State Strategies and Practices for 

Educational Technology: 

Volume I—Examining the Enhancing 

Education Through Technology Program 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Prepared by: 

Marianne Bakia 

Karen Mitchell 

Edith Yang 

SRI International 

2007 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-01-C0-0133 

with SRI International. Bernadette Adams Yates served as the project manager. 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 

Kerri L. Briggs 

Acting Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

February 2007 

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with 

permission and copyright, 2005, Getty Images. Authorization to reproduce this report 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, State Strategies and Practices for Educational Technology: Volume I—Examining the 

Enhancing Education Through Technology Program, Washington, D.C., 2007. 

To order copies of this report, 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 service is 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.org. 

This report 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, or computer 

diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-

9895. 
iii 

Contents 

LIST OF EXHIBITS ...................................................................................................................................................v 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.........................................................................................................................................vii 

PREFACE TO VOLUME I .......................................................................................................................................ix 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................1

About This Report .....................................................................................................................................................2

Key Findings: State Educational Technology Policies and Practices........................................................................2

Key Findings: State Administration of the EETT Program.......................................................................................3

Formula Grants ......................................................................................................................................................3

Competitive Grants................................................................................................................................................4

Conclusions ...............................................................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER 1: STATE EETT POLICIES AND RELATED PROGRAMS............................................................7

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................9

About This Report ...................................................................................................................................................10

Overview of the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) Program......................................................11

Federal Financial Support for Educational Technology ......................................................................................12

EETT and Related Programs at the U.S. Department of Education ....................................................................12

EETT Program Funding Trends ..........................................................................................................................14

Instructional Uses of Technology in K–12 Schools.................................................................................................16

Access to Technology..........................................................................................................................................17

Supporting Teachers’ Technical and Instructional Needs ...................................................................................18

Online Learning...................................................................................................................................................19

Technology-Enhanced Assessment .....................................................................................................................19

Technology for Accountability, Evaluation and Planning...................................................................................20

State Standards for Technology Use........................................................................................................................23

Student Standards ................................................................................................................................................23

Teacher Standards................................................................................................................................................26

Technology-Related Teacher Professional Development........................................................................................31

State-Level Administration of the EETT Program ..................................................................................................35

Determining Local EETT Eligibility ...................................................................................................................36

Formula Grant Awards ........................................................................................................................................38

Competitive Grant Awards ..................................................................................................................................39

State Targeting Provisions...............................................................................................................................39

Competitive Grant Award Amounts ................................................................................................................42

Grade and Subject Priorities for Competitive Grant Awards...........................................................................44

State-Level Funds ....................................................................................................................................................45

State Evaluation Practices....................................................................................................................................46

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................52

CHAPTER 2: INDIVIDUAL STATE PROFILES OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES..........55

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................109
iv

Contents (cont.) 

APPENDIX A: REPORT METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................115

Data Sources..........................................................................................................................................................117

NETTS Survey of State Educational Technology Directors..............................................................................117

NETTS Survey of District Technology Coordinators........................................................................................117

State Case Studies..............................................................................................................................................118

Administrative Data...........................................................................................................................................119

Elements for Individual State Profiles ...................................................................................................................119

Long-Range Strategic Educational Technology Plan ........................................................................................119

Selected Federal Educational Technology Funding...........................................................................................120

State Educational Technology Policies and Programs.......................................................................................120

Educational Technology Contact and Web Site ................................................................................................120
v 

Exhibits 

Exhibit 1. Purposes of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program........................................................11

Exhibit 2. Federal Educational Technology Funding, FY 1998–2006 ........................................................................14

Exhibit 3. Range of EETT Awards to States, FY 2002–2006 .....................................................................................15

Exhibit 4. Examples of “Technology Integration” Defined.........................................................................................16

Exhibit 5. Number of States That Reported Prioritizing Student Access to Technology in Making Grants or 

That Provided Computers or Other Instructional Hardware in FY 2003.............................................................18

Exhibit 6. Number of States That Provided Internet- or Computer-Based Assessment and That Funded 

R&D on Assessment in FY 2003.........................................................................................................................20

Exhibit 7. Number of States That Prioritized Technology Use in Managing, Collecting, and Analyzing Data 

or That Provided Data for Instructional Improvement in FY 2003 .....................................................................21

Exhibit 8. State Uses of Technology for Data-Driven Decision Making and Online Learning...................................22

Exhibit 9. Standards and Technology Literacy Definitions in FY 2004 in Case Study States ....................................24

Exhibit 10. States with Technology Standards for Students in FY 2003.....................................................................25

Exhibit 11. Assessing Technology Standards for Students in FY 2003 ......................................................................26

Exhibit 12. State Indicators for Teacher Technology Standards..................................................................................27

Exhibit 13. Assessment of Teacher Technology Skills in FY 2003 ............................................................................29

Exhibit 14. Status of Technology Standards and Assessments for Teachers and Students in FY 2003 ......................30

Exhibit 15. Number of States That Gave Priority to Professional Development in Making Grants, Provided

Online Professional Development, and Funded R&D on Professional Development in FY 2003......................32

Exhibit 16. Number and Percentage of States With Technology Requirements for Teacher Certification and

Education in FY 2003..........................................................................................................................................33

Exhibit 17. State Requirements for Technology-Related Course Work in FY 2003 ...................................................34

Exhibit 18. State Determination of District Technology Needs in FY 2003. ..............................................................37

Exhibit 19. Determination of Economic, Academic, and Technology Needs for EETT Eligibility in Case 

Study States in FY 2004 ......................................................................................................................................37

Exhibit 20. Formula Grants to School Districts in FY 2003........................................................................................39

Exhibit 21. Number of States That Prioritized Partnership Applications and Parent and Family Involvement 

in Grant Making and That Funded Public-Private Partnerships in FY 2003 .......................................................40

Exhibit 22. Criteria for Determining Insufficient Formula Grant Award in FY 2003.................................................41

Exhibit 23. Competitive Grant and Application Review Process in Case Study States in FY 2004 ...........................42

Exhibit 24. Competitive Grants to School Districts across States in FY 2003. ...........................................................43

Exhibit 25. Instructional Content Priorities for EETT Competitive Grant Applications in FY 2003..........................44

Exhibit 26. State Approach to Multiple Priorities for EETT Competitive Awards in FY 2004 ..................................45

Exhibit 27. Common Uses for 5 Percent EETT State-Level Funds in FY 2003..........................................................46

Exhibit 28. Challenges in Evaluation and Accountability in Case Study States..........................................................48

Exhibit 29. State Requirements for Competitive Grant Evaluations in FY 2003 ........................................................49

Exhibit 30. Frequency of Student Measures Used to Evaluate Local EETT Projects in FY 2003 ..............................50

Exhibit 31. Case Study States’ Evaluation of Competitive Grants in FY 2004...........................................................51

Exhibit A-1. Selected Federal Educational Technology Funding..............................................................................121

vii 

Acknowledgments 

This two-volume report was developed under the guidance of staff from the U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Bernadette Adams Yates of 

the Policy and Program Studies Service was the project manager. 

The National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS) is the result of collaborative work 

by SRI International (SRI), the Urban Institute, and the American Institutes for Research (AIR). 

Barbara Means, SRI, serves as project supervisor. Among the staff who contributed to the 

design of the study, collection of data, and analysis were Carol Conroy, David Keefe, Graham 

Keyes, Benita Kim, Raymond McGhee, Natalie Nielsen, Andrew Wayne, Jennifer Scott, and 

Kaily Yee from SRI; Duncan Chaplin, David Chase, Sheila Isanaka, and Daniel Klasik of the 

Urban Institute; Rob Santos of NuStats under contract with the Urban Institute and Michael 

Puma of Chesapeake Research Associates under contract with the Urban Institute; and Hilary 

Cedarquist, Doug Levin, and Mindee O’Cummings from AIR. Layout and editing were 

performed by staff at SRI, including Bonnee Groover, Crystal Hoban, Kara Murray, and Klaus 

Krause. Graphics were produced by Lynne Peck Theis. 

The authors would like to thank the state and district staff who participated in the NETTS data 

collection efforts; staff from 50 state education authorities (and the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico) and 916 school districts completed surveys. In particular, state staff from our six 

case study states—Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia—

generously provided staff time and resources before, during, and after site visits. We learned a 

great deal from these individuals and hope the lessons gained from their efforts will be of use to 

policymakers and other staff at all levels of the education system. 

An external advisory panel provided assistance in reviewing study methods and materials and 

prioritizing issues to investigate. The advisory panel consisted of Tim Best of the Ohio Board of 

Regents, Geneva Haertel of SRI International, Alan Lesgold of the University of Pittsburgh, 

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, and Brenda Williams of the West Virginia Department of Education. 

We thank them for their expertise and insights so generously shared. 

ix 

Preface to Volume I 

This is the first volume of State Strategies and Practices for Educational Technology by the 

National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS). NETTS is a federally sponsored 

evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program, a program 

authorized by Title II, Part D, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), 

which was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). 

Volume I, Examining the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program, describes statelevel educational technology policies, focusing on the implementation of state-level Enhancing 

Education Through Technology (EETT) programs in the first years of operation. The report 

draws on survey data from both state educational technology directors and district-based 

educational technology coordinators that were collected by NETTS. 

1

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

The recent proliferation of information and communication technologies, including desktop 

and laptop computers, handheld devices, cell phones, portable video players, and the Internet, 

has transformed the world in which we live. In just a decade or two, the ways in which people 

shop, bank, work, and communicate have changed sufficiently to suggest to many that children 

growing up today will require a new and more demanding intellectual skill set to thrive in 

adulthood than their parents did. As a result, many experts recommend that students’ educational 

experiences be reformed to better prepare students for their future. These efforts have renewed 

emphasis on developing mathematics, science, engineering and technology proficiency among 

our nation’s youths. 

As information and communication technologies place increased demands on workers and 

families, they also have the power to enhance and extend formal and informal educational 

opportunities. Educational technologies, when used properly and in coordination with a variety 

of school reforms, have been shown to enrich learning environments and enhance students’ 

conceptual understanding. Indeed, educational systems across the country have embraced the 

potential of technologies to improve schooling. In the past 10 years, all levels of government 

have invested significant resources to support the integration of school-based technologies in 

teaching and learning practices. The ratio of students per instructional computer has consistently 

dropped over the years, as computers and related software have become increasing available to 

teachers and students. And after several years of federal, state, and local investment in 

information technology, a majority of teachers in public schools consider particular technologies 

essential to their teaching. 

The federal government has played an important role in modernizing schools and their 

technical capacity, administering several programs to improve telecommunications and Internet 

access, purchase hardware and educational software, provide technology-related professional 

development and other technology supports, and fund the research and development of 

innovative uses of technology for educational purposes. The Enhancing Education Through 

Technology program (EETT) is among the largest of such programs at the U.S. Department of 

Education. The EETT program, authorized by Title II, Part D, of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 

provides formula grants to states for promoting the use of educational technology to improve 

student achievement. States, in turn, provide formula and competitive grant awards to districts 

within their state. Through the activities that EETT supports, the program explicitly recognizes 

that the presence of computers and network connections in schools, though necessary, is 

insufficient to meet the program’s primary goal: improved student achievement. EETT is 

designed to improve the capacity of high-poverty schools to improve student academic 

achievement through the use of educational technologies, and it is the focus of this report. 
2

About This Report 

This report discusses the role of the EETT program, the state priorities and programs that 

EETT supports, and the relationship between state educational technology program activities and 

the overarching goals and purposes of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Chapter 1 of this 

report describes state educational technology policies and related programs, including the role of 

the EETT program in state efforts. Chapter 2 presents individual state profiles that present data 

summarized in Chapter 1.1 

This report is part of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Educational Technology 

Trends Study (NETTS), a multiyear evaluation that documents the implementation of the EETT 

program. The report draws primarily on data from NETTS surveys of state educational 

technology directors and district technology coordinators that were gathered in 2004 and 20052

and case study data gathered by NETTS in six states in 2004.3 The survey results reported below 

focus on administrators’ perceptions of needs and strategies as opposed to providing direct 

evidence of needs or strategies, unless otherwise noted. The state survey asked state educational 

technology directors about state priorities for educational technology and administration of the 

EETT grant program. The district survey asked district technology coordinators about current 

and past activities supported by the EETT program and other general educational technology 

activities in their districts. State case study data are used to illustrate themes raised by state 

survey data. 

These data describe the EETT program in its first and second years of operation. It should be 

recognized that some states were still completing their educational technology plans and getting 

their EETT implementation procedures in place during this time. In addition, these data and other 

NETTS data sources do not address the relationships between educational technology use and 

student academic achievement. Evaluation of the impact of educational technology on academic 

achievement is beyond the scope of this study. 

Key Findings: State Educational Technology Policies and Practices 

• Forty-two states reported having technology standards for students in place by fall of 

2004. 

Of the 42 states that had student technology standards, 18 reported having “stand-alone” 

standards, and 16 reported embedding technology standards with other academic content 

standards. The remaining eight states reported having both stand-alone technology standards 

and integrated standards. The second goal of the legislation authorizing EETT is to assist 

students in becoming technologically literate by the end of eighth grade. Eighteen states 

reported that student technology literacy was a specific priority for their EETT grants in 

 

1

 While the EETT program requires LEAs to provide equitable services to private school students and teachers, this 

report does not address the participation of private school students and teachers. 

2

 The NETTS project collected survey data from state technology coordinators in the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia (D.C.) and Puerto Rico in 2004 and from 916 district technology coordinators sampled to represent the 50 

states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and nondistrict entities receiving EETT funding as lead entities in 2005. Data were 

gathered on states’ and districts’ EETT programs and on their technology practices more generally. 

3

 Case study data were collected from Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. 
3

fiscal year (FY) 2003. Thirteen states reported requiring a student technology literacy 

component in their competitive grant applications. 

• Two states reported that they used statewide assessments of students’ proficiency with 

technology. 

Assessments required and collected at the state level allow a common framework for 

evaluation of state standards across a state and increase the probability that results can be 

compared across districts. Although only two states reported using statewide assessments, 

there is reason to think that several more states will soon assess student technology 

proficiency. Eleven states reported plans to assess student technology skills. 

More students may have their technology proficiency evaluated than state statistics suggest. 

An additional 13 states reported that districts assessed student progress toward technology 

proficiency.4 More than a third of states (35 percent) described themselves as “not yet 

decided” with respect to whether they would assess students’ technology literacy in years to 

come. 

• Many states have put in place minimum standards for teachers’ use of technology, and 

five states reporting using statewide assessments of teachers’ technology proficiency in 

FY 2004. 

More than half of the states (27) reported on the NETTS survey that they had technology 

standards for teachers in order to specify the knowledge and skills that teachers need to use 

technology for administrative or instructional purposes. Five states formally assessed 

teachers’ technology skills at the state level. Five other states that do not assess the 

technology skills of teachers reported that they were planning to do so. 

• Just over half of states reported the provision of activities related to online education, 

with 26 states reporting that they provided online courses, tutorials, software, and other 

academic content and resources in core subject areas. 

State educational technology directors were also asked about state policies related to 

technology-enhanced assessment, which has the potential to improve traditional paper-andpencil assessments. Sixteen states reported offering Internet- or computer-based assessments 

of students’ academic achievement. Five states made electronic networks and other distance 

learning a priority for EETT competitive grants in FY 2003. 

Key Findings: State Administration of the EETT Program 

Formula Grants 

• In school year 2003–04, states awarded more than 13,000 formula grants to local 

authorities. 

Formula grants to districts differ greatly in size, but this variation is attributable to large 

differences in the numbers of high-need students served. States award EETT formula grants 

to districts on the basis of the district’s proportionate share of funding under Title I, Part A, 

 

4

 No data regarding whether districts do in fact assess student technology proficiency are available. Future NETTS 

reports will address this issue. 
4

for the same fiscal year. In FY 2003, formula grants to districts ranged from $1 to 

$20,980,099, with an average amount of $21,275. 

• Formula grants of $5,000 or less account for just 4 percent of total formula funds but 39 

percent of the number of formula grants. 

Despite concern about the number of formula grants that would be too small to support 

meaningful activity, analyses revealed that only 4 percent of EETT formula grant funds were 

distributed to local education agencies in amounts less than $5,000. Although this represents 

a small percent of total funds, grants in amounts less than $5,000 account for 39 percent of 

all formula grants. Administration of small formula grants, therefore, is likely to take more 

time and effort than the amount of funds distributed might otherwise suggest. 

Competitive Grants 

• In school year 2003–04, states made more than 1,600 competitive grant awards, with 

award sizes averaging about $154,000. On average, states awarded 33 competitive 

grants, but the range for the number of competitive awards in a state was from five to 

102 grants. 

The range in competitive award sizes was considerable, ranging from $1,000 to more than $6 

million. Competitive grants to districts or partnerships in FY 2003 ranged from $1,000 to 

$6,655,600, with an average amount of $154,261. States could only award competitive grants 

to districts and partnerships that were also eligible for formula grants. The numbers and ranges 

of competitive grants varied widely across states, suggesting different philosophies about 

whether to spread competitive grant funds widely or concentrating them in fewer, larger 

awards. State average competitive grant amounts ranged from $2,603 to $854,919. Eleven 

states awarded competitive grants to all the districts that applied. In contrast, 17 states awarded 

grants to fewer than half of the districts that applied. Among the factors likely to affect the 

number and range of competitive awards in states are the total number of EETT-eligible 

districts in a state, the total amount of EETT funds available, and pressure to distribute funds 

to a majority of districts in “local control” states. In addition, some state leaders appear 

convinced that sizable awards are necessary to effect change in districts. 

• Many eligible districts did not apply for competitive funds in FY 2003. 

The proportion of non-applying eligible districts varied by state. In 20 states, 20 percent or 

fewer of eligible districts applied. Data suggest that technology directors in some districts did 

not know that they were eligible or did not expect to get funds if they applied. In addition, 

some district technology coordinators reported that they did not have the resources to apply. 
5

• In their EETT competitive grant programs, almost half of the states gave priority to 

grant applications from partnerships. 

Given the overwhelming costs and challenges of establishing an adequate technological 

infrastructure in education, all levels of government, public-private partnerships, and local 

communities can provide critical input, leadership, and financial support for educational 

technology. The majority of states emphasized the promotion of roles for multiple 

stakeholders in making their EETT grants. A quarter gave priority to applications that 

emphasized parent and family involvement. 

• Officials in 38 states said they gave priority to teacher professional development in their 

competitive grant programs.

Recognizing the importance of professional development if technology is to be used 

effectively in schools, ESEA requires local recipients of EETT funds to allocate at least 25 

percent of those funds for professional development in the integration of technology into 

instruction.5

 Given the level of state grants awarded under EETT, an estimated $600 million 

supported teacher professional development on technology integration over the five-year 

lifespan of the program. States appear to have embraced the professional development aspect 

of the EETT program. Officials in 28 states used part of their federal EETT set-aside funds to 

support research and development activities on professional development for technology 

integration. 

Conclusions 

The EETT program is the U.S. Department of Education’s only program dedicated to the 

integration of educational technology in high-poverty elementary and secondary schools across 

the country, and it continues a tradition of federal support for educational technology The design 

of EETT set forth in Title II, Part D, of ESEA, attempts to balance the strengths and weaknesses 

associated with both formula and competitive grant mechanisms. NETTS case study data 

highlight the value of incorporating both the formula and competitive elements. Formula grants 

allocate funds directly to those districts serving the highest-need populations; competitive grants, 

on the other hand, give states leverage in promoting their particular priorities among high-need 

districts. Formula grants ensure that districts receive some portion of funding in proportion to 

objective, need-based standards, but states have no influence on where the formula funds go or 

how they are spent. On the other hand, states have a stronger role with respect to the half of the 

EETT program that consists of competitive grants. For the first time in FY 2006, state EETT 

officials will have an opportunity to award all funds through competitive provisions due to the 

decrease of funding available to the program at the federal level. Of interest in future reports will

be the degree to which states embrace this opportunity and the ways it appears to influence 

program operation. 

States are required to evaluate their EETT programs and may use a portion of the state-level 

funds available to them through EETT. However, survey and case study data suggest that states 

 

5

 Districts where technology-related professional development is already being provided or deemed unnecessary 

may request a waiver from their state education agencies. 
6

may not have adequate funding to design and implement rigorous evaluations. Results from case 

studies suggest that some states have attempted to leverage state funds by requiring data 

collection with common instruments across the state or encouraging districts to contribute funds 

to a common pool for what amounts to the funding of statewide evaluations by local grantees, 

but these efforts may not be sufficient to link EETT investments with student academic 

achievement, the program’s primary goal. Indeed, evaluations that can adequately isolate the 

effects of educational technology on student academic achievement require complex designs. 

The measures and methods that would be necessary to estimate the independent effects of 

technology, instruction, students’ prior achievement, and other likely contributors to student 

performance are likely beyond the human and financial capacities available to many states. 

In an effort to establish links between the EETT program and student academic achievement 

and to build state capacity to conduct rigorous evaluations of educational technologies, nine 

states received additional funding from the Department to conduct rigorous, high-quality state 

evaluations of educational technology under the Evaluating State Educational Technology 

Programs (ESETP). Awards to states amounted to more than $1 million per state over a threeyear period, which is considerably higher than the median amount of allowable state-level 

funding available through the EETT program, again suggesting that high-quality evaluations cost 

much more than most states can afford through the EETT program. 

Data reported in this document were collected in FY 2002 and FY 2003, the first two years of 

EETT program operation. In the first years of the program, states reported emphasizing 

professional development, technology integration, and student achievement, in keeping with the 

intentions of ESEA. As NETTS data collections move to the district and school levels, NETTS 

will examine the quality of the activities funded through EETT and their alignment with the goal 

of raising student achievement. In addition, NETTS will conduct a second state survey in winter 

2006-07 to collect information about program policies and practices as the EETT program 

continues to evolve. The survey will concentrate in greater depth on how the EETT program 

works in coordination with other federal and state educational technology programs as well as 

state programmatic activities, such as professional development, technology integration, and 

evaluation. The survey will update information on administrative practices of the EETT program, 

including the size and number of grant awards, and it will support examination of trends in the 

implementation of the EETT program from its inception in FY 2002 through FY 2006. 

Additional district and teacher surveys are also planned for the spring of 2007. 
CHAPTER 1: STATE EETT POLICIES AND RELATED 

PROGRAMS 

9 

Introduction 

The proliferation of information and communication technologies in the recent past, 

including desktop and laptop computers, handheld devices, cell phones, portable video players, 

and the Internet, has transformed the world in which we live (Friedman, 2005). In just a decade 

or two, the ways in which people shop, bank, work, and communicate have changed sufficiently 

to suggest to many that children growing up today will require a new and more demanding 

intellectual skill set than their parents did in order to thrive in adulthood. As a result, many 

experts recommend that students’ educational experiences be reformed to better prepare them for 

their future (Kozma, 2005; Bransford, Brown, and Cooking, 1999; Murnane and Levy, 1996; 

Bailey and Berryman, 1992; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, n.d.): “Students need to leave 

school with a deeper understanding of school subjects, particularly science, mathematics, and 

technology, and with the skills needed to respond to an unbounded but uncertain 21st century—

skills to use their knowledge to think critically, to collaborate, to communicate, to solve 

problems, to create, and to continue to learn” (Kozma, 2005 p. 1). Federal policy has also 

renewed attention on the importance of mathematics, science, engineering and technology, both 

in the work place and in educational settings, as evidenced by the American Competitiveness 

Initiative and the analysis provided by the National Academy of Sciences report, Rising Above 

the Gathering Storm (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2006). 

As information and communication technologies place increased demands on workers and 

families, they also have the power to enhance and extend formal and informal educational 

opportunities. Educational technologies, when used properly and in coordination with a variety 

of school reforms, have been shown to enrich learning environments and enhance students’ 

conceptual understanding (Kulik 2003; Yeager, 2005; Gollub, Bertental, Labor, and Curtis, 

2002; Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordin, and Means, 2000), and educational systems across the 

country have embraced the potential of technologies to improve schooling. The ratio of students 

per instructional computer has consistently dropped over the years, as computers and related 

software have become increasing available to teachers and students (Education Week, 2006). 

After several years of federal, state, and local investment in information technology, a majority 

of teachers in public schools consider particular technologies essential to their teaching. As early 

as school year 2000–01, more than 50 percent of surveyed teachers reported that the following 

technologies were “essential to their work”: teacher computer work stations with access to 

electronic mail, Internet access in their classrooms, telephones in their classrooms, and 

encyclopedias and other reference works on CD-ROM (National Center for Education Statistics 

[NCES], 2005). 

The federal government has played an important role in modernizing schools and their 

technical capacity. Over the last decade, the U.S. Department of Education has funded several 

programs to improve telecommunications and Internet access in the nation’s schools, purchase 

hardware and educational software, provide technology-related professional development and 

other technology supports, and fund the research and development of innovative uses of 

technology for educational purposes. The U.S. Department of Education’s Enhancing Education 

Through Technology program (EETT) is designed to improve the capacity of high-poverty 

schools to improve student academic achievement through the use of educational technologies, 

and it is the focus of this report. 
10

About This Report 

This report is part of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Educational Technology 

Trends Study (NETTS). It describes state strategies and practices with regard to educational 

technology, focusing specifically on the role of the EETT program and discusses the 

relationships of state and local technology program activities to the overarching goals of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), which is more commonly known as 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The report is organized in two parts. Chapter 1 

describes the EETT program as it existed in its first few years of operation, although funding 

data are presented for subsequent years as well. Following an overview of the EETT program in 

the context of other federal educational technology programs, Chapter 1 reports findings related 

to state policies that support access to technology, technical support, and instructional uses of 

technology in public K–12 schools.6 Chapter 1 also examines the prevalence of state standards 

for student and teacher use of technology and the role that EETT plays in supporting technologyrelated teacher professional development and student technology literacy. Chapter 2 provides 

individual state profiles of selected data summarized in Chapter 1. 

The report draws on data from several sources, including survey data gathered for NETTS 

from state educational technology directors in 2004 and district technology coordinators in 2005. 

The NETTS project collected survey data from state technology coordinators in the 50 states, the 

District of Columbia (D.C.), and Puerto Rico in 2004 and from 916 district technology 

coordinators sampled to represent the 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and nondistrict entities 

receiving EETT funding as lead entities in 2005. Data were gathered on states’ and districts’ 

EETT programs and on their technology practices more generally. Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, 

Texas, Washington, and West Virginia served as case studies for state-level practices. Case study 

analyses included extant documents and interviews with state staff. 

Although this report highlights data related to the first few years of the EETT program, 

NETTS is a multiyear evaluation that will document the implementation of the EETT program 

from fiscal year (FY) 2002 to FY 2006. Future NETTS reports will describe local educational 

technology priorities and programs and the specific technologies that support America’s schools. 

They will describe the technology-related professional development that teachers receive, the 

uses that teachers and students make of technology, and the things that support and stand in the 

way of the integration of technology in teaching and learning. NETTS reports do not address the 

relationships between educational technology use and student academic achievement. 

Measurement of the impact of educational technology on academic achievement is beyond the 

scope of the evaluation.

 

6

 While the EETT program requires districts to provide equitable services to private school students and teachers, 

the report does not address the participation of private school students and teachers. 
11

Overview of the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) 

Program 

The Enhancing Education Through Technology program (Title II, Part D, of ESEA) is the 

Department’s only program dedicated to the integration of educational technology in K-12 

schools. EETT explicitly supports the broad goals of ESEA through the use of technology in 

schools. The primary goal of the program is to improve student academic achievement in 

elementary and secondary schools through the use of educational technology. 

Section 2402 of the Title II legislation also details two additional goals for EETT: 

• To assist every student in crossing the digital divide by ensuring that every student is 

technologically literate by the time the student finishes the eighth grade, regardless of the 

student’s race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location, or disability. 

• To encourage the effective integration of technology resources and systems with teacher 

training and curriculum development to establish research-based instructional methods 

that can be widely implemented as best practices by state education agencies and local 

education agencies. 

The program supports the three EETT goals with a set of eight activities, called “purposes” in 

ESEA (Exhibit 1). 

Exhibit 1. Purposes of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program 

• To provide assistance to states and localities for the implementation and support of a 

comprehensive system that effectively uses technology in elementary schools and secondary 

schools to improve student academic achievement. 

• To encourage the establishment or expansion of initiatives, including initiatives involving publicprivate partnerships, designed to increase access to technology, particularly in schools served by 

high-need local education agencies. 

• To assist states and localities in the acquisition, development, interconnection, implementation, 

improvement, and maintenance of an effective educational technology infrastructure in a manner 

that expands access to technology for students (particularly for disadvantaged students) and 

teachers. 

• To promote initiatives that provide school teachers, principals, and administrators with the 

capacity to integrate technology effectively into curricula and instruction that are aligned with 

challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards, through such 

means as high-quality professional development programs. 

• To enhance the ongoing professional development of teachers, principals, and administrators by 

providing constant access to training and updated research in teaching and learning through 

electronic means. 

• To support the development and utilization of electronic networks and other innovative methods, 

such as distance learning, of delivering specialized or rigorous academic courses and curricula 

for students in areas that would not otherwise have access to such courses and curricula, 

particularly in geographically isolated regions. 

• To support the rigorous evaluation of programs funded under this part, particularly regarding the 

impact of such programs on student academic achievement, and ensure that timely information 

on the results of such evaluations is widely accessible through electronic means. 

• To support local efforts using technology to promote parent and family involvement in education 

and communication among students, parents, teachers, principals, and administrators. 
12

Federal Financial Support for Educational Technology 

It is difficult to determine what percentage of the nation’s total investment in K–12 

educational technology (including contributions from all levels of government, foundations, and 

the private sector) comes from the federal government. One of the most recent estimates suggests 

that total K–12 public school spending on educational technology by local, state, and federal 

governments in school year 2003–04 was $7.87 billion (Quality Education Data [QED], 2004). 

On the basis of this estimate, the direct federal contribution may have been as high as 43 percent, 

with the EETT program contributing $692 million (9 percent) and a second program, the Schools 

and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund, which funds telecommunications and 

Internet access for schools and libraries, contributing $2.7 billion (34 percent) during school year 

2003–04.7 Although these estimates are sizable, they may not capture the full federal investment 

in educational technology. Funds from programs designed for other purposes, such as Part A of 

Title I or Reading First, also may be used to fund educational technologies and are likely to 

represent a significant source of such expenditures for many schools, especially those serving 

large numbers of low-income students (Schneiderman, 2005). More recent data show declines in 

federal funding for educational technology. In the aggregate, federal funding for K–12 

educational technology rose from FY 1998 through FY 2003. Consistent with other federal 

discretionary spending, EETT appropriations dropped for the first time in FY 2004, with further 

declines in FY 2005 and FY 2006. 

EETT and Related Programs at the U.S. Department of Education 

EETT is distinctive among the educational technology programs at the U.S. Department of 

Education because it is the largest program dedicated to the provision of comprehensive support 

for the use of technology to improve student academic achievement in high-poverty districts. In 

FY 2006, three smaller programs at the Department of Education—Star Schools, Ready to Learn 

Television, and Ready to Teach—also provided funding to states explicitly for educational 

technology. These three programs are described briefly below. 

• The Star Schools program (http://www.ed.gov/programs/starschools/index.html) supports 

improved mathematics, science, and foreign language instruction to underserved 

populations through telecommunications partnerships. The program enables these 

partnerships to integrate audio and visual media in instruction and provides support for 

purchasing equipment, planning instruction, and obtaining technical assistance. 

• Ready-to-Learn Television (http://www.ed.gov/programs/rtltv/index.html) focuses on the 

academic achievement of preschool and elementary school students through developing 

educational video programming and supplemental materials, designing publicly available 

digital programs for parents, and facilitating the distribution of these programs. 

• Ready to Teach (http://www.ed.gov/programs/readyteach/index.html) distributes 

multiyear grants to nonprofit organizations to support national implementation of a 

 

7

 Because no comprehensive estimates of state and local educational technology funding are available for FY 2005, 

it is not possible to determine what percentage of educational technology funds came from the federal government 

more recently than FY 2004. 
13

telecommunications-based demonstration project designed to enhance instruction in core 

curriculum areas. 

These programs are smaller in scope and scale than the EETT program, focusing on specific 

technologies or particular types of support.

The EETT program is the successor to an earlier federal educational technology program, the 

Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF). Launched in FY 1997, TLCF was the first federal 

program to provide direct financial assistance to states and districts nationwide for the 

integration of technology into school curricula in order to both improve classroom instruction 

and enable students to become technologically literate. Like TLCF, EETT distributes funds to 

each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico in proportion to the share of funds each received 

that year under Part A of Title I of the ESEA, except that no state may receive less than .5 of 1 

percent of the amount available for all states. There are, however, significant structural 

differences between EETT and TLCF. Under TLCF, states awarded all program funds to school 

districts through a competitive process. In contrast, EETT requires states to split funds evenly 

between competitive grants and formula grants to districts, based on Title I, Part A, allocations, 

after reserving up to 5 percent of the EETT award for state-level activities. Congress included in 

the Department’s FY 2006 appropriations legislation language overriding the statutory provision 

that states use 50 percent of the amount available for subgrants for competitive awards and 50 

percent for formula subgrants. States are permitted to use up to 100 percent of their FY 2006 

EETT allocations for competitive subgrants to eligible local entities. A state education agency 

may not award more than 50 percent of its FY 2006 subgrant funds by formula. 

Although the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund (commonly 

called the E-rate program) is not administered through the U.S. Department of Education, it 

merits mention here as the largest single federal program related to educational technology. The 

E-rate program is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) 

under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and provides discounts to 

assist most schools and libraries in the United States to obtain affordable telecommunications 

and Internet access. E-rate funds go to service providers, not to the schools themselves. In 

addition, the program covers only three categories of service—telecommunication services, 

Internet access, and internal network connections—leaving schools and districts to fund many 

other components of a robust technical infrastructure. Classroom computers and instructional 

software, for example, cannot be funded through E-rate. Recipient schools and libraries are 

responsible for providing additional resources, such as the end-user equipment (computers, 

telephones, and the like), software, professional development, and other elements that are 

necessary to realize the objectives of connectivity. Therefore, the EETT and E-rate programs 

fund complementary components, with EETT supporting many services that E-rate does not. 

Individual state profiles in the second part of this report shows federal appropriations of 

TLCF together with EETT, E-rate, and other funds for educational technology from FY 1997 

until FY 2005.8 In FY 2006, the federal government provided approximately $2.6 billion for 

 

8

 For more information about other federal funding for educational technology included in the individual state 

profiles, which present funding information for many programs that have been discontinued or are currently 

continuation grants only, please refer to Exhibit A-1 in Appendix A. 
14

direct federal assistance to states, local school districts, and other entities to aid in the acquisition 

and use of educational technologies (Exhibit 2).9

Exhibit 2. Federal Educational Technology Funding, FY 1998–2006 

Exhibit reads: Federal educational technology funding increased from 

approximately $2.2 billion in FY 1998 to about $3.6 billion in FY 2003. Funding 

has decreased annually since FY 2004. Sources: U.S. Department of Education 

and Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). 

EETT Program Funding Trends 

EETT program funding trends roughly track federal educational technology funding trends 

overall. In the five years that the EETT program has been funded, it has awarded an estimated 

$2.7 billion to states and localities to support the integration of educational technology in 

elementary and secondary instruction. When the EETT program was launched in FY 2002, the 

first year’s funding was just over $700 million. Program funding has declined in each subsequent 

year, with the most significant decline to date occurring in FY 2006. After a cut of less than 1 

percent in FY 2003 and another cut of less than 1 percent in FY 2004, which reflected acrossthe-board budget cuts on all of the Department’s programs, appropriation levels fell by 28 

percent in FY 2005 to $496 million (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). In FY 2006, 

 

9

 This sum is based on E-rate awards for its funding year 2005, July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, which 

corresponds roughly to federal FY 2006. The Universal Service Administrative Company distributes about $2.25 

billion each year to schools and libraries across the nation under E-rate. No recent estimates are available for the 

proportion of funds that specifically goes to schools, as opposed to libraries. One study of E-rate funding found that 

84 percent of funds went to public schools in the first two years of the program (Puma, Chaplin, and Pape, 2000). 

Total E-rate funding for FY 2006 is estimated at $2.25 billion, although only a portion of this is likely to go directly 

to schools. Final commitments will be available at http://www.sl.universalservice.org/funding/previous.asp in July 

2006 after funding year 2005 has ended. 

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3

1.6

2.1 2.1 2.2

2.3

2.7

2.4

2.3

2.3

0.2

0.3 0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

(est.)

Federal Fiscal Year Other

E-rate

TLCF/EETT

0.04

0.03

0.01

Billions of Dollars
15

appropriations for EETT were nearly halved from the previous year’s funding level to $272 

million (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). 

Estimates of federal funds available for FY 2005 and FY 2006 show decreases in EETT 

support to states, with the average award declining by $3.6 million in FY 2005 to $9.3 million 

(Exhibit 3). Average awards declined again in FY 2006 to $5.1 million, for a total average 

decrease of $7.8 million, 6 percent of FY 2004 funding levels. In any given year of the program, 

no state receives less than .5 of 1 percent of the total program funds available for state grants. In 

FY 2005, 16 states received the minimum EETT award.10 The minimum state award amount in 

FY 2006 is expected to decrease by more than $1 million, from $2.4 million in FY 2005 to $1.3 

million in FY 2006. The largest awards to states declined from a high of $93 million in FY 2004 

to an estimated low of $35 million in FY 2006. 

Exhibit 3. Range of EETT Awards to States, FY 2002–2006 

$35.2

$85.1

$90.0 $93.3

$65.6

$5.1

$13.1 $12.9 $12.9

$9.3

$3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $2.4

$0 $1.3

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (est.)

Fiscal Year

Award Size—Millions

Largest award

Average award

Minimum award

Exhibit reads: Although EETT funding has declined since the program’s inception 

in FY 2002, program awards to the states were relatively stable until FY 2005, 

when a noticeable decline in funding occurred. This sharp decline continued in 

FY 2006. Source: U.S. Department of Education. 

Note: FY 2006 numbers are estimated because EETT is a “forward funded” 

program. Funds become available on July 1 of the fiscal year for which they are 

appropriated and remain available for federal obligation for a period of 18 months 

and remain available for state and local obligation for a period of 27 months. In 

this case, funds were not made available to states until July 1, 2006. 

 

10 The 16 states that received the minimum EETT award in FY 2005 are Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, 

Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. 
16

The remainder of this part of the report focuses on state-level EETT programs and priorities. 

It is divided into four sections: instructional uses of technology, state standards for technology 

use, technology-related teacher professional development, and state administration of the EETT 

program. 

Instructional Uses of Technology in K–12 Schools 

“Technology integration” is a common term in the educational technology community that 

represents the multiple ways that technology can be used to support educational goals and 

activities. Integration of technology into classroom instruction may include either teacher or 

student use of computers. Technology integration often also refers to administrative uses of 

technology to develop curriculum, communicate with educational stakeholders, and analyze data 

related to student academic achievement. One of the goals of the EETT program is “to 

encourage the effective integration of technology resources and systems,” and the enabling 

legislation allows states to develop their own definitions of effective integration. Although 

particular definitions may differ somewhat, definitions typically mention accessibility of 

technology and frequency of classroom use; definitions sometimes mention specific practices 

(Exhibit 4). 

Exhibit 4. Examples of “Technology Integration” Defined 

• Curriculum integration with the use of technology involves the infusion of technology as a tool to 

enhance the learning in a content area or multidisciplinary setting. Technology enables students to 

learn in ways not previously possible. Effective integration of technology is achieved when students 

are able to select technology tools to help them obtain information in a timely manner, analyze and 

synthesize the information, and present it professionally. The technology should become an integral 

part of how the classroom functions—as accessible as all other classroom tools (ISTE, 2002). 

• Technology integration is the use of technology resources—computers, digital cameras, CD-ROMs, 

software applications, the Internet, etc.—in daily classroom practices, and in the management of a 

school. Technology integration is achieved when the use of technology is routine and transparent. 

Technology integration is achieved when a child or a teacher doesn’t stop to think that he or she is 

using a computer or researching via the Internet (George Lucas Foundation, 2004). 

• Technology integration is the incorporation of technology resources and technology-based practices 

into daily routines, work and management of schools. Technology resources are computers and 

specialized software, network-based communication systems, and other equipment and 

infrastructure. Practices include collaborative work and communication, Internet-based research, 

remote access to instrumentation, network-based transmission and retrieval of data, and other 

methods.... [I]t is important that the integration be routine, seamless, and both efficient and effective 

in supporting school goals and purposes (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2002). 

• Integrating technology is not about technology—it is primarily about content and effective instructional 

practices. Technology involves the tools with which we deliver content and implement practices in 

better ways. Its focus must be on curriculum and learning. Integration is defined not by the amount or

type of technology used, but by how and why it is used (Earle, 2002).

Examining how practitioners interpret “technology integration” offers insight into how 

technology is likely to be used in schools. One survey of a sample of principals concluded that 

there was no common understanding of the term. The range of specific practices that principals 

cited as evidence of technology integration in their schools included: 
17

• using an integrated learning system in a subject; 

• allowing, encouraging, or requiring students to use word processing and presentation 

software in reports and displays; 

• requiring papers to be done on a word processor; 

• using presentation software and projection technology for teacher presentations; and 

• using computers for online testing and analysis of test results (Northwest Educational 

Technology Consortium, 2005, p. 1). 

It should be noted that the practices cited by principals do not suggest any profound 

modifications to curriculum or instruction. The responses of principals cited above suggest that 

school leaders need guidance in developing the capacity to distinguish between uses of 

technology for its own sake and uses of technology that add value in terms of student learning. 

States reveal the emphasis they place on technology integration in their EETT programs both 

by explicitly encouraging applications in this area in requests for proposals and in their 

evaluations of local EETT activities. Technology integration was cited as a priority in making 

competitive grants in FY 2003 by 31 states. However, the variety of interpretations of 

“technology integration” referenced above complicate the generalization of findings across 

states, since definitions of the term have implications for how status should be measured. 

Twenty-three states report using adequate yearly progress (AYP) to evaluate their competitive 

grants, explicitly focusing the integration of technology on student academic achievement. In 

addition, state-required evaluation measures for competitive grants included teacher use of 

technology in the classroom in 40 states and student use of technology in 22 states. Teacher use 

of technology in the classroom was the most frequently cited measure used to evaluate either 

formula or competitive EETT grant programs in FY 2003. Twenty-two states used a measure of 

teacher use of technology in the classroom for formula grants. A related concept of teacher 

knowledge, skills, and comfort with using technology was also frequently cited. Thirty-nine 

states used a measure related to teacher knowledge, skills, and comfort level with technology to 

evaluate competitive grants, and an additional 20 states used it to evaluate formula grants. It 

seems fair to say that states put considerable emphasis on this goal of the legislation. It is less 

clear, however, what kinds of programs and activities this emphasis results in at the district, 

school, and classroom levels, largely because the concept of technology integration itself is so 

open to multiple interpretations. 

Access to Technology 

In order for teachers and students to use school technologies, they must have access to a 

functioning technical infrastructure. The percentage of schools connected to the Internet is now 

approaching 100 percent, up from 35 percent in 1994 (NCES, 2002). However, available 

hardware does not always meet teachers’ needs. District technology coordinators reported on the 

NETTS survey that more than 30 percent of students were in schools where insufficient 

hardware presents a substantial barrier to teachers’ technology use, and almost 40 percent were 
18

in schools where dated hardware is a major barrier.11 In making EETT competitive grants in 

FY 2003, 36 states either prioritized student access to technology or provided computers, 

personal digital assistants (PDAs) or other instructional hardware. Data from state educational 

technology directors reveal that almost half of the states gave priority to student access to 

technology in making competitive grants to local education agencies in FY 2003 (Exhibit 5). 

Some states made specific requirements for the amounts of money grantees should reserve for 

hardware and software purchases to ensure that districts could implement specific projects. 

Exhibit 5. Number of States That Reported Prioritizing Student Access to Technology in Making 

Grants or That Provided Computers or Other Instructional Hardware in FY 2003 

23 24

0

10

20

30

40

50

Prioritized access in

grant making*

Provided

computers/other

hardware

Number of States

* Data are missing for one state. 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-three states prioritized student access to technology, and 24 

provided computers, PDAs, or other instructional hardware. Eleven of these states 

did both. Source: NETTS state survey. 

Supporting Teachers’ Technical and Instructional Needs 

Schools and districts across the country have developed several different models for 

providing technology-related support to teachers. The technology is sometimes maintained by a 

teacher, often with release time, or a full-time, school-based “technology coordinator” may be 

employed. Sometimes schools share a person through their district. The responsibilities of these 

individuals also vary and may include keeping servers and back-end software up and running, 

troubleshooting computers in classrooms, researching technology-based resources for the 

curriculum, and teaching students and teachers technology-related skills. However, district 

technology directors reported the need for additional technology support. They reported that in 

school year 2003–04, more than 35 percent of students were in schools where the lack of districtlevel support specialists presented a major barrier to the integration of technology into 

 

11 District technology coordinators were asked if “insufficient hardware” presented a barrier to use, but the term was 

not defined. 
19

curriculum, and 50 percent of students were in schools where the absence of school-level 

specialists slowed integration. Further, district staff reported that almost 30 percent of students 

were in schools where the lack of trained technical staff for product and service acquisition, 

installation, and equipment maintenance presented barriers to the use of educational 

technologies. Technology directors in 43 percent of districts reported plans to hire school-level 

technology coordinators during school year 2004–05, and 64 percent had plans to hire districtlevel technology coordinators to increase technology integration in their schools. 

Online Learning 

Distance education that uses the Internet (often called “online learning” or “e-learning”) is 

the modern embodiment of correspondence courses of the 1800s, the first instances of distance 

education. Although online learning practices are relatively new, a growing research base is 

emerging about their effectiveness. Evidence to date convincingly demonstrates that, when used 

appropriately, electronically delivered education—‘e-learning’—can improve how students 

learn, can improve what students learn, and can deliver high-quality learning opportunities 

(Cavanaugh et al., 2004; Cavanaugh, 2001; Bernard et al., 2004; Sitzmann et al., 2006). On the 

NETTS state survey, just over half of the states reported activity in the e-learning domain, with 

26 states reporting that they provided online courses, tutorial software, and other academic 

content and resources in core subject areas. However, these initiatives did not appear to be 

supported by EETT funds in FY 2003. Five states identified electronic networks and other 

distance learning as a priority for their EETT competitive grant programs in FY 2003. 

Technology-Enhanced Assessment 

Technology has the potential to improve traditional paper and pencil assessments in several 

ways (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, and Glaser, 2001). Through simulations and technology-enhanced 

portfolios for project-based learning, educators have an opportunity to assess students’ ability to 

apply knowledge and solve problems in more realistic settings. Technology-based assessments 

can also be embedded in computer-based curriculum to allow frequent, formative feedback to 

students and teachers, ultimately allowing more individualized curriculum than might otherwise 

be possible in traditional classroom settings. Twenty-six states reported either offering 

technology-based academic assessment or funding research and development activities that 

supported student assessment in FY 2003. Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, North Carolina, Texas, 

West Virginia, and Wyoming reported having online testing programs. State educational 

technology directors in 16 states reported supplementing teachers’ assessment efforts by offering 

Internet- or computer-based assessment of student academic achievement (Exhibit 6). Officials 

in 16 states reported that they invested some of their EETT state-level funds in research and 

development activities to support student assessment. Six of these states reported conducting 

both types of activities. 
20

Exhibit 6. Number of States That Provided Internet- or Computer-Based 

Assessment and That Funded R&D on Assessment in FY 2003 

16 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

Provided Internet or

computer-based

assessment

Funded R&D on

assessment*

Number of States

* Data are missing for one state. 

Exhibit reads: Of the 26 states that either provided Internet- or computer-based 

assessments or used EETT state-level funds to support research and development on 

assessment, 16 provided Internet- or computer-based assessments and 16 funded 

research and development on assessment. Six of these states do both. Source: 

NETTS state survey. 

Technology for Accountability, Evaluation and Planning 

States are increasingly using technology for accountability purposes, including districts 

reporting to states and states reporting to the federal government, and for evaluation and 

planning of state and district programs (Education Week, 2006). States’ EETT set-aside funds 

“may be used for developing performance measurement systems to evaluate the effectiveness of 

programs supported with Ed Tech funds” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). A set of 

practices called “data-driven decision making” often relies on these performance measurement 

systems. “Data-driven decision making” is a popular term used to describe the integration of 

various data streams on a common platform designed to inform administrative and instructional 

decisions at multiple levels of the education system. “Integrated data systems that bring together 

student information collected at the classroom, school, district, and state levels in ways that can 

inform instructional decisions are considered one of today’s most promising trends in education” 

(Means, 2005). Current efforts by the Data Quality Campaign to encourage states to strengthen 

the collection, availability, and use of data for educational improvement suggest that data 

systems should include elements such as student course-taking information, program 

participation information, grades and achievement test data, and grade-to-grade progression data. 

Eleven states gave priority in their FY 2003 granting process to the use of technology in 

managing, collecting, and analyzing data to improve teaching; 36 states provided data to 

administrators and teachers for decision making (Exhibit 7). Nearly 80 percent of states either 

prioritized technology use in managing, collecting, and analyzing data in their granting process 

or provided data to administrators and teachers. The types of information provided and state 

supports for using the information well are not known. States may interpret the online 

availability of school-level achievement test data as using technology to support practitioners’ 
21

decision making. Independent reviews of state data systems suggest that few of them are in a 

form that readily supports school-level decision making (Wayman, Stringfield, and Yakimowski, 

2004). 

Exhibit 7. Number of States That Prioritized Technology Use in Managing, Collecting, and 

Analyzing Data or That Provided Data for Instructional Improvement in FY 2003 

11

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

Prioritized technology

use for data-based

decision making*

Provided data for databased decision making

Number of States

* Data are missing for one state. 

Exhibit reads: In making EETT competitive grants, 40 states either prioritized technology 

use in managing, collecting, and analyzing data for instructional improvement or provided 

data for data-driven decision making. Of these states, 11 states prioritized technology 

use to work with data, 36 states provided data for data-driven decision making, and 

seven did both. Source: NETTS state survey. 

District technology staff reported that they too were working to support data-driven decision 

making in their schools. According to district technology coordinators’ reports, about 60 percent 

of students were in schools where building-level staff could access student data management 

systems. They further reported that between 55 percent and 80 percent of students were in 

districts where technology coordinators reported that they had offered or planned to offer 

professional development on using data to tailor tasks to student ability, track student 

achievement, and improve schools through data-driven decision-making techniques. 

Exhibit 8 indicates which states report providing data to local staff and on the provision of 

online courses and materials to teachers and students. 
22

Exhibit 8. State Uses of Technology for Data-Driven Decision Making and Online Learning

State provides data to local State provides online courses, materials, or software 

State Name staff for decision-making For Teachers For Students 

Yes Plans to Do* Yes Plans to Do* Yes Plans to Do* 

Alabama X X X 

Alaska X 

Arizona X X X 

Arkansas X X X 

California X 

Colorado X X X 

Connecticut 

Delaware X 

District of Columbia X X X 

Florida X X 

Georgia X X X 

Hawaii X X X 

Idaho X X X 

Illinois X X 

Indiana X X X 

Iowa X X X 

Kansas X 

Kentucky X X X 

Louisiana X X X 

Maine X 

Maryland X X X 

Massachusetts X X X 

Michigan X X X 

Minnesota 

Mississippi X X X 

Missouri X 

Montana X 

Nebraska X X X 

Nevada X 

New Hampshire X 

New Jersey X X 

New Mexico X X X 

New York X X 

North Carolina X X X 

North Dakota X X X 

Ohio X X 

Oklahoma X X X 

Oregon X X 

Pennsylvania X 

Puerto Rico X X 

Rhode Island X 

South Carolina X X 

South Dakota X X X 

Tennessee X 

Texas X X X 

Utah X X X 

Vermont X 

Virginia X X X 

Washington X X X 

West Virginia X X X 

Wisconsin X 

Wyoming 

Total Number of States 36 8 25 10 27 5 

Source: NETTS state survey.

*Respondents were asked if they were “completing plans” or “beginning plans” at the time of the survey. “Plans to Do” in this 

table indicates whether a state reported either beginning or completing plans to do particular activities. 
23

State Standards for Technology Use 

Student Standards 

Student technology standards can be useful to teachers, who can use them as a framework for 

planning technology-based activities and lessons. Student standards also provide the basis for 

developing assessments of student technology competency—an important tool for states that 

intend to meet the EETT goal that all students acquire technology literacy by eighth grade. As an 

example of the kinds of skills typically emphasized in student technology standards, the National 

Educational Technology Standards (NETS) of the International Society for Technology in 

Education (ISTE) highlight six broad categories: 

• Basic operations and concepts 

• Social, ethical, and human issues 

• Student use of technology productivity tools 

• Student use of technology communication tools 

• Student use of technology research tools 

• Student use of technology for solving problems and making informed decisions 

(ISTE, 2000) 

State definitions of student technology literacy are often explicitly tied to student technology 

standards.12 The core academic standards, technology standards, and definitions of student 

technology literacy in the six case study states provide an example (Exhibit 9). In one of the 

states (Texas), student technology literacy is tied to mastery of both the core academic and 

technology standards. 

 

12 Status of technology standards and assessments of technical proficiency as of the fall of 2004 are reported on a 

state-by-state basis for both students and teachers in Exhibit 13. 
24

Exhibit 9. Standards and Technology Literacy Definitions in FY 2004 in Case Study States 

Core Academic 

Standards (Students)

Technology Standards 

(Students) 

Definition of Technology 

Literacy 

Kansas Kansas Curriculum 

Standards 

Embedded in core academic 

standards 

State relies on local definitions 

Massachusetts Massachusetts 

Curriculum Frameworks

Massachusetts 

Recommended Pre-K–12 

Instructional Technology 

Standards 

Meeting the Massachusetts 

Recommended Pre-K–12 

Instructional Technology 

Standards 

Ohio Ohio Academic Content 

Standards 

Stand-alone and embedded 

in core academic content 

standards 

Meeting technology standards 

(i.e., the K–8 Benchmarks and 

Indicators) 

Texas Texas Essential 

Knowledge and Skills 

(TEKS) 

Stand-alone and embedded 

in TEKS 

Meeting technology standards 

and TEKS standards 

Washington Essential Academic 

Learning Requirements 

Has adopted NETS (standalone) State relies on local definitions 

West Virginia West Virginia Content 

Standards 

Stand-alone and embedded 

in core content standards 

Responsible use of appropriate 

technology to communicate, 

solve problems, and access, 

manage, integrate, evaluate, 

and create information to 

improve learning in all subject 

areas and to acquire lifelong 

knowledge and skills in the 21st

century. 

Source: NETTS case study data. 

A large majority of states (42) reported having or expecting to have technology standards for 

students in place by fall 2004 (Exhibit 10). This number has increased from 35 in 2001 

(Education Week, 2001). These standards can take a variety of forms. Of those states that had 

student technology standards, 19 reported having “stand-alone” standards, and 16 reported 

embedding technology standards with other academic content standards. The remaining eight 

states reported having both stand-alone technology standards and integrated standards. 

Student technology literacy falls under the primary EETT program goal of improving student 

academic achievement. While many states have technology standards for students, most states 

did not report explicitly linking EETT funds to student technology literacy in FY 2003. Eighteen 

states reported that student technology literacy was a priority for their EETT grants overall, and 

13 states reported requiring a focus on student technology literacy specifically for their 

competitive grant applications. States also reflect an emphasis on student technology literacy by 

including indicators of student technology proficiency specifically in their evaluations of the 

EETT activities. Eighteen states reported using student knowledge, skill, and comfort levels with 

technology in their evaluations of EETT activities in FY 2003. 
25

Exhibit 10. States with Technology Standards for Students in FY 2003 

Exhibit reads: The vast majority of states had technology standards for students 

in place by FY 2003. Source: NETTS state survey. 

Statewide assessments of student technology proficiency were not as common as the 

standards themselves. Statewide assessments have the advantage of encouraging consistent 

interpretations of standards across a state and facilitate the comparison of districts and the easy 

aggregation of data within a state. Two states, Hawaii and North Carolina, reported that they 

assessed students’ proficiency with technology in FY 2003 (Exhibit 11).13 Some states may be 

postponing measurement of students’ technology literacy while they work on developing 

technology literacy assessments. Indeed, many states reported either planning to assess student 

technology proficiency in the future or relying on districts to do such assessments. Eleven states 

reported plans to assess student technology skills, and another 13 states reported that their 

districts assess student progress toward technology proficiency. A large portion (35 percent) of 

states, however, described themselves as “not yet decided” with respect to whether they will 

assess students’ technology literacy. 

 

13 These findings are inconsistent with earlier reports by Education Week, which found that three states (New York, 

North Carolina, and Utah) had assessments for students’ technology literacy based on state standards (Education 

Week, 2003). In New York, the inconsistency is most likely due to differences in terminology and methodology. 

New York reported “not currently, but planning to do so” on the NETTS survey, but on the New York State 

Education Department Web site, there is a technology education test that assesses student technology skills. Utah 

answered “not yet decided” on the NETTS survey regarding whether it assesses technology standards for students. 

However, according to its Web site, teachers were asked for opinions of how students were mastering technology 

skills. 
26

Exhibit 11. Assessing Technology Standards for Students in FY 2003 

Exhibit reads: Despite the prevalence of student technology standards, most 

states did not assess student technology skills. Many states either were planning 

to do so in the future or relied on district assessment practices. Source: NETTS 

state survey. 

Teacher Standards 

States have demonstrated a commitment to encouraging teacher capacity to use technology 

for teaching and learning by putting in place standards for teacher technology proficiency and 

requiring or providing technology training for pre- and in-service teachers. Recognizing the need 

for all teachers to have some capacity to use technology for administrative or instructional 

purposes, many states have put in place minimum standards for teachers’ use of technology. 

Technology standards for teachers articulate what teachers should know and be able to do with 

technology. They typically suggest that teachers have some basic familiarity with computers and 

use computers and the Internet for research and communication. Standards may further specify 

ways that teachers should be prepared to integrate technology into the classroom. For example, 

the National Educational Technology Standards indicate that teachers should know how to: 14

• Demonstrate a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts. 

• Plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by 

technology. 

• Implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying 

technology to maximize student learning. 

 

14 ISTE has developed National Educational Technology Standards for both students and teachers. Although the 

standards are not part of federal policy, many states have adopted or adapted them. 
27

• Apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation 

strategies. 

• Use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice. 

• Understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of 

technology in PK–12 schools and apply that understanding in practice. (ISTE, 2000) 

More than half of the states (27) reported on the NETTS state survey that they had technology 

standards for teachers in place. A number of states have created indicators for their teacher 

technology standards (Exhibit 12). These indicators describe the characteristics of proficient 

performance on the standards. 

Exhibit 12. State Indicators for Teacher Technology Standards 

Standard: Demonstrate a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts 

• Use basic computer operations such as editing, file management, printing, e-mail, multitasking, and networking (Nebraska) 

• Use the network to create new teaching and learning practices, i.e. publishing or preparing 

Web pages to post student or parent resources (Connecticut) 

• Use Internet applications such as Telnet, Web browsers, File Transfer Protocol, listservs, 

newsgroups, etc (Nebraska) 

Standard: Plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by 

technology 

• Assess students’ learning and instructional needs to identify the appropriate technology for 

instruction (Maryland) 

• Analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of educational software tools on students learning 

(Florida) 

• Design student learning activities that integrate computers and technology for a variety of 

student grouping strategies and for diverse student populations (Illinois) 

Exhibit continued on next page. 
28

Exhibit continued from previous page. 

Standard: Implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying 

technology to maximize student learning 

• Present technology-enhanced lessons that lead students to analyze, synthesize and evaluate 

relevant problems (Georgia) 

• Integrate the Nebraska Student Essential Learnings in Technology into curriculum plans to 

assist with student achievement of standards (Nebraska) 

• Apply best teaching, learning, and assessment practices, such as utilizing instructional 

technology to promote interdisciplinary approaches, using technology to support cooperative 

and collaborative learning strategies, etc. (Nebraska) 

Standard: Apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation 

strategies.

• Use multiple methods of electronic evaluation, such as online assessment, evaluation of 

students portfolios, etc. (Nebraska) 

• Use technology to analyze class performance and compare to a larger set of students locally, 

statewide, or nationally (Nebraska) 

• Collect and use data related to teaching and learning to make decisions and build knowledge 

(Connecticut) 

Standard: Use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice. 

• Create a professional development plan that includes resources to support the use of 

technology in lifelong learning. (Maryland) 

• Use computers and other learning technology to support problem solving, data collection, 

information management, communications, presentations, and decision-making (Illinois) 

• Develop and publish digital content and provide students with opportunities to gather and 

share digital information through intranets and/or the Internet (Florida) 

Standard: Understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of 

technology in PK–12 schools and apply that understanding in practice. 

• Establish classroom policies and procedures that ensure compliance with copyright law, Fair 

Use guidelines, security, privacy and student online protection (Maryland) 

• Teach legal and ethical uses of technology (Florida) 

• Select technology resources and print materials that reflect a diverse world (Nebraska) 

Note: Examples of indicators were taken from the following states: Connecticut (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2001); 

Florida (Educational Technology Clearinghouse, 2003); Georgia (Georgia Professional Standards Commission, N.D.) Illinois (Illinois 

State Board of Education, 2002); Michigan (Michigan Department of Education, 2002) Maryland (Maryland State Department of 

Education, 2002); Nebraska (Nebraska Department of Education, 2001).

Although requirements for teacher technology competency are relatively common state 

policies, only 10 percent of states reported assessing teacher technology competencies in 

FY 2003, which represented about 18 percent of the states that had technology standards for 

teachers in place. Five states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) reported 

formally assessing teachers’ technology skills. Five other states (District of Columbia, Hawaii, 

Mississippi, New Mexico, and Rhode Island) that did not assess the technology skills of teachers 

in FY 2003 reported that they were planning to do so (Exhibit 13). As mentioned earlier, state 

assessments have the advantage of encouraging consistent interpretations of standards across a 

state and increase the probability that results across districts can be compared within a state. 
29

However, many more states (30 percent) relied on their districts to assess teacher technology 

skills according to state policy. Sixteen states indicated that their districts assessed teacher 

technology integration progress according to state standards, although it is not known to what 

extent districts were consistently meeting state expectations for assessing teacher technology 

skills. Thus, 50 percent of states were assessing or planning to assess teacher technology skill or 

were relying on districts to do so. 

Exhibit 13. Assessment of Teacher Technology Skills in FY 2003 

Exhibit reads: There were mechanisms in place or planned to assess teacher 

technology skills in 50 percent of the states, including district-based efforts. 

Source: NETTS state survey. 

The states with technology standards and technology assessments for teachers and students are 

shown in Exhibit 14. 
30

Exhibit 14. Status of Technology Standards and Assessments for Teachers and Students in 

FY 2003 

Teachers Students 

State 

State has 

minimum 

technology 

standards 

State formally 

assesses 

technology 

skills 

State plans to 

assess 

technology 

skills 

State has 

minimum 

technology 

standards 

State formally 

assesses 

technology 

skills 

State plans to 

assess 

technology 

skills 

Alabama X 

Alaska X X 

Arizona X X X X 

Arkansas X X 

California X X 

Colorado X X 

Connecticut X X 

Delaware 

District of Columbia X X X X 

Florida X X 

Georgia X X X X 

Hawaii X X X 

Idaho X 

Illinois X X X 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas X 

Kentucky X X 

Louisiana X X 

Maine 

Maryland X X 

Massachusetts X X 

Michigan X X 

Minnesota 

Mississippi X X X 

Missouri X X 

Montana X 

Nebraska X X 

Nevada X 

New Hampshire X X 

New Jersey X X X 

New Mexico X X X 

New York X 

North Carolina X X X 

North Dakota X X 

Ohio X 

Oklahoma X 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania X X 

Puerto Rico 

Rhode Island X X X X 

South Carolina X X 

South Dakota X X 

Tennessee X 

Texas X X 

Utah X X 

Vermont X X 

Virginia X X 

Washington 

West Virginia X X X 

Wisconsin X 

Wyoming X 

Total Number of States 27 5 5 42 2 11 

Source: NETTS state survey. 
31

Technology-Related Teacher Professional Development

In-service professional development to develop teachers’ capacity to use technology 

effectively takes a variety of forms, including workshops, face-to-face and online courses, 

conferences, and training sessions. Less frequently, teachers participate in study groups, peer 

observation, and coaching, which are more likely to integrate lessons learned from professional 

development into teaching (NCES, 2005). 

Because funds generated locally through bonds or taxes frequently have legal restrictions 

requiring them to be spent for hardware and connectivity purchases only, federal and state funds 

supporting professional development on the use of technology resources fill a critical gap (Zhao 

and Conway, 2001). Recognizing the importance of teacher professional development on the use 

of technology in teaching and learning, Title II, Part D of ESEA requires local recipients of 

EETT funds to allocate at least 25 percent of EETT funds for professional development in the 

integration of technology into instruction.15 Given the level of state grants awarded under EETT,

an estimated $600 million supported teacher professional development on technology integration 

over the five-year lifespan of the program. 

States appear to have embraced the professional development aspect of the EETT program. 

Officials in 38 states said they gave priority to teacher professional development in their 

competitive grant programs (Exhibit 15). Officials in 27 states reported that they offered online 

professional development for teachers to help them integrate technology into core subject areas. 

Officials in 28 states used part of their federal EETT state-level funds to support research and 

development activities on professional development for technology integration. 

 

15 Districts where technology-related professional development is already being provided or deemed unnecessary 

may request a waiver from their state education agencies. 
32

Exhibit 15. Number of States That Gave Priority to Professional Development in Making Grants, 

Provided Online Professional Development, and Funded R&D on Professional Development in 

FY 2003 

38

27 28

0

10

20

30

40

50

Prioritized

professional

development in

making grants*

Provided online

professional

development

Funded R&D on

professional

development*

Number of States

* Data are missing for one state. 

Exhibit reads: In making EETT competitive grants, 38 states gave priority to 

professional development. Twenty-seven states provided online teacher 

professional development, and 28 states used EETT state-level funds to support 

research and development on professional development. Source: NETTS state 

survey. 

The findings from two NETTS case study states, Texas and West Virginia, provide examples 

of the ways states are approaching teacher professional development. In Texas, the state 

education agency has used EETT funds to provide technical assistance to districts on the 

implementation of the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart. The Texas STaR Chart 

is part of the Texas Education Agency’s long-range technology planning process. It focuses on 

four key themes: teaching and learning, educator preparation and development, administration 

and support services, and technology infrastructure. It was designed to help schools and districts 

assess their progress toward state and local goals. The CEO Forum on Education and 

Technology, in partnership with ISTE, has subsequently developed a more generic STaR Chart 

for use in K–12 schools. West Virginia has received federal, foundation, and commercial 

company funds to support the state’s diverse educational technology projects. However, state 

officials reported that because of recently enacted cuts in the state budget for educational 

technology, EETT is essential to funding school-building professional development coaches, 

called technology integration specialists (TIS), who provide and coordinate appropriate 

professional development activities for all teachers and administrators in the schools. Each TIS 

receives 40 days of professional development to develop the ability to assist effectively teachers 

with integration of technology into the curriculum in order to improve student achievement. 

Officials said they doubt that the program would operate without EETT funds because EETT is 

currently the only source of funds that can be used for the TIS position at the school level. 
33

In addition to adopting technology standards, many states either have in place or are planning 

for state-level policies that require teacher participation in technology-related course work or 

other professional development activities. These requirements are designed to ensure that 

teachers pursue opportunities to learn about technology applications at various points in their 

careers. Most states (43) require teachers to take technology-related course work in order to get 

or renew teaching certificates. More than 70 percent of the states reported having or planning to 

have certification requirements that include technology knowledge or skill, and nearly half of the 

states were requiring or planning to require veteran teachers to participate in technology-related 

course work or related professional development before they were granted recertification 

(Exhibit 16). State requirements for technology-related course work are reported on a state-bystate basis in Exhibit 17. 

Exhibit 16. Number and Percentage of States With Technology Requirements for Teacher 

Certification and Education in FY 2003 

Stage of Process Technology-Related Course 

Work Required for: Implemented Plans to Do* No Plans 

Certification 29 (56%) 8 (15%) 15 (29%) 

Recertification 14 (27%) 11 (21%) 27 (52%) 

Continuing Education 18 (35%) 9 (17%) 25 (48%) 

 Source: NETTS state survey. 

Exhibit reads: More than 70 percent of the states reported having or planning to have certification 

requirements that include technology knowledge or skill. Nearly half of the states were requiring or 

planning to require veteran teachers to participate in technology-related course work or related 

professional development before they were granted recertification. 

*Respondents were asked if they were “completing plans” or “beginning plans” at the time of the 

survey. “Plans to do” in this table indicates whether a state reported either beginning or completing 

plans to do particular activities. 
34

Exhibit 17. State Requirements for Technology-Related Course Work in FY 2003 

State requires technology-related coursework for: 

Teacher certification Teacher recertification Teacher continuing education 

State Name 

Yes Plans to Do* Yes Plans to Do* Yes Plans to Do* 

Alabama X X X 

Alaska 

Arizona 

Arkansas X X 

California X 

Colorado 

Connecticut X X X 

Delaware X X X 

District of Columbia X X X 

Florida X X X 

Georgia X X X 

Hawaii X X X 

Idaho 

Illinois X X X 

Indiana X 

Iowa X 

Kansas X 

Kentucky X 

Louisiana X X X 

Maine X X X 

Maryland 

Massachusetts X X X 

Michigan X 

Minnesota 

Mississippi X 

Missouri X X 

Montana 

Nebraska X X X 

Nevada 

New Hampshire X X X 

New Jersey X X 

New Mexico X X X 

New York X X X 

North Carolina X 

North Dakota X 

Ohio 

Oklahoma X 

Oregon X 

Pennsylvania X X X 

Puerto Rico X X X 

Rhode Island X X X 

South Carolina X 

South Dakota X 

Tennessee 

Texas X X X 

Utah X 

Vermont X X 

Virginia X X X 

Washington X X 

West Virginia X X X 

Wisconsin X 

Wyoming X 

Total Number of 

States 29 8 14 11 18 9 

Source: NETTS state survey. 

*Respondents were asked if they were “completing plans” or “beginning plans” at the time of the survey. “Plans to Do” in this table 

indicates whether a state reported either beginning or completing plans to do particular activities. 
35

State-Level Administration of the EETT Program16

The federal government distributes EETT program funds to states on the basis of their Title I, 

Part A, allocations. To receive EETT funds from the federal government, states are required to

develop a long-range strategic educational technology plan and submit it to the Department of 

Education. Plans must include, among other things: 

• Goals for using technology to improve student academic achievement and information on 

the way these goals align with state academic content and student academic achievement 

standards. 

• Instructional and management strategies for improving student academic achievement 

through the effective use of technology in classrooms. 

• Process and accountability measures for evaluating the extent to which funded activities 

are effective. 

States use their EETT allocation as follows: 

• Conduct state-level activities to support program implementation with the aid of a small 

set-aside. States may keep up to 5 percent of their total funds for state-level activities, 

including administrative activities, technical assistance, and evaluations. No more than 60 

percent of the state-level funds may be used for administrative expenses. 

• Distribute a portion of EETT program funds by formula to all eligible local education 

agencies that apply. States distribute 50 percent of the remaining EETT funds to all 

eligible LEAs that apply. Generally, LEAs must use a quarter of these funds for teacher 

professional development on the use of technology, unless their state waives this 

requirement for selected districts that have already provided sufficient technology-related 

professional development to teachers. 

• Distribute a portion of EETT program funds by competition to eligible local entities.

States distribute the remaining 50 percent to LEAs or local partnerships that include at 

least one high-need LEA, based on Title I, Part A, eligibility, through a state-managed 

competitive process. States may give priority to school districts that received a formula 

allocation considered insufficient to carry out the purposes of the EETT program 

effectively. As with formula funds, LEAs must use a quarter of the competitive funds for 

teacher professional development on the use of technology, unless their state waives this 

requirement. 

States subsequently distribute these funds to school districts through both entitlement (formula) 

and competitive awards, targeting “high-need districts” in the process. 

The availability of formula and competitive grants seems to accomplish two important goals. 

EETT formula grants are provided to districts, partnerships, or consortia with the highest 

 

16 Detailed information about individual EETT awards is presented in the state profiles and at the end of this section 

of the report. 
36

numbers or percentages of students from families with incomes below the poverty line. 

Competitive grants can be more effectively targeted to a subset of these districts and other local 

entities based on the strength of their grant applications. States have a much greater opportunity 

to channel competitive funds to particular purposes. They can also concentrate competitive funds 

in selected districts to a much greater extent than they can with formula funds. However, some 

states reported that winners of competitive awards are somewhat predictable; large urban 

districts can often afford grant writers to help improve the quality of applications. 

Determining Local EETT Eligibility 

High-need districts must meet two specific criteria: they have the highest numbers or 

percentages of children from families with incomes below the poverty line in the state, and they 

either have demonstrated technology need or contain one or more schools with demonstrated 

academic need [ESEA Sec. 2403(3)]. The legislation requires that states use federal census data 

to determine the percentage of children from families living in poverty. The U.S. Census Bureau 

provides data at the school district level through the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates 

(SAIPE) program. SAIPE provides estimates between census data collections, which happen 

every 10 years, with a model that uses the Current Population Survey data, IRS tax return data, 

annual population estimates, and other data. Although better than outdated census data, these 

estimates are likely to be less robust for districts in areas with rapidly changing demographics 

and economic conditions, a concern expressed by three case study states. 

Whereas ESEA and federal guidance define how the economic need of school districts is 

determined, states have more discretion in how they implement the concepts of districts’ 

academic and technical needs. Among the districts that serve concentrations of poor students, 

states select those demonstrating either academic or technology need for funding. To target 

districts that have academic need, some states consider the district proportions of students with 

limited English proficiency or identify low-performing schools. Sufficient data are not available 

from the first NETTS state survey to indicate whether states used other data sources or standards 

to help determine academic need. States reported using a mixture of objective and subjective 

data that compared a district with state and local standards to determine a school district’s 

technology need (Exhibit 18). The most common methods were through a local needs assessment 

or self-reported need, which were used by 33 states. Thirty-one states reported using the results 

of a state-administered technology inventory for determining technology need. Several states 

also indicated that they used information about local financial supports for technology to 

determine school district need. Only two states (North Dakota and Michigan) used none of the 

methods included on the NETTS state survey. 
37

Exhibit 18. State Determination of District Technology Needs in FY 2003 

33

31

15

9

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Local needs

assessments/

self-reported need

Results of a 

state-administered

technology

inventory

Other 

state-administered

data collections

Local test data Input on local

financial supports

for technology

Data Source

Number of States

Exhibit reads: States sometimes used multiple means of determining technology 

need. Local needs assessments and the results of state-administered technology 

inventories were the most common methods for determining a school district’s 

need for assistance in acquiring or using technology. Source: NETTS state 

survey data. 

Exhibit 19 illustrates how case study states defined economic, academic, and technology 

needs. A state’s decisions about how it will define each of these three categories shape which 

districts are eligible for EETT funding. There is considerable variation in state approaches to 

these categories, even across the six case study states. 

Exhibit 19. Determination of Economic, Academic, and Technology Needs 

for EETT Eligibility in Case Study States in FY 2004 

Economic Need Academic Need Technology Need 

Title I eligibility 

Census Bureau data 

Schools with large numbers of 

students with limited English 

proficiency 

Low-performing schools 

State-administered technology 

inventory 

Other state-administered data 

collections 

Local test data 

Local needs assessments/selfreported need 

Input on local financial supports 

for technology 

Exhibit reads: States used a variety of eligibility criteria in categories stipulated by ESEA: 

economic need, academic need, and technology need. Source: NETTS state survey. 
38

In addition to meeting various need-based criteria, districts must prepare new or updated 

long-range strategic educational technology plans consistent with their respective states’ current 

educational technology plans to be eligible for either formula or competitive EETT program 

funds. As defined in the legislation, key components of local plans parallel those at the state 

level, with additional requirements sometimes dictated by states. However, only 29 states 

reported requiring local EETT applications to have technology plans that provided for the 

sharing and dissemination of educational technology initiatives across the state. 

Although the EETT legislation has specific requirements for state distribution of funds 

(guidelines such as eligibility, professional development requirements, and evaluation), states 

also have flexibility to design their program applications and award processes within the context 

of their identified needs. Survey results suggest that applying for formula and competitive grants 

are separate processes in 47 states. Only five states (Iowa, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, West 

Virginia, and Hawaii) reported offering the option for a consolidated application. Iowa and 

Puerto Rico required a consolidated formula and competitive application; the other states 

allowed a consolidated application but did not require one. Five states (Connecticut, Delaware, 

Hawaii, Iowa, and South Carolina) allowed multiyear applications for both formula and 

competitive grants. Many more states (29) awarded multiyear competitive grants. No state gave 

multiyear awards for formula grants only. 

Formula Grant Awards 

Federal EETT guidelines specify how states can allocate formula funds. Specifically, states 

may retain up to 5 percent for state-level activities and must subgrant 50 percent of the remaining 

EETT funds to school districts in the form of formula subgrants. States award formula subgrants 

to school districts according to the districts’ proportionate shares of Title I, Part A, funds for that 

year. ESEA stipulates no minimum award size for school districts.17

School districts must apply to their states to receive funding. Twenty-four states reported that 

100 percent of the eligible school districts within their states had applied for formula funds in FY 

2003. In other states, however, many eligible districts did not apply for formula awards. The 

percentage of districts not applying for awards ranged from 38 percent in California and 

Connecticut to just 1 percent in six other states. Every eligible district that applied for and 

wanted an allocation of formula funds received funding; however, some districts chose not to 

receive an allocation for various reasons. 

The size of formula awards to local school districts varies greatly from state to state 

(Exhibit 20). States reported awarding $273 million in formula grants in FY 2003 to 12,823 

districts. The average formula award across the nation in FY 2003 was $21,275. State average 

formula awards varied from $4,127 (Iowa) to $219,825 (Hawaii). The average maximum award 

across the states in FY 2003 was just over $1.8 million. New York awarded the largest single 

formula grant in the country in FY 2003 ($20,980,099). In 12 states, districts received formula 

awards greater than $1 million. 

 

17 According to ESEA, school districts receiving formula funds “too insufficient to be effective” should be given 

priority in competitive competitions. What size of grants is “insufficient” is left to the states to determine. 
39

Exhibit 20. Formula Grants to School Districts in FY 2003 

Number 

of States Smallest Largest Mean 

Number of formula grants awarded within a 

state 

51 6 1,146 255

Largest formula award to a school district 51 $99,879 $20,980,099 $1,818,404

Smallest formula award to a school district 52 $1 $60,000 $2,896

Exhibit reads: Individual formula awards in FY 2003 ranged from $1 to more than $20 million across 

the country. The average number of awards per state was 255. Source: NETTS state survey. 

Some policymakers have expressed concern that the EETT formula grant mechanism results 

in spreading funding for educational technology too thinly, such that the maximum number of 

districts get funding but that individual award amounts are often too small to support significant 

accomplishments. In fact, many states do make relatively modest awards to LEAs, but these 

awards make up a small proportion of available funding. In FY 2003, the average minimum 

EETT formula award in a state was about $2,900. New Jersey awarded the smallest formula 

grant ($1). Eighteen states had districts that received formula awards less than $100 in FY 2003. 

Forty states had minimum formula awards that were less than $1,000. Despite the fact that some 

very small grants were awarded in most states, only 4 percent of EETT formula grant funds were 

distributed to local education agencies in amounts less than $5,000. Although this represents a 

small percentage of total funds, grants in amounts less than $5,000 account for 39 percent of all 

formula grants. Administration of small formula grants, therefore, is likely to take more time and 

effort than the amount of funds distributed might otherwise suggest. 

However, rural districts that have few students or low population density may still choose to 

apply for small EETT grants to exercise their Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)-

Flex authority. Under REAP-Flex, a district can use any or all of its EETT formula funds with 

other formula funds it receives from Title II, Part A (Improving Teacher Quality), Title IV, Part 

A (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities), and Title V, Part A (Innovative Programs) of 

ESEA for district activities for any of these programs, and any activities under Title I, Part A 

(Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged), Title II (Language Instruction for 

Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students), and Title IV, Part B (21st-Century 

Community Learning Centers) of ESEA. 

Competitive Grant Awards 

As with formula grants, states must subgrant the remaining 50 percent of their EETT awards 

to eligible entities through a competitive process. The EETT program allows states considerable 

flexibility in determining priorities for EETT competitive awards, and states can give preference 

to competitive applications based on state-level priorities. States can target money to eligible 

partnerships, as well as to those districts that did not receive formula grants sufficient to 

accomplish the purposes of EETT. 

State Targeting Provisions 

The EETT legislation specifies that school districts may apply for competitive funds as part 

of an eligible local partnership. Only a school district can serve as the fiscal agent in an eligible 
40

local partnership. An eligible local partnership is defined as consisting of at least one high-need 

school district and at least one of the following entities: 

• A school district that can demonstrate effective technology integration resulting in 

improved classroom instruction; 

• A higher education institution in compliance with the reporting requirements of 

section 207(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965; 

• A for-profit business or organization that specializes in technology products or the 

application of technology in instruction; or 

• A public or private nonprofit organization with expertise in using educational 

technology in instruction. 

Given the overwhelming costs and challenges of establishing an adequate technological 

infrastructure in education, all levels of government, public-private partnerships, and local 

communities can provide critical input, leadership, and financial support for educational 

technology. Almost half of the states (22) prioritized partnership applications, and seven states 

provided direct funds to public-private partnerships (Exhibit 21). Thirteen states (25 percent) 

gave priority to parent and family involvement in their grants. 

Exhibit 21. Number of States That Prioritized Partnership Applications and Parent and Family 

Involvement in Grant Making and That Funded Public-Private Partnerships in FY 2003 

* Data are missing for one state. 

Exhibit reads: In making competitive grants, 22 states gave priority to partnership 

applications, and 13 states gave priority to parent and family involvement. Seven 

states provided funds to public-private partnerships. Source: NETTS state 

survey. 

A second form of targeting expressly required in the EETT legislation is prioritizing LEAs 

receiving “insufficient” formula grant awards in allocating competitive awards. Twenty-four 

states reported giving priority in their competitive grants programs to school districts considered 

to have received insufficient formula grant awards. Exhibit 22 presents the number of states 

22

13

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

 Prioritized

partnership

applications*

Prioritized parent

and family 

involvement* 

Funded publicprivate 

partnerships

Number of States 
41

using each of six specified criteria for determining which school districts received insufficient 

formula grant awards. 

Exhibit 22. Criteria for Determining Insufficient Formula Grant Award in FY 2003 

Definition 

Number of 

States 

District received less than a certain amount in formula funds 8 

District received less than a certain amount per student in formula funds 0 

District was determined to be “high need” as defined in federal guidelines 12 

District received a formula grant that was less than the minimum allocation received 

under the previous educational technology program(TLCF) 

1 

District need based on a technology-based metric, such as higher student-tocomputer ratio than the state average 3 

District served a high number of English as a second language learners or other 

special populations not specifically poverty-related 

0 

Other 9 

Exhibit reads: Of the 24 states that gave priority to competitive grant applications from districts that 

received an insufficient formula grant award, half coupled the priority with other “high need” criteria 

defined in federal guidelines. Source: NETTS state survey. 

Eight states reported defining an insufficient formula grant award as less than a certain amount, 

with amounts considered insufficient ranging from less than $5,000 (Arizona and Wisconsin) to 

less than $46,000 (Virginia). One state (Maryland) reported that school districts did not receive 

adequate funding if their grants were less than the minimum allocation under the previous TLCF 

program. Three states (Alabama, New York, and Oregon) used technology-based metrics to 

determine whether funding was adequate. Among the nine states that reported having other 

criteria for defining an insufficient formula grant award, seven indicated some process for 

distributing competitive funds to high-need school districts that received small formula grants. 

Case study states reported a variety of means of reviewing, prioritizing, and awarding 

competitive funds (Exhibit 23). All but one of the six NETTS case study states used review 

panels for the competitive grant process, and in most cases, these panels consisted of external 

education specialists. Many states indicated that they were moving toward more multiyear 

grants, with applications and reviews necessary for renewal from one year to the next. They 

believed that multiyear grants would help produce more and longer-lasting change. 
42

Exhibit 23. Competitive Grant and Application Review Process in Case Study States in FY 2004 

State Reviewers Priority or Preference Bonuses Award Cycle 

Kansas Review panel hired from 

professional research 

organization 

Preference points given to 

schools in need of improvement, 

lowest income levels, and 

geographic location 

16 months, 

March 1–June 30 

Massachusetts Review panel consisting 

of external education 

and educational 

technology specialists 

High-need school districts One program,12 

months; one program, 

24 months 

Ohio Review panel consisting 

of educators from 

applicant districts (no 

self-review) 

None 12 months, 

July 1–June 30 

Texas Review panel consisting 

of educators and others 

from across the state 

Technology Applications 

Readiness Grants for 

Empowering Texas (TARGET): 

Objective scoring with some 

subjectivity for proposals from 

applicants lacking a grant writer 

on staff 

Technology Immersion Project 

(TIP): Total of 20 possible for 

emphasis on five areas of 

instructional enhancement 

Target 1: 18 months, 

January 1–June 30; 

Target 2: 24 months 

TIP: 18 to 22 months, 

Aug. 16–June 30 

possible 

Washington State office None 24 months, 

July 1–June 30 

West Virginia Review panel consisting 

of external education 

and educational 

technology specialists 

Highest need and applicants that 

also commit to using formula 

funds for state program 

17 months, May 1–

Sept. 30 

Source: NETTS case study data. 

Competitive Grant Award Amounts 

A smaller percentage of eligible school districts applied for competitive funds than for 

formula funds. Many eligible districts did not apply for competitive awards in FY 2003. Fifty 

percent or more of eligible districts applied for competitive grants in FY 2003 in only six of 45 

states (13 percent). In 20 states, 20 percent of districts or fewer applied for competitive funds. 

About one quarter of district survey respondents indicated that they did not apply for competitive 

funds because they did not think that they were eligible. About 18 percent of district technology 

coordinators reported not knowing that competitive funds were available, 17 percent reported not 

having the resources to apply, and 17 percent reported not expecting to receive the funds. Only 4 

percent of districts reported having funds left over from a previous year as a reason for not 

applying. 
43

For districts that did apply for competitive grants, the likelihood of receiving an award varied 

markedly across states. In 11 states, all school districts that applied for a competitive grant 

received funds. Twelve states awarded competitive grants to more than 90 percent of the school 

districts that applied. In three states (Vermont, Maryland, and Florida), a combination of a high 

application rate and a high acceptance rate resulted in the award of competitive grants to more 

than 50 percent of all eligible school districts. At the other end of the spectrum, 17 states granted 

competitive funds to fewer than half of the school districts that applied for them. 

Among the states that reported holding competitive grant award competitions during 

FY 2003, the number of competitive awards ranged from five in Delaware, Colorado, and Utah, 

representing 16, 3, and 7 percent of districts in the respective states, to 102 in Ohio,18 which 

includes 12 percent of its school districts (Exhibit 24). The median percentage of districts in a 

state receiving competitive awards in FY 2003 was 10 percent. Because the number and 

proportion of districts that received awards, and the size of the competitive awards were 

determined by individual states, the average size of competitive awards varied considerably 

across states. Average competitive awards to school districts ranged from $2,603 in South 

Dakota to $854,919 in Texas. Each state distributed, on average, $154,261 to each school district 

receiving a competitive award. The median average competitive award was $161,849. Five states 

(California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and Puerto Rico) distributed individual competitive 

awards that exceeded $1 million.19

Exhibit 24. Competitive Grants to School Districts across States in FY 2003 

Smallest Mean Largest 

Number of competitive grants awarded within a state 5 33 102

Largest competitive award in a state $15,649 $648,705 $6,655,600

Average competitive award in a state $2,603 $154,261 $854,919

Smallest competitive award in a state $1,000 $440,743 $500,000

Exhibit reads: Individual competitive awards in FY 2003 ranged from $1,000 to more than $6.6 million 

across the country. The number of awards ranged from 5 to 102; the average number of awards per state 

was 33. Source: NETTS state survey. 

The range in competitive award sizes was considerable. The smallest competitive award 

given to a school district was $1,000 in South Dakota, which did not make any competitive 

grants larger than $15,649. The largest competitive award to any one school district was 

$6,655,600, awarded in California. The average competitive award decreased from $236,172 in 

FY 2002 to $154,261 in FY 2003. However, the average number of districts awarded 

competitive funds in each state increased from 25 to 33, indicating that funding was spread over 

more districts. Several factors are likely to have an affect on the number of awards and range of 

 

18 New York did not award any competitive grants during this period. Eleven states awarded eight or fewer 

competitive grants. 

19 Puerto Rico is a “unity school district,” and as such, Puerto Rico acts as both a state education agency (SEA) and 

an LEA. As a result, Puerto Rico has the authority to distribute funds to schools by competition, although it does not 

make formula awards. 
44

awards in any particular state. In addition to direct influences, such as the total number of EETTeligible districts and the total amount of available EETT funds, some state leaders, particularly 

those in strong “local control” states, may feel more pressure than others to distribute funds to a 

majority of districts. In some other states, leaders appear convinced that sizable awards are 

necessary to effect change in districts. 

Grade and Subject Priorities for Competitive Grant Awards

The primary goal of EETT is to support the use of technology in ways that enhance student 

achievement, especially in schools serving high-need students. Student achievement was cited as 

a priority for EETT competitive grant programs in FY 2003 by 30 states. States were also asked 

whether they targeted specific academic areas and grade levels in their competitive grant 

competitions. States were permitted to identify multiple academic and grade-level priorities. 

Twenty-four states indicated that they targeted specific instructional content targets, and among 

these English or language arts and mathematics were the most common foci, consistent with the 

emphasis of the reauthorization of ESEA (Exhibit 25). Fifteen states required competitive grants 

to focus on English or language arts, and 14 required a focus on mathematics. Although less than 

a majority of states, these numbers were considerably higher than that for the next most 

commonly required academic focus (sciences, required by seven states). 

Exhibit 25. Instructional Content Priorities for EETT Competitive Grant Applications in FY 2003 

15 14 13

7

5

2

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

English/

Language

arts

Mathematics Technology

literacy

Sciences Social

studies

Special

education or

ADA

Career/

Technical

education

Foreign

languages

Instructional Content Area

Number of States

0

Exhibit reads: The most common academic priorities states required for EETT grants were 

English or language arts and mathematics, in keeping with the overall goals of NCLB. 

Source: NETTS state survey. 

Only nine states required a grade-level priority in their EETT competitive grant proposals. 

Seven states prioritized elementary and middle grades which seems logical in the early years of 

NCLB. Two states required grade-level priorities but did not identify which grade levels they 

prioritized. 

Experience in the case study states indicates that states have interacting foci and targeting 

provisions (Exhibit 26). Case study data suggest that a variety of state-level priorities can come 

together within an individual grant competition. States can target specific grades, subjects, and 

activities through a single request for proposals. 
45

Exhibit 26. State Approach to Multiple Priorities for EETT Competitive Awards in FY 2004 

State 

School/Grade 

Level 

Disciplinary 

Focus 

Improvement 

Focus Purchases 

4–5 

Math, reading, 

science 

Curriculum and 

instruction 

Mandatory equipment, software, 

peripherals up to $20,000 per 

classroom 

Kansas 

8 

Student 

technology 

literacy 

Leadership 

skills 

Professional development and 

training for students 

Massachusetts 

K–12 

Core academic 

subjects 

Assessment Hardware and software, professional 

development 

Ohio 

K–8 

Math, English or

language arts 

Curriculum and 

instruction 

Software, professional development 

K–12 General Curriculum and 

instruction 

Texas Professional development 

6–8 

Core academic 

subjects 

Assessment 

(through 

technology 

immersion) 

Professional development 

Washington 

6–8 

Math Assessment Professional development, hardware 

West Virginia K–12 Core academic 

subjects 

Assessment Professional development 

Exhibit reads: While states appear to have multiple foci and targeting provisions, the experience of case 

study states suggests that states may use multiple priorities to target programs on particular activities in 

particular academic disciplines for specific grades. Source: NETTS case study data. 

State-Level Funds 

The EETT program allows states to set aside up to 5 percent of their EETT allocations for 

state-level activities and for program administration. States may use up to 60 percent of the set 

aside for administrative purposes, and the remaining 40 percent may be used for state-level 

activities. This is consistent with similar provisions in other programs sponsored by the U.S. 

Department of Education. The EETT legislation requires states to provide technical assistance to 

applicants, especially to those applicants serving the highest numbers or percentages of children 

in poverty or with the greatest need for technical assistance in developing an application for a 

competitive grant. State educational technology directors report that states used the 5 percent setasides to accomplish a range of tasks, including general administrative overhead, research and 

development, technical assistance, and evaluation. Uses for the funds vary, but most states 

appeared to be meeting the requirement for technical assistance (Exhibit 27). More than half of 

the states used their state-level funds to accomplish multiple objectives. 
46

Exhibit 27. Common Uses for 5 Percent EETT State-Level Funds in FY 2003 

50 49

42

28 27

17 16

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

General

admin.

overhead

Technical

assistance to

grant

applicants

M eetings to

collaborate

with other

states

R&D for PD

to integrate

technology

into core

subject areas

Evaluation of

programs

supported

with EETT

funds

R&D to

support

curriculum

subject areas

R&D to

support

assessment

Special

activities

supporting

public-private

partnerships

Use of State Administrative Funds

Number of States

Exhibit reads: More than half of the states used state-level funds for general administrative 

overhead, technical assistance to grant applicants, meetings to collaborate with other 

states, research and development, and evaluation of programs supported with EETT 

funds. Source: NETTS state survey. 

Note: R&D refers to research and development. PD refers to professional development. 

State directors noted the challenge associated with administering the program and conducting an 

adequate evaluation of the effectiveness of the program within the constraints of the state-level 

funds. 

State Evaluation Practices 

The federal legislation requires recipients of EETT funds—both states and school districts—

to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs. There are many reasons to encourage sound 

evaluation practices, most of which fall within three general categories: accountability and 

oversight, program and organizational improvement, and assessment of merit and worth (Henry, 

2005). Focusing on accountability and oversight allows program officials to monitor program 

activities and determine whether these activities are in compliance with expectations and 

standards. This type of evaluation is often the simplest, and therefore least expensive, compared 

with other evaluation types. Evaluations that focus on program and organizational improvement 

are sometimes called “formative evaluations.” In this type of evaluation, the purpose is to collect 

data while a program is still in development in order to provide information to refine program 

implementation. In contrast, the ultimate purpose of summative evaluations, which assess the 

merit and worth of a program, is to inform discussions about the value of a program and may 

ultimately influence program funding decisions. Because of the methodological rigor necessary 

to accurately estimate the impacts of a program, these evaluations are typically the most 

technically complex and expensive to conduct. 
47

The EETT legislation states that one purpose of the program is “to support the rigorous 

evaluation of programs funded under this part, particularly regarding the impact of such 

programs on student academic achievement, and ensure that timely information on the results of 

such evaluations is widely accessible through electronic means.” The Department of Education 

requires that state education plans include accountability measures for how states will evaluate 

their programs. Federal guidance requires states to: 

...develop a process and accountability measures that the State will use to 

evaluate the extent to which activities funded under the program are effective in 

integrating technology into curricula and instruction. These accountability 

measures should evaluate the impact that Ed Tech activities have had on student 

achievement. The legislation expressly authorizes States to use funds that are set 

aside for State-level activities to develop performance measurement systems to 

determine the effectiveness of educational technology programs supported with 

Ed Tech funds. (See ESEA Section 2415(5).) As part of its monitoring and 

evaluation of the program, the Department intends to examine the progress that 

SEAs [State Education Agencies] have made in integrating technology into 

curricula and instruction and in meeting their goals for using technology to 

improve student academic achievement. (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) 

Neither the legislation nor Department guidance requires any particular staffing arrangement, 

methodology, or reporting for EETT evaluations. As reported by officials in case study states, 

the limited guidance available from the federal government regarding evaluation has caused 

some anxiety among state staff.20 States were concerned that they would be held accountable for 

data that they had not collected or that they would be asked to conduct types of evaluations that 

they did not feel they could afford. States may also be concerned about having sufficient 

evaluation expertise. Only seven states reported having access to evaluators on staff, and nine 

states reported that they did not have access to evaluation expertise. Thirty-three states reported 

that they had access to external evaluators from universities (14) or private organizations (19). 

The survey data and experiences in the case study states suggest that many states may not 

have adequate funding to design and implement rigorous evaluations (Exhibit 28). As a result, it 

is not surprising that most states do not create state-level EETT evaluation reports. Only 18 states 

reported producing state-level evaluation reports for either competitive or formula grants. All 18 

reported evaluation data for their competitive programs; only eight included data about formula 

grants. No states produced state-level evaluation reports that addressed only the formula part of 

the program. Of the 18 states that reported producing state-level evaluation reports, 12 included 

data from local evaluation activities. 

During fiscal years 2003 through 2005, nine states,21 including Texas and West Virginia, 

received additional funds from Evaluating State Educational Technology Programs (ESETP) to 

support rigorous, high-quality state evaluations of educational technology. In fiscal year 2004, 

each state recipient was awarded funds exceeding $500,000 per year, about three times as large 

 

20 Subsequent to the case study interviews, the U.S. Department of Education held an Evaluation Institute for state 

technology directors and other staff implementing EETT to provide technical assistance in conducting rigorous state 

evaluations. 

21 States with ESETP awards are: Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, West 

Virginia, and Wisconsin. West Virginia received to ESETP awards. 
48

as the median allowable state-level set-aside of EETT funds22 that can be committed to 

evaluations. This suggests that the resources required to perform these rigorous, high-quality 

evaluations of competitive EETT grants cost much more than most states can afford. 

Evaluations that can adequately isolate the effects of educational technology on student 

academic achievement are complex and, as already mentioned, likely to be beyond the human 

and financial capacities available to many states. The measures and methods that would be 

necessary to estimate the independent effects of technology, instruction, students’ prior 

achievement, and other likely contributors to student performance are complicated. Three of the 

six NETTS case study states were focusing on increased use of classroom technology in their 

evaluations, one was focusing on teachers’ assessments of their own technology integration 

skills, and two were including student achievement data in their evaluation information. 

Exhibit 28. Challenges in Evaluation and Accountability in Case Study States 

The six case study states varied in their understanding of legislative requirements for evaluation under 

EETT, and all noted that they could not conduct high-quality evaluations with the resources made 

available to them. In addition, all six states were concerned that they would be held accountable, 

retroactively, for data they did not currently collect. States would like clearer guidance concerning what 

data will be required as part of the EETT reporting and accountability process, and they would also like 

clearer definitions for accountability measures, such as “technology literate.” 

All six case study states, even Texas and Ohio with their relatively large amounts of funding, indicated 

they needed more funds for administration of the program, particularly for evaluation. Several states 

either were not doing statewide evaluations beyond data collections already in place or were funding 

descriptive surveys and relying on self-reported data from teachers. Washington used all of its set-aside 

for personnel and general administration and, like Texas, funded its evaluation by using a portion of 

funds awarded to districts. Texas also received a separate federal grant from the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Evaluating State Educational Technology Programs (ESETP) to conduct a more robust 

evaluation of program impacts. 

Like Texas, West Virginia was one of nine states to receive an ESETP award. As a result, the state 

focused its state-level set-aside on personnel and technical assistance. However, state officials in West 

Virginia reported that newly emerging budget concerns in the state threatened the stability of the West 

Virginia educational technology office and its ability to continue to deliver relatively high levels of 

technical assistance and conduct impact evaluations. 

Source: NETTS case study data. 

For the most part, states gave their local grant recipients flexibility in terms of how they 

evaluated their EETT activities. A majority of states required local evaluations of school 

districts’ EETT grants whether they received either formula or competitive awards, but some 

states required evaluations only from school districts that received competitive awards. In fact, 

states have much more leverage legally over local evaluation of competitive grants, compared 

with formula grants. Whereas states can require that competitive grant recipients set aside a 

certain portion of their funds for evaluation activities, they cannot make similar requirements of 

 

22 In fiscal year 2004, this amount was $165,215. 
49

formula funds, which are allocated by formula and used at the discretion of local education 

authorities. State requirements for the use of specific data collection instruments (which would 

permit aggregation of data to the state level) were fairly common for competitive grants (22 

states). Eleven states required competitive grant recipients to set aside a certain proportion of 

their funds for evaluation (Exhibit 29). States were also more likely to stipulate the use of 

specific outcome measures in evaluations of competitive grants. 

Exhibit 29. State Requirements for Competitive Grant Evaluations in FY 2003 

42

22

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Conduct local

evaluation

Use specific data

collection

instruments

Set aside a fixed

percentage or

amount for

evaluation

Requirement

Number of States

Exhibit reads: States often required local evaluations as a component of 

competitive awards, but they were less likely to require the allocation of a specific 

portion of funds or use of specific data collection instruments. Source: NETTS 

state survey. 

A large proportion of states reported using or requiring local entities to use adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) in their evaluations of EETT grants (23 for competitive grants and 22 for 

formula grants). In fact, the most commonly used student metric for the evaluation of EETT was 

AYP, as defined under state accountability systems (Exhibit 30). Some states also used measures 

of student access to technology, student use of technology, and student knowledge, skill, or 

comfort level with technology. 
50

Exhibit 30. Frequency of Student Measures Used to Evaluate Local EETT Projects in FY 2003 

15

22

12

8

27

23

22

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Student access to

technology

Adequate yearly

progress (AYP)

Student use of

technology

Other measures

Measure

Number of States

Formula

Competitive

Exhibit reads: Many states required multiple student measures to evaluate EETT 

projects, although student measures were used more often for competitive 

awards than for formula awards. Source: NETTS state survey. 

Although the proportion of states emphasizing student achievement in their evaluations is 

substantial, it is not markedly higher than the proportions of states requiring other kinds of 

student outcome measures, (such as student access to technology), and none require grantees to 

document the relationships between student achievement and technology programs. 

The fiscal allocations, methods, and outcomes for evaluations as targeted by EETT staff in 

the six evaluation case study states are shown in Exhibit 31. 
51

Exhibit 31. Case Study States’ Evaluation of Competitive Grants in FY 2004 

State 

Annual Fiscal 

Allocation for 

Statewide 

Evaluation 

Entities 

Conducting 

Evaluation 

Evaluation and 

Measurement Methods 

Targeted 

Outcomes 

Kansas $69,190—paid 

for by 

subgrantees 

Regional 

education 

resource center 

Program1: Attendance 

and discipline records, 

teacher-assigned 

grades, classroom 

observations 

Program 2: Teacher and 

student surveys 

Improved 

attendance, 

reduced discipline 

instances, 

improved student 

performance 

University Online assessment tool 

in the Virtual Education 

Space 

Massachusetts $45,000 

State staff Site visits conducted 

following online 

assessment. All projects 

must present at annual 

technology conference. 

Increased use of 

technology in the 

classroom 

Ohio $109,367 Private research 

and evaluation 

firm 

Achievement records, 

surveys, classroom 

observations 

Improved student 

achievement in 

mathematics and 

English or 

language arts 

Texasa Subgrantees 

must evaluate 

local projects; 

state program 

is evaluated 

through 

ESETP funds 

(award 

amount: 

$649,000). 

Varies with 

subgrantee 

Varies with subgrantee Varies with 

subgrantee; 

improved scores on 

Teacher STaR 

Chart (selfassessment tool) 

Washington $200,000 University Teacher logs (surveys) 

and case study site 

visits 

Increased use of 

technology in the 

classroom; use of 

more types of 

technology in the 

classroom 

West Virginiaa ESETP funds 

(award 

amount: 

$471,000) 

Private 

consultant 

Mentor logs, surveys 

(regular and random), 

software usage logs 

Increased use of 

technology in the 

math classroom 

a Texas and West Virginia are recipients of Evaluating State Educational Technology Programs (ESETP) 

awards and have additional funds beyond their state-level set-aside to use for statewide evaluation. 

Exhibit reads: Case study states varied considerably in their approach to evaluating EETT 

competitive grants. Source: NETTS case study data. 
52

Conclusions 

EETT is one of the few federal programs dedicated to the direct support of educational 

technology in high-poverty elementary and secondary schools. The program has provided two 

very different types of awards: formula and competitive. The incorporation of formula grants 

and competitive grants was intended to balance the benefits and limitations of each type of grant. 

Preliminary evidence from case study states suggests that the program has been successful in 

balancing the distribution of grants.23 Both features appear to be useful to states, although 

because of limits in funding in FY 2006, states will be able to award all funds through 

competitive means in the future. 

Formula grants were expected to improve the extent to which educational technology funds 

go to districts serving high-need students, because all districts were guaranteed funds if they had 

sufficient numbers or proportions of students in poverty. Formula funds are particularly 

important to small district, rural districts, and poor districts, because they may not have the same 

resources as large urban districts, such as professional grant writers and other similar advantages. 

Indeed, officials in case study states reported that formula funds were awarded to districts that 

otherwise might not have won competitive grants. However, states have relatively little influence 

on where the formula funds go or how they are spent. 

Competitive grants offer states an opportunity to target particular state needs and require 

particular programmatic features, such as evaluation. In this arena states are emphasizing 

professional development, technology integration, and student achievement, in keeping with the 

intentions of the EETT legislation. However, many eligible districts across the country did not 

apply for competitive awards in the early years of the program. In FY 2003, the proportion of 

eligible districts not applying varied considerably by state. There are many explanations for a 

district’s choice not to apply, including concern about the level of effort required for proposal 

preparation and districts’ satisfaction with their existing technology infrastructure and integration 

practices. Consolidating the formula and competitive grant application processes, as a few states 

do, may encourage more competitive grant applications. It also seems likely to increase the 

degree of articulation between uses made of the formula and competitive funds in districts and 

schools that receive both. 

The primary goal of the EETT program is “to improve student academic achievement 

through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools.” States are required to 

evaluate their EETT programs and may use a portion of the state-level funds available to them 

through EETT. However, survey and case study data suggest that states may not have adequate 

funding to design and implement rigorous evaluations, particularly those that address the 

relationship between EETT program activities and student academic achievement. Results from 

case studies suggest that some states have attempted to leverage state funds by requiring data 

collection with common instruments across the state or encouraging districts to contribute funds 

to a common pool for what amounts to the funding of statewide evaluations by local grantees. 

However, these efforts are not enough to link EETT investments to student academic 

achievement. Indeed, evaluations that can adequately isolate the effects of educational 

technology on student academic achievement require complex designs. The measures and 

methods that would be necessary to estimate the independent effects of technology, instruction, 

 

23 Future NETTS reports will examine more closely how effectively funds are targeted to high-poverty districts. 
53

students’ prior achievement, and other likely contributors to student performance are likely 

beyond the human and financial capacities available to many states. 

In an effort to establish links between the EETT program and improved student academic 

achievement and to build state capacity to conduct rigorous evaluations of educational 

technologies, nine states received additional funding from the Department to conduct rigorous, 

high-quality state evaluations of educational technology under the Evaluating State Educational 

Technology Programs (ESETP). Awards to states amounted to more than $1 million per state 

over a three-year period, which is considerably higher than the median amount of allowable 

state-level funding available through the EETT program, again suggesting that high-quality 

evaluations cost much more than most states can afford through the EETT program. 

Student technology literacy by the eighth grade is also a key goal of the EETT program. 

Although most states have technology standards in place for students, few reported measuring 

students’ technology skills in school year 2003–04. This modest attention to assessment of 

standards may be attributable partly to federal reticence about guidance regarding how 

technology proficiency is to be defined or measured. In all six NETTS case study states, officials 

expressed uncertainty about how to adequately promote and assess student technology literacy. 

Some states had a working definition of the term, but all the case study states expressed concern 

about what the federal government expects in terms of accountability and assessment of 

technology literacy. In the absence of stronger federal guidance concerning the importance of 

having technology skill assessments in place and the requirements for a valid and reliable 

assessment system, states may have few incentives to invest significant resources in this area. 

Most of the data used in this report describe the EETT program in its first and second years 

of operation (FY 2002 and FY 2003). It should be recognized that some states were still 

completing their educational technology plans and getting their EETT implementation 

procedures in place during this time. An additional state survey is planned for winter 2006 to 

collect information about trends in program policies and practices from FY 2002 through FY 

2006. It will focus on state programmatic activities, such as professional development, 

technology integration, and evaluation, and it will update the record of administrative practices 

for the EETT program. 
 
 

CHAPTER 2: INDIVIDUAL STATE PROFILES OF 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES 
 
57 

Alabama Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Alabama Technology Plan for K-12 Education 

URL: http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/documents.asp?section=61&sort=10&footer=sections 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

3.5

6.8

7.0

6.8

7.0

8.8

9.7

9.9

7.2

46.6

26.4

21.2

22.1

25.7

36.3

24.6

20.4

1.5

3.5

4.3

1.5

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.7

0.1

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities: 

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Student technology literacy 

State learning standards 

Student access to technology 

Parent and family involvement 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Content priorities: 

Technology literacy 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory and local 

needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE 

Melinda Maddox Telephone: 334-242-9594 

State Technology Director Fax: 334-353-5886 

Alabama Department of Education E-mail: mmaddox@alsde.edu 

5351 Gordon Persons Bldg. 

PO Box 302101 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

Web site: http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/documents.asp?section=61&sort=8&footer=sections 
58

Alaska Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Alaska Educational Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.eed.state.ak.us/edtech/pdf/EducationalTechnologyPlan.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

13.6

12.3

12.5

11.2

14.1

14.5

18.5

5.3

2.4

3.6

4.7

2.5

2.4

1.8

3.3

0.7

0.1

0.4

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

Professional development 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: N/A 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Cecilia Miller Telephone: 907-465-8703 

Educational Technology Program Manager Fax: 907-465-1686 

Alaska Department of Education & Early Development E-mail: cecilia_miller@eed.state.ak.us 

Division of Teaching & Learning Services 

801 W. 10th St., Suite 200 

Web site: http://www.eed.state.ak.us/EdTech 

Juneau, AK 99801 
59

Arizona Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Arizona Educational Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.ade.az.gov/technology/AZTechPlan05.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

2.8

6.4

6.3

6.3

6.8

10.1

9.7

9.3

35.6

42.2

47.2

60.6

45.9

70.4

54.9

4.7

5.2

6.0

5.0

2.7

12.2

0.1

0.5

0.9

6.9

2.7

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) Yes Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

None 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of state-administered data collections (not including a 

state-administered technology inventory), local needs assessments or self-reported need, and input on local 

financial supports for technology. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Chris Castillo Telephone: 602-542-5233 

Education Technology Specialist Fax: 602-542-3050 

Arizona Department of Education E-mail: ccastil@ade.az.gov 

1535 W. Jefferson BIN 31 Web site: http://www.ade.state.az.us/technology 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 
60

Arkansas Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Arkansas Education Technology Plan 

URL: http://arkedu.state.ar.us/technology/pdf/technology_plan.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

2.1

4.1

4.2

4.2

4.4

5.5

6.0

4.6

13.4

11.0

17.1

21.1

21.0

27.2

18.9

1.3

2.1

1.2

6.8

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.7

0.1

0.6

0.4

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

None 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

James Boardman 

Assistant Director 

Office of Information and Technology 

Telephone: 501-371-5005 

E-mail: jboardman@arkedu.k12.ar.us 

Web site: 

Arkansas Department of Education http://arkedu.state.ar.us/technology/technology.html 

8221 Ranch Blvd. 

Little Rock, AR 72223 
61

California Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: The California Master Plan for Educational Technology 

URL: N/A 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

45.5

45.9

49.8

55.9

85.1

90.0

65.6

208.1

270.5

433.3

342.3

245.3

352.9

260.7

32.2

24.4

20.6

93.3

0.4

7.9

21.4

13.6

14.0

4.9

8.9

28.1

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes No 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) Yes No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Grade-level priorities:

6th–8th grades 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Barbara Thalacker Telephone: 916-323-5072 

California Education Technology Director Fax: 916-323-5110 

California Department of Education E-mail: bthalack@cde.ca.gov 

1430 N Street, Suite 6308 Web site: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/et/ 

Sacramento, CA 95814
62

Colorado Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Colorado Plan for Educational Technology and Information Literacy 

URL: http://www.cde.state.co.us/edtech/download/state-plan.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.9

3.9

3.9

3.7

3.5

5.6

5.5

4.5

14.3

13.0

14.5

16.7

23.8

15.9

24.0

4.0

2.1

3.4

5.9

3.5

3.6

5.9 1.1

0.1

0.5

0.4

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

None 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Jo O’Brien Telephone: 303-866-6852 

Director of Educational Technology Fax: 303-866-6735 

Colorado Department of Education E-mail: obrien_j@cde.state.co.us 

201 E. Colfax Ave. Web site: http://www.cde.state.co.us/edtech 

Denver, CO 80203 
63

Connecticut Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Connecticut Commission for Educational Technology Long Range Plan 

URL: http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/technology/CET-2002-StrategicPlan.doc 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.5

3.8

3.8

3.7

4.0

6.2

5.2

3.8

24.2

34.7

23.9

17.8

24.5

24.3

23.6

4.3

2.6

2.2

1.6

3.7

5.5

0.1

0.5

0.4

0.4

2.3

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making No

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Student technology literacy 

State learning standards 

Student access to technology 

Parent and family involvement 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Technology to manage, collect, and analyze 

data to enhance teaching and school reform 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory and local 

needs assessment or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Ann Gaulin Telephone: 860-713-6769 

State Director/Program Coordinator for Title II, D Fax: 860-713-7018 

Connecticut Department of Education E-mail: ann.gaulin@po.state.ct.us 

165 Capitol Ave. Web site: http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dsi/technology 

Hartford, CT 06106 
64

Delaware Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Delaware Center for Educational Technology Strategic & Action Plans 

URL: http://www.dcet.k12.de.us/admin/strategic03.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

1.0

1.4

1.6

1.8

1.7

1.4

0.8

0.5

1.6

2.1

2.0

1.5

0.7

0.4

1.7

3.3 0.4

0.1

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Plans to do 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education Plans to do 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No No 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

State learning standards 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Content priorities:

English or language arts 

Information literacy 

Grade-level priorities:

6th–8th grades 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Denise DiSabatino Allen Telephone: 302-857-3313 

Education Associate, Library/Media/Technology Fax: 302-739-1775 

Delaware Center for Educational Technology E-mail: dallen@doe.k12.de.us 

35 Commerce Way Web site: http://www.dcet.k12.de.us/ 

Dover, DE 19904 
65 

District of Columbia Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Beyond 2001–Thinking Children 

URL: http://www.k12.dc.us/dcps/frontpagepdfs/FinalPlan2K1.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

4.9

19.0

6.2

7.4

41.6

15.0

10.2

1.5

3.9

1.3

1.4

2.4

1.0

3.3

0.0

0.6

0.1

0.4

0.6

2.1

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Plans to do 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education Plans to do 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Plans to do 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) Plans to do Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software Plans to do Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

None 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Stanley Johnson Telephone: 202-442-5666 

Director of Instructional Technology Fax: 202-442-5669 

District of Columbia Public Schools E-mail: stanley.johnson@k12.dc.us 

825 North Capitol Street, N.E. Suite 8063 

Washington, DC 20002 

Web site: N/A 
66 

Florida Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Florida Educational Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.doe.firn.edu/edtech/it/eett/objectives.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

7.9

18.6

18.5

19.2

21.6

28.3

29.2

22.8

49.4

88.7

59.0

55.8

55.0

74.2

77.9

18.1

6.4

10.8

7.1

7.2

30.9

2.6

2.9

0.2

2.9

12.7

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

State learning standards 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Content priorities:

Reading skills 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory and local 

needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Kate Kemker Telephone: 850-245-5053 

Chief, Education Technology Fax: 850-488-3691 

Florida Department of Education E-mail: Kate.Kemker@fldoe.org 

B1-14 Turlington Building, 325 W. Gaines Street Web site: http://www.doe.firn.edu/edtech 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 
67 

Georgia Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: The State of Georgia K-12 Technology Plan 

URL: http://techservices.doe.k12.ga.us/edtech/techplan.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

4.8

10.9

10.8

11.0

12.5

18.6

18.6

15.2

67.7

95.1

50.9

72.3

59.1

77.7

68.5

16.2

5.0

4.7

6.9

20.2

3.0

2.1

0.1

0.8

2.2

8.1

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Plans to do 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) Yes Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

State learning standards 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Content priorities:

Mathematics 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need:N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Michael Hall Telephone: 404-657-0810 

Deputy State Superintendent, Instructional Technology Fax: 404-656-0978 

Georgia Department of Education E-mail: mhall@doe.k12.ga.us 

1966 Twin Towers East Web site: http://techservices.doe.k12.ga.us/edtech 

205 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive 

Atlanta, GA 30334 
68 

Hawaii Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Hawaii Department of Education Educational Technology Plan 

URL: http://165.248.2.49/ociss/files/state_edtech_plan_110_downloads_44.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

5.9

5.4

2.6

2.9

3.0

4.0

3.2

3.2

1.5

1.6

3.8

2.0

2.2

1.0

1.4

3.3 0.8

0.1

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Plans to do 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education Plans to do 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) Plans to do Yes 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Student technology literacy 

State learning standards 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Electronic networks and other methods of distance 

learning to reach students who otherwise would 

not have access to school curriculum 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Technology to manage, collect, and analyze data to 

enhance teaching and school reform 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2002) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory, other stateadministered data collections, and local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Vicki Kajioka Telephone: 808-733-9150 

Director, Hawaii Department of Education Advanced 

Technology Research Branch 

Fax: N/A 

E-mail: Vicki_Kajioka/ATR/HIDOE@notes.k12.hi.us 

Hawaii Department of Education Web site: http://doe.k12.hi.us/technology/index.htm 

475 22nd Avenue, Room 211 

Honolulu, HI 96816 
69 

Idaho Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Connections 2004 

URL: http://www.sde.state.id.us/bots/documents/04StTechPlan0316.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

4.6

4.9

2.9

4.4

4.7

4.4

3.9

0.6

2.0

4.0

4.2

1.9

2.2

3.3 0.4

0.1

1.8

4.8

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Plans to do Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

None 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Dawn Wilson Telephone: 208-332-6971 

Education Technology Coordinator Fax: 208-332-6878 

Idaho State Department of Education E-mail: dewilson@sde.idaho.gov 

650 W. State Street Room 343 Web site: http://www.sde.state.id.us/bots 

Boise, ID 83720 
70 

Illinois Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: State of Illinois Five-Year Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/curriculum/elearning/pdf/tech_plan.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

9.1

18.0

18.0

17.3

17.2

25.5

25.9

19.9

81.0

167.2

116.4

74.5

85.2

72.2

108.8

10.5

7.6

11.7

12.3

18.7

8.8

10.6

27.6

4.7

0.2

0.8

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) Yes Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software No Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Technology linkages, resources, and services 

to improve academic achievement 

Technology to manage, collect, and analyze data to 

enhance teaching and school reform 

Content priorities: 

English or language arts 

Mathematics 

School-type priorities:

Schools that showed initiative in the application process 

Private schools within the area covered by the grant 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by the results of a state-administered technology inventory, local 

test data, local needs assessments or self-reported need, and input on local financial supports for technology. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Glenda Bequette Telephone: 217-557-7323 

Division Administrator, Illinois State Board of Education Fax: 217-785-7650 

100 North First Street 

E-Learning Division, E-439 

Springfield, IL 62777 

E-mail: gbequett@isbe.net 

Web site: 

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/curriculum/elearning/default.htm 
71 

Indiana Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Indiana’s K-12 Plan for Technology 

URL: http://www.doe.state.in.us/olr/techplan/welcome.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

3.1

6.2

6.3

6.1

6.2

9.0

7.8

6.4

21.9

24.6

20.8

22.3

25.2

25.7

17.9

3.8

2.5

3.3

5.1

3.2

5.2

8.6

4.9

3.6

0.4

0.1

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No No 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Plans to do Plans to do 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

State learning standards 

Parent and family involvement 

Professional development 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Content priorities:

English or language arts 

Mathematics 

Sciences 

School-type priorities:

Schools with a large number of LEP students 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: N/A 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Laura Taylor Telephone: 317-232-9175 

Director, Office of Learning Resources Fax: 317-232-9121 

Indiana Department of Education E-mail: ltaylor@doe.state.in.us 

Room 229 State House 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Web site: http://www.doe.state.in.us/olr 
72 

Iowa Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: N/A 

URL: N/A 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.4

2.7

2.9

2.8

2.6

3.5

3.9

2.4

7.3

8.4

5.4

7.8

10.5

11.0

14.2

2.0

0.7

6.1

2.3

0.8

1.2

4.0 0.7

0.1

0.5

4.7

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $18 $20

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No No 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

Professional development 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Content priorities:

English/language arts 

Mathematics 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by local test data. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

John O’Connell Telephone: 515-242-6354 

Consultant Instructional Technology Fax: 515-242-6025 

Iowa Department of Education E-mail: john.oconnell@iowa.gov 

Grimes State Office Building 

Bureau of Instructional Services 

Web site: 

http://www.state.ia.us/educate/ecese/is/eett/index.html 

Des Moines, IA 50319-0146 
73 

Kansas Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Kansas State Department of Education Technology Plan 2002–2006 

URL: http://www.taken.org/techplan.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.5

3.0

3.0

2.9

3.0

4.3

4.7

2.9

10.4

15.3

8.3

10.9

13.5

15.2

15.1

5.1

1.4

6.1

4.5

1.4

7.7

4.2 0.9

0.1

2.6

4.7

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making No

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No Plans to do 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Content priorities:

English or language arts 

Mathematics 

Sciences 

Technology literacy 

Grade-level priorities: 

4th–8th grade 

School-type priorities: 

Schools that showed initiative in the application 

process 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Melinda Stanley Telephone: 785-296-1204 

Educational Technology Consultant Fax: 785-296-1413

Kansas State Department of Education E-mail: mstanley@ksde.org 

120 SE 10th Ave Web site: http://take.ksde.org 

Topeka, KS 66612 
74 

Kentucky Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Master Plan for Education Technology 

URL: http://www.kentuckyschools.net/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Technology/Master+Plan/2001-

2006+Master+Plan+Update+.htm 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

3.5

6.9

7.1

6.8

6.9

8.8

8.6

7.0

50.3

57.4

23.4

31.7

35.6

34.1

4.1

3.0

6.5

8.9

20.8

1.2

1.1

1.7

0.1

1.6

1.0

0.4

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

State learning standards 

Parent and family involvement 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Technology to manage, collect, and analyze 

data to enhance teaching and school reform 

Student technology literacy 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

School-type priorities:

Schools that provided matching local and other 

program funds to the competitive funds to 

implement professional development 

Schools that demonstrated an ability to sustain 

the program should competitive funds be 

discontinued 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory, other stateadministered data collections, and local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

David Couch Telephone: 502-564-2020 

Education Technology Director, Office of Education 

Technology, Kentucky Department of Education 

Fax: N/A 

E-mail: dcouch@kde.state.ky.us 

15 Fountain Place 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Web site: http://www.kde.state.ky.us/KDE/Administrat 

ive+Resources/Technology/default.htm 
75 

Louisiana Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Louisiana State Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/719.pdf

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

5.3

10.3

10.6

10.2

10.1

11.5

14.2

10.4

39.9

39.7

23.0

28.4

23.0

53.8

47.2

16.6

5.3

10.9

3.2

2.5

14.2

1.6

0.1

0.5

10.5

15.7

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Plans to do 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education Plans to do 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

State learning standards 

Parent and family involvement 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Student technology literacy 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Content priorities:

English or language arts 

Sciences 

Mathematics 

Social studies 

Technology literacy 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory, other stateadministered data collections, local test data, local needs assessments or self-reported need, and input on local 

financial supports for technology. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Janet Broussard Telephone: 225-763-5575 

State Director of Educational Technology Fax: 225-763-5461 

Louisiana Department of Education E-mail: janet.broussard@la.gov 

2758 D Brightside Drive Web site: http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/lcet/home.html 

Baton Rouge, LA 70820 
76 

Maine Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Maine Department of Education State Technology Plan

URL: http://www.state.me.us/education/g2000/techplan.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.9

2.4

3.0

3.8

3.5

6.4

3.8

8.2

7.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

3.3

2.6

3.7

2.4

2.2

4.0 0.4

0.1

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education Plans to do 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Plans to do 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No No 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

State learning standards 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by state-administered data collections (not including a stateadministered technology inventory), local test data, local needs assessments or self-reported need, and input on 

local financial supports for technology. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Jeff Mao Telephone: 207-624-6634 

Coordinator Educational Technology Fax: N/A 

Maine Department of Education E-mail: jeff.mao@maine.gov 

23 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

Web site: 

http://www.state.me.us/education/technology/index.htm 
77 

Maryland Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Maryland Plan for Technology in Education 

URL: http://www.msde.state.md.us/technology/md_tech_plan.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

2.4

5.5

5.4

5.7

9.1

8.1

6.4

15.0

18.6

15.6

18.9

15.6

23.1

2.3

2.4

6.5

6.6

4.8

5.1

0.9

5.5

8.8

0.0

0.1

4.2

9.8

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Professional development 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory and local 

needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Jayne Moore Telephone: 410-767-0382 

Director of Instructional Technology Fax: 410-333-2128 

Maryland Department of Education E-mail: jmoore@msde.state.md.us 

200 W. Baltimore Street Web site: http://www.msde.state.md.us/technology 

Baltimore, MD 21201 
78 

Massachusetts Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Massachusetts Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/tplan03_06.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

3.4

8.1

8.1

7.9

7.9

12.8

14.2

8.3

30.1

35.2

46.6

43.4

39.5

28.0

21.4

9.8

4.0

7.1

10.1

4.6

5.2

11.1

7.9

6.3

0.5

0.1

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Plans to do 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education Plans to do 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Plans to do 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Plans to do Plans to do 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

State learning standards 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Student technology literacy 

Professional development 

Electronic networks and other methods of distance 

learning to reach students who otherwise would not 

have access to school curriculum 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Technology to manage, collect, and analyze 

data to enhance teaching and school reform 

Content-level priorities: 

English or language arts 

Sciences 

Social studies 

Mathematics 

Special education or adaptive education 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Connie Louie Telephone: 781-338-6865 

Instructional Technology Director Fax: 781-338-6850

Massachusetts Department of Education E-mail: clouie@doe.mass.edu 

350 Main Street Web site: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/ 

Malden, MA 02148 
79 

Michigan Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Michigan’s State Technology Plan

URL: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/State_Tech_Plan_Update_2004_final_117274_7.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

8.6

18.2

18.1

17.4

17.7

24.3

20.5

15.9

58.4

79.7

53.6

75.5

56.3

44.5

44.4

8.9

3.9

7.1

8.2

5.5

6.9

21.0

0.1

0.6

3.3

9.9

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Plans to do Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student access to technology 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Electronic networks and other methods of 

distance learning to reach students who 

otherwise would not have access to school 

curriculum 

Technology to improve academic achievement 

Content priorities:

English or language arts 

Mathematics 

Grade-level priorities:

5th–7th grade 

School-type priorities:

Schools that showed initiative in application 

process 

Schools participating in E-rate 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by other state-administered data collections (not including a stateadministered technology inventory) and local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Mary Ann Chartrand 

Director, Office of Grants Coordination & School Support 

Telephone: 517-373-8862 

Fax: N/A 

Michigan Department of Education E-mail: chartrandm@michigan.gov 

608 W. Allegan St., PO Box 30008 Web site: http://www.michigan.gov/mde 

Lansing, MI 48909 
80 

Minnesota Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Minnesota Digital Learning Plan and the Minnesota State Plan for Pre-K Through 12 Education

URL: http://www.digitallearning.state.mn.us/vertical/Sites/{D858130B-1C19-4FC5-BDBF5DE4B6F86E26}/uploads/{030DAAD7-2859-4D4C-B8B7-97135C6CC94D}.PDF 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

2.3

4.9

4.8

4.6

4.4

6.6

6.1

3.9

24.8

31.2

18.4

22.5

22.7

26.4

22.5

9.3

2.7

3.1

5.0

2.8

3.8

5.0

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.1

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making No

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No No 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to improve academic achievement 

Technology to manage, collect, and analyze data to enhance teaching and school reform 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Mary Mehsikomer Telephone: 651-582-8827 

Senior Project Planner Fax: N/A 

Minnesota Department of Education E-mail: Mary.Mehsikomer@state.mn.us 

1500 Highway 36 West 

Roseville, MN 55113 

Web site: 

http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_ed_support.htm 
81 

Mississippi Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Mississippi Department of Education Plan for Educational Technology 

URL: http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/oet/stateplan/index.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

3.5

6.7

6.9

6.6

6.4

6.1

8.3

6.1

24.4

32.9

30.0

34.7

35.0

38.9

46.1

9.2

2.2

3.8

8.3

0.6

0.1

1.3

0.5

0.7

0.5

4.2

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes No 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) Plans to do Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software Plans to do Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

None 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Laura Jones 

OET Bureau Director 

Telephone: 601-359-3954 

Fax: 601-359-2337 

Central High School E-mail: lauraj@mde.k12.ms.us 

PO Box 771 

359 North West St., Suite 136 

Web site: http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/oet/index.html 

Jackson, MS 39205 
82 

Missouri Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Technology Strategic Plan 

URL: http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/instrtech/techplan/02-06statetechplan.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

3.2

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.5

9.3

8.6

7.3

25.2

28.9

72.7

34.3

64.9

43.4

37.6

6.2

3.4

3.9

4.6

8.1

1.6

2.1

1.5

2.3

0.1

0.5

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

Student technology literacy 

Student access to technology 

State learning standards 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

The state eMINTS program 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Content priorities:

English or language arts 

Mathematics 

Sciences 

Social studies 

Technology literacy 

Grade-level priorities:

3rd–6th grades 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory and local 

needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Deborah Sutton Telephone: 573-751-8247 

Director of Instructional Technology Fax: 573-522-1134 

Missouri Department of Education E-mail: dsutton@mail.dese.state.mo.us 

PO Box 480 Web site: http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/instrtech/ 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 
83 

Montana Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Montana Office of Public Instruction ESEA Title II, Part D “EdTech” Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.opi.state.mt.us/PDF/EdTech/02OPIEdTechPlan.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

3.7

3.8

3.2

3.7

4.0

3.9

4.7

0.9

0.7

2.9

4.5

3.2

0.4

3.3 0.4

0.1

2.6

4.3

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Professional development 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Michael Hall 

Ed Tech Specialist 

Telephone: 406-444-4422 

Fax: N/A 

Montana Office of Public Instruction E-mail: mhall@state.mt.us 

P.O. Box 202501 Web site: http://www.opi.state.mt.us/EdTech/Index.html 

Helena, MT 59020-2501 
84 

Nebraska Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Nebraska PreK-12 Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.nde.state.ne.us/TECHCEN/downloads/statetechplan%201-27-03.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

4.9

6.9

6.4

6.2

7.6

7.7

7.7

0.8

3.9

5.4

4.3

1.3

1.6

3.3 0.9

0.1

4.0

3.6

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Plans to do 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Plans to do Plans to do 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

None 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Not addressed 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory and local 

needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Jim Lukesh Telephone: 402-471-5023 

Nebraska Department of Education Fax: 402-247-1117 

301 Centennial Mall South E-mail: jlukesh@nde.state.ne.us 

Lincoln, NE 68509 Web site: http://www.nde.state.ne.us/TECHCEN 
85 

Nevada Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Nevada State Educational Technology Plan

URL: http://www.doe.nv.gov/techinn.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.6

5.4

3.2

3.9

3.6

5.5

4.9

4.1

0.7

0.7

1.3

1.1

2.8

3.5 0.4

0.1 0.1

0.5

3.0

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Plans to do 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Professional development 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory and local 

needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Mark S. Knudson Telephone: 775-687-9137 

Educational Technology Specialist Fax: 775-687-9111

Nevada Department of Education E-mail: mknudson@doe.nv.gov 

700 East Fifth Street Web site: http://www.doe.nv.gov/techinn/edtech.html

Carson City, NV 89701 
86 

New Hampshire Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: State of New Hampshire Educational Technology Plan 

URL: http://nheon.org/oet/stateplan/nhtp2002.htm 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.7

2.3

2.3

0.3

1.1

1.4

1.2

1.4

1.4

1.2

0.7

3.3 0.4

0.1

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making No

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Bonus payments to teachers prepared to act as technology leaders to assist other teachers 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to improve academic achievement 

Technology to manage, collect, and analyze data to enhance teaching and school reform 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory, other stateadministered data collections, local needs assessments or self-reported need, and input on local financial 

supports for technology. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Cathy Higgins Telephone: 603-271-2453 

Educational Technology Consultant Fax: 603-271-1953

New Hampshire Department of Education E-mail: chiggins@ed.state.nh.us 

101 Pleasant Street Web site: http://www.nheon.org/oet 

Concord, NH 03301 
87 

New Jersey Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: The Education Technology Plan for New Jersey 

URL: http://www.nj.gov/njded/techno/state_plan.htm 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

4.0

9.0

8.9

9.1

9.5

15.0

14.0

9.8

62.3

45.3

41.8

51.8

47.0

55.0

50.9

7.9

2.2

4.2

2.3

13.5

0.1

0.5

1.4

0.5

0.7

6.8

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Plans to do 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software Yes No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Student access to technology 

Parent and family involvement 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Content priorities:

English or language arts 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by state-administered data collections (not including a stateadministered technology inventory) and local test data. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Jack Longworth Telephone: 609-633-9773 

Director, Office of Educational and Informational 

Technology 

Fax: 609-633-9865 

E-mail: Jack.Longworth@doe.state.nj.us 

New Jersey Department of Education Web site: http://www.nj.gov/njded/techno 

PO Box 500, 100 River View Plaza 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 
88 

New Mexico Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Strategic Planning for Education in New Mexico—Technology 

URL: http://www.sde.state.nm.us/nmcte/nmcte_home.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

3.9

4.9

5.8

19.2

29.6

19.0

55.4

27.6

93.5

38.2

5.0

6.1

5.6

7.2

4.0

3.5

3.5

3.5

1.7

6.2

2.4

2.0

3.2

0.1

0.4

0.5

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Plans to do 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education Plans to do 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Plans to do 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) Plans to do Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

None 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Mia Romero Telephone: 505-827-7354 

New Mexico Department of Education Fax: N/A 

300 Don Gasper E-mail: mromero@ped.state.nm.us 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 Web site: http://www.nmlites.org/index.html 
89 

New York Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN 

Title: New York State Technology Framework

URL: www.emsc.nysed.gov/deputy/Documents/technology/tech-plan-2-03.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

37.8

37.6

38.5

42.4

60.9

64.9

170.2

214.2

277.1

361.8

386.7

436.4

66.2 338.6

17.3

45.1 7.0

14.7

5.4

3.9

10.6

12.5

17.2

10.8

1.5

3.3

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Plans to do 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Student technology literacy 

Student access to technology 

State learning standards 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Professional development 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Content priorities:

English language/arts (especially early reading 

literacy) 

Mathematics 

Technology literacy 

School-type priorities:

Schools with a large number of LEP students 

Schools that have been identified as in need of 

improvement 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2002) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Anne Schiano Telephone: 518-474-5922 

Assistant Director, New York State Education Department Fax: 518-402-1385 

89 Washington Avenue 318EB E-mail: aschiano@mail.nysed.gov 

Albany, NY 12234 Web site: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/ 
90 

North Carolina Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: North Carolina Educational Technology Plan 

URL: http://tps.dpi.state.nc.us/Tech2000rev/techplan.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

3.7

7.7

7.7

7.7

8.9

12.7

15.2

10.8

26.9

39.4

28.4

25.6

46.6

50.6

44.5

12.9

8.9

7.0

3.3

14.9

2.2

0.1

2.0

0.8

3.3

6.1

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No Yes 

Online courses, materials or software Plans to do Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Student access to technology 

Parent and family involvement 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Technology personnel 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Electronic networks and other methods of 

distance learning to reach students who 

otherwise would not have access to school 

curriculum 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Technology to manage, collect, and analyze 

data to enhance teaching and school reform 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Wynn Smith, Section Chief Telephone: 919-807-3270 

North Carolina Department of Education Fax: 919-807-3290 

6364 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27601 

E-mail: wsmith@dpi.state.nc.us 

Web site: http://tps.dpi.state.nc.us/ 
91 

North Dakota Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: North Dakota Educational Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.state.nd.us/itd/etc/docs/03-05-state-tech-plan-final-with-cover.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

2.4

2.2

1.8

1.7

5.6

4.0

4.8

0.8

1.6

3.6

3.6

2.5

2.2

3.3 0.4

0.1

2.2

4.1

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

None 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

The state decided that a definition of technology need was not necessary. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Chris Kalash 

Program Administrator 

Telephone: 701-328-3544 

Fax: 701-328-4770 

North Dakota Department of Public Instruction E-mail: ckalash@state.nd.us 

600 E. Boulevard Ave., Dept. 201 Web site: http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/tech/index.shtm 

Bismarck, ND 58505-5036 
92 

Ohio Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Ohio Educational Technology Plan

URL: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/centers/state_tech_plan_matrix.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

8.5

16.7

16.6

15.2

19.2

21.9

14.2

57.3

41.9

97.2

58.1

72.8

68.3

25.6

6.8

6.2

4.1

21.0

15.9 0.0

2.1

6.6

0.1

0.9

4.4

5.5

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Content priorities:

English or language arts 

Mathematics 

Technology literacy 

Grade-level priorities: 

K-8th grade 

School-type priorities:

Schools that showed initiative in the grant application process 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined according to local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Verda McCoy 

Coordinator 

Telephone: 614-644-3762 

Fax: N/A 

Ohio SchoolNet Commission E-mail: mccoy@osn.state.oh.us 

2323 W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Web site: http://www.osn.state.oh.us/go/eett/index.jsp 

Columbus, OH 43204 
93 

Oklahoma Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Oklahoma Instructional Technology Plan 

URL: http://title3.sde.state.ok.us/technology/stateTechPlan.htm 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

2.4

4.8

4.8

5.0

5.5

7.1

6.6

5.1

32.6

33.4

28.7

29.6

36.3

53.1

52.0

11.1

2.2

7.4

1.8

2.0

1.0

1.3

0.7

0.1

1.7

3.7

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

State learning standards 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory and other 

state-administered data collections. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Phil Applegate 

Executive Director, Instructional 

Technology/Telecommunications 

Telephone: 405-521-3994 

Fax: N/A 

E-mail: Phil_Applegate@sde.state.ok.us 

Oklahoma State Dept. of Education 

2500 North Lincoln Boulevard 

Web site: http://title3.sde.state.ok.us/technology 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599 
94 

Oregon Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Oregon Department of Education Strategic Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.ode.state.or.us/services/budget/03_05/pdfs/strategictechplan200103.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.9

3.8

3.8

3.6

3.6

5.5

6.3

4.5

9.4

11.1

10.9

13.5

14.1

16.1

15.3

4.3

1.3

1.1

4.6

3.0

4.1

1.9

1.8

7.0

0.1

0.8

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No No 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Plans to do No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

Student technology literacy 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Content priorities:

Technology literacy 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Carla Wade 

Instructional Technology Specialist 

Telephone: 503-378-3600 

Fax: 503-378-5156 

Oregon Department of Education E-mail: carla.wade@state.or.us 

255 Capitol Street, NE 

Salem, OR 97310 

Web site: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=160 
95 

Pennsylvania Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Pennsylvania State Education Technology Plan 

URL: www.pde.state.pa.us/ed_tech/lib/ed_tech/PAStateTechnologyPlan2002.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

8.6

18.3

18.3

17.7

17.8

22.8

24.1

17.7

49.7

55.6

54.1

73.3

86.8

89.7

78.9

12.2

6.4

6.6

5.2

22.9

3.7

0.1

2.5

1.7

9.0

3.1

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making No

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) Yes No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

Student technology literacy 

State learning standards 

Student access to technology 

Parent and family involvement 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to improve academic achievement 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Kathleen Brautigam 

333 Market St., 2nd Floor 

Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333 

Telephone: 717-214-7128 

Fax: 717-785-5424 

E-mail: kbrautigam@state.pa.us 

Web site: http://www.pde.state.pa.us/ed_tech/ 

site/default.asp 
96 

Puerto Rico Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Puerto Rico Department of Education Technology Plan

URL: N/A 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

7.1

13.9

14.5

14.0

15.2

19.8

22.8

17.7

47.6

67.8

76.8

12.0

6.2

24.4 1.1

0.3

0.0

0.4

0.1

2.8

1.6

1.8

0.6

2.7

1.2

1.4

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making No

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No No 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Plans to do Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Content priorities:

English/language arts 

Mathematics 

Sciences 

Social studies 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Aurea De Jesus 

Director de Tecnología Educacional 

Telephone: 787-759-8910 

Fax: 787-753-1362 

Departamento de Educacion 

Federal Affairs Office 

P.O. Box 190759 

E-mail: dejesus_a@de.gobierno.pr 

Web site: 

www.de.gobierno.pr/EDUPortal/Sobre+DE/OSIATD/DITE 

San Juan, PR 00919-0759 
97 

Rhode Island Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: RIDE Statewide Technology Audit 

URL: N/A 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

6.0

7.8

4.7

5.1

5.1

9.8

6.2

0.5

0.5

0.6

1.0

1.3

1.4

3.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.1

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Plans to do 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education Plans to do 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) Plans to do Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Student technology literacy 

State learning standards 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Technology to manage, collect, and analyze 

data to enhance teaching and school reform 

Content priorities:

English or language arts 

Grade-level priorities: 

K–3rd grade 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need:Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of state-administered data collections (not including a 

state-administered technology inventory), local test data, local needs assessments/self-reported need, and input 

on local financial supports for technology. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

William Fiske 

Rhode Island Department of Education 

Telephone: 401-222-4600 

Fax: 401-222-4600 

255 Westminster Street E-mail: fiske@ride.ri.net 

Providence, RI 02903 Web site: http://www.ridoe.net/tech_in_schools/Default.htm 
98 

South Carolina Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: South Carolina State Technology Plan, 2003-08, Realizing the Dream 

URL: http://www.myscschools.com/offices/tech/techplan/sctp2003_08/documents/SCTechPlan.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

2.6

5.1

5.2

5.2

5.9

8.4

8.7

25.0

32.3

52.0

48.0

48.0

58.4

41.0

3.3

5.4

6.2

2.9

3.8

6.6

8.8

1.2

0.8

0.1

3.3

10.5

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

State learning standards 

Student access to technology 

Parent and family involvement 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Bonus payments to teachers prepared to act as 

technology leaders to assist other teachers 

Content priorities:

English or language arts 

Mathematics 

Sciences 

Social studies 

Technology literacy 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory, results of 

other state-administered data collections, local test data, and local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Dee Appleby 

Team Manager – SC Virtual School Coordinator 

Telephone: 803-734-0072 

Fax: 803-734-8237 

South Carolina Department of Education E-mail: dappleby@ed.sc.gov 

1429 Senate Street, Room 406 Web site: http://www.myscschools.com/offices/tech/ 

Columbia, SC 29201 
99 

South Dakota Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: South Dakota Department of Education State Technology Plan 

URL: http://doe.sd.gov/octa/ddn4learning/index.asp 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

2.8

2.1

1.9

8.0

2.9

5.1

6.5

2.0

6.3

5.1

5.5

4.1

3.3

0.3 0.1

0.4

4.2

7.8

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $18 $20

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student technology literacy 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Wade Pogany 

Director, Office of Curriculum, Technology, and 

Assessment 

South Dakota Department of Education 

Telephone: 605-773-3261 

Fax: N/A 

E-mail: wade.pogany@state.sd.us 

Web site: http://doe.sd.gov/octa/index.asp 

700 Governors Drive 

Pierre, SD 57501 
100 

Tennessee Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Tennessee Educational Technology Plan 2003-2006 

URL: http://tennessee.gov/education/acct-tp-2003-2006.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

3.5

7.2

7.1

7.0

7.0

8.3

10.8

7.6

27.1

61.6

46.4

44.7

23.8

53.3

28.3

5.1

4.4

2.7

2.4

11.3

2.3

1.5

1.5

1.0

0.4

0.1

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making No

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

N/A 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory, local test 

data, and local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Jill Balthrop 

Director of Integrated Technology 

Telephone: 615-532-3313 

Fax: 615-532-8312 

Tennessee Department of Education E-mail: Jill.Balthrop@state.tn.us 

710 James Robertson Parkway 

Andrew Johnson Tower, 4th Floor 

Web site: 

http://www.state.tn.us/education/acctorbitmain.htm 

Nashville, TN 37243 
101 

Texas Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Long-Range Plan for Technology 

URL: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/technology/lrpt/lrpt_lrpt.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

35.3

34.9

35.2

38.3

50.7

56.4

44.0

128.8

133.2

151.3

236.3

268.9

406.5

324.6

29.2

16.3

60.1

2.4

0.3

2.1

7.7

9.7

12.8

13.0

4.8

12.8

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Plans to do 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student technology literacy 

Parent and family involvement 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

TARGET: Technology Applications Readiness Grants for 

Empowering Texas teachers and students 

School-type priorities: 

Specific grade levels or specific populations on 

campuses 

Mentoring networks that demonstrated the full 

understanding of their roles and 

responsibilities to the high-need campuses 

Applications that leveraged existing resources 

Partnerships 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of state-administered data collections (not including a 

state-administered technology inventory), local needs assessments or self-reported need, and completion of the 

Texas School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart for each campus participating in the project. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Anita Givens 

Senior Director, Educational Technology 

Telephone: 512-463-9400 

Fax: 512-463-9090 

Educational Technology Unit E-mail: agivens@tea.state.tx.us 

1701 North Congress Avenue Web site: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/technology 

Austin, TX 78701 
102 

Utah Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Utah Public Education Technology Plan 

URL: http://205.125.10.10/plan/usoedraft.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

6.4

5.3

5.1

5.7

7.5

13.3

17.1

7.1

1.3

1.6

6.0

1.6

2.1

3.3 0.4

0.1

1.4

2.3

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student technology literacy 

State learning standards 

Professional development 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Rick Gaisford Telephone: 801-538-7798 

Technology Coordinator Fax: 801-538-7769 

Utah State Office of Education E-mail: rgaisfor@usoe.k12.ut.us 

250 East 500 South, P.O. Box 144200 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111 

Web site: 

http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/EdTech/default.htm 
103 

Vermont Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Vermont Educational Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/pdfdoc/pgm_edtech/state_edtech_plan_04-07.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

2.1

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

0.5

1.2

1.0

0.8

3.8

4.2

3.2

4.0

3.2 0.4

0.1

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Plans to do 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Plans to do 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

None 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory and local 

financial information. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Bill Romond Telephone: 802-828-0064 

Educational Technology Coordinator Fax: 802-828-3140 

Vermont Dept. of Education E-mail: billromond@education.state.vt.us 

120 State Street 

Montpelier, VT 05620 

Web site: 

http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/html/pgm_edtech.html 
104 

Virginia Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Educational Technology Plan for Virginia: 2003-2009

URL: www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Technology/plan2003-09.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

2.9

6.2

6.1

6.1

6.8

10.4

9.9

8.1

25.6

30.6

17.9

21.4

25.9

31.4

26.7

7.7

2.9

13.3

6.7

3.0

8.4

10.3 1.0

0.3

2.8

13.9

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory, other stateadministered data collections, and local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Lan Neugent Telephone: 804-225-2757 

Assistant Superintendent of Technology Fax: 804-786-9374 

Virginia Department of Education E-mail: Lneugent@pen.k12.va.us 

101 North 14th Street 

James Monroe Bldg., 18th Fl. 

Web site: 

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Technology/EdTech/ 

Richmond, VA 23218-2120 
105 

Washington Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN 

Title: Washington State Educational Technology Plan 

URL: www.k12.wa.us/edtech/EdTechPlan.htm 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

2.8

6.1

6.0

5.8

5.6

8.3

8.3

6.5

28.4

34.6

18.5

18.5

18.3

22.0

20.3

3.8

3.2

8.6

10.4

1.9

3.3

9.0

0.1

0.4

5.6

7.7

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No No 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

State learning standards 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Bonus payments to teachers prepared to act as 

technology leaders to assist other teachers 

Technology linkages, resources, and services to 

improve academic achievement 

Student technology literacy 

Student access to technology 

Technology to manage, collect, and analyze 

data to enhance teaching and school reform 

Parent and family involvement 

Professional development 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

Content priorities:

Mathematics, technology literacy, & special 

education or adaptive education 

Grade-level priorities: 

6th–8th grades 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory, results of 

other state-administered data collections, local test data, local needs assessments/self-reported need, and input 

on local financial supports for technology. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Dennis Small Telephone: 360-725-6284 

EETT Program Director 

Information Technology Services, OSPI 

Fax: 360-586-7251 

Old Capitol Building E-mail: dsmall@ospi.k12.wa.us 

P.O. Box 47200 Web site: http://www.k12.wa.us/edtech 

Olympia, WA 98504 
106 

West Virginia Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: West Virginia Educational Technology Plan 

URL: http://access.k12.wv.us/techplan/stateplan.htm

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

2.0

4.0

4.1

3.9

3.9

4.5

6.0

3.9

9.4

9.4

5.6

8.2

8.1

10.1

9.1

0.5

1.3

2.8

3.4

3.8

5.5

2.1

5.9

0.4

0.4

0.1

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $18 $20

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification Yes 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards Yes Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No Plans to do 

Online courses, materials or software Yes Yes 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject 

areas 

Student technology literacy 

State learning standards 

Student access to technology 

Parent and family involvement 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

Evaluation of EETT program impact 

LEA-level technology integration specialists 

who train teachers to integrate technology 

into the classroom 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by local needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Brenda Williams Telephone: 304-558-7880 

Executive Director Fax: N/A 

West Virginia Department of Education E-mail: brendaw@access.k12.wv.us 

1900 Kanawha Blvd. 

East Building 6, Room 346 

Web site: http://access.k12.wv.us 

Charleston, WV 25305 
107 

Wisconsin Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Wisconsin Educational Information & Technology Plan PK-12 

URL: www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dltcl/imt/k12_tech.html 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

3.5

6.8

6.9

6.7

6.5

8.5

8.1

5.9

38.2

26.8

25.0

25.6

31.8

22.2

24.3

3.1

3.5

2.6

1.6

3.7

8.9

0.7

0.4

0.1

1.3

4.7

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification Yes 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education No 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making Yes 

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

State learning standards 

Professional development 

Technology integration into the classroom 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Yes 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory and local 

needs assessments or self-reported need. 

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Robert Roy Telephone: 608-261-6332 

Education Consultant, Instructional Technology Fax: 608-267-1052 

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction E-mail: robert.roy@dpi.state.wi.us 

125 Webster Street, PO Box 7841 

Madison, WI 53707 

Web site: 

http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dltcl/imt/index.html 
108 

Wyoming Educational Technology Policies 

LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN

Title: Wyoming Education Technology Plan 

URL: http://www.k12.wy.us/ep/ctde/pubs/WyTech_Plan.pdf 

SELECTED FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

1.0

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.3

3.1

3.2

2.4

1.2

5.0

1.2

1.7

2.8

1.5

0.9

0.9

0.5

0.8

0.6

0.3

0.5

3.3 0.3

0.1

0.7

0.8

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Millions

TLCF/EETT

e-Rate

Other

STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Required technology-related course work for: 

 Teacher certification No 

 Teacher recertification No 

 Teacher continuing education Yes 

Data provided to local staff for decision-making No

For Teachers For Students

Minimum technology standards No Yes 

 Formal assessment of proficiency on standards (state level) No No 

Online courses, materials or software No No 

State EETT competitive grant priorities 

Special priorities:

Student academic achievement in core subject areas 

Student access to technology 

Professional development 

A statewide network that includes a compressed-video system. LEAs were encouraged to distribute classes (share 

limited resources) with other LEAs via the state network. 

Additional points were added to applications that outlined use of the Educational Portal for Staff Development. 

State EETT definition of “high-need” LEA (2003) 

Academic need: N/A 

Technology need: Not addressed 

High-technology-need LEAs were determined by results of a state-administered technology inventory; results of 

other state-administered data collections; and information gathered from LEA technology directors, school 

improvement state conferences, and LEA site visits.

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONTACT AND WEB SITE

Chuck Mitchell Telephone: 307-777-6220 

WEN Video Coordinator Fax: 307-777-6234 

Wyoming Department of Education E-mail: cmitch@educ.state.wy.us 

2300 Capitol Ave., 2nd Floor 

Cheyenne, WY 82002 

Web site: http://www.k12.wy.us/ 
REFERENCES 

111

Bailey, T. and Berryman, S. (1992). The double helix of education and the economy. New York: Institute 

on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University. 

Connecticut State Department of Education. (2001). Connecticut teacher technology competencies.

Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/technology/PerfIndi_v2.pdf. 

Culp, K. M., Honey, M., and Mandinach, E. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of eduction 

technology policy. Boston: Education Development Center, Center for Children and Technology. 

Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology in public education. Educational 

Technology Magazine, 42(1), 5-13. 

Education Week. (2001). Technology counts 2001. The new divides. Bethesda, Md.: Author. 

Education Week. (2003). Technology counts 2003. Pencils down: Technology’s answer to testing.

Bethesda, Md.: Author. 

Education Week. (2006). Technology counts 2006. The information edge: Using data to accelerate 

achievement. Bethesda, Md.: Author. 

Educational Technology Clearinghouse. (2003). Florida educator accomplished practice #12: 

Technology. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http://etc.usf.edu/L4L/E-EAP12.pdf. 

Friedman, T. (2005). The World is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, 

Straus, and Giroux. 

George Lucas Educational Foundation (2004). Instructional module: Technology integration. Retrieved 

April 8, 2006 from http://www.edutopia.org/modules/TI/What.php. 

Georgia Professional Standards Commission. (n.d.). Georgia technology standards for educators. 

Retrieved June 28, 2006 from 

http://www.gapsc.com/TeacherEducation/Documents/TechStandards.pdf. 

Ginsburg, A., Gray, T., and Levin, D. (2004). Online professional development for mathematics teachers: 

A strategic analysis. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research. 

Gollub, J., Bertenthal, M., Labor, J., and Curtis, P. (Eds.). (2002). Learning and understanding: 

Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U.S. high schools. Washington, D.C.: 

National Academy Press. 

Henry, G. (2005). “Evaluating educational technology programs: Criteria for judging ‘good’ 

evaluations.” Presentation at the U.S. Department of Education’s Evaluation Institute for State 

Educational Technology Directors, February 2005. 

Illinois State Board of Education. (2002). Technology standards for all Illinois teachers. Retrieved June 

28, 2006 from www.isbe.state.il.us/profprep/CASCDvr/pdfs/24120_coretechnology.pdf. 

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). Educational technology standards and 

performance indicators for teachers. Retrieved April 8, 2006, from 

http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_stands.html. 

International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). What is curriculum integration? Curriculum 

lessons and multidisciplinary units. Retrieved April 8, 2006 from 

http://cnets.iste.org/students/s_currinteg.html. 

Kulik, James. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: 

What controlled evaluation studies say. Issue Brief. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International. 
112

Kozma, R. (2005). ICT, education reform, and economic growth. Menlo Park, California: SRI 

International. 

Maryland State Department of Education. (2002). Maryland teacher technology standards. Retrieved 

June 28, 2006 from http://www.smcm.edu/msde-pt3/projects.htm. 

Means, Barbara. (2005). Evaluating the implementation of integrated student information and 

instructional management systems. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International. 

Michigan Department of Education. (2002). Entry-level standards for Michigan teachers and related 

proficiencies. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ELSMT_&_PED_as_SBE_approved_Oct__24_02_57198_7.pdf

.

Mokros, J.R., and Tinker, R.F. (1987). The impact of micro-computer based labs on children’s ability to 

interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24: 369-83. 

Murnane, M. J., and Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: Principles for educating children to 

thrive in a changing economy. New York: Free Press. 

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2006). 

Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. 

Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Technology in schools: Suggestions, tools, and 

guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. Washington, D.C.: 

National Forum on Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Computer technology in the public school classrooms: 

Teacher perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for 

educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 

Nebraska Department Education. (2001). Nebraska educator competencies in technology. Retrieved June 

28, 2006, from http://www.nde.state.ne.us/TECHCEN/documents/ntct2001.pdf. 

Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. (2005). Overview of technology integration in schools. 

Retrieved Aug. 2, 2005 from http://www.netc.org/images/pdf/tech.integration.pdf. 

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (n.d.). Learning for the 21st century: A report and mile guide for 21st 

century skills. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., and Glaser, R. (eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science 

and design of educational assessments. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. (1997). Report to the president on the use 

of technology to strengthen K–12 education in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee. (2001). Report to the President on using 

information technology to transform the way we learn. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

Puma, M., Chaplin, D., and Pape, A. (2000). The E-rate and the digital divide: A preliminary analysis 

from the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of 

Education. 
113

Quality Education Data. (2004). Technology purchasing forecast, 2004–2005 (10th ed.). Denver, Colo.: 

Author. 

Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., and Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and

what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76-

101. 

Saint Paul Public Schools. (n.d.). Forms of professional development. Retrieved Aug. 8, 2005, from 

http://connect.spps.org/Forms_of_Professional_Development.html. 

Schneiderman, M. (2005). Enhancing education through technology (ESEA, Title II, Part D) (and other 

technology grants and opportunities). In Committee for Education Funding (CEF), Education budget 

alert for fiscal year 2005. Washington, D.C.: Committee for Education Funding. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration. (2002). Visions 2020: Transforming 

education and training through advanced technologies. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Getting America’s students ready for the 21st century: Meeting 

the technology literacy challenge: A report to the nation on technology and education. Washington, 

D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2000a). The national technology education plan. E-learning: Putting a 

world-class education at the fingertips of all children. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2000b). The secretary’s conference on educational technology 2000: 

Measuring the impacts and shaping the future. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2000c). Progress report on educational technology: State-by-state 

profiles. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/reports/statebystateprogress-12-2000.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Guidance on the enhancing education through technology (Ed 

tech) program. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/edtech/guidance.doc. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the 

Internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Enhancing education through technology (Ed tech) state program 

funding status. Retrieved May 17, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/edtech/funding.html. 

Wayman, J. C., Stringfield, S., and Yakimowski, M. (2004). Software enabling school improvement 

through analysis of student data (Report No. 67). Baltimore, Md.: Center for Research on the 

Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR). 

Web-based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise 

to practice. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

White House. (2006). American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the world in innovation. Washington, 

D.C.: Domestic Policy Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

White House. (Jan 31, 2006). State of the Union: American Competitiveness Initiative, [Press release]. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of the Press Secretary. 

Yeager, R. E. (2005). Exemplary science in grades 9–12: Standards-based success stories. Arlington, 

Va.: National Science Teachers Association. 

Zhao, Y., and Conway, P. (2001). What’s in, what’s out—An analysis of state educational technology 

plans. TC Record [online]. Retrieved May 17, 2006, from 

http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=10717. 

APPENDIX A: 

REPORT METHODOLOGY 
116 
117 

Data Sources 

This report presents data from numerous sources, including surveys of state and district technology 

coordinators, interviews with state technology directors, and administrative records from federal and 

state educational technology programs. Each of these is described in greater detail below, including 

information about the data, its collection, and analysis as presented in this report. 

NETTS Survey of State Educational Technology Directors 

In fall 2004, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) identified educational technology 

administrators in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as respondents for the 

National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS) state survey. EETT recipients not included 

in the sample were the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. These entities were excluded because of their limited 

funding. Specifically, the Department allocates three-quarters of 1 percent of the total funds made 

available each year under the EETT program to the secretary of the interior for programs in schools 

operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and a total of .5 percent of the funds to the 

aforementioned territories. 

EETT implementation data for FY 2003 grants and data on technology use more generally were 

collected using both electronic and paper versions of the NETTS state survey. The 49-item survey 

addressed a variety of topics, including state educational technology policy contexts, the subgrant 

application process, state priorities for subgrant competitions, administration of the EETT program, 

and EETT monitoring and evaluation. 

To initially engage respondents, the Department mailed a notification letter to each of the state 

educational technology directors. The letter explained the purpose of the survey and provided 

directions on how to access and complete the online survey. Subsequently, an e-mail was sent to each 

state educational technology director that presented the same information contained in the letters. 

Respondents were tracked, and non-respondents were contacted. 

During the entire survey administration period, evaluation team staff were available to educational 

technology administrators via e-mail and phone to answer questions and address concerns. Follow-up 

e-mails and calls to the state administrators served as personal reminders and provided them with an 

opportunity to discuss any issues. Staff at the Department also made reminder phone calls to the 

nonrespondent state administrators to ask them to respond to the survey. Survey data were collected 

from November 2004 to February 2005. 

Responses were received from all states, for a 100 percent response rate. Data from returned paper 

surveys were entered into the online survey database, which included the surveys completed 

electronically. These data were imported from the online database to SAS, which was used for the 

analysis. A series of descriptive statistics and were calculated and used for this report. 

NETTS Survey of District Technology Coordinators 

The sampling frame for the survey of district technology coordinators included regular public 

school districts in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, plus nondistrict entities 

receiving EETT funding as lead entities. Districts composed exclusively of charter schools, special 

education schools, and “voc-tech” schools were excluded from the study. Primary stratification 

incorporated the following factors: district entity status (district vs. nondistrict entity), EETT program 

status (did or did not receive competitive funds), poverty, size, urban or rural location, and whether the 
118 

target grade or subject area is covered by the national educational technology intervention 

experimental study being conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. 

States were asked to provide lists of appropriate respondents for each entity (district or nondistrict

recipient of EETT funds) in their state-specific portion of the sampling frame. This information was 

supplemented with information from the Common Core of Data (CCD), Web searches, and phone 

calls.24 The sampling frame included the 60 largest urban districts (which were selected with certainty), 

12,423 other districts that had received EETT funds, another 2,239 districts that had not received 

EETT funds, and 70 nondistrict entities that had received EETT funding (also selected with certainty).

A subset of 1,039 entities from this frame were sampled by using stratified sampling with probabilities 

proportional to a measure of size. Districts that did not receive EETT funding were sampled in 

proportion to their student populations. The remaining districts (the vast majority) were selected in 

proportion to their EETT funding. Sample sizes by strata were designed to meet prespecified precision 

thresholds established by the U.S. Department of Education. 

District coordinators were given three response formats for the district survey: a Web-based 

version, a hard-copy version, and a phone version. Respondents were strongly encouraged to use the 

Web-based version to reduce costs for data entry and help ensure more accurate and consistent data. 

The hard-copy survey was made available only after respondents had sufficient time to make use of the 

Web-based version, and the phone version was used only near the end of the data collection process. 

Survey data were collected from March to June 2005. It began with an e-mail notification to 

respondents requesting their participation in the online survey. District coordinators were mailed 

personalized incentive checks of $40.25. During the survey window, nonrespondents were contacted 

by mail and phone. Approximately 1,800 calls were made to 420 districts, resulting in 294 completed 

telephone surveys (70 percent).26 Only 10 districts declined to respond, so the final response rate was 

99 percent overall. Item response rates (i.e., by question) averaged 97 percent, with a minimum of 73 

percent. Item response rates exceeded 90 percent for all but three of the 54 questions. 

After being cleaned and checked, data were weighted to represent students nationally and analyzed 

by using tabular analyses and descriptive statistics. 

State Case Studies 

Six states were targeted for qualitative data collection. Candidate states were identified to be 

nationally representative by region, number of school districts, enrollment levels, overall educational 

technology ranking, levels of connectivity, and EETT funding levels. Overlap between candidate 

NETTS case study states, states receiving Evaluating State Educational Technology Program (ESETP) 

grants, and states of policy interest to the Department were considered in the final selection of states. 

Two-person interview teams used semistructured interviews to obtain qualitative data from state 

educational technology directors and others involved in technology planning and budgeting in the six 

states. Chief education officers also were interviewed. Evaluators drafted case study reports and 

summaries and participated in debriefings. These data and documents gathered before and during site 

visits were the subjects of cross-case analyses. Data were coded and queried by using qualitative data

analysis software (ATLAS.ti). Analysts identified themes and examined similarities and differences 

across sites. 

 

24 Data were initially collected with the 2001–02 CCD, and additional districts were added when states indicated that they 

had received EETT funding and were found in more recent CCD data or via Web searches. 

25 About 70 percent of respondents had cashed the incentive checks by October 2005. 

26 There were an average of 4.29 calls per district overall, ranging from 1 to 14, with a mean of 5.99 for the districts that did 

not complete a survey. 
119 

Administrative Data 

Existing published research and data from a wide variety of sources, including academic papers, 

legislation, published news articles, government and trade group reports, state government Web sites, 

and market research reports, were compiled to identify and assemble state comparative information 

from FY 1997 through FY 2003. The report also relies on published and unpublished data from the 

2003 survey of state educational technology directors by the State Educational Technology Directors 

Association (SETDA). Data about EETT formula and competitive subgrants to local education 

agencies for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 were obtained from the Department’s Web site for FY 2002 

and from the NETTS state survey for FY 2003. Individual state educational technology contacts and 

Web sites were obtained through each state’s department of education Web site and through the 

Department. Data on individual states’ federal educational technology funding were extracted from 

publicly available national data sources, as specified in Exhibit A-1. In all, more than 100 data 

elements were assembled for each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

To help ensure the quality of data provided in this report, data were double entered for a sample of 

states to calculate accuracy rates. Discrepancies in data entry were resolved, and the process was 

repeated until accuracy rates from a sample of states exceeded 99 percent. In addition, each state 

educational technology director was provided with an opportunity to add, review, or correct 

information presented for his or her respective state prior to publication. Though the majority (88 

percent) of state educational technology directors provided such feedback,27 there were nonetheless 

instances where discrepancies in the data could not be resolved or where data were not provided at all. 

Where this was the case, “N/A” in the state profiles indicates that data on a specific field were not 

available (i.e., missing). 

Elements for Individual State Profiles 

The profiles that appear in the individual state profiles provide detailed information about 

educational technology on a state-by-state basis. For each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto

Rico, data allow readers to review detailed composites on a state-by-state basis, offering a more 

complete picture of educational technology trends and indicators for states. 

In each of the 52 profiles that appear in Chapter 2, more than 100 individual data elements were 

compiled from a wide variety of sources for the nine FY periods from 1997 to 2005. Each profile is 

organized into four sections, which are detailed below. Data elements address a range of topics, 

including information about state educational technology plans, trends in federal funding of 

educational technology, subgrant awards for two years of the EETT program, and trends in educational 

technology access and integration. 

Long-Range Strategic Educational Technology Plan 

Under EETT, each state is required to develop a long-range strategic educational technology plan, 

the minimum content of which is set forth in federal legislation (Title II, Part D, of NCLB). This 

section of the profile includes the title of each state’s plan and the location of that plan on the World 

Wide Web, if available. 

 

27 Six states did not respond to requests for feedback on their draft state profiles. 
120 

Selected Federal Educational Technology Funding 

The federal government operates a number of programs that provide states with direct support for 

their efforts to integrate technology into K–12 education, including primarily EETT and its predecessor 

program, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF), and E-rate.28, 29 This section of each state 

profile provides graphical and tabular information on the levels of federal support for selected federal 

educational technology programs in the state for each fiscal year from 1997 to 2005. The following 

programs are included in the “Other” federal funding category30: 

• Technology Innovation Challenge Grants (discontinued after FY 2001) 

• Star Schools31

• Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology grants (discontinued after FY 2003) 

• Community Technology Centers grants (discontinued after FY 2005) 

• Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnership grants (discontinued after FY 2001) 

• Assistive Technology Funding (discontinued after FY 2004) 

• Technology-related Migrant Education Funding (discontinued after FY 2001) 

State Educational Technology Policies and Programs 

The state profiles provide information about the state’s technology standards, requirements, and 

initiatives. Individual state poverty, academic need, and technology need requirements for districts, 

also called local education agencies (LEAs), are provided in the profile, in addition to requirements for 

strategic targeting provisions. 

Educational Technology Contact and Web Site 

Many states maintain an office and staff dedicated to coordinating educational technology 

strategies and programs, as well as a Web site that provides more detailed information about a 

particular state’s plans and activities with educational technology. Most of these sites also include 

information about state-specific special projects and initiatives. In this section of the profile, contact 

information for the individual responsible for coordinating educational technology activities in each 

state is provided. 

 

28 TLCF is consider the predecessor program to EETT because it shares some of the same requirements and program 

elements and TLCF was phased out as EETT was beginning operation. 

29 Note that historical E-rate funding estimates are frequently updated. All E-rate data presented in this report were retrieved 

June 10, 2004, from http://www.sl.universalservice.org/funding. 

30 State-by-state funding for Ready to Learn Television and Ready to Teach, two new federal programs that appropriated 

funds beginning in 2005 and referenced in State EETT Policies and Related Programs, have not been included in the state 

profiles. 

31 State-by-state funding for the Star Schools Program has not been included in the state profiles. 
121 

Exhibit A-1. Selected Federal Educational Technology Funding 

State Profile Data 

Element Primary Source(s) 

TLCF funding (1997–

2001) 

U.S. Department of Education (2000). Progress report on educational technology: State-bystate profiles. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/reports/statebystateprogress-12-2000.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. TLCF FY1997-2001 grant 

allocations. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/Technology/tlcf_allocations.html.

EETT funding (2002–

2003) 

U.S. Department of Education. Grant award database. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://wdcrobcol02.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/start.cfm 

E-rate funding (1998–

2003) 

Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), Schools and Libraries Division (SLD). 

Automated search of commitments. Retrieved June 10, 2004, from 

http://www.sl.universalservice.org/funding. 

Other Federal Funding 

Technology Innovation 

Challenge Grants 

funding 

(1997–2003) 

U.S. Department of Education (2000). Progress report on educational technology: State-bystate profiles. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/reports/statebystateprogress-12-2000.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education. Grant award database. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://wdcrobcol02.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/start.cfm. 

Preparing Tomorrow’s 

Teachers to Use 

Technology (PT3) 

grants 

(1999–2003) 

U.S. Department of Education (2000). Progress report on educational technology: State-bystate profiles. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/reports/statebystateprogress-12-2000.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education. Grant award database. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://wdcrobcol02.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/start.cfm. 

Community 

Technology Centers 

(CTC) grants 

(1999–2003) 

U.S. Department of Education (2000). Progress report on educational technology: State-bystate profiles. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/reports/statebystateprogress-12-2000.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. FY 2001 CTC 

grant recipients. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/comtechcenters/recipients.html. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. CTC grants FY 

1999–2002. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/comtechcenters/grants_fy99-02.html. 

U.S. Department of Education. Grant award database. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://wdcrobcol02.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/start.cfm. 

Learning Anytime 

Anywhere 

Partnerships (LAAP) 

grants (1999–2001) 

U.S. Department of Education (2000). Progress report on educational technology: State-bystate profiles. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/reports/statebystateprogress-12-2000.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Learning Anytime 

Anywhere Partnerships (LAAP): Project abstracts-FY 2001 awards. Retrieved June 11, 

2004 from http://www.ed.gov/programs/fipselaap/laap2001.html. 

Assistive Technology 

Funding 

(1997–2003) 

U.S. Department of Education (2000). Progress report on educational technology: State-bystate profiles. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/reports/statebystateprogress-12-2000.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education. Grant award database. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://wdcrobcol02.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/start.cfm. 

Migrant EdCoordination 

Program/Tech Grants 

(1997–2001) 

U.S. Department of Education (2000). Progress report on educational technology: State-bystate profiles. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/reports/statebystateprogress-12-2000.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education. Grant award database. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2004, from 

http://wdcrobcol02.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/start.cfm.