Table of Contents 

III. Detailed Findings 

This section of the 2005 Census of Technology Report details all of the district- and building-level data, compares current data with previous years’ data, and makes note of trends and/or anomalies found in data from the last several years. 

A. District Census  

All 524 Missouri school districts completed the COT in 2005. The District Census is a quick survey, comprised of 11 items that address technology planning, standards, administrative systems and support, and budgeting. See Appendix A for copies of the district and school building surveys, completed with aggregated data, and Appendix B for a cross reference of the 2005 COT items and the Missouri Education Technology Strategic Plan (METSP) goals and objectives. 

Even with the continued loss of state funding (i.e., the Technology Acquisition Grant or TAG program), district responses to the 2005 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 education technology plan. 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, 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. 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 in 2001, DESE developed the 2002-2006 Missouri Education Technology Strategic Plan and updated accordingly the scoring criteria used to approve district education technology plans.

Early district technology plans dealt mostly with hardware and equipment and did little to address integration, student learning, or technology professional development. Now plans are much more comprehensive, as a result of the state plan and the scoring criteria for local plans both focusing 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 417 districts having their plans approved in 2003, 66 districts in 2004, and 51 districts in 2005. By June 2004, all districts had a plan approved using the scoring guide developed in 2002 in response to the No Child Left Behind Act and the 2002-06 Missouri state plan.
 

TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Professional development is a critical factor in teachers using technology in meaningful and effective ways. In November of 1997, the State Board of Education established policy that required 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.  

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 comprehensive school improvement plans and 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 2 – Educational technology standards
Added to COT in 2003, item two asked about the educational technology standards in place in the district. 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. Also, educational technology standards serve as guidelines for planning technology-based activities in which students achieve success in learning communication and life skills.  

In 2005, the vast majority of districts (90 percent) report having board-approved educational technology standards. Figure 1 shows that four out of five (431) districts have standards developed by the district, with nearly three of ten (151) having adopted the National Educational Technology Standards, and one in sixteen (42) adopting the Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) endorsed by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA). Nineteen districts report having other standards, while 55 districts (10 percent) report having no board-approved standards. The 2005 data closely parallel the data collected in 2004 and 2003, but also show a modest increase in the number of districts adopting the NETS (as proposed in the state plan) and a decrease in the number of districts having no board-approved standards. Many of those districts adopting the NETS also incorporate locally-developed standards.

 Figure 1 

Percent Districts with Education Technology Standards, by Standard Type, 2003-2005

 Ninety percent of districts reporting having technology standards for students: 426 districts have established standards for PreK-2 students, 440 have standards for students in grades 3-5, 457 have standards for middle school students (grades 6-8), and 388 have standards for high school students. Nearly three of four districts (74 percent) that house area career centers also indicate having standards for career center students. The number of districts with established technology standards has increased for all grade levels each year since 2003, as indicated in Figure 2.
 

Figure 2 

Number Districts with Student Technology Standards, by Grade Spans, 2003-2005 

 Four of five districts (80 percent) report having technology standards for district employees: 412 districts have standards for teachers, 403 have standards for administrators, and 360 have standards for support services staff. Similar to the status of student standards, the number of districts that report having educational technology standards for school employees has increased from 2003 to 2005, as illustrated in Figure 3 below. 

Figure 3 

Number Districts with Technology Standards for Faculty/Staff, by Employee Type, 2003-2005
 

HARDWARE AND SUPPORT

Technology integration is affected by the kinds of hardware and software that districts deploy. The district COT looks at who is responsible for technology hardware and support in the district, the administrative technologies in place in the district, and computer networking. 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, data management, and communications. Having district technology staff to help plan, purchase, install, and support district technologies is key. 

Item 3 – District technology staff
Item three asked districts to estimate the total number of district-level, full-time equivalent (FTE) staff responsible for technical maintenance and support. Overall, districts report having an average of 2.1 technical staff, which is only slightly higher than the 2.09 reported in 2004. The typical (median) district has only one full-time staff. In 2005, 18 districts report having no staff dedicated to overseeing district hardware and support. 

Item 4 – District-supported administrative systems
Added in 2004, item four examines district administrative systems – programs that are used to expedite the storage and use of data and information. Table 4 details the systems supported by a majority of the districts. Almost all districts (513) have accounting systems, and over 90 percent of districts support automated student attendance, electronic mail (email), and library catalog. Systems supported by less than half of the districts include school safety (104 districts), teacher evaluation (133 districts), instructional management (136 districts), human resources (166 districts), extracurricular scheduling (190 districts), and distance education (194 districts). 

Table 4 

District Administrative Systems, 2004 and 2005
 

Item 5 – District networks
The use of an interconnected system of computers and peripheral equipment enables connected users to communicate and share information
and resources. Revised this year, item five assumes that districts have computer networks and asks how many districts have all buildings in the district connected through a wide (WAN) or local area (LAN) network. In 2005, nearly nine of ten (87 percent) districts report all buildings being connected through a wide or local area network. 

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 6 – Curriculum integration
Technology integration in Missouri 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)”. As depicted in Figure 5, districts report technology is integrated in communication arts for 505 districts (96 percent), science for 474 districts (90 percent), mathematics for 463 districts (88 percent), and social studies for 462 districts (88 percent) in 2005. 

Figure 5 

Percent Districts with Technology Integrated in Curriculum, by Subject, 2003-2005

In 2004, the state upgraded the definitions and/or standards related to technology integration, student technology literacy, and teacher technology integration skills in order to better align with national standards (NETS). The dip noted in 2004 of the percentages of districts reporting to have technology integrated in the core curriculum areas is a reflection of the revised definition for integration. The increases for 2005, therefore, indicate more than just modest improvement. 

Item 7– District-provided email
Districts, for item 7, indicate the percentage of employees (by type) and students (by grade-level spans) who are provided email accounts. Table 6 shows that nearly four of five (79 percent) districts provide email accounts to employees, but fewer than one-fourth of districts provide accounts to students. While similar to data collected in 2003, the 2005 data represent decreases from 2004. District that do provide staff email accounts, however, typically provide accounts for all administrators, teachers, and support staff. 

Table 6 

District Email Accounts, 2003-2005
 

In 2005, the typical (median) district reports 90 percent of eighth-grade students as meeting the technology literacy standard as established by the state. Aligned to the NETS for students, a literate student is 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.” 

TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
Districts are asked about their technology funding habits to study budget trends with regards to how much districts spend on technology and how districts make use of the national E-rate program. 

Item 9 – Technology budgets
Revised in 2005, this item simply asks for the total amount budgeted for technology for the current year. As noted in Table 7, districts estimated spending a total of nearly $106 million during the 2004-2005 school year. While higher than budgeted last year, the 2005 total falls short of the nearly $108 million budgeted in 2003. While the average is $202,025 in 2005, that amount is inflated by the number of larger schools with access to greater resources. The typical (median) district budgeted $40,900. 

Table 7 

District Technology Budgets and Expenditures, 2002-2005 
 

Items 10 and 11 – E-rate discounts
Item 10 asked districts if they participated in the Universal Service Fund’s E-rate program for 2004-2005 and the estimated amount of discounts/savings, while item 11 asked what percent of the discount received by the E-rate program is used to support education technology activities and expenditures. While MOREnet files an E-rate application on behalf of the 510-plus districts and state schools that participate in the statewide network project (TNP), items 10 and 11 refer to district-filed applications for E-rate discounts.  

In 2005, 414 districts (70 percent) report applying for E-rate discounts and receiving funding commitment decision letters (FCDLs) that total nearly $29.7 million. These figures compare to 381 districts (73 percent) in 2004 with discounts totaling $32.55 million, and 374 districts (71 percent) in 2003 with discounts totaling over $41 million. Districts projected that 80 percent of the savings being used to support technology-related activities and expenditures, compared to 74 in 2004 and 61 percent in 2003.