|
|
|
|
This section of the Census of Technology Report analyzes
this year’s data, compares the 2002 data with previous years’ data, and
notes interesting trends or anomalies. All 524 Missouri school districts
completed the Census of Technology in 2002. Predominantly, the 2002 COT data
indicate continued improvement over the previous year(s). A copy of the survey,
completed with aggregate data, is provided as Appendix A.
Technology Planning
A school district’s long-range technology plan provides a road map for how
the district will implement strategies that promote the district’s mission,
advance its comprehensive school improvement plan (CSIP), and improve teaching
and learning. Items 1 and 3 asked
if districts have technology plans and, if so, whether they are state approved
or aligned with local school improvement plans.
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education began
approving technology plans in 1997 as a requirement for the E-rate program.
Early district technology plans dealt mostly with hardware and equipment and did
little to address integration, student learning, or technology professional
development. Beginning in 1999, a state-approved technology plan became a
requirement for participation in the technology acquisition (TAG) grant program
and/or the MOREnet Technology Network Program. Districts were granted a one-year
waiver to allow time for the development of new or substantially updated plans.
As such, all but a few districts had state-approved plans by 2000.
In 2001, with the passing of the federal No Child Left
Behind Act, the state developed a new state education technology strategic plan
and a district technology planning web site and updated its scoring criteria to
assist schools in developing plans that would promote effective teaching
strategies and student achievement as well as adequate infrastructure. The new
criteria were implemented in 2002 and districts were again given a one-year
waiver to prepare. That waiver expires in June 30, 2003. As a result, the 2003
COT will not address district plans.
Table 1 indicates the ebb and flow of district technology
planning, 1997 through 2002.
Table 1
Status of District Technology Plans, 1997-2002
|
|
||||||
|
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
|
|
Districts With a Technology Plan |
94% |
93% |
96% |
99% |
99.7% |
98.3% |
|
Districts with State-approved Plan |
NA |
71% |
82% |
89% |
96.2% |
97.9% |
|
Districts with Technology in CSIP |
NA |
92% |
95% |
96% |
97.9% |
97.7% |
Figure 2 illustrates the components covered in district
technology plans, 1998 through 2002. By
2002, nearly all district plans covered hardware review standards and equipment
maintenance, staff professional development, computer software, and curriculum
integration.
Figure 2
Components of Technology Plans, 1998-2002
________________________________________________________________
Item 2 asked districts to indicate who makes
technology-related decisions for the district, in terms of technology
acquisition and use. Figure 3 indicates a movement toward giving more
decision-making responsibilities to instructional staff, less to chief financial
officers and consultants, and involving a wider spectrum of stakeholders. While
district superintendents continued to be involved at a high rate, an increasing
number of curriculum staff, technical staff, classroom teachers, and parents
play important roles in education technology planning.
Figure 3
District Decision Makers for Technology Acquisition and Use, 1998-2002
________________________________________________________________
Item 4 asked whether districts partner with business or
higher education to help support technology initiatives. The number of districts
that report having a technology partner has fluctuated the past four years, as
indicated in Table 4. The reporting of the types of partners is more consistent.
A district “technology” partner is most likely a college or university, then
a technology-related business, followed by a local business that is not
technology-related.
Table 4
Districts With a Technology Business or Higher Education Partner, 1998-2002
|
|
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
|
Districts with One or More Partner |
22% |
27% |
29% |
31% |
27% |
Technology Professional Development
Five items of the District-level COT addressed training issues. Item 5 asked
who is responsible for the technical maintenance and support in the district;
item 6 asked districts to prioritize the training needs of those responsible;
and items 7 and 8 address technology skills. Item 7 asked whether teachers are
required to demonstrate technology skills for employment or continued
employment, and item 8 asked about the technology skill level of district
administrators.
Table 5 indicates that districts are engaging more people
to handle technical maintenance and/or support of hardware in the districts.
As more technology is acquired and more educators are using the
technologies, it creates a need for greater technical support. Over 60 percent
of the districts involve district staff and/or outside vendors to help with
equipment maintenance and support. In 2002, districts predominantly used staff.
The percentage using outside vendors dropped from 78 percent to 64 percent --
the lowest rate since 1998.
Table 5
Persons Responsible for District Technical Support, 1998-2002
|
Persons Responsible |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
|
District Staff |
70% |
73% |
77% |
83% |
83% |
|
Outside Vendors |
65% |
69% |
72% |
78% |
64% |
|
School Certified Staff |
44% |
51% |
56% |
61% |
53% |
|
School Classified Staff |
15% |
17% |
20% |
27% |
26% |
|
Contractors |
22% |
22% |
24% |
27% |
21% |
|
Students |
10% |
13% |
17% |
21% |
17% |
|
Parents |
3% |
5% |
4% |
4% |
3% |
|
Regional Centers / RPDCs |
2% |
3% |
3% |
6% |
5% |
Table 6 lists the training
priorities for the persons responsible for equipment maintenance and support. It
is interesting to note that, while all the percentages dropped in 2002,
classroom use of technology continued to be top priority. Curriculum and
instruction integration have consistently been the top priorities for the
majority of districts but now there is a 40 percent drop from these categories
to the next highest categories, technology planning and networking.
Table
6
Top
Training Priorities, 1998-2002
|
Training Type |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
|
Instructional Integration |
57% |
73% |
78% |
78% |
69% |
|
Curriculum Integration |
65% |
72% |
77% |
78% |
70% |
|
Networking |
47% |
45% |
43% |
46% |
39% |
|
Technology Planning |
31% |
44% |
44% |
45% |
39% |
|
Information Systems |
17% |
33% |
35% |
33% |
26% |
|
Basic Operations |
Na |
33% |
31% |
30% |
25% |
|
Procurement |
28% |
24% |
24% |
25% |
21% |
|
Budget Planning |
20% |
20% |
20% |
22% |
20% |
|
Community Awareness |
17% |
19% |
20% |
20% |
17% |
Items
7 through 9 deal with district technology standards and the estimated skill
levels of current administrators. Item 7 was added to the 2002 COT to address
district technology standards for students, teachers, and administrators.
Approximately three in five districts have board-approved technology standards.
Over 300 districts reported they have locally-developed standards, while 100
report adopting or adapting national standards such as those developed by the
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and International
Technology Education Association (ITEA). Districts are most likely to have
established standards for elementary students (307 districts), then
middle/junior high students (283), followed by high school students (258).
Districts are more likely to have standards established for teachers (237) than
for administrators (223) or support services staff (210).
While nearly half of the districts have board-approved technology standards for teachers, responses to item 8 indicate that only nine percent of districts require teachers to demonstrate technology skills for hiring and continued employment decisions. This rate has hovered at or near eight percent since 1998.
Item
9 asked districts to estimate technology skills levels of administrators in the
district offices. In 1998, about 67 percent of district-office administrators
were estimated to have intermediate and advance technology skills. The
percentage rate has increased yearly, with districts reporting an 87 percent
rate in 2002. On the flip side, the percentage of administrators rated as
beginners has decreased yearly. The contrast between the decreasing percent of
“beginners” and the increasing percent of “advanced” is illustrated in
Figure 7.
Figure 7
Administrators with Beginner and Advanced Technology Skills, 1998-2002
_________________________________________________________________
Hardware and
Support
Items 10 through 15 ask district administrators to estimate the number of
persons responsible for technical support, list the kinds of computers located
in the administrative offices, and estimate the number of computers likely to be
purchased in coming years – for both administrative offices and school
buildings.
Item 10 asked items about technology staffing. Since 1999,
districts have been consistently reporting an average of 2.0 district-level
staff and a little over 2.0 building-level staff responsible for hardware
maintenance and support. It isn’t likely that all districts have these same
numbers; rather, these averages level the districts with little or no technology
staffs and those districts with one or more technology staff person in each
building. In 2002, districts reported 1.88 district-level FTE and 1.63 school
FTE.
Table 8 notes an annual increase in the overall numbers of
computers and kinds of computers housed in administrative offices. The
proportion of high-end machines also increased each year, as did the proportion
of PCs to Apple/Mac computers. While the number of Apple/Mac machines increased
in 2002, the proportion of all machines has dropped. Windows is the predominant
operating system for PC/PC-compatible machines, followed by Novell. Of the
Apple/Mac computers, 82 percent have operating systems of OS 9.0 or higher.
Table 8
Administrative Office Hardware, 1998-2002
|
|
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
|
Total
Number of Personal Computers |
8,227 |
11,558 |
14,788 |
17,523 |
23399 |
|
Number
of PC/PC-Compatible Machines |
6,371 |
9,826 |
12,944 |
15,646 |
20985 |
|
Number
of Apple/Mac Machines |
1,856 |
1,732 |
1,844 |
1,877 |
2414 |
|
Percent
PC-Compatible 586/Pentium or higher |
59% |
76% |
88% |
94% |
93% |
|
Percent
Apple/Mac 68040 or higher |
55% |
72% |
81% |
82% |
95% |
|
Percent
PC-Compatible |
77% |
85% |
88% |
89% |
90% |
|
Percent
Apple/Mac |
23% |
15% |
12% |
11% |
10% |
District estimates of how many computers will be purchased
in coming years continue the trends noted above. Districts expect to purchase
increasing numbers of machines for the administrative offices, as well as
computers, interactive whiteboards, and projectors for school buildings.
Internet Connectivity and Distance Learning
Items 16 through 21 ask about the administrative office’s capacity to
interact with others through Internet, networking, and distance learning
technologies. Table 9 shows the steady increase in the percentage of
administrative offices connected to the Internet, a local area network (LAN), a
wide area network (WAN), and that are equipped for two-way videoconferencing.
There was a noted increase in the number of offices connected to WAN from 2001
to 2002.
Table 9
Administrative Office Connectivity/Networking, 1998-2002
|
|
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
|
District/Offices
|
68% |
85% |
92% |
96% |
93% |
|
77% |
82% |
86% |
90% |
88% |
|
34% |
46% |
53% |
57% |
60% |
|
Na |
Na |
Na |
Na |
86% |
|
5% |
7% |
7% |
8% |
8% |
|
12 |
26 |
23 |
28 |
30 |
|
7 |
12 |
13 |
15 |
13 |
|
10 |
38 |
55 |
69 |
68 |
|
49% |
68% |
76% |
82% |
92% |
1 The
2002 COT was revised to ask for “dedicated” connection while previous COT
asked about “direct” connection.
Technology Usage
Item 22 also asked if districts had technology proficiency
requirements for students to pass to the next level. Only 15 percent of
districts in 2002 indicated they had such a requirement, which is slightly lower
but still consistent with the three previous years, with percents that ranged
from 16 to18 percent.
Figure 10 indicates information available on the district
web sites. There has been a steady increase in almost every information category
over the last four years. Increasingly, more districts are maintaining their own
web sites and posting a higher quantity and greater diversity of information.
Asked for the first time in 2002, about one in four districts reported posting
classroom curriculum and homework information.
Figure 10
Information Available on District Web Sites, 1998-2002
Items 24 and 25 asked districts to estimate the staff
responsible for the training and support of teachers in integrating technology
into curriculum and instruction. Approximately three in four districts employ a
technology director or coordinator. In keeping with past statistics, districts
averaged approximately two district-level staff. This year, districts estimate
almost two full-time building-level staff.
Responses to item 26 indicated that over 7,100 administrators, 61,00 teachers, and nearly 50,000 students were provided email accounts in 2002. Except for the administrator category, the 2002 numbers are higher than data reported in 2001.
Figure 11 shows a steady
increase in the percentage rate of 6th grade students estimated to be
computer literate, as asked by item 27. Computer literacy, in this case, means
the student is able to perform basic computer operations.
Figure
11
Computer
Literate Students – Grade 6, 1999-2002
Responses to item 28 are
reported in Table 12. Data indicate a steady increase in the percentage of
districts installing their own email, web, and proxy servers, and firewalls. In
2002, Groupwise, Mercury, Pegasus, and MS Exchange or Outlook were the
predominant email server; Apache, MS FrontPage, Enterprise, and IIS the most
used web servers; and, Border Manager the primary firewall.
Table
12
District
Servers, 1999-2002
|
|
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
|
Email Server |
60% |
67% |
73% |
72% |
|
Web Server |
52% |
59% |
65% |
64% |
|
Proxy Server |
28% |
36% |
43% |
46% |
|
Firewall |
39% |
48% |
57% |
71% |
Technology
Funding
Table 13
Technology Budgets and Expenditures, 2000-2002
|
Technology |
FY 2000 |
FY 2001 |
FY 2002 |
|||||
|
Hardware
/ |
$39,103,432 |
$42,050,485 |
$43,835,991 |
$40,900,483 |
$39,206,409 |
$49,353,122 |
||
|
Instructional |
5,525,287 |
5,809,475 |
6,481,647 |
5,715,504 |
6,193,943 |
5,743,140 |
||
|
Professional
|
4,295,815 |
4,229,137 |
4,379,409 |
4,295,303 |
4,544,669 |
5,360,525 |
||
|
Internet
|
1,505,177 |
1,575,164 |
1,509,878 |
1,510,112 |
1,514,324 |
1,589,346 |
||
|
Distance
|
2,314,206 |
1,987,733 |
2,481,296 |
2,104,837 |
2,377,102 |
1,938,977 |
||
|
Server
/ |
8,013,192 |
7,839,798 |
8,740,757 |
8,153,149 |
9,180,776 | |||