Archive for the ‘eLearning System for Arizona Teachers and Students’ Category

00719 eSATS 3 Scenario Redesign

October 8, 2010

From the date above, you can see that I am a couple of months behind on my weekly blog. I will be catching up over the next few months. The main reason is a combination of vacation activities and hours a day committed to the redesign of the 2004 eLearning System for Arizona’s Teachers and Students (eSATS) design document.

For the past 6 years, we have attended hundreds of community organization and legislative gatherings, collected their ideas, studied the experts and research, and synthesized this information into the redraft. The 2010 eSATS draft recasts the K12 transformation effort into Grand Challenge mode. The heart of the challenge is for eLearning adoption to transform education which in turn reverses the downward spiral of workforce capability and employment, and economic development and prosperity. The 60 pages include new graphics and a revised 10 year time line based on three scenarios:

Freeze eSATS: holds eLearning at the existing 5% of learning but builds data decision support systems, broadband telecommunications to all communities, and increases legacy teacher professional development by a factor of ten. This low probability scenario maintains the current 68% graduation rate and is the baseline for the next two scenarios.

Current eSATS: forecasts a continuation of low growth of eLearning from 5% to a 30% level. There is State support, but most progress is by District/School initiatives. This scenario aligns with the current national trend. Graduation rate is increases to 80% due to significantly higher but fragmented motivation to learn and academic achievement.

Full eSATS: has Arizona doing a carpe diem with adoption of the eSATS Grand Challenge design. The State builds out 21st century class intellectual infrastructure and physical infrastructure to support adoption at the District/School level. Finance, laws and regulations are changed, costs savings due to accelerated learning pay most of the bill, and eLearning savvy teachers get a 15% raise over normal inflation. Districts and Schools refocus the teacher professional development to produce eLearning savvy teachers, install 1:1 computing interfaces for students and effective digital curriculum and content for every class. The individualized, competency based education for all students results in not only a graduation rate of 95% but students are prepared for post-secondary careers and education. Arizona becomes the vision, poster child, and center of the vortex for eLearning transformation of the Nation’s education system.

eSATS task team had a fruitful meeting on Friday, September 17th. We addressed how we can use this design to influence dozens of community organizations and hundreds of Arizona leaders to embrace K12 eLearning as the main dish on their plate to “fix” education.

We are redoing our web site and it will be up shortly. If you want a copy of the 2010 “Grand Challenge, Transforming Arizona’s K12 Education by Adopting an eLearning Systems Design” August 2010, send me an email.

Advertisements

00315 Innovation: Fraught With Peril and Opportunity

March 15, 2010

Successful innovation has a sequence of phases:

1. Invention, early adoption, rapid acceptance by one market;

2. Expansion into multiple markets;

3. Legacy system transformation driven by outside disruptive innovations based on technology, societal and economic changes;

4. Dying or being absorbed into an emerging innovation.

Innovation is a highly unpredictable process. It is rife with unintended consequences and

1. Our system of education was invented by the Prussians in the early 1700’s to educate sons of the elite. It reached the U.S. market by the late 1880’s with the compulsory education movement.

2. The market served expanded from boys to boys and girls during the first half of the 1900’s and to minority populations and special education students in the last half of the 1900’s. The dominant mode of innovation has been market extensions through government mandates and significant increases in government funding. The result has been huge increases in student learning time, graduation rates and economic and societal benefits.

3. During the 1970’s and early 1980’s the legacy system invented by the Prussians had expanded to all available markets. But societal needs demanded a change to include quality with quantity. The emerging social need was for K-12 to educate college and career ready students for the 21st century. The demand curve had crossed over the supply curve and the scramble was on. Change was in the air.

Hope for rapid success has faded and we seem stuck in phase 3. Inside the system, grade inflation worked for awhile, but was then discredited. Outside advocacy communities came on strong with whole language, charter schools, school choice, essential skills, standards, school improvements, test score data to guide decision making and a host of others. Many are based on market-competitiveness models.

A recent book by an intellectual leader in this movement, Diane Ravitch is: “The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How testing and Choice are Undermining Education.” Dr. Ravitch wants to return to the traditional school structure. Why she is doing an about face on her 20 years of change efforts is explored in an Education Week  article, March 10, 2010 www.edweek.org .

Chester E. Finn Jr. of the Thomas Fordham Institute, a long time associate of Diane Ravitch, agrees with her depressing analysis of the data. But he espouses renewed efforts to destroy the old structure and replace it with the new.

With humility to their much greater depth of wisdom and knowledge, I believe both are wrong. Reverting to innovation Phase 2 or jumping over Phase 3 to Phase 4 makes little sense.

We have 20 years of data which show that a dozen piecemeal approaches do not work. Even added together, there has been scant increase in academic performance of K-12 education as a whole. There is a big difference between statistically significant improvement and significant improvement in effect factor.

We must reach the effect factor goal of at least one sigma (or letter grade) improvement across the board for all 60 million students for all courses and grade levels. We must increase the graduation rate to an effective 95% whether through formal or informal means of education. Graduating students must be prepared and eager to prosper in a world that requires life-span learning.

The 300 year old innovation of grouping teachers and students within the traditional organizational structure needs to make the transformation with a long strategic system design approach. Outside advocates have a huge role to play to support the transformative changes in school finance, human resources, technology based systems, curriculum, data and decision making. But the real innovation adopters within Phase 3 are our leaders and teachers currently within the education system. Together we can pull it off.

00222 Numbers and Digital Curricullum

February 22, 2010

Four numbers define the current magnitude of Arizona K12 Education.

240      2000        60,000       1.2 million.

The focus of our K12 transformation is Arizona’s 60,000 teachers and 1.2 million students. Their work plays out in 2000 schools supported by the resources and decisions of 240 school district and charter school leaders.

Our future is based on how we spend $110 billion, the total cost of K12 education over the next ten years. This means we do have options, even though we remain at 50th position for spending per student.

The 21st Century is happening, and it is critical that we transformation our existing legacy means and methods to meet its challenges. The only path at assures both efficiency and effectiveness is eLearning.

eLearning focuses on the interrelationship of the student and the teacher within the curriculum. eLearning requires transformation to digital curriculum. It is the gating factor which then defines the needed teacher professional development, education and training along with the broadband and computing systems.

Over the past decades thousands of digital curriculum products and services have emerged and fallen by the wayside. Many have been continuously improve to serve the teacher and student. There is a wide range of sources, both internally developed in the virtual, charter and traditional schools and externally developed and supported by vendors, states and university researchers. In 2010 approximately 5% of K12 student learning is being supported by digital curriculum within an eLearning environment.

Ignoring all the optimistic forecasts of the past, the 5% is currently forecast to grow to 50% within the next nine years. One of the challenges is for leaders in districts, schools and classrooms to make effective transformational decisions on the adoption of digital curriculum. There are 150 different K12 courses, many state standards, hundreds of digital curriculum offerings for some courses and few if any for others. There is currently a lack of knowledge on what digital curriculum is accessible, effective and efficient. Consider the situation as the emerging digital curriculum market grows by a factor of ten!

The Digital Curriculum Institute (DCI) was designed over the past 5 years to address this challenge for all Arizona schools including homeschoolers. The DCI mission is to create data, information and knowledge that are not currently available and provide decision support to K12 school leadership. The goal is to accelerate successful adoption of digital curriculum through a support service that responds to requests from school decision makers.

By launching the this year the DCI will be ready when the financial contraction eases and schools can once again invest in innovation. The long range strategy of the DCI is to help grow eLearning expertise within the districts to give our state and economy an advantage in our race for global competitiveness.

00208 Crisis and Opportunity

February 8, 2010

There is some myth floating out there that the Chinese word for crisis also means opportunity. Maybe its true. With selective recognition of winners in the enterprise arena we have the following start up years and follow-on analysis*:

Proctor and Gamble: Panic of 1837

General Electric and IBM: Long Depression of 1873

Hyatt Hotels: Eisenhower Recession

Fed EX:  Oil Crisis

Microsoft and Apple: Bear Market 1974-75

We all know the saying, “If you can’t fix it, feature it.” Entrepreneurs view problems as business opportunities. As civic entrepreneurs we need to address the current economic situation with a burst of optimism and redouble our efforts.

Just after the last crisis peaked the most successful businesses had 3 times the growth during 2000-2003 as their slowest counterparts. During our current crisis from 2006-2009 there was little differentiation. But during 2009 the gap is starting to widen again. I know of no data to show that private sector models can apply to the public sector. But I do know that entrepreneurship works in both, with startup enterprises and the Peace Corps being prime illustrations of entrepreneurial success.

Assuming that governance of K-12 education might just fit this cycle, now is the time to push for innovation. Apple thinks so. With its blizzard of hype and fawning over the iPad, it has tapped a huge opportunity to lead businesses and consumers out of the crisis. Why and how? Because Apple has a system of applications, content and solution devices that can be readily adopted.

Microsoft has dominance in the legacy market. Apple is the disruptive innovation poised for rapid growth. Ed Tech is like the Microsoft partial solution and eLearning is like the Apple system solution.

The timing is right for the elearning approach to make the next great leap forward within K-12 education. Let’s assume the private sector models are right, and we can swing for the fences with our public sector challenge of eLearning transformation.

Note: With the Super Bowl behind us, I can switch to baseball analogies.

*Michael Moe, NeXt Up

00201 Teachers As Technology Workforce

February 1, 2010

“It’s all about the teachers and the students.” This has been the mantra of eSATS and eLearning since the beginning (early 1990’s). We  found a host of sources that stated the obvious, delivered strident imperatives and wound up with wishful thinking, but said nothing about strategy and implementation of systemic and systematic changes needed to make the system effective. We decided to do our own information gathering. We kicked off this learning process by holding our first focus group with Arizona Education Association. Over then next few years, we attended workshops and conferences, and had scores of discussions with learned folks, educators in the trenches and multiple Arizona leaders.

Five years ago we released our comprehensive K-12 education system redesign with a ten year pathway. Its core included all that is needed for the transformation of the legacy teaching profession with significant new skills and ongoing support to become the leading intellectually based profession of the 21st Century. Who would want to be a doctor, lawyer or engineer when they could seek the most richly enhanced and challenging profession of teacher.

One-to-one teaching time will dramatically increase the rewarding human relationships by automating teachers’ repetitive deskwork tasks and transforming from lecture to coaching/mentoring. With real time formative assessments and modern eLearning teaching systems, the highest levels of thinking and problem solving skills will be in continuous practice. Immersed in broadband-internet, the isolated classroom will be a globally connected classroom with ongoing peer interaction, peer-to-peer mentoring and expert support.

The past decade of consistent advocacy by a legion of eLearning aficionados and technological evolution, following Moore’s Law, has produced progress in broadband-Internet, digital curriculum and computer interfaces. But the progress in the teaching profession has been difficult to measure. We have thought long and hard on this issue, but as is usually the case, a creative reason and concept has only emerged in the heat of challenge.

Arizona Technology Council has a very effective Work Force and Education Committee that addresses issues for our technology industries: optics, aerospace, biotech, semiconductor, telecommunications, and many others. As a whole, these industries have thrived and are globally competitive because they are early adopters of the most innovative technology and have science and engineering colleges turning out industry savvy graduates. They also invest from $1000 to $3000 a year per person in maintaining the skills and knowledge of their information workforce.

In their 2010 planning committee meeting in December the leadership requested input on two types of initiatives for the coming year. One was for the most important ongoing programs that would move the ball forward on new but smaller opportunities to address. The other was for Grand Challenges that one was passionate about and would have a high effect factor for the benefit of the technology enterprise community. That’s when it hit me. We have been conceptualizing the guild of K-12 teachers as legacy teachers who would learn how to use technology to improve their craft. We needed to turn that 180 degrees for the 21st century.

The Grand Challenge is to envision teaching as the educated workforce within a technology industry. The State needs to recast its definition of critical workforces to include the teaching workforce. Our high tech industries need to recognize teachers, and their education, training and professional development needs as equivalent to the needs of the workforces of Boeing, Intel, Microsoft IBM, and Raytheon. Studies and forecasts from The Departments of Commerce and Labor need to include one more technology based industry – public K-12 education.

Let’s invest in this workforce because teachers are the foundation workforce of Arizona’s hope to be a competitive player in the 21st century’s high-tech economy.

91211 National Effort Effect Factor

December 11, 2009

I recently heard of Project – – -. They seem to be the same type of organizations with similar players that for 20+ years have been working at the national level to reform education. Their results have been non-significant increases in academic achievement. In the eLearning arena they  have gotten a whole 5% penetration of this disruptive innovation: classroom, online and hybrid. What I like is they have finally moved out of the mode of pronouncing the latest situation assessment, recommending pilots, and professing wishful thinking. They are now addressing the hard reality of funding, data, system transformation and system financial analysis. .

Improving student achievement. While almost every other market segment has seen substantial improvements attributed to technology, public education has seen only isolated benefits. This study seeks to define technology models that can lead to improvements in student achievement.

We have been saying this forever, but finally they have started to talk about market segments and effects of technology based transformation – they are finally getting it.

Evaluating the total financial impact of technology on state budgets. To date, little work has been done, beyond assessing costs, to show the connection between educational technology and state budgets. It is time to take into consideration cost savings, cost avoidance and revenue enhancements that are direct results of investments in educational technology.

The 2004 eSATS system design => ten year financial model did pioneering work in this area of eLearning investments on cost savings and cost avoidance, but not on revenue enhancements. The scope was limited to  the state of Arizona with 1 million students. In the middle 1990’s IBM out of Colorado had a simple model of revenue enhancements based on better educated folks, and resulting lower prison population.

I appreciate the use of the cross-industry transformation model.  In my engineering specialty when they stopped talking about flying machines and started using the system descriptor of aviation it took off (steam locomotives => railroads, etc.). We need to stop talking about educational technology and refocus on the system descriptor I have been pitching for a decade: elearning.

Hope continues to grow.

91204 Digital Curriculum Definition

December 4, 2009

eSATS eLearning system design focuses on the teacher and student as the nexus. But what makes this dynamic duo a formidable eLearning couple is the use of effective and accessible digital curriculum. At this stage of its evolution, digital curriculum has a range of definitions.

I asked Hank Stabler, eLearning consultant to the Arizona eLearning Task Force and ADE if he could help. Here is his input:

“Looking for some “good” definition of Digital Curriculum I came across this site:

http://www.itec-ia.org/documents/filelibrary/2009_conference/handouts/The_Digital_Curriculum_31F3935ECBABA.pdf

it does not have a short concise definition and that is part of the problem  of helping people to be real clear about what is being proposed.

This site:

http://www.reckon.co.uk/open/BBC_Digital_Curriculum

shows the problem with confusion on what is being proposed and who’s ox is being gored.”

Studying these to sources of information was actually a help to me. Curriculum has several meanings in educational circles. It can mean content like books and course material. An expanded definition integrates content with teaching/learning process usually referred to as pedagogy. Some educational experts have told me it is the entire learning environment which includes the content, teacher-student pedagogy, school or learning station, and anything else that effects student learning.

Here is our working definition. What do you think?

Digital curriculum is an integration of content, pedagogy and environment designed for, delivered by and supported with digital means within a digital frame of thinking. Its conceptual framework:

  1. May be used to supplement or replace traditional content formats and pedagogy such as books and recitation…but primarily relies on online interaction, exploration and connectiveness, 1:1 teacher-student interaction, students constructing their own meanings within projects, computer based instructional and simulation programs, and learning networks;
  2. Intergrades within the practice of uniquely educated and trained teachers who use digital curriculum to deliver real-time formative assessments and support individual learning pace which motivates, accelerates and deepens student learning;
  3. Requires a 1:1 digital interface with Internet access for each for teacher and student.

Give us your feedback; we need your ideas on the most practical definition within an eLearning system framework.

91124 eLearning is Innovation

November 24, 2009

The November 18th edition of Education Week has two major articles:

Starting Gun Sounds for ‘Race to the Top’ RTTT has $4.35 billion up for grabs for reforms including State level data systems with buy in from school districts, and evaluation of teachers and principals based on student performance (outcomes).

States Are Lagging On Innovation Front. The US Chamber of Commerce graded  the states on school management, finance, staffing, staff removal, data, technology, pipeline to postsecondary and reform environment (inputs). Arizona got one few A’s for charter school management.

Let’s put aside the issue that that $4.35 billion is less than 1% of the financial system rescue/stimulus funds. Arizona can win a potential $100 million for RTTT that is critical to Arizona’s education transformation plans.

Arizona’s RTTT team of highly capable and dedicated staff and volunteers are working long hours to address the highly structured proposal requirements. Debra Duvall, Governor’s Special Advisor is leading the RTTT effort. Carol Peck of the Rodel Foundation is chair of the Governor’s 16 person P20 Coordinating Council which has four RTTT task forces, each working on a key RTTT proposal area;

Jack Lundsford of WESTMARC is leading the Standards and Assessments

Dave Howell of Wells Fargo Bank is leading the Great Teachers, Great Leaders

Marc Osborn of R&R Partners is heading the Supporting Struggling Schools

Cathleen Barton of Intel is leading the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems/Use

As the task teams struggle with the myriad of proposal requirements the overarching issue of Innovation becomes a challenge. eSATS has attended most meetings and reviewed the most recent summary of dozens of task team generated ideas, options, strategies, interventions and pathways.

www.azgovernor.gov/P20/agendas.asp click on first presentation under Materials

There are eLearning components woven through each of these task forces. So we got to thinking about the innovation issue and eLearning. The problem of leading with “eLearning” is that most people have an image that is locked the technology with a student glued to a computer screen who is working on Reader Rabbit and immersed in online learning. To jar us away from those images lets consider:

eLearning as system of innovation.

Every other industry transformed by emerging technology has had to redefine itself with a new and innovation driven systems model.

Take aviation for example. It has both a physical infrastructure of airports and data driven decision support system for navigation. Pilots required real-time data from flight instruments. The aircraft was designed around serving the needs to both the passengers and air and ground crews. An intellectual infrastructure was needed for aeronautical research and education of aeronautical engineers and other experts. The creation of the financial system from reservations and ticketing to aircraft purchases based on new revenue, allocation and investment models. And finally an aircraft industry had to exist to develop and build the airplanes. The icon was the airplane. But from initiation through growth to maturity aviation was a highly coupled system of innovation. We all understand this model.

Take the above and substitute schools and longitudinal data system; teachers needing real-time formative assessment; learning support systems serving the teacher-student nexus; learning research and professional teacher/leader education; and school financing initiatives that removes legacy system barriers, creates efficiencies  and funds innovation to enhance student performance. Embrace the digital curriculum and hardware/software industry as they redouble their effects for education.

The now mature aviation, was from the 1930’s to 1970’s a highly successful system of innovation. eLearning can also be viewed as a system of innovation from the 1990’s to the 2020’s.

If we make this intellectual leap, then we have a powerful pathway to integrate innovation into Arizona’s RTTT proposal.

91111 Fourth Turning Implemention

November 11, 2009

Driven by my “True Believer” gene, every few years I jump fully clothed into a new ocean of ideas that promises an understanding of how our world works. My latest is the 1997 book by William Strauss and Neil Howe, “The Fourth Turning.” Their “research” resulted in the discovery of an ~ 80 year cycle of human history that is caused by the interaction of four distinct ~ 20 year generations. The Fourth Turning is the 20 year period, the Crisis “Turning” starting a few years ago and ending in ~ 2025. In the Crisis turning – think Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWII and now – are noted by terrible unforeseen events, a renting of the social fabric, and the implementation of major changes – especially infrastructure.

The four generations that are playing out now are “Archetype: birth years, current name, roles.

Hero: 1901-1924, G.I. Generation, cope with Depression and fight WWII, build new institutions, protected children; 1982-2003 Millennial Generation, will take us through the crisis now emerging.

Artist: 1926-1943 Silent Generation, improved institutions, populated suburbia, had midlife crisis and are now active seniors. 2004-2025 Homeland Generation will grow up in time of crisis.

Prophet: 1943-1960 Boomer Generation, grow up in affluence and upheaval, moralistic and value obsessed, playing down dangers, steering country into next big crisis.

Nomad: 1961-1981 Generation X, reared under protected during cultural upheavals, don’t trust institutions, speak frankly of dangers, are highly realistic and pragmatic individualists.

What does this mean for our K-12 transformation mission for the next ten years? In a recent interview author Neil Howe said the Gen Xer’s are in the drivers seat, with strong support of the Millennials. This is evidenced by the Obama election with strong support from the younger crowd. As the Gen Xer’s move into positions of power during the crisis the Millennials will be like the G.I.’s of the prior crises. The Boomers who failed to address the emerging crises will fade from power.

First Turning (1945-1965) was a High with Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy and social conformity. The Second Turning (1966-1982) was the Awakening where social obligations where thrown off and individualism drove riots, civil rights, tax cuts, and deregulation. The Third Turning (1983-2004?) was the Unraveling where individualism is high and institutions are weak and discredited, many celebrity circuses but little sense of public purpose.

The Fourth Turning (2005? To 202??) is the Crisis where ineffectual institutions are torn down to build new. There is enormous rebuilding of public, social, political and economic life as a response to a series of crises.  The recent small wars and economic upheavals may be the foothills of the crisis, similar to the 1770’s, 1850’s, and 1930’s. Individualism gives way to a new sense of community to reverse the process of Third Turning attitudes. The crisis nor the crisis trigger cannot be forecast during the prior decade: Boston Tea Party, Lincoln’s election, and stock market crash in 1929 followed by Pearl Harbor.

Turnings are caused by the sequencing of the generations, not technology. During Crisis the reaction to a crisis is what matters. The Silent Generation drifts off into retirement and Prophet Boomer cultural warriors shouting at each other on talk shows. The realistic and pragmatic Nomad Gen Xer’s lead by fixing the crises. They are supported by the Hero Millennials who remain close to their elder visionary Prophet parents.

There will be a push toward pro-family and  middle class with recent focus on seniors, the poor and the very wealthy slipping. Millennials want free-trade and capitalism with a public and social purpose. They have respect for realistic “smart” people but not the ideological “best and brightest.” The invention during the Awakening, drove unlimited and diverse innovation (biogenetics, nanotech) during the Unraveling to setup implementation in the Crisis. Fourth Turning society picks winners and invests in them. Infrastructure build out was big in the last three (toll roads and canals, railroads, then highways). In this century digitizing medical records, Internet everywhere, security at all levels, and high-speed trains are coming on strong.

Stable employment and personal reputation are critical individual factors leading to teamwork building and community activities. Intergenerational families will come together.

The economic problems of today are a 2 to 3 compared to the 10 of the Crisis ahead of us. But what could trigger this Crisis. A nuclear bomb going off anywhere would change the rules all over the world. Cheap robots make war, everyman’s war. There are many more. But as society wipes away old way, better systems can be built. As the crisis peaks, the myriad of problems that defines this period are seen as parts of same huge systemic problem.

Over the past two months I have experienced a “sea-change” during our voyage toward the eLearning promised land. As a observer in meeting after meeting with ABEC, P-20 Coordinating Committee Task Forces, Valley Forward panels, legislators and IBM-Smart Cities Forum almost every participant touched on or lead with a component of eLearning as a part of the solution.

I developed the understanding is that our advocacy work has been successful. The time for  It is now time for us “Boomers” to switch from pitching the value of eLearning to advising the Gen X implementers teams. It is a bit like the old story of:

“Robespierre sitting with his friends at an outside café drinking wine when a mob surges by. Robespierre jumps up and dashes off. His friends call to him, “Where are you going?” He replies, “That’s my mob and I have to get in front of them and lead.”

eSATS and our collaborators have a well honed system design. We understand of what is needed to significantly integrated the pieces into a whole. The investments and timing including process changes can be spelled out.

91013 P20 Great Teachers – Great Leaders

October 13, 2009

Subject: Suggestions for Addressing the Critical Issue of K-12 Teachers and Leaders

Proposed Requirements by RTTT:

  • Confirm the number and percentage of core academic courses taught in highest- and lowest-poverty schools by highly qualified teachers;
  • Describe the systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers and principals by LEA;
  • Indicate whether systems that evaluate performance of teachers and principals include student achievement outcomes by LEA;
  • Provide the number and percentage of teachers and principals rated at each performance rating or level by LEA;
  • Indicate whether the number and percentage of teacher performance ratings are easily accessible to the public by LEA.

My Response

Actually I am a bit bum-fuzzled!  P20 Coordinating Council is tasked by Executive Order to focus on reforms to increase academic achievement. Based on decades of studies and planning initiatives, and our individual experience the teacher, time and again, has been recognized as the greatest single factor in student academic success. The scope of this issue is wide and deep. This task force has been named Great Teachers Great Leaders.

Why are the proposed requirements limited to a small component of the overall problem?  The five bullet items from Race To The Top cover only a situation assessment dealing with LEA data on performance ratings of teachers and principals. A quality assurance system is a necessary but insufficient part of the most critical human resource problems in Arizona. Most of this data challenge will be addressed by the State Longitudinal Data System Task Team.

I suggest that the P20 coordinating council develop requirements that address the statewide needs of teachers and leaders over the next decade:

  • Educating, hiring, professional development, rewarding, retention;
  • The emergence of eLearning in the classroom, online and at home;
  • Develop a multilevel system to assess teacher skills and practice mastery;
  • Design and implement the next generation of teacher instructional tools;
  • Transforming teacher practice from legacy education to hybrid eLearning;
  • Integrating the formative assessment data driven decision support system into teacher practice.
  • Aid Arizona’s universities in transforming their colleges of education to produce eLearning savvy teachers.