FCC Rules - Good News for Schools
Stanley D. Zenor, stanz@aect.org
Yesterday, the FCC voted to support discounted telecommunication rates for
schools and libraries. The new rules will ensure that schools and
libraries will be able to afford telecommunications services for students
and library users, giving the flexibility to choose from the most basic to
the most advanced commercially available services. The new rules mandate
discounts ranging from 20 to 90 percent, with deeper discounts for schools
and libraries in rural, high-cost and low-income communities. The
discounts are expected to provide up to $2.25 billion annually beginning
January 1, 1998.
For more information on the FCC's actions, visit the EdLINC web site at
http://www.itc.org/edlinc.
AECT participated in the EdLINK coalition supporting the passage of these
rules. EdLINK is a coalition of 37 national organizations representing
public schools, private schools, and libraries.
Stan Zenor
AECT Executive Director
1025 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 820
Washington, DC 20005
voice: 202-347-7834
fax: 202-347-7839
e-mail: st...@aect.org
Ron & Arlene Stevens
Not so fast there. Look at how they financed it: every phone line in
the country gets zapped with another $1-2.50 charge so that the phone
company stays richer. Most of us here really like the net, BUT
considering the costs, are the benefits worth it? Also please note that
it doesn't go to the govt. so its not a tax, but it is a govt. mandated
fee to be imposed upon everybody benefitting a very few.
Ron Stevens
ste...@gnt.net
Ellsworth, James
Ron & Arlene Stevens [ste...@GNT.NET] wrote:
> Not so fast there. Look at how they financed it: every phone line in
the country gets zapped with another $1-2.50 charge so that the phone
company stays richer. Most of us here really like the net, BUT
considering the costs, are the benefits worth it? Also please note that
it doesn't go to the govt. so its not a tax, but it is a govt. mandated
fee to be imposed upon everybody benefitting a very few. <
I have to agree with Stan. What we're talking about here is an equity
issue. In the Information Age, the ability to use the technologies
necessary to master the global infobase are going to be the currency of
the realm. Anyone who grows up lacking those skills will be the new poor.
By the same rationale that requires public financing of education to
ensure its availability to all, we have a social responsibility to ensure
that we don't condemn students by the district simply because their schools
cannot pay commercial rates for access to the infobase.
I would rather have seen the telcos suck it up as part of their social
responsibility too, but they have a right to earn a living, and if they
were astute and/or lucky enough to develop a service that became essential
to society, in a capitalist economy they have the right to profit
accordingly. What these rules do is arrive at a compromise that allows the
telcos to reap the benefits of their labors while still safeguarding the
public good by facilitating equitable access to the global infobase.
Jim Ellsworth ellsw...@huachuca-emh1.army.mil 520-538-8401
Ron & Arlene Stevens
Well, I guess I=92m outnumbered(for the moment). So I guess I=92ll do an
omnibus reply. =20
Regarding Mr.(?) Ellworths concern about this being an issue of equity,
it might be, but it wasn=92t framed in that respect. Even if it was
framed as an equity issue, we have all seen the wonderful results of
public education with regard to those who have and those who have not.=20
Are we to assume that by wiring up those schools that are continually
behind the power curve that suddenly(within 10 yr.) they will be
producing scholars? The news this week clearly shows that public
education can=92t even afford to fix the physical facilities. ABC said
that 14 million kids go to school in substandard schools where their
bodily well-being is in jeopardy. The public will not approve bond
issues or increased taxes to pay for improvements. This "charge" is a
"TAX". No one voted on it(I would have), it was simply shoved down our
throats, actually it was worse, it was done behind our backs and
announced as a "fiat accompli". "It is not a tax, because it doesn=92t go
to the government"
Faith Van Putte (see her attached message) added some good info about
the program. I know her to be a wonderful little OLE=92 lady with deep
concern for children, but she is such an optimist. She shares the same
concerns about equity. Coming to the civilian side of EDUCATION late in
life, I have had years of observation of the finished product of
education, and it is in sore need of improvement. The NET, especially
the WWW, is not going to improve general ed. one bit. When a kid can=92t
read or do math, they can=92t learn anything off the web. =20
Glen( last name) from New Mexico, seems to think the extra charge is to
make up for the telephone companies, or ISPs, not being smart enough to
get in on the ground floor early enough to charge the real cost of
netting. I have no pity for them. In business, you either make it or
fail. Why should the taxpayer keep them in business, or guarantee them
a profit. Do we have a special pension fund for buggy whip makers, or
steam engine manufacturers? No! They either adapted to new
opportunities or not- it is/was not the "taxpayers" concern. It was the
Congress that gave the ISPs the discount on telephone costs, with the
telcos encouragement. After all what could a few computer geeks cost
them? Do the TELCOs want to become ISPs in their own right, do they
wish to provide the service? NO, they only want to rake in unjustified
profit given them by the govt. mandate.
As to unlimited usage by some of us users, there is a remedy. Notify
the user of a rate change starting in 30-60 days. My family uses the
net 90-120 hours a month. Excessive, I don=92t know, but if the ISP
thinks so they can legally change the terms of our service contract.=20
When I migrate to a 56k modem they=92ll charge more. =20
There is one last philosophical question to be answered dealing with
equity: Do we really want equity? =20
See ya! :-)
Ron Stevens
ste...@gnt.net
Ellsworth, James
Ron Stevens [ste...@GNT.NET] replied:
> Regarding Mr.(?) Ellworths concern about this being an issue of equity,
it might be, but it wasn't framed in that respect. Even if it was
framed as an equity issue, we have all seen the wonderful results of
public education with regard to those who have and those who have not. <
Inasmuch as this failure can be attributed to a single cause (which isn't
much, systems being what they are), the current disparity in public
education funding is caused by it generally being tied to property tax
revenues, which only serves to exacerbate the problem. That is part of why
a solution like this is necessary, in that it helps ensure that the
districts that need the most help get the most help.
> Are we to assume that by wiring up those schools that are continually
behind the power curve that suddenly(within 10 yr.) they will be
producing scholars? <
No, of course not...but we CAN assume that NOT wiring up those schools will
ensure that within ten years they will be producing graduates with very few
opportunities in an information-based society.
> The news this week clearly shows that public
education can't even afford to fix the physical facilities. ABC said
that 14 million kids go to school in substandard schools where their
bodily well-being is in jeopardy. The public will not approve bond
issues or increased taxes to pay for improvements. <
More evidence, as I see it, that government had to step in and do what the
people were unwilling to do for themselves. That sounds heavy-handed, but
government occasionally has to lead by mandating unpopular initiatives
(like collective bargaining rights or affirmative action when those first
got started) for the public good. And ensuring that all citizens of our
free society have the tools they will require to participate in it is
(IMHO) clearly in the public good.
Jim Ellsworth ellsw...@huachuca-emh1.army.mil 520-538-8401
Joe Beckmann
----
From: Ellsworth, James <ellsw...@HUACHUCA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL>
>Also please note that
>it doesn't go to the govt. so its not a tax, but it is a govt. mandated
>fee to be imposed upon everybody benefitting a very few. <
A very few? Adding about 30,000,000 people from k-12 systems into the net
doesn't seem a few to me. Considering most of the subsidy is to come from
dual line homes and multiple line businesses, who also develop resources
through the net, it also does not seem particularly regressive. Considering
that the R-Bocs have, for years, made loads of money on the same basis and
plowed back nickels and dimes to non-profit clients, who they then charged
full rate for the services whose installation they had subsidized, it seems
more than a little disingenuous to hear BellSouth and others whimper over
consumer benefits.
>I have to agree with Stan. What we're talking about here is an equity
>issue. In the Information Age, the ability to use the technologies
>necessary to master the global infobase are going to be the currency of
>the realm. Anyone who grows up lacking those skills will be the new
poor.
>By the same rationale that requires public financing of education to
>ensure its availability to all, we have a social responsibility to ensure
>that we don't condemn students by the district simply because their
schools
>cannot pay commercial rates for access to the infobase.
A better and clearer analogue would be the huge federal support of canals
in the 1820's, railroads in the 1880-90's, highways from 1920 through 1970,
and the first stages of the internet itself. The difference is that this
time there is a user fee, off budget, which can generate additional
business for the same vendors paying the fee.
>I would rather have seen the telcos suck it up as part of their social
>responsibility too, but they have a right to earn a living, and if they
>were astute and/or lucky enough to develop a service that became
essential
>to society, in a capitalist economy they have the right to profit
>accordingly.
Anybody notice that ATT's generous offer to wire all public schools came
just two weeks before the FCC's generous offer to pay for wiring those
schools AND THEN TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE FEES after the wire is in?
Generosity in the age of Clinton and Gingrich is a very, very special
thing.
Someone also ought to notice that educators and librarians are among the
least educated consumers of telecommunications services in the world, since
less than 2% of the classrooms in America currently even have a telephone.
Who, among AECT, AERA, superintendents, principals, and school board
associations is there to help them consume these new services in a real,
competitive world?
Joe Beckmann
A pending problem is the "coincident" cut of the school facilities budget
in the course of the current budget agreement. As today's TIMES notes
(p.A15), "A third of the schools require major repairs... and 46 % lack
even the basic electrical wiring to support computers and modern
communications...." Does the Presidential and Congressional agreement
abandoning the $5 billion for school construction merely coincide with the
FCC agreement to allow the use of Universal Access Fees to support the
INTERNAL WIRING required for the internet? Circumspection and suspicion are
warranted in this administration.
>The news this week clearly shows that public
Ron & Arlene Stevens
Some good points!
dumb question: what are "R-Bocs"?
Adding 30 or so million users to the net is a concern, but more to the
point is the question- What benefits do elementary schools, or middle
schools, or even high schools gain? Studies keep showing upo that show
no significant differences in learning when the means of learning are
considered. Some kids may benefit, true, but most won't do any better or
worse. Is that worth the cost(?), it'd be cheaper to "bus" those kids
to a more specialized magnet school.
ron
Stanley D. Zenor, stanz@aect.org
After getting the discussion started, I feel compelled to offer a few
points of clarification (I hope)!
1. At this time, it is not known what the additional costs will be
for the residential customer. It will take several weeks before
everything is sorted out. It may be as low as $.53 or as high as $2.75 in
the first year. It is clear that residential customers will pay less than
business customers, and that the cost will increase for every line past
the "primary" line. There is a way around the additional line charges.
In a home with two lines, put one in the wife's name and one in the
husband's name. Each becomes a primary line and not subject to the
additional line fees. (This appears to be possible after a qucik read of
the documents from the FCC)
2. In fact, the RBOC's (Regional Bell Operating Companies) will loose
profit as a result of the action taken by the FCC. The $ for education
was only a section of the new regulations that were enacted as a result of
the Telecommunication's Act of 1996. The Act allows secondary service
providers to buy time and network capability from the RBOCs and resell it
at lower rates - just as the many long distance carriers to. While this
may result in savings for the consumer as a result of competition, it will
lower RBOC income and profits.
3. Rates, and hence profit margins, for the RBOCs are determined
primarily at the state level, not the federal level. The State Public
Utility Commissions approve interstate rate charges, only intrastrate
rates are set by the federal government, and most of that has now been
deregulated.
4. The rules that were passed, with regard to the universal service
fund were developed by a special Board of citizens most of whom were from
the states and not the Federal Government or FCC and recommended to the
FCC for adoption. There was a period of sevral months for public comment
during which time several pubic hearings were held. These rules were not
determined in the vacume of the federal government in Washington, DC.
5. At the same meeting, the FCC cut the rates for access fees that
the RBOCs can charge long distance carriers. If these lower rates are
passed on by the long distance carriers to the comsumer, it is projected
to result in a $1.7 billion savings annually. Some of what may paid for
additional line fees will be saved from long distance fees.
6. The federal government has mandated for many years that the RBOCs
collect from their customers to fund the subsidy of telephone services to
individuals who could not afford the service. This is not a new concept.
I hope this dialog continues in the spirit it has begun with. It has so
far been an interesting discussion bringing up a variety of good points.
Ellsworth, James
Ron Stevens [ste...@GNT.NET] wrote:
> dumb question: what are "R-Bocs"? <
"Regional Bell Operating Companies," a.k.a. the "Baby Bells."
> Adding 30 or so million users to the net is a concern, but more to the
point is the question- What benefits do elementary schools, or middle
schools, or even high schools gain? Studies keep showing upo that show
no significant differences in learning when the means of learning are
considered. Some kids may benefit, true, but most won't do any better or
worse. Is that worth the cost(?), it'd be cheaper to "bus" those kids
to a more specialized magnet school. <
Actually, the primary causes of the so-called "no significant difference
phenomenon" are the facts that "means of learning" innovations have rarely
been faithfully implemented according to their developers' intent and that
the researchers often selected experimental and control SCHOOLS based on
the schools' OFFICIAL STATEMENT, e.g., from the Principal, concerning their
use or non-use of the innovation. In fact, in some studies, up to 40% of
the teachers in "user" schools self-identified as NON-USERS of the
innovation and up to 20% of teachers in the control, or "non-user" schools
self-identified as USERS! With the samples thus corrupted, it's small
wonder these studies reported no significant difference! When the samples
were reconstituted based on teachers' actual use or non-use, the same data
showed statistically significant gains. (These figures, as near as I can
recall them without the reference at hand, come from Gene Hall's seminal
work on the "Concerns-Based Adoption Model," or CBAM. They pertain to the
Diagnostic Dimension called "Levels of Use," or LoU.)
Lack of faithful implementation can, in some ways, be even more insidious.
The "visionaries" who come up with such innovations are frequently less
adept at communicating to others exactly what sort of activities would (or
would not) be going on in a classroom in which their innovation was being
effectively used. In these cases, even those teachers who self-identify as
"users" may in fact be (unknowingly) violating one or more central precepts
of innovation use. (This pertains to what Hall, et al. Describe as
"Innovation Configurations.")
Fortunately, as our understanding of how change works improves, we are
starting to see more studies that are free of such methodological flaws.
Unfortunately, we are left with a legacy of "bad press" that many accept
as "proof" that such innovations are ineffective, without realizing that
the designs of the studies themselves possessed shortfalls (perhaps not
foreseeable given our knowledge of the change process at the time) that
critically degraded the validity of their findings.
And then there's the issue of whether particular innovations represent
truly effective use of the unique strengths of a given medium. For
example, many early educational uses of the World Wide Web were basically
glitzy multimedia "distance page-turners" that failed to exploit the Web's
capabilities. Likewise, many other technological innovations seem to have
been designed with the premise that "technology cannot help but improve
education," which is about as good a prescription for failure as you can
get! We need to resist the notion that ANY educational innovation is "the
cure," and start looking at all (including the ones we've had in our
toolboxes for decades) as TOOLS that are ideal for some teaching "jobs" and
next to useless for others. Then we need to work with faculty to develop
(and share) experience-based guidelines that match the right tool to each
job!
Finally, we need to remember that these technologies are NOT just tools for
learning: they're also tools for LIVING in the Information Age. This is
why equity is so important. Even disregarding the educational
effectiveness of a school's use of the Internet, its graduates are becoming
familiar with a tool that will be critical to survival in an
information-based society. Those who cannot use this tool will be as
competitive in tomorrow's marketplace as those who could not drive or use
the telephone in the latter part of the Industrial Age.
Jim Ellsworth ellsw...@huachuca-emh1.army.mil 520-538-8401
Robert J Garritano
I am also very excited about the possibilites that the FCC ruling brings
to education. I feel that the e-rate [deep discount for
universal services] can lead to the freeing up of general
operating funds that were possibly earmarked for hardware and place it
in the most critical area-- staff training!
Staff training in:
* cognitive learning
* curriculum reform
* curriculum-technology-student achievement planning and
implementation
Even Richard Clark would agree with this premise! In fact, Clark and Betty
Segrue stated in their article, Research on
Instructional Media, 1978 - 1988, as cited in Anglin 2nd ED. Instructional
Technology P. 354, "It was not the media per se that caused
[a] change but rather the curriculur reform that accompanied the new
medium."
The FCC ruling, and the rhetoric surrounding it, as well as the amount of
funding availible for the development of a well designed long
term integrated curriculum-technolgy-and student acheivement plan
should be the catalyst for curriculum reform. One that will truly affect
all of our children!
And as the person asked in a previous email-- who in AECT, AERA,
superintendents, principals, etc. will teach the teachers about effective
use of the [technology]?
In answer to this question I offer these suggestions to get the staff
development ball rolling:
1. convince the school administrators to keep the general
operating funds and grants (E.g Title I, Title II amd Title VI) available
for staff development of 100% of the staff!
2. It is incumbent that those proficient in both the use and
instruction of the "instructional use of technology" step up their
efforts to explain the positive use of the medium, and begin an agressive plan
to educate all educators to the effective use of the technologies
3. Use references, instructors, and K-12 AND higher ed.
programs that demonstrate the effective use of learning
theory-curriculum-technology-student achievement planning and
implementation. McREL, Kathy Schrock, and Web66 come to mind as some
excellent internet resources. I also recommend that you reference
Classroom Connect (Internet Integration), and Technology & Learning,
websites and materials.
4. For a comprehensive text on the entire process of effective
planning and implementation, I recommend the text entitled, "Integrating
Educational Technology into Teaching." 1997. It is written by M.D. Roblyer
(who was referenced in last summer's AECT Listserv debate on "how should
teachers be trained, and what should teachers know about
technology"), Jack Edwards and Mary Ann Havriluk. Merrill, Prentice Hall.
I am not a book salesperson. I am a student of IDT who recognizes
excellent reference texts and sites; and I'm also a Curriculum Specialist
who reviews teacher's workshop evaluation forms--and chronicle a growing
percentage of teachers who desire "more knowledge about how to
effectively integrate and use the technology in their classroom."
Keep this in mind when your member school districts form a technology
council and ask for assistance, YOU ARE THEIR RESOURCES! Volunteer to help
them (school personnel, parents, and taxpayers) understand the
instructional reasons for using the inter-operable media in the most
effective way possible.
Take care,
Bo
Robert J. Garritano
Curriculum Specialist
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit
RR 12, Box 205, Donahue Road
Greensburg, PA 15642-9217
(412) 836-2460 FAX (412) 836-4235
Joe Beckmann
Well put, but I would go further. The limited opposition to wiring schools
seems to come from libertarians who object to this use of government
regulatory power. That is, particularly in email on boards like this one,
remarkably disinguous. Not only is the technology represented by boards
like this a direct effect of government power but, historically, most major
breakthrough technologies have only survived through serious, deliberate
and often much more massive infusions of bondholder equity. Whether the
canals of the 1820's, the railroads, the highways, the airlines, or the
airwaves, each has only be "opened" by "entrepreneurs" who received huge
and continuing federal subsidies. The level of subsidy, in fact, makes the
$4billion of Snowe-Rockefeller less than a penny to the dollar when
compared with any of these infusions and discounted for inflation.
I think it more interesting to track where some of the complaint come from:
industries already subsidized by federal or federally mandated investment.
Few come from the city, few from people of color, few in other languages,
few from women, few from students. Funny thing.
----
From: Ellsworth, James <ellsw...@HUACHUCA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL>
Finally, we need to remember that these technologies are NOT just tools
Joe Beckmann
Read the draft regulations in the Benton website or the FAQ in the FCC
site. If the school system develops a plan to install telecommunications,
THAT PLAN CAN CONTAIN WHATEVER THE SYSTEM NEEDS TO MAKE THAT SYSTEM WORK.
By packaging the plan correctly, that plan should, could, and must include
training resources. Wake up! The money is there already. Of course it will
free the systems from wasting Chapter One on computers, since computers are
also a part of the plan. But it will, much more importantly, call on more
resources than most people know how to supply to generate the kind of
change anticipated in the legislation!
My comments sprinkle throughout the following clips:
----
From: Robert J Garritano <rjgs...@PITT.EDU>
>Even Richard Clark would agree with this premise! In fact, Clark and
Betty
>Segrue stated in their article, Research on
>Instructional Media, 1978 - 1988, as cited in Anglin 2nd ED.
Instructional
>Technology P. 354, "It was not the media per se that caused
>[a] change but rather the curriculur reform that accompanied the new
>medium."
>
>The FCC ruling, and the rhetoric surrounding it, as well as the amount of
>funding availible for the development of a well designed long
>term integrated curriculum-technolgy-and student acheivement plan
>should be the catalyst for curriculum reform. One that will truly affect
>all of our children!
>
>And as the person asked in a previous email-- who in AECT, AERA,
>superintendents, principals, etc. will teach the teachers about effective
>use of the [technology]?
>
>In answer to this question I offer these suggestions to get the staff
>development ball rolling:
>
> 1. convince the school administrators to keep the general
>operating funds and grants (E.g Title I, Title II amd Title VI) available
>for staff development of 100% of the staff!
Even before this one, AECT members - and the industry itself - had better
make sure the administrators develop plans which are comprehensive enough
to include the staff development and staff support required for
comprehensive curricular renewal. It does not all have to happen on the day
the wire reaches the room, but it better be a part of the plan or it will
not qualify for reimbursement. Recognize that Snowe-Rockefeller is not a
cash funding mechanism. For the first time it is a means by which your ISP
or phone company can actually PAY trainers to train teachers, and receive
90% reimbursement for low income school improvement and 10% cash payout by
the school system. This is inherently a different kind of thinking than
most school administrators - or phone companies, God knows - have ever
done.
As part of Edlinc, does AECT have a policy on how to bring comprehensive
change through this remarkable mechanism? It requires a whole lot more than
encouraging administrators to handle Chapter funds.
> 2. It is incumbent that those proficient in both the use and
>instruction of the "instructional use of technology" step up their
>efforts to explain the positive use of the medium, and begin an agressive
plan
>to educate all educators to the effective use of the technologies
Look at the Apple ACOT web page for a much more comprehensive model for
educational change through instructional technology. It is no longer a
matter of training techies to clean the slide tape machine. The role
changes are so powerful in ACOT settings, which are not that different from
Montessori or other student-centered teacher-observer and diagnostician
settings, that there are remarkably few resources among ed schools,
business schools, and independent consultants. Where will THOSE resources
be?
> 3. Use references, instructors, and K-12 AND higher ed.
>programs that demonstrate the effective use of learning
>theory-curriculum-technology-student achievement planning and
>implementation. McREL, Kathy Schrock, and Web66 come to mind as some
>excellent internet resources. I also recommend that you reference
>Classroom Connect (Internet Integration), and Technology & Learning,
>websites and materials.
There have to be created more online models by and for effective schools,
to have school peers reinforce this system. No one seems to recognize that
Snowe-Rockefeller virtually mandates videoconferencing capable systems in
every classroom in the country! With subsidies so large and no apparent
limit in per student cost, and an ongoing subsidy as long as the Universal
Service Fee is in place, there are enough resources to accomplish this goal
within 3 years. So, there are, to my knowledge, no teacher education or
teacher support systems now in place which use videoconferencing
capacities. Big jump for everyone, not just the K-12 recipients!
> 4. For a comprehensive text on the entire process of effective
>planning and implementation, I recommend the text entitled, "Integrating
>Educational Technology into Teaching." 1997. It is written by M.D.
Roblyer
>(who was referenced in last summer's AECT Listserv debate on "how should
>teachers be trained, and what should teachers know about
>technology"), Jack Edwards and Mary Ann Havriluk. Merrill, Prentice Hall.
>
>I am not a book salesperson. I am a student of IDT who recognizes
>excellent reference texts and sites; and I'm also a Curriculum Specialist
>who reviews teacher's workshop evaluation forms--and chronicle a growing
>percentage of teachers who desire "more knowledge about how to
>effectively integrate and use the technology in their classroom."
Fine, but there is an awful lot more to do than use the technology we now
know in settings with a technology only imagined! This kind of money
suggests very strongly that educators have got to look at much more
advanced conceptual and industrial models and move themselves into the next
century much more aggressively than the ed tech we all know. The technology
which every school can now afford will easily make CAI as it is today about
as fresh as the quill pen. Just as the President of Compact suggested at
the National Association of Broadcasters' meeting to the television
manufacturers, the huge changes in HDTV and computer technology will make
their current linkes like buggy whips in three years. Are we teaching kids
or training surrey drivers?
Ron & Arlene Stevens
Joe Beckmann wrote:(and somewhat edited)
>
> ... but I would go further. The limited opposition to wiring schools
> seems to come from libertarians who object to this use of government
> regulatory power.
>
> industries already subsidized by federal or federally mandated investment.
> Few come from the city, few from people of color, few in other languages,
> few from women, few from students. Funny thing.
> ----
> From: Ellsworth, James <ellsw...@HUACHUCA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL>
>
Me? Libertarian? Hmmm(!) I'll have to see what it is that they think.
No, my point is that before we get all hot and bothered about the
potential, which we all see as great, we have to look at the
consequences of our intended actions. Adding all those schools to the
Net may give us another AOL disaster of no one getting on the net.
Maybe a seperate WEN (Worldwide Educational Network) might work. We
could not get spammed, or have to have adult-site protections, and maybe
get some real content on the air.
Please note, I don't mind paying taxes, as long as I know that it is a
tax imposed upon me by my elected reps., for a stated purpose and a
stated time, sorta like county optional sales taxes. Being an Educator,
and using the cyberworld to do my stuff and having my kids do it too, I
get excited when i consider the potential of the resources being coupled
to the guidance of the teacher. But, I require my govt. to play by the
rules laid out in the Constitution. Picky, i know!
ron stevens
Kathy Brock
I'm a little confused about this sudden concern over who's going to teach
the k-12 contingent how to use the Internet. AECT and its affiliates have
members in the k-12 arena who have been using the Internet personally and
teaching its use in their schools for a number of years.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * *
Dr. Kathy T. Brock Kathy T. Brock
Douglas County Schools P. O. Box 833
P. O. Box 1077 Temple, Georgia 30179
Douglasville, Georgia 30133
Phone: 770-537-4960
Phone: 770-920-4069
Fax: 770-920-4027
Ron & Arlene Stevens
Sad to say, it is time for a fond fareware, i'm off to the field for a
while. I'll monitor with transfers from my wife, but no input from me
for about six weeks. Try not to look so sad!
Ron Stevens
ste...@gnt.net
Joe Beckmann
Nobody is ready to use a $4billion dollar expansion. Few school districts
are even aware of the money yet. This is a problem of scale, way beyond
what people expect at any level. Those who know and do well will do
exceedingly well indeed.
----
From: Kathy Brock <kbr...@MINDSPRING.COM>
To: AEC...@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU
Date: Saturday, May 10, 1997 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: FCC Rules - Good News for Schools
marc....@gmail.com
> Yesterday, the FCC voted to support discounted telecommunication rates for
> schools and libraries. The new rules will ensure that schools and
> libraries will be able to afford telecommunications services for students
> and library users, giving the flexibility to choose from the most basic to
> the most advanced commercially available services. The new rules mandate
> discounts ranging from 20 to 90 percent, with deeper discounts for schools
> and libraries in rural, high-cost and low-income communities. The
> discounts are expected to provide up to $2.25 billion annually beginning
> January 1, 1998.
>
> For more information on the FCC's actions, visit the EdLINC web site at
> http://www.itc.org/edlinc.
>
> AECT participated in the EdLINK coalition supporting the passage of these
> rules. EdLINK is a coalition of 37 national organizations representing
> public schools, private schools, and libraries.
>
> AECT Executive Director
> 1025 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 820
> Washington, DC 20005
>
> voice: 202-347-7834
> fax: 202-347-7839
> e-mail: st...@aect.org
You can find more at
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mindtap-Inc/295801030613355
and
http://www.mindtap.com/blog - My inspiration came from the experience I had in AP History.
Our teacher (really great, btw) gave us links to online learning materials that came with the textbook from Pearson. Imagine my surprise and disappointment, when I found out that the links were dead. Our school is using an older edition of the textbook, so Pearson cut off our access. So much for public education.
My first goal is to develop a tool for students to enter questions and answers, so that all students can have a common database of practice quizzes. The more students get involved, the better it will get.
If you like the idea, vote: https://www.missionmainstreetgrants.com/business/detail/45667 (and tell your friends). Voting ends on Friday night (10/17). Adam needs 250 votes to qualify for the second round.