Report of the Governor's Task Force on Computers in Education

              REPORT
OF
THE GOVERNOR'S
DECEMBER 24, 1984
2014 East Marshall Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
December 24, 19'84
HAND-DELIVERED
Honorable Bruce Babbitt
Governor
Office of the Governor
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Re: Governor's Task Force on Computers
in Education
Dear Governor Babbitt:
On May 3, 1984, you convened your Task Force on
Computers in Education, requested that it report to you
'about the time that the snow flew in the high country,'
and sent us off to meet and conspire. We took the 'high
country" reference to mean the 5,000 foot elevation found
in Oak Creek,
On this occasion, which we believe is the first snow fall
in Oak Creek, we are trasmitting to you our report. We
nope you may find parts of it suitable for your "State of
the State" address to the legislature some 20 days from
now. 7
David C, Tierney
Chairman
DCT:bja
Enclosure
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Letter to Governor Bruce Babbitt
1. Introduction
2. Summary of Recommendations
3. The Report
A. What Is a Computer?
B. The Basic Components of a Computer
C, Microcomputers and Economy in
Education; Quality of Education And
Skills Of The Future
D. Impact on the Choice of Computers
for Education
E. The Role of Computer Assisted
Instruction and Computer Literacy
F. Arizona and the Nation
G. Teacher Training in Arizona
H. The Status of Educational Software
I. Schools' Development of Curricula
J. Task Force Recommendations, Seven
Basic Things.,,
K. Specific Strategies for the Governor,
Legislature, Department of Education,
Teachers, Administrators and
Parents
L. Conclusion
APPENDICES *
Referred
to on Page
1 A List of Commission Members.
19 B DOE Center for Computer Education Services study of
numbers of computers in Arizona Schools, County by
County.
28 E Software in Use in Arizona. Two studies.
33 J Matrix showing sample K-12 curriculum using
computers integrated into standard portions of the
school curriculum.
* A complete copy of appendices may be obtained by writing to
Dr. Randall at the Governor's office.
REPORT OF THE GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE
ON COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION
1. Introduction:
On May 3, 1984, Governor ~abbitt convened his
Task Force on Computer Education, asking it to produce a
thoughtful paper of real use to parents, teachers, school
board members, administrators, Department of Education
officials, and legislators. The Task Force was asked to
examine computers and their uses in education, the situation
now existing in Arizona, the directions that education should
take in the future as regards use of computers, and the re-sources
needed to pursue that direction.
The Task Force was comprised of equal size
groups of private sector people familiar with computers,
elementary and high school educators working with computers in
the classroom, and university professors involved in training
teachers to use computers--seventeen people in all. See
Appendix A for the names of the members.
The group met on nine occasions: visited certain
sites, together and in small groups; worked during the summer
in small groups: read extensive materials; and produced the
following report.
2. Summary of Recommendations.
Starting on page 34, in Section 3 (51, there are
seven specific basic recommendations. They are not attempts
at horse-trading, i.e. asking for seven points, hoping to get
approval for four or five points. The seven recommendations
involve "bare bones" actionable items which are needed now to
counteract a serious lack of direction in our State's local
districts, which, if not corrected, will leave Arizona far
behind other states in the race to educate our children for
the job descriptions of tomorrow. The Task Force has made
some interesting findings on the availability of hardware in
the local districts and has concentrated on teacher training
and software availability as being the major obstacles to
rapid improvements concerning computers in education.
TEACHER TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS:
The recommendations attack the lack of teacher
training by calling for a tax credit of $250 for each teacher
who takes University graduate-level courses designed to equip
the teacher to utilize the computer in the classroom. The
recommendations envision 3,200 teachers being trained each
year for the next three years by University classes which
would be taught on-site in the schools where the teachers
work. The program is designed in such a way as to avoid the
~egislature's having to allocate tax dollars to the local
districts (or to any entity). The program is designed to
create the motiviation for action by the individual teachers
themselves.
A computer training certification requirement
for new teachers and a recertification requirement for
teachers already "in-service" is recommended.
There is a recommendation for some modest
immediate funding to the three Universities' Colleges of
Education to promptly increase software and hardware acqui-sition
so as to help in the training of new teachers and in
certain research.
EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE RECOMMENDAT IONS :
The Task Force proposes an Arizona "Apple Law"
to increase tax deductions for the donation of approved soft-ware
to school districts and recommends investigating the
application of such a law to hardware donations too.
A pilot school program is proposed with modest
funding so as to encourage schools to create, perfect, and
test innovative programs to improve education by the use of
technology in the classroom.
The funding of a State Department of Education
office called the "Center for Computer Education" is urgently
requested so that a legislatively mandated State Software
Directory of approved educational programs can be continued
and improved and so that certain other coordinating work can
be performed.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS:
Finally, the Task Force asks for a year-long
investigation into the possibility of doing in Arizona
essentially what Tennessee and Texas have accomplished, the
creation of a state-wide requirement that 7th and 8th graders
receive a full semester of hands-on intensive computer
training.
SUMMARY :
In summary the recommendations are:
1. Tax credit to create rapid teacher training,
such training to be through the Universities.
2. A certification and recertification
requirement.
3. Funding for the Universities to increase
software and hardware on haad to train new teachers.
4. An "Apple Law" to help provide increased
software to local districts.
' 5 . A pilot program concerning innovative
programs in local schools.
6. Funding for the DOE'S "Center for Computer
Education."
7. Investigation of the possibility of a
statewide semester course for students just before high
school.
3. The Report
A. What Is A Computer?
What can it do?
A computer is a machine which has multiple uses
in data storage, data analysis, and communication. Software
programs are specific instructions to the computer written in
a language that the computer "reads" which enable the computer
to organize and to store information. Hardware is the physi-cal
components, such as a keyboard or printer, which is needed
to perform the things that are to be done. Together, software
and hardware make a computer system. The uses of computers
can be shown by examining word processing, spread sheets, and
graphics applications, all things which computers routinely
do.
Word processing is an activity which, through
data storage software, allows the uses to type in a document,
such as a mailing list or a report, and then "manipulate" the
data that has been input. For example, if there are changes
needed, only the changes are typed. A new document will be
generated that reflects the changes and leaves the rest of the
stored text in place. Many other features, such as centering
a line, aligning the text, or checking spelling, can be part
of the program. A significant amount of effort is saved by
eliminating wasted retyping, and many tedious things can be
accomplished by the press of a key.
Spreadsheets are an example of data analysis
software that organizes columns of information. A sample
application of spreadsheets are the computers used in grocery
stores. They sense the items purchased, by reading from the
code marked' on the package, and then put information such as
price and category into the cash register and onto the sales
receipt. In addition, they simultaneously delete the item
from the store's inventory. The information generated is
organized by the computer on charts or graphs and is used to
give other information, such as recommendations as to what
items or when to purchase items so as to restock depleted
inventory. Any type of information can be obtained from the
stored data, depending on the programmed instructions to the
computer. A frequent use of spreadsheets is the creation of
"what if" projections, such as "what if sales increased 30% in
January--what supplies would we need to order then?"
Graphics software interprets information so as
to create drawings. For example, in the garment industry, a
computer can communicate with a printer to draw a pattern on
fabric for cutting and sewing purposes. The computer can also
create a layout of the most efficient utilization of the
material for each size of garment. In the integrated circuit
industry, where very small dimensions and hazardous materials
are commonpLace, computers can communicate with other com-puters
to easily perform fabrication and design tasks that are
hazardous or cannot be done by humans alone. Computers also
communicate with viewing screens, such as in a car design.
For example, components can be drawn and tested to examine
problems. Changes can be made to the drawing without re-drawing
the whole design.
B. The Basic Components Of A Computer
The basic concept that all computers are capable
of performing any given task is true: the only difference is
that some computers are faster, operate at lower cost, or are
used more widely (have more already made software). This all
creates a bit of confusion for the user/buyer. To add to the
confusion, the buyer is faced with enormous marketing and
advertizing programs by IBM, Apple, Commodore, Atari, Tandy
Corp., and others. All are relatively low-cost computers.
Let's now describe a new general category called
Low Cost Computer (LCC) and include in the category only those
computers which sell for less than a used compact automobile
(less than $2,999). The computers which are not in this
category are sold by such companies as Digital Equipment
Corporation (DEC), Prime, Burroughs, NCR, Honeywell, IBM,
Amdahl, Cray, and others which sell computers for between
$3,000 and $10,000,000 or more.
Currently sold products which fall into the LC6
category are too numerous to list. However, in order to
eliminate much confusion, we will summarize the individual
integrated circuit components and software used to build these
LCC computers. The list will indicate the more stable prod-ucts
and, thus, the list becomes amazingly short. Evaluating
the computers in this way, we can establish the components
most desirable for the educational organization interested in
buying and using computers.
All LCC's can be described or evaluated by the
ten basic hardware components. These include:
1. CPU (the Central Processing Unit).
2. Memory, both random access (erasable)
memory, called RAM, and read only (non-erasable)
machine memory (ROM), sometimes
called "firmware" because it is more perina-nent
then "software."
3. Mass Storage (Floppy or hard-disk drives).
4. Serial I/O (1 line of input/output) -
usually for communication between com-puters.
5 . Parallel 1/0 (8 lines or more input/output) - usually for printers.
6 . Printer (output for humans to read).
7. Display Monitors (output for humans to
read).
8 . Keyboard (human input).
9. Gadgets such as Mouse, Touch screen, joy
sticks, light pens, or other pointing
devices.
10. Expansion slots capable of having functions
added into the basic computer.
All computers can also be described or evaluated
by the three basic software components. These include:
1. Operating System (software "glue" to link
the hardware together at all times so that
the system can be instructed by particular
programs to perform tasks.)
2. High level languages (languages such as
BASIC, COBOL, and PASCAL suited for human
control of computers, while "assembly
language" is a low language most suited for
the CPU).
3 . Application software (word processing,
spreadsheets, data base, games, educational
software, etc. )
Let's look very specifically at the 10 items of
hardware as they relate to 95% of all LCC's in use. What does
one usually get?
8088/
1. CPU Type 6502 Type 280 Type 8086 Type 68000 Type
Apple 11's TRS-80 IBM-PC Apple-Mac Intosh
(high vis- Atari CP/M Based IBM-Clones
ibility Commodore MSX (Japan) MS-DOS Computers
brands ) :
2. Memory: 4K - 128K bytes, with the more sophisticated
having 64K - 128K bytes
3. Mass Storage: Single or double floppy disks $250 - $600
Hard disk 5-20 M bytes upgrades $1-3000
4. Serial 1/10: 0 - 2 ports, 2 desirable: 1 for tele-communications,
1 for local area networks
5 . Parallel 1/10: 1 port for a printer
6. Printer: Should be able to reproduce screen images with
standard paper (not all perform this function,
as some cannot reproduce graphics shown on the
screen). Impact printers, using a "daisy
wheel, " or dot-matrix printers, the latter
being far less expense and faster.
7. Display
Monitor: CRT with resolution of 290 X 192 to 640 X 440
color or with a high resolution monitor 1024 X
1024.
8. Keyboard: Most have typewriter keyboards.
9. Gadgets: Most have some kind of gadget available. The
"mouse" seems most popular.
10. Expansion: Apple I1 and IBM-PC have expansion 4-6 slots.
This allows future add-in functions.
Now, let's look very specifically at the three basic software
components as they relate to 95% of all LCC's
in use.
1. Operating Systems Apple, Atari, Commodore, TRS-80,
Apple-Macintosh have their own propri-etary
operating system. CPM, MS-DOS, MSX
are machine independent operating systems
for the 280 and 8088 CPU's. UNIX is the
most popular for the 68000.
2. High Level Languages
Cobol
Fortran
C
BASIC
Logo
~asc'al
for business software
for scientific/engineering use.
for new software generation.
the old standby.
educational geometry and structured
thought.
between Basic and C, currently having a
large following.
3. ----S omwdsefoap irAtrndpaea pa nbpldcarisisochaecael.ete saitsno.odn r .iS novfetnwtaorrey . - drill and practice, tutorials, communications, robotics, or
music, etc., and classroom management programs. - games. - graphics. - simulations.
The Future of Low-Cost Computers:
Today's low-cost computers (those under $3,000) in
one sense represent the Model A era of the computer tech-
nology. Since 1975, the LCC's have evolved to where we can
definitely say they are here to stay; however, by studying the
above catageries, one sees there are probably only two or
three models of computers which presently represent the more
stable choices: Apple IIe and IIc; IBM; PC and PC Jr. and the
Commodore 64.
The computer industry as a whole is in a state of
flux. Within five years, networking LCC's will, most likely,
replace approximately 90% of the existing higher cost com-puters
which are today ranging in price from $3,000 to
$10,000,000. This potential savings represents a major new
"source" of computer purchasing power for many current users
of the higher cost computers (such as school districts).
Schools could convert all existing data processing functions
onto a network of Low Cost Computers. Everyone in an organ-ization
would be working with the same operating system,
thereby sharing the small information base.
Just like the automobile industry, where people drive
20-year-old cars, we can now begin to think of using 20-year-old
computers some years into the future. The next generation
of technology (the chips are just now being produced) will
execute instructions at the speed of most half-million dollar
computers with equal to or greater memory capacity (16 million
bytes). Basically speaking, it will be like having a car that
can go 120 miles per hour while living in a state that has a
55 mile per hour speed limit. We will have in the next gener-ation
all the computer power which one could need; higher
performance will be available, but ample computer power will
be provided for general needs by the LCC's just about to come
on the market.
Since the current hardware and operating systems will
be capable of being updated, they will be a stabilizing force.
The software companies will follow with more and more stable
packages. Applications software will in the future be rou-tinely
supported with updates. Quality will begin to be
demanded, and only well-supported software for key applica-tions
such as word processors, spreadsheets, financial pack-ages,
educational software, et=. will be saleable in the
marketplace.
C. Microcomputers And Economy In Education; Quality
Of Education, And Skills Of The Future.
Education is in a "squeeze" today. Costs are
going up and, in many places, the tax base is declining or
revenue increases are, for various reasons, not matching the
increasing costs. Every expenditure of a modern-day school
district has to be carefully weighed against other needs which
are clamoring for resources.
In a 1983 article in the Journal of Educational
Psycholol~y 75, pp. 19-26, recounting work done under Grant NT
SED 79-20742 of the National Science Foundation, author James
A. Kulik summarized the findings of 48 studies directed toward
the effects of computer-assisted instruction ( focused upon
grades 6 through 12). The average effect of the use of
computer-assisted instruction was to raise student test scores
by .32 standard deviation, thus from the 50th to the 63rd
percentile of test scores. Even more important than the
improvement of scores was the strong indication that there
were large savings in the time it took for students to learn
the same material. Finally, the attitudes of the students
toward using computers in the future were strikingly improved
by their exposure to the computer-assisted instruction. See
also Kulik, James A., "Synthesis of Research on Computer Based
Instruction," Educational Leadership, 9//83, p. 21.
Karen Billings, in "Research on School
Computing," ASCD 1982, pp. 12-18, reviewed the research to
that date and indicated that computer-assisted instruction
"leads to higher achievement and that the amount of time
needed to learn is significantly reduced for mathematics or
language arts skills." She showed that augmenting classroom
instruction with C.A.I. provides "superior performance on the
SAT." Ms.- Billings reviewed a study of fourth to eighth
graders involving word processing and said, "The children
found writing on the computer easier than writing by hand, and
they wrote more willingly. They also enjoyed making changes
in their texts and learned to make more types of revisions.
The research on the effects of C.A.I. on achievement generally
shows positive results," she wrote.
In G. Kearsley's "Two Decades of Computer Based
Instruction Projects: What Have We Learned?" Volume 10,
T.H.E. Journal, 44, 2/83, p. 94, the author concludes that
C.A. I. "should be viewed as a successful educational innova-tion
of major proportions."
Kearsley, however, points out that there are
several problems that limit attaining maximum results.
"Teachers are fundamentally trained to deliver content in a
group settinq; they are not [in their traditional courses]
well prepared to provide individual tutoring on content de-livered
by a computer. Further, they are trained around
content rather than around the kind of thinkinq.. . needed to
use computers as tools. We now understand the need to
dramatically alter thexture of teacher training in order to
create roles in schools compatible with the effective use of
computers. However, this may take years, probably decades, to
implement in our teacher colleges." (Emphasis added.)
Kearsley went on to say, "(W)e have just barely scratched the
surface of what can be achieved by C.A.I. C.A.I. has been
primarily driven by advances in computer and information
systems technology while the instructional theory has lagged
behind [possible] applications. Emerging technologies, such
as handheld computers, speech processing, videotext, and
direct broadcast satellites a11 will likely have significant
effects on C.A.I."
The "bottom line" here, according to Governor
Babbitt's Task Force, is as follows.
We know C.A.I. works well, even though the
discipline is really in its infancy.
We know that great savings in instruction time,
and thus great economy, can be achieved.
We know that SAT scores (one measure of learn-ing)
can be very significantly affected by C.A.I.
We know that a student's attitude toward the use
of computers in later life can be greatly affected by the use
of C.A.I.
In conclusion, with the U.S. Labor and Commerce
Departments predicting that, by the end of the 1980s, 50 to
75%* of all jobs will be computer-related, Arizona must not
lag behind in bringing Computer-Assisted Instruction into our
schools; According to the Department of Labor, of the six
occupations that are expected to grow the fastest over the
* See Johnson, James P., Perspectives, 2/83, "Can Computers
Close the Educational Equity Gap?" pp. 20-25.
next decade, f i v e are computer-related. To assure their
future livelihood, children must now learn an easy familiarity
with computers.
Impact Cn The Choice Of Computer8 For Education.
No one can tell an American family which of the
dozen8 of automobiles for male on the market can best meet the
family' 8 needrr. Price, features, color, availability of
model, seasonal aaler, etc. all impact upon the choice and the
timing of the purchase which the family makes. These rame
factorr will impact upon an educational authority98 choice of
LCC (Low Cost Computer) for uoe in education.
However, a few observations must be made.
Comparative rhopping is a wise thing to do. A district should
first decide what tasks it wants to do with computer eystems
and create a written plan: tentatively select the software to
best accomplish those tasks: establish that there is and will
be continuing 8upp0rt for that software; TRAIN A NUMBER OF ITS
TEACHERS (double checking to be sure that the task selection
and the software selection was reasonable) : and, only .then,
buy its hardware and rroftware. In buying the hardware, the
persons making the selection ehould evaluate the ten aspects
of hardware referred to in the preceeding section (#B) and,
particularly, the future support-which can be expected to be
available for that hardware once it has been selected. It
does no good to find a "bargain" computer which will run the
properly selected software, if the computer purchased will
likely be unsupported in only two or three years.
We suggest that a district arriving at the point
of selecting hardware should pay very careful attention to
section F (i,), wherein we discuss what brand computer systems
are currently found most frequently in educational
institutions across the nation. The existing ones most fre-quently
found (Apple, Commodore, Radio Shack, IBM) are
probably particularly likely to continue to be well supported
systems in the future.
Finally, a special caveat about choice of the
hardware in a computer system. That choice should not be made
until after the software selection has been made. Too many
schools and school districts have been "gulled" into choosing
a machine because the machine was compact or cheap or versa-tile,
only to find that there simply was no educa.tiona1
software available for that marvelous machine. We cannot say
it any plainer than this: choose a machine that will run the
software which you have selected; do not do the reverse'. If a
sufficient amount of high quality software is not available on
your system to do the kinds of work that you want to do, then
you will be wasting your money buying hardware, regardless of
how little it costs. See Appendix C hereto for things to look
for in purchasing.software.
E. The Role Of Computer-Assisted Instruction And
Computer Literacy.
Computers are the most amazing educational tools
since the first mass-produced textbook. Computers are re-active
and responsive teaching machines that never grow tired
with repetition and never become testy with a student's re-peated
mistakes, Computers can give private and individu-alized
instruction without any detracting emotional content.
Computers can free teacher time for the performance of other
difficult tasks in the classroom.
There are two basic ways that computers are used
in schools: you can teach -with them -- or you can teach about them.
(i) The "teaching with them" is usually called
"Computer-Assisted Instruction," "C.A.I." for short. Great
numbers of books have been written about the subject. How-ever,
C.A.I. can be summed up as having three basic parts:
drill and practice, tutorial, and simulation.
Drill and practice programs provide the
student with a series of questions to be answered or problems
to be solved. Typically the drill and practice uses involve
refinement of basic skills such as math and spelling. Some of
these programs are set up in such a way that they tally a
student's right and wrong answers but others inform the
teacher and student about the nature of the errors. Extra
practice in those problem areas is provided by the program.
Needless to say, the time savings for the teacher can be
enormous, and the intensive and individualized instruction can
be invaluable for the student.
Tutorial programs aim to teach concepts to
the student. In general, these programs assume that the
student has little or no prior knowledge of the subject--for
example, the rules of grammar or geometry--and carefully guide
the student through all the steps needed to master the con-cepts.
Some tutorial programs incorporate graphics and text
to explain why a response to a question is wrong. Most in-corporate
"branches" which route the student to a more diffi-cult
level when he/she demonstrates mastery of a level or
which route the student back to a simpler level when he/she
demonstrates by his/her responses that he/she has missed a
concept.
The third use of computers tends to occur
at the higher grades. Chemistry students or physics students
can do experiments using simulations which would be too ex-pensive
or time consuming to do in a laboratory. Social
studies students can role-play a presidential candidate and
participate in electoral college maneuvers in all 50 states
against polling results written into the program. Economics
students can fill the shoes of stock market tycoons or presi-dents
of businesses faced with programmed economic problems.
An excellent collection of articles and
books on C.A.1. is attached as Appendix D to this report.
(ii) "Teaching about computers" has two basic
branches. One is often termed "Computer Literacy." The
typical computer literacy course is taught to beginners and
illustrates: (a) what a computer is and what it can and cannot
do: (b) how the computer works: (c) how computers function in
society: and (dl the ethics and law relating to computers.
The second branch of "teaching about computers" involves
"computer science courses" wherein the student is given in-struction
in how to write and refine computer programs.
(iii) We should not skip over the obvious use of
computers that can be made by teachers and administrators
alike. Education involves a huge amount of record keeping,
attendance records, sick reports, financial matters, payrolls,
school bus maintenance records, student progress from level to
level of advanced courses, etc. Computers are ideal for those
functions.
(iv) Finally, we want to make a special note of
the potential importance of word processing in education.
Research has shown that students can learn to write text more
easily when taught in conjunction with a word processing
course. Word processing is nothing more than using the com-puter
as an electronic notepad, pencil, and eraser to create,
edit, store, and print text in an extremely legible fashion.
Words, sentences, and entire paragraphs can be rearranged and
changed. Spelling errors can be located and easily corrected.
Word processing is a tool which most school children of today
will surely use in the workplace of the future.
Arizona- And The Nation.
(i) There are 260 million people in the nation
today, 26 million of them being teenagers. Some 33% of house-holds
nationwide will have a computer by 1985, but 80% will
have one by 1990. Less than 90 of the 9,000 educational
software programs on the market are described as "exciting and
using the full potential of the computer" by the Educational
Products Information Exchange.
In late 1983, there were approximately
83,000 schools nationwide (with 290,000 microcomputers in use
in those schools). The last three years' statistics show an
astonishing growth in computers in schools that looks like
this:
Number of schools with
microcomputers 14,132 30,859 55,175
Number of schools not
using microcomputers,
approximately
Thus, 66.5% of all schools nationwide now have microcomputers.
Nationwide, the leading brands line up as follows for the 1983-84
school year:
Number of School
Bldas. with Micro-computers
Apple 36,781
Radio Sh/Tandy 14,113
Commodore 9,166
Atari 2,216
IBM 1,244
other
The statistics show that, nationwide, the larger the school
district, the more likely it is to have microcomputers. Also,
the wealthier the community, the more likely the district is to
have microcomputers. Urban and suburban schools are more likely
to have microcomputers than are rural schools.
All of the above statistics were gathered by Quality Education
Data, Inc. ("Q.E.D.") in November - December of 1983, and were
released in an excellent January, 1984, study entitled "1983-84
Microcomputer Usage in Schools."
The final two pages of charts i n the Q.E.D. survey are copied and
inserted as the next page of t h i s report because they provide -one
measure of the commitment of schools i n d i f f e r e n t s t a t e s to the
use of computers in education, i.e. a student-per-computer r a t i o .
To summarize the 16 states which have as good or a better ratio
than Arizona's 125-student-per-microcomputer, as listed by
Q.E.D., we have listed the States and their ratios:
Colorado 99
Florida 110
Iowa 96
Kansas 96
Minnesota 63
Montana 70
New Jersey 125
North Dakota 125
Ok 1 ahoma 111
Oregon 114
South Dakota 62
Utah 98
Vermont 77
Washington 104
Wisconsin 110
Wyoming 96
Some 12 more states fall in the 150-126 ratio range:
Arkansas 145
California 142
Delaware 140
D. C. 131
Idaho 139
Illinois 134
Maine 137
Nevada 149
N.H. 131
N.M. 140
New York 134
Texas 145
Thus, as of the fall of 1983, we in Arizona appeared to be at
the high end of the "middle of the pack," having 508,000
students in 222 districts, with 4,077 microcomputers: thus
with a 125/1 student-to-computer ratio.
(ii) It must be said that there are now pending
great drives among these states to enormously increase the
presencb of microcomputers in the schools. In 1983, Apple
Computer Company donated 10,000 computer systems to California
SC~OO~S.
In Minnesota the state legislature has
funded $6.5 million for computer activities in the schools.
The joint state and privately supported Minnesota Educational
Computing Consortium, which combines efforts of the state
education department, community college and university systems
has sponsored statewide purchase contracts for microcomputers
and related equipment. This has resulted in a savings of
more than $2 million in the purchase of 6,000 Apple and Atari
computers for Minnesota schools.
In Texas, beginning in September, 1985,
students in grades seven and eight will be required to take a
computer literacy course.
The California Legislature has appropriated
$15 million for hardware, software and teacher training. The
California regional Teacher Education and Computer Centers
received an additional $10 million.
(iii) In approximately December of 1983, Ms.
Janet Gandy of the Arizona Department of Education did a
survey designed to learn which software and hardware was
present in only vocational education programs offering
computer-assisted instruction.
All high schools and community colleges in
the state were queried on their use of computer hardware and
software in the business education curriculum.
Specifically, the survey addressed the
kinds of software used, the quality of that software, the kind
of application, and the type and access to hardware.
Software rated in the excellent or good
categories by three or more schools included Easy Writer,
Magic Window, Scripsit, Super Scripsit, SW Accounting and Data
Entry, SW CAI Accounting, Word-Pro 4 Plus, Word Star,
Visicalc, Word Processing, Occupational Model, Profile, Key
Boarding, Micro Applications for Accounting, Mailing List,
Cobol and Data Entry Activities for Micro SW.
Word processing was the most widely used
application within the business education departments. Radio
Shack led the hardware selection, with Apple following close
behind. Apple headed the hardware list for those business
education departments which did not have computers themselves
but had access to them in other departments.
(iv) Finally, some good news has just arrived. The
Arizona Department of Education's "Computer Lab" has just
completed a 100% telephone survey which updates the Q.E.D.
1/84 study and provides some dramatic new information. The
county-by-county findings are Appendix B hereto , but the
statewide results are as follows:
4,490 Apples 33%
4,366 Commodores 32%
2,429 TRS 80s (Radio ~h/~andy)1 8%
763 Ataris 6%
567 IBMs 4%
1,116 Others
13,731 Total Microcomputers in
Arizona Schools as of October 17, 1984, ten
to eleven months after the Q.E.D. study.
(v) Looking back to the Q.E.D. January, 1984,
study (4077 microcomputers in Arizona schools) and comparing
it to the DOE "Computer Lab" study completed October 17, 1984
(13,502 microcomputers in Arizona schools), one is struck by
the Pact that, in less than one year, the number of micro-
' computers in Arizona schools has more than tripled. The
needed hardware is being purchased. The computers may not be
used, or may not be -well- used, but our local schools in Arizona are buying the hardware and are investing huge amounts
-of p ublic monies. If the figures are correct, we have moved to a point where approximately 80% of all school districts and
schools in Arizona have some -microcomputers and an incredible
1/40 computer-to-student ratio in now to be found in Arizona.
The question is: What can we do in Arizona to
assure maximum success in our schools' use of microcomputers
in the classroom, with the result of creating a great leap
forward in the benefits for our students? It would seem that,
even without massive centralized state aid for hardware pur-chasing,
such as some other states have provided, the schools
in Arizona are rushing toward an excellent availability of
hardware. The question now becomes:
(a) What are we doing about software
availability and quality?
(b) What are we doing about pre-service
and in-service teacher training?
G. -Teac her Training in Ariz--o na.
This is a really difficult area in which to find
any hard information--but it is important for charting the
solutions we offer below.
(i) Numbers and Percentage Already Partially
Trained.
Since approximately 1980, the College of
Education at ASU has made a concerted drive to do pre-service
and in-service "computer training" of teachers. It is esti-mated
that 2,800 teachers have been trained in this way.
Various others have been trained by ASU in summer courses and
special projects. Adding those might raise to 3,800 the
number of teachers trained at ASU.
The U of A has trained approximately 1,000
students during the last four years.
NAU has not been as active in "computer
training" in the College of Education. NAU has, for the last
year, however, been creating a "Center for Excellence" which
could serve the needs of educators across the State for
"computer training" related to education. We can assume that
some 400 more teachers have been trained through this insti-tution.
We estimate that another 8,500 teachers
have been self-educated or have learned significant computer
skills in second jobs, earlier careers, or district in-service
courses of 16 hours or more.
The best estimate, then, is that some
13,700. of -28,000 teachers in Arizona have some computer
training and that the rest can be termed "computer illit-erate,"
with no pejorative meaning whatsoever being attached
to that phrase. Thus, as an upper limit, approximately 49% of
Arizona's teachers have -some computer training. University training is 30 to 45 hours (thus a 3-hour, one semester
course), but the courses taken by the other teachers may be
far less and more limited.
There may be some duplication in the
numbers of those who have taken such training. Unfortunately,
there is simply no accurate study to tell us what percentage
of teachers are trained and at what level.
(ii) What Level Of Training Do the Teachers
Already Have?
Just as no studies exist to inform us of
the exact number of trained teachers, no tests or rating
systems exist to inform us of the extent of training already
held by the 49% of the teachers whom we estimate have -s- ome
training.
Professor Gary Bitter of ASU's College of
Education has described the training given in layman's terms
(without using course numbers and technical jargon) as having
been taught in three easily understood types of courses in the
past.
A very general introduction to how the
machine works and what the peripheral
devices, printers, modems, etc. can do. A
rudimentary demonstration of the four key
uses: data base, word processing, spread-sheet
work, and simulations.
A more intensive training in the details of
what tasks can be done and the complexities
of those tasks, including extensive
training in use of data base, word
processing, spreadsheet work, simulations,
and computer programming.
Careful training in how to employ a
particular educational -p roq- ram or one of
the four key uses in classroom teachinp of
a particular course, perhaps math or social
studies.
Obviously, our goal in Arizona should be to
have teachers reach a point where they are competent to use a
computer in classroom teaching in their particular fields. It
appears one-fourth of the 13,700 trained teachers in Arizona
have that sort of competency in the use of computers in their
particular fields.
IT IS RELATIVELY RARE THAT AN IN-SERVICE
TEACHER WILL HAVE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF TRAINING, WHEREBY HE OR
SHE IS EQUIPPED TO REALLY EMPLOY THE COMPUTER AS A
FULL-FLEDGED HELPER IN THE CLASSROOM AND DRAW MAXIMUM AD-VANTAGE
FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE COMPUTER. THUS, THE TASK
FORCE ESTIMATES ONLY ABOUT 10% TO 12% OF THE STATE'S 28,000
FULL TIME TEACHERS ARE ABLE TO MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF THE
COMPUTER IN THE CLASSROOM, I.E. 2,800 TO 3,300 TEACHERS.
(iii) Coming Developments:
ASU's College of Education has recently
made a major financial commitment to provide College of
Education faculty members with an IBM or Apple Macintosh corn-puter
in his or her office suite. It is the plan at ASU to
train all College of Education faculty as to what a
microcomputer can do--elementary training, software exposure,
and course integration ideas, using the microcomputer. In
addition the ASU College of Education supports a microcomputer
research clinic, a national software review center which is
part of the North America software consortium, an annual
National Microcomputers in Education conference, a graduate
computer based education program and is .active in computer
assisted instruction, software and computer curriculum
research.
The reorganization plan for the U of A
College of Education has proposed a Center for Instructional
Uses of Computers, which will provide a set of training
courses which are focused on training teachers to use com-puters
for those applications that provide an advantage for
student learning. The proposed center will also contain a
strong Research and Development component to determine which
types of applications and conditions of use offer relative
advantages for student learning and to produce new forms of
software which extend the range of the purposes for which
computers can be used effectively.
U of A has also established a state-of-
the-art program in training elementary school teachers to
use computers to develop higher order thinking skills in
compensator'y students. If the preliminary research results
hold up, that will be expanded to a national training cap-ability.
(iv) A Lack Of Training Resources Impedes In-creasing
The Use Of Computers In The Classroom.
This situation presents a major and a
serious impediment to the ability of schools in our State to
increase computer-assisted instruction in the classroom,
regardless of how eager they are to do so and regardless of
how wiLling they are to buy the hardware and software to do
SO.
It is an all-too-often-heard story when a
teacher or administrator recounts how computer systems and
software were enthusiastically authorized by the Board of
Education in his/her district, then purchased, only to later
gather dust on computer lab tables because the teachers were
simply not trained, i.e. not able, and thus not willing to
attempt to integrate the computer-assisted instruction into
the regular day-to-day curriculum. Every such story recounted
projects into the educational community the "chill" that is
felt in the school where the events transpired, i.e. the
chilling thought that a large expenditure (even for the best
and fully usable computer system and software) may come to
naught because of a lack of good teacher training.
An increasingly important impediment to the
use of computers is the often-heard complaint from teachers as
to the inaneness of the computer training they received. The
workshops are typically taught by individuals enamored with
computers for their own sake and who knew little if anything
about the needs of the teacher's students. THE ARGUMENT THAT
THE ONLY IMPEDIMENT TO THE USE OF COMPUTERS BY TEACHERS IS THE
LACK-TRAINING IS NOT COMPLETELY TRUE. Teachers, the same
as business people, will adopt a technology only if it offers
a substantial relative advantage over traditional techniques.
Most applications demonstrated at the typical workshop do not
meet that criterion. Many teachers are turning away from an
interest in using computers as a result of the training they
are receiving. It is critical that whatever training is
provided be directly related to the needs of their classrooms.
Until computer training is readily avail-able
to teachers in Arizona in significant numbers and until
the training is relevant to the classroom use of the computer
in particular fields of teaching, the vast number of pupils in
the schools (528,000) will not have access to or full use of
computers in the classroom.
(v) What Resources Are Available For Computer
Training For Teachers? What Factors Bear Upon Rapidly In-creasing
Trainin%?
If, for the best of reasons, all the 28,000
Arizona teachers (or even the approximately 14,300 wholly
untrained Arizona teachers) decided to get some computer
training immediately, there is no way that they could be
instantly accommodated. Let's quickly review the structures
that can be used to deliver training to in-service teachers.
(a) University College of Education gradu-
-ate classes.
(b) Community college classes.
(c) Private school classes.
(d) On-site classes at the teachers' own
schools provided by persons from (a)
(b) or (c) above or the districts
themselves.
It must be said that teachers are paid a
very low wage for the training and hours required. They are
very conscious of whether additional courses will carry weight
in salary decisions. By State Board of Education Regulation
Number R71-601-0, many teachers must take five credit hours of
graduate work in order to renew their teaching certificates
every sixth year. Furthermore, in almost all school dis-tricts,
a teacher's taking graduate credits at a University
will impact upon his/her salary schedule as fixed by that
particular district.
However, the courses offered in the
community college system rarely are capable of impacting upon
a teacher's salary schedule as fixed by a particular district.
Further, community college courses offered ordinarily do not
speak directly to the use of computers in the classroom.
It does not seem practical to promulgate at
the State level that all districts should have to grant salary
cred'lts for community college computer-training courses for
teachers. This is regrettable, because the community college
system has classrooms, teachers, and infra-structure (grade
keeping and reporting systems, etc. 1 which seem to reach
closer to where teachers live and work than the University
system.
Private school classes, like community
college classes, seem unlikely to offer a system or structure
by which the State could quickly bring computer training to a
large number of teachers. The network of private class offer-ings
is less well developed than the community college system.
The best choice for creating a statewide
system that could make a major impact upon the lack of com-puter
training for in-service teachers would seem to lie in
using the Universities' faculties to train a group of in-structors
drawn principally from the ranks of in-service
teachers, which instructors would then, in turn, train larqe
groups of teachers on-site at their schools or similar sit;s
close to where the teachers live and work.
(vi) Conclusion On Teacher Training:
A specific proposal on solving this
key problem is set out in section J. (ii) (a) and (b) below.
It envisions a concerted attack on teacher "computer
illiteracy" throughout Arizona. It heavily involves our
Universities (where tomorrow's new teachers are already being
trained) and it enlists their trained staff and the Telstar
Educational Satellite Program in an intensive effort to
rapidly raise computer training to a new and widely enjoyed
level. Such a program would provide the "shot in the am"
that we need to propel Arizona into the forefront of
computer-assisted instruction.
H. The Status of Educational Soft-ware.
(i The New Law:
By A.R.S. $ 15-723(B), effective July 27,
1983, the State DOE is required to (a) provide a lab in which
to screen all e4ucational software and (b) to provide a dir-ectory
to educational software which is to be distributed to
all schools in the State. The Legislature, however, chose to
impose this new duty upon the State Department of Education
without appropriating any funds whatsoever to enable the
department to accomplish the task. Under $15-238, the
clearinghouse in the DOE is supposed to assist the districts
in purchasing software at good prices.
The Department assigned three people from
other offices within the DOE to a software "clearinghouse":
obtained six donated personal computers and hundreds of do-nated
pieces of software: created a Statewide Steering
Committee that would create a process for the review of
software: opened a room in the DOE called "The Center for Com-puter
Education Services": and generally has tried to cope
with the directives of the 1983 new law. The object of the
law is unquestionably a good one, but the finances to reach
the objectives have been badly lacking.
(ii) The Software Directory:
In July of 1984, the DOE "Center for Com-puter
Education Services" published a 40-page "Directory of
Suggested Instructional Computer Software, A Suggested List of
Instructional Computer Software from Which...a School District
May Purchase Instructional Software."*
The document, as its introduction explains,
is not a new list, and is not an Arizona-created list. It is
instead "the 1984 Educational Software Preview Guide" devel-oped
by the 27 member organization of which the ASU
microcomputer research clinic is a member, called the
Educational Software Evaluation Consortium" at the January,
1984, California Software Evaluation Forum. The guide is
adopted as Arizona's initial list, and the introduction is
careful to point out that it does not include simple word
processing, data base, and spreadsheet programs, although the
Center intends to add them to the list in the future.
t Available to any district by writing to Mr. Ralph
Ferguson, Center for Computer Education Services, Arizona
Department of Education, 1535 West Jefferson, Phoenix,
Arizona 85007.
For a product to be added to the list, it
must be suggested, evaluated, and approved by some of the 50
software evaluators whom the Center has asked the DOE to train
and fund. There is a procedure for evaluating complaints on
products included in the list. It is not yet known whether or
not the DOE budget to be submitted by the Governor in January,
1985, to the Legislature for funding as of 'July, 1985, will
actually contain funds for the software evaluation. However,
the DOE draft budget which has been sent to the Governor does
include such funds.
It is the opinion of the Governor's Task
Force that the $187,000 DOE budget (which was a reduction of
what the Statewide Steering Committee recommended for the
center's evaluators and the process) is a reasonable one and
should be approved, funded, and carried out.
That budget will allow the department to
hire several people and assign regional responsibilities to
them. It is essential that there be a center point to which
educators can report on the success or failure of software
which they are employing in the classroom. It is essential
that the process be funded -now so that it will work well enough that educators can respect and rely upon the list and
the analysis of the products. If they can and do rely on such
a list, manufacturers will find it valuable to be on the list
and will cooperate by submitting software for evaluation to be
included on the list. Submittea products remain at the Center
and can be prescreened there by districts which are investi-gating
the acquisition of particular hardware.
The $187,000 DOE budget application now
pending will be sufficient to move the Center's software
evaluation forward "from ground zero" to a reasonable second
year effort.
The duties of the people hired should be
expanded so as to require that they become active consultants
to the schools in each region on software and teacher training
at the schools in the districts. The existence of such funded
positions will make it possible to do other tasks, explained
in the recommendations below, paragraph J (vi).
The Governor's Task Force thinks that, for
the moment, the major efforts and commitment of resources must
be made in the teacher training area. Software evaluation
will, however, in just a few years,be an absolutely key aspect
of computer assisted instruction in Arizona.
(iii) Since there are no studies showing what
software is actually in place and in use in Arizona, other
than the Janet Gandy January, 1984. DOE Study of Software in
Vocational Education Programs which employ computers, the
Governor's Task Force did its own mini-study of 15 districts
which we knew were very active i n the use of computers i n the
classroom. That 15 d i s t r i c t survey (done by Task Force Member
Bruce Eldredge) and the Janet Gandy January, 1984 study are
I
attached as Appendix E hereto. Together, they give some idea
as to what software can be found in use in Arizona's schools
today.
1. Schools' Development Of Curricula.
Obviously, as proper hardware becomes available;
as teachers become trained; as educational software becomes
available and "screenable," the minds of educators turn to the
need to create curricula to deliver the instruction from
trained teachers to the pupils.
(i) The issue of planning is of key importance
in the implementation of computers in the schools. A recent
study of the National School Board Association shows that, of
the 95% of schools which have purchased computers, less than
15% have a written plan or guidelines for the use of the
computer technology. Schools which -have focused on planning are doing so through various organizational processes, in-cluding
a coordinator, computer committee, outside con-sultant(~),
advisory board, or any combination of the above.
For some reference materials, see Appendix F.
Whatever the organizational structure that
the district or school uses, there are some consistent ele-ments
of planning which must be considered.
Planning Process
a. Identify local needs
e . , internal interest assessment,
community survey, etc.).
b. Identify and access resources cur-rently
available.
1. Internal to the school environ-ment
(students, staff, parents) .
2. External to the school environ-ment
(community, business, uni-versity).
c. Determine the aoal of the oraaniza- L a
tion: target specific objectives for
achieving that goal.
d. Research emers- ins issues and future d
trends within our society, including
the computer industry itself, which
could impact implemeitation over the
long term; revise goals and object-ives,
if necessary, to accommodate
anticipated change.
e. Define the evaluation proc-e-du res
(methods of meaGment)which will be
used to determine effectiveness of
implementation of the plan.
f. Develop a written plan of imple-mentation.
This step produces the
essential product of the planning
process.
In addition to the above model for
planning, the following guidelines (developed by Task Force
Member Steven Louie of the National Advisory Council for
Computer Implementation in Schools) are recommended because
they represent some of the most fundamental concerns on the
part of the school planners and their constituency. The
following set of guidelines states major concerns related to
the implementation of technology in schools.
1. GOALS
The implementation of technology in schools
shall not detract from the primary ed-ucational
goal of providing quality
education to all students.
2. CHANGE
Schools should recognize that the
introduction of technology into the
classroom represents significant change.
The management of change is for the
enthusiastic just as much as the resistant.
Provision should be made for teachers,
students, and administrators to manage
stress, develop support and resource
systems, and arrange adequate time to
assimilate and process new technologies in
a meaningful way into their classroom
environments.
3 . EQUITY
School plans for educational technology
should not reduce access of that technology
to students. Discriminatory criteria, such
as math proficiencies, are not justified
and frequently result in the discouragement
of key groups, such as girls or minority
groups, who would benefit from exposure.
4 PHASED IMPLEMENTAT ION/P ILOT PROGRAMS
Phased development plans will provide
educators with room to experiment and to
incorporate realistic goals and objectives
for instructional uses of the computer.
Before large-scale commitment of capital
and human resources, specific pilot pro-grams
should be undertaken. The results
should be reported to the state for assim-ilation
of data to aid in future planning.
5. FLEXIBILITY AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING
Schools' plans for the implementation of
educational technologies into the classroom
should strive for the development of flex-ible
learning and flexible problem-solving
behaviors. Too specific a focus on
machine-dependent skills may doom students
to obsolescence. Plans that emphasize a
continuum of tool usage in learning and
problemsolving (frcm "unassisted" critical
thinking to utilization of state-of-the-art
technology) will most likely prepare our
students for an equally far-ranging exis-tence
outside the classroom.
6. COMPUTER COORDINATOR
Schools should have "computer coordinators"
as active members of their overall curric-ulum
planning group. These carefully
selected individuals must have thorough
knowledge of the overall curriculum at the
grade levels affected by implementation of
technology, such that integration of such
technology will be relevant to the existing
curricula.
(ii) Scope Of Curricula Content
Due to the district's short-term need for
information-related specific instruction in computer skills,
the Governor's Task Force has assembled a "generic" continuum
of instruction for three common areas of emphasis: Problem-solving/~
rogramming; Software Applications; and Computer
Technology Awareness.
(a) Problem-solving/Programming
(See Appendix G)
(b) Software Applications
(See Appendix H)
(c) Computer Technology Awareness
(See Appendix I)
(iii) Alternative Modes of Computer Instruction
As the movement of computers in the schools
evolves, various forms of implementation/instruction have
emerged, and controversy continues regarding exactly which
methods (or combination of methods) of implementation will be
the most effective in providing a quality educational program
for every student. In general, however, two forms of computer
instruction or curriculum are commonly found in schools
throughout the nation at present.
(a) Separation from Existing Curriculum
In some schools, the introduction of
computer skills has been through a
separate course of study, such as
"computer literacy" or "word prscess-ing."
Proponents of literacy-based
curricula are able to point to com-pleted
scope and sequence programs
developed over a period of time that
form an instructional base for their
schools. They point out that present
teacher expertise is inadequate, and,
through. literacy, a baseline of ex-perience
can be established which does
not require that every teacher become
totally proficient at computer use at
the outset.
(b) Integration Within Existing Curriculum
In contrast to studying "computer" as
a separate subject, most schools are
increasingly looking for ways to
integrate the computer into existing
classroom curricula. Examples include
learning word processing as an inte-grated
part of a writing program or
English class, learning the use of
spreadsheets in an accounting class,
or using Computer Aided Design (CAD)
as part of a drafting class.
The emphasis on applications has
evolved from the feeling that the
computer is an educational and pro-fessional
tool and, therefore, should
be incorporated into the schools as an
intrinsic element of instruction.
Proponents of computer-integrated
curricula maintain that " appl ica-tions,"
or what one ultimately does
with the computer in meeting relevant
needs, is more important than making
all students conversant in "computer
sciences." Supporters of integration
feel that we must not assume that
computers (and related technology) are
a separate field of learning in each
and every case.
Note: An examination of computer curricula
generated across the United States
reveals that there is growing disfavor
about the "literacy" course approach,
due to its over-generalized appli-cation
to a variety of programs all
operating under the "literacy"
umbrella.
(iv) Constructing a model curriculum to be
applied in schools which one has never seen nor visited seems
a little like mailing out a single dress pattern to people
living on the other side of the globe.. . Each of the three
sample curricula in Appendices G, H, and I is only meant as
one sample of -some of the pieces that might be utilized in
some circumstances: it is not being presented as "the only
right way to do it."
So, also, the Governor's Task Force felt
that it might be helpful for those responsible for curricula
to have available a matrix to show which aspects of the com-puter
might be best accented at which grade levels within a
school system. The Task Force Members who worked on the
matrix which is attached as Appendix J were extremely con-cerned
that it be presented as just one example of "how to do
it." Factors such as: teacher training level; availability
of hardware; availability of particular software; etc., could
drastically affect what a district might do to alter and
revise such a sample matrix.
J. Task -Fo-rc-e - R--e commendations: -Se-ve n Basic
Things Which We Must Make Happen In Arizona Concern-ing
Computers In ~ducatzn.
(i) Introduction:
There is considerable urgency in the fol-lowing
recommendations of the Governor's Task Force. Though
~rizona has in the last eleven months surged ahead in terms of
the hardware available to the schools, it is very deficient in
the teacher-training component. Arizona's DOE -assistance on
evaluation of educational software is only in its infancy and,
at this point, wholly without financial resources.
In Texas, as previously mentioned, be-ginning
with the 1985-86 school year, all seventh and eighth
grade students must take and pass one semester of computer
literacy or a state examination on computer literacy. The
state is designing the curriculum to be used. Teachers
planning to teach this course must have training and pass a
state-developed computer literacy course.
Effective as of the fall of 1985, Tennessee
will implement a new "Computer Skills Next" program for all
seventh and eighth grade students. This program is comprised
of three elements--awareness, literacy and mastery--which
involve students in learning what the computer is and how it
functions, as well as learning advanced applications and
programming techniques. Tennessee has purchased 5,288 Apple
I Ie's for students and an additional 1,200 Apple IIe systems
for teachers.
These examples, plus that of California
with its regional technology centers that provide in-service
computer training for teachers, its enormous amounts of
hardware, and its own software library within the state
education department, show that Arizona has much to do before
it can be said to be (a) educating its students in a way which
will make them competent to function in tomorrow' s
computer-dominated jobs, and (b) bringing economy measures to
the business of educating our children.
Teacher Trainins Strateqies:
As stated in section G above, teacher
training is the most fundamental and most logical "part of the
circle" into which we must break to dramatically improve
computer-assisted instruction in Arizona. So far as. the
members of the Governor's Task Force can determine, there is
really only one practical way to attack the problem of how to
bring large numbers of teachers to the level of training where
they can integrate the computer into their fields in the
classroom. The plan is s e t out below. It w i l l -not r e q u i r e t h e S t a t e t o d i s t r i b u t e huge sums t o the l o c a l districts o r t o
any e n t i t y . .
Tax Credit:
Some i n c e n t i v e is c l e a r l y needed t o
m o t i v a t e t h e t e a c h e r s to l e a r n com-puter
s k i l l s , soon and i n g r e a t
numbers. Finding a way to induce t h e
d i s t r i c t s to g i v e i n c e n t i v e s t o t h e
t e a c h e r s is simply t o o i n d i r e c t an
a t t a c k on t h e problem. W e b e l i e v e
t h a t t h e incentive must be consider-able
and it must be given d i r e c t l y t o
t h e t e a c h e r s . F u r t h e r , t h e i n c e n t i v e
must be one which does n o t r e q u i r e a
g r e a t bureaucracy to monitor.
We believe t h a t t h e c u r r e n t law allow-ing
an income tax deduction f o r
courses i n o n e ' s own f i e l d , which
courses are not needed to acquire t h e
job is n o t a c l e a r nor a s u f f i c i e n t
i n c e n t i v e . We b e l i e v e t h a t t h e
t e a c h e r s and s t a f f who a r e
Arizona-certified and a r e working f u l l
t i m e in schools located i n t h e S t a t e
of Arizona should be given a tax
c r e d i t of up t o $250 f o r t h e i r
e x p e n d i t u r e o f t h a t sum o r more f o r
approved g r a d u a t e c r e d i t c o u r s e s i n
computer t r a i n i n g t a k e n through t h e
S t a t e University system.
I f every s i n g l e one o f t h e 28,000
teachers i n Arizona w e r e t o take the
courses in the next t h r e e years (which
is highly u n l i k e l y ) , t h e revenue
" l o s t " t o t h e S t a t e because of giving
t h e credit would be a maximum of
S7,000,000 over t h r e e years.
Obviously, f a r l e s s than t h a t number
w i l l be able o r i n c l i n e d t o take t h e
courses t h a t would e n t i t l e them t o t h e
c r e d i t . I f 10,000 teachers took
advantage of t h e c r e d i t over t h r e e
years, t h a t would amount t o $2,500,000
of revenue not c o l l e c t e d .
E s s e n t i a l l y a l l of the revenue gener-ated
by the tax c r e d i t would flow i n t o
the s t a t e University system an=
s o c i a l purpose of enormous value would
be served by delivering the training.
Of a l l the budget years when it might
be possible to obtain l e g i s l a t i v e
approval of a t h r e e - y e a r t a x c r e d i t
program, t h i s may be the best year i n
which to ask for the tax c r e d i t .
Structure To Provide The Courses For Teachers:
J u s t t o provide the tax c r e d i t and
thus the incentive w i l l "get u s
absolutely nowhere." There must be a
structure created to make it possible
f o r the U n i v e r s i t i e s t o supply the
training that the teachers w i l l come
looking for as soon as the tax credit
provision is in effect.
Happily, there is an h i s t o r i c a l
precedent we can look to, Arizona
Maricopa County NSF computer training
program sponsored and conducted by the
College of Education a t ASU commenced
in 1982. That program provided
computer-related math training t o 30
in-service teachers who then returned
t e t h e i r d i s t r i c t s to conduct 18-hour
seminars to guide t h e i r colleagues.
The Program We Propose Would Look Roughly Like
This:
(1 ) 80 i n s t r u c t o r s would be trained in
central locations for three weeks
during July-August, 1985, to l a t e r
conduct on-site computer training
throughout the State ( t o occur
January-March 1986 and September-
November 1986). Estimated cost t o
t r a i n instructors is $130,000, in-cluding
travel, lodging, t u i t i o n , and
meals. These people would pay
t u i t i o n , but would receive a tax
credit for that expenditure.
( 2 ) A program s l o t on the Telstar Satel-l
i t e Educational Programming for 1986
would be rented. Estimated c o s t f o r
t h r e e one hour shows a week, t o be
"taken down" into VCR's, would be
approximately $15,000.
( 3 Cost for the instructors to teach a 14
week course January-March 1986 and a
14 week course September-November
1986, to 20 students (teachers) per
instructor per course (80 x 2 x 20 =
3,200 teachers trained). At $1,400
per instructor, the estimated cost for
the two courses per year is $224,000,
to be paid by students' tuition.
( 4 ) Each participant would Pay
approximately $165 for the course
which would pay for classroom rental,
the instructor, the program develop-ment
cost, etc. (for which he or she
would get three hours University
graduate credit) (worth something on
the salary schedule), plus a course
that counts toward a computer-training
certificate for the teacher's certifi-cate.
( 5 ) The gross revenue to the Uiversity
system from training 3,200 students
(teachers) a year would be over
$515,000.
( 6 ) This outline of the program is
predicated upon the Universities
waiving any overhead charges on the
off-site courses.
The advantage of such a program would
be the provision of an enormous boost in teacher training and
encouragement to the districts to go forward into computer
acquisition and use because of the presence of trained
teachers.
The courses would be taught for the
teachers at sites near their schools, perhaps a community
college or a private school with computer facilities or a high
school lab of some kind. Each instructor would obtain a
locale which the University would approve and which might well
have to be rented.
The purpose of the exercise above,
lining out estimates of costs of such an approach, is to show
what it would take to more than double the number of well-trained
teachers in this State within 20 months of today.
Only with such an effort will we forge
ahead into this crucial field. This effort will have the
added side benefit of locating some 80 sites where computer
training can be administered in the future.
Students:
(ii) Help For College Of- Education
The three Universities have serious
shortcomings in software and peripheral devices needed to
reach teachers.
We propose that each of the three
State Universities be given $35,000 to obtain state-of-the-art
hardware and software, pursuant to a written plan for computer
training of students studying to be teachers and/or develop-ment
of applications and research for computers in classroom
training of Arizona K-12 students. The total cost of this
endeavor would be $105,000. It is recommended that such
funding occur each year for three years.
(iii) Certification:
We propose that beginning in 1986, all
students in the Colleges of Education be required to meet
standards of computer training to be set by the individual
Universities and approved by the State Board of Education.
Such standards be a requirement for certification as of July,
1986 and a requirement for re-certification as of 1989. See
Appendix K showing that such a change in certification is
apparently about to occur across the nation.
(iv) The Software Dilemma:
In February, 1984, the California State
Legislature passed a law which has become known as the "Apple
Law" (because i-t was identified early on with the Apple Com-puter
Company). Under that law (Assembly Bill 3431, 2/16/84),
a California manufacturer of computer hardware (tangible
personal property) was given significantly greater tax deduc-tions
if computer equipment was donated to an educational
institution on or before December 31, 1986. As a result of
the law, 10,000 Apple computer systems were donated to
California schools.
There is a tremendous need for software in
the districts, particularly a need for access to software for
purposes of experimenting with its use in the schools. We
believe that the Governor should pursue legislation which
would increase for a two-year period state income tax de-ductions
for com-p anies that manufacture or distribute edu-cational
software in Arizona and which donate software to our
schools. We believe that the possibility of duplicating the
Apple Law for hardware should also be investigated.
Such a change in the law would give a
tremendous boost to school districts needing to acquire soft-ware
but having short resources. The software would have to
be certified as being needed by the schools and would have to
be on the DOE "Center for Computer ~ d ~ ~ a t i oanpp"r oved soft-ware
list.
If hardware manufacturers are found to
exist in significant numbers in Arizona, the Apple Law for
software should be broadened to include increased deductions
for the donation of hardware to schools.
The Task Force notes that it has tra-ditionally
been the case that districts (and Universities)
more easily find money for hardware than for software. There
is a chronic shortage of software in the districts. Once
teacher training reaches a level where there is movement
generated in the field, a new Task Force will need to address
how to generate access to funding for software for the dis-tricts.
(v) Pilot School:
We must commence now to give incentives to
pilot schools which will strive to create, perfect and test
innovative uses of technology which are focused on improvement
of learning.' All funded schools will be required to make
their written plans available to other districts and schools.
We recommend that a $200,000 grant pool be
created and that a panel organized by the DOE to administer
the funds to approximately ten schools for funding up to
$20,000 each to test and provide such services, with an
additional $20,000 for monitoring and $5,000 for panel
expenses also being prwided. The estimated cost is $225,000
for this endeavor.
(vi) Comnuter Education Standard for Seventh or
Eighth .Graaers:
In both Tennessee and Texas, the State
recently decided to create a benchmark of computer literacy
and then to work "backwards" from that mark so as to infuse at
least minimal computer literacy thou hout the entire student
population. Each state committed -t& at -~ n 1985, every seventh
grader would receive a full semester of daily hands-on com-puter
instruction in the classroom. In Tennessee, the State
purchased the computers needed by the local districts to
provide enough so that every two students have one computer.
We believe that such an approach must be
undertaken in Arizona. The access to hardware does not seem
to be a major problem. Software can be purchased from Mainte-nance
and Operations or Capital Budgets in Arizona, and it
does not seem likely to be a major stumbling block. We think
that the DOE must be asked to prepare a plan whereby,
beginning in 1987, every seventh and eighth grader in Arizona
would be given a full semester of hands-on computer instruc-
tion. If t h i s were continued from year to year, t h e " r i p p l e
effect" would be such that d i s t r i c t s would during 1985-86 urge
t h e i r junior high teachers to get the release time or time off
needed to prepare them for a 1987 course for a l l seventh and
eighth graders. As grades of students moved up each year, it
would be assured that by a rough mid-point i n t h e i r education,
a l l would have received basic and reasonably intensive in-struction
in the use of computers.
The reason for taking the year to plan t h i s
e f f o r t is t h a t teacher training has to occur before such an
endeavor could commence. The "pulse" of the local d i s t r i c t s
has to be "taken" in order t o learn of the need for funds a t
t h e l o c a l level.
We estimate that DOE w i l l need $10,000
in order to plan and investigate t h i s matter.
( v i i ) State Center For Computer Education:
We already stated in section H (ii) above
t h a t the c u r r e n t funding a p p l i c a t i o n of $187,000 for the
software directory a c t i v i t i e s of the DOE Center for Computer
Education would be an adequate funding for t h i s coming year's
e f f o r t . However, such funding is minimal and must occur so
t h a t we make the software recommendation system function
properly.
The Center w i l l also: f a c i l i t a t e commu-nication
between schools statewide and coordinate and promote
computer training a c t i v i t i e s statewide. We recommend that the
Center implement a p i l o t program for t h e creation of a state-wide
network of telecommunication linking the schools.
W e urgently request that the persons hired
t o . s t a f f the Center be "outside hires," computer s p e c i a l i s t s ,
not persons promoted from inside the DOE from other DOE posi-tions.
K. Specific Strategies For The Governo-r-,-- Legis-lature,
DOE, Districts, Teachers, Administrators, And Parents.
(a) The Governor should:
(i) in his State of the State message,
call attention to the urgency of the need for improvement in
computer-assisted instruction and ask the Legislature to fund
the teacher training, particularly the tax credit and our
recommended program of "University-organized teacher training
via on-site instruction. "
(ii) support in his budget: the funding of
the DOE Center for Computer Education and the software direc-tory
at the $187,000 level recommended; the $105,00O/year
direct funding for software/hardware acquisitions for
Universities; and the pilot school program of $225,000.
(iii) aggressively urge the Universities to
cooperate in creating the teacher training program via in-structors
in on-site locations, as we have described.
(iv) call upon the Legislature to pass an
"Apple Law" for software donations for school districts.
(v) ask the DOE to investigate the possi-bility
of our setting a statewide requirement of a semester
course for all seventh and eighth graders, a la Tennessee and
Texas.
(b) The Legislature should:
(i) fund the DOE Center for Computer
Education and the software directory at the $187,000 level
recommended: fund the $105,00O/year direct funding for
software/hardware acquisitions for Universities; and fund the
pilot school program of $225,000.
(ii) pass the $250 teacher tax credit
needed to create the incentive for teacher training.
(iii) study, then pass, the "Apple Law" for
software for school districts.
c. The DOE should:
(i) ask the Legislature to do all of the
things set out above.
(ii) continue to press forward to improve
the software directory and broaden the duties of the employees
in the Center for Computer Education.
(iii) work with the colleges of Education a t
the Universities on the teacher training.
( iv) form the panel needed to make success-ful
the p i l o t program for model curricula.
(v) require computer Literacy of a l l
teachers seeking c e r t i f i c a t i o n and, l a t e r , re-certification.
( v i ) investigate then plan for an
across- the-state-program
d. The d i s t r i c t s should:
(i) enthusiastically support the need for
a massive program of teacher training regarding the practical
use of computers in the classroom.
(ii) ask t h e L e g i s l a t u r e t o do a l l the
things l i s t e d above.
e. Teachers and Administrators should:
(i) enthusiastically support the need for
a massive program of teacher training.
(ii) ask the Legislature to do a l l of the
things l i s t e d above.
f . Parents should:
(i) take a real i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r child-ren's
education, especially as to the extent to which their
d i s t r i c t is moving into use of computers and other advanced
technology as an integrated part of the regular curriculum in
the schools<.
(ii) ask the L e g i s l a t u r e t o do a l l the
things l i s t e d above.
L. Conclusion:
Governor, there was no way that we could "write
a short l e t t e r " on t h i s subject ...
This r e p o r t was intended as a document t h a t
would be " a l l things to a l l people," from those t o t a l l y un-familiar
with t h i s important facet of education to those who
are professionals in the f i e l d and lawmakers who must weigh
funding p r i o r i t i e s . We hope we have "charted the race." We
see tKis matter of computers in education a s a problem, a
challenge, an o p p o r t u ~ i t y , and a " r a c e " i n which we a r e
struggling to prepare students to work in the job-descriptions
of the future.
Meanwhile other States are several jumps ahead
of us i n educating t h e i r children concerning the machines
which w i l l be present in every aspect of work and l i f e in the
world of the 1980s and a f t e r . We believe t h a t our recom-mendations
provide the basis upon which Arizona can excel in
the race.
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
David C. Tierney, Esq.
Chairman Governor's Task Force
on Computers in Education
Sacks, Tierney b Kasen, P.A.
3300 North Central Avenue
20th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Dean Banz
Director
Decision Support Systems
Burr-Brown Corporation
6730 S. Tucson Blvd.
Tucson, Arizona 85734
Dr. Gary Bitter
Professor, Computer Education
College of Education
Payne Hall #203
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85287
Geneice Center
Science ~eacher/Computer specialist'
Roosevelt Elementary School District
C.J. Jorgenson School
1701 West Roeser Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
Paul Cornell
~athematics/~omputeTre acher
Paradise Valley High School
3950 E. Bell Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85032
Terry ~alton
Computer Coordinator
Crane Elementary School District
1590 Avenue C.
Yuma, Arizona 85364
Dr. Timothy Dyer
Superintendent
Phoenix Union High School District
2526 West Osborn Road, Bldg. #4
Phoenix, Arizona 85017
Bruce Eldredge
Computer Education Advisor
Prescott Unified School District
146 S. Granite
Prescott, Arizona 86301
APPENDIX A
Ralph Ferguson
Director of Educational Technology
Arizona Department of Education
1535 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Robert Kline
Director
Support Operation Staff
Government Electronics Group
Motorola
P.O. BOX 1417 (MD-3122)
8201 East McDowell Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85252
Judith LeFevre
Special Education Teacher/Computer Coordinator
Catalina Foothills United School District
2101 E. River Road
Tucson, Arizona 85718
Steven Louie
~arent/~omputeCro nsultant
2605 North Palo Verde
Tucson, Arizona 85716
William D. Mensch, Jr.
President
Western Design Center Corporation
2166 East Brown Road
Mesa, Arizona 85203
Mark Ogram
Software Specialist
Research Corporation
6840 East Broadway
Tucson, Arizona 85710
Dr. Stanley Pogrow
Associate Professor
Educational Foundations & Administration Department
College of Education
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Elena Villarreal
Engineer
IBM General Products Division
Dept. X44-H, Building 031-1
Tucson, Arizona 85744
Kathleen Vogt
Director
Vocational & Computer Education
Glendale Union High School District
7650 North 43rd Avenue
Glendale, Arizona 85301
state of arizona
MEMORANDUM:
to: Tillman Turley
Ralph Ferquson
date: October 17, 1984
from: Chris Castillo
subject : Arizona's Microc-tnr survey
The survey is finally mrrpleted. The school by s c b l form is currently
being typed by the Camunications Center, and w i l l not be caplet& until
late next week. As you knw, the sunrey is based on 100% response of
all the schools in Arizona (public schoals) .
The attached is a m r y of that survey,
The breakdown for the state is:
13,502 micrcccmputers in a l l the schools
4,430 Apples or 33%
4,339 Cmmdores or 32%
2,385 TRS-80s or 184
762 A t a r i or 63
536 1224s or 4%
278 Franklin or 23
277 Acorn or 2%
208 Texas Instmne,.nts or 1.5%
287 Others
APPENDIX B
SURVEY OF S T m F F TRRINING I
12 of t h e ' * B e s t w Districts i n Arizona, thus some of " t h e Leaders" i n C . A , I
1-6 HOURS OF TRAINING
MI'€ TYPE # % IMPACT
OF OF STAFF STAFF STAFF TAUGHT ON
I
D ISTR I C T D I S T R I C T S I Z E TRflINED TRAINED BY SALARY
I 1 i I I I I I
I
I CRFtM I K - 8 1 185 1 185 1 100% 1 D I N
l GLEMALE UNION 1 9 - 12 1 908 1 75 1 8% I D,V I N
1 GLOBE I K - 12 I 140 I 85 1 60% 1 0.9 I N ! I I
I PeOE I K - 12 1 140 1 140 1 100% 1 D I Y
I PRESCOTT I K - 12 1 258 I 200 I 80% 1 D I N
I WlSH INGTON I K - 8 11200 1 120 1 10% I 0,V I N I I
I I 1 1 I I I I
TOTALS 2815 805 29% I
14- 16 HOURS OF STAFF TRAINING
I I I I I I I I
I
I FLAGSTAFF I K 12 I S00 I 350 I 70% 1 D I Y
I GLEMRLE UNION 1 3 - 12 1 300 1 70 1 8 % 1 D I Y I
I PAGE I K - 12 1 140 1 60 1 43% 1 0 I Y I
I
1 PARADISE VALLEY I K - 12 I 1000 1 500 1 50% I D I Y
I PEOR I A I K - 12 I 300 I 200 I 40% 1 0 I Y
I TEMPE ELEMENTRRY I K - 12 1 630 1 300 1 48% 1 0 1 Y ; I 1
I NCSON I K - 12 13000 1 1050 1 35% I D I Y
1 L#SH I f f i T O N I K - 8 11200 1 200 1 1 % 1 0 1 Y
1 I I I I I I I I
TOTALS 7870 2730 35%
45-48 HOURS OF STRFF TRAINING
I I I
I CRANE I K - 8 1 1 8 5
I FLAGSTRFF I K - 1 2 1 5 8 8
l GLEMALE UNION I S - 12 1 900
I GLOBE I K - 12 1 140
1 M S A I K - 12 1 2500
l PAGE I K - 12 1 140
I PEOR I A I K - 12 1 500
I PRESCOlT I K - 1 2 1 2 5 0
l TEMPE ELEmNTFlRY I K - 12 1 630
1 TUCSON K - 12 1 3000
I I I
TOTALS 8745 1890 22%
C=COMrlL)NITY COLLEGE D=DISTRICT PERSOIEL U=UNIVERSITY V=VEI.(DOR
APPENDIX E
I SOFTWFIRE A P P L I C A T I O N S
Now I n Place In 12 Leading Schools i n Arizona
KEYBOARD ING ORTII
WORD PROCESSIM BRSE
ELECTRON I C
SPRERD SHEET TELECOMNICRTIONS
I I I I I I I I K - I IPRGE I I I I
I I PEOR Ifi I I I I
I I PRESCOU I 1 I I
I TEWE ELEMENTARY I I I I
I I I I I I
I i
1 PIIGE I PRRRO I SE
I PFtRFtOISE VRLLEY ( PRESCOIT
I PEOR IR I
I PRESCOTT I
I TEWE ELEPENTRRY 1
1 WASH IMTON I
1 1
I
VALLEY I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
17-8 1 CRIIN: I PRESCOTT
1 I PARFtD ISE VALLEY I TUCSON
1 I PRESCOTT 1
I I TEMPE ELEFENTRRY 1
I 1 NCSON I
1 I WISH INGTON 1
I I I
I
I PRESCOTT
1 NCSON
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CRRN
I PRESCOTT
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I
1 9- 12 1 FLRGSTAFF I GLElWRLE UNION I GLEMALE UNION I PRESCOTT
I 1 OLEMFtLE UNION I PARROISE VFILLEY I PRGE I NCSON
I I GLOBE 1 PEORIC) I PARADISE VRLLEY I
I 1 MESR 1 PRPSCOTT I PEORIfi I
I I PRGE 1 TUCSON I PRESCOTT I
I I PRRRDISE VALLEY I I TUCSON I
I I PEOR Ifi I I I
1 I PRESCOTT I I i
I I TUCSON I I I
I I I I I
COMPUTER ASS ISTED INSTRUCT ION
Now In Place In 12 Leading Schools In Arizona
MTH SC IENCE SOCIAL STUDIES LRNGUAGE RRTS
I I I I
I PEOR IA I PEOR IA i GLOBE I
1 1 FLRGSTRFF 1 PRESCOTT I PRESCOTT I PEOR X A I
t I GLOBE I I I PRESCOTT I
1 I PAGE I I 1 I
t 1 PEOR I R I I I I
1 1 PRESCO7T I ! I I
I I I I I I
I
I PEORIA
I
1 PEOR I A
I
I GLOBE
I 1 FLAGSTRFF I PRESCOlT I PRESCOlT I PEORXB I
1 I GLOBE I I I PRESCOlT I
I I PRGE I I 1 I
I I PEOR I R I 1 1 I
I I PRESCOTT I I I I
1 I TIEWE I I I I
I I I I I 1
1 1
17-8 1 CRfiEE:
I I FLAGSTRFF
I I GLOBE
I I PRGE
f I PEOR I B
I I PRESCOTT
I I TUCSON '
I 1
I
I PEOR I R
I PRESCOlT
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I PEOR JR
I NCSON
I
1
I
I
I
I
r
I OLOBE
I PEOR I f S
I PRESCOT7
I
I
I
I
I
I I I 1
19-12 IGLEMALE UNION I GLEMRLE UNION I NCSON
t I GLOBE I GLOBE I
I I PRGE I PRESCOIT I
C I PRESCOlT I TUCSON 1
f I I I
I I I I
I I I I
1
1 GLEMfSLE
I GLOBE.
I PeGE
I PEOR 1A
I PRESCOTT
I TUCSON
I
I
UNION I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I COMPUTER SC IENCE
Now In Place In 12 Leading Schools In Arizona
CO.WUTER AWRRENSS BAS I C LOO0 PASCAL
I I!K - 3 II C RANE II II PRGE II I
I
I I I I PRESCOl7 I I
1 I I I I
- -- -
I I I I I I ( 14-6 (CRANE I CRAN I PAGE I I
I I FLISGSTftFF I I PRESCOTT I I
I ( OLOBE I I MSHINGTON I 1 I I I PRRROISE VALLEY I I I I
I PRESCOTT I I I I
I I WASH INDTON I I I I I 1 I I I I I
1 I I I I . I 17-9 I C I A N I C R R X I PFtGE 1
I FLhGSTFIFF I MZSA I TEWE ELEMZMARY I
1 I GLOBE I PRESCOTT I MSHINGTON I I I I MESh I E W E ELEMENTARY 1 I
I PRGE I W S H INGTON I I
I 1 PARADISE VALLEY I I I
I
I I
I PRESCOTT I I I
I E W E ELEMEMRRY I I I
I I TUCSON I I I
I I I 1 9- 18 1 FLAGSTAFF
1
I FLFIGSTRFF
I I
1 GLEMFILE UNION I -
I I GLOBE I GLEMRLE UNION I I bESA I
I I MSFI I GLOBE I I PBGE 1 1 ; I PEOR 16 I K S R I I PftRftD I S € VALLEY 1
1 PRESCOTT I PFIGE I 1 PEOR I A I
I I TUCSON I PEORI6 1 1 PRESCOIT I I I I I PRESCOTT I I TUCSON i
I I TUCSON I I I
I I I 1 I I
t
SOFTWARE L IST
Actually In Use In 12 ~eading Schools In Arizona
tYPE OF PROGRAM PROGRAM MME GRADE LEVELS BRRM OF COWUTER
................................................................................
KEYBOARD INO TYPE fiTTACK
MISSTER TYPE
TOUCH TYPE
W I Z TYPE
WDRDPROCESSINO BAN( STREET bR ITER
WGIC WIMOW I 1
SCRIP S I T
URDSTRR
RPPLEWORKS
PSF WZ ITE
UORDPRO 3+
EASYtR ITER
0 ISPLAY W;( I TER
SPEEDSCR I PT
S T O R M I TER
ORTR BASE SCHOOL TOOL
APPLEWORKS
PRACTIF I L E
PSF F I L E
PHI BETR FILER
SPREeO SHEETS MAGIC CRLC
v I S ICALC
MJLTIPLAN
RPPLEWORKS
PRACT ICALC
EASYCALC
PWTH CAI ELECTRON I C BORRO H
PRESCRIPTION LEARNING P, 1 ,J ,H
TELE)I#TH P,I,J
RRITHtSTIC CLRSSROOM P, I ,J
K I N S RULE I ,J
TERSERS BY TOBB I ,J
FACTORY I,J
SCIENCE CAI GEmRAL CHEMISTRY H
ATOM I C PHYS I CS H
CELLS H
SOC I A L STUDIES Cr9I TRAILS LEST
HAIL CHIEF
LANGUAGE ARTS CRI PRESCRIPTION LERRNIND P,I,J,H fl PC ,TR
QUILL H A
WRITER'S ASSISTRM H A ............................................................................
GRfiOE LEVELS: P = K-3 I a 4-6 J * 7-8 H 9-12
R-APPLE CtCO-DORE (C-64 > I IBM AT=ATRR I TRsRAD 10 SHRCK (TRS-80
ARIZONA CENTER FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
2910 N. 19th Avenue MUSIC Building
Phoenix, Arizona 8501 5
(602) 254-7777
P
Administered by Northern Arizona University
December 1984
TO: David Tierney, Chainnan
Govemr's Task Force Ch Canputers in Ectucation
E'R: Janet M. Gandy, Coordinator
Business Education
RE: 1984 Microcgnplter Hardware/Software/Applications Survey In
Business -cation Programs Statewide
In September 1984, a mail survey was conducted m n g a l l Arizona Business
Deprhmts, junior high school, high s c b l and camunity colleges. The
w s e of the survey was to update the infoxnation gathered in a s i m i l a r
survey conducted in August of 1983. The purpose of the 1983 survey was to
create a data base to identify t!! following:
Business Education Departments HousFng Microccmputers
Kuxrhrs of Microcomputers by Mcdels Housed In Each Business Department
Software Used by The Business Deparbrent
Course In Which Ccmputers Were Being Utilized
It was through that with this information a t hand, Business Education teachers
w l d form an information nebmrk. This network would allow teachers with
similar needs to camtunicate. These needs include identification of quality
software *assist the teacher in accmplishing a stated objective, the best
configuration of hardware, and innovative approacks for integrating the
c~crpltera s an educational or vocational tool,
F m the 1983 survey it was learned that word processing was the mt widely
used application for the anpter. The 1984 survey indicates an increase in
the use of spread sheets and data bases a m g Wlsiness Education D e p r b m ~ t s .
UUng the -ter as an educational tool to present vocational principles
and concepts is slow to spread due to the lack of educational software written
to address this need.
Because of the quantity of the data gathered, the survey fonnat is rather
lengthy, and too lengthy to include with this memorandun. Copies of the data
w i l l be sent out from my o f f p upon receipt of a written request. I my be
contacted &I the address given in this letterhead.
C r e d i t for this sunrey is to ke given to a l l Arizona Business Educators wfio
responded to the mail-aut survey.
APPENDIX E