![](media/image1.png){width="8.755555555555556in" height="11.0in"}

**National Educational Technology Trends Study**

**Local-level Data Summary\
\
**

Prepared by:

Marianne Bakia

Edith Yang

Karen Mitchell

SRI International

For:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development\
Policy and Program Studies Service

2008

This summary was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract Number ED-01-CO-0133 with SRI International. Bernadette Adams
Yates served as the contracting officer's representative. The views
expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies
of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S.
Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Margaret Spellings

*Secretary*

**Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development**

Bill Evers

*Assistant Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan Ginsburg

*Director*

**Program and Analytic Studies Division**

David Goodwin

*Director*

June 2008

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce this
summary in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development,
Policy and Program Studies Service, *National Educational Technology
Trends Study: Local-level Data Summary,* Washington, D.C., 2008.

To order copies of this summary, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 207494-1398

To order via fax, dial 301-470-1244. You may also call toll-free:
1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 services are not yet available
in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY)
should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.ed.gov.

This summary is also available on the Department's Web site at:
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as
Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at
202-260-0852 or

202-260-0818.

Contents

[Exhibits v](#exhibits)

[Acknowledgments vii](#acknowledgments)

[Introduction 1](#introduction)

[Data Sources and Methods 3](#data-sources-and-methods)

[Data Collection 5](#data-collection)

> [Districts' Grant Awards 5](#districts-grant-awards)
>
> [District Survey 5](#district-survey)
>
> [Teacher Survey 6](#teacher-survey)

[Data Analyses 6](#data-analyses)

> [Targeting of EETT Grants 6](#targeting-of-eett-grants)
>
> [Technology Integration in Districts That Received EETT Subgrants
> 7](#technology-integration-in-districts-that-received-eett-subgrants)
>
> [Teacher and Student Technology Use
> 7](#teacher-and-student-technology-use)
>
> [Technology Access and Support 8](#technology-access-and-support)

[Conceptual Framework 9](#conceptual-framework)

[Data Tables 11](#__RefHeading___Toc201635724)

[Appendix A: NETTS District Survey
19](#appendix-a-netts-district-survey)

[Appendix B: NETTS Teacher Survey 54](#appendix-b-netts-teacher-survey)

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# Exhibits

[Exhibit 1. Data Sources and Analysis Methods
4](#__RefHeading___Toc200946787)

[Exhibit 2. Measures of Teacher and Student Technology Use
7](#__RefHeading___Toc200946788)

[Exhibit 3. Measures of Technology Access and Support in Schools
9](#__RefHeading___Toc200946789)

[Exhibit 4. Percentage of EETT-Funded Districts Using EETT Funds for
Hardware, Software, Web-based Instructional Resources, and Technical
Support in SY 2003--04 11](#__RefHeading___Toc200946790)

[Exhibit 5. Average Numbers of Computers in Classrooms and Other
Instructional Areas in EETT and Non-EETT Districts in SY 2003--04^1^
11](#__RefHeading___Toc200946791)

[Exhibit 6. Percentage of EETT-Funded Districts Using EETT Funds for
Technology-related Teacher Professional Development in SY 2003--04
12](#__RefHeading___Toc200946792)

[Exhibit 7. Percentage of Districts Using EETT Funds for Assessment
Technologies and Data-based Decision-making in SY 2003--04
12](#__RefHeading___Toc200946793)

[Exhibit 8. Percentage of Teachers in EETT-funded Districts Who
Integrated Technology in Their Instruction on At Least a Weekly Basis in
SY 2004--05, by School Poverty Level 13](#__RefHeading___Toc200946794)

[Exhibit 9. Percentage of Teachers in EETT-funded Districts Whose
Students Used Technology in Learning on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY
2004--05, by School Poverty Level 13](#__RefHeading___Toc200946795)

[Exhibit 10. Percentage of Teachers in EETT-funded Districts With Access
to Technology in Their Classrooms in SY 2004--05, by School Poverty
Level 14](#__RefHeading___Toc200946796)

[Exhibit 11. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Used
Technology for the Critical-Thinking and Decision-making Skills Related
to Technology Literacy on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004--05, by
School Poverty Level 14](#__RefHeading___Toc200946797)

[Exhibit 12. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Had
Access to Technology in Their Classrooms in SY 2004--05, by School
Poverty Level 15](#__RefHeading___Toc200946798)

[Exhibit 13. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Had
Access to Technology in Computer Labs or Media Centers in SY 2004--05,
by School Poverty Level 15](#__RefHeading___Toc200946799)

[Exhibit 14. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Reporting Obstacles
to Their Technology Use in SY 2004--05, by School Poverty Level
16](#__RefHeading___Toc200946800)

[Exhibit 15. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Participating in
Professional Development on Different Technology Topics in SY 2004--05
and Summer 2005, by School Poverty Level
16](#__RefHeading___Toc200946801)

[Exhibit 16. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Who Integrated
Technology in Their Instruction on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY
2004--05, by School Poverty Level 17](#__RefHeading___Toc200946802)

[Exhibit 17. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Who Used Technology
for Classroom Management and Other Administrative Purposes on At Least a
Weekly Basis in 17](#__RefHeading___Toc200946803)

[Exhibit 18. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Who Reported
Students' Use of Technology in Learning on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY
2004--05, by School Poverty Level 18](#__RefHeading___Toc200946804)

[Exhibit 19. Average Numbers of Different Technologies Available to
Teachers and Students, Technology-related Professional Development
Topics Completed, and Technology Uses by Teachers and Students in SY
2004--05 18](#__RefHeading___Toc200946805)

# 

#   {#section-2 .unnumbered}

# Acknowledgments

Many individuals contributed to the completion of this summary. We are
particularly grateful to the state, district, and school-level staff,
including state educational technology directors, district technology
coordinators, and teachers who took time out of their busy schedules to
respond to our surveys and requests for information. Without their
efforts, this report would not have been possible, and we deeply
appreciate their assistance.

We would like to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of the members
of our Technical Working Group in reviewing study methods and materials
and prioritizing issues to investigate. The group consisted of Tim Best
of the Ohio Board of Regents, Geneva Haertel of SRI International, Alan
Lesgold of the University of Pittsburgh, Tammy McGraw of the Virginia
Department of Education, Jayne Moore of the Maryland State Department of
Education, Michael Russell of Boston College, Fritz Scheuren of the
National Opinion Research Center (NORC), Linda Tsantis of Johns Hopkins
University, Carla Wade of the Oregon Department of Education, and Brenda
Williams of the West Virginia Department of Education. We thank them for
their expertise and insights so generously shared.

Many U.S. Department of Education staff contributed to the completion of
this report. Bernadette Adams Yates served as project manager and
provided valuable substantive guidance and support throughout the
design, implementation, and reporting phases of this study. We would
also like to acknowledge the assistance of other Department staff in
reviewing this report and providing useful comments and suggestions,
including David Goodwin, Daphne Kaplan, and Nancy Loy.

While we appreciate the assistance and support of all of the above
individuals, any errors in judgment or fact are of course the
responsibility of the authors.

The National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS) is the result
of collaborative work by SRI International (SRI) and the Urban
Institute. Barbara Means, SRI, serves as project supervisor. Among the
staff who contributed to the design of the study, collection of data,
and analysis were Karla Jones, Kathryn Morrison, and Janet Voight-Miro
from SRI; Devin Fernandes, Daniel Klasik, and Rob Olsen of the Urban
Institute; and Duncan Chaplin of Mathematica Policy Research under
contract with the Urban Institute. Layout and editing were performed by
Janeula Burt and Tarneisha Gross at SRI. Graphics were produced by
Tarneisha Gross.

#   {#section-3 .unnumbered}

# Introduction

This data summary presents data from the U.S. Department of Education's
National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS). NETTS is a
multiyear evaluation that documents the implementation of the Enhancing
Education Through Technology (EETT) program from fiscal year (FY) 2002
to FY 2007. This summary briefly reviews the methods used to collect and
analyze the NETTS data collected from states in the winter of 2004--05,
from districts in the spring of 2005, and from teachers in fall of 2005.
It also provides descriptive analyses of district and school
implementation of the EETT program, focusing on issues that are central
to the program: distribution of funds; EETT district investment in
educational technology; teacher and student access to technology;
technology-related teacher professional development; and technology
integration in teaching and learning.

State subgrant and district survey data are presented by whether
districts received formula or competitive subgrants in FY 2003, and
teacher survey data are presented by school poverty level. Appendices A
and B present the descriptive results by question from the 2005 NETTS
District Survey and the 2005 NETTS Teacher Survey, respectively.[^1]

#   {#section-4 .unnumbered}

# Data Sources and Methods

This section of the summary describes the methods that were used to
examine how districts invested their EETT and other technology funds in
school year (SY) 2003--04 and the ways that teachers and students in
high- and low-poverty schools used technology in teaching and learning
in school year 2004--05. State educational technology directors provided
information about their EETT formula and competitive subgrants to
districts in FY 2003. Survey data collected at the district and teacher
levels aimed to compile information about EETT funds that were spent and
district-provided services that were provided in schools during school
year 2004--05. To account for the time it takes for federal funds to be
allocated to states, awarded to districts, and distributed to schools,
the surveys collected information from different fiscal and school years
(Exhibit 1).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946787 .anchor}Exhibit 1. Data Sources and
Analysis Methods

+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Evaluation Question**               | **Data       | **Analysis    |
|                                       | Source**     | Method**      |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| To what extent have high-poverty      | Reports of   | Descriptive   |
| districts been targeted by the EETT   | state        | statistics    |
| program?                              | educational  |               |
|                                       | technology   |               |
|                                       | directors    |               |
|                                       | (FY 2003)    |               |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| How do EETT districts invest their    | District     | Descriptive   |
| educational technology dollars?       | Survey       | statistics    |
|                                       |              |               |
|                                       | (SY          |               |
|                                       | 2003--04)    |               |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| To what extent do K--12 teachers and  | Teacher      | Descriptive   |
| students have access to hardware,     | Survey (SY   | statistics    |
| software, and the Internet?           | 2004--05)    |               |
|                                       |              |               |
| Do classrooms in high- and            |              |               |
| low-poverty schools have similar      |              |               |
| hardware, software, and Internet      |              |               |
| access?                               |              |               |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| How much technology-related           | Teacher      | Descriptive   |
| professional development do teachers  | Survey (SY   | statistics    |
| receive?                              | 2004--05)    |               |
|                                       |              |               |
| Do teachers in high- and low-poverty  |              |               |
| schools participate in similar        |              |               |
| amounts of technology-related         |              |               |
| professional development?             |              |               |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| How often do teachers integrate       | Teacher      | Descriptive   |
| technology into curriculum and        | Survey (SY   | statistics    |
| instruction?                          | 2004--05)    |               |
|                                       |              |               |
| Do teachers in high- and low-poverty  |              |               |
| schools integrate similar amounts of  |              |               |
| technology into instruction?          |              |               |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| How do students use technology for    | Teacher      | Descriptive   |
| learning in school?                   | Survey (SY   | statistics    |
|                                       | 2004--05)    |               |
| Do students in high- and low-poverty  |              |               |
| schools use similar amounts of        |              |               |
| technology in school?                 |              |               |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+

##  

## Data Collection

### Districts' Grant Awards

State EETT directors provided data about the numbers and sizes of
formula and competitive awards that districts received. States supplied
lists of the districts to which they made formula and competitive
awards, either directly or through consortia, and the amounts of those
awards, in FY 2003. In a small number of cases, districts provided FY
2004 award data rather than FY 2003 data.

### District Survey

In spring 2005, NETTS researchers surveyed district technology
coordinators about their EETT programs and the use of EETT funds for
districtwide technology activities. The district survey asked technology
coordinators to report on technology spending and support in school year
2003--04. The eight-part survey collected information about the EETT
application process, the use of EETT partnership or consortium funds,
spending on educational technology, support provided to encourage
technology integration in classroom instruction, activities associated
with technology-related professional development, the use of student
data management systems, and estimates of districts' technology
inventories. The final section of the survey gathered information on
survey respondents' roles and responsibilities in the district. The
district survey also asked districts to report on spending and
technology support in school year 2003--04.

NETTS researchers administered the district survey to 1,039 technology
coordinators selected from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico. The survey respondents represented districts that received
EETT funds, districts that did not receive EETT funds, and non-districts
that were lead entities for competitive EETT awards.

The sampling frames for the survey were populated by using
state-provided lists for each entity and were based on data collected
from the Common Core of Data (CCD), Internet searches, and phone calls.
The sampling strategy considered the type of educational entity
(district or non-district), poverty status, student enrollments, and
location (urban or rural status). The sampling frames included the 60
largest urban districts, 12,423 other districts that had received EETT
funds, and 70 non-district entities that had received EETT competitive
awards. From these sampling units, 1,050 entities were stratified in
proportion to EETT funding if they received EETT funds, and in
proportion to enrollment if they did not. Sample sizes by strata were
designed to meet prespecified precision thresholds established by the
U.S. Department of Education.

To obtain an adequate survey response rate, district technology
coordinators could respond to surveys online, on paper, or by phone. The
response rate for the district survey was 99 percent, with 1,029
entities responding. Respondents were weighted to reflect a nationally
representative sample of districts for data analysis. Descriptive
results of the district survey are reported by survey question in
Appendix A.

### Teacher Survey

The fall 2005 NETTS teacher survey asked teachers about their use of
technology in school year 2004--05. Teachers were asked to describe
their access to technology and technical support, their participation in
technology-related professional development, their use of technology for
instruction, their students' use of technology for learning, and
supports for and barriers to technology use in their schools.

The teacher sample was created by drawing a probability sample of 975
schools from respondents to the district survey, stratified by school
type (elementary or secondary), and poverty level (high or low).[^2]
Schools were randomly sampled in proportion to the number of teachers
and in inverse proportion to district size to produce a sample of
schools whose selection probabilities were roughly independent of the
size of their district's enrollment. From these schools, 233
high-poverty schools were randomly sampled for more intensive study.

NETTS researchers obtained teacher rosters for the 975 selected schools.
Teachers who did not teach at the same school in school years 2004--05
and 2005--06 and who did not teach in a core subject area were excluded
from the sample. Targets of four teachers from each of the schools in
the original probability sample (742 schools) and of 25 teachers from
each of the high-poverty schools (233 schools) were randomly selected
for the teacher sample. The final teacher sample consisted of 6,017
teachers.

NETTS researchers administered the NETTS teacher survey in fall 2005.
Teachers could complete their surveys online or on paper. Researchers
collected completed surveys from 4,935 teachers for an overall response
rate of 82 percent. In analyzing the data, survey respondents were
weighted to reflect a nationally representative sample of teachers.
Descriptive results by survey question are reported in Appendix B.[^3]

## Data Analyses

### Targeting of EETT Grants 

States' reports of their EETT grants to districts were examined for
districts that received only formula funds and for districts that
received competitive funds, either alone or in combination with formula
funds. Grant amounts were summarized for these two types of districts
and for districts with different percentages and numbers of students in
low-income families.

### Technology Integration in Districts That Received EETT Subgrants

Survey responses from the subsample of teachers in districts receiving
EETT subgrants in school year 2003--04 were used to describe the extent
to which teachers in these districts used technology at least weekly in
instruction, their students used technology in learning at least weekly,
and their students used technology for the critical-thinking or
decision-making skills related to technology literacy at least once a
week.

### Teacher and Student Technology Use

Teachers' survey responses from the full nationally representative
sample were used to describe the extent to which teachers used
technology once a week or more in instruction, students used technology
in learning at least once a week, and students used technology for the
critical-thinking or decision-making skills related to technology
literacy at least weekly (Exhibit 2).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946788 .anchor}Exhibit 2. Measures of Teacher
and Student Technology Use

+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **Teachers' Use of   | **Students' Use of    | **Students' Use of   |
| Technology in        | Technology in         | Technology for the   |
| Instruction**        | Learning**            | Critical Thinking    |
|                      |                       | and Decision-Making  |
|                      |                       | Skills Related to    |
|                      |                       | Technology           |
|                      |                       | Literacy**           |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Teachers used        | Students used         | Students used        |
| technology at least  | technology at least   | technology at least  |
| once a week to:      | once a week to:       | once a week to:      |
|                      |                       |                      |
| -   Develop          | -   Practice or       | -   Communicate      |
|     curricula or     |     review reading,   |     electronically   |
|     assignments in   |     math, or other    |     about academic   |
|     reading, math or |     subject areas     |     content with     |
|     other subjects   |                       |     experts, peers,  |
|                      | -   Extend learning   |     or others        |
| -   Present reading, |     in reading, math, |                      |
|     math, or other   |     or other subject  | -   Solve real-world |
|     subject concepts |     areas with        |     problems         |
|     to students      |     enrichment        |                      |
|                      |     activities        | -   Visually         |
| -   Create tests or  |                       |     represent or     |
|     quizzes          | -   Produce media,    |     investigate      |
|                      |     Web, or           |     concepts         |
| -   Test students    |     presentation      |                      |
|                      |     products          | -   Take tests or    |
| -   Collaborate with |                       |     quizzes using a  |
|     experts or       | -   Conduct online    |     computer         |
|     teachers in      |     research          |                      |
|     other locations  |                       | -   Create products  |
|                      | -   Take tests or     |     that had         |
| -   Adapt            |     quizzes using a   |     real-world       |
|     instructional    |     computer          |     audiences        |
|     activities to    |                       |                      |
|     students'        | -   Prepare for       | -   Work             |
|     individual needs |     standardized      |     cooperatively or |
|                      |     tests             |     collaboratively  |
| -   Do research and  |                       |     with other       |
|     lesson planning  |                       |     students         |
|     using the        |                       |                      |
|     Internet         |                       | -   Work with        |
|                      |                       |     content in       |
|                      |                       |     multiple         |
|                      |                       |     disciplines      |
|                      |                       |                      |
|                      |                       | -   Use              |
|                      |                       |     inquiry-based    |
|                      |                       |     strategies       |
|                      |                       |                      |
|                      |                       | -   Use authentic    |
|                      |                       |     tools            |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

###  

### Technology Access and Support

Technology access and support variables describe the extent to which
teachers and students had access to technology resources (Exhibit 3).
These variables described teachers' access to technology, students'
access to technology in the classroom, students' access to technology in
labs or media centers in the school, and teachers' completion of
technology-related professional development.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946789 .anchor}Exhibit 3. Measures of
Technology Access and Support in Schools

+----------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
| **Teachers'    | **Students'    | **Students'    | **Teachers'      |
| Access to      | Access to      | Access to      | Completion of    |
| Technology**   | Technology in  | Technology in  | Te               |
|                | the            | Computer Labs  | chnology-Related |
|                | Classroom**    | or Media       | Professional     |
|                |                | Centers**      | Development**    |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
| These          | Students had   | Students had   | Teachers         |
| technologies   | classroom      | lab or media   | completed        |
| were available | access to:     | center access  | professional     |
| at school for  |                | to:            | development that |
| teacher use:   | -   One        |                | addressed:       |
|                |     computer   | -   One        |                  |
| -   Desktop or |     per        |     computer   | -   Use of       |
|     laptop     |     student    |     per        |     technology   |
|     computer   |                |     student    |     for new      |
|                | -   One        |                |     methods of   |
| -   PDAs or    |     computer   | -   One        |     teaching     |
|     co         |     for every  |     computer   |                  |
| ntent-specific |     two        |     for every  | -   Use of       |
|                |     students   |     two        |     technology   |
|   technologies |                |     students   |     to enhance   |
|                | -   One        |                |     student      |
| -   High-speed |     computer   | -   One        |     learning in  |
|     Internet   |     for every  |     computer   |     reading,     |
|     access     |     three      |     for every  |     math, or     |
|                |     students   |     three      |     other        |
| -   Printers   |                |     students   |     subjects     |
|                | -   One        |                |                  |
| -   Device to  |     computer   | -   One        | -   Improving    |
|     project    |     for every  |     computer   |     students'    |
|     computer   |     four       |     for every  |     technology   |
|     screen for |     students   |     four       |     literacy     |
|                |                |     students   |                  |
|    whole-class | ```{=html}     |                | -   Use of       |
|     viewing    | <!-- -->       | ```{=html}     |     technology   |
|                | ```            | <!-- -->       |     to design or |
| -              | -   PDAs or    | ```            |     administer   |
|   Presentation |     co         | -   PDAs or    |     student      |
|     software   | ntent-specific |     co         |     assessments  |
|                |                | ntent-specific |                  |
| -   Software   |   technologies |                | -   Use of       |
|     for        |                |   technologies |     technology   |
|                | ```{=html}     |                |     for          |
|    instruction | <!-- -->       | ```{=html}     |     curriculum   |
|     in         | ```            | <!-- -->       |     development  |
|     reading,   | -   High-speed | ```            |     and lesson   |
|     math, or   |     Internet   | -   High-speed |     planning     |
|     other      |     access     |     Internet   |                  |
|     subjects   |                |     access     | -   Use of       |
|                | -   Printers   |                |     technology   |
| -   E-mail     |                | -   Printers   |     to meet the  |
|     software   | -              |                |     needs of     |
|                |   Presentation | -              |     students     |
|                |     software   |   Presentation |     with         |
|                |                |     software   |     disabilities |
|                | -   Software   |                |     or limited   |
|                |     for        | -   Software   |     English      |
|                |                |     for        |     proficiency  |
|                |    instruction |                |                  |
|                |     in         |    instruction | -   Use of       |
|                |     reading,   |     in         |     software to  |
|                |     math, or   |     reading,   |     tailor tasks |
|                |     other      |     math, or   |     to           |
|                |     subjects   |     other      |     individual   |
|                |                |     subjects   |     student      |
|                |                |                |     ability      |
|                |                |                |                  |
|                |                |                | -   Developing   |
|                |                |                |     proficiency  |
|                |                |                |     with online  |
|                |                |                |     teaching     |
|                |                |                |                  |
|                |                |                | -   Effective or |
|                |                |                |     ethical use  |
|                |                |                |     of the       |
|                |                |                |     Internet     |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+

## Conceptual Framework

District data on EETT grant amounts were organized to compare districts
that reported receiving only formula grants with districts that reported
receiving competitive grants, usually in combination with formula
monies. District funding was also analyzed by examining median district
awards that were above and below the state medians of numbers and
percentages of poor students. Cross-tabulations of district funding data
by type of award (only formula, and combined formula and competitive)
and by student poverty (above or below the state medians of numbers or
percentages of poor students) were produced to examine relationships
between EETT funding levels and district need.

Data for the nationally representative samples of districts and teachers
described teacher and student technology use and technology access and
support. Individual item-level data detailed above were used to describe
the spending patterns of districts that received only formula grants and
districts that received competitive grants only or in combination with
formula grants.[^4] Two-tailed t-tests were used to examine the
statistical significance of differences between these two types of
districts. These descriptive data and analyses are shown in Exhibits 4
through 7.

To address questions about the differences across poverty levels in
technology access and use, individual item data from the teacher survey
responses were examined for teachers at high-, middle-, and low-poverty
schools. High-poverty schools were in the top poverty quartile based on
free and reduced-price lunch program rates for each of the three levels
of schooling (elementary, middle, and high). Middle-poverty schools were
those in the second-highest poverty quartile for their level of
schooling, and low-poverty schools were those whose poverty rates were
in the bottom 50 percent (i.e., the two least poor quartiles) for their
schooling level. Two-tailed t-tests were calculated to determine whether
the differences by poverty level in technology access, support, and use
were statistically significant. Descriptive statistics for the survey
items describing activities involving teacher and student technology
integration at least once a week were calculated for the subsample of
teachers in districts that received EETT funds (Exhibits 8 through 10).
Descriptive data for survey items that describe weekly technology
integration activities and technology access and support are shown in
Exhibits 11 through 19.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc201635724 .anchor}**Data Tables**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946790 .anchor}Exhibit 4. Percentage of
EETT-Funded Districts Using EETT Funds for Hardware, Software, Web-based
Instructional Resources, and Technical Support in SY 2003--04

+-----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------+
|                                   | **Di    | *          | **Di    |
|                                   | stricts | *Districts | stricts |
|                                   | With    | With       | With    |
|                                   | Formula | C          | Any     |
|                                   | Grants  | ompetitive | EETT    |
|                                   | Only**  | and        | Fundi   |
|                                   |         | Formula    | ng^b^** |
|                                   | **(n =  | G          |         |
|                                   | 374)**  | rants^a^** | **(n=   |
|                                   |         |            | 815)**  |
|                                   |         | *          |         |
|                                   |         | *(n=433)** |         |
+-----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------+
| Software to help integrate        | 51%     | 63%        | 53%     |
| technology into reading or math   |         |            |         |
+-----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------+
| Hardware to help integrate        | 38%     | 72%\*      | 45%     |
| technology into reading or math   |         |            |         |
+-----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------+
| Activities to improve student     | 27%     | 53%\*      | 32%     |
| technology literacy               |         |            |         |
+-----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------+
| Curriculum development to help    | 23%     | 53%\*      | 29%     |
| integrate technology into any     |         |            |         |
| subject                           |         |            |         |
+-----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------+
| A technology coordinator in the   | 17%     | 15%        | 16%     |
| district                          |         |            |         |
+-----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------+
| Online tutoring systems for       | 7%      | 7%         | 7%      |
| supplemental education in reading |         |            |         |
| or math in schools identified for |         |            |         |
| improvement under *NCLB*          |         |            |         |
+-----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------+
| Virtual schools that are          | 0%      | 1%         | 1%      |
| alternatives to schools           |         |            |         |
| identified for improvement under  |         |            |         |
| *NCLB*                            |         |            |         |
+-----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------+

Exhibit reads: More districts with both competitive and formula funds
than those with formula funds only invested in hardware to help
integrate technology in reading and math instruction, curriculum
development to integrate technology in learning, and activities to
improve student technology literacy in 2003--04.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from districts with formula grants
only).

Notes: (a) Sixty-seven districts reported in this category received only
competitive grants. (b) This category includes eight districts that
reported receiving EETT funds but did not specify grant type. *NCLB* is
the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*.

Source: NETTS District Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946791 .anchor}Exhibit 5. Average Numbers of
Computers in Classrooms and Other Instructional Areas in EETT and
Non-EETT Districts in SY 2003--04^a^

+----------------------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Type of Technology**     | **Dis  | **Di    | **Di    | **Di    |
|                            | tricts | stricts | stricts | stricts |
|                            | With   | With    | With    | Without |
|                            | F      | Compet  | Any     | EETT    |
|                            | ormula | itive** | EETT    | G       |
|                            | Grants |         | Fu      | rants** |
|                            | Only** | **and   | nding** |         |
|                            |        | Formula |         | **(n =  |
|                            | **(n = | Gran    | **(n =  | 136)**  |
|                            | 362)** | ts^b^** | 78      |         |
|                            |        |         | 8)^c^** |         |
|                            |        | **(n =  |         |         |
|                            |        | 417)**  |         |         |
+----------------------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+
| Computers                  | 4.72   | 6.64    | 5.03    | 5.05    |
+----------------------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+
| Computers with             | 4.45   | 6.51    | 4.81    | 4.81    |
| LAN/Internet access        |        |         |         |         |
+----------------------------+--------+---------+---------+---------+

Exhibit reads: Districts with EETT funds and districts without EETT
grants have equal numbers of computers in classrooms and other
instructional areas.

Notes: (a) These calculations exclude 32 districts that reported
anomalous data. (b) Sixty-four districts in this category received only
competitive grants. (c) This category includes nine districts that
reported receiving EETT funding but did not specify grant type.

Source: NETTS District Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946792 .anchor}Exhibit 6. Percentage of
EETT-Funded Districts Using EETT Funds for Technology-related Teacher
Professional Development in SY 2003--04

+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Use of EETT Funds for              | **Di    | **Di    | **Di    |
| Technology-Related Professional      | stricts | stricts | stricts |
| Development**                        | With    | With    | With    |
|                                      | Formula | Compet  | Any     |
|                                      | Grants  | itive** | EETT    |
|                                      | Only**  |         | Fundi   |
|                                      |         | **and   | ng^b^** |
|                                      | **(n =  | Formula |         |
|                                      | 374)**  | Gran    | **(n =  |
|                                      |         | ts^a^** | 815)**  |
|                                      |         |         |         |
|                                      |         | **(n =  |         |
|                                      |         | 433)**  |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| On integrating technology into       | 59%     | 81%\*   | 63%     |
| reading or math instruction          |         |         |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| On integrating technology into other | 56%     | 72%     | 60%     |
| subject areas                        |         |         |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| To develop proficiency with online   | 26%     | 22%     | 25%     |
| teaching of any subject              |         |         |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| On incentives for training in        | 9%      | 45%\*   | 15%     |
| technology integration               |         |         |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| On initiatives to develop            | 3%      | 15%\*   | 5%      |
| professional online communities and  |         |         |         |
| resources                            |         |         |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

Exhibit reads: More districts with competitive and formula funds than
with formula grants only invested in teacher professional development to
integrate technology into reading and math instruction, incentives for
participation in technology-related teacher professional development,
and initiatives to develop professional online communities in SY
2003--04.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from districts with formula grants
only).

Note: (a) Sixty-seven districts in this category received only
competitive grants. (b) Eight districts are included in this category
that reported receiving EETT funds but did not report grant type.

Source: NETTS District Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946793 .anchor}Exhibit 7. Percentage of
Districts Using EETT Funds for Assessment Technologies and Data-based
Decision-making in SY 2003--04

+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Use of EETT Funds for Assessment   | **Di    | **Di    | **Di    |
| and Data-Based Decision-Making**     | stricts | stricts | stricts |
|                                      | With    | With    | With    |
|                                      | Formula | Compet  | Any     |
|                                      | Grants  | itive** | EETT    |
|                                      | Only**  |         | fundi   |
|                                      |         | **and   | ng^b^** |
|                                      | **(n =  | Formula |         |
|                                      | 374)**  | Gran    | **(n =  |
|                                      |         | ts^a^** | 815)**  |
|                                      |         |         |         |
|                                      |         | **(n =  |         |
|                                      |         | 433)**  |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Hardware, software, or professional  | 25%     | 23%     | 25%     |
| development for data and information |         |         |         |
| management systems                   |         |         |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Supports for school staff to analyze | 7%      | 21%\*   | 10%     |
| available data for instructional     |         |         |         |
| improvement                          |         |         |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Technology-based assessments of      | 4%      | 16%\*   | 7%      |
| student academic achievement in      |         |         |         |
| reading or math                      |         |         |         |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

Exhibit reads: More districts with competitive and formula funds than
with formula grants only invested in technology-based assessments of
student achievement in reading or math and in supports for staff to
analyze data for instructional improvement in

SY 2003--04.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from districts with formula grants
only).

Note: (a) Sixty-seven districts in this category received only
competitive grants. (b) This category includes eight districts that
reported receiving EETT funds but did not report grant type.

Source: NETTS District Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946794 .anchor}Exhibit 8. Percentage of
Teachers in EETT-funded Districts Who Integrated Technology in Their
Instruction on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004--05, by School Poverty
Level

  ------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Teachers' Use of Technology for     **All**   **School                
  Instruction**                                   Poverty                 
                                                  Group**                 

                                                  **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  Develop curricula or assignments in   31%       33%        26%\*        33%
  math, reading, or other subjects                                        

  Create tests or quizzes               31%       32%        30%          30%

  Do research and lesson planning using 27%       28%        28%          25%
  the Internet                                                            

  Present math, reading, or other       22%       24%        18%\*        25%
  subject concepts to students                                            

  Test students                         14%       11%        17%\*        17%

  Adapt instructional activities to     10%       9%         10%          14%\*
  students' individual needs                                              

  Collaborate with experts or teachers  6%        6%         7%           5%
  in other locations                                                      
  ------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: Among districts that received EETT-funding, teachers in
high- and low-poverty schools made similar reports about their regular
use of technology in instruction, with one exception. Teachers in
high-poverty schools reported using technology to adapt instructional
activities to individual students' needs more frequently than teachers
in low-poverty schools.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946795 .anchor}Exhibit 9. Percentage of
Teachers in EETT-funded Districts Whose Students Used Technology in
Learning on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004--05, by School Poverty
Level

  --------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Students' Use of Technology**         **All**   **School                
                                                    Poverty                 
                                                    Group**                 

                                                    **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  Practice or review topics in math,      33%       31%        33%          41%\*
  reading, or other subjects                                                

  Extend learning in math, reading, or    22%       19%        21%          30%\*
  other subject areas with enrichment                                       
  activities                                                                

  Take tests or quizzes using a computer  17%       12%        24%\*        21%\*

  Prepare for standardized tests          6%        4%         8%\*         10%\*

  Conduct online research                 7%        7%         7%           7%

  Produce media, Web, or presentation     2%        1%         2%           2%
  products                                                                  
  --------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: Among districts that received EETT funding, teachers in
high-poverty schools were more likely to report that their students used
technology in a variety of ways on at least a weekly basis than teachers
in low-poverty schools.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946796 .anchor}Exhibit 10. Percentage of
Teachers in EETT-funded Districts With Access to Technology in Their
Classrooms in SY 2004--05, by School Poverty Level

  ------------------------------------ --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Type of Technology**               **All**   **School                
                                                 Poverty                 
                                                 Group**                 

                                                 **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  Desktop or laptop computer           95%       95%        97%          92%

  E-mail software                      87%       88%        89%          83%

  Printers                             78%       78%        74%          83%

  High-speed Internet access           76%       78%        77%          69%\*

  Presentation software                75%       77%        76%          67%\*

  Software for instruction in math,    60%       61%        61%          54%
  reading, or other subjects                                             

  Device to project computer screen    33%       35%        32%          30%
  for whole-class viewing                                                

  PDAs or content-specific             20%       21%        20%          18%
  technologies                                                           
  ------------------------------------ --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: Among districts that received EETT funds, teachers in
high- and low-poverty schools reported similar access to technology.
Notable exceptions include high-speed internet access and presentation
software, for which teachers in high-poverty schools were less likely to
report access.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946797 .anchor}Exhibit 11. Percentage of
Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Used Technology for the
Critical-Thinking and Decision-making Skills Related to Technology
Literacy on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004--05, by School Poverty
Level

  -------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Students' Use of Technology**        **All**   **School                
                                                   Poverty                 
                                                   Group**                 

                                                   **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  Take tests or quizzes using a computer 17%       12%        24%\*        22%\*

  Work cooperatively or collaboratively  8%        7%         8%           12%\*
  with other students                                                      

  Communicate electronically about       5%        5%         4%           4%
  academic content with experts, peers,                                    
  and/or others                                                            

  Visually represent or investigate      4%        4%         3%           4%
  concepts                                                                 

  Use inquiry-based strategies           3%        3%         4%           4%

  Solve real-world problems              3%        2%         2%           5%\*

  Work with content in multiple          3%        2%         2%           4%
  disciplines                                                              

  Use authentic tools                    2%        2%         2%           3%

  Create products that had real-world    1%        1%         1%           2%
  audiences                                                                
  -------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: More teachers in high-poverty than in low-poverty schools
reported that their students regularly used technology to take tests or
quizzes, work cooperatively with other students, and solve real-world
problems in SY 2004--05.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946798 .anchor}Exhibit 12. Percentage of
Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Had Access to Technology in
Their Classrooms in SY 2004--05, by School Poverty Level

  ------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Type of Technology**                **All**   **School                
                                                  Poverty                 
                                                  Group**                 

                                                  **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  One computer for every 5 or more      64%       60%        68%\*        69%\*
  students in class                                                       

  High-speed Internet access            54%       55%        54%          52%

  Printers                              48%       50%        45%          49%

  Software for instruction in math,     45%       44%        43%          49%
  reading, or other subjects                                              

  Presentation software                 41%       44%        39%          36%\*

  PDAs or content-specific technologies 14%       15%        16%          11%

  One computer for every 2 to 4         12%       13%        8%           14%
  students in class                                                       

  One computer per student in class     4%        5%         4%           3%
  ------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: Teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely to
report that they had one computer for every five or more students in
class. These teachers were less likely to report that they had access to
presentation software. Access to other hardware and software was similar
between teachers in high- and low-poverty schools.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946799 .anchor}Exhibit 13. Percentage of
Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Had Access to Technology in
Computer Labs or Media Centers in SY 2004--05, by School Poverty Level

  ------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Type of Technology**                **All**   **School                
                                                  Poverty                 
                                                  Group**                 

                                                  **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  Printers                              72%       75%        71%          64%\*

  One computer per student in class     71%       72%        71%          66%

  High-speed Internet access            62%       64%        62%          57%

  Presentation software                 57%       60%        56%          47%\*

  Software for instruction in math,     54%       55%        52%          52%
  reading, or other subjects                                              

  PDAs or content-specific technologies 21%       22%        21%          18%

  One computer for every 2 to 4         14%       14%        14%          13%
  students in class                                                       

  One computer for every 5 or more      6%        5%         6%           8%
  students in class                                                       
  ------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: Teachers in high-poverty schools were less likely to
report access to printers and presentation software in computer labs or
media centers than teachers in low-poverty schools.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946800 .anchor}Exhibit 14. Percentage of
Teachers in All Districts Reporting Obstacles to Their Technology Use in
SY 2004--05, by School Poverty Level

  ----------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Obstacle**                              **All**   **School                
                                                      Poverty                 
                                                      Group**                 

                                                      **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  Insufficient hardware in the classroom    61%       61%        63%          59%

  Insufficient hardware in labs or resource 46%       46%        49%          42%
  rooms                                                                       

  Inability to obtain desired software for  40%       38%        40%          46%\*
  class                                                                       

  Difficulty getting access to computers in 40%       40%        42%\*        38%\*
  labs or on carts                                                            

  Insufficient or inadequate technical      39%       39%        39%          42%
  support for computer use                                                    

  Out-of-date hardware                      34%       32%        38%          36%

  Lack of age-appropriate or educationally  30%       28%        32%          32%
  relevant software or Web sites                                              

  Slow or unreliable Internet connections   29%       28%        28%          34%
  ----------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: Teachers were most likely to report that insufficient
hardware in the classroom presented an obstacle to their use of
technology in SY 2004--05. Teachers in high-poverty classrooms were more
likely to report that an inability to obtain desired software for class
and difficulty getting access to computers in labs or on carts presented
obstacles to their technology use in SY 2004--05 than teachers in
low-poverty schools.

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946801 .anchor}Exhibit 15. Percentage of
Teachers in All Districts Participating in Professional Development on
Different Technology Topics in SY 2004--05 and Summer 2005, by School
Poverty Level

  ----------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Professional Development Technology     **All**   **School                
  Topic**                                             Poverty                 
                                                      Group**                 

                                                      **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  Using technology to enhance student       49%       49%        49%          50%
  learning in math, reading, or other                                         
  subjects                                                                    

  Using technology for curriculum           34%       33%        34%          38%
  development and lesson planning                                             

  Using technology to design or administer  29%       30%        27%          28%
  student assessments                                                         

  Using technology for new methods of       24%       22%        25%          26%
  teaching                                                                    

  Improving students' technology literacy   16%       16%        14%          20%

  Effective or ethical use of the Internet  15%       16%        13%          15%

  Using software to tailor tasks to         13%       12%        9%           18%\*
  individual student ability                                                  

  Using technology to meet the needs of     10%       9%         11%          13%
  students with disabilities or limited                                       
  English proficiency                                                         

  Developing proficiency with online        4%        3%         5%           3%
  teaching                                                                    
  ----------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: Teachers in high- and low-poverty schools reported
similar participation in technology-related professional development,
although teachers in low-poverty schools reported having more
professional development training in using software to tailor tasks to
individual student abilities.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946802 .anchor}Exhibit 16. Percentage of
Teachers in All Districts Who Integrated Technology in Their Instruction
on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004--05, by School Poverty Level

  ------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Teachers' Use of Technology for     **All**   **School                
  Instruction**                                   Poverty                 
                                                  Group**                 

                                                  **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  Develop curricula or assignments in   31%       32%        27%          32%
  math, reading, or other subjects                                        

  Create tests or quizzes               31%       31%        30%          28%

  Do research and lesson planning using 28%       28%        28%          25%
  the Internet                                                            

  Present math, reading, or other       22%       22%        19%          24%
  subject concepts to students                                            

  Test students                         14%       11%        18%\*        17%

  Adapt instructional activities to     10%       8%         10%          13%\*
  students' individual needs                                              

  Collaborate with experts or teachers  6%        7%         7%           5%
  in other locations                                                      
  ------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: Teachers' reports about their regular use of technology
in their instruction were similar across poverty-levels, although
teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely to report using
technology adapting instructional activities to students' individual
needs in SY 2004--05.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946803 .anchor}Exhibit 17. Percentage of
Teachers in All Districts Who Used Technology for Classroom Management
and Other Administrative Purposes on At Least a Weekly Basis in

SY 2004--05, by School Poverty Level

  -------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Teachers' Use of Technology for      **All**   **School                
  Administrative Purposes**                        Poverty                 
                                                   Group**                 

                                                   **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  E-mail teachers in the school          63%       69%        62%          49%\*

  Maintain student grades                51%       52%        54%          43%

  E-mail school and district             39%       41%        41%          31%\*
  administrators                                                           

  Increase parental and family           18%       23%        16%\*        7%\*
  involvement                                                              

  Track other measures of student        12%       11%        12%          12%
  progress                                                                 

  Post homework assignments or schedule  12%       15%        11%          4%\*
  information on the Web                                                   

  Track individual student test scores   11%       11%        10%          12%

  Create and maintain web pages for the  8%        10%        7%           4%\*
  class                                                                    

  E-mail students                        6%        7%         5%           2%\*
  -------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: Teachers in high-poverty schools used technology less
frequently than teachers in low-poverty schools for several different
administrative tasks, including to e-mail teachers and administrators
and students in the school, to increase parental and family involvement,
to post homework assignments or schedule information on the Web, and to
create and maintain web pages for the class.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946804 .anchor}Exhibit 18. Percentage of
Teachers in All Districts Who Reported Students' Use of Technology in
Learning on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004--05, by School Poverty
Level

  --------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Students' Use of Technology**         **All**   **School                
                                                    Poverty                 
                                                    Group**                 

                                                    **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  Practice or review topics in math,      33%       31%        32%          41%\*
  reading, or other subjects                                                

  Extend learning in math, reading, or    22%       19%        21%          31%\*
  other subject areas with enrichment                                       
  activities                                                                

  Take tests or quizzes using a computer  17%       12%        24%\*        22%\*

  Prepare for standardized tests          6%        4%         8%\*         10%\*

  Conduct online research                 7%        7%         6%           6%

  Produce media, Web, or presentation     2%        1%         2%           2%
  products                                                                  
  --------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: More teachers in high-poverty schools reported that their
students used technology once a week or more to practice or review
content-related topics, extend learning, take tests or quizzes, or
prepare for standardized tests than teachers in low-poverty schools.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc200946805 .anchor}Exhibit 19. Average Numbers of
Different Technologies Available to Teachers and Students,
Technology-related Professional Development Topics Completed, and
Technology Uses by Teachers and Students in SY 2004--05

  --------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------
  **Summary Measure**                     **All**   **School                
                                                    Poverty                 
                                                    Group**                 

                                                    **Low**    **Medium**   **High**

  Student access to technology in a       6.62      6.79       6.63         6.07\*
  computer lab or media center                                              

  Teachers' access to technology          5.09      5.18       5.08         4.82

  Student access to technology in the     3.10      3.14       3.02         3.07
  classroom                                                                 

  Teachers' administrative uses of        1.95      2.12       1.95         1.39\*
  technology                                                                

  Technology topics on which teachers     1.80      1.78       1.71         1.97
  completed professional development                                        

  Teachers' use of technology in          1.36      1.36       1.34         1.39
  instruction                                                               

  Students' use of technology in learning 0.85      0.74       0.93\*       1.11\*

  Students' use of technology for         0.44      0.38       0.49\*       0.58\*
  critical-thinking and decision-making                                     
  skills                                                                    
  --------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads: Summary measures of key concepts related to technology
integration suggest that students on average have access to several
technologies in computer labs or media centers, but student use of
technology for critical-thinking and decision-making skills is
relatively infrequent. Overall, teachers in high-poverty schools
reported slightly less access to technology but were more likely to
report students' use of technology for critical-thinking than teachers
in low-poverty schools.

\* *p* \< .05 (significant difference from teachers in low-poverty
schools).

Note: Summary measures are calculated from teacher responses using the
measures presented in Exhibits 2 and 3.

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey.

# 

# Appendix A: NETTS District Survey

**Results by Question**

#   {#section-8 .unnumbered}

# [Part I. EETT Application Process (for all LEAs]{.smallcaps}[^5][)]{.smallcaps}

1.  a\. Did your LEA apply for or receive **Formula** **or Competitive**
    EETT funding for the school year[^6] (SY) 2003--04 school year and
    if so, how much was received?

+---------------------------------+------+------+-----------+--------+
| SY 2003--04 GRANTS              | APP  |      | RECEIVED  |        |
|                                 | LIED |      |           |        |
|                                 |      |      | For Your  |        |
|                                 | Indi |      | Dis       |        |
|                                 | vidu |      | trict[^8] |        |
|                                 | ally |      |           |        |
|                                 | or   |      |           |        |
|                                 | in   |      |           |        |
|                                 | Par  |      |           |        |
|                                 | tner |      |           |        |
|                                 | ship |      |           |        |
|                                 | [^7] |      |           |        |
+---------------------------------+------+------+-----------+--------+
|                                 | YES  | ###  | ######    | #####  |
|                                 |      | #### | ## Amount | ### NO |
|                                 |      | # NO |           |        |
+---------------------------------+------+------+-----------+--------+
| > a\. Formula                   | 97%  | 3%   | \$        | 32%    |
|                                 |      |      | 32,568.34 |        |
+---------------------------------+------+------+-----------+--------+
| > b\. Competitive               | 61%  | 39%  | \$1       | 78%    |
|                                 |      |      | 20,570.44 |        |
+---------------------------------+------+------+-----------+--------+

b\. **If you did not apply for Formula and/or Competitive funds** for
the 2003--04 school year, please select the reason(s) why. Please check
all that apply for each type of grant.

+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| **[Reason For Not Applying for SY     | **[Fo |       | **[C  |     |
| 2003--04]{.mark}**                    | rmula |       | ompet |     |
|                                       | ]{.ma |       | itive |     |
|                                       | rk}** |       | ]{.ma |     |
|                                       |       |       | rk}** |     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
|                                       | NO    | YES   | NO    | YES |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > a\. Did not know EETT funding was   | 84%   | 16%   | 53%   | 47% |
| > available                           |       |       |       |     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > b\. Did not think my LEA was        | 78%   | 22%   | 73%   | 27% |
| > eligible                            |       |       |       |     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > c\. Did not have the resources to   | 84%   | 16%   | 54%   | 46% |
| > apply                               |       |       |       |     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > d\. Did not expect to get funds if  | 73%   | 27%   | 77%   | 23% |
| > applied                             |       |       |       |     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > e\. Had funds remaining from a      | 99%   | 1%    | 98%   | 2%  |
| > previous multi-year award           |       |       |       |     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-----+
| > f\. Other. Please describe.         | 94%   | 6%    | 89%   | 11% |
| > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                  |       |       |       |     |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |       |       |       |     |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |       |       |       |     |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |       |       |       |     |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |       |       |       |     |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |       |       |       |     |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |       |       |       |     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-----+

1.  Did your LEA apply for **Competitive** funds for the 2003--04 school
    year to target instructional content areas?

75% Yes

25% No. **Skip to Question 4.**

2.  Which instructional content areas were targeted in your LEA's
    **Competitive** applications for the 2003--04 school year? Check all
    content areas that apply.

+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| ######## Targeted Instructional Content Areas     | Y |      | N |          |
|                                                   | E |      | O |          |
|                                                   | S |      |   |          |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| a\. English/Language Arts                         |   | 60%  |   | 40%      |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| b\. Foreign Languages                             |   | 6%   |   | 94%      |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| c\. Mathematics                                   |   | 54%  |   | 46%      |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| d\. Sciences                                      |   | 28%  |   | 72%      |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| e\. Social Studies                                |   | 30%  |   | 70%      |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| f\. Technology Literacy                           |   | 69%  |   | 31%      |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| g\. Career/Technical Education (not including     |   | 16%  |   | 84%      |
| technology literacy)                              |   |      |   |          |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| h\. Special Education                             |   | 23%  |   | 77%      |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| i\. LEP Education                                 |   | 13%  |   | 77%      |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+
| > j\. Other. Please describe (e.g., Reading;      |   | 17%  |   | 83%      |
| > Physical Education; Drug Free, Truancy, and     |   |      |   |          |
| > Bilingual                                       |   |      |   |          |
| > e                                               |   |      |   |          |
| ducation)[^9]\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |   |      |   |          |
+---------------------------------------------------+---+------+---+----------+

3.  Did your LEA's **Competitive** applications for the 2003--04 school
    year target specific grades?

> 25% Yes

75% No. **Skip to Question 6.**

4.  Which grades were targeted in your district's **Competitive**
    applications for the 2003--04 school year? Check all that apply.

  ----------------------------------------- ------------- ---------------
  **Targeted Grades**                       Yes           No

  a\. Pre-kindergarten                      14%           86%

  b\. Kindergarten                          31%           69%

  c\. 1^st^ Grade                           36%           64%

  d\. 2^nd^ Grade                           40%           60%

  e\. 3^rd^ Grade                           48%           52%

  f\. 4^th^ Grade                           53%           47%

  g\. 5^th^ Grade                           56%           44%

  h\. 6^th^ Grade                           56%           44%

  i\. 7^th^ Grade                           55%           45%

  j\. 8^th^ Grade                           63%           37%

  k\. 9^th^ Grade                           34%           66%

  l\. 10^th^ Grade                          29%           71%

  m\. 11^th^ Grade                          20%           80%

  n\. 12^th^ Grade                          18%           82%

  o\. Ungraded                              1%            99%
  ----------------------------------------- ------------- ---------------

# Part II. Fiscal Agent Use of Partnership or Consortium Funds for SY 2003--04

5.  Did your LEA serve as the Fiscal Agent for a **partnership or
    consortium** that 1) had at least one other LEA and 2) received
    **formula and/or competitive** funds for SY 2003--04?

> 5% Yes. Please continue with this section.
>
> 95% No. **Please skip to Part III on page 9.**

6.  How much EETT funding did your **partnership or consortium** receive
    for SY 2003--04?

> a\. Formula \$ [23,355.83]{.underline} (average amount)
>
> b\. Competitive \$ [143,022.98]{.underline} (average amount)

**If your partnership or consortium only received Formula funding, not
Competitive, for SY 2003--04, please skip to Part III on page 9 of this
survey.**

7.  What did your LEA do with the **Competitive** EETT funds it received
    as part of partnerships or consortia for 2003--04? Please
    **estimate** the % of total funds going to each use.

+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----------+
| **Use of Funds**                           | *   |     | **% of    |
|                                            | *If |     | Pa        |
|                                            | Use |     | rtnership |
|                                            | d** |     | Award**   |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----------+
|                                            | *   | **N |           |
|                                            | *Ye | o** |           |
|                                            | s** |     |           |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----------+
| a\. Pay for services in your own district. | 84% | 16% | 31%       |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----------+
| b.  Provide funds to other districts in    | 74% | 26% | 35%       |
|     the partnership.                       |     |     |           |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----------+
| c.  Provide funds for services to be used  | 74% | 26% | 34%       |
|     partnership-wide.                      |     |     |           |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----------+
| **Total Award Received by Partnership**    |     |     | **100%**  |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----------+

9\. What **partnership-wide** activities were supported with the
**Competitive** EETT funds that were received by your partnership or
consortium? Please indicate which partnership-wide activities were
supported and then rank the **top 5**, by level of EETT funding for each
activity, starting with 1 for the activity that received the most
funding.

+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| **Use of Funds**                             | **   |      |        |
|                                              | Part |      |        |
|                                              | ners |      |        |
|                                              | hip- |      |        |
|                                              | Wide |      |        |
|                                              | Acti |      |        |
|                                              | viti |      |        |
|                                              | es** |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
|                                              | **If |      | **Rank |
|                                              | EETT |      | (by    |
|                                              | F    |      | F      |
|                                              | unds |      | unding |
|                                              | Us   |      | Le     |
|                                              | ed** |      | vel)** |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
|                                              | **Y  | **   |        |
|                                              | es** | No** |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > a\. Pay for a *technology coordinator*     | >    | >    | > 4.98 |
| > within your consortia to help with         |  33% |  67% |        |
| > integration of technology into the         |      |      |        |
| > classroom.                                 |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > b\. Pay for a *program facilitator,        | >    | >    | > 5.28 |
| > administrator, or evaluator*.              |  45% |  55% |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > c\. Pay for *professional development* for | >    | >    | > 2.71 |
| > teachers to assist them with integrating   |  11% |  89% |        |
| > technology into math and/or reading.       |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > d\. Pay for *professional development* for | >    | >    | > 3.18 |
| > teachers to assist them with integrating   |  81% |  19% |        |
| > technology into *other subject areas*.     |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > e\. Pay for *professional development* for | >    | >    | > 5.64 |
| > teachers to assist them develop            |  26% |  74% |        |
| > proficiency with the *online teaching* of  |      |      |        |
| > any subject.                               |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > f\. Pay for *software* to help with        | >    | >    | > 5.28 |
| > integration of technology into math and/or |  64% |  36% |        |
| > reading.                                   |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > g\. Pay for *hardware* to help with the    | >    | >    | > 4.63 |
| > integration of technology into math and/or |  72% |  28% |        |
| > reading.                                   |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > h\. Pay for *curriculum development*       | >    | >    | > 5.10 |
| > activities to help with the integration of |  69% |  31% |        |
| > technology into any subject.               |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > i\. Pay for activities to improve *student | >    | >    | > 4.77 |
| > technology literacy*.                      |  62% |  38% |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > j\. Pay for hardware, software, or         | 17%  | 83%  | > 5.83 |
| > professional development in support of     |      |      |        |
| > *data and information management systems*. |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| k\. Pay for *online tutoring systems* to     | 8%   | 92%  | 5.99   |
| provide supplemental education services in   |      |      |        |
| math and/or reading for students in schools  |      |      |        |
| that have been identified for improvement    |      |      |        |
| under *NCLB*.                                |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| l\. Pay for *virtual schools* that can be    | 1%   | 99%  | 6.00   |
| used as alternatives to schools identified   |      |      |        |
| for improvement under *NCLB*.                |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+

+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+
| **Use of Funds**                            | **   |      |         |
|                                             | Part |      |         |
|                                             | ners |      |         |
|                                             | hip- |      |         |
|                                             | Wide |      |         |
|                                             | Acti |      |         |
|                                             | viti |      |         |
|                                             | es** |      |         |
+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+
|                                             | **If |      | **Rank  |
|                                             | EETT |      | (by     |
|                                             | F    |      | Funding |
|                                             | unds |      | L       |
|                                             | Us   |      | evel)** |
|                                             | ed** |      |         |
+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+
|                                             | **Y  | **   |         |
|                                             | es** | No** |         |
+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+
| m\. Pay for *assessments of student         | 20%  | 80%  | 5.81    |
| academic achievement* in math and/or        |      |      |         |
| reading via Internet or other               |      |      |         |
| computer-based systems.                     |      |      |         |
+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+
| n\. Pay for *incentives* for teachers to    | 51%  | 49%  | 5.46    |
| use or obtain training in the integration   |      |      |         |
| of education technology.                    |      |      |         |
+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+
| o\. Pay for *supports* (i.e. time,          | 45%  | 55%  | 5.38    |
| substitutes, etc.) for school staff *to     |      |      |         |
| analyze available data* with the goal of    |      |      |         |
| improving how the school educates children. |      |      |         |
+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+
| p\. Pay for *email or Internet-based        | 6%   | 94%  | 6.00    |
| methods to communicate with students*.      |      |      |         |
+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+
| q\. Pay for initiatives to increase         | 29%  | 71%  | 5.64    |
| *parental and family involvement*.          |      |      |         |
+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+
| r\. Pay for initiatives to develop          | 20%  | 80%  | 5.77    |
| professional *online communities and        |      |      |         |
| resources.*                                 |      |      |         |
+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+
| s\. Other. Please describe.                 | 6%   | 94%  | 5.80    |
|                                             |      |      |         |
| (e.g., pay for teachers to develop          |      |      |         |
| Curriculum Maps).\_\_\_\_\_\_               |      |      |         |
|                                             |      |      |         |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                            |      |      |         |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |      |      |         |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |      |      |         |
+---------------------------------------------+------+------+---------+

# 

#   {#section-10 .unnumbered}

# [Part III. Use of Funds for Educational Technology in]{.smallcaps} 

# [SY 2003--04]{.smallcaps}

# Did your LEA receive Formula and/or Competitive EETT funding in SY 2003--04?

> 97% Yes.
>
> 3% No. **Please skip to Part IV on page 15 of this survey**.

10. Does your LEA have students?

> 99% Yes, my LEA has students. **Please continue with this section.**
>
> 1% No, my LEA has no students. My LEA is or is like an Educational
> Service Unit or Intermediate Service Agency that only serves students
> indirectly by helping other LEAs. **Please skip to Part VIII on page
> 26 of this survey**.

12. Did your LEA transfer any of its SY 2003--04 funds INTO or OUT of
    the EETT program?

> 10% Yes. Please **estimate** the amount(s) transferred below.
>
> 90% No. **Please skip to the next question.**

  ------------- ------------------------------------------- --------------
  Funds         Program                                     Funds
  Transferred                                               Transferred
  INTO EETT                                                 OUT of EETT

  \$14,517.46   a\. Title I                                 \$15,901.46

  \$3,442.45    b\. Section 2113(a)(3)---Training and       \$27,876.15
                Recruitment                                 

  \$900.00      c\. Section 4112(a)(1)---Safe and Drug Free \$17,569.87
                Schools and Communities Governor's funds    

                d\. Section 4112(c)(1)---Safe and Drug Free 
                Schools and Communities Governor's SEA      
                funds                                       

                e\. Section 4202(c)(3)---21st Century       
                Community Learning Centers                  

  \$4,780.26    f\. Section 5112(b)---Innovative Programs   \$2,145.49

  \$6,835.35    g\. Other. Please specify.                  \$342,626.51
  ------------- ------------------------------------------- --------------

13. We are interested in knowing how your EETT funding for the 2003--04
    school year (**formula and competitive, after transfers**) was
    distributed. Please indicate how funding was spent and also
    **estimate** the percent of funds used for each purpose.

+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+--------------+
| **Use of EETT Funds**                   | **If |     | **Percentage |
|                                         | EETT |     | of EETT      |
|                                         | F    |     | Funds, after |
|                                         | unds |     | transfers**  |
|                                         | Us   |     |              |
|                                         | ed** |     |              |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+--------------+
|                                         | **Y  | **N |              |
|                                         | es** | o** |              |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+--------------+
| a.  Provide funds directly to           | 46%  | 54% | 32%          |
|     *schools.*                          |      |     |              |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+--------------+
| b.  Pay for services to be used in or   | 32%  | 68% | 17%          |
|     by one or more targeted schools.    |      |     |              |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+--------------+
| c.  Pay for services to be used         | 62%  | 38% | 51%          |
|     districtwide                        |      |     |              |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+--------------+
| **Total**                               |      |     | 100%         |
+-----------------------------------------+------+-----+--------------+

14. Please indicate the **funding source** with which your district
    supported any of the following activities during the 2003--04 school
    year.

    Please also **rank the top 5** activities supported by EETT funds,
    starting from 1 for the activity that received the most funding.
    **Do not rank if EETT funds were not used** to support the activity.

+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
| **Use of Funds**                        | ** |    |     | *   |     |
|                                         | If |    |     | *If |     |
|                                         | EE |    |     | No  |     |
|                                         | TT |    |     | n-E |     |
|                                         | F  |    |     | ETT |     |
|                                         | un |    |     | Fu  |     |
|                                         | ds |    |     | nds |     |
|                                         | Us |    |     | Use |     |
|                                         | ed |    |     | d** |     |
|                                         | ** |    |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
|                                         | *  | ** | **  | *   | **N |
|                                         | *Y | No | Ran | *Ye | o** |
|                                         | es | ** | k** | s** |     |
|                                         | ** |    |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
| a.  Pay for a *technology coordinator*  | 1  | 8  | 5   | 69% | 31% |
|     in your district to help with       | 6% | 4% | .23 |     |     |
|     integration of technology into the  |    |    |     |     |     |
|     classroom.                          |    |    |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
| b.  Pay for a *program facilitator,     | 9% | 9  | 5   | 31% | 69% |
|     administrator, or evaluator.*       |    | 1% | .81 |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
| c.  Pay for *professional development*  | 6  | 3  | 3   | 67% | 33% |
|     for teachers to assist them with    | 3% | 7% | .63 |     |     |
|     integrating technology into math    |    |    |     |     |     |
|     and/or reading.                     |    |    |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
| d.  Pay for *professional development*  | 6  | 4  | 4   | 59% | 41% |
|     for teachers to assist them with    | 0% | 0% | .18 |     |     |
|     integrating technology into *other  |    |    |     |     |     |
|     subject areas.*                     |    |    |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
| e.  Pay for *professional development*  | 2  | 7  | 5   | 20% | 80% |
|     for teachers to assist them develop | 5% | 5% | .45 |     |     |
|     proficiency with the *online        |    |    |     |     |     |
|     teaching* of any subject.           |    |    |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
| f.  Pay for *software* to help with     | 5  | 4  | 4   | 60% | 40% |
|     integration of technology into math | 3% | 7% | .34 |     |     |
|     and/or reading.                     |    |    |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
| g.  Pay for *hardware* to help with     | 4  | 5  | 4   | 66% | 34% |
|     integration of technology into math | 5% | 5% | .28 |     |     |
|     and/or reading.                     |    |    |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
| h.  Pay for *curriculum development*    | 2  | 7  | 5   | 53% | 47% |
|     activities to help with the         | 9% | 1% | .38 |     |     |
|     integration of technology into any  |    |    |     |     |     |
|     subject                             |    |    |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
| i.  Pay for activities to improve       | 3  | 6  | 5   | 59% | 41% |
|     *student technology literacy*.      | 2% | 8% | .35 |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+

+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| **Use of Funds**                        | ** |    |     | ** |    |
|                                         | If |    |     | If |    |
|                                         | EE |    |     | No |    |
|                                         | TT |    |     | n- |    |
|                                         | F  |    |     | EE |    |
|                                         | un |    |     | TT |    |
|                                         | ds |    |     | F  |    |
|                                         | Us |    |     | un |    |
|                                         | ed |    |     | ds |    |
|                                         | ** |    |     | Us |    |
|                                         |    |    |     | ed |    |
|                                         |    |    |     | ** |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
|                                         | *  | ** | **  | *  | ** |
|                                         | *Y | No | Ran | *Y | No |
|                                         | es | ** | k** | es | ** |
|                                         | ** |    |     | ** |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| j.  Pay for hardware, software, or      | 2  | 1  | 5   | 5  | 4  |
|     professional development in support | 5% | 7% | .33 | 7% | 3% |
|     of *data and information management |    |    |     |    |    |
|     systems*.                           |    |    |     |    |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| k.  Pay for *online tutoring systems*   | 7% | 9  | 5   | 1  | 8  |
|     to provide supplemental education   |    | 3% | .90 | 7% | 3% |
|     services in math and/or reading for |    |    |     |    |    |
|     students in schools that have been  |    |    |     |    |    |
|     identified for improvement under    |    |    |     |    |    |
|     *NCLB*.                             |    |    |     |    |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| l.  Pay for *virtual schools* that can  | 1% | 9  | 6   | 1  | 9  |
|     be used as alternatives to schools  |    | 9% | .00 | 0% | 0% |
|     identified for improvement under    |    |    |     |    |    |
|     *NCLB*.                             |    |    |     |    |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| m.  Pay for *assessments of student     | 7% | 9  | 5   | 2  | 7  |
|     academic achievement* in math       |    | 3% | .91 | 8% | 2% |
|     and/or reading via Internet or      |    |    |     |    |    |
|     other computer-based systems.       |    |    |     |    |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| n.  Pay for *incentives* for teachers   | 1  | 8  | 5   | 1% | 4  |
|     to use or obtain training in the    | 5% | 5% | .73 |    | 9% |
|     integration of education            |    |    |     |    |    |
|     technology.                         |    |    |     |    |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| o.  Pay for *supports* (i.e. time,      | 1  | 9  | 5   | 4  | 5  |
|     substitutes, etc.) for school staff | 0% | 0% | .85 | 8% | 2% |
|     *to analyze available data* with    |    |    |     |    |    |
|     the goal of improving how the       |    |    |     |    |    |
|     school educates children.           |    |    |     |    |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| p.  Pay for *email or Internet-based    | 4% | 9  | 5   | 3  | 6  |
|     methods to communicate with         |    | 6% | .92 | 9% | 1% |
|     students.*                          |    |    |     |    |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| q.  Pay for initiatives to increase     | 9% | 9  | 5   | 4  | 5  |
|     *parental and family involvement*.  |    | 1% | .91 | 1% | 9% |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| r.  Pay for initiatives to develop      | 5% | 9  | 5   | 2  | 7  |
|     professional *online communities    |    | 5% | .96 | 2% | 8% |
|     and resources*.                     |    |    |     |    |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
| s\. Other. Please describe. (e.g.,      | 1  | 9  | 5   | 2% | 9  |
| employee benefits; equipment,           | 0% | 0% | .84 |    | 8% |
| monitoring tools, and materials for     |    |    |     |    |    |
| technical staff; network security       |    |    |     |    |    |
| assessment)\_\_\_\_\_\_                 |    |    |     |    |    |
|                                         |    |    |     |    |    |
| \_\_\_                                  |    |    |     |    |    |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |    |    |     |    |    |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |    |    |     |    |    |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+-----+----+----+

15. Out of your LEA's SY 2003--04 EETT funds **(formula and
    competitive)** that were distributed to schools in your district,
    please **estimate** the percent of funds (not services) distributed
    to the poorest half of schools (i.e. those with free and reduced
    price lunch eligibility above the district median). Please exclude
    funds used for districtwide services or those given to other
    districts if received as a partnership or consortium.
    [53.19]{.underline} %

16. To what types of schools, if any, was EETT funding (**formula and
    competitive**) directed during the 2003--04 school year? Check all
    that apply.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------- ---------
  In my district, EETT funding supported activities targeted to:   YES       NO

  a\. Schools that showed initiative in application process        21%       79%

  b\. Schools receiving Title I funds                              69%       31%

  c\. Schools with a large number of LEP students                  28%       72%

  d\. Schools with a large number of students with disabilities    25%       75%

  e\. Low performing schools                                       40%       60%

  f\. High performing schools                                      15%       85%

  g\. High poverty schools                                         42%       58%

  h\. Schools demonstrating high technology need                   54%       46%

  i\. Other. Please specify:                                       22%       78%
  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_             
  ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------- ---------

17. Do you **estimate** there is a substantial gap in the degree of
    technology integration into the classroom between the poorest half
    of schools (i.e. those above district median on poverty) and the
    rest of schools in your district?

> 2% Yes.
>
> 98% No. **Skip to Question 20 on page 15 of this survey.**

18. Does your district use formula and/or competitive EETT funds to
    reduce this difference?

> 63% Yes.
>
> 37% No. **Skip to Question 20 on page 15 of this survey.**

19. If so, in what ways?

47% Funds go disproportionately to high poverty schools

21% Funds go disproportionately to teachers in high poverty schools

32% Other. Please describe.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

#   {#section-11 .unnumbered}

# Part IV. Classroom Integration

The following questions ask about your general use of education
technology, regardless of the funding source.

20. Please tell us what your district is doing to increase teachers'
    skills in using education technology.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Method used in the district for increasing teachers' ability to   **If      
  effectively use educational technology:**                           Used**    
  ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- --------
                                                                      **Yes**   **No**

  a\. Partnering with another district                                35%       65%

  b\. Partnering with an institution of higher education              33%       67%

  c\. Contracting with a software vendor or other for-profit company  32%       68%
  that provides professional development in the use of technology in            
  instruction. Please specify vendor:                                           
  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                          

  d\. Providing teachers with the opportunity to participate in       95%       5%
  courses about the use of technology in instruction                            

  e\. Having teachers or teacher teams develop new curriculum units   85%       15%
  that incorporate technology                                                   

  f\. Hiring building level technology coordinators to work with      45%       55%
  teachers on incorporating technology into teaching                            

  g\. Hiring district technology coordinator(s) to work with teachers 64%       36%
  on incorporating technology into teaching                                     

  h\. Paying for professional development for teachers to assist them 89%       11%
  with integrating technology into math and/or reading                          

  i\. Paying for email or Internet-based methods to communicate with  68%       32%
  students or parents                                                           

  j\. Paying for incentives for teachers to use or obtain training in 39%       61%
  the integration of education technology                                       

  k\. Other. Please specify: (e.g., offering a technology academy for 11%       89%
  teachers; requiring a specific amount of time for staff                       
  development, providing teachers with                                          
  laptops.)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_             
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Please **estimate** how often, on average, technology is integrated
    into each of your district's **elementary school classrooms** in the
    following instructional content areas?

  --------------------------------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Elementary School Subjects**    Daily    Weekly    Monthly   Not At
                                                                 All

  a\. English/Language Arts         40%      45%       11%       4%

  b\. Mathematics                   27%      49%       19%       4%
  --------------------------------- -------- --------- --------- ---------

22. Please **estimate** how often, on average, technology is integrated
    into each of your district's **secondary** **school classrooms** in
    the following instructional content areas?

+---------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| ###                             | Daily | Weekly | M      | Not At |
| ##### Secondary School Subjects |       |        | onthly | All    |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| a\. English/Language Arts       | 31%   | 39%    | 18%    | 11%    |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| b\. Mathematics                 | 29%   | 37%    | 18%    | 16%    |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+

23. Please **estimate** the percent of students in your district that
    took credit-granting courses via distance learning, including but
    not limited to online courses and video- or audio-learning, during
    the 2003--04 school year?

> [2.8]{.underline} %

24. To what degree have the following been barriers to the expanded use
    of educational technology in your district?

+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|                                        | NOT     | MINOR   | MAJOR   |
|                                        |         |         | BARRIER |
|                                        | A       | BARRIER |         |
|                                        | BARRIER |         |         |
+========================================+=========+=========+=========+
| **Hardware Resources**                 |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| a\. Insufficient hardware (computers,  | 33%     | 41%     | 25%     |
| peripheral devices, graphing           |         |         |         |
| calculators, TVs, etc.)                |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| b\. Out-of-date hardware               | 25%     | 48%     | 27%     |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Internet Resource Quality**          |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| c\. Internet connections aren't fast   | 66%     | 26%     | 8%      |
| or reliable enough for use during      |         |         |         |
| instruction                            |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| d\. Lack of age-appropriate or         | 69%     | 29%     | 2%      |
| educationally-relevant Web sites for   |         |         |         |
| students                               |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Software Resources**                 |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| e\. Lack of age-appropriate or         | 53%     | 41%     | 6%      |
| educationally-relevant software        |         |         |         |
| resources                              |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| f\. Lack of software products aligned  | 36%     | 42%     | 22%     |
| with State standards                   |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Logistical/Other Barriers**          |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| g\. Lack of trained technical staff    | 36%     | 40%     | 24%     |
| available for product and service      |         |         |         |
| acquisition, installation, or          |         |         |         |
| equipment maintenance                  |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| h\. Lack of district-level trained     | 25%     | 38%     | 37%     |
| instructional or support specialists   |         |         |         |
| available to assist the integration of |         |         |         |
| technology into the classroom and      |         |         |         |
| curriculum                             |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| i\. Lack of school-level trained       | 20%     | 44%     | 36%     |
| instructional or support specialists   |         |         |         |
| available to assist the integration of |         |         |         |
| technology into the classroom and      |         |         |         |
| curriculum                             |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| j\. Lack of emphasis on student        | 25%     | 52%     | 23%     |
| technology literacy in standards and   |         |         |         |
| assessments                            |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| k\. Electric power supply and wiring,  | 55%     | 36%     | 9%      |
| heating, ventilation, or air           |         |         |         |
| conditioning                           |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| l\. Building security                  | 70%     | 28%     | 3%      |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| m\. Lack of space in school buildings  | 48%     | 34%     | 18%     |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| n\. Lack of adequately trained         | 32%     | 54%     | 14%     |
| administrators                         |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| o\. Lack of adequately trained         | 14%     | 68%     | 18%     |
| teachers and other instructional staff |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| p\. Other. Please specify: (e.g., lack | 89%     | 1%      | 10%     |
| of time for teachers to integrate      |         |         |         |
| technology into lessons; lack of       |         |         |         |
| support from school and/or district    |         |         |         |
| administration; lack of partnership    |         |         |         |
| funding; lack of interest in           |         |         |         |
| tech                                   |         |         |         |
| nology).**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |         |         |         |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |         |         |         |
|                                        |         |         |         |
| **\_\_\_\_\_                           |         |         |         |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |         |         |         |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

#    {#section-12 .unnumbered}

# [Part V. Professional Development]{.smallcaps}

25. How do you monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of your
    professional development activities designed to promote technology
    integration into the classroom?

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------
  **We monitor professional development through....**                                                                                                                             YES         NO

  a\. Formal evaluations by external evaluators                                                                                                                                   11%         89%

  b\. Formal evaluations by district staff                                                                                                                                        54%         46%

  c\. Informal observations by district staff                                                                                                                                     96%         4%

  d\. Teacher reports (i.e. workshop evaluations, teacher surveys, etc.)                                                                                                          95%         5%

  e\. Other. Please specify (e.g., student and teacher projects or artifacts; project-based homework; roundtable                                                                  12%         88%
  discussions).\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_               

  f\. My district does not monitor our professional development activities.                                                                                                       4%          96%
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

26. Has the district established minimum technology skills standards for
    teachers?

> 28% Yes.
>
> 59% No, but the district recognizes the State Standards.
>
> 13% No.

27. Please **estimate** the percentage of staff that received
    professional development in using technology in math and/or reading
    instruction during the 2003--04 school year.

[47.21]{.underline} %

28. Do you have a Training/Professional Development lab at the district
    level?

> 26% Yes.
>
> 74% No. **Skip to Question 30 on page 19 of this survey.**

29. Who uses the Training/Professional Development lab? Please check all
    that apply and **estimate** their amount of use in hours per month.

+--------------------------------------+------+------+----------------+
|                                      | YES  | NO   | Use            |
|                                      |      |      |                |
|                                      |      |      | (Hrs. Per      |
|                                      |      |      | Month)[^10]    |
+--------------------------------------+------+------+----------------+
| a\. Principals                       | 76%  | 24%  |                |
+--------------------------------------+------+------+----------------+
| b\. Teachers                         | 99%  | 1%   |                |
+--------------------------------------+------+------+----------------+
| c\. Instructional Support Staff      | 83%  | 17%  |                |
+--------------------------------------+------+------+----------------+
| d\. Non-district Educators           | 53%  | 47%  |                |
+--------------------------------------+------+------+----------------+

30. Do you support online professional development for teachers (e.g.
    online learning communities, video broadcast formats,
    individualized, self-paced instruction, etc.) in the following
    areas? If so, do you support these activities using **formula and/or
    competitive** EETT funds?

+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| **Does your District Support Online        | S   |     | S   |       |
| Professional Development for Teachers      | upp |     | upp |       |
| To:**                                      | ort |     | ort |       |
|                                            | in  |     | w   |       |
|                                            | Any |     | ith |       |
|                                            | Way |     | E   |       |
|                                            |     |     | ETT |       |
|                                            |     |     | Fu  |       |
|                                            |     |     | nds |       |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+
|                                            | YES | NO  | YES | NO    |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| a\. Earn a Bachelors degree?               | 30% | 70% | 2%  | 98%   |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| b\. Earn a Masters or PhD?                 | 42% | 58% | 4%  | 96%   |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| c\. Obtain full state certification or     | 35% | 65% | 5%  | 95%   |
| licensure?                                 |     |     |     |       |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| d\. Build or demonstrate content-area      | 73% | 27% | 20% | 80%   |
| knowledge and expertise?                   |     |     |     |       |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| e\. Learn to integrate technology into the | 84% | 16% | 39% | 61%   |
| classroom?                                 |     |     |     |       |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+
| f.  Do other things? Please explain.       | 5%  | 95% | 1%  | 99%   |
|                                            |     |     |     |       |
| > (e.g., meet the Reading Endorsement      |     |     |     |       |
| > requirement; develop basic technology    |     |     |     |       |
| > skills; obtain certification in specific |     |     |     |       |
| > areas such as gifted, ESOL, First        |     |     |     |       |
| > Aid                                      |     |     |     |       |
| ).\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |     |     |     |       |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+

31. Are the following sources of funding used in your district for
    teacher professional development activities that integrate
    technology into the classroom? Check all that apply and rank each
    source used by level of funding, starting with 1 for the largest
    source of professional development funding.

######### Have you offered in the last 12 months or do you **plan** to offer within the next year any professional development in any of the following areas or of the following types? **(Check all that apply.)** 

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ------------ ---------
  **Areas of Professional Development**                                        **Offered   **Plan to    **No
                                                                               in last 12  offer within Plans**
                                                                               mo.**       next yr.**   

  a\. None                                                                     4%          5%           N/A

  b\. **Technology-related** State certification requirements                  16%         19%          77%

  c\. **Technology-related** State re-certification requirements               17%         19%          78%

  d\. **Technology-related** District in-service requirements                  57%         59%          30%

  e\. Using computers, i.e. Word, spreadsheets, create web pages, to enhance   89%         68%          2%
  student learning in math and/or reading                                                               

  f\. Using other technologies to enhance student learning in math and/or      86%         67%          4%
  reading                                                                                               

  g\. Using a specific educational software package to enhance student         79%         59%          14%
  learning in math and/or reading                                                                       

  h\. Developing your own curriculum resources to enhance student learning in  68%         61%          20%
  math and/or reading                                                                                   

  i\. Design of student assessment instruments                                 53%         57%          29%

  j\. Using software to track student achievement                              72%         73%          5%

  k\. Using software to tailor tasks to student ability                        56%         52%          27%

  l\. Using student data to tailor tasks to student ability                    73%         76%          7%

  m\. Improving schools through other data-driven decision-making techniques   70%         69%          13%

  n\. Follow-up or advanced training in technology use                         66%         72%          9%

  o\. Teaming with other teachers to use technology across disciplines         68%         62%          18%

  p\. Other. Please describe (e.g., using technology to collaborate online,    2%          1%           98%
  developing and using an open source Web Portal, integrating software used by                          
  administrators for professional evaluations).                                                         
  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                            
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ------------ ---------

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ------------ ---------
  Types of Professional Development                                      **Offered   **Plan to    **No
                                                                         in last 12  offer within Plans**
                                                                         mo.**       next yr.**   

  q\. Technology-focused study group that meets regularly                42%         31%          48%

  r\. Traditional workshop or conference session on technology use that  70%         56%          18%
  was 3 or less hours in duration                                                                 

  s\. Traditional workshop or conference session on technology use that  72%         57%          22%
  was more than 3 hours but less than one day in duration                                         

  t\. Traditional workshop or conference session on technology use that  44%         32%          50%
  was more than one day in duration                                                               

  u\. One-on-one mentoring on technology use to enhance student learning 51%         43%          39%
  in core subject areas                                                                           

  v\. Using computer-based resources such as CD-ROM, online course, or   68%         65%          16%
  other web-based resources, designed to improve instruction in the core                          
  subject areas                                                                                   

  w\. Other. Please                                                      1%          1%           98%
  describe\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                            
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ------------ ---------

#  Part VI: Student Data Management Systems

33. Does your district currently maintain any of the following types of
    information electronically?  If yes, please indicate whether the
    data are interoperable[^11]? 

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ --------- --------------- --------
  **Type of Information**                                                  **Stored                     **Part of       
                                                                           Electronically**             Interoperable   
                                                                                                        Data System**   

                                                                           **YES**            **NO**    **YES**         **NO**

  a\. Student attendance                                                   99%                1%        82%             18%

  b\. Student standardized test scores                                     69%                31%       46%             54%

  c\. Student grades                                                       89%                11%       70%             30%

  d\. Student course enrollment histories                                  93%                7%        73%             27%

  e\. Student demographics                                                 94%                6%        78%             22%

  f\. Teacher qualifications                                               49%                51%       23%             77%

  g\. Teacher professional development                                     43%                57%       21%             79%

  h\. Special Education information                                        92%                8%        62%             38%

  i\. Participation in educational programs (i.e. innovative classroom     37%                63%       26%             74%
  curricula, after school learning programs, tutoring, etc.)                                                            

  j\. Other: Please Describe (e.g., student medical information; hardware  3%                 97%       97%             3%
  inventory and maintenance, customer service, and usage                                                                
  profiles).\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ --------- --------------- --------

34. Who can access these data?

+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| **Type of Person who can access data**                  | *   | **N |
|                                                         | *YE | O** |
|                                                         | S** |     |
+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| a\. Local school administrators                         | 99% | 1%  |
+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| b\. Other school administrators                         | 45% | 55% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| c\. Local district administrators                       | 93% | 7%  |
+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| d\. Other district administrators                       | 44% | 56% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| e\. Teachers (school-wide)                              | 62% | 38% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| f\. Parents                                             | 19% | 81% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| g\. Researchers                                         | 12% | 88% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| h\. General public                                      | 3%  | 97% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| i\. Other: Please Describe (e.g., nurses and            | 7%  | 93% |
| counselors; students).\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                    |     |     |
|                                                         |     |     |
| \_\_                                                    |     |     |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |     |     |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |     |     |
+---------------------------------------------------------+-----+-----+

35\. Does your district perform the following activities *using an
electronic data management system*? If yes, please indicate which
activities were supported with formula and/or competitive EETT funds.

+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| **Activity**                             | If   |    | If    |      |
|                                          | Acti |    | Supp  |      |
|                                          | vity |    | orted |      |
|                                          | is   |    | by    |      |
|                                          | P    |    | EETT  |      |
|                                          | erfo |    | Funds |      |
|                                          | rmed |    |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
|                                          | YES  | NO | YES   | NO   |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > a\. Tracking student test scores by    | 74%  | 2  | 10%   | 90%  |
| > school.                                |      | 6% |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > b\. Tracking student graduation rates  | 59%  | 4  | 5%    | 95%  |
| > by school.                             |      | 1% |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > c\. Tracking other measures of student | 80%  | 2  | 19%   | 81%  |
| > progress.                              |      | 0% |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > d\. Using data to inform student       | 69%  | 3  | 9%    | 91%  |
| > placement in courses or special        |      | 1% |       |      |
| > programs.                              |      |    |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > e\. Informing parents about student    | 63%  | 3  | 9%    | 91%  |
| > progress.                              |      | 7% |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > f\. Using data to inform curriculum    | 61%  | 3  | 17%   | 83%  |
| > changes.                               |      | 9% |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > g\. Using data to evaluate teacher     | 28%  | 7  | 3%    | 97%  |
| > performance.                           |      | 2% |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > h\. Using data to evaluate promising   | 41%  | 5  | 16%   | 84%  |
| > classroom practices.                   |      | 9% |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > i\. Using data to inform professional  | 54%  | 4  | 21%   | 79%  |
| > development offerings.                 |      | 6% |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > j\. Using data to inform resource      | 45%  | 5  | 6%    | 94%  |
| > allocation.                            |      | 5% |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+
| > k\. Using data for other purposes.     | 5%   | 9  | 1%    | 99%  |
| > Please explain.                        |      | 5% |       |      |
| > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_   |      |    |       |      |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |      |    |       |      |
+------------------------------------------+------+----+-------+------+

#########  

#   {#section-14 .unnumbered}

# Part VII: Infrastructure Inventory

36. In your district, please **estimate** the total number of computers
    that are located within classrooms or instructional settings (i.e.
    libraries, media centers, laboratories, etc.).

[924.74]{.underline} number of computers in classrooms or instructional
settings (average)

37. In your district, please **estimate** the total number of
    LAN/Internet-accessible computers located within classrooms or
    instructional settings.

[877.03]{.underline} number of LAN/internet accessible computers in
classrooms or

> instructional settings (average)

38. Please **estimate** the total number of classrooms or instructional
    areas in your district.

[217.65]{.underline} number of classrooms in district (average)

#   {#section-15 .unnumbered}

# Part VIII: Respondent Background (for all LEAs)

39. Which of the following most closely describes your job title? Check
    as many as apply.

18% District Superintendent

11% Assistant Superintendent

35% Technology Coordinator

13% Instructional Technology Coordinator

10% Division Director

17% Principal

7% Teacher

1% Researcher/Evaluator

5% Professional Development Specialist

7% Finance Officer

16% Other

40. Is your primary responsibility to serve as a technology coordinator?

36% Yes

64% No

# 41. How long have you been in your current job? [6.84]{.underline} number of years 

#   {#section-16 .unnumbered}

# 

# Appendix B: NETTS Teacher Survey

**Results by Question**

![](media/image2.png){width="8.5in" height="11.0in"}

> OMB No. 1875-0233 Approval expires 11/30/2007
>
> U.S. Department of Education
>
> National Educational Technology Trends Study:
>
> Teacher Survey
>
> Introduction
>
> This Teacher Survey is part of the National Educational Technology
> Trends Study (NETTS), the official federal evaluation of the Enhancing
> Education Through Technology (EETT) program authorized under Title IID
> of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The evaluation of the EETT
> program includes surveys of teachers in approximately 850 districts
> across the country.\
> Participation of EETT (Title II) districts and their schools in this
> study is required under Section 9306 (a)(4) of the Elementary and
> Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
>
> The majority of the Teacher Survey items focus on your use of
> technology during the last full\
> school year, 2004--2005. It asks about the technology-related
> professional development\
> activities in which you participated, your access to and use of
> technology for instruction, the\
> factors that facilitated or impeded your use of technology, and the
> changes in teaching and\
> learning that may have occurred as a result of your and your
> students\' use of technology.
>
> Thank you, in advance, for your expertise and time needed for the
> success of the study.
>
> Paperwork Burden Statement
>
> According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are
> required to respond to a collection of\
> information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid
> OMB control number for this survey is 1875-0233.
>
> Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
> estimated to average about 35 minutes per
>
> response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
> existing data sources, gathering and
>
> maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
> collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden
> estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
> including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Department of
> Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 5624, Regional Office
> Building 3, Washington, DC 20202; and to the Office of Management and
> Budget, Paperwork\
> Reduction Project 1875-0233, Washington, DC 20503.
>
> This project is being conducted under Section 2404(b)(2) and Section
> 2421(a) of the No Child Left Behind\
> Act of 2001 (*NCLB*, Public Law 107-110). Your cooperation is needed
> to make the results of the study\
> comprehensive, accurate, and timely. Additionally, grantees are
> required by law to cooperate with federal\
> evaluations under the Education Department General Administrative
> Regulations (EDGAR Section 76.591).\
> The information you provide is being collected for research purposes
> only and will be kept strictly\
> confidential.

#   {#section-18 .unnumbered}

# I. TEACHING BACKGROUND

1.  What was the grade level of the students you taught in school year
    2004--2005? **(Mark one.)**

> *(all teachers: n=4935).*
>
> Multiple grade levels -- Elementary: **6.0%** 1^st^: **10.0%** 5^th^:
> **6.4%** 9^th^: **2.4%** Ungraded: **0.3%**
>
> Multiple grade levels - Jr. High or Middle School: **4.0%** 2^nd^:
> **8.9%** 6^th^: **5.6%** 10^th^: **1.0%**
>
> Multiple grade levels - High School: **17.1%** 3^rd^: **9.8%** 7^th^:
> **4.2%** 11^th^: **1.9%**
>
> Kindergarten: **9.3%** 4^th^: **7.8%** 8^th^: **4.2%** 12^th^:
> **1.2%**
>
> 2\. In what subject was your primary teaching assignment in school
> year 2004--2005? Mark the
>
> box for that subject in the list below. If you taught more than one
> subject in 2004--2005, mark
>
> \"No primary affiliation with a single subject.\" **(Mark one.)**
>
> No primary affiliation with a single subject Special Education:
> **1.5%**
>
> (e.g., self-contained classroom): **51.8%**
>
> English as a Second Language: **0.4%**
>
> Reading/Language Arts/English: **14.2%**
>
> History/Social Studies: **9.7%**
>
> Mathematics**: 11.7%**
>
> Science: **9.3%**
>
> Art/Music: **0.0%**
>
> Vocational Field: **0.1%**
>
> Health/Physical Education: **0.1%**
>
> Computers or Technology: **0.1%**
>
> Foreign/World Languages: **0.1**%
>
> Other, please specify: **1.0**%
>
> 3\. In addition to your primary duties, did you have any secondary
> teaching assignments in school year
>
> 2004--2005?
>
> Yes: **14.4%** (Continue with question 4.) No: **85.6%** ***(Skip to
> question 5)***
>
> 4\. Mark the subject(s) for your secondary teaching assignment(s) in
> school year 2004--2005 in
>
> the list below. **(Mark all that apply.)**
>
> a\. Reading/Language Arts/English: **21.9%** g. Health/Physical
> Education: **5.3%**
>
> b\. History/Social Studies: **20.4%** h. Special Education: **3.9%**
>
> c\. Mathematics: **13.0%** i. English as a Second Language: **4.3%**
>
> d\. Science: **17.0%** j. Computers or Technology: **11.9%**
>
> e\. Art/Music: **1.4%** k. Foreign/World Languages: **1.4**%
>
> f\. Vocational Field: **2.9%** l. Other, please specify: **26.6%**
>
> 5\. What type(s) of teaching certificate(s) did you hold in the state
> where you taught in school year
>
> 2004--2005? **(Mark all that apply.)**
>
> a\. Regular or standard state or advanced professional certificate:
> **91.9%**
>
> b\. Probationary certificate (the initial certificate issued after
> satisfying all requirements except the
>
> completion of a probationary period): **2.9%**
>
> c\. Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are
> still participating in what the
>
> state calls an \"alternative certification program\": **3.1%**
>
> d\. Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework
> and/or other student
>
> teaching before regular certification can be obtained): **0.8%**
>
> e\. Emergency certificate or waiver (issued to persons with
> insufficient teacher preparation who
>
> must complete a regular certification program in order to continue
> teaching): **0.2%**
>
> f\. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certificate**:
> 2.0%**
>
> g\. Specific certificate for teaching bilingual, multicultural,
> limited-English, or special education students**: 6.5%**
>
> h\. No certificate **(Skip to Question 7): 0.2 %**
>
> 6\. In what subject(s) did you hold a certificate in the state where
> you taught in school year
>
> 2004--2005? **(Mark all that apply.)**
>
> a\. No primary affiliation with a single subject i. Special Education:
> **5.7%**
>
> (e.g., self-contained classroom): **55.6%** j. English as a Second
> Language: **4.3%**
>
> b\. Reading/Language Arts/English: **19.0%**
>
> k\. Computers or Technology: **1.3%**
>
> c\. History/Social Studies: **14.7%**
>
> l\. Foreign/World Languages: **1.1%**
>
> d\. Mathematics: **13.1%**
>
> m\. Other, please specify: **8.5%**
>
> e\. Science: **11.4%**
>
> f\. Art/Music: **1.4%**
>
> g\. Vocational Field**: 1.0%**
>
> h\. Health/Physical Education**: 3.1%**
>
> 7\. What was the highest degree you held in school year 2004--2005?
> **(Mark one.)**
>
> Associate degree: **0.2%** Education specialist or professional
> diploma
>
> (at least one year beyond master\'s level): **4.5%**
>
> Bachelor\'s degree
>
> (B.A., B.S., B.E., etc.): **52.7%**
>
> Doctorate or first professional degree
>
> Master\'s degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., L.L.B., J.D., D.D.S.): **0.6%**
>
> (M.A., M.A.T., M.B.A., M.Ed., M.S., etc.): **42.0%**
>
> Did not have a degree beyond a high school
>
> Diploma: **0.0%**
>
> 8\. How would you classify your teaching position in school year
> 2004--2005? **(Mark one.)**
>
> Full-time: **98.0%** Part-time: **2.0%**
>
> 9\. Including this school year (2005--2006), how many years have you
> worked either as a FULL-TIME
>
> or at least a HALF-TIME elementary, middle, or secondary school
> teacher? **(Mark one.)**
>
> 0-2 years: **2.9%**
>
> 3-5 years: **14.2%**
>
> 6-8 years: **16.1%**
>
> 9+ years: **66.8%**
>
> 10\. Did you teach in your current school during the majority of
> school year 2004--2005?
>
> (Please answer \"No\" if your primary responsibility in 2004--2005 was
> as a teacher substitute.)
>
> Yes: **99.6%** (Continue with question 11.)
>
> No: **0.4%** ***(Skip to questions 56 and 57 on page 20).***

#   {#section-19 .unnumbered}

# II. ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY AND SUPPORT

> 11\. Were the following technologies available to you and/or your
> students in school year 2004--2005? For each technology, please
> indicate whether the item was available in your classroom and/or in a
> computer/media center or other area. Also indicate whether the
> technology was available to teachers and/or students. **(Mark all that
> apply.)**

In your classroom In a center or other area

> For teacher For student For teacher For student Not
>
> use use use use use available
>
> Computers and Connectivity
>
> a\. Desktop computer **91.6% 70.3% 65.5% 76.3% 0.9%**
>
> b\. Laptop computer **26.2% 10.4% 26.6% 23.2% 47.4%**
>
> c\. Personal digital devices (e.g., PDA, tablet computer,
>
> or AlphaSmart/DANA) **7.9% 5.3% 10.2% 11.4% 76.6%**
>
> d\. Technologies specific to your content area (e.g.,
>
> Geometer\'s Sketchpad, probeware**) 16.2% 10.7% 13.5% 12.3% 74.2%**
>
> e\. Internet access via telephone modem **36.8% 24.7% 25.8% 27.7%
> 60.7%**
>
> f\. High-speed Internet access (e.g., through a
>
> cable modem or DSL) **76.5% 54.0% 56.7% 62.5% 18.8%**
>
> g\. School intranet access (i.e., electronic
>
> communication exclusively within the school) **69.0% 21.9% 44.7% 24.8%
> 27.1%**
>
> Computer Peripherals and Software
>
> h\. Printers **77.2% 48.5% 73.9% 72.3% 1.0%**
>
> i\. CD-ROM or DVD drive **87.9% 56.9% 65.6% 64.4% 4.2%**
>
> j\. A device to project a computer screen for
>
> class viewing (LCD projector) **33.9% 9.4% 62.3% 19.0% 19.8%**
>
> k\. Digital photography and/or video equipment **30.2% 8.9% 65.6%
> 22.6% 17.6%**
>
> l\. Word processing software **91.2% 60.4% 69.4% 71.4% 2.3%**
>
> m\. Spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel) **85.7% 41.6% 63.4% 54.3%
> 6.4%**
>
> n\. Statistical analysis software (e.g., SPSS) **16.5% 4.9% 16.8% 8.5%
> 75.8%**
>
> o\. Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) **75.7% 41.6% 67.0% 57.0%
> 8.4%**
>
> p\. Database software (e.g., Access) **50.1% 18.3% 40.1% 26.1% 39.8%**
>
> q\. Software for grading **74.5% 2.5% 41.2% 3.6% 19.7%**
>
> r\. Software for classroom management (e.g., Blackboard) **27.7% 4.1%
> 18.6% 5.1% 67.4%**
>
> s\. Software for instruction in math and/or reading **54.4% 43.1%
> 50.5% 51.5% 21.8%**
>
> t\. Software for instruction in other subjects **43.7% 32.2% 44.4%
> 41.5% 32.3%**
>
> u\. Multimedia editing or authoring tools (e.g., HyperStudio) **30.1%
> 16.6% 35.9% 28.3% 50.0%**
>
> v\. E-mail software **88.1% 14.1% 54.9% 18.9% 7.2%**
>
> w\. Internet search tools **89.5% 52.4% 67.3% 64.2% 3.9%**
>
> x\. Web page creation software (e.g., Dreamweaver) **32.2% 8.3% 36.7%
> 21.0% 49.4%**

> 12\. In school year 2004--2005, approximately how many computers were
> available for students in your
>
> classroom? **(Mark one.)**
>
> The computer for each student: **4.2%** One computer for every four
> students: **6.4%**
>
> One computer for every two students: **2.4%** One computer for every
> five or more students: **63.4%**
>
> One computer for every three students**: 3.0%** Did not have computers
> in your classroom: **20.6%**
>
> 13\. In school year 2004--2005, approximately how many computers were
> available for your students in the computer/media center or other area
> you commonly used? **(Mark one.)**
>
> Did not have a computer/media center or One computer for every four
> students**: 2.0%**
>
> other area with computers in the school**: 3.0%**
>
> One computer for every five or more students**: 5.8%**
>
> One computer for each student**: 71.2%**
>
> One computer for every two students**: 9.3%**
>
> One computer for every three students**: 2.7%**

Did not use a school computer lab or media center**: 6.0%**

> 14\. In school year 2004--2005, how often did you get helpful
> information on the use of educational
>
> technology for instruction from the following individuals? **(Mark one
> box per row.)**
>
> Once or Once a
>
> A few twice a week or Not
>
> Individual(s) Never times month more applicable
>
> a\. Your school technology coordinator **10.9% 45.4% 21.8% 13.3%
> 8.6%**
>
> b\. Your school library/media specialist **25.1% 40.4% 18.3% 8.4%
> 7.8%**
>
> c\. Other teachers **11.6% 53.8% 21.1% 11.5% 2.0%**
>
> d\. Your district technology specialist(s) **30.9% 49.0% 11.6% 3.7%
> 4.9%**
>
> e\. Representative from a hardware or software
>
> vendor **68.8% 16.9% 1.2% 0.1% 13.1%**
>
> f\. The Internet (i.e., a technical support Web
>
> site or chat room) **55.2% 22.7% 7.0% 6.9% 8.2%**
>
> g\. Family and friends **21.1% 48.9% 16.8% 10.6% 2.6%**
>
> h\. Students **47.2% 36.4% 7.2% 4.5% 4.7%**
>
> 15\. In school year 2004--2005, how often were the following types of
> technology-related support helpful
>
> to you? **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> Once or Once a
>
> A few twice a week or Not
>
> Type of support Never times month more applicable
>
> a\. Support with hardware, software, and the **14.1% 51.3% 15.2% 15.9%
> 3.5%**
>
> Internet
>
> b\. Support integrating technology into **19.7% 50.0% 15.7% 10.1%
> 4.5%**
>
> instruction
>
> c\. Support using technology for student **26.7% 44.7% 12.6% 10.1%
> 5.8%**
>
> assessment
>
> d\. Help working with students as they use **27.1% 41.2% 14.1% 12.9%
> 4.8%**
>
> technology

# III. TECHNOLOGY-RELATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

> 16\. To what extent were the following instructional components
> included in your pre-service teacher
>
> preparation program? **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> A moderate
>
> Not at all A little amount A lot
>
> a\. Instruction in the use of particular educational software **36.4%
> 37.3% 21.5% 4.9%**
>
> programs or Web sites
>
> b\. Instruction on the use of e-mail, word processing, **36.2% 35.5%
> 21.8% 6.6%**\
> spreadsheet, and other common applications
>
> c\. Instruction on the effective use of educational technology **34.1%
> 39.6% 21.0% 5.4%**
>
> d\. The requirement that pre-service teachers demonstrate **48.3%
> 28.7% 17.6% 5.4%**\
> proficiency using educational technology
>
> 17\. Please indicate all formal technology-related professional
> development that you participated in or led
>
> during school year 2004--2005 and summer 2005. For each activity,
> please indicate the number of hours. ONLY report professional
> development activities in specific subject areas (e.g., teaching
> reading) if they included instruction on how to use educational
> technology in the particular subject. **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> Did not \<4 4-8 9-32 \>32 Not
>
> participate hours hours hours hours available
>
> a\. Traditional workshops or conference sessions **23.2% 37.2% 20.9%
> 10.3% 1.6% 6.8%**
>
> on technology use, provided by or within the\
> district
>
> b\. Traditional workshops or conference sessions **29.8% 28.2% 16.6%
> 10.3% 2.4% 12.8%**\
> in a specific subject area, provided by or within\
> the district
>
> c\. Traditional workshops or conference sessions **62.6% 11.7% 8.6%
> 5.3% 1.4% 10.4%**
>
> provided outside of the district
>
> d\. College course(s) **76.4% 4.4% 3.5% 4.9% 4.7% 6.1%**
>
> e\. Online course(s) **82.7% 3.7% 1.9% 2.6% 2.9% 6.2%**
>
> f\. Committee or task force **65.7% 9.7% 6.3% 4.7% 1.7% 11.8%**
>
> g\. Technology-focused study group that meets **71.1% 4.3% 2.7% 1.4%
> 0.3% 20.2%**
>
> regularly
>
> h\. Activities resulting from a partnership between **67.9% 5.0% 2.4%
> 0.7% 0.5% 23.4%**
>
> your school and another school
>
> i\. Mentoring and/or peer observation and coaching **61.6% 10.2% 3.0%
> 2.8% 2.6% 19.8%**
>
> as part of a formal arrangement
>
> j\. Observational visit to another school **70.1% 5.2% 2.3% 0.1% 0.1%
> 22.3%**
>
> k\. Other, please specify: **67.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.5% 1.0% 27.8%**
>
> If you answered \"did not participate\" for all professional
> development activities, skip to #22.
>
> 18\. Which of the following types of incentives were available to you
> during school year 2004--2005 or
>
> summer 2005 for participation in technology-related professional
> development? **(Mark all that apply.)**
>
> a\. Release time from classes and/or other g. Additional resources for
> you or your classroom
>
> responsibilities**: 24.6%** (e.g., hardware, software)**: 22.4%**
>
> b\. Scheduled time in contract for professional h. Option to use new
> school technology**: 21.0%**
>
> development**: 34.1%**
>
> c\. Stipends or tuition or fee reimbursement**: 27.8%**
>
> d\. Credits toward certification or recertification: **31.7%**
>
> e\. Salary increments or pay increases**: 9.3%**
>
> f\. Recognition or higher ratings on an annual

teacher evaluation**: 6.5%**

> i\. Free products from vendors**: 7.4%**
>
> j\. Other, please specify: **3.8%**
>
> k\. None of the above: **17.4%**
>
> 19\. Considering all of the professional development activities in
> which you participated during school
>
> year 2004--2005 and summer 2005, did any of them have the following
> topics as a major focus?
>
> **(Mark all that apply.)**
>
> a\. Basic computer skills**: 23.0%** h. Using technology for grading:
> **39.5%**
>
> b\. Use of technology for new methods of i. Using technology for
> classroom management: **10%**
>
> teaching (e.g., cooperative learning)**: 24.0%**
>
> c\. Using technology to enhance student
>
> learning in math and/or reading**: 39.8%**
>
> d\. Using technology to enhance student
>
> learning in other subject(s)**: 26.6%**
>
> e\. Improving students\' technology literacy**: 16.2%**
>
> f\. Using technology to design or administer

student assessments**: 28.7%**

> g\. Using technology for curriculum development and lesson planning:
> **34.9%**
>
> j\. Using technology to meet the needs of

students with disabilities or limited English

proficiency**: 10.4%**

> k\. Using software to tailor tasks to individual

student ability**: 12.6%**

> l\. Developing proficiency with online teaching**: 3.8%**
>
> m\. Effective/ethical use of the Internet**: 15.2%**
>
> 20\. Think about the most useful technology-related teacher
> professional development activity in which
>
> you participated during school year 2004--2005 and summer 2005. Which
> of the following
>
> characterized that activity? **(Mark all that apply.)**

a.  It was directly related to the content you taught**:** h. It was
    delivered during school hours (i.e.,

> **46.0%** substitutes were provided for you to attend)**:**
>
> **26.5%**

b\. It addressed different levels of teachers\' i. It was delivered
during evening/weekend hours**:**

knowledge, skills, and interests**: 34.4% 19.1%**

c\. Topics received detailed coverage: **16.3%**

> j\. It was planned or developed with input from

d\. It was delivered over multiple sessions (not a teachers in your
district**: 20.5%**

> one-time experience)**: 28.8%**
>
> e\. It was followed by planning time during the k. It provided an
> opportunity for meaningful

workday to implement new practices in the engagement with colleagues and
materials:**35.6%**

> classroom**: 13.6%**
>
> f\. It was consistent with the technology goals in l. It was designed
> so that teachers who attended
>
> your district**: 39.7%** were encouraged or expected to teach what
> they
>
> learned to other teachers in their schools**: 19.5%**
>
> g\. It included other members of your school
>
> community**: 40%** m. Other, please specify (e.g., It provided
> training on
>
> grading software; it aided in communication with

parents; it counted toward a degree): **7.1%**[^12]

> 21\. Which of the following increased substantially as a result of the
> technology-related professional
>
> development activities in which you participated during school year
> 2004--2005 and summer 2005?
>
> **(Mark all that apply.)**
>
> a\. Your integration of technology into math
>
> and/or reading instruction**: 32.8%**
>
> b\. Your integration of technology into instruction on other
> subjects**: 25.9%**
>
> c\. Your knowledge about computers in general**: 46.7%**
>
> d\. Your use of computers in general**: 49%**
>
> e\. Your use of technology for curriculum
>
> development and lesson planning**: 35.3%**
>
> f\. Your development of computer-based activities for student use**:
> 32.1%**
>
> g\. Your use of new teaching methods involving technology (e.g.,
> online projects, simulations)**:**
>
> **23.7%**

h\. Your use of technology to teach basic skills and

facts through drills, tutorials, and learning

games**: 25.4%**

i\. Your use of technology to individualize

instruction**: 20.5%**

j\. The effectiveness of your classroom

management strategies during students\'

technology use**: 9.4%**

k\. Your use of computers to find resources such

as lesson plans on the Internet**: 36.4%**

l\. Your use of technology in student assessment: **28.4%**

m\. Other, please specify (e.g., Your ability to use grading software;
your ability to communicate with parents, students, and colleagues; your
use of calculators, PDA's, and other handheld devices): **6.7%**

> 22\. On which of the following topics would you like additional
> professional development?
>
> **(Mark all that apply.)**
>
> a\. Basic computer skills**: 18.4%** h. Using technology for
> grading**: 25.2%**
>
> b\. Use of technology for new methods of i. Using technology for
> classroom teaching (e.g., cooperative learning)**: 43** % management:
> **27.1%**
>
> c\. Using technology to enhance student
>
> learning in math and/or reading**: 52.1%**
>
> d\. Using technology to enhance student
>
> learning in other subject(s)**: 36.1%**
>
> e\. Improving students\' technology literacy**: 31.6%**
>
> f\. Using technology to design or administer
>
> student assessments**: 36.2%**
>
> g\. Using technology for curriculum development
>
> and lesson planning**: 36.8%**
>
> j\. Using technology to meet the needs of
>
> students with disabilities or limited English
>
> proficiency**: 32.5%**
>
> k\. Using software to tailor tasks to individual
>
> student ability: **42.9%**
>
> l\. Developing proficiency with online teaching**: 19.3%**
>
> m\. Effective/ethical use of the Internet**: 17.4%**

> The next question refers to informal technology-related professional
> development activities. \"Informal\" refers to activities not led or
> planned by an individual or group, not scheduled in advance, and that
> require no commitment to participate for a specific time period.
>
> 23\. During school year 2004--2005 or summer 2005, did you participate
> in any of the following types of informal technology-related
> professional development activities? **(Mark all that apply.)**
>
> a\. Read educational journals or other d. Participated in a teacher
> collaborative or
>
> professional publications**: 39.9%** network**: 16.2%**
>
> b\. Used computer-based resources such as e. Visited a teacher
> resource center or
>
> CD-ROM, online course, or other Web-based professional development
> center**: 17.2%**
>
> Resources**: 48.9%**
>
> f\. Consulted with a subject matter specialist: **17.9%**
>
> c\. Informally worked with teacher peers, family, or
>
> friends on skills related to technology in
>
> teaching**: 60.6%**

#   {#section-20 .unnumbered}

# IV. TECHNOLOGY USE BY TEACHERS AND STUDENTS

> 24\. During school year 2004--2005, how often did you use technology
> in the following ways?
>
> **(Mark one box per row.)** Once Once
>
> or twice week
>
> Never A few times a month or more
>
> a\. To develop curricula or assignments in math and/or reading **26.1%
> 31.8% 18.4% 23.7%**
>
> b\. To develop curricula or assignments in other subjects **31.9%
> 29.4% 18.3% 20.5%**
>
> c\. To present math and/or reading concepts to your students **34.5%
> 33.0% 17.0% 15.5%**
>
> d\. To deliver instruction in other subjects **44.5% 28.3\$ 15.2%
> 12.0%**
>
> e\. To create tests or quizzes **18.2% 23.5% 27.4% 30.9%**
>
> f\. To test students **45.9% 25.4% 14.8% 14.0%**
>
> g\. To collaborate with experts or teachers in other locations **58.1%
> 27.1\$ 8.3% 6.5%**
>
> h\. To adapt instructional activities to students\' individual needs
> **38.6% 37.6% 14.0% 9.8%**
>
> i\. To do research and lesson planning using the Internet **13.5%
> 30.9% 28.0% 27.6%**
>
> j\. To create and maintain Web pages for your class **76.9% 10.7% 4.4%
> 8.0%**
>
> k\. To post homework assignments or schedule information on the Web
> **75.3% 8.1% 4.5% 12.2%**
>
> l\. To maintain student grades **34.3% 6.7% 7.5% 51.5%**
>
> m\. To prepare or maintain Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)
> **81.1% 10.5% 4.7% 3.8%**
>
> n\. To e-mail teachers in your school **10.8% 13.7% 11.9% 63.6%**
>
> o\. To e-mail school and district administrators **16.9% 22.3% 21.6%
> 39.3%**
>
> p\. To e-mail students **67.3% 18.4% 8.7% 5.6%**
>
> q\. To increase parental and family involvement **35.6% 27.4% 18.9%
> 18.1%**
>
> r\. To participate in professional online communities **75.1% 16.4%
> 5.7% 2.9%**
>
> 25\. By the end of school year 2004--2005, how skillful were you in
> using the following technologies?
>
> **(Mark one box per row.)** Not at all A little Moderately Very
>
> a\. Computers in general **0.2% 8.2% 55.1% 36.5%**
>
> b\. Personal digital devices (e.g., PDA, tablet computer, or
> AlphaSmart/DANA) **65.1% 17.3% 12.3% 5.4%**
>
> c\. Technologies specific to your content area (e.g., Geometer\'s
> Sketchpad, **60.9% 20.1% 13.6% 5.4%**
>
> probeware)
>
> d\. Digital photography and/or video equipment **21.6% 36.2% 38.4%
> 13.9%**
>
> e\. Word processing software **4.0% 10.2% 35.3% 50.6%**
>
> f\. Spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel) **20.7% 30.7% 28.9% 19.7%**
>
> g\. Statistical analysis software (e.g., SPSS) **79.1% 13.9% 5.0%
> 2.0%**
>
> h\. Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) **24.2% 29.6% 24.9%
> 21.4%**
>
> i\. Database software (e.g., Access) **62.8% 21.2% 10.9% 5.1%**
>
> j\. Software for grading **31.2% 11.8% 19.3% 37.7%**
>
> k\. Software for classroom management (e.g., Blackboard) **72.6% 15.6%
> 7.1% 4.7%**
>
> l\. Software for math and/or reading instruction **29.8% 30.5% 27.2%
> 12.6%**
>
> m\. Software for instruction on other subjects **40.0% 30.2% 20.7%
> 9.1%**
>
> n\. Multimedia editing or authoring tools (e.g., HyperStudio) **67.3%
> 21.2% 7.6% 3.9%**
>
> o\. E-mail software **10.3% 15.6% 30.5% 43.6%**
>
> p\. Internet search tools **5.1% 14.2% 36.5% 44.3%**
>
> q\. Web page creation software (e.g., Dreamweaver) **66.2% 19.9% 9.2%
> 4.7%**
>
> 26\. To what extent did you use technology during school year
> 2004--2005 for the following general
>
> purposes? **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> A moderate
>
> Not at all A little amount A lot
>
> a\. Plan instruction **14.0% 30.1% 30.2% 25.7%**
>
> b\. Deliver instruction **25.4% 41.7% 22.6% 10.2%**
>
> c\. Organize the instructional environment **33.1% 38.2% 18.7% 10.1%**
>
> d\. Assess student performance **28.2% 32.2% 22.6% 17.0%**
>
> 27\. During school year 2004--2005, to how often did you require your
> students to use the following
>
> technologies? **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> Once or Once a
>
> A few twice a week or
>
> Never times month more
>
> a\. Computers in general **6.9% 25.5% 22.7% 44.8%**
>
> b\. Personal digital devices (e.g., PDA, tablet computer, or **89.9%
> 6.4% 2.4% 1.3%**
>
> AlphaSmart/DANA)
>
> c\. Technologies specific to your content area (e.g., **81.7% 10.7%
> 4.9% 2.6%**
>
> Geometer\'s Sketchpad, probeware)
>
> d\. Digital photography and/or video equipment **75.9% 19.4% 3.8%
> 0.9%**
>
> e\. Word processing software **30.0% 33.1% 24.5% 12.5%**
>
> f\. Spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel) **81.7% 13.7% 3.8% 0.8%**
>
> g\. Statistical analysis software (e.g., SPSS) **96.3% 3.0% 0.5%
> 0.3%**
>
> h\. Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) **65.0% 25.1% 8.5% 1.4%**
>
> i\. Database software (e.g., Access) **94.5% 4.4% 0.8% 0.3%**
>
> j\. Classroom management software (e.g., Blackboard) **94.3% 3.0% 1.0%
> 1.7%**
>
> k\. Software for math and/or reading instruction **39.5% 21.0% 15.3%
> 24.2%**
>
> l\. Software for instruction on other subjects **54.5% 24.2% 12.7%
> 8.6%**
>
> m\. Multimedia editing or authoring tools (e.g., HyperStudio) **86.8%
> 9.1% 3.1% 1.1%**
>
> n\. E-mail software **78.7% 13.1% 4.7% 3.6%**
>
> o\. Internet search tools **33.7% 30.9% 24.8% 10.6%**
>
> p\. Web page creation software (e.g., Dreamweaver) **95.5% 3.5% 0.6%
> 0.4%**

> 28\. How often did your 2004--2005 students use technology in the
> following ways?
>
> **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> Once or Once a
>
> A few twice a week or
>
> Never times month more
>
> a\. Practice or review math and/or reading topics **25.6% 25.6% 17.9%
> 30.9%**
>
> b\. Practice or review topics in other subjects **35.6% 35.2% 17.1%
> 12.1%**
>
> c\. Extend math and/or reading learning with **29.2% 29.8% 20.5%
> 20.6%**
>
> enrichment activities
>
> d\. Extend learning in other subjects with **37.2% 35.7% 17.6% 9.4%**
>
> enrichment activities
>
> e\. Communicate electronically about academic **74.8% 15.5% 5.1%
> 4.7%**
>
> content with experts, peers, and/or others
>
> f\. Solve real-world problems (i.e. those **67.1% 24.0% 6.3% 2.7%**
>
> involving situations, issues, and tasks that
>
> people actually tackle in the outside world)
>
> g\. Produce media, Web, or presentation products **67.6% 24.6% 6.1%
> 1.7%**
>
> h\. Conduct online research **34.6% 37.0% 21.5% 6.9%**
>
> i\. Visually represent or investigate concepts (e.g., **58.2% 28.6%
> 9.4% 3.8%**
>
> through concept mapping, graphing, reading charts)
>
> j\. Take tests or quizzes using a computer **50.1% 22.0% 11.5% 16.5%**
>
> k\. Prepare for standardized tests **61.6% 23.0% 9.1% 6.3%**
>
> l\. Participate in formal distance learning via the **90.4% 6.6% 2.2%
> 0.8%**
>
> Internet or other interactive media
>
> m\. Improve their technology literacy **40.7% 33.5% 15.4% 10.5%**
>
> n\. Create products that had real-world audiences **78.9% 15.9% 4.1%
> 1.0%**
>
> o\. Work cooperatively or collaboratively with other **41.3% 35.8%
> 14.6% 8.3%**
>
> students
>
> p\. Work with content in multiple disciplines **62.6% 26.8% 8.0%
> 2.7%**
>
> q\. Use inquiry-based strategies (i.e., asking and **62.9% 25.1% 8.6%
> 3.4%**
>
> answering questions using multiple sources)
>
> r\. Use authentic tools (i.e., the tools that **76.3% 17.5% 4.1%
> 2.1%**\
> professionals use in their fields)
>
> **We are also interested in learning about which specific software
> packages are used in selected grades. During the 2004--2005 school
> year, if you taught 1st grade, 4th grade, 6th grade, or algebra,
> please answer the questions below about your instruction and use of
> software. Respond only to those sections addressing the classes you
> taught or facilitated.**
>
> **If you did not teach 1st grade, 4th grade, 6th grade, or algebra in
> 2004--2005, skip to question 45**.
>
> 29\. Did you teach reading to 1st graders in school year 2004--2005?
>
> Yes (^Continue\ with\ question\ 30.)^ **13.8%**
>
> No (Skip to question 33.) **86.3%**
>
> 30\. For how many months did you teach reading to 1st graders in
> school year 2004--2005?
>
> **(Mark one.)**
>
> 1 - 3 months **0.6%** 7 - 9 months **54.0%**
>
> 4 - 6 months **1.8%** 10 + months **43.6%**
>
> 31\. During these months, how many hours of formal reading instruction
> did a typical student receive in a
>
> typical week? **(Mark one.)**
>
> Less than 3 hours **2.9%**
>
> At least 3 hours, but less than 5 hours **18.3%**\
> At least 5 hours, but less than 7 hours **21.1%**\
> 7 or more hours **57.7%**
>
> 32\. Please indicate which, if any, of the following products you used
> with at least one of your Grade 1
>
> reading groups or classes during school year 2004--2005 and how often
> you used the products. If you used any of the products in more than
> one Grade 1 reading group or class, please report on the average per
> student use across all groups or classes in which you used them.
> **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> Didn\'t Once or Once a
>
> have A few twice a week or
>
> product Never times month more
>
> a\. Academy of Reading, AutoSkill **95.9% 2.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%**
>
> International, Inc.
>
> b\. Destination Reading, Riverdeep, Inc. **96.5% 1.9% 0.2% 0.1% 1.3%**
>
> c\. Waterford Early Reading Program, **93.8% 1.3% 1.0% 0.6% 3.4%**
>
> Pearson Digital Learning
>
> d\. Headsprout Early Reading, Headsprout **97.9% 1.7% 0.2% N/A 0.2%**
>
> e\. PLATO Focus, PLATO Learning, Inc. **96.2% 2.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1%**
>
> f\. Other, please describe: **57.5% 2.1% 1.2% 4.1% 35.1%**
>
> (e.g., Accelerated Reader, Wiggle Works, Starfall)
>
> 33\. Did you teach reading to 4th graders in school year 2004--2005?
>
> Yes (Continue with question 34.) **11.4%**
>
> No

(Skip to question 37.) **88.7%**

> 34\. For how many months did you teach reading to 4th graders in
> school year 2004--2005?
>
> **(Mark one.)**
>
> 1 - 3 months **1.6%**\
> 4 - 6 months **3.2%**\
> 7 - 9 months **53.1%**\
> 10 + months **42.2%**
>
> 35\. During these months, how many hours of reading instruction did a
> typical student receive in a typical week? **(Mark one.)**
>
> Less than 3 hours **3.6%**
>
> At least 3 hours, but less than 5 hours **12.8%**\
> At least 5 hours, but less than 7 hours **40.7%**\
> 7 or more hours **42.9%**
>
> 36\. Please indicate which, if any, of the following products you used
> with at least one of your Grade 4
>
> reading groups or classes during school year 2004--2005 and how often
> you used the products. If you used any of the products in more than
> one Grade 4 reading group or class, please report on the average per
> student use across all groups or classes in which you used them.
> **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> Didn\'t Once or Once a
>
> have A few twice a week or
>
> product Never times month more
>
> a\. Academy of Reading, AutoSkill **96.2% 1.6% 0.4% 1.0% 0.9%**
>
> International, Inc.
>
> b\. Read 180, Scholastic Inc. **90.5% 2.4% 1.2% 1.0% 4.9%**
>
> c\. KnowledgeBox, Pearson Digital Learning **97.5% 2.0% 0.4% 0.0%**
> **N/A**
>
> d\. LeapTrack, LeapFrog SchoolHouse **93.3% 2.2% 0.9% 1.3% 2.4%**
>
> e\. Other, please describe: **51.8% 3.1% 6.4% 4.4% 34.3%**

(e.g., Accelerated Reader, Reading Counts,

Success Maker).

> 37\. Did you teach math to 6th graders in school year 2004--2005?
>
> Yes (^Continue\ with\ question\ 38.)^ **4.2%**
>
> No (Skip to question 41.) **95.8%**
>
> 38\. For how many months did you teach math to 6th graders in school
> year 2004--2005?
>
> **(Mark one.)**
>
> 1 - 3 months **3.6%**\
> 4 - 6 months **0.8%**\
> 7 - 9 months **58.5%**\
> 10 + months **37.2%**
>
> 39\. During these months, how many hours of mathematics instruction
> did a typical student receive in a
>
> typical week? **(Mark one.)**
>
> Less than 3 hours **7.5%**
>
> At least 3 hours, but less than 5 hours **31.7%**\
> At least 5 hours, but less than 7 hours **42.0%**\
> 7 or more hours **18.8%**
>
> 40\. Please indicate which, if any, of the following products you used
> with at least one of your Grade 6
>
> math groups or classes during school year 2004--2005 and how often you
> used the products. If you used any of the products in more than one
> Grade 6 math group or class, please report on the average per student
> use in all groups or classes in which you used them.
>
> **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> Didn\'t Once or Once a
>
> have A few twice a week or
>
> product Never times month more
>
> a\. SmartMath, CompuTaught, Inc. **92.9% 5.3% 0.6% 1.2% N/A**
>
> b\. Achieve Now, PLATO Learning, Inc. **90.7% 5.5% 2.8% 0.3% 0.8%**
>
> c\. Larson\'s Prealgebra, Larson Learning, Inc. **92.2% 7.4% 0.1% 0.1%
> 0.3%**
>
> d\. Other, please describe: **49.4% 11.4% 9.5% 9.6% 20.2%**

(e.g., Accelerated Math, Success Maker).

> 41\. Did you teach algebra in school year 2004--2005?
>
> Yes (Continue with question 42.) **11.7%**
>
> No
>
> 

(Skip to question 45.) **88.3%**

> 42\. For how many months did you teach algebra in school year
> 2004--2005?
>
> **(Mark one.)**
>
> 1 - 3 months **26.2%**\
> 4 - 6 months **6.3%**\
> 7 - 9 months **32.0%**\
> 10 + months **35.6%**
>
> 43\. During these months, how many hours of algebra instruction did a
> typical student receive in a typical
>
> week? **(Mark one.)**
>
> Less than 3 hours **19.4%**
>
> At least 3 hours, but less than 5 hours **48.1%**\
> At least 5 hours, but less than 7 hours **23.2%**\
> 7 or more hours **9.3%**
>
> 44\. Please indicate which, if any, of the following products you used
> with at least one of your algebra
>
> groups or classes during school year 2004--2005 and how often you used
> the products. If you used any of the products in more than one algebra
> group or class, please report on the average per student use across
> all groups or classes in which you used them. **(Mark one box per
> row.)**
>
> Didn\'t Once or Once a
>
> have A few twice a week or
>
> product Never times month more
>
> a\. Cognitive Tutor, Carnegie Learning, Inc. **96.8% 1.7% 0.4% 0.1%
> 0.9%**
>
> b\. Algebra, PLATO Learning, Inc. **91.3% 4.2% 2.2% 1.0% 1.3%**
>
> c\. Larson\'s Algebra, Larson Learning, Inc. **93.6% 3.2% 2.3% 0.4%
> 0.6%**
>
> d\. Other, please describe: **69.4% 5.3% 8.1% 5.1% 12.1%**

# V. POTENTIAL VALUE OF TECHNOLOGY

> 45\. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about
> educational technology?
>
> **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> Neither
>
> Strongly disagree Strongly
>
> disagree Disagree nor agree Agree agree
>
> a\. Formal professional development can improve **3.1% 1.0% 3.4% 52.1%
> 40.4**%
>
> teachers\' use of educational technology
>
> b\. Educational technology can be used to improve **3.1% 1.0% 6.1%
> 54.5% 35.4%**
>
> instructional practice
>
> c\. Educational technology can be used to improve **3.2% 1.4% 8.7%
> 53.6% 33.1%**
>
> teachers\' subject matter knowledge
>
> d\. Educational technology can be used to improve **3.2% 0.5% 3.9%
> 53.2% 39.1%**
>
> student learning
>
> e\. Educational technology can be used to\
> students\' performance on standardized tests **N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A**
>
> f\. Educational technology can be used to narrow the **3.2% 4.4% 25.1%
> 43.1% 24.2%**\
> achievement gap between traditionally underserved\
> and other students
>
> 46\. To what extent did educational technology improve your teaching
> in school year 2004--2005?
>
> **(Mark one.)**
>
> Not at all **9.2%**
>
> A little **41.8%**
>
> A moderate amount **38.8%**
>
> A lot **10.2%**

#   {#section-21 .unnumbered}

# VI. USE OF TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED DATABASES

> 47\. In school year 2004--2005 and summer 2005, did you have access to
> an electronic data
>
> management system that provided you with student data?
>
> Yes **48.2%**
>
> No (Skip to question 53.) **37.3%**
>
> Don\'t know (Skip to question 53.) **14.5 %**
>
> 48\. Who made this system available to you? **(Mark one.)**
>
> Your state **4.5%** Don\'t know **4.4%**
>
> Your district **75.4%** Other, please specify (e.g., A regional

Your school **14.8%** service director; a private company): **1.0%**

> 49\. What kinds of data and supports did you have access to through
> the electronic data management

system(s)? **(Mark all that apply.)**

> a\. Standardized test scores by grade from i. Course enrollment
> histories for students**: 21.7%**
>
> 2003--04**: 46.8%**
>
> b\. Standardized test scores by grade from
>
> years prior to 2003--04**: 31.1%**
>
> c\. Standardized test scores by grade from
>
> 2004--2005**: 44%**
>
> d\. Standardized test scores from 2003--04 for
>
> individual students**: 37.1%**
>
> e\. Standardized test scores from years prior to
>
> 2003--04 for individual students**: 29.6%**
>
> f\. Standardized test scores from 2004--2005 for
>
> individual students**: 38.4%**
>
> g\. Attendance data**: 72.6%**
>
> h\. Student grade data**: 65.6%**
>
> j\. Students\' prior school(s) attended**: 14.6%**
>
> k\. Students\' participation in supplementary
>
> education programs (e.g, tutoring)**: 6.2%**
>
> l\. Software for the analysis and interpretation
>
> of student data**: 16.6%**
>
> m\. Links between your students\' assessment
>
> results and instructional resources tailored to
>
> their learning needs**: 11.4%**
>
> n\. Online instruction that your students could use**:**
>
> **12.8%**
>
> o\. Online assessments that your students could
>
> use**: 16.3%**
>
> p\. Estimations of achievement of adequate yearly
>
> progress (AYP) **: 17.8%**
>
> 50\. In school year 2004--2005, how often did you use an electronic
> data management system for each of
>
> the following purposes? **(Mark one box per row.)**
>
> Once or Once a
>
> A few twice a week or
>
> Never times month more
>
> a\. Used data to inform curriculum changes **49.9% 33.1% 12.6% 4.3%**
>
> b\. Identified individual skill gaps for individual **45.1% 34.5%
> 14.2% 6.2%**
>
> students so that you could give each student\
> material tailored to his/her skill profile
>
> c\. Determined whether your class or individual **50.8% 28.9% 14.3%
> 6.1%**\
> students were ready to move on to the next\
> instructional unit
>
> d\. Used data to evaluate promising classroom **59.2% 25.7% 11.1%
> 4.1%**
>
> practices
>
> e\. Decided whether to give your students **64.0% 22.0% 9.9% 4.1%**
>
> test-taking practice
>
> f\. Estimated whether your students would make **63.2% 23.7% 9.9%
> 3.2%**
>
> adequate yearly progress (AYP)
>
> g\. Tracked standardized test scores by grade **56.1% 31.6% 9.0%
> 3.3%**
>
> h\. Tracked individual student test scores **35.1% 37.9% 16.0% 11.0%**
>
> i\. Tracked other measures of student progress **39.9% 33.6% 14.7%
> 11.9%**
>
> j\. Used data to inform student placement in **57.7% 28.9% 9.1% 4.3%**
>
> courses or special programs
>
> k\. Informed parents about student progress **29.8% 34.4% 22.3%
> 13.5%**

> 51\. In school year 2004--2005, how often did you work with an
> electronic data management system in the
>
> following contexts to make instructional decisions? **(Mark one box
> per row.)**
>
> Once or Once a
>
> A few twice a week or
>
> Never times month more
>
> a\. On your own **23.7% 37.3% 18.3% 20.7%**
>
> b\. Working with colleagues in your **29.4% 47.6% 18.4% 4.7%**
>
> department or grade
>
> c\. As part of a district-level activity for your **42.5% 45.8% 9.3%
> 2.4%**
>
> school staff
>
> d\. As part of a district-level activity with staff **72.9% 22.0% 4.1%
> 1.1%**
>
> from other schools
>
> e\. In another setting. Please describe: **95.4% 3.3% 0.9% 0.4%**
>
> 52\. What kinds of support did you receive in 2004--2005 in using
> student data to guide decisions about
>
> instruction? **(Mark all that apply.)**
>
> a\. Professional development on data-driven d. Paid time set aside for
> examining student
>
> decision making at your school**: 62.2%** data and using the data to
> guide decisions
>
> about practice: **16.1%**
>
> b\. Professional development on data-driven
>
> decision making offered outside your school**:17.6%**
>
> c\. Support from a consultant or mentor teacher
>
> skilled in data analysis**: 27.5%**
>
> e\. Your principal\'s encouragement for using data
>
> in instructional decision making**: 60.5%**
>
> f\. Formal coursework covering data-driven
>
> decision making**: 7.9%**

#   {#section-22 .unnumbered}

#   {#section-23 .unnumbered}

# VII. SUPPORTS AND BARRIERS FOR TECHNOLOGY USE

> 53\. How important were the following influences on your use of
> educational technology in 2004--2005?
>
> **(Mark one box per row.)** A
>
> Not at all little Moderately Very
>
> a\. Other teachers shared examples of how they **17.6% 37.2% 29.3%
> 15.9%**
>
> used computers with their students
>
> b\. The fact that the district or school put computers **24.1% 22.9%
> 27.6% 25.5%**\
> in your classroom and administrators
>
> encouraged you to use them with your students
>
> c\. The technology director and/or specialist **37.4% 31.5% 20.4%
> 10.7%**
>
> demonstrated uses that you adapted to your
>
> classroom
>
> d\. You worked with your colleagues to design **47.9% 28.1% 16.2%
> 7.8%**
>
> lessons that required classroom use of
>
> computers
>
> e\. Professional development workshops led by **44.6% 31.5% 17.6%
> 6.3%**\
> someone outside of the school demonstrated\
> uses that you adapted to your classroom
>
> 54\. To what extent were the following conditions obstacles to your
> use of technology in school year
>
> 2004--2005? **(Mark one box per row.)** A moderate Not
>
> Not at all A little amount A lot applicable
>
> a\. Insufficient hardware (e.g., computers, peripheral **30.1% 21.2%
> 17.9% 28.1% 2.7%**
>
> devices) in labs or resource rooms
>
> b\. Insufficient hardware (e.g., computers, peripheral **17.2% 19.7%
> 18.4% 42.7% 1.9%**
>
> devices) in your classroom
>
> c\. Difficulty getting access to computers in labs or **34.3% 19.9%
> 17.3% 23.0% 5.5%**
>
> on carts
>
> d\. Out-of-date hardware **34.7% 26.2% 15.2% 18.7% 5.2%**
>
> e\. Lack of professional development that prepared
>
> you to use software
>
> f\. Lack of time to practice using software on **26.3% 27.7% 19.7%
> 24.5% 1.9%**
>
> which you received professional development
>
> g\. Inability to obtain software you wanted for your **15.6% 21.4%
> 19.2% 37.8% 6.1%**
>
> class
>
> h\. Insufficient or inadequate technical support **31.2% 23.0% 16.5%
> 23.1% 6.2%**
>
> for computer use
>
> i\. Your students\' lack of technology skills **29.8% 29.4% 18.1%
> 20.9% 1.8%**
>
> j\. Difficulty making room for technology use, given the **31.6% 37.8%
> 17.7% 9.8% 3.1%**
>
> large amount of course material to cover in a year
>
> k\. Difficulty making technology relevant to your **11.2% 15.8% 22.5%
> 47.7% 2.8%**
>
> subject
>
> l\. Difficulty managing your class during **40.0% 29.5% 18.4% 9.1%
> 3.0%**
>
> computer use
>
> m\. Lack of emphasis on student technology literacy **53.6% 24.6% 9.2%
> 7.8% 4.8%**
>
> in standards and assessments
>
> n\. Slow and/or unreliable Internet connections **39.1% 28.7% 15.5%
> 11.0% 5.8%**
>
> o\. Lack of age-appropriate or educationally **41.2% 26.1% 14.3% 14.4%
> 4.0%**
>
> relevant software or Web sites
>
> p\. Lack of software products aligned with **40.4% 25.2% 16.4% 13.3%
> 4.6%**
>
> state standards
>
> 55\. How much emphasis did the following individuals place on the use
> of technology to support
>
> teaching and learning in school year 2004--2005? **(Mark one box per
> row.)**
>
> A
>
> moderate
>
> Not at all A little amount A lot
>
> a\. Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent **24.4% 32.8% 29.4%
> 13.4%**
>
> b\. Principal **13.9% 31.5% 34.7% 19.9%**
>
> c\. Department Head **36.9% 28.2% 24.2% 10.7%**
>
> d\. Yourself **5.8% 34.9% 39.8% 19.5%**
>
> e\. Other teachers **18.1% 44.6% 31.8% 5.6%**
>
> f\. Parents **52.6% 35.4% 10.2% 1.9%**
>
> g\. Students **28.8% 39.7% 24.1% 7.4 %**

# VIII. TEACHER DEMOGRAPHICS

> In closing, we would like to ask a few questions to ensure that we
> surveyed a representative sample
>
> of teachers.
>
> 56\. Are you \...
>
> Male **19.7%**
>
> Female **80.3%**
>
> 57\. How do you describe yourself? **(Mark one.)**
>
> American Indian or Alaska Native (refers to **0**.**8%**
>
> someone who is from one of the American
>
> Indian tribes or is one of the original people
>
> of Alaska)
>
> Asian (refers to someone who is from a **1.3%**
>
> Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, or other
>
> Asian background)
>
> Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (refers to **0.5%**
>
> someone who is from one of the Hawaiian or
>
> other Pacific Islands or is Filipino)

Hispanic or Latino (refers to someone from a **4.8%**

Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other
Spanish, Hispanic or Latino background)

Black or African American **7.0%**

White **83.9%**

Biracial or multiethnic **1.0%**

Other **0.9%**

> ***You have now completed the National Educational Technology Trends
> Study Survey of\
> Teachers. Thank you for your time!***

![](media/image3.png){width="8.5in" height="11.0in"}

[^1]: Public use files of all NETTS datasets will be released at the end
    of the project, anticipated in the winter of

    2008--09.

[^2]: For elementary schools, the poverty threshold, measured in terms
    of the percentage of students who were eligible for free and
    reduced-price lunches (FRPL), was 29.7 percent. For middle schools
    and high schools, the poverty thresholds were 24.3 percent and 15.9
    percent, respectively.

[^3]: The teacher data presented in the exhibits appear lower than the
    results shown in Appendix B. The analysis required imputation of
    zeroes for some missing values to allow comparisons between the same
    respondent pool for the survey items used to investigate technology
    access, technology integration, and technology-related professional
    development. As a result, the exhibits reflect slightly conservative
    estimates of teacher access to and use of technology in their
    schools.

[^4]: Districts that received only competitive awards were grouped with
    districts that received both formula and competitive awards because
    the "competitive only" group size was small (67 districts).

[^5]: An LEA is a Local Educational Agency and includes all regular
    school districts with students as well as other government entities
    that provide services to regular school districts (e.g. educational
    service units or intermediate service agencies).

[^6]: If you do not have data that covers a complete school-year, please
    use data that overlaps as much as possible with the nine-month
    2003--04 school-year. For example, if you have financial data
    corresponding to federal fiscal years please use Federal Fiscal Year
    2004 data (which goes from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004)
    when reporting on SY 2003--04.

[^7]: Please mark "Yes" if your LEA applied individually, as a lead
    Fiscal Agent for a partnership or consortium, or as a non-lead
    entity in a partnership or consortium.

[^8]: Please include all funds directly awarded to your LEA from
    individual awards and any funds (not services) received through a
    partnership or consortium. **If your LEA was a lead Fiscal Agent**
    for a partnership or consortium, please **do not** include those
    funds awarded to other LEAs in the partnership or consortium or
    funds used for partnership-wide services.

[^9]: The parenthetical statements included in the sub-items referring
    to "other" categories are provided as illustrations of the types of
    responses received from respondents. The examples provided do not
    necessarily include all of the most common responses nor do they
    reflect the full range of responses. These are included in this
    summary to give the reader a general sense of the types of responses
    received.

[^10]: The "hours per month" items on Question 29 presented some
    confusion to survey respondents. Because of the large number of
    ambiguous responses, this item was not included in any further
    analysis.

[^11]: An interoperable data system or framework is one that allows for
    the seamless and efficient electronic exchange of data within a
    school or district.

[^12]:
    > The parenthetical statements included in the sub-items referring
    > to "other" categories are provided as illustrations of the types
    > of responses received from respondents. The examples provided do
    > not necessarily include all of the most common responses nor do
    > they reflect the full range of responses. These are included in
    > this summary to give the reader a general sense of the types of
    > responses received.