The 2002 Census of Technology collected data from 2,128 school buildings. In general, the 2002 building-level data continue the improvement trends noted over the years. Except for a slight dip noted for some items in 2001 and 2002, with 100 percent of all schools completing the COT forms, building-level statistics show continued progress over the past five years.  A copy of the survey, completed with aggregate data, is provided in Appendix B. 

Technology Planning
A school building long-range technology plan, like a district plan, should provide a road map to help the school implement strategies that promote the district’s mission, advance district and building improvement plans, and improve the teaching and learning occurring in the building. Items 1-4 asked about the status of technology planning and implementation in each school building. Items 1 and 3 asked if buildings had stand-alone technology and comprehensive school improvement plans (CSIP). Item 1 also asked who was involved in developing the building technology plan, while item 2 dealt with who was involved in implementing and evaluating the plan. Item 3 also asked if technology is a component in the building’s CSIP. Item 4 pertained to school partners in supporting technology. 

Table 1 indicates the percentage of school buildings that have technology plans and school improvement plans, and the percentage of building plans included in district plans. In 2002, 85 percent of the school buildings indicated having their own technology plans as opposed to only 69 percent in 1998; 93 percent report having a building CSIP compared to 89 percent in 1998. 

Table 1

Table 2 lists the technology components addressed by building technology plans in rank order. While the overall rankings of the components have changed little in five years, the percentages have increased substantially since 1998. The top three components consistently are hardware, training, and software. In 2002, four of five building plans address these components. Three of four plans also address curriculum integration and equipment maintenance.  In 2001, only eight percent of plans dealt with assistive technology, compared to 29 percent in 2002. The technology plan components that show the greatest increase over the past five years include: equipment maintenance (by 29 percentage points), curriculum integration (23 points), training (21 points), and assistive technology (21 points).

Table 2

Table 3 indicates who was involved in making decisions at the building level, in 2002, in terms of technology acquisition and implementation. Since 1998, buildings increasingly involve a more diverse body of decision makers, and represented by more instructional staff. Early COT data indicated principals and teachers mainly made these decisions, with little or no representation of the student body, parents, or the community.  While principals and teachers remain highly involved in the decision-making, about nine in ten buildings have technology team members; three in four involve the library media specialist; and, about half of the buildings have an instructional technology contact and involve parents. Students are increasingly involved in technology planning: in 2002, seven percent of the buildings had students involved as compared to five percent last year. 

Table [c1] 3

Item 4 asked about school building partnerships with business or higher education that help support district and/or building technology initiatives. While only one in four buildings reported having a technology partner in 2002, this is markedly higher than the six percent reporting having partners in 1998. Still, the 2002 figure is lower than the 29-30 percent that was reported consistently between 1999 and 2001. This drop might be due, in part, to worsening economic conditions across the state. Table 4 indicates the type and frequency of building partners reported for 2002. 

Table 4

Technology Professional Development
Ten items on the building-level COT addressed training issues. Items asked buildings to detail the kind and number of staff responsible for staff development, the priority training needs for building technical and instructional staff, the kinds and hours of training available to staff, and the technical skills of staff. 

Items 5-7 asked who is responsible for the technical training and support of building staff, if the building employed a technology director, and the number of staff available. Table 5 indicates those responsible for technical training, 1998 through 2002. Data indicate a trend of relying more on district staff and less on outside vendors. While only 43 percent of the buildings employed a technology director, in 2002, there was a marked switch from relying on district staff to using school-level staff to provide building-level technical support. In 2001, over 90 percent of buildings reported that district staff provided technical support, compared to only 44 percent of buildings in 2002. 

Table 5

While buildings report relying less on district staff to provide technical support, the average district-level FTE has steadily increased, from 2.3 in 1999, to 3.2 in 2001, and 3.7 in 2002. The number of building-level FTE also increased, from 1.0 over the past three years to 1.17 in 2002. 

Item 8 dealt with technology training needs. Figure 6 shows the shifts in priorities for school building faculty. In 1998, the priority training need covered basic computer operations. As more staff members become familiar with basic computer operations, an increasing emphasis is being placed on training that addresses how to evaluate and integrate technology resources. Figure 6 illustrates that the top three training needs in 2002 address the use of education technology in curriculum development and the delivery of instruction, and the use of Internet applications. 

Figure 6

Figure 7 shows a shift in priority training needs for the building’s technical support staff, as reported for item 9. Training is changing from an emphasis on basic applications to curriculum integration and more advanced LAN applications. 

Figure 7

Table 8 indicates the number of hours of training per training type and trainee; it compares 2002 responses to 1999 baseline data. Except for the number of hours administrators received training on the use of software applications and Internet resources, technology-related training hours increased for teachers and administrators across all training topics. Since 1999, COT data have indicated a steady increase in the number of training hours offered. The topics with the largest increases over time include curriculum integration for both teachers and administrators and teaching applications (instructional strategies) for teachers. The topics with the largest increase from 2001 to 2002 address teaching applications (for teachers) and using assistive technology (for both teachers and administrators). Administrator training in the use of teaching applications had the largest decrease from 2002. 

Table 8

Items 11 and 12 asked about teacher technology standards and existing skill levels. Item 12 asked building contacts to estimate the technology-related skill levels of principals and technical support staff, as well. The skill levels are described as follows:

• Beginner – basic technical skills including applications such as word-processing, some stand-alone software, and some Internet usage (email).
• Intermediate – regular use of applications, software, and Internet resources for increased productivity and the use of applications including word-processor for student writing, research on the Internet, computer-generated presentations.
• Advanced – complete integration and mastery of the technology, using it effortlessly as a tool to accomplish a variety of learning, instructional and/or management tools.

The number of buildings requiring technology skills for employment or continued employment rose from nine percent in 1998 to 17 percent in 2001. In 2002, only 70 buildings (three percent) responded yes; however, over 200 indicated they evaluate teachers via professional development participation, over 160 use hands-on evaluations, and over 100 look at technology skills during the recruitment and selection process and/or check transcripts. 

Perhaps, schools feel teachers already possess needed skills, as building contacts estimate that only 24 percent have “beginner” technology skills. The proportion of teachers estimated as beginner technology users has steadily decreased from the 40 percent reported in 1999.  

Likewise, the rate of principals estimated as beginners has decreased from 35 percent in 1999 to 18 percent in 2002. The rate of principals reported as advanced users has doubled from 11 to 22 percent.  As expected, 96 percent of the technology support staff is considered as having intermediate and/or advanced skills. 

Figure 9 illustrates the increases in the percentage of teachers and administrators rated to have advanced technology skills. Not surprisingly, technical support staff have the highest skills. 

Figure 9

Figure 10 shows the percentage of staff at the advanced level combined with those at the intermediate level. Over 60 percent of teachers and administrators are estimated to be in this combined category. 

Figure 10

Items 13 and 14 asked about the number of days scheduled for technology-related professional development activities and how this number compares to the prior year and plans for next year. The 2002 data indicate that buildings scheduled fewer days for technology-related professional development. The average number of technology training days indicated in 2002 is 1.6, as compared to 3.5 days in 1999 and 2.8 days in 2001. Further, buildings plan to continue this trend. Over half of the buildings project offering the same amount of scheduled training in 2003. In the past, over half of the buildings projected an increase in subsequent years.  

Hardware and Support
In the Hardware and Support section of the 2002 Census of Technology, school buildings provided information for ten different items that range from responsibility for school building hardware to types and locations of the technologies available. 

Table 11 shows responses to Item 15 about who is responsible for the technical maintenance and/or support of hardware in school buildings. Since 1999, district staff(s) have been predominantly responsible for technical support. The use of outside vendors and contractors has dropped, while the rate of buildings using school staffs (classified and certificated) has increased.  

Table 11

Figure 12 indicates the staff FTE (full-time equivalent) responsible for technical maintenance and support in the building, as reported on item 16.  While the FTE increased from 1999 to 2001, data from the 2002 Census indicate a downward turn. 

Figure 12

 Table 13 addresses numbers of computers in school buildings, by type and location. Computers were clustered by platform and speed / capacity. Locations included: Computer Lab – a room specifically designated to computer work; Instructional Rooms – a room designated as a classroom; and, Library/Media Center – a room designated as a library media center. 

A total of 232,808 computers were reported in 2002, with 46,907 Apple/Mac machines and 185,901 PC-compatible machines. Over 226,000 (97 percent) of these computers are considered capable of running the Internet at high speeds. [Computers with Pentium speeds is the minimum standard used to identify Internet-capable computers in 2002. Prior to 2002, the standard was 486 speeds or higher.] Over 90 percent of all computers are located in instructional rooms (computer labs, classrooms, and library media centers), with 97 percent of these machines considered Internet-capable. 

            Table 13

Figure 14 indicates the ratios of students to computer, 1998 - 2002. [Ratios are determined using the COT data regarding numbers and types of computers and Core Data fall enrollment figures.] As schools purchase new computers, older computers may be relocated within or surplused out of the district. The numbers of computers in use continue to climb, resulting in a steady decline in the numbers of students per computers, overall. Likewise, ratios are declining related to the number of students per high-speed (Internet-capable) computer and Internet-connected computer. The greatest decline relates to Internet-connected computers, as more and more buildings and computers are being connected to the Internet.  

Figure 14

With an increase in the number of Web-based application, training, and scoring sessions to help teachers assess MAP writing, item 18 was added to determine the size of monitors being used.  Of all the monitors reported, 91 percent measured 15 inches; 17 percent measured 17 inches; and, less than one percent measured those larger than 17 inches. While these rates mirror those reported by the administrative offices, where monitors measuring 17 inches or larger amount to 92 percent, half of all the monitors in the district administrative/central offices are larger than 17 inches. [Note that this item will not be covered in the future.] 

Table 15 indicates the operating systems being run by personal computers in 2002. With 79.9 percent of the computers listed as PC-compatible, Windows is the predominant operating system being used across the state. The majority of machines run on Windows 98, followed by Windows 95. Over half of the Apple / Mac computers are using OS 9.x or later. Approximately 11 percent of all computers operate on Novell and less than one percent, Unix or Linux. 

Table 15

Item 20 asked buildings to indicate the number of computers that are multimedia equipped.  A multimedia computer is defined as having a CD drive and sound card capable of running sophisticated software with graphics and sound. In 2002, there were a total of 190,353 multimedia-equipped computers, representing 82 percent of all computers reported. Over 91 percent of the multimedia machines are located in instructional classrooms, labs, and library media centers (LMC). Compared to last year, buildings report over 15,000 more multimedia computers, an increase of 11 percent. Like this year, most multimedia computers were located in classrooms, followed by computer labs, and LMCs.  

Item 21 was added in 2002 to examine library automation. Only one in five buildings reported being completely automated. The top library catalog software being used by these media centers include Follet (153 buildings), Winnebago (133), and Athena (85). 

To get a sense of what technologies are available to teachers and students, item 22 asked buildings to report the total number of rooms and then number of rooms equipped with different technology resources. Resources included having telephone access, being wired for Internet, having at least one multimedia computer, having at least one computer with dedicated (high speed) connection to the Internet, and having a complete teacher workstation that includes an Internet-connected computer, a dedicated projection device (a LCD panel or some type of video projector) and access to a printer. Table 16 provides a snap shot of building technologies in computer labs, instructional rooms, and library media centers for the years 1998, 2000, and 2002. 

In 2002, 90 percent or greater of the computer labs are wired for Internet and are equipped with at least one multimedia computer and at least one computer connected to the Internet. Over half of the labs have telephone access; less than half have a complete teacher workstation. 

The library data somewhat parallel the computer lab data, as over 85 percent are wired and have at least one multimedia and one Internet-connected computer. However, libraries have greater telephone access than the labs; a smaller percentage of libraries have complete workstations as compared to computer labs. 

While classroom data have increased substantially over the years, they continue to lag behind other instructional rooms in some categories. By 2002, the rate of classrooms wired for Internet matched the percentage of labs wired, and at least three-fourths of all classrooms have multimedia and Internet-connected computers. However, only half of the classrooms and classroom teachers have telephone access, and only one in five teachers has access to a complete workstation. 

Table 16