New Deal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

New Deal - Essay Example They could either develop programs from the bottom-up by federally generated job creation and welfare benefits thus forming social partnership with racial minorities and the working class including labor unions or they could give businesses freedom to correct the economy itself by expansion thus creating more jobs which would pump money back into the economy. Contrary to popular historic perceptions, the country was hardly moving in a socialist direction.   The New Deal represented the prevailing capitalist societal structure culture as, for an example, its policy continued the division between what was considered the worthy poor, mostly widows and their children and the ‘unworthy’ poor, which included just about anyone else, who were disregarded. The First New Deal (1933 to1934) decidedly orientated governmental policies toward big business.   The Second New Deal which began in 1935 was less pro-business in position, but in practice continued to support top-down economic growth.   Later in this stage of reform, the government increased its focus on antitrust enforcement and stronger regulations on business regulation but ultimately, big business maintained influence over essential decisions concerning investment, pricing and production. In addition, the government assisted industry by limiting competition. Rather than attempt to regulate businesses, New Deal advocates wanted to greatly increase the size and control of the government so that it could act as a counterbalance to private sector industries (Yantek, n.d.). When Roosevelt took office; the government was fairly simple in design with functions primarily limited to the necessities of administration. Afterwards, it was altered into a multifaceted agency controlling business and intruding into citizen’s liberties. â€Å"It is no exaggeration to say that he took the

The Hague Rules Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

The Hague Rules - Essay Example The Hague Rules radically changed the legal status of sea carriers under the bill of lading. Again in 1963 CMI adopted the text of a draft document which was intended to make limited amendments to the 1924 convention which was considered at 12th Session of the Brussels Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Law in 1967 and 1968. The Protocol was signed in this respect on 23 February 1968 at Visby on the Swedish Island and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 was passed by the UK Government with effect to the protocol and re-enacted Hague Rules and Hague Visby Rules. (Martin Dockray and Katherine Reece Thomas, 2004) The Hague Rules were adopted in 1924, The Hague/Visby Rules in 1968 and 1979 and the Hamburg Rules in 1978. Each international convention in turn attempted to broaden its application in order to avoid lacunae, to encompass all contracts of carriage as well as bills of lading, and to permit incorporation by reference.2 The accepted international standard of the rights and duties of a Carrier, Shipper and consignee of goods carried by sea is the Hague Rules Convention of 1924 which has been given the force of law by most maritime nations.(Richard Price and Andreas Haberbeck, 1986)3 The general principle regarding the application of The Hague Rul... ect to the provisions of Article 6, under every contract of carriage of goods by sea the carrier, in relation to the loading, handling, stowage, carriage, custody, care and discharge of such goods, shall be subject to the responsibilities and liabilities, and entitled to the rights and immunities hereinafter set forth."4 Art. 1(b) -'Contract of carriage' applies only to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading or any similar document of title, in so far as such document relates to the carriage of goods by sea, including any bill of lading or any similar document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the moment at which such bill of lading or similar document of title regulates the relations between a carrier and a holder of the same."5 The most important obligations under Hague or Hague Visby Rules are those imposed by Art. III6 Rule 1 (a) and (b) which requires the carrier to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy and to properly man, equip and supply the ship before and at the beginning of the voyage. (Simon Gault et al, 2003) There were some initial problems in the proper implementation of Hague Rules as seen in Vita Food Products Inc V Unus Shipping Co. Ltd, where Herrings were shipped in Newfoundland under bills of lading of the Newfoundland Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1932 which stated that bill of lading 'shall contain an express statement that it is to have effect subject to the provisions of the Hague Rules as expressed in this Act' and also provided exemption from liability for master's negligence in navigation which exemption was also part of the Hague Rules. The Hague Rules further provided that any clause or agreement in the bills of lading relieving the carrier from liability for negligen ce imposed by the

A few factors Essay Example for Free

A few factors Essay Investigation A few factors (the gradient/height of ramp, the mass of the object, friction, gravity, the energy act on the object or the length of object) can affect the final speed of an object at the end of the ramp. Planning I am going to do my investigation on mass of the object which I think it is one of the factors that will affect the final speed of an object at the end of the ramp because when gravitational potential energy equals to mass times gravity times height, so if mass is increased, the gravitational potential energy will increase in proportionally. I will do the experiment by adding weights on top of a wooden cart to increase the mass, and then I will time how long it takes to fall down from the ramp and calculate the final speed by: Diagram Weight add to the cart (grams) 0 100 200 300 400 Time (sec) 678 607 721 686 693 Weight add to the cart (grams) 500 600 700 800 900 Time (sec) 719 703 661 677 657 My experiment results are: According to the results, mass does not affect the final speed of an object at the end of the ramp. I think this is because when something is dropped, it will transfer from gravitational potential energy to kenetic energy So I am going to change my investigation on the height of the ramp. I think height of the ramp will affect the final speed of an object when height of the ramp is increased, the gravitational potential energy will increase proportionally due to: G. P. E. = mass x gravity x height Method of doing the experiment I am going to do it by using a ramp that I can increase the height. Then I will release the cart at the top of the ramp and time how long it will take for the cart to come down. I will increase the height by 5cm each time (5cm, 10cm, 15cm, 20cm, 25cm and 30cm). I will take down the time thrice to get the average time of it because it is more reliable. Then I will work out the average speed. I will divide the length of the ramp by the time taken and work out the final speed by doubling the average speed. The length of the ramp is one metre and the weight of the cart is 900 grams. I can make this a fair test by not pushing the cart, doing average on the time, and keeping the mass the same. Apparatus I will need. A clamp to hold the ramp, A ramp, A wooden cart as the object and A stopwatch for timing for the experiment. Safety features I will make sure it is safe by putting books at the end to stop the cart from bumping into others feet and I will make sure no one is standing near it. I will do the whole experiment on the ground because this can stop things from falling down the table and hit peoples feet. Diagram Evidence/results I have my experiment results after all of this and they are: Height(cm) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Average Time(sec) 409 231. 180 154 137 110 According to the results, there seems to be a trend. So, I think I will calculate the final speed. Height(cm) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Final speed(cm/s) 0. 489 0. 865 1. 111 1. 299 1. 46 1. 818 The trend is obvious now. It shows that whenever the height is increased, the time taken will decrease and the final speed of the cart will increase. From we calculate gravitational energy (mass x gravity/acceleration x height), height seems to be one of the main factors that can affect the G. P. E. because as height increases, the G. P. E.will be affected by it. Example: if an object with constant gravity (x), constant mass (y) but falls from changing heights (5 and 10), the outcome will be 5xy and 10xy and this also proved that when the height is increased, the G. P. E. will increase. The forces of gravity pulls down on all objects have on Earth. If objects are allowed to fall, they accelerate downwards. Therefore, if an object is allowed to fall from a higher place, the gravity will pulls down the object with a greater force and the object will accelerate faster as it comes down. If the object falls from a higher place, there will be more time for the object to accelerate, so the final speed of the object will be faster, and as the gravitational force is greater, the object is being pulled harder and quicker. Therefore, this explains why an object will have a faster final speed at the end of the ramp whenever the height of the ramp is increased. At first, I did an experiment on mass of the object that the experiment doesnt work. I have found out that mass doesnt affect the final speed of an object. When an object is held at a certain point, gravitational potential energy is stored; when it is dropped, it will transfer gravitational potential energy to kenetic energy. So that means: Gravitational potential energy = kenetic energy Mass x gravity x height = 0. 5 x mass x velocity This shows that mass exists on both sides of the equation, that means it can be cancel out to simplified the equation. So the equation will become: Gravity x height = 0. 5 x velocity That means mass does not affect the velocity on the right side of the equation. Graph I have also plotted a graph of height against final speed, and after that, I have drawn a line of best fit. The graph shows a straight line of best fit. The graph shows a straight line of best fit and this shows height and final speed are in direct proportion. This proves when the height of the ramp is increased, the final speed is increased and this means the object accelerates faster. Evaluations My results are quite accurate because on the graph, all of the results go very near the best-fit line. My results are quite reliable, as I do every height for three times and take the average of it. I can make the results more accurate by using a light sensor with the computer. This will be more accurate then using a stop watch because human need a time to react before their brain do what it is told to do which is the reaction time. I think my method of doing the experiment is quite good because I can get accurate results from it. I can improve it by putting the ramp more stable and firmer because the ramp keeps on sliding down the slide. I think the method of doing the experiment is quite good because it gives me a quite accurate result and it takes less than half an hour to finish the experiment. At first, I did an experiment on mass of the object that takes about 45 minutes but I got results that are not appropriate for my experiment. So I quickly change the investigation on another topic. Although it wastes lots of time, I learn that mass of an object will not affect the final speed of a falling object.

A Report on the Balanced Scorecard for Yunnan Lucky Air

A Report on the Balanced Scorecard for Yunnan Lucky Air The Chinese airline industry is a heavily regulated industry which provides limiting flexibility to both new as well as growing airlines. In the recent years many low-cost airlines have mushroomed, Lucky Air being one of them. Lucky Air was founded in July 2004 with an initial capitalisation of US$2.2 million. The ownership of the airline is with Hainan Airlines, Shanxi Airlines and Yunnan Shilin Tourism Aviation.The airline exists in a crowded field of around 15 low-cost Chinese airlines. The airline, though growing, anticipates a potential squeeze in its business. The management of Yunnan Lucky Air, hereinafter referred to as Lucky Air, approached us to advice them on monitoring their performance closely so as to achieve their organisational mission and objectives. After initial discussions with the management of the airlines, my team has recommended the use of a Balanced Scorecard to monitor its performance. I present in this report a Balanced Scorecard for Lucky Air that translat es the airlines mission and strategy into a comprehensive set of performance measures. Recent Trends in Lucky Air Lucky Air is currently based in Kunming in Peoples Republic of China. The airline has its main base in Dali airport and runs its flights between Dali to Kunming and Xishuangbanna. The routes in this region have greatly contributed to most of its profits. It is slowly reaching out to other regions in China. The overall growth of the airline has been facilitated by the limited route licensing policy of the Chinese government that has given Lucky Air a near monopoly status within Yunnan. The number of passengers carried by the airline has grown from 500,000 passengers over 5,746 flight hours in 2006 to 1.2 million over 17,875 total flight hours. During the same period, its operating revenue tripled from US$31.2 million to US$104.3 million. Over the recent years, Lucky Air has also grown in terms of flights to and from destinations outside the Yunnan province. As in early 2008, the additional routes represented almost 87 of its 150 weekly flights by the airline. Lucky Air Strategy Lucky Air operates as a low-cost, high-efficiency airline. This is the basis of its key strategy. The low-cost and high efficiency is maintained through: Using single type of aircraft leading to reduced maintenance and operational costs. Having only one category of seat class, thereby simplifying pricing. Having no seat assignments or in-flight entertainment. Increasing on-time departure and arrival by having short haul point-to-point routes. Operating mostly in secondary cities to avoid congestion and reduce landing costs. As a part of its expansion strategy, in recent times Lucky Air has tried to build its competitive advantage by focusing on e-commerce. Customers can buy and refund tickets online by paying 5% to 20% less than anywhere else. The airline has created an online community for its passengers and hopes to reach more customers directly via its website and build more brand recognition and a loyal customer base. In addition, Lucky Air has invested in own call centres to facilitate ticket booking. Balance Scorecard for Lucky Air Lucky Airs strategy rests around it being a low-cost, high-efficiency airline. A scorecard can measure the airlines performance across four different but linked perspectives that are derived from its vision, strategy and objectives. These perspectives include: Financial, Customer, Internal and Learning Growth. The left-hand side of the diagram represents the cause-and-effect relationships across the four perspectives that describe low cost and high-efficiency strategy. (Refer Appendix A for an explanation of the Lucky Air Scorecard and Appendix B for Cause and Relationship between perspectives) Benefits and Limitations of the Scorecard Like any other performance measurement tool, a Balanced Scorecard is not foolproof. Before the scorecard that has been designed for Lucky Air is implemented, the benefits and limitations of the scorecard need to be examined and understood. Benefits of Lucky Air Scorecard Balance Scorecard has led companies to develop a variety of corporate scorecards suggesting a process approach to innovations in performance measurements. (Source: Epstein and Birchard, 2000 and Hoque and James 1997). The benefits that can be obtained from a Balanced Scorecard depend on not just its design but also what it is used for and how it is applied. In general, a Balanced Scorecard will help Lucky Air: Enhance traditional financial accounting measures of Lucky Air by including certain non-financial measures. Thus, Lucky Air, through a Balanced Scorecard, can examine the drivers of financial performance by focusing at least three other perspectives: customers, internal business processes, and learning and growth. (Source: Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1996). Acquire an effective means for clearly translating a firms vision and strategy into tool for communicating the firms strategy to the various sections of the organisation. In the case of Lucky Air, the Balanced Scorecard can show how focusing on the customer and the services can lead to increased profits. (Source: Chow, 1997; Source: Kaplan, 1992) Motivate performance against established strategic goals. A handful of critical measures have been identified for each perspective and the corresponding targets have been defined. The performance measures force managers to focus on the measures that are most critical. The targets provide managers with a framework to manage the various activities in line with the corporate objectives. For example, a manager can clearly see that managing on ground time is critical and it needs to be kept below 20 minutes. Ensure that its employees understand the long-term strategy of the organisation and also the association between the employees actions and the chosen strategic goals. It can provide strategic feedback and promote learning within the airline through the monitoring of short-term strategic results. Allocate resources and set priorities based on the initiatives contribution to long-term strategic objectives. (Source: Kaplan and Norton, 1996). Evaluate and judge the decisions, policies, plans of the airline. For example, the success or otherwise of the decision of adopting e-commerce as an expansion strategy by Lucky Air can be examined in terms of the four perspectives and its impact on the profitability of the airline. Fosters organisational learning and continual improvement when it is used as a strategic management tool. Limitations of Lucky Air Scorecard Though Balanced Scorecard may be an effective tool for many organisations, it may not help in improvement of performance of all organisations. A Balanced Scorecard is only a tool and the deployment of the tool rests with the airline itself. It is not easy to provide practical guidance for deployment of the scorecard. Some of the key limitations that can cause a Balanced Scorecard initiative at Lucky Air to fail are as follows: Effectiveness of a balanced scorecard depends on a well defined strategy and an understanding of the linkages between strategic objectives and metrics. (Source: Howard Rohm pp.4). If this is lacking its deployment will be unsuccessful. The biggest limitation of the Lucky Air scorecard is that it has been designed by an external team of consultants who have been in discussion with some key players in the airline. It did not involve a cross-section of the airline in developing the system. Thus if the scorecard of Lucky Air fails to link the correct drivers in the internal and learning and growth perspective to the desired outcomes in the financial and customer perspectives, it will not be effective. A scorecard may not be effective if it includes a few measures for each perspective. For example, success of Lucky Air is not only a result of the training and motivation of the ground crew but the entire staff. Thus a scorecard with too few measures may not depict enough of Lucky Airs strategy and does not represent a balance between desired outcomes and performance drivers of the outcomes. Likewise if too many measures are included, the managers attention may get so diffused that he may pay insufficient attention to those measures that can make the maximum impact. No balanced scorecard can be flawless with respect to its design. The Lucky Air scorecard too may have certain design flaws which may not be visible now. These will only be detected when the scorecard is implemented. It is only over a period of time that a company will learn about the effective drivers of performance. (Source: Norreklit, 2000) The scorecard on its own will not be effective if Lucky Airs top management is not committed to it. The top executives may end up looking at Balanced scorecard as a quick fix that can easily be installed in the airline. The scorecard may have its limitations if the top management simply uses it as a checklist for operational improvements or to expand the compensation system to include non-financial measures. (Source: Atkinson, A. et al, 2004) The scorecard seems to have too much internal focus. The scorecard is only depicting incentives for desired behaviour changes in the ground crew and not focusing on other employees. Conclusion and Recommendation A scorecard balances traditional financial measures of success such as profits and return on capital with non-financial measures of the drivers of future financial performance. It can prove to be an effective tool for Lucky Air if it is appropriately deployed by the airline. Appropriate deployment will require complete commitment from all levels in the organisation by making its implementation everyones job. Moreover, the initial Balanced Scorecard should only be taken as a starting point and needs to be looked upon on an ongoing basis. Frequent reviews of the scorecard are required and new performance measures identified as a Balanced Scorecard evolves over a period of time. Data on various measures or metrics needs to be collected on a regular basis and the targets of the metrics should be sufficiently linked to rewards and incentives to motivate their accomplishment. APPENDIX Appendix A: Explanation of the Lucky Air Scorecard The classes which can be formed and the parameters which may be put in the balance scorecard are: Financial: How is success measured by Lucky Airs owners, namely, Hainan Airlines, Shanxi Airlines and Yunnan Shilin Tourism Aviation? The financial parameter can be evaluated by assigning values to parameters like total revenue or increase in revenue from tickets, total amount refunded due to cancelled tickets etc. It is also measured in changes in the plane leasing costs, maintaining and operating costs etc. Customers: This is the customer perspective. It focuses on how the airline creates value for the customers. Customer perspective provides an insight into the perceptions customers hold for Lucky Air. Internal: What internal processes should Lucky Air excel in to satisfy customers and shareholders? Internal Processes can be known from turnaround time, on-ground time, arrival and departure delays, number of ticketing errors, customer care services etc. This would help in attaining an idea of the operations of the organization in question. Learning and growth: What employee capabilities, information systems and Lucky Airs climate does the airline need to continually improve its internal processes and customer relationships? It focuses on the motivation and training of the crew members. Starting at the bottom of the diagram, the strategy has a learning and growth objective to train and motivate ground crew with the expectation that this will lead to better improved ground turnarounds, from arrivals to subsequent departures, for its planes. This internal objective enables Lucky Air to have its planes depart on time and to get better utilisation of its airplanes and flight crews, further enabling it to earn profits even at prices that are lowest in the industry. It also focuses on improvement of internal processes to realise bigger revenue opportunities. The low prices and on-time departures attract more customers, improve customer loyalty and lead to a growth in revenues. The combination of revenue growth and low costs finally results in high profits and high return on assets. The strategy is clearer through the cause and effect relationships among objectives in each of the four balanced scorecard perspectives. These can be stated as follows: Increase revenues through increased sales to existing and new customers (financial) Grow to be service oriented ( customer perspective) Excel in providing services through continuous process improvements ( internal) Bring into line employee incentives and rewards with the strategy (learning and growth)

Double Standard for Women of Homers Odyssey Essay -- Homer Odyssey wo

Double Standard for Women of the Odyssey      Ã‚   Odysseus plans to tiptoe back into his hall through various schemes, one of which is to become beneficial and amiable to the maidservants. With this motivation, he offers to guard the hearth so that the fire won’t dwindle, but the response he receives is more than unwelcoming. Melantho, a beneficiary of Penelope, spurns him saying:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   You must be crazy, punch drunk, you old goat.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Instead of going out to find a smithy—or a tavern bench—you stay   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   putting your oar in, amid all our men.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Numbskull not to be scared! The wine you drank   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   has clogged your brain, or are you always this way,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   boasting like a fool? Or have you lost   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   your mind because you beat that tramp, that Iros?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Look out, or someone better may get up   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   and give you a good knocking about the ears   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   to send you out all bloody. (18.405-15).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Unexpectedly and unconventional for his character, Odysseus says: â€Å"One minute: let me tell Telemakhos how you talk in hall, you slut; he’ll cut your arms and legs off† (18.416-20). â€Å"This hard shot took the women’s breath away and drove them quaking to their rooms, as though knives were behind: they felt he spoke the truth† (18.421-23).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   From the perspective of Melantho, her reason to believe the hungry bellied pariah, Odysseus, seems unclear. There seems to be a lapse in her reasoning. Since the old beggar’s arrival at Odysseus’ estate, Telemakhos—not ever publicly acknowledging the hunched-over man's entry—appears to wholly neglect him. Intimidated by the suitors’ death threats and revealing Odysseus’ identity, the only way out for Telemakhos, ... ... Athens," 5-16. Diana Buitron-Oliver and Beth Cohen,   "Between Skylla and Penelope: Female Characters of the Odyssey in Archaic and Classical Greek Art," pp. 29-58. "Female Representations and Interpreting the Odyssey," by Seth Schein, pp. 17-27. Griffin, Jasper. Homer on Life and Death, 1980, Clarendon Press. Richard Brilliant, "Kirke's Men: Swine and Sweethearts," pp. 165-73. Helene Foley, "Penelope as Moral Agent," in Beth Cohen, ed., The Distaff Side (Oxford 1995), pp. 93-115. "The Odyssey, History, and Women," by A. J. Graham, pp. 3-16 Lillian Doherty, Siren Songs: Gender, Audiences, and Narrators in the Odyssey (Ann Arbor 1995), esp. chapter 1. Marilyn Arthur Katz, Penelope's Renown: Meaning and Indeterminacy in the Odyssey (Princeton 1991). Nancy Felson-Rubin, Regarding Penelope: From Courtship to Poetics (Princeton 1994).

Child Abuse in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain :: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

Child Abuse is something that children all around the world have to deal with every day. Child abuse can cause physical and mental affects on a child. It occurs very frequently and can happen for many different reasons. There is a law now stating that reporting child abuse is mandatory and you should report it immediately. There are thousands of child abuse victims every year. The abuse usually can leave permanent damage on the rest of the child's life. Child abuse is a very serious crime, and affects children everyday with positive and negative affects. Child abuse is a serious crime, that if violated can come with many consequences, and rules. Reporting child abuse is a mandatory law enacted in 1978 (but amended many times) stating that people must report child abuse immediately1. This law was created to identify children that are victims of child abuse. Relating to the law the Department of Human Services has responsibility to access and investigate suspected child abuse. "Each year Department of Human Services investigators conduct 20,000 investigations involving 30,000 children (in the state of California).2" There are a lot of cases reported each year, involving innocent children, abused by their parents. Although there are thousands of cases reported each year, thousands go unreported. "Child abuse has serious consequences which may remain as indelible pain throughout the victims lifetime3" Child abuse can have permanent negative affects on the child, permanent affects that the child will never forget. The abuse can also bring a better side to the child, making the child wanting to be more independent. Child abuse is very common, and can affect any child of any race, color or religion. Child abuse is caused by a parent, for many reasons, and can lead to many kinds of problems for the child. Parents impose child abuse for many reasons such as psychological problems to low self esteem to alcohol or drug abuse.4 Child abuse happens for many different reasons but all the reasons are still child abuse, and are taken seriously. Child abuse can also occur when parents have too high of expectation of their kids which then leads to abuse. "Abusive parents may show disregard for the child's own needs, limited abilities, and feelings."5 Disregarding children's needs can include a neglect ion. Children need parental advice and for parents to fulfill all their needs.

Six Challenges for Educational Technology

Six Challenges for Educational Technology Chris Dede George Mason University Many exciting applications of information technology in schools validate that new technology-based models of teaching and learning have the power to dramatically improve educational outcomes. As a result, many people are asking how to scale-up the scattered, successful â€Å"islands of innovation† instructional technology has empowered into universal improvements in schooling enabled by major shifts in standard educational practices.Undertaking â€Å"systemic reform† (sustained, large-scale, simultaneous innovation in curriculum; pedagogy; assessment; professional development; administration; incentives; and partnerships for learning among schools, businesses, homes, and community settings) requires policies and practices different than fostering pilot projects for small-scale educational improvement. Systemic reform involves moving from utilizing special, external resources to reconfiguring ex isting budgets in order to free up money for innovation.Without undercutting their power, change strategies effective when pioneered by leaders in educational innovation must be modified to be implemented by typical educators. Technology-based innovations offer special challenges and opportunities in this scalingup process. I believe that systemic reform is not possible without utilizing the full power of high performance computing and communications to enhance the reshaping of schools. Yet the cost of technology, its rapid evolution, and the special knowledge and skills required of its users pose substantial barriers to effective utilization.One way to frame these issues is to pose six questions that school boards, taxpayers, educators, business groups, politicians, and parents are asking about implementing large-scale, technology-based educational innovations. After each question, I’ll respond to the issues it raises. Collectively, these answers outline a strategy for scali ng-up, leveraging the power of technology while minimizing its intrinsic challenges. Question One: How can schools afford to purchase enough multimedia-capable, Internetconnected computers so that a classroom machine is always available for every two to three students?Giving all students continuous access to multimedia-capable, Internet-connected computers is currently quite fashionable. For politicians, the Internet in every classroom has become the modern equivalent of the promised â€Å"chicken in every pot. † Communities urge everyone to provide volunteer support for NetDays that wire the schools. Information technology vendors are offering special programs to encourage massive educational purchases. States are setting aside substantial amounts of money for building information infrastructures dedicated to instructional usage.Yet, as an educational technologist, I am more dismayed than delighted. Some of my nervousness about this initiative comes from the â€Å"First Gen eration† thinking about information technology that underlies these visions. Multimedia-capable, Internet-connected computers are seen by many as magical devices, â€Å"silver bullets† to solve the problems of schools. Teachers and 2 administrators who use new media are assumed to be automatically more effective than those who do not.Classroom computers are envisioned as a technology comparable to fire: just by sitting near these devices, students get a benefit from them, as knowledge and skills radiate from the monitors into their minds. Yet decades of experience with technological innovations based on First Generation thinking have demonstrated that this viewpoint is misguided. Classroom computers that are acquired as panaceas end up as doorstops. As discussed later, information technology is a costeffective investment only in the context of systemic reform.Unless other simultaneous innovations in pedagogy, curriculum, assessment, and school organization are coupled t o the usage of instructional technology, the time and effort expended on implementing these devices produces few improvements in educational outcomes—and reinforces many educators’ cynicism about fads based on magical machines. I feel additional concern about attempts to supply every student with continuous access to high performance computing and communications because of the likely cost of this massive investment.Depending on the assumptions made about the technological capabilities involved, estimates of the financial resources needed for such an information infrastructure vary (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997). Extrapolating the most detailed cost model (McKinsey & Company, 1995) to one multimedia-capable, Internet-connected computer for every two to three students yields a price tag of about ninety-four billion dollars of initial investment and twenty-eight billion dollars per year in ongoing costs, a financial commitment that would drain schools of all discretionar y funding for at least a decade.For several reasons, this is an impractical approach for improving education. First, putting this money into computers-and-cables is too large an investment in just one part of the infrastructure improvements that many schools desperately need. Buildings are falling apart, furnishings are dilapidated, playgrounds need repair, asbestos must be removed†¦ otherwise, the machines themselves will cease to function as their context deteriorates.Also, substantial funding is needed for other types of innovations required to make instructional hardware effective, such as standards-based curricular materials for the WorldWide Web and alternative kinds of pedagogy based on partnerships between teachers and tools. (The McKinsey cost estimates do include some funding for content development and staff training, but in my judgment too little to enable effective technology integration and systemic reform. ) If most of the money goes into new media, little fundin g is available for the new messages and meanings that those devices could empower.Second, without substantial and extended professional development in the innovative models of teaching and learning that instructional technology makes affordable and sustainable, many educators will not use these devices to their full potential. â€Å"Second Generation† thinking in educational technology does not see computers as magic, but does make the mistake of focusing on automation as their fundamental purpose. Computers are envisioned as ways to empower â€Å"teaching by telling† and â€Å"learning by listening,† serving as a fire hose to spray information from the Internet into learners’ minds.However, even without educational technology, classrooms are already drowning in data, and an overcrowded curriculum puts students and teachers on the brink of intellectual indigestion. Adding additional information, even when coated with multimedia bells-and-whistles, is like ly to worsen rather than improve educational settings. Professional 3 development needs are more complex than increasing educators’ technical literacy (e. g. , training in how to use web browsers).The issue is building teachers’ knowledge and skills in alternative types of pedagogy and content, and such an increase in human capabilities requires substantial funding that will be unavailable if almost all resources are put into hardware. Third, the continuing costs of maintaining and upgrading a massive infusion of schoolbased technology would be prohibitive. High performance computing and communications requires high tech skills to keep operational and will become obsolete in five to seven years as information technology continues its rapid advance.Yet taxpayers now see computers as similar to blackboards: buy them once, and they are inexpensively in place for the lifetime of the school. School boards rapidly become restive at sizable yearly expenditures for technology maintenance and telecommunications usage—especially if, several months after installation, standardized test scores have not yet dramatically risen—and will become apoplectic if another $50B to replace obsolete equipment is required only a few years after an initial huge expenditure.For all these reasons, investing a huge sum in information infrastructures for schools is impractical and invites a later backlash against educational technology as yet another failed fad. I would go farther, however, and argue that we should not make such an investment even if the â€Å"technology fairy† were to leave $100B under our virtual pillows, no strings attached. Kids continuously working on machines with teachers wandering around coaching the confused is the wrong model for the classroom of the future; I wince when I see those types of vendor commercials.In that situation—just as in classrooms with no technology—too much instructional activity tends to center on presentation and motivation, building a foundation of ideas and skills as well as some context for why students should care. Yet this temporary interest and readiness to master curricular material rapidly fades when no time is left for reflection and application, as teachers and students move on to the next required topic in the overcrowded curriculum, desperately trying to meet all the standards and prepare for the test.Substantial research documents that helping students make sense out of something they have assimilated, but do not yet understand is crucial for inducing learning that is retained and generalized (Schank & Jona, 1991). Reflective discussion of shared experiences from multiple perspectives is essential in learners’ converting information into knowledge, as well as in students mastering the collaborative creation of meaning and purpose (Edelson, Pea, & Gomez, 1996).Some of these interpretative and expressive activities are enhanced by educational devices, bu t many are best conducted via face-to-face interaction, without the intervening filter and mask of computer-mediated communication (Brown & Campione, 1994). What if instead much of the presentation and motivation that is foundational for learning occurred outside of classroom settings, via information technologies part of home and workplace and community contexts? Students would arrive at school already imbued with some background and motivation, ripe for guided inquiry, ready for interpretation and collaborative construction of knowledge.People are spending lots of money on devices purchased for entertainment and information services: televisions, videotape players, computers, Web TV, videogames. Many of these technologies are astonishingly powerful and inexpensive; for example, the Nintendo 64 machine available now for a couple hundred dollars is the equivalent of a several hundred 4 thousand dollar graphics supercomputer a decade ago. What if these devices—many ubiquitous in rich and poor homes, urban and rural areas—were also utilized for educational purposes, even though not acquired for that reason?By off-loading from classroom settings some of the burden of presenting material and inducing motivation, learning activities that use the technology infrastructure outside of schools would reduce the amount of money needed for adequate levels of classroom-based technology. Such a strategy also enables teachers to focus on students’ interpretation and expressive articulation without feeling obligated to use technology in every step of the process. Such a model of â€Å"distributed learning† involves orchestrating educational activities among classrooms, workplaces, homes, and community settings (Dede, 1996).This pedagogical strategy models for students that learning is integral to all aspects of life—not just schooling— and that people adept at learning are fluent in using many types of information tools scattered thro ughout our everyday context. Such an educational approach also can build partnerships for learning between teachers and families; this is important because parental involvement is certainly one of the most powerful levers in increasing any student’s educational performance.In other words, unless â€Å"systemic reform† in education is conducted with one boundary of the system around the school and another boundary around the society, its affordability and sustainability are doubtful. As a bridge across these boundaries, new media can play a vital role in facilitating this bi-level approach to large-scale educational innovation. For example, videogame players are the only interactive devices widely available in poor households and provide a sophisticated, but inexpensive computational platform for learning—if we develop better content than the mindless follies of SuperMarioâ„ ¢ or the grim dystopias of Doomâ„ ¢.My research in virtual reality illustrates how multisensory, immersive virtual environments could leverage learning complex scientific concepts on computational platforms as commonplace as next decade’s videogames (http://www. virtual. gmu. edu). Districts can leverage their scarce resources for innovation, as well as implement more effective educational models, by utilizing information devices outside of classrooms to create learning environments that complement computers and communications in schools.To instead saturate schools with information technology is both very expensive and less educationally effective. Question Two: How can schools afford enough computers and telecommunications to sustain new models of teaching and learning? Educational improvement based on distributed learning—utilizing information technologies external to school settings to enable increased interpretive and expressive activities in classrooms—does not mean that schools won’t need substantial amounts of computers and commu nications.To empower project-based learning through guided inquiry, students must have access to sophisticated information devices in schools (Linn, 1997). Even if this is accomplished via notebook computers and wireless networks moved from class to class as required, with pupils also spending significant amounts of time learning without the aid of technology, districts must allocate more money to purchasing, maintaining, and upgrading computers and telecommunications than has been true historically. Where will educators find the funds for equipment, software, technical staff, ongoing telecommunications services, professional development—the myriad of costs associated with a sophisticated information infrastructure? In the past, this money has come largely from special external sources: grants, community donations, bond initiatives. To be sustainable over the long run, however, resources for technology must come from reallocating existing budgets by reducing other types of ex penditures.Of course, such shifts in financing are resisted by those groups whose resources are cut, and district administrators and school boards have been reluctant to take on the political challenges of changing how money is spent. An easy way to kill educational innovations is to declare that of course they will be implemented—as long as no existing activities must be curtailed to fund new approaches. Such an approach to institutional evolution is one reason why, if Rip Van Winkle awoke today, he would recognize almost nothing in modern society—except schools.Educational organizations are unique, however, in demanding that technology implementation accomplished via add-on funding. Every other type of societal institution (e. g. , factories, hospitals, retail outlets, banks) recognizes that the power of information devices stems in part from their ability to reconfigure employee roles and organizational functioning. These establishments use the power of technology t o alter their standard practices, so that the cost of computers and communications is funded by improvements in effectiveness within the organization, by doing more with less.If educators were to adopt this model—reallocating existing resources to fund technology implementation—what types of expenditures would drop so that existing funds could cover the costs of computers and communications? First, schools that have adopted the inquiry-based models of pedagogy find that outlays on textbooks and other types of standardized instructional materials decrease. While these materials are a smaller part of districts’ budgets than salaries or physical plants, nonetheless they cost a significant amount of money.When students collect their own data, draw down information across the Internet, and interact with a larger pool of experts than teachers and textbooks, fewer commercial presentational resources are required—especially if learners draw on topical data flowin g through information sources outside of schools. Moreover, covering a few concepts in depth rather than surveying many ideas superficially reduces the amount of prepackaged information educators must purchase.A second way to reconfigure existing financial resources is to reduce the staff involved in data entry operations. Educators are inundated with large amounts of recordkeeping functions, and one of the most debilitating aspects of this work is the continuous reentry of identical information on different forms. Businesses have saved substantial amounts of money by altering routine information processes so that data is only entered once, then automatically flows across the entire organization to each place in which it is needed.Were educators to adopt these already proven models for cost-efficient information management, the amount of time and staff required for data entry functions would decrease markedly, freeing funding for instruction-related uses of technology. Third, and on a more fundamental level, teaching is more efficient and effective with new types of technology-based curriculum and pedagogy. At present, substantial re-teaching of 6 knowledge and skills is required; presentational material flows into students’ minds, is retained just long enough to perform on a test, and then is forgotten.Class sizes are typically between twenty-five and forty—somewhat too large for effective project-based learning, yet small given that lectures work as well for several hundred students as for several dozen. The scheduling of class periods is too short, limiting teachers and students to fragmentary presentational and practice activities. Teachers all have comparable roles with similar pay structures—unlike other societal organizations, which have complementary staff roles with a mix of skill levels and salaries. Visions presented in the forthcoming 1998 ASCD Yearbook Dede & Palumbo, in press) depict how altered configurations of human resour ces, instructional modalities, and organizational structures could result in greater effectiveness for comparable costs—even with the acquisition of substantial school-based technology. This case is also made at greater length in Hunter & Goldberg (1995). In the commercial sector, too often these types of institutional shifts result in layoffs. However, because of the coming wave of retirements among educators, districts have a window of opportunity to accomplish structural changes without major adverse impacts on employees.Over the next decade, large numbers of â€Å"baby-boom† educators will leave the profession, and a staged process of organizational restructuring could occur in parallel with those retirements. Coordinating technology expenditures as an integral part of that larger framework for institutional evolution is vital in districts’ planning to afford computers and communications. Question Three: How can many educators disinterested or phobic about c omputers and communications be induced to adopt new technology-based models of teaching and learning?Thus far, most educators who use technology to implement the alternative types of pedagogy and curriculum are â€Å"pioneers†: people who see continuous change and growth as an integral part of their profession and who are willing to swim against the tide of conventional operating procedures—often at considerable personal cost. However, to achieve large-scale shifts in standard educational practices, many more teachers must alter their pedagogical approaches; and schools’ management, institutional structure, and relationship to the community must change in fundamental ways.This requires that â€Å"settlers† (people who appreciate stability and do not want heroic efforts to become an everyday requirement) must be convinced to make the leap to a different mode of professional activity—with the understanding that, once they have mastered these new appr oaches, their daily work will be sustainable without extraordinary exertion. How can a critical mass of educators in a district be induced simultaneously to make such a shift? Studies of innovation in other types of institutions indicate that successful change is always bottom-up, middle-out, and top-down.The driver for bottom-up innovation in a district is the children. Typically, students are joyful and committed when they are given the opportunity to learn by doing, to engage in collaborative construction of knowledge, and to experience mentoring relationships. That these types of instruction are accomplished via educational technology will excite some kids, while others will be indifferent—but all will appreciate the opportunity to move beyond learning by listening.Educators can draw enormous strength and purpose from watching the eager response of their students to classroom situations that use alternative forms of pedagogy. Often, teachers have shifted from pioneers to settlers 7 because they were worn down by the unceasing grind of motivating students to master uninteresting, fragmented topics; and administrators have undergone a similar loss of enthusiasm by being inundated with paperwork rather than serving as instructional coordinators. The professional commitment that kids’ enthusiasm can re-inspire is a powerful driver of bottom-up change.The source of middle-out change is a district’s pioneers. Many teachers entered the profession because they love students of a certain age and want to help them grow—or love their subject matter and want to share its beauty and richness. Often, these teachers feel alienated because the straightjacket of traditional instruction and school organization walls them away from meaningful relationships with their students and their subject. Similarly, many administrators want to serve as leaders and facilitators, but are forced by conventional managerial practices into being bureaucrats and bo sses.Middle-out change is empowered when educators who have given up hope of achieving their professional dreams see pioneer colleagues using technology to succeed in those goals—and realize that, if everyone made a similar commitment, no one would have to make continuous personal sacrifices to achieve this vision. The lever for top-down innovation is the community served by the district. Educators want respect—yet teaching has fallen from a revered professions to a much lower status.The relationship between educators and their community is seldom seen as a partnership; instead, teachers and administrators often feel isolated, forced to perform a difficult task with inadequate resources. Parents, the business sector, and taxpayers bitterly debate the purpose of schools and sometimes attempt to micro-manage their operation. In contrast, when homes, classrooms, workplaces and community settings are linked via new media to achieve distributed learning, much more positive interactions emerge between schools and society.Educators can move from isolation to collaboration with the community, from a position of low esteem to an respected role in orchestrating children’s learning across a spectrum of settings. This shift in status is a powerful driver for innovation. To activate these bottom-up, middle-out, and top-down forces for improvement, educators must take the lead in developing a shared vision for systemic reform, distributed learning, and sophisticated utilization of technology. Making such a commitment to large-scale educational innovation is not only the right thing to do, but is increasingly essential to educators’ professional integrity.In many ways, physicians working in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) face challenges similar to teachers and administrators working in today’s schools. These doctors are responsible for the well-being of their patients, but work within administrative structures that restrict their d ecision making capabilities, that are focused on saving money at least as much as on combating illness, and that do not provide the latest technology or much time and resources for professional development.Yet we expect those physicians to do whatever it takes—fight the system for what the patient needs, spend personal time mastering the latest medical advances and technologies—to help those whom they serve. To do otherwise would be malpractice, a betrayal of trust, a breach of ethics as a professional. Given advances in information technology that are reshaping the knowledge students need and the ways educators can help them learn, we need to accept a professional obligation—despite current institutional constraints—to do whatever it takes in changing traditional instructional practices so that a generation of children is truly prepared for the 21st century. Question Four: How do we prove to communities that new, technology-based models of teaching and l earning are better than current instructional approaches? Few communities are willing to take educational innovations â€Å"on faith. † Many people are uneasy about whether conventional instruction and traditional testing are developing and assessing the types of knowledge and skills children need for their future.However, most parents and taxpayers feel that the current system worked for them and do not want to substitute something radically different unless new methods are proven to be superior. What types of evidence can educators offer communities that innovative, technology-based models of teaching and learning are so much better—given what our society needs in the 21st century—that the substantial cost and effort of systemic reform is more than worth the trouble?Research documents that new, technology-based pedagogical strategies result in at least four kinds of improvements in educational outcomes. Some of these gains are easy to communicate to the commun ity; others are difficult—but together they constitute a body of evidence that can convince most people. These four types of improvements are listed below, in sequence from the most readily documented to the hardest to demonstrate. Increased learner motivation.Students are very excited when exposed to learning experiences that go beyond information assimilation and teaching-by-telling. Guided inquiry, project-based collaboration, and mentoring relationships all evoke increased learner motivation, manifested via readily observable indicators such as better attendance, higher concentration, and greater time on task. All of these not only correlate with increased educational performance, but also are in stark contrast to the attitudes parents and taxpayers formed about most of their schooling.Documenting to communities that students care about what they are learning and are working hard to achieve complex goals is not difficult, given the ubiquity of videotape players and camcor ders. Student-produced videos that show learners engaged and excited are intriguing to parents and taxpayers, who may not fully understand what is happening in the classroom, but are impressed by student behavior divergent from their own memories and likely to result in better learning outcomes.Too often, educators take little advantage of this easy way to open a dialogue about instructional improvement with the community. Advanced topics mastered. Whatever else they believe about the purposes of schooling, parents want their children to have a prosperous lifestyle and know that this necessitates mastering advanced concepts. In the 21st century, being a successful worker and an informed citizen will require the sophisticated knowledge delineated in the national curriculum standards, especially in the sciences and mathematics.Information technology can help students not only to learn these difficult concepts, but also to master the learning-how-to-learn skills needed to keep their ca pabilities current in a rapidly evolving economy. When shown that technologybased instructional strategies enable teaching sophisticated ideas not now part of the conventional curriculum, more complex than the items on current standardized tests, and harder than what they learned in school, taxpayers are impressed. 9 Students acting as experts do.Developing in learners the ability to use problem solving processes similar to those of experts is challenging, but provides powerful evidence that students are gaining the skills they will need to succeed in the 21st century. One of the most striking features of a classroom based on new instructional models is that learners are behaving as do teams of scientists, mathematicians, designers, or other kinds of expert problem solvers. Pupils’ activities in these learning environments mirror the analytic, interpretive, creative, and expressive uses of information tools increasingly characteristic of sophisticated workplace settings.When parents and taxpayers see students perform complex tasks and create intricate products, they are impressed by the similarity between the recent evolution of their own workplaces and the skills children are developing. Better outcomes on standardized tests. The most difficult type of evidence to provide for the superiority of new, technology-based instructional models is what communities first demand: higher scores on conventional measures of achievement.Standardized tests are designed to assess only a narrow range of knowledge, and the other three types of improvements just discussed fall largely outside the scope of what they measure. A major challenge for educational assessment is to develop methods that measure a wider range of skills than paper-and-pencil, multiple choice tests, without bogging educators down in complex, time-consuming, and potentially unreliable performance evaluations.Research shows that students’ outcomes on conventional achievement tests rise when tec hnology-based educational innovations are implemented, but this does not occur immediately, as teachers and learners must first master these new models of pedagogy. To succeed in systemic reform, educators must prepare communities for the fact that test scores will not instantly rise and that other, complementary types of improvements less easy to report quantitatively are better short-range measures of improvement.Overall, the single most effective means of convincing parents, the business community, and taxpayers that technology-based models of teaching are superior to conventional instructional approaches is to involve them in students’ education. Through distributed learning approaches that build partnerships between schools and society, communities have ample opportunities to observe the types of evidence discussed above, as well as to further enhance students’ educational outcomes. Question Five: How can educational technology increase equity rather than widen cu rrent gaps between â€Å"haves† and â€Å"have-nots? Implemented within a larger context of systemic reform, emerging information technologies can produce dramatic improvements in learning outcomes. But won’t such educational usage of computers and communications widen inequities in our society? However ample the access to technology students have in schools, learners differ greatly in the amount and sophistication of information devices in their homes and communities. Isn’t all this effort simply making education better for the â€Å"haves,† potentially worsening our society’s pathological gaps in income and power?Certainly, new media such as Web TV are dropping in price, and almost all homes have videogames, television, and videotape players—but won’t the rich always have more information devices of greater power than the poor, skewing the advantages of distributed learning and increasing inequality? 10 From an historical perspecti ve, innovative information technologies at first widen inequities within civilization, because initial access to the differential advantage they bring is restricted to the few who can afford the substantial expense of this increased power.As emerging media mature, drop in price, and are widely adopted, however, the ultimate impact of information technology is to make society more egalitarian. For example, the world of universal telephone service is a more equitable environment than was the world of messenger boys and telegraph offices. The challenge for current educational policy is to minimize the period during which the gap between haves and have-nots widens, rapidly moving to a maturity of usage and an universality of access that promotes increased equity.At present, most of society’s attempts to decrease the widened inequalities that new educational technologies could create are centered on access and literacy. In schools that serve disadvantaged and at-risk populations, extra efforts are made to increase the amount of computers and communications available. Similarly, educators and learners in have-not situations are given special training to ensure that they are literate in information tools, such as web browsers.To compensate for more home-based technology in affluent areas, many feel that our best strategy is providing teachers and students in low socioeconomic status areas with additional technology to â€Å"level the playing field† (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997). While a good place to begin, this approach to educational equity is inadequate unless taken beyond access and literacy to also address issues of content and services. The on-line materials and types of assistance that learners and teachers can access must reflect the needs and interests of diverse and at-risk students.For example, I can take homeless people to the public library and show them how to use a web browser to download images of impressionist paintings at the Louvre, but this is not likely to motivate or impress them, since such a learning experience does not speak to their primary needs. Similarly, emerging graphical interfaces such as Microsoft Windowsâ„ ¢ enhance many users’ capabilities, but adversely affect learners with reduced eyesight who cannot effectively manipulate the visual features of these interfaces.The real issue in equity is empowerment—tailoring information technology to give dispossessed groups what they want. For example, I worked with a local team of politicians to explore the implications of information technology for improving public services. They were excited about using community-based information terminals to offer improved access to health care, welfare, education, and other social services for the immigrant and minority populations they served. However, when I began to describe how on-line communication tools could help these groups to increase their participation n voting and to form coalitions fo r political action, the elected representatives immediately lost interest. To truly achieve educational equity, working collaboratively with have-not populations is vital in developing content and services tailored to their needs and designed to build on their strengths and agendas. Otherwise, improving access and literacy will fall short of the success for all students essential to America’s prosperity in the 21st century. Question Six: If we use technology well, what should we expect as â€Å"typical† student performance? 1 If we were to implement systemic reform based on new strategies for learning through sophisticated technology, research suggests that â€Å"typical† students might do as well as â€Å"exemplary† learners do now. Our expectations for what pupils can accomplish are far too low, largely because standard educational processes are obsolete given the progression of information technology, insights into the nature of learning, and shifts in the educational outcomes society needs.In many ways, we live in the â€Å"Dark Ages† of schooling—restrained from making rapid advances toward increased instructional effectiveness by outmoded ideas, ritual, and tradition. Setting our sights higher and using better metrics to measure progress are vital to successful innovation. For example, many people are intrigued by results from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which show the United States well behind nations such as Singapore and Japan on math and science outcomes from a globally developed achievement test. Crusaders are implementing reforms to ensure that our students do much better on this test.However, our goal should not be to exceed the level of Singapore on an assessment instrument that, as described earlier, measures only a fraction of what students need to know for their future prosperity—and moreover incorporates a diluted definition of educational quality negotiated a cross many countries with very different populations and national goals. Others advocate using a standards-based curriculum as the touchstone for educational effectiveness, and reformers are centering state and national judgments of educational worth on this measure.Certainly, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards are a major improvement over the hodgepodge math curriculum before their inception, as are the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) standards and similar efforts in other fields. But our metric for whether students succeed should not simply be whether they learn the math mathematicians think is important, the science scientists feel is vital, and so on. Being a productive worker and citizen involves much more than having an adequate background in each field of knowledge.Integrating these concepts and skills and being a lifelong learner with the self-worth, discipline, and motivation to apply this knowledge is of paramount im portance—yet not captured by discipline-based standards alone. New forms of pedagogy are also no â€Å"philosopher’s stone† that can make golden each educational experience for every learner. Some argue that, if only all classrooms were based on constructivist learning or situated cognition or individualized tutoring or multimedia presentations or integrated learning systems or whatever pedagogical panacea, every student would succeed.However, learning is a very complex and idiosyncratic process that requires, for each pupil, a repertoire of many different types of instruction orchestrated together. In other words, no test, no curriculum, and no instructional strategy in itself can guarantee educational quality—even though our current approach to determining schools’ worth is based on these inadequate measures. Instead, we need new standards for a knowledge-based society that combine all these metrics for success and that are based on much higher l evels of â€Å"typical† student outcomes.Successful technology-based innovations have the common characteristic that learners exceed everyone’s expectations for what is possible. Second graders do fifth grade work; nine graders outscore twelfth grade students. What would those ninth graders be accomplishing if, 12 from kindergarten on, they had continuous access to our best tools, curriculum, and pedagogy? Would they be the equivalent of college sophomores? We are selling short a generation by expecting less and by orienting our curriculum, instruction, and tests accordingly.Conclusion My responses to the six questions above sketch a conceptual framework for thinking about the process of scaling-up from islands of innovation to widespread shifts in standard educational practices. These answers illustrate that technology-based systemic reform is hard in part because our ways of thinking about implementation are often flawed. Large-scale educational innovation will never be easy, but can be less difficult if we go beyond our implicit assumptions about learning, technology, equity, schooling, and society.Understanding the scaling-up process is vital for making strategies for change affordable, generalizable, and sustainable. References Brown, A. L. , & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed. ), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Coley, R. J. , Cradler, J. , & Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U. S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Dede, C. , & Palumbo, D. (Eds). (in press). Learning with technology (the 1998 ASCD Yearbook).Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Dede, C. (1996). Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education 10, 2, 4-36. Edelson, D. C. , Pea, R. D. , & Gomez, L. M. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In B. Wilson (Ed. ) , Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Hunter, B. , & Goldberg, B. (1995) Learning and teaching in 2004: The BIG DIG. In U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Education and technology: Future visions (OTABP-EHR-169).Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Linn, M. C. (1997). Learning and instruction in science education: Taking advantage of technology. In D. Tobin & B. J. Fraser (Eds. ), International handbook of science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer. McKinsey & Company. (1995). Connecting K-12 schools to the information superhighway. Palo Alto, CA: McKinsey & Company. Schank, R. C. , & Jona, M. Y. (1991). Empowering the student: New perspectives on the design of teaching systems. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 1, 7-35.