Museado / NARA Collection wjc-dpc — Collection wjc-dpc
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (inglés) español magyar (húngaro) हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio page chat

TLC [Technology learning Challenge] – Outreach

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

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.

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
b947df419deb810b
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
26414475
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "26414475",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26414475",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "TLC [Technology learning Challenge] – Outreach",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26414475",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Michael Schmidt's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0968-S/42-t-7368814-20130968S-011-013-2016.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0968-S/42-t-7368814-20130968S-011-013-2016.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0968-S/42-t-7368814-20130968S-011-013-2016.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "26414475",
    "label": "TLC [Technology learning Challenge] – Outreach",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26414475"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "26414475",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26414475",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "TLC [Technology learning Challenge] – Outreach",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26414475",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Michael Schmidt's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0968-S/42-t-7368814-20130968S-011-013-2016.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0968-S/42-t-7368814-20130968S-011-013-2016.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0968-S/42-t-7368814-20130968S-011-013-2016.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26414475",
    "naId": 26414475,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-7368814-20130968S-011-013-2016"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2013/2013-0968-S/42-t-7368814-20130968S-011-013-2016.pdf",
    "mediaId": "b947df419deb810b",
    "ocrText": "TCC - outreach\nPHOTOCOPY\nPRESERVATION\nNational Coordinating Committee on\nTechnology in Education & Training (NCC-TET)\nBrenda Kempster\n1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400\nChair\nWashington, D.C. 20004\n(202) 383-6437\nFax (202) 347-4683\nCalifornia (916) 399-0638\nFax (916) 399-1275\[email protected]\nTechnology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force\nOutreach Subcommittee\nOUTREACH GOALS\nThe goals of Outreach are to:\ncommunicate the TLC vision and elements of the proposed Program;\nseek input and feedback from broad-based stakeholder communities;\ndevelop a network of stakeholder leaders to sustain the development of the\nProgram.\nFOUR PHASES of OUTREACH\nFour distinct phases of the Outreach task have been identified.\nPhase I. Program Definition is the period of Program design in which ideas are\ngenerated, circulated for comment, and incorporated into the conceptual design of the\nproject.\nPhase II. Detail Planning is the period of Program development, after the public\nannouncement, in which specific project details are developed as appropriate to\nfacilitate public awareness and proposal to governing bodies.\nPhase III. Approval Process is that period when appropriate government bodies,\nreview, refine, and approve the Program.\nPhase IV. Implementation comprises the period and the process whereby Program\nactivities are conducted.\nPHASE I - PROGRAM DEFINITION\nWith respect to the goals and activities of Outreach, this phase consists of five parts:\nPart A. Establish the Outreach Subcommittee.\nPart B. Provide input on overall TLC Program design.\nPart C. Identify Stakeholder communities.\nPart D. Provide \"Proprietary\" briefings for leaders in each stakeholder\ncommunity, and conduct workshops to collect input and generate\nsupport.\nPart E. Conduct follow-up sessions among stakeholder communities in\ncoordination with identified leaders from each community.\nWhite Paper (DRAFT)\n- 1 -\nAugust 17, 1994\nTechnology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force\nOutreach Subcommittee\nStakeholder communities have been identified. In Table 1 below, each community is\nlisted adjacent to the Outreach Subcommittee member who is responsible for\noutreach to that particular group.\nBeing responsible for outreach to a particular stakeholder community includes but\nmight not be limited to the following:\nidentifying opinion leaders in the stakeholder community;\ncompiling a target list of stakeholders to involve in the outreach process;\nidentifying an appropriate forum (using existing forums where possible, e.g.,\nplanned conferences) in which to deliver a Proprietary Briefing about the\nProgram to an invited cadre from that stakeholder community;\ndeveloping a plan for the Proprietary Briefing meeting/workshop, including\nstructure, agenda, assumptions to be presented to the community, and questions\nto be posed for discussion and feedback (Attachment A provides an example of\nsuch a plan for the stakeholder community of CEOs/Businesses);\ndeveloping briefing materials tailored to that particular community;\neliciting questions and feedback about the program from the stakeholder\ncommunity and relaying these back to the TLC Task Force;\ncapturing on videotape all relevant speeches and meeting activities, especially\nQ&A sessions. (These video clips can be edited and compiled into a\npresentation video for the Vetting session(s) and ultimately into a promotional\nvideo for widespread distribution to share the TLC vision and seed stakeholder\ncommunities.)\nA tentative schedule of Proprietary Briefing/Workshops is given in Table 2 below.\nSeveral potential opportunities for follow-up sessions are listed as well.\nWhite Paper (DRAFT)\n2\nAugust 17, 1994\nTechnology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force\nOutreach Subcommittee\nTable 1. Outreach Subcommittee Members and their Stakeholder Community\nAssignments.\nOutreach\nassigned to Stakeholder\nMember\nAssociation\nCommunity1\nJim Kohlenberger\nOffice of VP\nWhite House\nFrank Biden\nGovernment Printing Office\nAgencies,\nPolicy makers,\nGurus\nJohn Cradler\nCouncil for Educational\nEducators\nDevelopment & Research\nBrenda Kempster\nNational Coordinating\nCEOs,\nCommittee on Technology\nBusinesses\nin Education & Training\nDennis Bybee\nInt'l Society for\nProfessional\nTechnology in Education\nEducation\nAssociation\n& Training\nAssociations\nCheryl Williams\nNational School Boards\nModel\nAssociation\nTechnology\nPrograms\nDrew Allbritten\nAmerican Association of\nLearners\nAdult & Continuing Education\nJohn Yrchik\nNational Education Association\nEducators\nJanet Weisenford\nNaval Air Warfare Center\nTechnology\nTraining Systems Div.\nTransfer\nEd Schroer\nAmerican Society for\nTrainers\nMark Gittleman\nTraining & Development\nG. A. Redding\nInstitute for Defense Analysis\nPaul Evans\nMITRE Corporation\nSupport for\nOutreach Subcommittee\n1 Other major stakeholder communities, such as Non-Profit Community-Based Organizations (contact\nColumbus Hartwell of IBM Foundation), might be added to the list.\nWhite Paper (DRAFT)\n- 3 - -\nAugust 17, 1994\nTechnology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force\nOutreach Subcommittee\nTable 2. Tentative Schedule of *Proprietary Briefings and Follow-up Sessions.\nStakeholder\nResponsible\nDate\nForum\nCommunity\nOutreach Member\nSep\n15\n*National Coordinating\nAssociations\nD.Bybee\nCommittee on Technology\nin Education & Training\nNEA, Washington DC\n22-23\n*State Network Project\nEducators\nJ.Cradler\nAustin, TX\n(C.Stout)\n27/28\n*CEO Briefing\nCEOs/Business\nB.Kempster\nWhite House\nOct\n7\nCoalition of Adult\nLearners\nD.Albritten\nEducation Organizations\nArlington, VA\n25-26\nNSBA Technology &\nModel Technology\nC.Williams\nLearning Conference\nPrograms\nDallas, TX\nNov\n1-4\n*American Asso of Adult\nLearners\nD.Allbritten\n& Continuing Education\nEducators\nNashville, TN\n10\nCCCSO/ISTE\nAssociations\nD.Bybee\nNew Mexico\n15-16\n*Star Schools Meeting\nModel Technology\nC.Williams\nWashington, DC\nPrograms\n(C.Garnette)\nDec\n1\n*National Issues\nTrainers\nM.Gittleman\nCommittee Meeting\nWashington, DC\n12-14\nIBM Foundation\nLearners\nD.Allbritten\nLife Long Learning Summit\nI\nmid\n*Policy makers/Gurus\nPolicy makers\nF.Biden\nProprietary Briefing\n/Gurus\nWhite Paper (DRAFT)\n- 4 -\nAugust 17, 1994\nTechnology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force\nOutreach Subcommittee\nPossible Areas/Questions for Data Collection\nHow should the Program be managed and funded?\nHow much private cost-sharing could be expected from the various partners?\nWhat can we do to drive creative financing formulas at the state and local levels?\nHow can challenge grants most effectively stimulate market development?\nWhat kinds of intellectual property rights would developers expect?\nWhat can CEOs do to reach American public in mass media to help create new\nmindset and national enthusiasm for technology in learning? (post\nannouncement media/advocacy campaign)\nWhat is the optimum grant size?\nHow do we ensure replicability?\nHow do we help overcome various existing barriers, including teacher training,\nteacher time, infrastructure support (internal and external), content/software\ndevelopment, connectivity, equipment cost/obsolescence, preconceived attitudes\n(technophobia), etc.\nWhat is the scope of the need?\nPHASE II - DETAILED PLANNING\nVetting\nWhen a reasonably solid proposal has been developed, Outreach will conduct one or\ntwo Vetting workshop(s) with a group of identified leaders (\"sparkplugs\"), including\nat least one representative selected from each stakeholder community. These groups\nshould be small (10) in order to facilitate discussion.\nPHASE IV APPROVAL PROCESS and IMPLEMENTATION\nSeeding Communities\nThroughout the Program Definition phase and the Vetting workshop(s), emphasis\nwill have been given to developing a longer term network of opinion leaders that can\neventually be the seeds for community involvement. Outreach would subsequently\ninvolve a series of regional meetings, like the empowerment meetings, to engage and\ninvolve communities. The agencies hosting the Program would probably take the\nlead in this activity.\nWhite Paper (DRAFT)\n- 5 -\nAugust 17, 1994\nTechnology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force\nOutreach Subcommittee\nOUTREACH DELIVERABLES\nDeliverables from the Outreach Subcommittee include:\nfeedback for Task Force efforts;\na human network created to:\nenlist support for approval by Congress;\nobtain cost sharing from the private sector;\nget state and local governments to address funding and other barriers;\nseed communities to rise to the challenge (magic feather);\nidentify existing resources in Federal labs to support community efforts.\nOUTREACH TIMELINE and PRODUCTS\nThe following is a suggested timeline for the Outreach tasks and deliverables:\nJuly-Sep\nProgram Definition\n-Prepare and schedule\nProprietary Briefings,\nleveraging existing\nforums.\n-Identify Briefers\n-Invite Stakeholder Leaders\nSep-Nov 4\n-Conduct Proprietary\nBriefings/Workshops,\nNov-Jan\nDetailed Planning\n-Conduct Follow-on Sessions\nwith stakeholder groups\nas appropriate\n-Conduct Vetting workshops\nwith small group of reps\nselected from all\nstakeholder groups\n-Provide feedback from\nstakeholders to Task Force\nJan-Sep\nApproval Process\n-Enlist support from\n'95\nstakeholders for\nTLC Program approval\nSep-Jun\nImplementation\n-Share Program information\n'95-'96\n-Sēed communities\n-Identify existing resources\nWhite Paper (DRAFT)\n- 6 -\nAugust 17, 1994\nTechnology and Learning Challenge (TLC) Task Force\nOutreach Subcommittee\nINPUT FROM OUTREACH SUBCOMMITTEE ON TLC PROGRAM DESIGN\nThe Outreach Subcommittee offers the following suggestions to the TLC Task Force.\n1. The Grant Program should include replication of existing successful models.\n2. Selection Criteria should include: \"Will the learning tools produced be transferred,\nmarketed, or made available to schools throughout the United States?\" rather than\n\"Can....\"\n3. \"Cost Sharing\" criteria should be changed to \"Does the proposal offer creative new\nfunding scenarios?\" and \"What are the resource commitments from the non-profit\nentities?\"\nWhite Paper (DRAFT)\n- 7 -\nAugust 17, 1994\nAttachment A - SAMPLE PLAN\nWhite House Task Force on Technology and Learning\nOutreach\nDraft Plan for Proprietary Briefing/Workshop\nStakeholder Community: CEO/Business\nResponsible Outreach Member: Brenda Kempster\nStructure:\nOne meeting will be held in the late September/early October time frame with\napproximately 30 CEOs (more than likely we will have to accommodate key staff\nperson for education technology as well -- so meeting could be as many as 50).\nMeeting will be followed by a hosted (by business) reception for the purpose of\nnetworking and informal information gathering.\nThis stakeholder group meeting should be held at the White House, suggest Indian\nTreaty Room, in order to position the importance of initiative and appeal to CEOs to\npersonally attend.\nAgenda:\n90 minutes -\n1. Welcome\n2. Overview of objectives/vision by White House representative;\n3. Detail of initiative by agency person from TLC Task Force\n(probably Commerce or Labor with support person from\nDoEd);\n4. Introduce CEO team leader(s) (1-3 who have been identified in\nadvance);\n5. Pose questions for business involvement/outreach\n60 minutes -\nBreak into groups of 10 (can be same room w/chair re-\narrangement).\nEach group lead by TLC Task Force member to record input.\n6. Provide feedback on initiative and business suggestions.\n30 minutes -\n7. Read-out by each group on comments/upgrades.\n8. White House representative discusses next milestones, and\ncloses.\nI\nAdjourn to hosted reception - venue to be determined; others may be invited to\nattend.\nWhite Paper (DRAFT)\n- 8 -\nAugust 17, 1994\nAttachment A - - SAMPLE PLAN\nAssumptions to be posed to CEO/Business stakeholders.\nBarriers exist that impede expansion of learning technology market development.\nKey barriers are:\nContent/software development\nConnectivity\nEquipment - cost/obsolescence\nTraining\nInfrastructure support - internal and external\nPreconceived attitudes (technophobia)\nQuestions to be posed to CEO/Business stakeholders\nHow do we help overcome various existing barriers?\nHow much private cost-sharing could be expected from the various partners?\nWhat can we do to drive creative financing formulas at the state and local levels?\nHow can challenge grants most effectively stimulate market development?\nWhat kinds of intellectual property rights would developers expect?\nWhat can CEOs do to reach American public in mass media to help create new\nmindset and national enthusiasm for technology in learning? (post\nannouncement media/advocacy campaign)\nWhite Paper (DRAFT)\n9\nAugust 17, 1994\nAttachment A - SAMPLE PLAN\nSAMPLE Invitation Letter\nfor CEO/Business Proprietary Briefing\n(White House Letterhead)\nDate\nDear\n:\nYou are cordially invited to attend a White House briefing session regarding an\nimportant national learning and technology initiative. The Administration is seeking\nthe advice of key business leaders in the development of this program. You have\nbeen selected to attend the meeting because of your company's focus on education\nand training, and your personal interest in incorporating technology into the learning\nprocess.\nThe purpose of the session is to gather input from a representative group of business\nleaders to help shape a national effort targeted at learning and technology. If\nAmerica's learners are to meet the challenges of tomorrow, they must have access\ntoday to the technology tools that will prepare them for work place responsibilities.\nThe business perspective will be critical to the overall success of the initiative.\nThe meeting will be held in the Indian Treaty Room of the White House Old\nExecutive Office Building on (date tbd) from 2:00-5:00 p.m. It will be followed by a\nreception at (location tbd) 5:30-7:00 p.m.\nThe White House Task Force on Learning and Technology will give a detailed\nbriefing of the proposed initiative. You will be asked for feedback and suggestions\nfor maximizing business and industry involvement. Your views will be highly\nvalued.\nPlease respond to Brenda Kempster, team leader for Task Force business outreach\ncomponent, by\nto confirm your participation. She can be reached on\n-\nSincerely,\nWhite Paper (DRAFT)\n- 10 -\nAugust 17, 1994\nmarzke remore\nMEMORANDUM\nDATE:\nSept. 9, 1994\nMy\nTO:\nPaul Diamond\nFROM:\nMartha Matzke, American Federation of Teachers\nRE:\nChallenge grant program\nPaul--\nThese notes are very sketchy and random. As I attempt to\nrespond to your concept for a grant program to stimulate the\ndevelopment of \"learning communities,\" T realize that T am missing\ntoo many dots (infobits) to be able to make the connections even a\nmechanistic portrait requires. So here are simply some minimalist\nreactions to what you proposed:\nYour goal is ambitious: To model an effort that will get telcos\nto do more wiring than they think will pay off; school-system leaders\nto budget for a concept about which most understand little and are at\nbest skeptical; and \"providers\" to develop software/content that will\nadvance learning, not just profits.\nYou also will be dealing with everyone's calculations about the\nfate of the Administration and its initiatives.\nAnd you face real tensions among the various purposes you\naim to encompass in one program. One of the most significant\nunknowns for institutionalized education in the NII concept is\nwhether schools serving low-income populations will be bypassed.\nThe telecommunications industry (in all of its components) clearly\nviews the connection to the residence as the most cost-effective\ninvestment -- for hardware, content, and tariffing. The opportunity\ncosts in developing this marketplace alone are so great that, absent\ncontinuing pressure and encouragement, companies will not shell out\ntheir cash for resource-poor schools, rhetoric to the contrary\nnotwithstanding.\nmatzke\nYour school-to-work and worker-training lifelong learning\ngoals CAN be encompassed in a \"home-as-learning. entertainment/\nconsumption-center\" vision. The only piece of a learning community\nthat can't be created in the home is schools as we know them. So it\nseems to me that one issue for you is how to underscore in this effort\nthe seriousness of the Administration's intent to have the NII include\nall schools and libraries. (A related issue may be how to ensure that\nyour grant resources do not end up, as is the case with so many\nschool-improvement schemes, in venues that don't really need the\nboost and won't help solve the haves-have nots problem in\ntechnology.)\nYour memo describes at length the potential you see in the\ncreations of the content developers. I agree about the possibilities.\nBut I also concur with the emphasis you placed in our conversation\non the problem of how to get the wiring infrastructure in place. My\nreaction to the memo is that the potential goodies will not be\ndeveloped unless the infrastructure is built out. I thought you were\nsuggesting when we talked that the grant program would be focused\non infrastructure rather than content.\nIn the context of these thoughts, the following considerations\nseem to me to be important to your grant initiative. It should:\n1) Maintain the focus\nThe Administration got off to a great start with the NII\ninitiative. The message was both focused and evocative; it captured\nthe public's imagination and framed a great national discussion in\nterms that had not existed before. The moment reminded mc of the\nKennedy space challenge -- when leadership seemed to harness\nnational energies to a bold vision of the future that then drew\neveryone forward.\nI would think you would want to wrap your initiative tightly to\nthe overall program that has been launched. I start with this point\nbecause educators in particular are used to total balkanization -- in\nfunding, regulation, interest-group politics, and definition of\npurposes. There have been myrlad grant programs in the last\ndecade -- out of the foundation world as well as every nook and\ncranny of the Education Department -- with the words \"learning\ncommunities\" in their programmatic rhetoric. Educators are used to\nlittle, inconsequential ideas in meagerly financed projects that are\ndressed up in very inflated rhetoric. So (I am hazarding the worst\nmaizke\ncase scenario here) our use of that language will immediately call\nup this complicated collection of negative associations.\nTo counter that, would it be possible to make your initiative a\ntop priority of the NII's second year? Could it somehow be a\ncomponent of the overall NII grant program, and thus associated, not\nwith the bits-and-pieces history of education projects, but with the\ndomestic-policy prestige of the NII itself?\nIf I were setting up such an attempt to leverage change, I\nwould make sure that people knew they were buying into a high\nlevel, high stakes national effort not just another WCC sideshow.\nTo do that, I would weave this initiative into the overall NII grants\neffort. For one thing, wouldn't it be much more synergistic to get the\ntelcos to participate ONCE? They step up to the Gore initiative and\nsay yes, we want to participate in the second round of infrastructure\ngrants, and yes, we would like to put our efforts into the \"learning\ncommunities\" part of the program. Couldn't your projects then gel\nfunded for testbed hardware (I mean, the big stuff)? And wouldn't\nthat be an incentive for the corporations?\nI would also try TO increase the leverage of your effort by\nhaving it departmentally supported by Secretaries Riley and Reich. 1\ndon't know what grant programs Labor has. But 1 know Riley made\neducational networks a FY 1995 priority for the Secretary's\nDiscretionary Grants Program, and he certainly has a lot of interest in\npumping Goals 2000. Maybe the two Secretaries could each provide\nsome funding for activities related to \"learning communities\"\nventures.\nI am mindful that I didn't even ask you how much dough\nyou've got to bake with. If it's not all that much, the grandeurs I'm\nimagining would be pretty far-fetched. But even on a modest scale,\nyou will gain by associating your initiative with the broad national\npurposes of the NII rather than simply with education.\n2) Get the people who make the decisions involved, not just\nrepresentative constituency groups\nWhat you want TO demonstrate, it seems to me, are prototypes\nof the policy/financial partnerships and shifts in thinking that will be\nrequired to build out the education infrastructure. So you want\nproposals that require education decisionmakers to grapple with the\nsubstance of telecommunications issues and to commit some\nresources to changing the current paradigm.\nOne approach TO the grant program would be to gear the\nproject leadership TO the state level. Get states to make the\nproposals, including some or all of the following requirements: 1)\nMust involve corporate telecommunications and or higher education\npartners and state/local financial commitment; 2) Must attack\ntechnology equity issues; 3) Must involve wiring to classroom (or --\nif not a school -- user level) and plan for wide- and local-area\nnetwork/interactivity of one or more kinds; 1) Must include home\nschool linkages and linkages among teachers and between teachers\nand online data; 5) Must involve classroom teachers in computer\ntraining and planning for use of interactive materials in their\nclassroom program; 6) Must involve a financial plan at the school/or\ndistrict/or state level showing how the entity will incorporate\ntelecommunications costs into regular operating budgets.\nI started with states because some are already, as you know,\npretty far along in developing their statewide links. And I would\nlike TO see state leaders, who after all have the fiscal and\nconstitutional responsibility for schools, become much more vigorous\nin pushing -- through rhetoric, incentives, and example -- local\ndistricts to move forward. It is the state leaders who should be\ndemanding that their schools be equipped to train information-age\nworkers. These folk also are better able than school people to put\npressure on the telcos to step up to the challenge of making learning\nnetworks financially feasible for schools and libraries.\nThey are also in a position to \"encourage\" school district leaders\nto make institutional commitments, rather than simply take the\nmoney and run.\nOr you could model the program after the first round of NII\ngrants last year. As I recall, there were two types of grant --\nplanning and operational -- and project sponsorship was left fairly\nopen. If you don't have enough grant money to make hefty awards,\nthen the idea of encouraging a wide variety of types of partnership\nand seeing what you get has alot of appeal.\n3) This is an addendum to #2. Get people in policymaking\npositions to raise their political involvement in this issue.\nmatzke remote\n495-1131\n01/9/14/94\nI am not sure exactly how to do this, OF what the potential for\noutside cheerleaders is. But I am imagining some kind of ongoing\nsupport by folks that I think of as usually hanging back when they\nshould be exerting leadership: the Council of Chief State School\nOfficers, the Education Commission of the States, the National School\nBoards Association, American Association of School Administrators,\netc. I mean the education people who in their professional lives have\nsome kind of responsibility for shaping policy and/or spending\ndecisions. As I said when we talked, Shanker and Geiger can grace\nyour announcement, but what you need is the equally enthusiastic\nbacking of governance types.\nWhat about the National Governors Association? Could you get\nthem to make learning infrastructure an NGA priority? Can any of\nthese other groups be persuaded to provide rhetorical or symbolic\nsupport by carrying forward the learning communities theme in\ntheir own activities? Year of the Learning Community?\nAnother angle: Symbolic corporate interest in your program.\nThe Council on Competitiveness, which I staff for Al, has a major\ninitiative on the NII and just held a quite impressive two-day\napplications conference that included some education\ndemonstrations. As a nice non-Administration-favoring collection of\ncorporate giants, they might lend an effective bipartisan air to your\nefforts. You may already know that the Council's applications\nconference last week was co-sponsored by NIST.\nWell, I've rambled on far too long. And I fear this is not at all\nwhat you had in mind. If there is any redeeming social value in\nthese notions, however, don't hesitate to call on me again. If not, you\nknow where the circular file is!!!\nGood luck with the planning, Paul."
}