Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26414475
label
TLC [Technology learning Challenge] – Outreach
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26414475
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
TLC [Technology learning Challenge] – Outreach
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Michael Schmidt's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26414475
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7368814-20130968S-011-013-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b947df419deb810b
ocrText
TCC - outreach
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
National Coordinating Committee on
Technology in Education & Training (NCC-TET)
Brenda Kempster
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400
Chair
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 383-6437
Fax (202) 347-4683
California (916) 399-0638
Fax (916) 399-1275
[email protected]
Technology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force
Outreach Subcommittee
OUTREACH GOALS
The goals of Outreach are to:
communicate the TLC vision and elements of the proposed Program;
seek input and feedback from broad-based stakeholder communities;
develop a network of stakeholder leaders to sustain the development of the
Program.
FOUR PHASES of OUTREACH
Four distinct phases of the Outreach task have been identified.
Phase I. Program Definition is the period of Program design in which ideas are
generated, circulated for comment, and incorporated into the conceptual design of the
project.
Phase II. Detail Planning is the period of Program development, after the public
announcement, in which specific project details are developed as appropriate to
facilitate public awareness and proposal to governing bodies.
Phase III. Approval Process is that period when appropriate government bodies,
review, refine, and approve the Program.
Phase IV. Implementation comprises the period and the process whereby Program
activities are conducted.
PHASE I - PROGRAM DEFINITION
With respect to the goals and activities of Outreach, this phase consists of five parts:
Part A. Establish the Outreach Subcommittee.
Part B. Provide input on overall TLC Program design.
Part C. Identify Stakeholder communities.
Part D. Provide "Proprietary" briefings for leaders in each stakeholder
community, and conduct workshops to collect input and generate
support.
Part E. Conduct follow-up sessions among stakeholder communities in
coordination with identified leaders from each community.
White Paper (DRAFT)
- 1 -
August 17, 1994
Technology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force
Outreach Subcommittee
Stakeholder communities have been identified. In Table 1 below, each community is
listed adjacent to the Outreach Subcommittee member who is responsible for
outreach to that particular group.
Being responsible for outreach to a particular stakeholder community includes but
might not be limited to the following:
identifying opinion leaders in the stakeholder community;
compiling a target list of stakeholders to involve in the outreach process;
identifying an appropriate forum (using existing forums where possible, e.g.,
planned conferences) in which to deliver a Proprietary Briefing about the
Program to an invited cadre from that stakeholder community;
developing a plan for the Proprietary Briefing meeting/workshop, including
structure, agenda, assumptions to be presented to the community, and questions
to be posed for discussion and feedback (Attachment A provides an example of
such a plan for the stakeholder community of CEOs/Businesses);
developing briefing materials tailored to that particular community;
eliciting questions and feedback about the program from the stakeholder
community and relaying these back to the TLC Task Force;
capturing on videotape all relevant speeches and meeting activities, especially
Q&A sessions. (These video clips can be edited and compiled into a
presentation video for the Vetting session(s) and ultimately into a promotional
video for widespread distribution to share the TLC vision and seed stakeholder
communities.)
A tentative schedule of Proprietary Briefing/Workshops is given in Table 2 below.
Several potential opportunities for follow-up sessions are listed as well.
White Paper (DRAFT)
2
August 17, 1994
Technology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force
Outreach Subcommittee
Table 1. Outreach Subcommittee Members and their Stakeholder Community
Assignments.
Outreach
assigned to Stakeholder
Member
Association
Community1
Jim Kohlenberger
Office of VP
White House
Frank Biden
Government Printing Office
Agencies,
Policy makers,
Gurus
John Cradler
Council for Educational
Educators
Development & Research
Brenda Kempster
National Coordinating
CEOs,
Committee on Technology
Businesses
in Education & Training
Dennis Bybee
Int'l Society for
Professional
Technology in Education
Education
Association
& Training
Associations
Cheryl Williams
National School Boards
Model
Association
Technology
Programs
Drew Allbritten
American Association of
Learners
Adult & Continuing Education
John Yrchik
National Education Association
Educators
Janet Weisenford
Naval Air Warfare Center
Technology
Training Systems Div.
Transfer
Ed Schroer
American Society for
Trainers
Mark Gittleman
Training & Development
G. A. Redding
Institute for Defense Analysis
Paul Evans
MITRE Corporation
Support for
Outreach Subcommittee
1 Other major stakeholder communities, such as Non-Profit Community-Based Organizations (contact
Columbus Hartwell of IBM Foundation), might be added to the list.
White Paper (DRAFT)
- 3 - -
August 17, 1994
Technology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force
Outreach Subcommittee
Table 2. Tentative Schedule of *Proprietary Briefings and Follow-up Sessions.
Stakeholder
Responsible
Date
Forum
Community
Outreach Member
Sep
15
*National Coordinating
Associations
D.Bybee
Committee on Technology
in Education & Training
NEA, Washington DC
22-23
*State Network Project
Educators
J.Cradler
Austin, TX
(C.Stout)
27/28
*CEO Briefing
CEOs/Business
B.Kempster
White House
Oct
7
Coalition of Adult
Learners
D.Albritten
Education Organizations
Arlington, VA
25-26
NSBA Technology &
Model Technology
C.Williams
Learning Conference
Programs
Dallas, TX
Nov
1-4
*American Asso of Adult
Learners
D.Allbritten
& Continuing Education
Educators
Nashville, TN
10
CCCSO/ISTE
Associations
D.Bybee
New Mexico
15-16
*Star Schools Meeting
Model Technology
C.Williams
Washington, DC
Programs
(C.Garnette)
Dec
1
*National Issues
Trainers
M.Gittleman
Committee Meeting
Washington, DC
12-14
IBM Foundation
Learners
D.Allbritten
Life Long Learning Summit
I
mid
*Policy makers/Gurus
Policy makers
F.Biden
Proprietary Briefing
/Gurus
White Paper (DRAFT)
- 4 -
August 17, 1994
Technology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force
Outreach Subcommittee
Possible Areas/Questions for Data Collection
How should the Program be managed and funded?
How much private cost-sharing could be expected from the various partners?
What can we do to drive creative financing formulas at the state and local levels?
How can challenge grants most effectively stimulate market development?
What kinds of intellectual property rights would developers expect?
What can CEOs do to reach American public in mass media to help create new
mindset and national enthusiasm for technology in learning? (post
announcement media/advocacy campaign)
What is the optimum grant size?
How do we ensure replicability?
How do we help overcome various existing barriers, including teacher training,
teacher time, infrastructure support (internal and external), content/software
development, connectivity, equipment cost/obsolescence, preconceived attitudes
(technophobia), etc.
What is the scope of the need?
PHASE II - DETAILED PLANNING
Vetting
When a reasonably solid proposal has been developed, Outreach will conduct one or
two Vetting workshop(s) with a group of identified leaders ("sparkplugs"), including
at least one representative selected from each stakeholder community. These groups
should be small (10) in order to facilitate discussion.
PHASE IV APPROVAL PROCESS and IMPLEMENTATION
Seeding Communities
Throughout the Program Definition phase and the Vetting workshop(s), emphasis
will have been given to developing a longer term network of opinion leaders that can
eventually be the seeds for community involvement. Outreach would subsequently
involve a series of regional meetings, like the empowerment meetings, to engage and
involve communities. The agencies hosting the Program would probably take the
lead in this activity.
White Paper (DRAFT)
- 5 -
August 17, 1994
Technology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force
Outreach Subcommittee
OUTREACH DELIVERABLES
Deliverables from the Outreach Subcommittee include:
feedback for Task Force efforts;
a human network created to:
enlist support for approval by Congress;
obtain cost sharing from the private sector;
get state and local governments to address funding and other barriers;
seed communities to rise to the challenge (magic feather);
identify existing resources in Federal labs to support community efforts.
OUTREACH TIMELINE and PRODUCTS
The following is a suggested timeline for the Outreach tasks and deliverables:
July-Sep
Program Definition
-Prepare and schedule
Proprietary Briefings,
leveraging existing
forums.
-Identify Briefers
-Invite Stakeholder Leaders
Sep-Nov 4
-Conduct Proprietary
Briefings/Workshops,
Nov-Jan
Detailed Planning
-Conduct Follow-on Sessions
with stakeholder groups
as appropriate
-Conduct Vetting workshops
with small group of reps
selected from all
stakeholder groups
-Provide feedback from
stakeholders to Task Force
Jan-Sep
Approval Process
-Enlist support from
'95
stakeholders for
TLC Program approval
Sep-Jun
Implementation
-Share Program information
'95-'96
-Sēed communities
-Identify existing resources
White Paper (DRAFT)
- 6 -
August 17, 1994
Technology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force
Outreach Subcommittee
INPUT FROM OUTREACH SUBCOMMITTEE ON TLC PROGRAM DESIGN
The Outreach Subcommittee offers the following suggestions to the TLC Task Force.
1. The Grant Program should include replication of existing successful models.
2. Selection Criteria should include: "Will the learning tools produced be transferred,
marketed, or made available to schools throughout the United States?" rather than
"Can...."
3. "Cost Sharing" criteria should be changed to "Does the proposal offer creative new
funding scenarios?" and "What are the resource commitments from the non-profit
entities?"
White Paper (DRAFT)
- 7 -
August 17, 1994
Attachment A - SAMPLE PLAN
White House Task Force on Technology and Learning
Outreach
Draft Plan for Proprietary Briefing/Workshop
Stakeholder Community: CEO/Business
Responsible Outreach Member: Brenda Kempster
Structure:
One meeting will be held in the late September/early October time frame with
approximately 30 CEOs (more than likely we will have to accommodate key staff
person for education technology as well -- so meeting could be as many as 50).
Meeting will be followed by a hosted (by business) reception for the purpose of
networking and informal information gathering.
This stakeholder group meeting should be held at the White House, suggest Indian
Treaty Room, in order to position the importance of initiative and appeal to CEOs to
personally attend.
Agenda:
90 minutes -
1. Welcome
2. Overview of objectives/vision by White House representative;
3. Detail of initiative by agency person from TLC Task Force
(probably Commerce or Labor with support person from
DoEd);
4. Introduce CEO team leader(s) (1-3 who have been identified in
advance);
5. Pose questions for business involvement/outreach
60 minutes -
Break into groups of 10 (can be same room w/chair re-
arrangement).
Each group lead by TLC Task Force member to record input.
6. Provide feedback on initiative and business suggestions.
30 minutes -
7. Read-out by each group on comments/upgrades.
8. White House representative discusses next milestones, and
closes.
I
Adjourn to hosted reception - venue to be determined; others may be invited to
attend.
White Paper (DRAFT)
- 8 -
August 17, 1994
Attachment A - - SAMPLE PLAN
Assumptions to be posed to CEO/Business stakeholders.
Barriers exist that impede expansion of learning technology market development.
Key barriers are:
Content/software development
Connectivity
Equipment - cost/obsolescence
Training
Infrastructure support - internal and external
Preconceived attitudes (technophobia)
Questions to be posed to CEO/Business stakeholders
How do we help overcome various existing barriers?
How much private cost-sharing could be expected from the various partners?
What can we do to drive creative financing formulas at the state and local levels?
How can challenge grants most effectively stimulate market development?
What kinds of intellectual property rights would developers expect?
What can CEOs do to reach American public in mass media to help create new
mindset and national enthusiasm for technology in learning? (post
announcement media/advocacy campaign)
White Paper (DRAFT)
9
August 17, 1994
Attachment A - SAMPLE PLAN
SAMPLE Invitation Letter
for CEO/Business Proprietary Briefing
(White House Letterhead)
Date
Dear
:
You are cordially invited to attend a White House briefing session regarding an
important national learning and technology initiative. The Administration is seeking
the advice of key business leaders in the development of this program. You have
been selected to attend the meeting because of your company's focus on education
and training, and your personal interest in incorporating technology into the learning
process.
The purpose of the session is to gather input from a representative group of business
leaders to help shape a national effort targeted at learning and technology. If
America's learners are to meet the challenges of tomorrow, they must have access
today to the technology tools that will prepare them for work place responsibilities.
The business perspective will be critical to the overall success of the initiative.
The meeting will be held in the Indian Treaty Room of the White House Old
Executive Office Building on (date tbd) from 2:00-5:00 p.m. It will be followed by a
reception at (location tbd) 5:30-7:00 p.m.
The White House Task Force on Learning and Technology will give a detailed
briefing of the proposed initiative. You will be asked for feedback and suggestions
for maximizing business and industry involvement. Your views will be highly
valued.
Please respond to Brenda Kempster, team leader for Task Force business outreach
component, by
to confirm your participation. She can be reached on
-
Sincerely,
White Paper (DRAFT)
- 10 -
August 17, 1994
marzke remore
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Sept. 9, 1994
My
TO:
Paul Diamond
FROM:
Martha Matzke, American Federation of Teachers
RE:
Challenge grant program
Paul--
These notes are very sketchy and random. As I attempt to
respond to your concept for a grant program to stimulate the
development of "learning communities," T realize that T am missing
too many dots (infobits) to be able to make the connections even a
mechanistic portrait requires. So here are simply some minimalist
reactions to what you proposed:
Your goal is ambitious: To model an effort that will get telcos
to do more wiring than they think will pay off; school-system leaders
to budget for a concept about which most understand little and are at
best skeptical; and "providers" to develop software/content that will
advance learning, not just profits.
You also will be dealing with everyone's calculations about the
fate of the Administration and its initiatives.
And you face real tensions among the various purposes you
aim to encompass in one program. One of the most significant
unknowns for institutionalized education in the NII concept is
whether schools serving low-income populations will be bypassed.
The telecommunications industry (in all of its components) clearly
views the connection to the residence as the most cost-effective
investment -- for hardware, content, and tariffing. The opportunity
costs in developing this marketplace alone are so great that, absent
continuing pressure and encouragement, companies will not shell out
their cash for resource-poor schools, rhetoric to the contrary
notwithstanding.
matzke
Your school-to-work and worker-training lifelong learning
goals CAN be encompassed in a "home-as-learning. entertainment/
consumption-center" vision. The only piece of a learning community
that can't be created in the home is schools as we know them. So it
seems to me that one issue for you is how to underscore in this effort
the seriousness of the Administration's intent to have the NII include
all schools and libraries. (A related issue may be how to ensure that
your grant resources do not end up, as is the case with so many
school-improvement schemes, in venues that don't really need the
boost and won't help solve the haves-have nots problem in
technology.)
Your memo describes at length the potential you see in the
creations of the content developers. I agree about the possibilities.
But I also concur with the emphasis you placed in our conversation
on the problem of how to get the wiring infrastructure in place. My
reaction to the memo is that the potential goodies will not be
developed unless the infrastructure is built out. I thought you were
suggesting when we talked that the grant program would be focused
on infrastructure rather than content.
In the context of these thoughts, the following considerations
seem to me to be important to your grant initiative. It should:
1) Maintain the focus
The Administration got off to a great start with the NII
initiative. The message was both focused and evocative; it captured
the public's imagination and framed a great national discussion in
terms that had not existed before. The moment reminded mc of the
Kennedy space challenge -- when leadership seemed to harness
national energies to a bold vision of the future that then drew
everyone forward.
I would think you would want to wrap your initiative tightly to
the overall program that has been launched. I start with this point
because educators in particular are used to total balkanization -- in
funding, regulation, interest-group politics, and definition of
purposes. There have been myrlad grant programs in the last
decade -- out of the foundation world as well as every nook and
cranny of the Education Department -- with the words "learning
communities" in their programmatic rhetoric. Educators are used to
little, inconsequential ideas in meagerly financed projects that are
dressed up in very inflated rhetoric. So (I am hazarding the worst
maizke
case scenario here) our use of that language will immediately call
up this complicated collection of negative associations.
To counter that, would it be possible to make your initiative a
top priority of the NII's second year? Could it somehow be a
component of the overall NII grant program, and thus associated, not
with the bits-and-pieces history of education projects, but with the
domestic-policy prestige of the NII itself?
If I were setting up such an attempt to leverage change, I
would make sure that people knew they were buying into a high
level, high stakes national effort not just another WCC sideshow.
To do that, I would weave this initiative into the overall NII grants
effort. For one thing, wouldn't it be much more synergistic to get the
telcos to participate ONCE? They step up to the Gore initiative and
say yes, we want to participate in the second round of infrastructure
grants, and yes, we would like to put our efforts into the "learning
communities" part of the program. Couldn't your projects then gel
funded for testbed hardware (I mean, the big stuff)? And wouldn't
that be an incentive for the corporations?
I would also try TO increase the leverage of your effort by
having it departmentally supported by Secretaries Riley and Reich. 1
don't know what grant programs Labor has. But 1 know Riley made
educational networks a FY 1995 priority for the Secretary's
Discretionary Grants Program, and he certainly has a lot of interest in
pumping Goals 2000. Maybe the two Secretaries could each provide
some funding for activities related to "learning communities"
ventures.
I am mindful that I didn't even ask you how much dough
you've got to bake with. If it's not all that much, the grandeurs I'm
imagining would be pretty far-fetched. But even on a modest scale,
you will gain by associating your initiative with the broad national
purposes of the NII rather than simply with education.
2) Get the people who make the decisions involved, not just
representative constituency groups
What you want TO demonstrate, it seems to me, are prototypes
of the policy/financial partnerships and shifts in thinking that will be
required to build out the education infrastructure. So you want
proposals that require education decisionmakers to grapple with the
substance of telecommunications issues and to commit some
resources to changing the current paradigm.
One approach TO the grant program would be to gear the
project leadership TO the state level. Get states to make the
proposals, including some or all of the following requirements: 1)
Must involve corporate telecommunications and or higher education
partners and state/local financial commitment; 2) Must attack
technology equity issues; 3) Must involve wiring to classroom (or --
if not a school -- user level) and plan for wide- and local-area
network/interactivity of one or more kinds; 1) Must include home
school linkages and linkages among teachers and between teachers
and online data; 5) Must involve classroom teachers in computer
training and planning for use of interactive materials in their
classroom program; 6) Must involve a financial plan at the school/or
district/or state level showing how the entity will incorporate
telecommunications costs into regular operating budgets.
I started with states because some are already, as you know,
pretty far along in developing their statewide links. And I would
like TO see state leaders, who after all have the fiscal and
constitutional responsibility for schools, become much more vigorous
in pushing -- through rhetoric, incentives, and example -- local
districts to move forward. It is the state leaders who should be
demanding that their schools be equipped to train information-age
workers. These folk also are better able than school people to put
pressure on the telcos to step up to the challenge of making learning
networks financially feasible for schools and libraries.
They are also in a position to "encourage" school district leaders
to make institutional commitments, rather than simply take the
money and run.
Or you could model the program after the first round of NII
grants last year. As I recall, there were two types of grant --
planning and operational -- and project sponsorship was left fairly
open. If you don't have enough grant money to make hefty awards,
then the idea of encouraging a wide variety of types of partnership
and seeing what you get has alot of appeal.
3) This is an addendum to #2. Get people in policymaking
positions to raise their political involvement in this issue.
matzke remote
495-1131
01/9/14/94
I am not sure exactly how to do this, OF what the potential for
outside cheerleaders is. But I am imagining some kind of ongoing
support by folks that I think of as usually hanging back when they
should be exerting leadership: the Council of Chief State School
Officers, the Education Commission of the States, the National School
Boards Association, American Association of School Administrators,
etc. I mean the education people who in their professional lives have
some kind of responsibility for shaping policy and/or spending
decisions. As I said when we talked, Shanker and Geiger can grace
your announcement, but what you need is the equally enthusiastic
backing of governance types.
What about the National Governors Association? Could you get
them to make learning infrastructure an NGA priority? Can any of
these other groups be persuaded to provide rhetorical or symbolic
support by carrying forward the learning communities theme in
their own activities? Year of the Learning Community?
Another angle: Symbolic corporate interest in your program.
The Council on Competitiveness, which I staff for Al, has a major
initiative on the NII and just held a quite impressive two-day
applications conference that included some education
demonstrations. As a nice non-Administration-favoring collection of
corporate giants, they might lend an effective bipartisan air to your
efforts. You may already know that the Council's applications
conference last week was co-sponsored by NIST.
Well, I've rambled on far too long. And I fear this is not at all
what you had in mind. If there is any redeeming social value in
these notions, however, don't hesitate to call on me again. If not, you
know where the circular file is!!!
Good luck with the planning, Paul.