When a Plan is Not a Plan

I first looked at the draft of the National Educational Technology Plan 2010 soon after it was released by the Department of Education several weeks ago, and something bothered me, despite being filled with numerous ideas about the direction of educational technology.

Before writing about it, I decided to see if letting some time pass would alter my first impressions. And three weeks later, I am sad to say, they have not changed.

What is most troublesome is the fact that the plan is not really much of a plan at all. Depending on how you look at it, what was released could be considered more of a concept paper, a framework, a set of guidelines, an overall approach, a vision or a white paper. This is more of a description of things we ought to do, rather than a plan describing in meaningful ways what it will take in terms of strategies and resources to implement this wish list.

A sense of reality, the tethering of a "plan" to the world in which we work, is one of the key elements that separates a useful plan from one that sounds good but will likely sit on a shelf gathering dust. It is here that the plan seems to fall short.

How much $$$?

While this technology "plan" should be commended for its lofty vision and broad approach, it falls far short of giving meaningful direction on how any of this is to be achieved. It is difficult to believe that in this time of economic stress, there is not a single reference to the actual cost of implementing any part of this plan, let alone the entire plan.

Perhaps I am naive, but I never even allowed a staff member to discuss a plan with me unless they first had a cost estimate. Similarly, I never approached district leadership with a plan that didn't have a cost estimate. Yet here we are, in the midst of the Great Recession, being presented with a national technology plan that does not include the mention of any real costs.

To be fair, the guidelines talk about using technology to help manage costs, as well as better manage costs related to technology. While concepts such as these may be adequate for a broad vision or general statement of direction, they are far from sufficient for a technology plan. 

Grand challenges

I was particularly intrigued by the section on research and development that called for the National Center for Research in Advanced Information and Digital Technologies to "focus on grand challenge problems." These would be problems of such a magnitude and importance that we would need to bring together a community of scientists and researchers to work toward their solution." While it is far beyond the scope of this column to review the suggested recommended areas, the four recommendations provided were certainly worthy of bringing together teams of scientists and researchers. Alas, as in keeping with the rest of the report, an estimated cost was absent.

Filled with fine ideas and providing direction for districts and departments of education, the draft of the National Educational Technology Plan 2010 falls short of being a useful plan. Perhaps the Department of Education should consider calling the final version the National Technology 2010 White Paper. 

About the author: Phil Brody worked in public education for more than 40 years, during most of which he functioned as an educational technologist. He is currently president of Phil Brody & Associates, Educational Technology Consultants.