Using Technology to Improve Student Achievement - Term Paper Example

Impact of school funding on student achievement CHAPTER I The problem Introduction Difficult decisions are being made by governments in many countries with the end of rationalizing the allocation of resources especially in the education sector. To enable them to meet the broad social demands of education without especially incurring serious disruptions and dysfunctions, some measures must be taken (Unesco.org). Wise distribution of resources is necessary in managing student flows, as well as public funds. With the many variables involved that it is necessary to have a reliable information system to facilitate policy-making (Unesco.org). Two of the intentions of school funds are for technology and library media as they are envisioned to enhance interest in learning, and therefore upgrade student achievement. In fact, more than $66 billion is said to have been invested in school technology (QED, 2004). This unprecedented level of investment in educational technology has raised expectations of legislators and the public who have been looking for returns on this investment (Benton, 2002; CEO Forum, 1999, 2000), and therefore are calling for evidence regarding the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of technology especially in K-12 schools (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002; Panel on Educational Technology, 1997; Melmed, 1995). No child left behind (NCLB) requires states to demonstrate that "every student is technologically literate by the time the student finishes the eighth grade, regardless of the student's race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location, or disability" (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). While NCLB has established an eighth-grade technology literacy requirement, the requirement is not a full statement of knowledge and skills students need nor does it include a mechanism for ensuring accountability (Kay & Honey, in press). Educational funding has been found to be associated with student achievement (Lance (2001), Miller (2002), Siminitus (2002), and Whitington (2002). Generally, that would mean more funding may be able to enhance student achievement. The RAND study findings (Grissmer, et al. 2000) found that when other characteristics, like socio-economic status and family background, are equal, NAEP test scores are higher in states that have: 1) higher per-pupil expenditures, 2) lower pupil-teacher ratio in lower grades, 3) higher percentage of teachers who feel they have adequate resources for teaching, 4) more children in public pre-kindergarten programs, and 5) lower teacher turnover. In the Burke County, North Carolina Research (Pritchard 2000), the Burke County schools in 1995-96 reduced class sizes in first- and second-grade to 15 students per teacher.  The study found: 1) increased achievement in both reading and math, and 2) More teacher time devoted to instruction due to fewer discipline problems. The Ohio Education Association in a member survey stated that new educational policies have done more harm than good, while Ohio political leaders have continued to neglect severe funding problems of Ohio public schools (Ohio Education News). The highlights of the 4000 Member Survey include - Only 5% of respondents feel Ohio's school funding system gives every school district equal resources for a quality education for all students. Eighty-seven percent indicated Ohio's system of funding education is fundamentally flawed. Two-thirds feel that their school districts are under-funded, and 93% feel that Ohio schools overall are under-funded. Eighty-nine percent feel the state legislature has failed to solve the state's education funding crisis. Between 85% and 95% of those surveyed feel initiatives like No Child Left Behind, tuition vouchers, and some aspects of high-stakes testing have done more harm than good. Two of other popular researches include the Tennessee STAR Project (Prichard 2000a) which tested the effect of class size on student achievement, where smaller classes outperformed regular classes, and HEROS (Health and Education Research Operative Services) Research (Prichard 2000b) which also found that reducing class size increased student achievement, with the optimal student/ teacher ratio of 15:1. None of these studies looked into the effect of information and communication media into student achievement which can be had through strategic distribution of school funding. This study will look into this research gap. Purpose of study This paper will look into the impact of school funding on the achievement of students in the elementary, middle, and high schools in Ohio public schools. Specifically, the study will look into these questions - 1. What is the profile of the following: Teachers a. Highest Educational attainment b. Years experience in teaching Students a. Family income b. Parents’ education 2. What types of school funding are found in Ohio public schools? For information technology For library media 3. What types of school funding are found in Ohio public schools by school category- Elementary Middle High School 4. How do technology and library media compare when categorized according to student achievement? Excellent student achievement Fair student achievement Poor student achievement Unacceptable student achievement Conceptual framework The United States 2006 Discretionary Budget Authority amount is $56.0 billion, which represents a 1% decrease from 2005. (Office of Management and Budget, 2006). The Budget has come under some criticism for this decrease as some feel that cuts, if necessary at all, could be obtained in areas other than education. But perhaps more relevant is how this money is distributed, and what use it is put to. Experts say that it is schools with the best partners (with roles of supplying educational requirements), and with the highest level of parental involvement, that get the best results, as well as an environment where regular communication can be had (Nieto, 2003). According to Nieto (2003), school funding and academic achievement are related. Such funding can indirectly be the factor which facilitates allowing the learner to go on to study further in institutions such as colleges and universities. Funding also allows the many educational opportunities available to the learner (Great Britain Parliament, 2004/2005). Schools which receive more funding than others are at an advantage. This is the concept behind inundating schools today. In 1999, Kevin Payne and Bruce Biddle wrote an article for The Educational Researcher concerning the effects of poor school funding, child poverty and achievement. In it they state that school funding across America is very inconsistent, with schools in some states receiving more than $15,000 per year per student, and some schools in other states receiving only $3,000 per student per year. It would be logical to conclude that the schools receiving the greater amount of funding should show better results, but according to the article, this is not the case (Payne & Biddle, 1999). A positive association was found, however, between school funding and student achievement in the studies of Lance (2001), Miller (2002), Siminitus (2002), and Whitington (2002). This study will therefore look into the association of these variables, applying the situation to Ohio public schools. What follows is the framework. Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the study showing relationship of school funding and student achievement. More school funding would mean a raise in student achievement since there would be more resources for access to technology and library media. Key concepts The five key concepts for this study are school funding, student achievement, technology, library media, and educational policies. The most important of these are school funding and student achievement, two variables that are being linked. School funding. Funds for public education in the United States are said to come from the combined effort of state and local appropriations, as well as funds available from the federal government. Because school facilities are funded primarily by local revenues, characteristics of the community, particularly the property tax base, are important factors contributing to the condition of schools (U.S. Department of Education 1995, cited in Conditions). Then, because community factors tend to vary, they lead to disparity in the funding available for schools from community to community (Conditions, 1999). Disparities in funding for schools in general, make it impossible to draw direct comparisons across the studies. Before technology and before library media, the government has to spend a lot on school construction costs alone to answer to the objective of raising student achievement. With advances in technology, new construction is becoming increasingly expensive. Most new schools will have a computer laboratory and local area networks (LANs) all in the elementary, middle, and high schools. Many secondary schools will have educational technology labs. In addition, education technology includes computers and peripherals, software, connectivity, networks, technology infrastructure, distance education, maintenance and repair of technology equipment, and technology-related professional development and ongoing support for teachers. Some five years ago, NEA provided a cost estimate of $322 billion needed for school modernization alone (NEA 2000, cited in Conditions.). Student achievement. While many different terms have been used to describe what students need, such as digital literacy, technological literacy, and 21st century skills, education leaders, nationally and internationally, are beginning to come together around a new common definition of what students need to know: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Literacy. ICT Literacy reflects the need for students to develop learning skills that enable them to think critically, analyze information, communicate, collaborate, and problem-solve, and the essential role that technology plays in realizing these learning skills in today's knowledge-based society. Representative of the ICT literacy skills, following are among six areas critical to students' success in the workplace (Kay and Honey, 2005, cited in Critical Issues): Technology. Technology can help raise student achievement by engaging students and igniting their imaginations. It also helps teachers stimulate young minds in ways that make a profound and lasting difference. A summary of research projects conducted over the past two decades show the positive impact of technology on student achievement. (Raising, Apple.com) The integration of technology into the curriculum has been shown to decrease absenteeism, lower dropout rates, and motivate more students to continue on to college. (Raising, Apple.com). Suffice to say, technology cannot be had without funding injected into the school system That the government is spending much for technology is proof of recognition that it can help raise student achievement .The US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology reports that the No Child Left Behind Act has provided $15 million for a five year research study to identify the conditions necessary for technology to improve student achievement utilizing scientifically based research methods. (Raising, Apple.com). No Child Left Behind requires that every student be technology-literate by the time they finish the 8th grade. The office also reports that every program in the No Child Left Behind Act is an opportunity for technology funding since technology can be used to help accomplish specific program goals. (Raising, Apple.com). Definitions School funding. In this study, school funding refers only to government funds given to the school system. Student achievement. The term refers to the general performance of students expressed as excellent, fair, poor, and unacceptable as shown in an exam measuring Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives in a science examination. Technology. This indicates the manner of teaching and learning through use of computers and other information technology support. Library media. The term refers to books, periodicals, videos, software packages and audiovisual materials available to students in schools. Educational policies. This refers to regulations and legislations issued by government in matters pertaining to school funding and related matters. Scope and delimitations of the study As education has so many roles (Unesco.org) such as sustainable human development, poverty reduction, the promotion of universal human values and tolerance, and the challenge of new information and communication technologies, this study will focus on the last aspect. The challenge of new information and communication technologies will require a perusal into relevant research in IT and library media then. This scope is reflected in the conceptual framework of this study in Figure 1. The relationship of school funding and student achievement is the general concern of this study. School funding in this context largely refers to government funds fed into the school, although when called for, company sponsorships may be discussed. The objective of this latter source are largely for short-term to full-term scholarships or research support for selected students and so not much decision making is involved in its distribution. Fees from parents are ordinarily government money in public schools where in some states, these are remitted to the government first and so will not be included as funding in the sense intended by this study. The respondents of this study in terms of schools, teachers, and students will heavily depend upon access to them and the time involved, including available budget. The students will come from 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th grade students of a total population of roughly 1600 in the public schools of Ohio. The 12th grade students are purposely not included are some may not be on campus for off-campus requirements. The schools targeted are Chestnut Intermediate Elementary School, North Olmsted High School, and North Olmsted Middle School - all of the North Olmsted City Schools School District, Ohio. The teachers will also come from these classes and the education officials will come from these three schools. An exam in science will be given to these students at the start of classes for a bench mark study. The same exam will be given after some four months to gauge the difference. In between, their teachers must have used much technology and required much use of library media. These materials must be from government funding for the schools. Use of technology rather than use of library media will take paramount interest in this research. Use of library sources will only take an accessory role. Significance of the study Student achievement cannot be left entirely to the learner. He has to have access to the best that the school can provide in terms of qualified teachers, technology, and library materials. In turn, these cannot come by without enough funding for salaries and staff development, computers and other information technology support, and competent library materials. Although there is funding, this has to be enough. Moreover, the directives for its distribution must consider also the other needs of the organization that may enhance or delimit the purpose of raising student achievement. This study will then be of much use to the following – To policy makers. Policy making is so important in that when policies are harsh or discordant, they do more harm than good. Policy and decision-makers are responsible for developing a clear vision and relevant implementation strategies to take up the challenge of achieving the mission they are given, especially in the context of the Education for All (Unesco.org). Some background information then is necessary on the subject that the policy is to deal with. The data that this study will gather may be able to guide policy makers in education both in the national as well as in the regional and local levels down to the school managers as in matters of distribution of funds from the government, from donors, as well from parents in the form of fees. To Administrators When money is available, distributing it takes paramount consideration. Schools sometimes may have other priorities other than those intended by government and sponsoring companies. The findings and recommendations that this study will provide may help school management to re-orient their outlook on school funding. To Planning team. Planners are expected to be able to identify practices, attitudes, and policies that can be enhanced through the use of technology to foster significant improvement in the character and quality of student learning (Critical issues). They are also expected to become familiar with and be aware of the value of technology for all students. Especially for those considered at risk of educational failure, this study may stimulate the planners to ensure that all students have equitable access to effective uses of technology and develop strategies for addressing access inequities, and strategies for addressing curriculum inequities. To Teachers. Classes are designed by the teachers and materials used are largely those of their own choice. They are supposed to determine the purpose of using technology in the classroom, as determined by the specified educational goals. Is it used to support inquiry, enhance communication, extend access to resources, guide students to analyze and visualize data, enable product development, or encourage expression of ideas? From this study, they may be able to gain ideas in creating a plan for evaluating students' work and assessing the impact of the technology. Teachers are at the forefront in communicating ideas to students. From the results of this study, they may encourage students to broaden their horizons with technology by means of global connections, electronic visualization, electronic field trips, and online research and publishing. Use technology (such as an e-mail list) to connect with other teachers outside the school to compare successful strategies for teaching with technology may be encouraged. Technology coordinator. From data presented, these coordinators may be stimulated to ensure that students have equitable access to various technologies (such as presentation software, video production, Web page production, word processing, modeling software, and desktop publishing software) to produce projects. They may also create opportunities for students to share their work publicly--through performances, public service, open houses, science fairs, and videos. To the librarians. Research shows that availability and quality of library materials are associated with funding and ultimately with student achievement. Since librarians are also involved in suggesting books and other materials and in making these available to the school public, data gathered in this study may upgrade their knowledge of influencing student achievement. References Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://165.224.221.98/surveys/frss/publications/2000032/3.asp Critical Issue: Using Technology to Improve Student Achievement. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm Educational Policies and Plans. UNESCO.org. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=8369&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Field-initiated studies grant awards for fiscal year 1996. The National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum and Assessment. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/FIS/FY96-archive/fis-sai.html GLEF, (2006), For the best results, schools need partners. Retrieved March 9, 2006 from http://www.edutopia.org/php/article.php?id=Art_590&key=189 Great Britain Parliament (2004 – 2005) House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, National Skills Strategy 14 – 199 Education. Griffith, M. (2005, April). School finance litigation and beyond. Prepared for the ECS project on school finance adequacy, funded by The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/60/26/6026.htm Grissmer, A. F., Kawata, J. & Williamson, S. Improving Student Achievement: What State NAEP Test Scores Tell Us, Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2000. Hansen, J.S. New funding challenges. School spending. The business of education. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.asbj.com/schoolspending/resources0502hansen.html Increasing Student Achievement: What Research Tells Us. League of Education voters. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://www.educationvoters.org/legislation_campaigns/i728_isa_wrtu.htm Lance, K. C. (2001, September). Proof of the power: Quality library media programs affect academic achievement. MultiMedia Schools. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/sep01/lance.htm [Keith Curry Lance is director of Library Research Service, Colorado]. Lance, K. C. The Impact of School Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement. SLMQ Volume 22, Number 3, Spring 1994. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/editorschoiceb/infopower/selectlancehtml.htm [Also published by ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology Syracuse NY at http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/library.htm]. Miller, K. (2002, March). Resource Allocation: Targeting Funding for Maximum Impact. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.mcrel.org/PDFConversion/PolicyBriefs/PB_ResourceAllocation.html [This policy brief is based on a presentation given by David Grissmer, Senior Management Scientist at RAND, to McREL staff and board members on Jan. 3, 2002]. Nieto, S. (2003) What keeps teachers going? P. 93, Teachers College Press, Amsterdam, New York. OEA Teacher Consensus Across the Political Spectrum: Ohio Legislators and School Policies Performing Poorly. Ohio Education News. January 2006. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://www.queuenews.com/Newsletters%20Jan/Ohio_Education_1.html Office of Management and Budget, (2006), Department of Education, retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/education.html. Payne, K. and Biddle, B. (1999), The Educational Researcher, Poor school funding, child poverty and mathematics achievement. Retrieved March 9, 2006 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-189X%28199908%2F09%2928%3A6%3C4%3APSFCPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&size=LARGE. Pritchard, I. “Class Size Research in Education: HEROS Class Size Research,” Management Information: School Information and Research Service, Vol. 25, 2000, pp. 10-12. Pritchard, I. “Reducing Class Size, What Do We Know?” Management Information: School Information and Research Service, Vol. 25, 2000, pp. 13-23. Regional Educational Laboratory (1992), Money makes a difference in equitable education. Retrieved March 8, 2006 from http://www.edutopia.org/php/article.php?id=Art_590&key=189. Research and resources. Mobile computing for education. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.apple.com/education/research [A collection of research studies and other resources report how the integration of mobile computing in education has contributed significantly to an increase in student motivation and achievement]. Research and resources. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.apple.com/education/mobilecomputing/research.html Richardson, C. Data-informed research and practice: Evaluating student achievement in secondary schools. Using Data to Support Learning. Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://www.acer.edu.au/workshops/documents/Richardson.pdf [Carmel Richardson is a Senior Research Fellow at the Australian Council for Educational Research. Siminitus, J. 2002. California School Library Media Centers and Student Achievement. A Survey of Issues and Network Applications. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.kn.pacbell.com/survey/k12libraries.pdf Whitington, D. 2000. School Funding Equity. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.geocities.com/~schoolfunding/equity.html Read More