may even be used to accomplish work that could be done without technology (Allen, 2001). A number of explanations have been offered as to the low use of technology by teachers (Cuban, 2001), but here we suggest another, which is simply that the climate of educational accountability is pushing technology integration to the margins of educational practice.

While technology advocates envision a central role for technology and maintain great hopes for its potential to revolutionize and transform classroom practice, most teachers practice their craft in an environment of standards and testing expediencies (Merrow, 2001). Teachers in these conditions view technology integration efforts as add-ons and at best as an indirect route to the mastery of standards. One recent experience illustrates this view beautifully. In a school corporation exercising exceptional efforts to increase technology integration, the technology supported project-based learning urged by professional developers is showcased at a Saturday event - - not during the normal course of the school week. Teachers in this corporation set aside preparation for this event when weather delays alter their teaching schedule. The "real learning" is preserved at the expense of these projects because the deep learning that can result from such experiences is not central to the core curriculum of the school.

Teachers are under high pressure to meet accountability targets. A recent poll (Rose & Gallup, 2002) suggests that teacher concern for meeting these targets is well-founded since 56 percent of Americans would favor firing teachers in schools that fail to show progress towards meeting standards. There is comparatively low motivation for teachers to change their teaching practices in order to implement the methods encouraged by advocates of technology integration. At a time when English scores plus math scores divided by two equals school quality (see Figure 1 on page 19), can they be blamed?

Ever since computers have been introduced to educational settings, educators have asked whether students could learn more and better with computers. There has been debate over whether it is computers themselves or how they are used that may positively affect student learning (Clark, 1983, 1994a, 1994b; Kozma, 1991, 1994). At best, the answer has been an equivocal; "it depends." When the equivocating about the benefits of computers for learning is juxtaposed to the unequivocal message of accountability, "Perform or else!" the choice of traditional pedagogy over progressive pedagogy, and thus


a peripheral rather than central role for technology, makes all the sense in the world.

Are technology integration effort doomed to fail?

Successful technology integration efforts are not difficult to find. Some teachers, schools and perhaps even school districts provide counter examples to the observations made in this paper. We are not interested in setting up a false dichotomy between using technology in meaningful ways and meeting accountability targets by raising tests scores. The point here is to bring attention to a trend we have observed - - one that has implications for both the accountability movement and the press for technology use. In sum, our argument is that professional development aimed at getting teachers to use technology is not likely to significantly influence how teachers use technology in their classrooms until it can be demonstrated that using technology is instrumental in meeting the challenge for all students to make adequate yearly progress as measured by standardized tests.

We recognize that this statement does not sufficiently address all factors that impact classroom technology use. In recent research by Keller, Bonk and Ehman (in final preparation), teachers who took part in extended professional development that focused on technology integration reported significant changes in their instructional uses of computers. By their own reports, the overwhelming majority of teachers in this study reported that more than the professional development program, "personal ambition and interest in technology" was one of the most important factors influencing their changing practices regarding technology use in the classroom. Some teachers are motivated to use technology and, on their own or through relevant professional development, change their classroom practice to include the use of technology. This personal interest cannot be discounted when we consider classroom technology use. Indeed, it is possible to imagine that in the onslaught of accountability, even personal interest in technology may prove to be an insufficient force to bring meaningful technology-supported lessons to students whose learning will be measured first and foremost by standardized tests.

Resolving the tensions Proposing educational solutions to any educational prob-

lem is difficult since, no matter what the starting point, a thor- ough analysis seems to suggest that schools generally need to be reformed. The suggestions presented below point out that at the same time that long-term comprehensive and systemic solutions are being contemplated and implemented, immedi- ate, thoughtful improvement is necessary.

First, we believe that efforts to integrate technology should not be terminated simply because teachers may not see time spent learning to use technology as a worthwhile goal

given the current school realities. We do not advocate that schools acquiesce to the goals of accountability by devel- oping narrowly focused professional development aimed at helping teachers to raise the scores of their students. However, professional developers, administrators and policy makers must realize that technology integration efforts represent a competing demand for teachers. This recognition must go beyond tacit awareness; dialogue that acknowledges and illuminates the tension will be more productive than the current tug-of-war that is underway. Honest discussion is too often lacking when teachers are encouraged to adopt new forms of pedagogy that embrace technology while also being pressured to produce evidence of their effectiveness as educators through the test scores of their students. Such discussion might lead to professional development that is tailored to teachers who are able to envision a pedagogy supported by technology. Teachers whose vision of improved practice does not include significant uses of technology should be supported by non-technology focused professional development that helps them to realize powerful instructional improvements.

Second, school districts need to take a stance toward assessment which promotes all types of learning that are seen as valuable in the local context. This means that the district must develop a holistic stance toward assessment that truly treats standardized tests as only one part of the achievement picture. Such a holistic view would identify understandings important for students and accord the development of those understandings the same attention that the media typically gives to the tables of test scores that compare schools and districts. It is instructive that traditional forms of assessment are seen as antagonis- tic to some curricula and pedagogical approaches. In one professional development school in New York City, students were excused from the Regents Exam required of high school students in New York (Crocco, Faithful, & Schwartz, 2003). Such attention to aligning instruction and assessment is necessary. School districts should seek to relieve the tension of standardized testing by experimenting with educational alternatives such as charter schools and professional development schools where the requirements of standardized testing can be waived. Current examples of such exceptions are few, and it is likely that they will become even more scarce as the No Child Left Behind Act assumes its defining role in circumscribing the meaning of achievement.

Third, school districts should consider federal mandates as baselines rather than targets. Good schools always go beyond the requirements of local, state and federal administrators when educating students. School administrators should develop a vision that incorporates the state and federal mandates but exceeds the scope and spirit of these narrow measures of learning. This vision should then be used to make decisions about the kinds of professional development that are offered to teachers.


By aligning teacher development with the vision of the schools, districts can avoid the tensions that can pull teachers in different directions.

A fourth way that school districts can address the current tensions between standards-based education and technology integration is to return to an emphasis on pedagogy rather than on technology. The magic of instruction is not that computers deliver it or that it features the latest information available on the internet. If schools are about offering the best pedagogy available, other goals will be met in the process, including technology integration and raising scores on standardized tests.

Even if schools take a more expansive view of achievement than those offered by legislative mandates, there are many factors that complicate achievement no matter how it is measured. Walberg (May, 1984) identified nine factors that influenced student achievement, but only two of these factors - - the quantity and quality of instructional time - - fell completely to the control of schools. Interestingly, a long list of instructional methods (part of the quality factor) produced larger effect sizes than spending more time (the quantity factor) on a subject. It stands to reason that the more concerned schools are with helping teachers to use the best instructional methods in each teaching situation, the higher student achievement will be. If pedagogy is promoted to its rightful rank of first priority, high achievement and technology integration will follow.

Directions for research Two research directions have particular relevance for

this current discussion. First, research must be conducted on how school districts can create and maintain holistic assessments for each student in order to help schools shift the focus of score-based assessment to assessment that improves learning as urged by Eisner (2001). This would involve helping districts to explore ways to elevate a full complement of assessments to the same level of importance now accorded the narrow measures comprised by standardized tests. Crucial to such a holistic picture would be data not only on student outcomes but also on the instructional methods that produced those outcomes. A formative view of student achievement and teacher instruction is necessary for schools to seriously address real achievement gains for all students. Shifting from a punitive to a developmental view of assessment is required if assessment is to be a tool for improvement rather than evidence of adequacy.

A second research possibility is to refocus staff development from somewhat diffuse emphases to an overarching emphasis on improving pedagogy. This may seem tautologous, but in our experience this seemingly obvious goal is not always the focus of professional development. Research projects might include designing or re-designing professional development departments in

school corporations. Research on such projects should study the relationship between professional development and student achievement and explore ways to establish political support for such innovations.

Conclusion This discussion posited that the language of

accountability at the federal and state levels has established the goal of schools as the raising of test scores and that this goal has t rumped technology integration efforts. After outlining the basic tenets of both standards-based education and professional development efforts focused on technology integration, we highlighted three tensions that impact the relationship between standards-based education and professional development for technology integration. These tensions are traditional vs. progressive pedagogy; standardized tests vs. authentic assessment; and technology as central vs. technology as peripheral to pedagogy. We concluded with a few suggested strategies for addressing these tensions and provided suggestions for research. We believe that the most promising possibility for transcending the tension between standards-based education and professional development for technology integration is to refocus schools on excellent pedagogy. When excellent pedagogy becomes the cornerstone of school vision and the central focus of all professional development, standards and technology integration will also find their rightful places.

John Keller is a Ph.D. candidate in the Instructional Systems Technology Department at Indiana University. His primary research interest involves professional development of K-12 teachers. He has also worked with the Teacher Institute for Curriculum Knowledge about Integration of Technology which promotes the thoughtful use of technology in rural Indiana Schools.

Barbara Bichelmeyer is Associate Professor of Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana University. Her primary interests in teaching, research and service activities are related to learners' engagement, ownership and control of the learning process; and the uses of technology to facilitate learners' emotional engagement, ownership and control of learning. Currently, she is engaged in research concerned with the relationships between learner engagement and web-based learning environments.

Bibliography Allen, R. (2001, October 19). Technology and learning: how can schools

map routes to technology's promised land? Curriculum Update, 1-3 and 6-8.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

Clark, R. E. (1994a). Media and method. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 7-10.

Clark, R. E. (1994b). Media wil! never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The unforgiving complexity of teaching: Avoiding simplicity in the age of accountability. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1 ), 3-5.


Crocco, M. S., Faithful, B., & Schwartz, S. (2003). Inquiring minds want to know: Action research at a New York City professional development school. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 19-30.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: the classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (1995). The hidden variable: How organizations influence teacher responses to secondary science curriculum reform. Theory Into Practice, 34(1), 4-11.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in classrooms. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 812-834.

Deboer, G. E. (2002). Student-centered teaching in a standards-based world: Finding a sensible balance. Science and Education, 11, 405-417.

Ehman, L., Bonk, C., Keller, J., & Lynch, L. Y. (2002). A model of teacher professional development to support technology integration. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Eisner, E. (2001). What does it mean to say a school is doing well? Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 367-372.

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Hard questions about practice. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 22-25.

Goodlad, J. I. (2002). Kudzu, rabbits and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 16-23.

Illinois Department of Education. (2002). English Language Arts Standards. Retrieved September 13, 2002, from www.isbe.state.il.us/ils/english.html

Indiana Department of Education. (2002). Indiana Academic Standards. Retrieved September 13, 2002, from http://doe.in.us

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Keller, J., Ehman, L., & Bonk, C. (in final preparation). Professional development that increases technology integration by K-12 teachers: Influence of the TICKITprogram.

Kohn, A. (2002). Fighting the tests: A practical guide to rescuing our schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 349-357.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Refraining the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betenbenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31 (6), 3-16.

Merrow, J. (2001). Undermining Standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(9), 653-659.

Peck, G., Cuban, L., & Kirkpatrick, H. (2002). Techno-promoter dreams, student realities. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 472-480.

Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2002). The 34th annual Phi Delta Kappa/ Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 41-56.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind--A desktop reference. Washington, D.C.: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

von Zastrow, C., & Janc, H. (2004). Academic atrophy: The condition of the liberal arts in America 's public schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education,.

Walberg, H. J. (May, 1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, 19-26.


What happens when accountability meets technology integration

Documents

Transcript of What happens when accountability meets technology integration