Bulletin

May 2010

Dear Fellow Technology Education Teachers:

In an effort to improve communication with the field, I would like to welcome you to the inaugural issue of the
NYSTEA newsletter. Each issue will have a different theme to it. Our next issue will be a photo essay of the 47th Annual
Conference. We hope to produce 3 - 4 issues per year. I invite you to submit articles and photos of the unique activities
you are doing in your classrooms.
The newsletter will be mailed to you unless you contact me requesting that you wish to receive it by e-mail. If that is
your preference please email me at janfstark@gmail.com. Please provide your name and an accurate email address. In
order to save on printing and mailing cost the newsletter will also be posted on the NYSTEA website.
Yours in Technology,
Jan F. Stark
President, NYSTEA

NYS Technology Education:

History, the Current State of Affairs and the Future
Since the early, 1980's Technology Education has
undergone several changes incorporating new
philosophies, new courses, and even a new name. This
discipline, which is historically rooted in Industrial Arts,
has endeavored to carve out a niche, based on preparing
students for careers, hands-on applications of
Mathematics and Science, critical thinking skills and life.
Unfortunately, a myriad of changes, coupled with a lack of
defined content, has created an educational landscape
mired in confusion and differing opinions about what this
discipline is and should be.
In the two years that I have spent as the State
Technology Education curriculum representative, I have
amassed a wealth of knowledge and history that I never
would have been privy to had I stayed in the classroom
(as a high school Technology Education teacher). The
following piece is my attempt to interpret this discipline's
history, current state of affairs and future. Five significant
historical events have affected New York State
Technology Education since the early 1980's, each leaving
behind its mark on the discipline. It is these events that
define who we are. Let's take a look.
It's 1980, and high school students are sporting
feathered hair and large combs peeking from their back
pockets. They pile out of their Trans-Ams wearing
by: Phil Dettelis
0Jordache jeans and into their homeroom. After dissecting
a frog in Biology class, the girls meander towards the
Home Economics classroom and the boys find their way
to the shop. The Industrial Arts teacher extols the
virtues of craftsmanship as he demonstrates the
proper use of hand tools. His boys produce pump
lamps, napkin holders, and other cookie cutter trinkets
destined to become the next family heirloom. The
occasional Science geek takes an Electronics course where
he assembles a working radio. As he solders the circuits
together he wonders if he is destined to become an
Electrician, or an Electrical Engineer. The garage doors
open and students roll in a donated junker. The Industrial
Arts teacher is planning on teaching Driver Education in
this vehicle once his auto repair class gets it ship-shape.
Gender based roles are an acceptable part of tracking
students into the course described above. Students are
learning a battery of prescribed hands-on skills whereby
craftsmanship is the virtuous concept that justifies the
existence of these experiences. The Electronics course
could very well lend itself to challenging mathematical and
scientific experiences, but in those cases it may very well
be lifted from the school's basement, and taught by a
Physics teacher next to the science lab. Administrative
murmurings are predicting the end of local diplomas, the
PAGE 2
push for more Mathematics and English Language Arts,
and the beginnings of what we will eventually know as
NCLB. A few Industrial Arts teachers suspect change is
on the horizon, but student enrollment numbers are strong,
and the IA teacher's roll is clearly defined. It's difficult to
imagine a school without shop.
It's 1984, “Journey” is the hottest band on the radio,
and Industrial Arts is embarking on a transformative
journey of its own. The Industrial Arts “Futuring” report
is submitted to the New York State Education
Department. Below is a paragraph from this document
supporting the systems approach to the study of
technology, and identifying three content areas that
lead to technological literacy.
The Industrial Arts Futuring Committee
unanimously recommended that the future Industrial
Arts program should focus on technology as a
content base. The matrix adopted by the committee
specifies that content will be organized around three
content areas: Resources for Technology, Systems of
Technology, and Impacts of Technology. The matrix
further specifies that the “systems” approach to the
study of technology is the key to the comprehensive
understanding of technology. The committee further
recommends that the discipline should be renamed
“Technology Education.”
One can only imagine the fear, anticipation, excitement,
and heated discussions that transpired between individuals
as the Futuring committee developed a mission statement
that started with:
“In an era when the world has become increasingly
dependent upon technical solutions to problems,
educators are challenged to provide all persons with
technological literacy as part of their fundamental
education.”
Technology Education began to embrace concepts
rather than proprietary skills; however, the field
couldn't be expected to change overnight. Established
programs lead by master teachers were now being asked to
forgo their comfortable curriculum, and build new student
experiences based on new pedagogical philosophies.
“...and by the way, nobody was going to check up on
these programs to monitor their buy in to this paradigm
shift.” Although this name change was supported by the
best of intentions, it was not supported with incentive
laden policy. This led to a fractured field where
Technology Education experiences offered in one school
NYSTEA Bulletin
NYSTEA Bulletin
could be very different from another.
It's 1994, and Bill Clinton is playing his presidential
saxophone, Al Gore is busy claiming to have invented the
internet, and the New York State Framework for MST is
published. A significant quote from this publication
defines the study of technology as “both a body of
knowledge and a process of purposeful application of
knowledge”. This quasi-definition of the Technology
Education discipline would have been more widely
accepted had it not been for the incredible growth of the
personal computer. I guess we should have paid more
attention to what Al Gore was talking about. Instead,
computer awareness grew so much that we found
ourselves in the midst of an identity crisis. The term
technology became synonymous with computers, and our
name change (philosophy change) that occurred 10 years
prior was stifled by the word “technology”. Parents,
teachers, and administrators began to wonder what we
were teaching. We needed a clearer definition.
Two years later that clearer definition of our discipline
was brought to us courtesy of the 1996 publication of the
New York State Learning Standards for Mathematics,
Science, and Technology. Finally, the discipline had a
document that defined what it is, what to teach, and that it
could embrace as its Bible. Well, one out of three isn't bad.
Thirteen years later, one can argue that the New York
State MST Learning Standards are still an excellent
document; unfortunately this product was not intended to
hold everyone by the hand and walk them through the
steps of what to teach in their classroom. What this
document did do, is lay out a framework of what
Technology Education is in New York State. The
technological concepts described as Key Ideas in the MST
Learning Standard area's standard #5 for Technology
Education are:
1. Engineering Design,
2. Tools, Resources, and Technological Processes,
3. Computer Technology,
4. Technological Systems,
5. History and Evolution of Technology,
6. Impacts of Technology, and
7. Management of Technology.
As the standards movement gained momentum, State
based centralized curriculum lost support. Curricular
decisions were now left to the local educational agencies
(LEA's) for development. Each school district had the
freedom to interpret the MST Learning Standard #5 for
Technology Education, and decide what content would
PAGE 3
NYSTEA Bulletin
best be able to deliver these seven Key Ideas. With
different communities, different resources, and different
personnel, the interpretation of the New York State
Learning Standards for Technology Education would take
on a different look and feel across districts. The discipline
needed something to encourage more unity in the delivery
of these concepts. What could it be? I'll give you a hint:
it's a four letter word.
It's 2001, Apple Computers is buzzing about some new
product called the iPod, while the Technology Education
field is buzzing about an assessment that many feel will
offer a sense of credibility as well as a sense of unity in
what is being taught in Technology Education classrooms
across the State. An excerpt from this test's information
sheet reads as follows.
The Intermediate-Level Technology Test is a
program evaluation test. It is designed to help
districts identify specific areas of the middle school
Technology Education program that may need
updating or modification to help students achieve the
intermediate-level standards in technology.
The items on the test are correlated to the seven key
ideas of standard 5 of the Learning Standards for
Math, Science, and Technology at the intermediate
level. The recommended syllabus for the course,
Introduction to Technology Grades 7 & 8 is
closely aligned with these seven key ideas.
Wow! Technology Education has a new name, new
concepts, new standards, and now a new test. Everything
seems to be coming together nicely; except for one small
thing… this test is not mandatory. Sure, this assessment
contributed to the identity of the discipline during its
initial years, but without proper maintenance, and without
it being mandatory, the test would eventually succumb to
the pressures of money and the identity crisis. The test
did a lot of good for those in the field that were looking for
a silver bullet, but it is nearly impossible for the entire
field of education to embrace new ideas and new products
without financial incentives and/or regulatory mandates.
The test quietly ran its course, and is now a specter of
what it once was.
It's 2006, and global warming is the talk of the town.
There is much debate over the impact that technology has
had on the environment. There is also much debate over
what subjects exist in Technology Education. The New
York State Education Department produced a white paper
in January called the NYS Technology Education
PAGE 3
Framework Initiative which boasted seven Technology
Content Organizers (TCO) (listed below).
1. Materials
2. Manufacturing
3. Information and Communications
4. Transportation
5. Living Systems
6. Energy
7. Environmental Quality
These seven TCO's offer the field a framework of
subject areas that identify the content to be used in
delivering the technology concepts outlined in the NYS
Learning Standards. The use of Technology Content
Organizers (TCO) evolved from national efforts to
identify the most critical areas of technology essential to
the Unites States' economic future in a secure
environment. Although content was identified during the
Industrial Arts days, it was utilized to encourage tool skill
development. This batch of content's intended use is in
encouraging concept understanding. It also appears to be
an effort to give the field an identity much like Biology,
Chemistry, and Physics do for Science. In an effort to give
some teeth to the use of the TCO's, the State Education
Department encourages their use, should a school district
wish to engage in the Program Approval Process for their
Technology Education department. A nice idea, but if I
can quote something mentioned earlier “it is nearly
impossible for the entire field of education to embrace new
ideas and new products without financial incentives and/or
regulatory mandates.”
It's 2010, and all the talk centers around an undefined
term known as “STEM”. The acronym stands for Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. There are
countless groups claiming ownership of the term because,
for once, there exists a financial incentive. The federal
government has decided to dangle the proverbial carrot in
front of the field in the form of money. The race to define
how education in STEM or STEM Education can help our
children learn and our country become more competitive in
a global economy is one that Technology Education is
very much a part of. If this sounds frustrating to you,
then you're right on board with what's going on. In the
past we've had well articulated ideas, but limited support
to implement them. Now we have a national movement
with incredible support circling the wagons around an idea
that is yet to be defined.
It would be presumptuous for me to tell you what
STEM education should mean, but I can offer a broad
PAGE 4 NYSTEA Bulletin

understanding of where I think the term is leading us. As
technology has evolved through the years it has had a great
impact on our global economy. In order to be competitive
in today's world, our country must change the way it
educates its citizens. The days of drill and practice
teaching are numbered. Our children are being asked to
learn more and perform better. The testing gap continues
to increase, and the graduation rates continue to decrease.
In order to prepare our citizens to compete in the work
place, we must inspire them in the classroom. Integrating
learning across Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) is a concept that many feel can
reach the minds of our children by offering some context
to the content that we have failed to teach them.
Technology Education teachers have been doing this for
years. They teach concepts to their students by placing
those concepts into some context. A Mathematics teacher
History - Event
Industrial Arts
Name Change (Technology Education)
Technology Education Learning Standards &
Assessment
Framework For Technology Education
STEM
can teach students how to use coefficients properly, but a
Technology teacher can make students understand their
power as they calculate the lift coefficient of a wing in
flight. Understanding is just as important as knowledge.
Students can benefit from both forms of learning, and both
types of teachers.
It is today, and you have just finished reading the
ramblings of a Technology Education curriculum
specialist. I ask that you reflect on which concepts
(mentioned above and listed below) you embrace in the
hallowed halls of your school. Can you see yourself, and
your program reflected in any of these time periods? The
challenge now is can you offer more to your children by
adding one or more of these concepts to your curriculum?
Could your program benefit from review and reflection
leading to revision? Can your program better prepare its
students to meet the needs of the 21st century?
Pedagogical Application
Craftsmanship: Skill Building
Concepts Supporting Systems Approach
Concepts Supporting Technological Literacy
Content: Technology Content Organizers
Contextualized Learning

Join Us for Our First

NYS STEM Education Summer Institute
Check out the NYSTEA website Theme: “STEM: Links to the Future”
www.nystea.com At SUNY Oswego
August 8th thru August 11th, 2010
Executive Board
President - Jan Stark NYSTEA Bulletin
Past President - Mike Thurlow
President-Elect - Clark Greene
Vice President - Alta Jo Longware
Secretary - Kevin Dorsey
Treasurer - Mike Brondolo
Executive Secretary - Kate Nichols
Membership Secretary - David M. Banister
Advisory Council Chair - Charles Goodwin
NYSED Liaison - Philip Dettelis
District Vice Presidents
Far Western District - BobTufte
Southeastern District - Henry Strada
Western District - David M. Banister
Central District - Karen Dykeman
Northeastern District - Greg Pitonza
Metropolitan District - Jason Wolner
Editors - Henry & Nancy Stada
Desktop Publishing - Melissa Hirt
Volume 1, No. 1