Table of Contents  

This section of the 2004 Census of Technology Report analyzes district-level data, compares current data with previous years’ data, and notes interesting trends or anomalies over time. All 524 Missouri school districts completed the COT in 2004. The District Census is a quick survey, with 15 items that address technology planning, standards, district-provided administrative systems and support, and budgeting. See Appendix A for a copy of the district survey, completed with aggregated data; Appendix B for a copy of the building survey, completed with aggregated data; and Appendix C for a cross reference of the 2004 COT items and METSP goals and objectives. 

Even with losses in state funding, particularly the Technology Acquisition Grant (TAG) program, district responses to the 2004 COT indicate continued progress in technology readiness and use. Missouri districts appear to be making effective use of technology for administrative purposes, managing networks and systems that help improve district administration, data management, and communication. 

Technology Planning
The district-level COT examines the presence of a board-approved and state-approved long range technology plan and partners that help the district support technology and implement school improvement and technology plans. 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 through the use of education technologies. DESE 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 state’s technology grant programs and the MOREnet Technology Network Program. With the passing of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, DESE developed the 2002-2006 Missouri Education Technology Strategic Plan (METSP) and updated accordingly the scoring criteria used to approve district technology plans. Both the state plan and scoring criteria focus on the development of plans that align with comprehensive school improvement plans and promote effective teaching strategies, student achievement, and adequate infrastructure and technical support.  

Item 1 – State-approved technology plans
All districts have state-approved district technology plans, with 16 districts having their plans approved in 2002, 451 districts in 2003, and 69 districts in 2004. By June 2004, all districts had a plan approved using the scoring guide developed in 2002 in response to the NCLB Act and the Missouri state plan. 

Item 2 – District business and higher education partners
Item two asked districts about partners that are formed and designed to increase access and use of education technology through such means as donating or providing equipment, software, technical support, professional development, consulting services, and funding. As Table 1 indicates, the number of districts that report having a technology partner has fluctuated between 27 to 31 percent for the last five years. In 2004, however, 60 percent of districts report having one or more technology partners. The reporting of the types of partners is more consistent. A district “technology” partner is more likely to be a college or university, than a technology-related business or a non-technology related business.

Table 1

______________________________________________________________________

Technology Professional Development
In November of 1997, the State Board of Education established policy that requires buildings to allocate amounts equal to 20 percent of state technology grant funds for technology-related training. The policy went into effect for the 1998-1999 school year. The Title II.D (Ed Tech) Program, begun in 2002-2003, requires that 25 percent of formula and/or competitive grant funds be earmarked for professional development. Professional development is a critical factor in teachers using technology in meaningful and effective ways. Data collected over the previous years indicate that teachers are increasingly interested in professional development sessions that address how to integrate technology into curriculum and instructional teaching strategies. Professional development is most effective when tied to local, state, and national educational technology standards. The Missouri technology plan endorses the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for students, teachers, and school administrators developed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). 

Item 3 – Education technology standards
Added to COT in 2003, item three asked about educational technology standards in place in districts. Standards provide guidelines for developing curriculum and guiding teacher and student behavior; they define a common agreement on what ought to be taught or learned. Educational technology standards serve as guidelines for planning technology-based activities in which students achieve success in learning communication and life skills. In 2004, the vast majority of districts (88 percent) report having board-approved standards for students and school employees. Figure 2 shows that four out of five (417) districts have standards developed by the district, with one in four (140) having adopted the NETS, and one in sixteen (34) adopting the Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) endorsed by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA). Thirty-five districts report having other standards, while 64 districts (12 percent) report having no board-approved standards. The 2004 data closely parallel the data collected in 2003, as illustrated below. 

Figure 2

 
________________________________________________________________________________

Over 80 percent of districts have technology standards for students: 437 districts have established standards for middle school students, 420 have standards for elementary school students, 401 have standards for primary school students, and 375 have standards for high school students. Three of five districts housing area career centers also indicate having standards. The numbers of districts having established technology standards increased from 2003 to 2004, for all grade levels, as indicated in Figure 3 below.  

Figure 3

Four of five districts (80%) have technology standards for district employees: 414 districts have standards for teachers, 400 districts have standards for administrators, and 350 districts have standards for support services staff. Similar to the status of student standards, the number of districts that report having standards for school employees has increased from 2003 to 2004, as illustrated in Figure 4 below. 

Figure 4

Item 4 – Technology skills of administrative office staffs
Item four asked districts to estimate the skills levels of administrators and support staff located in the administrative offices. The possible skill levels included: 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. 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. In 2004, districts estimate 91 percent of administrators and 85 percent of support services staff have intermediate or higher skills in the use of technology. Table 5 in indicates the steady increase in administrators’ skills reported since 1998.  

Figure 5

Hardware and Support and Connectivity
The district COT looks at who is responsible for technology hardware and support in the district and the administrative technologies in place in the district. Access to current technologies is an essential condition for district operations as well as for teaching and learning. Technology is essential to effective and efficient district administration, communications, and data management. Having district technology staff that help with planning, purchasing, installing, and supporting district technologies is key.  

Item 5 – District technology staff
Item five asked districts to estimate the total number of district-level, full-time equivalent (FTE) staff who are responsible for technical maintenance and support. Districts report having an average of 2.09 technical staff, reflecting a drop from the 2.18 reported in 2003.  While it isn’t likely that all districts have two district technology staff persons, it is encouraging to see the number of technical staff remain fairly consistent – despite the tight budget year. 

Item 6 – Administrative office technology
For item six, districts entered the quantities of computers located in the district administrative office(s). Table 6 compares district office computer and software holdings in 2003 and 2004. In keeping with findings from earlier years, administrative offices have computers that are predominantly PCs or PC-compatible. Table 6 also indicates that many districts upgraded operating systems and Acrobat Reader software since last year. 

Item 8 – District network servers
Item eight asked districts to identify the operating systems used by servers located in district administrative buildings/offices. As noted in 2003, Novell is the predominant system (used in 283 districts), followed by Windows 2000 (131), Windows NT (130), and Linux (88). 

Table 6

Item 9 – District-supported administrative systems
Added in 2004, item 9 examines district administrative systems – computer programs that are used to expedite the storage and use of data and information. Table 7 details the systems supported by a majority of the districts. Almost all districts have accounting systems and over 450 of the districts support automated student attendance and electronic mail (email). Systems supported by less than half of the districts include school safety (69 districts), teacher evaluation (103), instructional management (108), distance education (134), extracurricular scheduling (181), and website hosting (196)

Table 7

Technology Usage
Previous items examined technology readiness, with integrating technology as the goal of making technology available and accessible. Technology usage items look at technology integration, the incorporation of technology resources and technology-based practices into daily routine – of districts, school employees, teachers, and students. At the district level, technology usage items check to see how districts support a culture that embraces technology and accepts technology as natural to the business of everyday work. Major goals of the Title II.D Program call for all districts to have technology integrated into core curricula and for students to be technology literate by the end of the eighth grade.

Item 10 – Curriculum integration
All but four districts report that technology is integrated into one or more core curriculum areas. Technology integration is defined as “written curriculum that incorporates content and processes (teaching, professional development, and assessment) related to technology resources, equity of resources, research and workplace readiness skills. Technology supports overall goals and objectives and makes possible and enhances the use of multiple instructional resources and teaching strategies (e.g., use of project-based learning, collaborative and cooperative learning, ongoing questioning, expert assistance, and critical analysis)”. Figure 8 shows that technology is integrated in communication arts for 502 districts (96 percent), science for 472 districts (90 percent), mathematics for 469 districts (90 percent), and social studies for 464 districts (89 percent). 

Figure 8

Item 11 – District-provided email
Districts, for item 11, indicate the percentage of employees (by type) and students (by grade-level spans) who are provided email accounts. Table 9 shows that the vast majority of districts (over 94 percent) provide email accounts to employees, but only a few districts provide accounts to students. Compared to 2003, the first year this item was asked, the 2004 data indicate a slight increase in the number of districts providing accounts to employees and a slight decrease in the number providing email for students – in all grade spans except for high school.  

 Table 9

The districts that do provide email accounts cover almost all of their administrators, over 90 percent of teachers, over 80 percent of support services staff, and about half or more of their students. Table 10 indicates a slight increase in the percentage of coverage for most populations from 2003 to 2004.  

Table 10

Item 12 – Technology literate students
Since 1997, COT has asked districts to estimate the percentage of students in the sixth grade who are computer literate, a goal set forth by Governor Mel Carnahan in January of 1997. For 2004, the item was changed from asking about basic computer skills to technology literacy to align with goals of the Title II.D Program and the NETS for Students. Technology literacy is defined as being able to “apply strategies for identifying and solving routine hardware and software problems that occur during everyday use; exhibit legal and ethical behaviors when using information and technology; use content-specific tools, software, and simulations to support learning and research; design, develop, publish, and present products using technology resources that demonstrate and communicate curriculum concepts, and select and use appropriate tools and technology resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and solve problems.” Perhaps because of the strengthened definition and as depicted in Figure 11, the percentage of sixth-grade students estimated to be technologically literate in 2004 is 86, compared to 88 percent of students estimated to be computer literate in 2003.  

Figure 11

Technology Funding
Districts are asked about their technology funding habits to study budget trends with regards to how much districts are spending on technology and how the expenditures break down by cost categories.

Item 13 – Technology budgets
Districts detail technology-related costs for “last” and “current” fiscal years and project costs for “next” fiscal year. From 1999 to 2001, districts consistently reported budget costs averaging $60-$64 million. Expenditures in FY02 and 03 exceeded $92 million, peaking in FY03. Districts in 2004 estimate technology budgets totaling under $88 million next year. Table 12 indicates total projected and actual expenditures for major budget items, for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Note that the item was revised in 2002 to better align with major cost categories addressed by “total cost of ownership” studies.  

Table 12

Total dollars spent on hardware items, and the percentage of total funds spent on hardware, are gradually decreasing, while the reverse is true about administrative software. Expenditures (dollars and percentage of funds) supporting professional development, connectivity-distance learning, technical support, infrastructure, and instructional software have remained fairly constant. 

Items 14 and 15 – E-rate discounts
Item 14 asked districts if they participated in the 2003-2004 Universal Service Fund’s E-rate program, and item 15 asked what percent of the discounts/savings to be received by the E-rate program would be used to support education technology activities and expenditures. Each year, MOREnet files an E-rate application on behalf of the 510-plus districts and state schools that participate in the statewide network project (TNP). Districts file separate applications for telecommunications, non-MOREnet related Internet costs, and internal connections. In 2004, 381 districts (73 percent) report applying for E-rate discounts and receiving funding commitment decision letters (FCDLs) that total over $32.575 million and average around $85,500. In 2003, 374 districts (71 percent) received FCDLs totaling over $41 million. In 2004, districts projected that 74 percent of the savings would be used to support technology-related activities and expenditures, compared to 61 percent reported in 2003.