Goals 2000: Educate America Act

In March 1994, President Clinton signed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. He said that, "We insist, with Goals 2000, that every student can learn. We insist that it's time to abolish the outdated distinction between academic learning and skill learning. We know now that most academics has practical application, and that, more and more, practical problems require academic knowledge. And I hope to goodness we don't do anything else - we've finally erased that divide so that we can teach our young people to learn in the way that best suits their own capacities and the work they have to do. But I am absolutely convinced that there is not a single, solitary problem in American education that has not been solved by somebody, somewhere. What we have done as a nation is to resist learning from each other, to resist institutionalizing change, to resist, therefore, holding ourselves accountable for results as a nation.

Clinton added that what we the government was trying to do with Goals 2000 is to say, here are the goals, you figure out how to get there, you learn from each other. Come up with aggressive plans, we will help you fund them and go forward, but you are in charge. The federal government can't tell you how to do it, but we can help you get it done. What this Goals 2000 movement, with the School to Work program, with the adult education program, with the retraining program and the re-employment program, what it all seeks to do is to give America a system by which at the grass roots level we can fulfill the promise of Brown v. Board of Education for all our people. "

Secretary Richard Riley observed at the kick off meeting for Goals 2000 that, "some of you will use the new provisions of Goals 2000 to expand what you have started. Some of you will use it to reinvigorate and connect existing reforms. And others of you may use it to launch a comprehensive new effort to improve teaching and learning. That's really what we're about isn't it? But how you use Goals 2000 to encourage learning back home is really your choice. I urge you to think big, to think comprehensively, to recognize that this won't happen in a year or in just a few years. We spent ten years getting to the point where we had the support to pass Goals 2000. A Nation at Risk was ten years ago. We will probably spend another ten years making it work for all of our children."

Three times in the last six years, Congress has attempted to pass education reform legislation and each time it has been unable to resolve its differences. The strong bipartisan support for Goals 2000 demonstrates that we are ready to move from "a nation at risk" to a nation on the move.

The enactment of Goals 2000 is the beginning of a new era in school and education reform - a revolutionary, all-inclusive plan to change every aspect of our education system, while at the same time aligning its individual parts with one another.

It offers an opportunity for those concerned with the state of American education to become involved in the implementation of real change and improvement of our nation's education system, working at the local community and state levels. It will create and improve learning opportunities for everyone from pre-school to those who return to school.

By generating enthusiasm in schools and states throughout this nation, it will create thousands of community-based reform efforts, each working for the betterment of our educational system, and each allowing every school and every student to be the best they can be - to learn to world-class standards.

Goals 2000 will move the nation toward a system that is based on high standards that all students can meet - a system that will provide both equity and excellence for all of the students in this country.

When we fail to hold all students to high standards, the results are low achievement and the tragic experience of children leaving school without ever having been challenged to fulfill their potential.

High standards lets everyone in the education system know what to aim for. It allows every student, every parent and every teacher to share in common expectations of what students should know and be able to accomplish. Students will learn more when more is expected of them, in school and at home. And, aligning teacher education, instructional materials, assessment practices and parental involvement, will create coherence in educational practice.

The American people have said they are ready to move from the old assembly line version of education to a better way of educating their children. They want their children to be part of the new, emerging high-tech, high-knowledge economy of the 21st century.

By transforming the national education goals into a policy for which committed people across our nation can work, President Clinton has helped to ensure that the future of this nation will remain strong and secure and that its citizens will be able to compete and prosper in this new global economic era that is already upon us.

Since early in our history, the public education system of this nation has been a magnet and a model for people throughout the world who yearn to make something better of their lives. It is a beacon of light across the globe, a symbol of our democratic and egalitarian traditions. Unfortunately, in recent years, this standard has slipped; the beacon has dimmed. That is why the Goals 2000 law is so important, as well as the subsequent enactment of additional education reform legislation like the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the revolutionary reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act, both of which are designed to dovetail with Goals 2000. Each of these important changes in the law will offer federal assistance in implementing local education reform...help that is designed to assist, but not interfere with the traditional local character of education.

It has been nearly thirty years since this nation has seen the kind of reform in education that Goals 2000 offers. It is up to us to ensure that we maximize the opportunities this law offers us and work to guarantee a challenging education for every student. For the future of our children and our nation, it is the least we can do.

Goals 2000 provides resources to states and communities to develop and implement comprehensive education reforms aimed at helping all students reach challenging academic and occupational skill standards.

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act is not an experiment; it incorporates the lessons of education reform from communities and states in the 1980s.


    • Raising standards and making course content more challenging really works. When more is expected of students,they work harder and achieve more. When employees know what skills they need to succeed on the job, they will work to achieve them.
    • We must change our expectations of teachers. They cannot teach to new standards using the same old ways. We must overhaul teacher training and make continuing professional development an integral part of their job.
    • Accountability is essential. Schools must be given the tools and the flexibility they need to get the job done and then be held accountable for the results they achieve. There must be real rewards for high performance and significant consequences for failure.
    • Schools can't do the job alone. Parents, businesses, families, community organizations and public and private agencies that provide health care, counseling, family support and other social services must be part of community-wide efforts to support students.
    • All children in America will start school ready to learn.
    • The objectives for this goal are that...All children will have access to high-quality and developmentally appropriate preschool programs that help prepare children for school. Every parent in the United States will be a child's first teacher and devote time each day to helping such parent's preschool child learn and parents will have access to the training and support parents need. Children will receive the nutrition, physical activity experiences and health care needed to arrive at school with healthy minds and bodies, and to maintain the mental alertness necessary to be prepared to learn, and the number of low-birth weight babies will be significantly reduced through enhanced prenatal health systems.
    • The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.

The objectives for this goal are that...The Nation must dramatically reduce its school dropout rate, and 75 percent of the students who do drop out will successfully complete a high school degree or its equivalent; and the gap in high school graduation rates between American students from minority backgrounds and their non-minority counterparts will be eliminated.


    • All students will leave grades 4, 8 and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, the arts, history and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning and productive employment in our nation's modern economy.

The objectives for this goal are that...The academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary level will increase significantly in every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in each quartile will more closely reflect the student population as a whole. The percentage of all students who demonstrate the ability to reason, solve problems, apply knowledge and write and communicate effectively will increase substantially.

All students will be involved in activities that promote and demonstrate good citizenship, good health, community service and personal responsibility. All students will have access to physical education and health education to ensure they are healthy and fit. The percentage of all students who are competent in more than one language will substantially increase. All students will be knowledgeable about the diverse cultural heritage of this Nation and about the world community.


    • United States students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.

The objectives for this goal are that...Mathematics and science education, including the metric system of measurement, will be strengthened throughout the system, especially in the early grades. The number of teachers with a substantive background in mathematics and science, including the metric system of measurement, will increase by 50 percent. The number of United States undergraduate and graduate students, especially women and minorities, who complete degrees in mathematics, science and engineering will increase significantly.


    • Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

The objectives for this goal are that...Every major American business will be involved in strengthening the connection between education and work. All workers will have the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills, from basic to highly technical, needed to adapt to emerging new technologies, work methods and markets through public and private educational, vocational, technical, workplace or other programs. The number of quality programs, including those at libraries, that are designed to serve more effectively the needs of the growing number of part-time and mid-career students will increase substantially. The proportion of the qualified students, especially minorities, who enter college, who complete at least two years and who complete their degree programs will increase substantially. The proportion of college graduates who demonstrate an advanced ability to think critically, communicate effectively and solve problems will increase substantially. Schools, in implementing comprehensive parent involvement programs, will offer more adult literacy, parent training and life-long learning opportunities to improve the ties between home and school, and enhance parents' work and home lives.


    • Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.

The objectives for this goal are that...Every school will implement a firm and fair policy on use, possession and distribution of drugs and alcohol. Parents, businesses, governmental and community organizations will work together to ensure the rights of students to study in a safe and secure environment that is free of drugs and crime, and that schools provide a healthy environment and are a safe haven for all children. Every local educational agency will develop and implement a policy to ensure that all schools are free of violence and the unauthorized presence of weapons. Every local educational agency will develop a sequential, comprehensive kindergarten through twelfth grade drug and alcohol prevention education program. Drug and alcohol curriculum should be taught as an integral part of sequential, comprehensive health education.

Community-based teams should be organized to provide students and teachers with needed support. Every school should work to eliminate sexual harassment.


    • The nation's teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century. The objectives for this goal are that...All teachers will have access to pre-service teacher education and continuing professional development activities that will provide such teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to teach to an increasingly diverse student population with a variety of educational, social and health needs. All teachers will have continuing opportunities to acquire additional knowledge and skills needed to teach challenging subject matter and to use emerging new methods, forms of assessment and technologies. States and school districts will create integrated strategies to attract, recruit, prepare, retrain and support the continued professional development of teachers, administrators and other educators, so that there is a highly talented work force of professional educators to teach challenging subject matter.

Partnerships will be established, whenever possible, among local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, parents and local labor, business and professional associations to provide and support programs for the professional development of educators.


    • Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional and academic growth of children. The objectives for this Goal are that...Every State will develop policies to assist local schools and local educational agencies to establish programs for increasing partnerships that respond to the varying needs of parents and the home, including parents of children who are disadvantaged or bilingual, or parents of children with disabilities. Every school will actively engage parents and families in a partnership which supports the academic work of children at home and shared educational decision making at school.

Parents and families will help to ensure that schools are adequately supported and will hold schools and teachers to high standards of accountability.

Goals 2000 Funding

Only weeks after enactment, the U.S. Education Department invited states to apply for first-year funding under the new Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Legislation made $86.5 million available to states in 1994 to begin developing school improvement plans. An additional $5 million was made available to develop plans to use state-of-the-art technology to enhance teaching and learning. The President has asked for $700 million in his 1995 budget proposal to be administered by the Department of Education and $12 million for the Department of Labor to support the National Skill Standards Board. The administration expects to seek $1 billion in 1996.


    • For first-year funding, state educational agencies (SEAs) will be asked to submit an application that will describe the process by which the state will develop a school improvement plan and how the SEA will use the funds received, including how the SEA will make subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) and awards for education pre-service programs and professional development.
    • In year one, SEAs will use at least 60 percent of the allotted funds to award subgrants to LEAs for the development or implementation of local improvement plans, and to make awards for education pre-service programs and professional development activities.
    • In succeeding years, at least 90 percent of each state's funds are to be used to make subgrants for the implementation of the state and local improvement plans and to support educator pre-service and professional development.
    • In year one, LEAs will use at least 75 percent of the funds they receive to support individual school improvement initiatives.

After year one, LEAs will pass through at least 85 percent of the funds to schools. The state improvement plans will address, among other things:

    • a process for development or adopting content standards and performance standards for what students should know and be able to do in core subjects;
    • a process for developing and using valid, non-discriminatory and reliable assessment;
    • standards or strategies for ensuring that all students have a fair opportunity to achieve to the established standards;
    • strategies for assisting school-aged children who have dropped out of school;
    • strategies for coordinating Goals 2000 efforts with other programs such as the new School-to-Work Opportunities Act and the Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act;
    • strategies for involving parents and the community in planning, designing and implementing the plan.

"Goals 2000 creates an unprecedented opportunity for all Americans to contribute their ideas and energy to make schools work for kids," Riley said. "The states will be seeking ways to reach out and promote bottom-up reform."

In developing an improvement plan, states will establish a broad-based reform panel, with members appointed by the governor and the chief state school officer. If a state has already made substantial progress in developing a comprehensive and systemic improvement plan with an existing panel, the secretary may elect to recognize that existing group. The application deadline is June 30, 1995. States are encouraged to submit their applications as soon as possible. A state's award amount is calculated under a formula based on previous allocations under Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Any funds not requested by states will be reallocated among states with approved applications.

In the first year that it participates in Goals 2000, a state will be required to pass at least 60 percent of its funds to local educational agencies (LEAs), which will develop or refine local improvement plans and work with higher education or other organizations to improve teacher training and professional development. In succeeding years, at least 90 percent of funds a state receives under the program must pass through to local agencies.

The simple four-page application asks states to describe how improvement plans will be developed, including milestones, products and timelines. States also are asked to provide descriptions of how subgrants will be made to LEAs and how plans to increase the use of technology will be developed. A budget, describing how funds will be spent, and a signed assurance of compliance with applicable federal laws complete the applications.

Goals 2000 is related to other federal education programs in the following ways:

    • State participation in all aspects of Goals 2000 is voluntary, and is not a precondition for participation in other Federal programs.
    • Goals 2000 is the first step toward making the Federal government a supportive partner in state and local systemic reforms aimed at helping all children reach higher standards.
    • Other new and existing education and training programs will fit within the Goals 2000 framework of challenging academic and occupational standards, systemic reform, and flexibility at the state and local levels. The aim is to promote greater coherence among Federal programs and between Federal programs and state and local education reforms.
    • For example, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act will support state and local efforts to build a school-to-work transition system that will help youth acquire the knowledge, skills, abilities and labor-market information they need to make a smooth transition from school to career-oriented work and to further education and training. Students in these programs will be expected to meet the same academic standards states establish under Goals 2000 and will earn portable, industry-recognized skill certificates that are benchmarked to high-quality standards such as the skill standards that will be established under Goals 2000.
    • Similarly, the Administration's proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) allows states that have developed standards and assessments under Goals 2000 to use them for the ESEA, thereby providing a single set of standards and assessments for states to use for their reform needs and to meet Federal requirements.
    • In the future, the Administration's proposals for the reauthorization of education programs also will fit within the same framework of challenging standards and comprehensive reform.


Preparing Students for the High-Wage Jobs of Tomorrow
Skill Standards: What They Are and Why We Need Them

Many Americans are not equipped with the academic and occupational skills that an increasingly complex job market requires. Often, they do not find stable, career-track jobs for five to ten years after leaving high school. The cost to them, to businesses and to the American economy is staggering.

American students, workers, employers and educators must be aware of the knowledge and skills that the workplace of today and of the future will demand of them. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act encourages the development and adoption of a system of skill standards and certification of an individual's attainment of such standards. Skill standards identify the specific knowledge, skill and ability levels needed to perform a given job in a given industry.

With a system of skill standards in place, these groups will benefit:

    • Students in education and training programs will know what skills are needed for high-wage employment and they can earn a credential that is portable and recognizable by employees and demonstrates they have acquired such skills.
    • Employers and businesses will have reliable information to assist in evaluating workers' skill levels in making hiring and training decisions. This is especially important for small and medium-sized businesses that cannot afford to develop their own skill assessment systems.
    • Training providers and educators will be accountable for the services they provide because there will be a method in place to evaluate whether the participants or students have attained skills that are relevant to the demands of the workplace.
    • Unemployed Americans can seek retraining with the confidence that the skills they gain will lead to new employment opportunities.
    • Labor organizations can better determine which skills and training are vital to their members' employment security.

Skill Standards and the Goals 2000: Educate America Act

Goals 2000 contains two major components - a system for helping states and localities establish high, voluntary academic standards, and a system to support business, labor, educators and the public in the development of occupational skill standards. The two are inextricably linked. A new generation of workers - those prepared for high-skill, high-wage jobs - will emerge from a restructured American education system that produces workers firmly grounded in core academic subjects and equipped with skills that are in demand in today's labor market.

To further these goals, the legislation establishes a National Skill Standards Board to encourage and assist partnerships in developing and adopting standards that are relevant to industry. The partnerships - including broad-based representation from business, labor and education - would actually develop the standards. The Board's function would be to provide financial and technical assistance in the development of the standards and to endorse standards that meet objective criteria. Standards endorsed by the Board would be linked to the highest international standards and would promote the transition to high-performance work organizations.

Through the development of broadly defined skill standards, the U.S. will be able to set goals for skill achievement, competencies and performance that will help create a lifelong learning system for all Americans and will drive our nation's economic growth into the next century and beyond.

How the New Voluntary National Education Standards Will Improve Education

When we think about how to improve our schools, one of the most important questions is: What do we want our children to know and be able to do?

Not everyone leaves school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed. Too many of this nation's schools offer students watered-down curricula, inadequate textbooks and outmoded teaching methods. And we have, until now, often gauged student achievement by the number of courses taken - not actual learning - and by scores on multiple-choice tests that often measure little more than low-level skills.

The results of international assessments in the 1980s and 1990s show that the skills and knowledge of American students do not measure up to their international peers. Other developed countries have something we don't: clearly defined high standards.

American students can learn more if they are challenged - both in school and at home. If students and schools are not held to high standards, they will not work hard enough and achieve as much as they can. If their parents don't show them the importance of learning, they may not have the will to learn.

What National Standards Are and How They're Being Set

The voluntary national standards will describe what all students should know and be able to do at certain grade levels. The standards will encourage students to use their minds well, to solve problems, to think and to reason.

Voluntary national standards will provide a focus, not a national curriculum; a national consensus, not federal mandates; voluntary adoption, not mandatory use; and dynamic, not static, applications.

Mathematics standards are already in use in many classrooms. Standards in science, history, civics and government, geography, English, economics, foreign languages and the arts are now being developed by teachers and scholars. The input of state and local leaders, parents and citizens is also being sought.

The voluntary national standards are meant to be a resource to be used by parents, teachers and all citizens as one guide to high standards. They can be used by schools, districts and states to guide and revise curricula, assessments, teacher preparation and instruction. All of the elements should be aligned so that everyone and everything involved in education work together to help students learn more.

National standards do not have to be in place before states and communities can begin to develop their own standards. Indeed, some states have already introduced high standards into their classrooms. States and communities can develop their own standards or modify and adopt those developed under national consensus.

Under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, federal funds will flow to states and communities to help them develop their own rigorous standards and implement their own programs of school reform to help their students achieve the higher standards.

    • Higher expectations for all students. High standards and enriched course content produce better student performance. All students can learn more than we currently ask of them. When we expect more of students, they work harder and achieve more.
    • New approaches to teaching. Helping students meet challenging standards requires new ways of teaching. Teacher preparation and professional development programs need to be overhauled and improved.
    • Making schools accountable We need to give schools the tools and flexibility to do their job, and then hold them responsible for results.
    • Building partnerships. We've learned that schools can't do it alone. Parents, educators, students, business, labor and public, private and nonprofit groups need to be active partners in the reform effort.
    • Supports the development of challenging voluntary academic standards that define what students should know and be able to do and offers states and local communities the support they need to put those higher standards to work in their classrooms.
    • Encourages the development of a new generation of student performance assessments and new methods of gauging student achievement that will be linked to national, state and local standards and which will be valid, reliable and free of discrimination.
    • Supports the creation of voluntary national occupational standards that, with the help of business and labor, will define the knowledge and skills needed for the complex, high-wage jobs of tomorrow.
    • Supports a "bottom-up," grassroots approach to school reform, with the federal government assisting states and local communities in the development and implementation of their own comprehensive and innovative reform programs.

A New Federal, State, and Local Partnership...

    • Each participating state and community will develop and implement a comprehensive improvement plan that raises standards and helps students achieve them. A broad-based leadership team composed of policy makers, educators, business and civic leaders, parents and others will help create each reform plan. States may adopt national content and performance standards or they may develop their own.
    • Federal funds will be provided to support state and local improvement efforts. By the second year of funding, 90 percent of the money will flow to local schools and districts to support their reform plans.
    • Supports the establishment of parent information and resource centers, in order to help provide parents with the knowledge and skills needed to effectively participate in their child's education.


The New National Partnership for Educational Excellence

The bill encourages a bottom-up approach to reform. States and local communities will develop their own improvement plans, tailored to their special needs. Business and labor will work together to define the knowledge and skills needed to create secure economic futures for employees and employers alike. The federal government will use its resources to assist local reform efforts and help them implement their improvement plans and will support the development of model standards against which states, communities, schools and individuals can measure their progress.

The Federal Role - Setting High Standards

A National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC), comprised of teachers, parents, business groups, civic leaders and others, will be created to:

    • Review the efforts by national organizations of subject-matter experts to develop voluntary national content and performance standards in each subject area, such as math, science, history and geography. These will be clear statements of what students should know and be able to do as they progress through school. The standards will be far more rigorous than what is currently expected of students and will be as challenging as those in other countries.
    • Lead the effort to develop better measures of student progress and performance, measures that really reflect what we expect them to learn. New and promising assessment programs are being developed throughout the country; NESIC will keep track of changes and encourage those that advance the state of the art.

The State Role - Implementing Comprehensive Strategies for Real Improvement

Each state choosing to participate will be asked to develop and implement a comprehensive improvement plan that raises standards and helps all students achieve them. Many states have already begun this work, though few have undertaken anything as ambitious as called for in this legislation. Every state will be challenged to participate and to build on local reforms already under way.

    • States will be asked to form a broad-based and representative leadership team, comprised of policy makers, educators, business and civic leaders, parents and others at the grassroots level. Real and lasting change requires new partnerships working together.
    • Many states will want to use the national standards as a benchmark for their own efforts. On a voluntary basis, states may submit to NESIC their content and performance standards for certification that they are as rigorous and challenging as national standards.
    • In no state can all students meet challenging new standards as the schools currently operate. A fundamental overhaul is required. States will develop comprehensive reform plans and implementation strategies that will affect every aspect of the state's education system - curriculum, technology, teacher training and licensure, parental and community involvement, school management and accountability.

The Local Role - Putting Reform into Action

To make a difference, reform has to occur in every school. Local school districts and individual schools also will develop and implement comprehensive improvement plans, reflecting unique local needs and circumstances, in conjunction with the state's efforts.

For the first year, $105 million in federal funds is available to implement Goals 2000 with additional funds requested in subsequent years. By the second year of funding, states will be required to use at least 90 percent of their funds to support the development and implementation of reform plans in local school districts.

Creating A World-Class Work Force

American students, workers, employers and educators must know what knowledge and skills are required in the workplace. The bill encourages the development and voluntary adoption of national skill standards and certification. This effort is a critical step in establishing a lifelong learning system for all Americans, including high school students not planning to attend a four-year college, unemployed and dislocated workers and employed workers who want to upgrade their skills. The standards will allow us to build an education and training system that ties schools, colleges and other postsecondary institutions, other job training providers and employers together in an effort to create a high-skills, high-wage work force.

Media Research

Research evaluation and dissemination. Further research should not focus on whether the technology is as good as traditional face-to-face courses which has been established. What is needed is better and more compelling research.

Chu and Schramm (1967) stated that the effectiveness of television had been demonstrated in well over 100 experiments and that adults learn a great amount from instructional television. In 1977, after reviewing over 300 studies, Schramm also concluded that there was no significant difference between learning in classroom and television; this was again validated by Johnston (1987). Levine (1987) argues that the conclusion to draw from these studies is that television instruction is equivalent to traditional, classroom instruction in its learning; there are "good and bad television courses as there are good and bad campus-based courses" (p.16). The question is on what basis should one separate good and bad telecourses?

Bates (1974) observes that this type of research proves nothing and has been totally useless. He believes that the weakness in this research has been that the variables of content taught and styles of teaching have not been controlled; as a result, differences cannot be attributed to one medium over another. The main weakness of comparative studies is that they do not help producers or teachers to improve the product since they do not tell what is wrong or what can be done about it (Bates,1974).

We know very little about how to use television and how to support students in their use of television (Bates, 1974). The educational use of technology cannot reach its full potential until research uncovers more about the learning process and how it varies in each individual with different instructional treatment (Costello & Gordon, 1961; Saettler, 1979). For years, investigators have attempted to identify those media best suited to teaching various instructional objectives. The research has not yielded results that permit definitive statements about the superiority of one medium over another in a particular situation (Chu & Schramm, 1967; Schramm, 1977).

The pattern of research results obtained may have come about for a variety of reasons. In many studies, two media are used to present instruction and the relative effectiveness of the two are compared. Often, students learn equally well from either medium (Chu & Schramm, 1967). Kumata (1961) contends that hundreds of studies have attempted to discover an effect which is directly attributable to the delivery method; most conclude that it makes no difference whether television is absent or present.

Wagner and Wishon (1987) state that media research has not been able to provide concrete selection guidance and that research designs have decreased the ability to generalize the findings. Research has focused on the media as a product rather than on component interaction, or processual aspects which lead to learning outcomes. Others, believe that the findings reflect the situation and it does not matter which medium one chooses to teach a particular objective, as any can do the job equally well. Gagne states that "most instructional functions can be performed by most media" (1970, p. 364) but the statement in no way denies that in a given situation one medium may be more useful than others (Schramm, 1977).

There is a need to address issues of access in selecting technology. How should an institution choose between using a high technology "leading edge" media and one which is "low tech." By addressing the issue of access, an institution will be able to make the choice that provides access and maintains "open-ness" for its students.

Media research does not provide a clear direction, as it does not address the question of how media components of a course interact to produce learning outcomes where there are differences in learners, instructional treatments and content.

Mayor and Dirr reflect that we need to realize the demands that all of these changes place on learners to function independently. It is too easy to say, "Here, work on your own and integrate the materials at hand" (1986, p. 101). Mayor and Dirr assert that ways must be found to prepare students for the challenges that the new opportunities provide. To earn faculty support, we must demonstrate how to use the new tools and materials to serve them and their students by improving telecourse quality and making education accessible (Mayor & Dirr, 1986).

Withrow (1992) reports that evaluation from the Star Schools Program indicate that distance learning students enrolled in high school courses function slightly better than students in traditional classes. One reason may be that students who choose such courses are higher risk takers and more self-directed than the average student.

To be effective, distance education teachers report that they must change their style and create new opportunities for interaction (OTA, 1989). While reaching a small number of teachers today, distance learning will greatly affect the teaching force of tomorrow. Distance learning provides a variety of tools for teaching and a means to upgrade teachers' skills and encourage professional development.

Teachers can team teach with colleagues across town or across the country, discuss problems and challenges over electronic networks, observe master teachers in action, participate in professional meetings and courses, develop new skills and earn advanced degrees - all without leaving their home school. Teachers must have training, preparation, and institutional support to successfully teach with distance learning technologies. Their concerns about technology and the quality of instruction must be taken into consideration in planning distance learning efforts. Teacher input not only shapes development, it assures long-term commitment.

Adoption of the Innovation of Distance Education

Historically and currently, there has been little emphasis by educators on how to plan for, prepare, evaluate and utilize media. In the past, most university staff have been suspicious about technology and seem apathetic toward and unaware of the potential of the more sophisticated devices. Insights, wisdom, perception and precision applied in the process of media selection are an index of professionalism among educators.

Even though the greatest technological revolution of this era is considered to be information, educators seem oblivious to the potential as well as to the impact on their field. Knowles (1983) predicts that by the end of this century most education will be delivered electronically - if educators learn to use media in congruence with adult learning principles. Moore and Shannon's 1982 study of adult educators supports Knowles and reveals the adult educators' media inexperience.

Media technology has soared ahead of utilization. While media experts are using increasingly sophisticated technology, the fact is ignored that the teacher is bewildered by technology and still does not know how to use it.

Chu and Schramm (1967) found that instructional technology required instructors to learn new roles and processes which they tend to resist because they perceive difficulties in using new techniques. Russell (1979) and Coder (1983) found that faculty tend to teach by lecture as they were taught, not as they were taught to teach by using media. Coder (1983) found that due to a lack of courses, faculty were unfamiliar with learning theory, instructional design or media utilization, a fact supported by Doerken (1977) who states that studies indicted that only 17 percent of all teachers had any training in the use of media.

In 1983, Doerken reported that it would take an estimated $400 million to provide training. During the 1984-85 Annenberg Study (Riccobono, 1986) about half of the institutions offered faculty only two to seven hours of training in media but ten to 15 hours of training in the instructional uses of computers. The figures did not report how many faculty members were trained. Bates (1987b) observes that there is a major requirement to train instructors in the selection and use of media. Brey's 1991 study reported that opposition by faculty, administrators and boards of trustees is not an important impediment to starting programs; the cost of starting programs was the most often reported obstacle by community colleges.

Lack of training in the use of educational technology has also been a problem in Japan (Nishimoto, 1969) and in Britain (1966). The lack of training in the effective use of educational technology and the tendency of faculty members to continue to teach by lecture contributed to technology resistance in these countries. Studies in Japan (Nishimoto, 1969) and in Great Britain (Britain, 1966) concluded that the effectiveness of education can be improved by training the teacher to use technology. Tanzman and Dunn (1971) state that media supervisors do not provide the leadership to encourage faculty to use media and that in-service training in effective media use has not resulted in skill transfer because; 1) media techniques vary markedly from the way teachers have been taught; 2) mechanical fear; 3) lack of professional acceptance; 4) lack of funding for media experts; and 5) decision makers' resistance to technology primarily due to a lack of understanding of its use and value.

There is still a pressing need to train them in media selection and utilization. There is a need to help faculty utilize media so that learners are central to the process; mastering the technology will take time and commitment.

Unwin (1969) states that the faculty's function is to organize learning situations and interpret them after students experience them through technology. Faculty who are untrained in media selection do not effectively plan media use or ways to support instructional objectives. Only a few instructors in a thousand are now equipped to do this. Educators have had little practical help with purposeful selection. During the evaluation and adoption process the judgment of the effectiveness of media is too frequently based upon general impressions, isolated praise or criticisms, personal hunches, intuition, imitation, comfort with the media or its availability . It is vital that adopters be aware of the importance of evaluation and develop evaluation skills since sophisticated instructional demands dictate that judicious use replace hit-or-miss selection. Kressel (1986) questions how educators are to know which packages to select for which students or how to select packages adaptable to their teaching style.

Lewis' (1985) study of faculty involved with instructional media identified problems of how to: 1) convey abstract concepts and relationships between abstract concepts and concrete experience; 2) motivate students and encourage active learning; 3) deal with learning differences; 4) encourage generic skill and ability development; and 5) obtain funds to train faculty. Faculty consider media appropriate to address the most difficult instructional problems, but also value course management, student contact and providing experiential learning (Lewis, 1985). He reports that faculty who used technology more were likely to agree that it can overcome instructional problems and are less bothered by obstacles that frustrate untrained colleagues. Faculty identified lack of training, funds, access to hardware, and lack of descriptive and evaluative software information as obstacles to effective use of technology (Lewis, 1985).

If the use of media and technology is to be increased, educators must learn how to reach educational goals and objectives through the media (Meierhenry, 1981). A 1979 EPIE study found that fewer than five percent of teacher training institutions surveyed offered courses in the selection of teaching materials. Hezel(1987) assumes that the most effective uses of technology will be made by faculty members who understand its potential, and strongly recommends that telecourse adoption should be preceded by educational technology seminars for faculty and education administrators. Henault (1971) recommends that training for adult educators be extensive while others suggest that instruction should include video production.

Methods to train instructors in media selection and use include in-service professional development provided by qualified media center personnel or qualified distance education specialists. Research found that teachers need guidance in interaction and learning style skills (Lane, 1989). In many cases the production team will also need to be trained so that curriculum and instructional design is not foreign to them. Distance education program administrators will also need to be trained so they can create the appropriate support systems for students and faculty (Lane, 1989). Other methods include publishing a newsletter to share information about instructional technology, viewing tapes on effective media use, reading about and observing the media, and visits to production houses. Teague (1981) recommends instructor training in the basic dynamics of learning, student motivation, adequacy of teaching techniques and timing of learning tasks.

Sive (1978) notes that few writers have analyzed what makes a workable selection tool. She observes that existing selection procedures may be among the factors causing the second class status of media as the purchases are made without the benefit of a thoughtful reviewing process (1983). For media to be instructional rather than supplemental aids to instruction, more sophisticated media selection procedures are indicated. Sive (1978) observes that methods to find out about media do not exist such as those for books; most media is not reviewed or rated for its suitability for use for a specific purpose; telecourse reviews receive significantly less space than educational computer programs and only a fraction of non-book media reviews; library catalogs and bibliographic tools such as Books in Print do not exist for media; there is little comparison of new and existing products; and cross-media approaches are unknown where two products on the same subject are compared. The end point of what can be done when television is combined with other media has not yet been reached; this is the beginning of an educational revolution involving many forms of telecommunications (Hewitt, 1982).

No instrument for evaluation will totally ensure that every resource used will be a positive learning experience for every user (Teague, 1981), however, using a model and an evaluating instrument based upon the model will help ensure the selection of resources that will make genuine contributions to student learning.

Two national studies were conduced to develop a model and evaluation criteria for distance education materials and teleconferencing (Lane, 1989, 1990) are discussed elsewhere. The models and evaluation instruments take into consideration how the material will function with all of its elements, the institution's services, the instructor's skills, and the target population. Both instruments serve as a bridge to inform and train distance education staff in aspects of distance education which are relevant to course adoption or program purchase.

The evaluation forms will: 1) ensure that selection committee members evaluate the same items and use the same scale for judgments; 2) guide adopters through the selection phase so that components are evaluated with the goal of student learning clearly focused; and 3) act as a training instrument for adopters who frequently do not have a media background and are not media selection experts (Lane, 1989).

The instrument trains the evaluator in media selection skills as components are evaluated and enables the evaluator to make an informed decision to adopt or reject the material after the instrument is completed. The instruments are valuable aids in achieving consistency in previewing and are usable by instructors, administrators, production team members, teleconference producers and their clients, as well as others in electronically mediated instruction fields. The instruments standardize evaluation and the models sets standards of excellence for distance education, teleconferencing and electronically mediated instruction.

As the cited literature suggests, the message that an evaluation method should be used has been regularly repeated since the inception of the telecourse. With hundreds of telecourses and 350,000 pieces of instructional media available, choosing suitable material is a problem.

from "A Technical Guide to Teleconferencing and Distance Learning," 3rd edition