Technology In Schools
Technology in SchoolsSuggestions, Tools andGuidelines for AssessingTechnology in Elementaryand Secondary EducationU.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Researchand ImprovementNCES 2003–313
Technology in SchoolsSuggestions, Tools, andGuidelines for AssessingTechnology in Elementaryand Secondary EducationU.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Researchand ImprovementNCES 2003–313November 2002Technology in SchoolsTask ForceCarl SchmittProject OfficerNational Center forEducation StatisticsThe information and opinions published here are the product of theNational Forum on Education Statistics and do not necessarily represent thepolicy or views of the U.S. Department of Education or the National Centerfor Education Statistics.
U.S. Department of EducationRod PaigeSecretaryOffice of Educational Research and ImprovementGrover J. WhitehurstAssistant SecretaryNational Center for Education StatisticsGary W. PhillipsDeputy CommissionerThe National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, andreporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandateto collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the UnitedStates; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics;assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report oneducation activities in foreign countries.NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete,and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality data to theU.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users,and the general public.We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to avariety of audiences.You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating informationeffectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we wouldlike to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:National Center for Education StatisticsOffice of Educational Research and ImprovementU.S. Department of Education1990 K Street NWWashington, DC 20006–5651November 2002The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.govThe NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearchSuggested CitationU.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Technology in Schools: Suggestions,Tools, and Guidelines for Assessing Technology in Elementary and Secondary Education, NCES 2003–313, preparedby Tom Ogle, Morgan Branch, Bethann Canada, Oren Christmas, John Clement, Judith Fillion,Ed Goddard, N. Blair Loudat, Tom Purwin, Andy Rogers, Carl Schmitt, and Mike Vinson of the Technology inSchools Task Force, National Forum on Education Statistics. Washington, DC: 2002.For ordering information on this report, write:U.S. Department of EducationED PubsP.O. Box 1398Jessup, MD 20794–1398Or call toll free 1–877–4ED–PubsContent Contact:Lee Hoffman(202) 502–7356Lee.Hoffman@ed.gov
Members of the Technologyin Schools Task ForceChairTom OgleDirector, School Core DataMissouri Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationMembersMorgan BranchDirector, Technology Service, Curriculum and InstructionTennessee State Department of EducationBethann CanadaDirector, Information TechnologyVirginia Department of EducationOren ChristmasAssistant MEIS Administrator, Center for Educational Performance andInformation, Michigan Department of EducationJudith FillionDivision Director, Program SupportNew Hampshire State Department of EducationEd GoddardEvaluator, Federal Programs DepartmentClark County School District, NevadaN. Blair LoudatDirector, Technology and Information ServicesNorth Clackamas School District, OregonTom PurwinDirector, Education Technology/Information SystemsJersey City Public School District, New JerseyAndy RogersDirector, Instructional Technology ApplicationsLos Angeles Unified School District, CaliforniaMike VinsonSuperintendentTupelo Public School District, MississippiConsultantsJohn ClementEducation Statistics Services InstituteAmerican Institutes for ResearchLee HoffmanNational Center for Education StatisticsU.S. Department of EducationCarl SchmittNational Center for Education StatisticsU.S. Department of Educationiii
Master List of Key QuestionsChapter 1: Technology Planning and PoliciesTP1. Are there technology policies?TP2. Is there a technology plan?TP3. Is the plan being implemented?TP4. Is the plan being evaluated?Chapter 2: FinanceFI1. How does your school district compare in technology expenditureswith others in your state?FI2. How much was spent in the past academic year for instructional andadministrative equipment purchases?FI3. How much was spent for instructional and administrative applicationsand software?FI4. How much was spent for maintenance and support?FI5. How much was spent for instructional and administrative professionaldevelopment?FI6. How much was spent for connectivity and infrastructure?Chapter 3: Equipment and InfrastructureEI1. Is equipment present in instructional settings?EI2. Is equipment available for use by students?EI3. Is equipment available for use by teachers?EI4. Is equipment available for use by administrators and support staff?EI5. Does the infrastructure have the capacity to support the school’stechnology needs?Chapter 4: Technology ApplicationsTA1. Do the school or district’s instructional applications supportteaching and learning standards across the curriculum?TA2. Is there software support for technology tool skill development?TA3. Does the school/district use technology applications to improvecommunication?TA4. Does the school/district have appropriate software and systems tosupport primary administrative functions?TA5. Are the applications in use evaluated for effectiveness?Chapter 5: Maintenance and SupportMS1. Are resources and processes in place to maintain schooltechnology?MS2. Are personnel available to provide technical support?Chapter 6: Professional DevelopmentPD1. What technology-related training and/or professional developmentdo staff receive?PD2. What are the goals, methods, incentives, and content oftechnology-related training and/or professional development for staff?PD3. How are training and/or professional development for staffevaluated?Chapter 7: Technology IntegrationTI1. Are teachers proficient in the use of technology in the teaching/learning environment?TI2. Are students proficient in the use of technology in the teaching/learning environment?TI3. Are administrators and support staff proficient in the use oftechnology in support of school management?TI4. Is technology integrated into the teaching/learning environment?TI5. Are technology proficiencies and measures incorporated intoteaching and learning standards?TI6. Are technology proficiencies and measures incorporated intostudent assessment?TI7. Is technology incorporated into administrative processes?TI8. Is technology proficiency integrated into the evaluation ofinstructional and administrative staff?v
Acknowledgments
This document was developed through the National Cooperative EducationStatistics System and funded by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)of the U.S. Department of Education.The Technology in Schools Task Force, whose members represent many levelsof the educational system, wishes to acknowledge the efforts of many individualswho contributed to the compilation and development of this document. In particular, John Clement of the Education Statistics Services Institute, and Lee Hoffmanand Carl Schmitt of the National Center for Education Statistics, provided guidanceand insight from inception to final form.The task force also wishes to thank the following external reviewers, who examined the draft and made many valuable suggestions, some of which wereadopted:Barbara Clements, Evaluation Software Publishing, Inc.;Sara Fitzgerald, Consortium for School Networking;Ann Flynn, Technology Leadership Network, ITTE-National School BoardsAssociation;Laurence Goldberg, Director, Technology and Telecommunications, AbingtonSchool District, Abington, Pennsylvania;Melinda George, Executive Director, State Educational Technology DirectorsAssociation (SETDA);Julian Katz, Supervisor, Data Analysis, Howard County Public Schools, Ellicott City,Maryland;Keith Krueger, Executive Director, Consortium for School Networking;Lawrence Lanahan, Education Statistics Services Institute;Tim Magner, Director, Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF), Software andInformation Industry Association;Catherine Mozer Connor, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department ofEducation;Jeffery Rodamar, Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education;Craig Stanton, Office of the Undersecretary, Budget Service, U.S. Department ofEducation; andGeannie Wells, Director, Center for Accountability Solutions, AmericanAssociation of School Administrators (AASA).viiiTECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS
Last but by no means least, the task force acknowledges with gratitude theefforts of those who edited the handbook and prepared it for publication: DeborahDurham-Vichr, editorial consultant; and Martin Hahn (editor), Cecelia Marsh (proofing), and Mariel Escudero (design and layout) of the Education Statistics ServicesInstitute.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSix
Table of ContentsMembers of the Technology in Schools Task Force . iiiMaster List of Key Questions . vAcknowledgments. viiForeword . xvExecutive Summary . xixIntroduction . 1Purpose of This Guide . 2For Whom Is This Guide Intended? . 2Defining Technology in Schools . 3Organizing Principles of This Guide. 4Key Questions . 4Indicators . 5Data Elements. 5Unit Records . 5Using the Guide . 6
What Topics This Guide Covers . 6What the Handbook Does and Does Not Do . 7Chapter 1—Technology Planning and Policies . 9Overview. 10Defining Technology Plans and Policies . 11Key Questions and Indicators . 11Key Question 1. Are there technology policies? . 12Key Question 2. Is there a technology plan? . 12Key Question 3. Is the plan being implemented? . 14Key Question 4. Is the plan being evaluated? . 14Unit Record Structure . 15Resources . 16Planning tools . 16Technology plans . 16In-depth resources . 16Chapter 2—Finance . 17Overview. 18Defining Finance Terms and Categories for Technology in Schools . 19Key Questions and Indicators . 20Key Question 1. How does your school district compare in technology expenditures with others inyour state? . 21Key Question 2. How much was spent in the past academic year for instructional and administrativeequipment purchases?. 22Key Question 3. How much was spent for instructional and administrative applications and software? . 23Key Question 4. How much was spent for maintenance and support? . 24Key Question 5. How much was spent for instructional and administrative professional development? . 24Key Question 6. How much was spent for connectivity and infrastructure? . 25Unit Record Structure . 26Resources . 27Estimation tools . 27In-depth resources . 27Chapter 3—Equipment and Infrastructure . 29Overview. 30Defining Equipment and Infrastructure . 31Key Questions and Indicators . 32xiiTECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS
Key Question 1. Is equipment present in instructional settings? . 32Key Question 2. Is equipment available for use by students? . 34Key Question 3. Is equipment available for use by teachers? . 35Key Question 4. Is equipment available for use by administrators and support staff? . 36Key Question 5. Does the infrastructure have the capacity to support the school’s technology needs? . 37Unit Record Structure . 38Resources . 39Chapter 4—Technology Applications. 41Overview. 42Defining Technology Applications . 43Key Questions and Indicators . 43Key Question 1. Do the school or district’s instructional applications support teaching and learningstandards across the curriculum? . 44Key Question 2. Is there software support for technology tool skill development? . 45Key Question 3. Does the school/district use technology applications to improve communication?. 46Key Question 4. Does the school/district have appropriate software and systems to support primaryadministrative functions?. 47Key Question 5. Are the applications in use evaluated for effectiveness? . 48Unit Record Structure . 49Resources .
technology-related training and/or professional development for staff? PD3. How are training and/or professional development for staff evaluated? Chapter 7: Technology Integration TI1. Are teachers proficient in the use of technology in the teaching/ learning environment? TI2. Are students proficient in the use of technology in the teaching/
This advice is for school leaders and governing bodies in all schools and proprietors of independent schools, and for local authorities. It covers thefollowing school types: maintained schools, maintained special schools, academies, free schools (including university technical colleges and studio schools
and pupils. Charter schools may consist of new schools or all or any portion of an existing school. Charter schools are public schools that serve as alternatives to traditional public schools and charter schools are not subject to the requirements of article XI, section 1, Constitution of Arizona, or chapter 16 of this title." A.R.S 15-181
Patterns of Enrollment Growth 137 Enrollment growth in Catholic schools may come from a greater num-ber of schools, a larger number of students in existing schools, or both since the growth rate in enrollment is simply the sum of the growth rates for the number of schools and for the average size of schools. Similarly, in countries
Pueblo City Schools District 70 Online/alternative schools CU Denver Schools agree to participate in the survey 2) Obtain signed releases of information from Pueblo City Schools, District 70, and online/alternative schools to receive HKCS 2019 data. January 1- March 31, 2020 Schools Pueblo City Online/alternative schools
History of New York Smart Schools Bond Act. 2014 – Governor Cuomo called for 2 Billion technology investment in schools November 2014 – Public approval of the Smart Schools Bond Act 2015 – Development of Smart Schools Bond Act guidelines April 2016 – Smart Schools Review Board was assembled June 2016 – First group of Smart School Investment .
How did North Carolina schools fare in 2016-17? Public schools had a lower percentage of D’s and F’s than charter schools (22.5% vs. 25.2%). Charters had a higher percentage of A’s and B’s than public schools (43.5% vs. 35.2%). NC’s two virtual charter schools each earned a D performance grade and failed to meet growth benchmarks Schools with greater poverty had more C’s, D’s .
At one time, almost 14,000 one-room schools dotted Iowa's rural landscape. Articles explore Native American schools of the past and present, segregation of black students, and Amish schools. An article remembering one-room schools describes the early schools from 1830 to 1858, township schools from 1858 to 1872, expanding communities and
The 45 low-performing schools in this study were identified by the Alabama SDE staff from all the schools in the state (approximately 1,470). Schools in . number of students in the free and reduced lunch program, and the number of African American students were inspected. 5. Schools wer
