National Educational Technology Trends Study 

Local-level Data Summary 

Prepared by: 

Marianne Bakia 

Edith Yang 

Karen Mitchell 

SRI International 

For: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2008
 

This summary was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-01-CO-0133 with 

SRI International. Bernadette Adams Yates served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views expressed 

herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement 

by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Bill Evers 

Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

June 2008 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce this summary in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, National Educational 

Technology Trends Study: Local-level Data Summary, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

To order copies of this summary, write: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 207494-1398 

To order via fax, dial 301-470-1244. You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 

services are not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833. 

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

This summary is also available on the Department’s Web site at: 

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 

diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 

202-260-0818.
 iii

Contents 

Exhibits ...................................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................... vii

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

Data Sources and Methods....................................................................................................3

Data Collection .................................................................................................................5 

Districts’ Grant Awards ...........................................................................................5 

District Survey .........................................................................................................5 

Teacher Survey ........................................................................................................6 

Data Analyses ...................................................................................................................6 

Targeting of EETT Grants .......................................................................................6 

Technology Integration in Districts That Received EETT Subgrants .....................7 

Teacher and Student Technology Use .....................................................................7 

Technology Access and Support..............................................................................8 

Conceptual Framework.....................................................................................................9 

Data Tables ...........................................................................................................................11

Appendix A: NETTS District Survey.................................................................................19

Appendix B: NETTS Teacher Survey................................................................................54
 iv
 v

Exhibits 

Exhibit 1. Data Sources and Analysis Methods...............................................................................4 

Exhibit 2. Measures of Teacher and Student Technology Use........................................................7 

Exhibit 3. Measures of Technology Access and Support in Schools ..............................................9 

Exhibit 4. Percentage of EETT-Funded Districts Using EETT Funds for Hardware, 

Software, Web-based Instructional Resources, and Technical Support in SY 2003–04.........11 

Exhibit 5. Average Numbers of Computers in Classrooms and Other Instructional Areas in 

EETT and Non-EETT Districts in SY 2003–041

.....................................................................11 

Exhibit 6. Percentage of EETT-Funded Districts Using EETT Funds for Technologyrelated Teacher Professional Development in SY 2003–04 ....................................................12 

Exhibit 7. Percentage of Districts Using EETT Funds for Assessment Technologies and 

Data-based Decision-making in SY 2003–04..........................................................................12 

Exhibit 8. Percentage of Teachers in EETT-funded Districts Who Integrated Technology in 

Their Instruction on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level ......13 

Exhibit 9. Percentage of Teachers in EETT-funded Districts Whose Students Used 

Technology in Learning on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty 

Level ........................................................................................................................................13 

Exhibit 10. Percentage of Teachers in EETT-funded Districts With Access to Technology 

in Their Classrooms in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level ..............................................14 

Exhibit 11. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Used Technology for 

the Critical-Thinking and Decision-making Skills Related to Technology Literacy on 

At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level .......................................14 

Exhibit 12. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Had Access to 

Technology in Their Classrooms in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level ..........................15 

Exhibit 13. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Had Access to 

Technology in Computer Labs or Media Centers in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty 

Level ........................................................................................................................................15 

Exhibit 14. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Reporting Obstacles to Their 

Technology Use in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level ....................................................16 

Exhibit 15. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Participating in Professional 

Development on Different Technology Topics in SY 2004–05 and Summer 2005, by 

School Poverty Level...............................................................................................................16 

Exhibit 16. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Who Integrated Technology in Their 

Instruction on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level................17 

Exhibit 17. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Who Used Technology for Classroom 

Management and Other Administrative Purposes on At Least a Weekly Basis in..................17 

Exhibit 18. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Who Reported Students’ Use of 

Technology in Learning on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty 

Level ........................................................................................................................................18 

Exhibit 19. Average Numbers of Different Technologies Available to Teachers and 

Students, Technology-related Professional Development Topics Completed, and 

Technology Uses by Teachers and Students in SY 2004–05 ..................................................18 
 vi
 vii

Acknowledgments 

Many individuals contributed to the completion of this summary. We are particularly 

grateful to the state, district, and school-level staff, including state educational technology 

directors, district technology coordinators, and teachers who took time out of their busy 

schedules to respond to our surveys and requests for information. Without their efforts, this 

report would not have been possible, and we deeply appreciate their assistance. 

We would like to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of the members of our Technical 

Working Group in reviewing study methods and materials and prioritizing issues to investigate. 

The group consisted of Tim Best of the Ohio Board of Regents, Geneva Haertel of SRI 

International, Alan Lesgold of the University of Pittsburgh, Tammy McGraw of the Virginia 

Department of Education, Jayne Moore of the Maryland State Department of Education, Michael 

Russell of Boston College, Fritz Scheuren of the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), 

Linda Tsantis of Johns Hopkins University, Carla Wade of the Oregon Department of Education, 

and Brenda Williams of the West Virginia Department of Education. We thank them for their 

expertise and insights so generously shared. 

Many U.S. Department of Education staff contributed to the completion of this report. 

Bernadette Adams Yates served as project manager and provided valuable substantive guidance 

and support throughout the design, implementation, and reporting phases of this study. We 

would also like to acknowledge the assistance of other Department staff in reviewing this report 

and providing useful comments and suggestions, including David Goodwin, Daphne Kaplan, and 

Nancy Loy. 

While we appreciate the assistance and support of all of the above individuals, any errors in 

judgment or fact are of course the responsibility of the authors. 

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

work by SRI International (SRI) and the Urban Institute. Barbara Means, SRI, serves as project 

supervisor. Among the staff who contributed to the design of the study, collection of data, and 

analysis were Karla Jones, Kathryn Morrison, and Janet Voight-Miro from SRI; Devin 

Fernandes, Daniel Klasik, and Rob Olsen of the Urban Institute; and Duncan Chaplin of 

Mathematica Policy Research under contract with the Urban Institute. Layout and editing were 

performed by Janeula Burt and Tarneisha Gross at SRI. Graphics were produced by Tarneisha 

Gross. 
 0
 1

Introduction 

This data summary presents data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National 

Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS). NETTS is a multiyear evaluation that 

documents the implementation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) 

program from fiscal year (FY) 2002 to FY 2007. This summary briefly reviews the methods used 

to collect and analyze the NETTS data collected from states in the winter of 2004–05, from 

districts in the spring of 2005, and from teachers in fall of 2005. It also provides descriptive 

analyses of district and school implementation of the EETT program, focusing on issues that are 

central to the program: distribution of funds; EETT district investment in educational 

technology; teacher and student access to technology; technology-related teacher professional 

development; and technology integration in teaching and learning. 

State subgrant and district survey data are presented by whether districts received formula or 

competitive subgrants in FY 2003, and teacher survey data are presented by school poverty level. 

Appendices A and B present the descriptive results by question from the 2005 NETTS District 

Survey and the 2005 NETTS Teacher Survey, respectively.1

 

1

 Public use files of all NETTS datasets will be released at the end of the project, anticipated in the winter of 

2008–09. 
 2
 3

Data Sources and Methods 

This section of the summary describes the methods that were used to examine how districts 

invested their EETT and other technology funds in school year (SY) 2003–04 and the ways that 

teachers and students in high- and low-poverty schools used technology in teaching and learning 

in school year 2004–05. State educational technology directors provided information about their 

EETT formula and competitive subgrants to districts in FY 2003. Survey data collected at the 

district and teacher levels aimed to compile information about EETT funds that were spent and 

district-provided services that were provided in schools during school year 2004–05. To account 

for the time it takes for federal funds to be allocated to states, awarded to districts, and 

distributed to schools, the surveys collected information from different fiscal and school years 

(Exhibit 1). 
 4

Exhibit 1. Data Sources and Analysis Methods 

Evaluation Question Data Source Analysis Method 

To what extent have high-poverty districts been targeted 

by the EETT program? 

Reports of state 

educational 

technology 

directors (FY 2003) 

Descriptive statistics 

How do EETT districts invest their educational 

technology dollars? 

District Survey 

(SY 2003–04) 

Descriptive statistics 

To what extent do K–12 teachers and students have 

access to hardware, software, and the Internet? 

Do classrooms in high- and low-poverty schools have 

similar hardware, software, and Internet access? 

Teacher Survey 

(SY 2004–05) 

Descriptive statistics 

How much technology-related professional development 

do teachers receive? 

Do teachers in high- and low-poverty schools participate 

in similar amounts of technology-related professional 

development? 

Teacher Survey 

(SY 2004–05) 

Descriptive statistics 

How often do teachers integrate technology into 

curriculum and instruction? 

Do teachers in high- and low-poverty schools integrate 

similar amounts of technology into instruction? 

Teacher Survey 

(SY 2004–05) 

Descriptive statistics 

How do students use technology for learning in school? 

Do students in high- and low-poverty schools use similar 

amounts of technology in school? 

Teacher Survey 

(SY 2004–05) 

Descriptive statistics 
 5

Data Collection 

Districts’ Grant Awards 

State EETT directors provided data about the numbers and sizes of formula and competitive 

awards that districts received. States supplied lists of the districts to which they made formula 

and competitive awards, either directly or through consortia, and the amounts of those awards, in 

FY 2003. In a small number of cases, districts provided FY 2004 award data rather than FY 2003 

data. 

District Survey 

In spring 2005, NETTS researchers surveyed district technology coordinators about their 

EETT programs and the use of EETT funds for districtwide technology activities. The district 

survey asked technology coordinators to report on technology spending and support in school 

year 2003–04. The eight-part survey collected information about the EETT application process, 

the use of EETT partnership or consortium funds, spending on educational technology, support 

provided to encourage technology integration in classroom instruction, activities associated with 

technology-related professional development, the use of student data management systems, and 

estimates of districts’ technology inventories. The final section of the survey gathered 

information on survey respondents’ roles and responsibilities in the district. The district survey 

also asked districts to report on spending and technology support in school year 2003–04. 

NETTS researchers administered the district survey to 1,039 technology coordinators 

selected from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The survey respondents 

represented districts that received EETT funds, districts that did not receive EETT funds, and 

non-districts that were lead entities for competitive EETT awards. 

The sampling frames for the survey were populated by using state-provided lists for each 

entity and were based on data collected from the Common Core of Data (CCD), Internet 

searches, and phone calls. The sampling strategy considered the type of educational entity 

(district or non-district), poverty status, student enrollments, and location (urban or rural status). 

The sampling frames included the 60 largest urban districts, 12,423 other districts that had 

received EETT funds, and 70 non-district entities that had received EETT competitive awards. 

From these sampling units, 1,050 entities were stratified in proportion to EETT funding if they 

received EETT funds, and in proportion to enrollment if they did not. Sample sizes by strata 

were designed to meet prespecified precision thresholds established by the U.S. Department of 

Education. 

To obtain an adequate survey response rate, district technology coordinators could respond to 

surveys online, on paper, or by phone. The response rate for the district survey was 99 percent, 

with 1,029 entities responding. Respondents were weighted to reflect a nationally representative 

sample of districts for data analysis. Descriptive results of the district survey are reported by 

survey question in Appendix A. 
 6

Teacher Survey 

The fall 2005 NETTS teacher survey asked teachers about their use of technology in school 

year 2004–05. Teachers were asked to describe their access to technology and technical support, 

their participation in technology-related professional development, their use of technology for 

instruction, their students’ use of technology for learning, and supports for and barriers to 

technology use in their schools. 

The teacher sample was created by drawing a probability sample of 975 schools from 

respondents to the district survey, stratified by school type (elementary or secondary), and 

poverty level (high or low).2

 Schools were randomly sampled in proportion to the number of 

teachers and in inverse proportion to district size to produce a sample of schools whose selection 

probabilities were roughly independent of the size of their district’s enrollment. From these 

schools, 233 high-poverty schools were randomly sampled for more intensive study. 

NETTS researchers obtained teacher rosters for the 975 selected schools. Teachers who did 

not teach at the same school in school years 2004–05 and 2005–06 and who did not teach in a 

core subject area were excluded from the sample. Targets of four teachers from each of the 

schools in the original probability sample (742 schools) and of 25 teachers from each of the highpoverty schools (233 schools) were randomly selected for the teacher sample. The final teacher 

sample consisted of 6,017 teachers. 

NETTS researchers administered the NETTS teacher survey in fall 2005. Teachers could 

complete their surveys online or on paper. Researchers collected completed surveys from 4,935 

teachers for an overall response rate of 82 percent. In analyzing the data, survey respondents 

were weighted to reflect a nationally representative sample of teachers. Descriptive results by 

survey question are reported in Appendix B.3

Data Analyses 

Targeting of EETT Grants 

States’ reports of their EETT grants to districts were examined for districts that received only 

formula funds and for districts that received competitive funds, either alone or in combination 

with formula funds. Grant amounts were summarized for these two types of districts and for 

districts with different percentages and numbers of students in low-income families. 

 

2

 For elementary schools, the poverty threshold, measured in terms of the percentage of students who were eligible 

for free and reduced-price lunches (FRPL), was 29.7 percent. For middle schools and high schools, the poverty 

thresholds were 24.3 percent and 15.9 percent, respectively. 

3

 The teacher data presented in the exhibits appear lower than the results shown in Appendix B. The analysis 

required imputation of zeroes for some missing values to allow comparisons between the same respondent pool for 

the survey items used to investigate technology access, technology integration, and technology-related professional 

development. As a result, the exhibits reflect slightly conservative estimates of teacher access to and use of 

technology in their schools. 
 7

Technology Integration in Districts That Received EETT Subgrants 

Survey responses from the subsample of teachers in districts receiving EETT subgrants in 

school year 2003–04 were used to describe the extent to which teachers in these districts used 

technology at least weekly in instruction, their students used technology in learning at least 

weekly, and their students used technology for the critical-thinking or decision-making skills 

related to technology literacy at least once a week. 

Teacher and Student Technology Use 

Teachers’ survey responses from the full nationally representative sample were used to 

describe the extent to which teachers used technology once a week or more in instruction, 

students used technology in learning at least once a week, and students used technology for the 

critical-thinking or decision-making skills related to technology literacy at least weekly 

(Exhibit 2). 

Exhibit 2. Measures of Teacher and Student Technology Use 

Teachers’ Use of Technology 

in Instruction 

Students’ Use of Technology in 

Learning 

Students’ Use of Technology 

for the Critical Thinking and 

Decision-Making Skills 

Related to Technology 

Literacy 

Teachers used technology at 

least once a week to: 

• Develop curricula or 

assignments in reading, 

math or other subjects 

• Present reading, math, or 

other subject concepts to 

students 

• Create tests or quizzes 

• Test students 

• Collaborate with experts or 

teachers in other locations 

• Adapt instructional activities 

to students’ individual needs 

• Do research and lesson 

planning using the Internet 

Students used technology at least 

once a week to: 

• Practice or review reading, 

math, or other subject areas 

• Extend learning in reading, 

math, or other subject areas 

with enrichment activities 

• Produce media, Web, or 

presentation products 

• Conduct online research 

• Take tests or quizzes using a 

computer 

• Prepare for standardized tests 

Students used technology at 

least once a week to: 

• Communicate electronically 

about academic content with 

experts, peers, or others 

• Solve real-world problems 

• Visually represent or 

investigate concepts 

• Take tests or quizzes using a 

computer 

• Create products that had realworld audiences 

• Work cooperatively or 

collaboratively with other 

students 

• Work with content in multiple 

disciplines 

• Use inquiry-based strategies 

• Use authentic tools 
 8

Technology Access and Support 

Technology access and support variables describe the extent to which teachers and students 

had access to technology resources (Exhibit 3). These variables described teachers’ access to 

technology, students’ access to technology in the classroom, students’ access to technology in 

labs or media centers in the school, and teachers’ completion of technology-related professional 

development. 
 9

Exhibit 3. Measures of Technology Access and Support in Schools 

Teachers’ Access to 

Technology 

Students’ Access to 

Technology in the 

Classroom 

Students’ Access to 

Technology in 

Computer Labs or 

Media Centers 

Teachers’ Completion of 

Technology-Related 

Professional Development 

These technologies were 

available at school for 

teacher use: 

• Desktop or laptop 

computer 

• PDAs or contentspecific technologies 

• High-speed Internet 

access 

• Printers 

• Device to project 

computer screen for 

whole-class viewing 

• Presentation software 

• Software for 

instruction in reading, 

math, or other 

subjects 

• E-mail software 

Students had classroom 

access to: 

• One computer per 

student 

• One computer for 

every two students 

• One computer for 

every three students 

• One computer for 

every four students 

• PDAs or contentspecific technologies 

• High-speed Internet 

access 

• Printers 

• Presentation software 

• Software for 

instruction in reading, 

math, or other 

subjects 

Students had lab or 

media center access to: 

• One computer per 

student 

• One computer for 

every two students 

• One computer for 

every three students 

• One computer for 

every four students 

• PDAs or contentspecific technologies 

• High-speed Internet 

access 

• Printers 

• Presentation software 

• Software for instruction 

in reading, math, or 

other subjects 

Teachers completed 

professional development 

that addressed: 

• Use of technology for new 

methods of teaching 

• Use of technology to 

enhance student learning 

in reading, math, or other 

subjects 

• Improving students’ 

technology literacy 

• Use of technology to 

design or administer 

student assessments 

• Use of technology for 

curriculum development 

and lesson planning 

• Use of technology to meet 

the needs of students with 

disabilities or limited 

English proficiency 

• Use of software to tailor 

tasks to individual student 

ability 

• Developing proficiency with 

online teaching 

• Effective or ethical use of 

the Internet 

Conceptual Framework 

District data on EETT grant amounts were organized to compare districts that reported 

receiving only formula grants with districts that reported receiving competitive grants, usually in 

combination with formula monies. District funding was also analyzed by examining median 

district awards that were above and below the state medians of numbers and percentages of poor 

students. Cross-tabulations of district funding data by type of award (only formula, and 

combined formula and competitive) and by student poverty (above or below the state medians of 

numbers or percentages of poor students) were produced to examine relationships between EETT 

funding levels and district need. 

Data for the nationally representative samples of districts and teachers described teacher and 

student technology use and technology access and support. Individual item-level data detailed 

above were used to describe the spending patterns of districts that received only formula grants 
 10

and districts that received competitive grants only or in combination with formula grants.4 Twotailed t-tests were used to examine the statistical significance of differences between these two 

types of districts. These descriptive data and analyses are shown in Exhibits 4 through 7. 

To address questions about the differences across poverty levels in technology access and 

use, individual item data from the teacher survey responses were examined for teachers at high-, 

middle-, and low-poverty schools. High-poverty schools were in the top poverty quartile based 

on free and reduced-price lunch program rates for each of the three levels of schooling 

(elementary, middle, and high). Middle-poverty schools were those in the second-highest poverty 

quartile for their level of schooling, and low-poverty schools were those whose poverty rates 

were in the bottom 50 percent (i.e., the two least poor quartiles) for their schooling level. Twotailed t-tests were calculated to determine whether the differences by poverty level in technology 

access, support, and use were statistically significant. Descriptive statistics for the survey items 

describing activities involving teacher and student technology integration at least once a week 

were calculated for the subsample of teachers in districts that received EETT funds (Exhibits 8 

through 10). Descriptive data for survey items that describe weekly technology integration 

activities and technology access and support are shown in Exhibits 11 through 19.

 

4

 Districts that received only competitive awards were grouped with districts that received both formula and 

competitive awards because the “competitive only” group size was small (67 districts). 
 11

Data Tables 

Exhibit 4. Percentage of EETT-Funded Districts Using EETT Funds for Hardware, 

Software, Web-based Instructional Resources, and Technical Support in SY 2003–04 

Districts 

With 

Formula 

Grants Only 

(n = 374) 

Districts With 

Competitive and 

Formula Grantsa

(n=433) 

Districts 

With Any 

EETT 

Fundingb

(n= 815) 

Software to help integrate technology into reading 

or math 51% 63% 53% 

Hardware to help integrate technology into reading 

or math 38% 72%* 45% 

Activities to improve student technology literacy 27% 53%* 32% 

Curriculum development to help integrate 

technology into any subject 23% 53%* 29% 

A technology coordinator in the district 17% 15% 16% 

Online tutoring systems for supplemental education 

in reading or math in schools identified for 

improvement under NCLB

 7% 7% 7% 

Virtual schools that are alternatives to schools 

identified for improvement under NCLB 0% 1% 1% 

Exhibit reads: More districts with both competitive and formula funds than those with formula funds only invested in hardware to help 

integrate technology in reading and math instruction, curriculum development to integrate technology in learning, and activities to 

improve student technology literacy in 2003–04. 

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

Notes: (a) Sixty-seven districts reported in this category received only competitive grants. (b) This category includes eight districts 

that reported receiving EETT funds but did not specify grant type. NCLB is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

Source: NETTS District Survey. 

Exhibit 5. Average Numbers of Computers in Classrooms and Other Instructional Areas 

in EETT and Non-EETT Districts in SY 2003–04a

 

Type of Technology 

Districts 

With 

Formula 

Grants 

Only 

(n = 362) 

Districts 

With 

Competitive 

and Formula 

Grantsb

(n = 417) 

Districts 

With Any 

EETT 

Funding 

(n = 788)c 

Districts 

Without 

EETT Grants 

(n = 136) 

Computers 4.72 6.64 5.03 5.05 

Computers with LAN/Internet access 4.45 6.51 4.81 4.81 

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

other instructional areas. 

Notes: (a) These calculations exclude 32 districts that reported anomalous data. (b) Sixty-four districts in this category received only 

competitive grants. (c) This category includes nine districts that reported receiving EETT funding but did not specify grant type. 

Source: NETTS District Survey. 
 12

Exhibit 6. Percentage of EETT-Funded Districts Using EETT Funds for Technologyrelated Teacher Professional Development in SY 2003–04 

Use of EETT Funds for Technology-Related 

Professional Development 

Districts 

With 

Formula 

Grants Only 

(n = 374) 

Districts 

With 

Competitive 

and Formula 

Grantsa

(n = 433) 

Districts 

With Any 

EETT 

Fundingb 

(n = 815) 

On integrating technology into reading or math 

instruction 59% 81%* 63% 

On integrating technology into other subject areas 56% 72% 60% 

To develop proficiency with online teaching of any 

subject 26% 22% 25% 

On incentives for training in technology integration 9% 45%* 15% 

On initiatives to develop professional online 

communities and resources 3% 15%* 5% 

Exhibit reads: More districts with competitive and formula funds than with formula grants only invested in teacher professional

development to integrate technology into reading and math instruction, incentives for participation in technology-related teacher 

professional development, and initiatives to develop professional online communities in SY 2003–04. 

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

Note: (a) Sixty-seven districts in this category received only competitive grants. (b) Eight districts are included in this category that 

reported receiving EETT funds but did not report grant type. 

Source: NETTS District Survey. 

Exhibit 7. Percentage of Districts Using EETT Funds for Assessment Technologies and 

Data-based Decision-making in SY 2003–04 

Use of EETT Funds for Assessment and DataBased Decision-Making 

Districts 

With 

Formula 

Grants Only 

(n = 374) 

Districts 

With 

Competitive 

and Formula 

Grantsa

(n = 433) 

Districts 

With Any 

EETT 

fundingb 

(n = 815) 

Hardware, software, or professional development for 

data and information management systems 25% 23% 25% 

Supports for school staff to analyze available data for 

instructional improvement 7% 21%* 10% 

Technology-based assessments of student academic 

achievement in reading or math 4% 16%* 7% 

Exhibit reads: More districts with competitive and formula funds than with formula grants only invested in technology-based 

assessments of student achievement in reading or math and in supports for staff to analyze data for instructional improvement in 

SY 2003–04. 

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

Note: (a) Sixty-seven districts in this category received only competitive grants. (b) This category includes eight districts that 

reported receiving EETT funds but did not report grant type. 

Source: NETTS District Survey. 
 13

Exhibit 8. Percentage of Teachers in EETT-funded Districts Who Integrated Technology 

in Their Instruction on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level 

School Poverty Group 

Teachers’ Use of Technology for Instruction All Low Medium High 

Develop curricula or assignments in math, reading, or 

other subjects 31% 33% 26%* 33% 

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

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

Present math, reading, or other subject concepts to 

students 22% 24% 18%* 25% 

Test students 14% 11% 17%* 17% 

Adapt instructional activities to students’ individual 

needs 10% 9% 10% 14%* 

Collaborate with experts or teachers in other 

locations 6% 6% 7% 5% 

Exhibit reads: Among districts that received EETT-funding, teachers in high- and low-poverty schools made similar reports about

their regular use of technology in instruction, with one exception. Teachers in high-poverty schools reported using technology to 

adapt instructional activities to individual students’ needs more frequently than teachers in low-poverty schools. 

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 

Exhibit 9. Percentage of Teachers in EETT-funded Districts Whose Students Used 

Technology in Learning on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty 

Level 

School Poverty Group 

Students’ Use of Technology All Low Medium High 

Practice or review topics in math, reading, or other 

subjects 33% 31% 33% 41%* 

Extend learning in math, reading, or other subject areas 

with enrichment activities 22% 19% 21% 30%* 

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

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

Conduct online research 7% 7% 7% 7% 

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

Exhibit reads: Among districts that received EETT funding, teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely to report that their 

students used technology in a variety of ways on at least a weekly basis than teachers in low-poverty schools. 

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 
 14

Exhibit 10. Percentage of Teachers in EETT-funded Districts With Access to Technology 

in Their Classrooms in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level 

School Poverty Group

Type of Technology All Low Medium High

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

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

Printers 78% 78% 74% 83%

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

Presentation software 75% 77% 76% 67%*

Software for instruction in math, reading, or other 

subjects 60% 61% 61% 54%

Device to project computer screen for whole-class 

viewing 33% 35% 32% 30%

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

Exhibit reads: Among districts that received EETT funds, teachers in high- and low-poverty schools reported similar access to 

technology. Notable exceptions include high-speed internet access and presentation software, for which teachers in high-poverty

schools were less likely to report access. 

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 

Exhibit 11. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Used Technology for 

the Critical-Thinking and Decision-making Skills Related to Technology Literacy on At 

Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level 

School Poverty Group 

Students’ Use of Technology All Low Medium High 

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

Work cooperatively or collaboratively with other 

students 8% 7% 8% 12%* 

Communicate electronically about academic content 

with experts, peers, and/or others 5% 5% 4% 4% 

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

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

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

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

Use authentic tools 2% 2% 2% 3% 

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

Exhibit reads: More teachers in high-poverty than in low-poverty schools reported that their students regularly used technology to 

take tests or quizzes, work cooperatively with other students, and solve real-world problems in SY 2004–05. 

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 
 15

Exhibit 12. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Had Access to 

Technology in Their Classrooms in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level 

School Poverty Group 

Type of Technology All Low Medium High 

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

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

Printers 48% 50% 45% 49%

Software for instruction in math, reading, or other 

subjects 45% 44% 43% 49%

Presentation software 41% 44% 39% 36%*

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

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

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

Exhibit reads: Teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely to report that they had one computer for every five or more 

students in class. These teachers were less likely to report that they had access to presentation software. Access to other 

hardware and software was similar between teachers in high- and low-poverty schools. 

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 

Exhibit 13. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Whose Students Had Access to 

Technology in Computer Labs or Media Centers in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level 

School Poverty Group 

Type of Technology All Low Medium High 

Printers 72% 75% 71% 64%*

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

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

Presentation software 57% 60% 56% 47%*

Software for instruction in math, reading, or other 

subjects 54% 55% 52% 52%

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

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

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

Exhibit reads: Teachers in high-poverty schools were less likely to report access to printers and presentation software in computer 

labs or media centers than teachers in low-poverty schools. 

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 
 16

Exhibit 14. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Reporting Obstacles to Their 

Technology Use in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level 

School Poverty Group 

Obstacle All Low Medium High 

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

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

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

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

Insufficient or inadequate technical support for computer 

use 39% 39% 39% 42%

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

Lack of age-appropriate or educationally relevant software 

or Web sites 30% 28% 32% 32%

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

Exhibit reads: Teachers were most likely to report that insufficient hardware in the classroom presented an obstacle to their use of 

technology in SY 2004–05. Teachers in high-poverty classrooms were more likely to report that an inability to obtain desired 

software for class and difficulty getting access to computers in labs or on carts presented obstacles to their technology use in SY 

2004–05 than teachers in low-poverty schools. 

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 

Exhibit 15. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Participating in Professional 

Development on Different Technology Topics in SY 2004–05 and Summer 2005, by 

School Poverty Level 

School Poverty Group 

Professional Development Technology Topic All Low Medium High 

Using technology to enhance student learning in math, 

reading, or other subjects 49% 49% 49% 50%

Using technology for curriculum development and lesson 

planning 34% 33% 34% 38%

Using technology to design or administer student 

assessments 29% 30% 27% 28%

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

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

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

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

Using technology to meet the needs of students with 

disabilities or limited English proficiency 10% 9% 11% 13%

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

Exhibit reads: Teachers in high- and low-poverty schools reported similar participation in technology-related professional 

development, although teachers in low-poverty schools reported having more professional development training in using software to 

tailor tasks to individual student abilities. 

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 
 17

Exhibit 16. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Who Integrated Technology in Their 

Instruction on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level 

School Poverty Group 

Teachers’ Use of Technology for Instruction All Low Medium High 

Develop curricula or assignments in math, reading, or 

other subjects 31% 32% 27% 32%

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

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

Present math, reading, or other subject concepts to 

students 22% 22% 19% 24%

Test students 14% 11% 18%* 17%

Adapt instructional activities to students’ individual 

needs 10% 8% 10% 13%*

Collaborate with experts or teachers in other 

locations 6% 7% 7% 5%

Exhibit reads: Teachers’ reports about their regular use of technology in their instruction were similar across poverty-levels, although 

teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely to report using technology adapting instructional activities to students’ individual 

needs in SY 2004–05. 

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 

Exhibit 17. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Who Used Technology for Classroom 

Management and Other Administrative Purposes on At Least a Weekly Basis in 

SY 2004–05, by School Poverty Level 

School Poverty Group Teachers’ Use of Technology for Administrative 

Purposes All Low Medium High 

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

Maintain student grades 51% 52% 54% 43%

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

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

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

Post homework assignments or schedule information 

on the Web 12% 15% 11% 4%*

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

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

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

Exhibit reads: Teachers in high-poverty schools used technology less frequently than teachers in low-poverty schools for several 

different administrative tasks, including to e-mail teachers and administrators and students in the school, to increase parental and 

family involvement, to post homework assignments or schedule information on the Web, and to create and maintain web pages for 

the class. 

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 
 18

Exhibit 18. Percentage of Teachers in All Districts Who Reported Students’ Use of 

Technology in Learning on At Least a Weekly Basis in SY 2004–05, by School Poverty 

Level 

School Poverty Group 

Students’ Use of Technology All Low Medium High 

Practice or review topics in math, reading, or other 

subjects 33% 31% 32% 41%*

Extend learning in math, reading, or other subject areas 

with enrichment activities 22% 19% 21% 31%*

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

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

Conduct online research 7% 7% 6% 6%

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

Exhibit reads: More teachers in high-poverty schools reported that their students used technology once a week or more to practice 

or review content-related topics, extend learning, take tests or quizzes, or prepare for standardized tests than teachers in lowpoverty schools. 

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 

Exhibit 19. Average Numbers of Different Technologies Available to Teachers and 

Students, Technology-related Professional Development Topics Completed, and 

Technology Uses by Teachers and Students in SY 2004–05 

School Poverty Group 

Summary Measure All Low Medium High

Student access to technology in a computer lab or media 

center 6.62 6.79 6.63 6.07*

Teachers’ access to technology 5.09 5.18 5.08 4.82

Student access to technology in the classroom 3.10 3.14 3.02 3.07

Teachers’ administrative uses of technology 1.95 2.12 1.95 1.39* 

Technology topics on which teachers completed 

professional development 1.80 1.78 1.71 1.97

Teachers’ use of technology in instruction 1.36 1.36 1.34 1.39

Students’ use of technology in learning 0.85 0.74 0.93* 1.11*

Students’ use of technology for critical-thinking and 

decision-making skills 0.44 0.38 0.49* 0.58* 

Exhibit reads: Summary measures of key concepts related to technology integration suggest that students on average have access 

to several technologies in computer labs or media centers, but student use of technology for critical-thinking and decision-making 

skills is relatively infrequent. Overall, teachers in high-poverty schools reported slightly less access to technology but were more 

likely to report students’ use of technology for critical-thinking than teachers in low-poverty schools. 

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

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

Source: NETTS Teacher Survey. 
 19

Appendix A: NETTS District Survey 

Results by Question
 20
 21

PART I. EETT APPLICATION PROCESS (FOR ALL LEAS5) 

 

1. a. Did your LEA apply for or receive Formula or Competitive EETT funding for the school 

year6 (SY) 2003–04 school year and if so, how much was received? 

 APPLIED 

Individually or 

in Partnership7

RECEIVED 

For Your District8

SY 2003–04 GRANTS 

YES NO Amount NO 

a. Formula 97% 3% $32,568.34 32% 

b. Competitive 61% 39% $120,570.44 78% 

 

5

 An LEA is a Local Educational Agency and includes all regular school districts with students as well as other 

government entities that provide services to regular school districts (e.g. educational service units or intermediate 

service agencies). 

6

 If you do not have data that covers a complete school-year, please use data that overlaps as much as possible with 

the nine-month 2003–04 school-year. For example, if you have financial data corresponding to federal fiscal years 

please use Federal Fiscal Year 2004 data (which goes from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004) when reporting 

on SY 2003–04. 

7

 Please mark “Yes” if your LEA applied individually, as a lead Fiscal Agent for a partnership or consortium, or as a 

non-lead entity in a partnership or consortium. 

8

 Please include all funds directly awarded to your LEA from individual awards and any funds (not services) 

received through a partnership or consortium. If your LEA was a lead Fiscal Agent for a partnership or 

consortium, please do not include those funds awarded to other LEAs in the partnership or consortium or funds used 

for partnership-wide services. 

Technology integration into the classroom refers to the routine use of digital tools and 

resources in the planning and delivery of teaching, the development of instructional environments 

and the evaluation and assessment of student performance. 

Digital tools and resources may include but are not limited to computers and computer 

peripherals, software applications, the Internet, handheld devices, presentation or projection 

devices, online or video distance learning tools, network-based communication systems, learning 

management systems, content management systems, online databases, content repositories or 

collections of text, graphics, multimedia or videos as well as other related materials, equipment 

and infrastructure. 
 22

b. If you did not apply for Formula and/or Competitive funds for the 2003–04 school year, 

please select the reason(s) why. Please check all that apply for each type of grant. 

Formula Competitive Reason For Not Applying for SY 2003–04 

NO YES NO YES 

a. Did not know EETT funding was available 84% 16% 53% 47% 

b. Did not think my LEA was eligible 78% 22% 73% 27% 

c. Did not have the resources to apply 84% 16% 54% 46% 

d. Did not expect to get funds if applied 73% 27% 77% 23% 

e. Had funds remaining from a previous multi-year 

award 99% 1% 98% 2% 

f. Other. Please describe. 

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________ 

94% 6% 89% 11% 

2. Did your LEA apply for Competitive funds for the 2003–04 school year to target 

instructional content areas? 

 75% Yes 

 25% No. Skip to Question 4. 

If your LEA did not apply for EETT funding, either individually or in a partnership, for SY 2003–04, 

please skip to Part III on page 9 of this survey. 

Otherwise, please continue with Question 2. 
 23

3. Which instructional content areas were targeted in your LEA’s Competitive applications for 

the 2003–04 school year? Check all content areas that apply. 

Targeted Instructional Content Areas YES NO 

a. English/Language Arts 60% 40% 

b. Foreign Languages 6% 94% 

c. Mathematics 54% 46% 

d. Sciences 28% 72% 

e. Social Studies 30% 70% 

f. Technology Literacy 69% 31% 

g. Career/Technical Education (not including technology literacy) 16% 84% 

h. Special Education 23% 77% 

i. LEP Education 13% 77% 

j. Other. Please describe (e.g., Reading; Physical Education; Drug 

Free, Truancy, and Bilingual education)9

__________________ 17% 83% 

4. Did your LEA’s Competitive applications for the 2003–04 school year target specific 

grades? 

25% Yes 

75% No. Skip to Question 6. 

 

9

 The parenthetical statements included in the sub-items referring to “other” categories are provided as illustrations 

of the types of responses received from respondents. The examples provided do not necessarily include all of the 

most common responses nor do they reflect the full range of responses. These are included in this summary to give 

the reader a general sense of the types of responses received. 
 24

5. Which grades were targeted in your district’s Competitive applications for the 2003–04 

school year? Check all that apply. 

Targeted Grades Yes No 

a. Pre-kindergarten 14% 86% 

b. Kindergarten 31% 69% 

c. 1st Grade 36% 64% 

d. 2nd Grade 40% 60% 

e. 3rd Grade 48% 52% 

f. 4th Grade 53% 47% 

g. 5th Grade 56% 44% 

h. 6th Grade 56% 44% 

i. 7th Grade 55% 45% 

j. 8th Grade 63% 37% 

k. 9th Grade 34% 66% 

l. 10th Grade 29% 71% 

m. 11th Grade 20% 80% 

n. 12th Grade 18% 82% 

o. Ungraded 1% 99% 
 25

Part II. Fiscal Agent Use of Partnership or Consortium Funds 

for SY 2003–04 

6. Did your LEA serve as the Fiscal Agent for a partnership or consortium that 1) had at least 

one other LEA and 2) received formula and/or competitive funds for SY 2003–04? 

5% Yes. Please continue with this section. 

95% No. Please skip to Part III on page 9. 

7. How much EETT funding did your partnership or consortium receive for SY 2003–04? 

a. Formula $ 23,355.83 (average amount) 

b. Competitive $ 143,022.98 (average amount) 

If your partnership or consortium only received Formula funding, not Competitive, for SY 

2003–04, please skip to Part III on page 9 of this survey. 

8. What did your LEA do with the Competitive EETT funds it received as part of partnerships 

or consortia for 2003–04? Please estimate the % of total funds going to each use. 

If Used 

Use of Funds 

Yes No 

% of 

Partnership 

Award 

a. Pay for services in your own district. 84% 16% 31% 

b. Provide funds to other districts in the partnership. 74% 26% 35% 

c. Provide funds for services to be used partnership-wide. 74% 26% 34% 

 Total Award Received by Partnership 100% 

Technology integration into the classroom refers to the routine use of digital tools and 

resources in the planning and delivery of teaching, the development of instructional 

environments and the evaluation and assessment of student performance. 

A virtual school refers to a complete education institution that enrolls students and delivers 

its core academic instruction primarily through online means.
 26

9. What partnership-wide activities were supported with the Competitive EETT funds that 

were received by your partnership or consortium? Please indicate which partnership-wide 

activities were supported and then rank the top 5, by level of EETT funding for each activity, 

starting with 1 for the activity that received the most funding. 

Partnership-Wide Activities 

If EETT Funds 

Used Use of Funds 

Yes No 

Rank (by 

Funding 

Level) 

a. Pay for a technology coordinator within your consortia to help 

with integration of technology into the classroom. 33% 67% 4.98 

b. Pay for a program facilitator, administrator, or evaluator. 45% 55% 5.28 

c. Pay for professional development for teachers to assist them 

with integrating technology into math and/or reading. 11% 89% 2.71 

d. Pay for professional development for teachers to assist them 

with integrating technology into other subject areas. 81% 19% 3.18 

e. Pay for professional development for teachers to assist them 

develop proficiency with the online teaching of any subject. 26% 74% 5.64 

f. Pay for software to help with integration of technology into 

math and/or reading. 64% 36% 5.28 

g. Pay for hardware to help with the integration of technology 

into math and/or reading. 72% 28% 4.63 

h. Pay for curriculum development activities to help with the 

integration of technology into any subject. 69% 31% 5.10 

i. Pay for activities to improve student technology literacy. 62% 38% 4.77 

j. Pay for hardware, software, or professional development in 

support of data and information management systems. 17% 83% 5.83 

k. Pay for online tutoring systems to provide supplemental 

education services in math and/or reading for students in 

schools that have been identified for improvement under 

NCLB. 

8% 92% 5.99 

l. Pay for virtual schools that can be used as alternatives to 

schools identified for improvement under NCLB. 1% 99% 6.00 
 27

Partnership-Wide Activities 

If EETT Funds 

Used Use of Funds 

Yes No 

Rank (by 

Funding 

Level) 

m. Pay for assessments of student academic achievement in 

math and/or reading via Internet or other computer-based 

systems. 

20% 80% 5.81 

n. Pay for incentives for teachers to use or obtain training in 

the integration of education technology. 51% 49% 5.46 

o. Pay for supports (i.e. time, substitutes, etc.) for school staff 

to analyze available data with the goal of improving how 

the school educates children. 

45% 55% 5.38 

p. Pay for email or Internet-based methods to communicate 

with students. 6% 94% 6.00 

q. Pay for initiatives to increase parental and family 

involvement. 29% 71% 5.64 

r. Pay for initiatives to develop professional online 

communities and resources. 20% 80% 5.77 

s. Other. Please describe. 

 (e.g., pay for teachers to develop Curriculum Maps).______ 

___________________________________________________ 

 6% 94% 5.80 
 28
 29

PART III. USE OF FUNDS FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN 

SY 2003–04 

10. Did your LEA receive Formula and/or Competitive EETT funding in SY 2003–04? 

97% Yes. 

 3% No. Please skip to Part IV on page 15 of this survey. 

11. Does your LEA have students? 

99% Yes, my LEA has students. Please continue with this section. 

 1% No, my LEA has no students. My LEA is or is like an Educational 

Service Unit or Intermediate Service Agency that only serves students 

indirectly by helping other LEAs. Please skip to Part VIII on page 

26 of this survey. 

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

10% Yes. Please estimate the amount(s) transferred below. 

90% No. Please skip to the next question.

Funds 

Transferred 

INTO EETT 

Program 

Funds 

Transferred 

OUT of EETT 

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

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

 $900.00 c. Section 4112(a)(1)—Safe and Drug Free Schools and 

Communities Governor’s funds $17,569.87 

d. Section 4112(c)(1)—Safe and Drug Free Schools and 

Communities Governor’s SEA funds 

e. Section 4202(c)(3)—21st Century Community 

Learning Centers 

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

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

Technology integration into the classroom refers to the routine use of digital tools and 

resources in the planning and delivery of teaching, the development of instructional 

environments and the evaluation and assessment of student performance. 

A virtual school refers to a complete education institution that enrolls students and delivers 

its core academic instruction primarily through online means. 
 30
 31

13. We are interested in knowing how your EETT funding for the 2003–04 school year 

(formula and competitive, after transfers) was distributed. Please indicate how funding 

was spent and also estimate the percent of funds used for each purpose. 

If EETT Funds 

Used 

Use of EETT Funds Yes No 

Percentage of 

EETT Funds, 

after transfers 

a. Provide funds directly to schools. 46% 54% 32% 

b. Pay for services to be used in or by one or more 

targeted schools. 32% 68% 17% 

c. Pay for services to be used districtwide 62% 38% 51% 

Total 100% 
 32

14. Please indicate the funding source with which your district supported any of the following 

activities during the 2003–04 school year. 

Please also rank the top 5 activities supported by EETT funds, starting from 1 for the 

activity that received the most funding. Do not rank if EETT funds were not used to 

support the activity. 

If EETT Funds 

Used 

If NonEETT Funds 

Use of Funds Used 

Yes No Rank Yes No 

a. Pay for a technology coordinator in your district to 

help with integration of technology into the 

classroom. 

16% 84% 5.23 69% 31% 

b. Pay for a program facilitator, administrator, or 

evaluator. 9% 91% 5.81 31% 69% 

c. Pay for professional development for teachers to 

assist them with integrating technology into math 

and/or reading. 

63% 37% 3.63 67% 33% 

d. Pay for professional development for teachers to 

assist them with integrating technology into other 

subject areas.

60% 40% 4.18 59% 41% 

e. Pay for professional development for teachers to 

assist them develop proficiency with the online 

teaching of any subject. 

25% 75% 5.45 20% 80% 

f. Pay for software to help with integration of 

technology into math and/or reading. 53% 47% 4.34 60% 40% 

g. Pay for hardware to help with integration of 

technology into math and/or reading. 45% 55% 4.28 66% 34% 

h. Pay for curriculum development activities to help 

with the integration of technology into any subject 29% 71% 5.38 53% 47% 

i. Pay for activities to improve student technology 

literacy. 32% 68% 5.35 59% 41% 
 33

If EETT Funds 

Used 

If NonEETT Funds 

Use of Funds Used 

Yes No Rank Yes No 

j. Pay for hardware, software, or professional 

development in support of data and information 

management systems. 

25% 17% 5.33 57% 43% 

k. Pay for online tutoring systems to provide 

supplemental education services in math and/or 

reading for students in schools that have been 

identified for improvement under NCLB. 

7% 93% 5.90 17% 83% 

l. Pay for virtual schools that can be used as 

alternatives to schools identified for improvement 

under NCLB. 

1% 99% 6.00 10% 90% 

m. Pay for assessments of student academic 

achievement in math and/or reading via Internet or 

other computer-based systems. 

7% 93% 5.91 28% 72% 

n. Pay for incentives for teachers to use or obtain 

training in the integration of education technology. 15% 85% 5.73 1% 49% 

o. Pay for supports (i.e. time, substitutes, etc.) for 

school staff to analyze available data with the goal 

of improving how the school educates children. 

10% 90% 5.85 48% 52% 

p. Pay for email or Internet-based methods to 

communicate with students. 4% 96% 5.92 39% 61% 

q. Pay for initiatives to increase parental and family 

involvement. 9% 91% 5.91 41% 59% 

r. Pay for initiatives to develop professional online 

communities and resources. 5% 95% 5.96 22% 78% 

s. Other. Please describe. (e.g., employee benefits; 

equipment, monitoring tools, and materials for 

technical staff; network security assessment)______ 

 __________________________________________ 

10% 90% 5.84 2% 98% 
 34

15. Out of your LEA’s SY 2003–04 EETT funds (formula and competitive) that were 

distributed to schools in your district, please estimate the percent of funds (not services) 

distributed to the poorest half of schools (i.e. those with free and reduced price lunch 

eligibility above the district median). Please exclude funds used for districtwide services or 

those given to other districts if received as a partnership or consortium. 53.19 % 

16. To what types of schools, if any, was EETT funding (formula and competitive) directed 

during the 2003–04 school year? Check all that apply. 

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

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

b. Schools receiving Title I funds 69% 31% 

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

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

e. Low performing schools 40% 60% 

f. High performing schools 15% 85% 

g. High poverty schools 42% 58% 

h. Schools demonstrating high technology need 54% 46% 

i. Other. Please specify: _______________________________ 22% 78% 

17. Do you estimate there is a substantial gap in the degree of technology integration into the 

classroom between the poorest half of schools (i.e. those above district median on poverty) 

and the rest of schools in your district? 

 2% Yes. 

98% No. Skip to Question 20 on page 15 of this survey. 

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

63% Yes. 

37% No. Skip to Question 20 on page 15 of this survey. 

19. If so, in what ways? 

47% Funds go disproportionately to high poverty schools 

21% Funds go disproportionately to teachers in high poverty schools 

32% Other. Please describe. _____________________________________ 

High poverty schools refer to the poorest half of schools in the district. This can be 

estimated using the schools where the percent of students eligible for free and reduced 

price lunch is above the approximate district median. 
 35
 36

Part IV. Classroom Integration 

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

funding source. 

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

technology. 

Method used in the district for increasing teachers’ ability to If Used 

effectively use educational technology: Yes No 

a. Partnering with another district 35% 65% 

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

c. Contracting with a software vendor or other for-profit company that 

provides professional development in the use of technology in 

instruction. Please specify vendor: __________________________ 

32% 68% 

d. Providing teachers with the opportunity to participate in courses 

about the use of technology in instruction 95% 5% 

e. Having teachers or teacher teams develop new curriculum units that 

incorporate technology 85% 15% 

f. Hiring building level technology coordinators to work with teachers 

on incorporating technology into teaching 45% 55% 

g. Hiring district technology coordinator(s) to work with teachers on 

incorporating technology into teaching 64% 36% 

h. Paying for professional development for teachers to assist them with 

integrating technology into math and/or reading 89% 11% 

i. Paying for email or Internet-based methods to communicate with 

students or parents 68% 32% 

j. Paying for incentives for teachers to use or obtain training in the 

integration of education technology 39% 61% 

k. Other. Please specify: (e.g., offering a technology academy for 

teachers; requiring a specific amount of time for staff development, 

providing teachers with laptops.)____________________________ 11% 89% 

Technology integration into the classroom refers to the routine use of digital tools and 

resources in the planning and delivery of teaching, the development of instructional 

environments and the evaluation and assessment of student performance. 
 37

21. Please estimate how often, on average, technology is integrated into each of your district’s 

elementary school classrooms in the following instructional content areas? 

Elementary School Subjects Daily Weekly Monthly Not At All 

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

b. Mathematics 27% 49% 19% 4% 

22. Please estimate how often, on average, technology is integrated into each of your district’s 

secondary school classrooms in the following instructional content areas? 

Secondary School Subjects Daily Weekly Monthly Not At 

All 

a. English/Language Arts 31% 39% 18% 11% 

b. Mathematics 29% 37% 18% 16% 

23. Please estimate the percent of students in your district that took credit-granting courses via 

distance learning, including but not limited to online courses and video- or audio-learning, 

during the 2003–04 school year? 

 2.8 % 
 38

24. To what degree have the following been barriers to the expanded use of educational 

technology in your district? 

NOT 

A 

BARRIER 

MINOR 

BARRIER 

MAJOR 

BARRIER 

Hardware Resources

a. Insufficient hardware (computers, peripheral 

devices, graphing calculators, TVs, etc.) 33% 41% 25% 

b. Out-of-date hardware 25% 48% 27% 

Internet Resource Quality

c. Internet connections aren’t fast or reliable enough 

for use during instruction 66% 26% 8% 

d. Lack of age-appropriate or educationally-relevant 

Web sites for students 69% 29% 2% 

Software Resources

e. Lack of age-appropriate or educationally-relevant 

software resources 53% 41% 6% 

f. Lack of software products aligned with State 

standards 36% 42% 22% 

Logistical/Other Barriers

g. Lack of trained technical staff available for product 

and service acquisition, installation, or equipment 

maintenance 

36% 40% 24% 

h. Lack of district-level trained instructional or support 

specialists available to assist the integration of 

technology into the classroom and curriculum 

25% 38% 37% 

i. Lack of school-level trained instructional or support 

specialists available to assist the integration of 

technology into the classroom and curriculum 

20% 44% 36% 

j. Lack of emphasis on student technology literacy in 

standards and assessments 25% 52% 23% 

k. Electric power supply and wiring, heating, 

ventilation, or air conditioning 55% 36% 9% 

l. Building security 70% 28% 3% 

m. Lack of space in school buildings 48% 34% 18% 

n. Lack of adequately trained administrators 32% 54% 14% 

o. Lack of adequately trained teachers and other 

instructional staff 14% 68% 18% 

p. Other. Please specify: (e.g., lack of time for teachers 

to integrate technology into lessons; lack of support 

from school and/or district administration; lack of 

partnership funding; lack of interest in 

technology).________________________________ 

89% 1% 10% 
 39

NOT 

A 

BARRIER 

MINOR 

BARRIER 

MAJOR 

BARRIER 

 __________________________________________ 
 40
 41

PART V. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

25. How do you monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of your professional development 

activities designed to promote technology integration into the classroom? 

We monitor professional development through.... YES NO 

a. Formal evaluations by external evaluators 11% 89% 

b. Formal evaluations by district staff 54% 46% 

c. Informal observations by district staff 96% 4% 

d. Teacher reports (i.e. workshop evaluations, teacher 

surveys, etc.) 95% 5% 

e. Other. Please specify (e.g., student and teacher projects 

or artifacts; project-based homework; roundtable 

discussions).___________________________________

_____________________________________________ 

12% 88% 

f. My district does not monitor our professional 

development activities. 4% 96% 

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

28% Yes. 

59% No, but the district recognizes the State Standards. 

13% No. 

27. Please estimate the percentage of staff that received professional development in using 

technology in math and/or reading instruction during the 2003–04 school year. 

 47.21 % 

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

26% Yes. 

74% No. Skip to Question 30 on page 19 of this survey.

Technology integration into the classroom refers to the routine use of digital tools and 

resources in the planning and delivery of teaching, the development of instructional 

environments and the evaluation and assessment of student performance. 
 42

29. Who uses the Training/Professional Development lab? Please check all that apply and 

estimate their amount of use in hours per month. 

YES NO 

Use 

(Hrs. Per Month)10

a. Principals 76% 24% 

b. Teachers 99% 1% 

c. Instructional Support Staff 83% 17% 

d. Non-district Educators 53% 47% 

30. Do you support online professional development for teachers (e.g. online learning 

communities, video broadcast formats, individualized, self-paced instruction, etc.) in the 

following areas If so, do you support these activities using formula and/or competitive

EETT funds? 

 

Support in 

Any Way 

Support with 

Does your District Support Online Professional EETT Funds 

Development for Teachers To: 

YES NO YES NO 

a. Earn a Bachelors degree? 30% 70% 2% 98% 

b. Earn a Masters or PhD? 42% 58% 4% 96% 

c. Obtain full state certification or licensure? 35% 65% 5% 95% 

d. Build or demonstrate content-area knowledge and 

expertise? 73% 27% 20% 80% 

e. Learn to integrate technology into the classroom? 84% 16% 39% 61% 

f. Do other things? Please explain. 

(e.g., meet the Reading Endorsement 

requirement; develop basic technology skills; 

obtain certification in specific areas such as 

gifted, ESOL, First Aid).____________________ 

 5% 95% 1% 99% 

 

10 The “hours per month” items on Question 29 presented some confusion to survey respondents. Because of the 

large number of ambiguous responses, this item was not included in any further analysis. 
 43

31. Are the following sources of funding used in your district for teacher professional 

development activities that integrate technology into the classroom? Check all that apply 

and rank each source used by level of funding, starting with 1 for the largest source of 

professional development funding. 

Source of Funding If Used 

YES NO 

Rank (by 

Level of 

Funding) 

a. Title II, Part D, Funds, EETT 61% 39% 3.47 

b. Title I Funds 55% 45% 3.78 

c. Title II, Part A, Teacher and Principal 

Training and Recruiting Fund 

39% 61% 3.91 

d. State, district or school operating funds 95% 5% 2.13 

e. Vendor or service provider contributions 28% 72% 5.51 

f. Other: Please Describe (e.g., Title V funds; 

State Professional Learning funds; private 

grants)._____________________________ 10% 90% 5.52 
 44

32. Have you offered in the last 12 months or do you plan to offer within the next year any 

professional development in any of the following areas or of the following types? (Check 

all that apply.) 

Areas of Professional Development Offered in 

last 12 mo. 

Plan to offer 

within next yr. 

No 

Plans 

a. None 4% 5% N/A 

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

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

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

e. Using computers, i.e. Word, spreadsheets, create web pages, 

to enhance student learning in math and/or reading 89% 68% 2% 

f. Using other technologies to enhance student learning in 

math and/or reading 86% 67% 4% 

g. Using a specific educational software package to enhance 

student learning in math and/or reading 79% 59% 14% 

h. Developing your own curriculum resources to enhance 

student learning in math and/or reading 68% 61% 20% 

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

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

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

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

m. Improving schools through other data-driven decisionmaking techniques 70% 69% 13% 

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

o. Teaming with other teachers to use technology across 

disciplines 68% 62% 18% 

p. Other. Please describe (e.g., using technology to collaborate 

online, developing and using an open source Web Portal, 

integrating software used by administrators for professional 

evaluations). _____________________________________ 

 2% 1% 98% 

Types of Professional Development 

Offered in 

last 12 mo. 

Plan to offer 

within next yr. 

No 

Plans 

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

r. Traditional workshop or conference session on technology 

use that was 3 or less hours in duration 70% 56% 18% 

s. Traditional workshop or conference session on technology 

use that was more than 3 hours but less than one day in 

duration 

72% 57% 22% 

t. Traditional workshop or conference session on technology 

use that was more than one day in duration 44% 32% 50% 

u. One-on-one mentoring on technology use to enhance 

student learning in core subject areas 51% 43% 39% 

v. Using computer-based resources such as CD-ROM, online 

course, or other web-based resources, designed to improve 

instruction in the core subject areas 

68% 65% 16% 
 45

w. Other. Please describe______________________________ 1% 1% 98% 
 46

Part VI: Student Data Management Systems 

33. Does your district currently maintain any of the following types of information 

electronically? If yes, please indicate whether the data are interoperable11? 

Stored Electronically 

Part of 

Interoperable 

Data System 

Type of Information 

YES NO YES NO 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. Participation in educational programs (i.e. 

innovative classroom curricula, after school 

learning programs, tutoring, etc.) 

37% 63% 26% 74% 

j. Other: Please Describe (e.g., student medical 

information; hardware inventory and 

maintenance, customer service, and usage 

profiles).______________________________

 3% 97% 97% 3% 

 

11 An interoperable data system or framework is one that allows for the seamless and efficient electronic exchange of 

data within a school or district. 
 47

34. Who can access these data? 

Type of Person who can access data YES NO 

a. Local school administrators 99% 1% 

b. Other school administrators 45% 55% 

c. Local district administrators 93% 7% 

d. Other district administrators 44% 56% 

e. Teachers (school-wide) 62% 38% 

f. Parents 19% 81% 

g. Researchers 12% 88% 

h. General public 3% 97% 

i. Other: Please Describe (e.g., nurses and counselors; students)._______ 

 _________________________________________________________ 7% 93% 
 48

35. Does your district perform the following activities using an electronic data management 

system? If yes, please indicate which activities were supported with formula and/or 

competitive EETT funds. 

If Activity is 

Performed 

If Supported by 

EETT Funds Activity 

YES NO YES NO 

a. Tracking student test scores by school. 74% 26% 10% 90% 

b. Tracking student graduation rates by school. 59% 41% 5% 95% 

c. Tracking other measures of student progress. 80% 20% 19% 81% 

d. Using data to inform student placement in 

courses or special programs. 69% 31% 9% 91% 

e. Informing parents about student progress. 63% 37% 9% 91% 

f. Using data to inform curriculum changes. 61% 39% 17% 83% 

g. Using data to evaluate teacher performance. 28% 72% 3% 97% 

h. Using data to evaluate promising classroom 

practices. 41% 59% 16% 84% 

i. Using data to inform professional development 

offerings. 54% 46% 21% 79% 

j. Using data to inform resource allocation. 45% 55% 6% 94% 

k. Using data for other purposes. Please explain. 

______________________________________ 5% 95% 1% 99% 
 49
 50

Part VII: Infrastructure Inventory 

36. In your district, please estimate the total number of computers that are located within 

classrooms or instructional settings (i.e. libraries, media centers, laboratories, etc.). 

 924.74 number of computers in classrooms or instructional settings (average) 

37. In your district, please estimate the total number of LAN/Internet-accessible computers 

located within classrooms or instructional settings. 

 877.03 number of LAN/internet accessible computers in classrooms or 

 instructional settings (average) 

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

 217.65 number of classrooms in district (average) 
 51
 52

Part VIII: Respondent Background (for all LEAs) 

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

18% District Superintendent 

11% Assistant Superintendent 

35% Technology Coordinator 

13% Instructional Technology Coordinator 

10% Division Director 

17% Principal 

 7% Teacher 

 1% Researcher/Evaluator 

 5% Professional Development Specialist 

 7% Finance Officer 

16% Other 

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

36% Yes 

64% No 

41. How long have you been in your current job? 6.84 number of years
 53
 54

Appendix B: NETTS Teacher Survey 

Results by Question 
 55
53 

OMB No. 1875-0233 Approval expires 11/30/2007 

U.S. Department of Education 

National Educational Technology Trends Study: 

Teacher Survey 

Introduction 

This Teacher Survey is part of the National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS), the 

official federal evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program 

authorized under Title IID of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The evaluation of the EETT 

program includes surveys of teachers in approximately 850 districts across the country. 

Participation of EETT (Title II) districts and their schools in this study is required under Section 9306 

(a)(4) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 

The majority of the Teacher Survey items focus on your use of technology during the last full 

school year, 2004–2005. It asks about the technology-related professional development 

activities in which you participated, your access to and use of technology for instruction, the 

factors that facilitated or impeded your use of technology, and the changes in teaching and 

learning that may have occurred as a result of your and your students' use of technology. 

Thank you, in advance, for your expertise and time needed for the success of the study. 

Paperwork Burden Statement 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this survey is 

1875-0233. 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average about 35 minutes per 

response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for 

reducing this burden, to the Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 5624, Regional Office 

Building 3, Washington, DC 20202; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 

Reduction Project 1875-0233, Washington, DC 20503. 

This project is being conducted under Section 2404(b)(2) and Section 2421(a) of the No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001 (NCLB, Public Law 107-110). Your cooperation is needed to make the results of the study 

comprehensive, accurate, and timely. Additionally, grantees are required by law to cooperate with federal 

evaluations under the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR Section 76.591). 

The information you provide is being collected for research purposes only and will be kept strictly 

confidential. 
54 
55 

I. TEACHING BACKGROUND 

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

(all teachers: n=4935). 

Multiple grade levels – Elementary: 6.0% 1st: 10.0% 5th: 6.4% 9th: 2.4% Ungraded: 0.3%

Multiple grade levels - Jr. High or Middle School: 4.0% 2nd: 8.9% 6th: 5.6% 10th: 1.0%

Multiple grade levels - High School: 17.1% 3rd: 9.8% 7th: 4.2% 11th: 1.9%

Kindergarten: 9.3% 4th: 7.8% 8th: 4.2% 12th: 1.2%

2. In what subject was your primary teaching assignment in school year 2004–2005? Mark the 

box for that subject in the list below. If you taught more than one subject in 2004–2005, mark 

"No primary affiliation with a single subject." (Mark one.)

No primary affiliation with a single subject Special Education: 1.5% 

(e.g., self-contained classroom): 51.8% 

English as a Second Language: 0.4% 

Reading/Language Arts/English: 14.2%

History/Social Studies: 9.7% 

Mathematics: 11.7% 

Science: 9.3% 

Art/Music: 0.0% 

Vocational Field: 0.1% 

Health/Physical Education: 0.1% 

 Computers or Technology: 0.1%

Foreign/World Languages: 0.1% 

Other, please specify: 1.0%

3. In addition to your primary duties, did you have any secondary teaching assignments in school year 

2004–2005? 

Yes: 14.4% (Continue with question 4.) No: 85.6% (Skip to question 5) 

4. Mark the subject(s) for your secondary teaching assignment(s) in school year 2004–2005 in 

the list below. (Mark all that apply.)

a. Reading/Language Arts/English: 21.9% g. Health/Physical Education: 5.3% 

b. History/Social Studies: 20.4% h. Special Education: 3.9% 

c. Mathematics: 13.0% i. English as a Second Language: 4.3% 

d. Science: 17.0% j. Computers or Technology: 11.9% 

e. Art/Music: 1.4% k. Foreign/World Languages: 1.4%

f. Vocational Field: 2.9% l. Other, please specify: 26.6% 
56 

5. What type(s) of teaching certificate(s) did you hold in the state where you taught in school year 

2004–2005? (Mark all that apply.)

a. Regular or standard state or advanced professional certificate: 91.9% 

b. Probationary certificate (the initial certificate issued after satisfying all requirements except the 

completion of a probationary period): 2.9% 

c. Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what the 

state calls an "alternative certification program": 3.1% 

d. Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework and/or other student 

teaching before regular certification can be obtained): 0.8% 

e. Emergency certificate or waiver (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who 

must complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching): 0.2%

f. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certificate: 2.0%

g. Specific certificate for teaching bilingual, multicultural, limited-English, or special education students: 6.5%

h. No certificate (Skip to Question 7): 0.2 % 

6. In what subject(s) did you hold a certificate in the state where you taught in school year 

2004–2005? (Mark all that apply.)

a. No primary affiliation with a single subject i. Special Education: 5.7%

(e.g., self-contained classroom): 55.6% j. English as a Second Language: 4.3% 

b. Reading/Language Arts/English: 19.0% 

k. Computers or Technology: 1.3%

c. History/Social Studies: 14.7% 

l. Foreign/World Languages: 1.1% 

d. Mathematics: 13.1% 

m. Other, please specify: 8.5% 

e. Science: 11.4%

f. Art/Music: 1.4% 

g. Vocational Field: 1.0% 

h. Health/Physical Education: 3.1% 

7. What was the highest degree you held in school year 2004–2005? (Mark one.)

Associate degree: 0.2% Education specialist or professional diploma 

(at least one year beyond master's level): 4.5% 

Bachelor's degree 

(B.A., B.S., B.E., etc.): 52.7% 

Doctorate or first professional degree 

Master's degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., L.L.B., J.D., D.D.S.): 0.6% 

(M.A., M.A.T., M.B.A., M.Ed., M.S., etc.): 42.0% 

 Did not have a degree beyond a high school 

Diploma: 0.0% 

8. How would you classify your teaching position in school year 2004–2005? (Mark one.)

 Full-time: 98.0% Part-time: 2.0% 
57 

9. Including this school year (2005–2006), how many years have you worked either as a FULL-TIME 

or at least a HALF-TIME elementary, middle, or secondary school teacher? (Mark one.)

0-2 years: 2.9% 

3-5 years: 14.2% 

6-8 years: 16.1% 

 9+ years: 66.8% 

10. Did you teach in your current school during the majority of school year 2004–2005? 

(Please answer "No" if your primary responsibility in 2004–2005 was as a teacher substitute.) 

Yes: 99.6% (Continue with question 11.) 

 No: 0.4% (Skip to questions 56 and 57 on page 20). 
58 
59 

II. ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY AND SUPPORT 

11. Were the following technologies available to you and/or your students in school year 2004–2005? 

For each technology, please indicate whether the item was available in your classroom and/or in a 

computer/media center or other area. Also indicate whether the technology was available to 

teachers and/or students. (Mark all that apply.) 

 In your classroom In a center or other area 

For teacher For student For teacher For student Not 

use use use use use available 

Computers and Connectivity 

a. Desktop computer 91.6% 70.3% 65.5% 76.3% 0.9% 

b. Laptop computer 26.2% 10.4% 26.6% 23.2% 47.4% 

c. Personal digital devices (e.g., PDA, tablet computer, 

or AlphaSmart/DANA) 7.9% 5.3% 10.2% 11.4% 76.6% 

d. Technologies specific to your content area (e.g., 

Geometer's Sketchpad, probeware) 16.2% 10.7% 13.5% 12.3% 74.2% 

e. Internet access via telephone modem 36.8% 24.7% 25.8% 27.7% 60.7% 

f. High-speed Internet access (e.g., through a 

cable modem or DSL) 76.5% 54.0% 56.7% 62.5% 18.8% 

g. School intranet access (i.e., electronic 

communication exclusively within the school) 69.0% 21.9% 44.7% 24.8% 27.1% 

Computer Peripherals and Software 

h. Printers 77.2% 48.5% 73.9% 72.3% 1.0% 

i. CD-ROM or DVD drive 87.9% 56.9% 65.6% 64.4% 4.2% 

j. A device to project a computer screen for 

class viewing (LCD projector) 33.9% 9.4% 62.3% 19.0% 19.8% 

k. Digital photography and/or video equipment 30.2% 8.9% 65.6% 22.6% 17.6% 

l. Word processing software 91.2% 60.4% 69.4% 71.4% 2.3% 

m. Spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel) 85.7% 41.6% 63.4% 54.3% 6.4% 

n. Statistical analysis software (e.g., SPSS) 16.5% 4.9% 16.8% 8.5% 75.8% 

o. Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) 75.7% 41.6% 67.0% 57.0% 8.4% 

p. Database software (e.g., Access) 50.1% 18.3% 40.1% 26.1% 39.8% 

q. Software for grading 74.5% 2.5% 41.2% 3.6% 19.7% 

r. Software for classroom management (e.g., Blackboard) 27.7% 4.1% 18.6% 5.1% 67.4% 

s. Software for instruction in math and/or reading 54.4% 43.1% 50.5% 51.5% 21.8% 

t. Software for instruction in other subjects 43.7% 32.2% 44.4% 41.5% 32.3% 

u. Multimedia editing or authoring tools (e.g., HyperStudio) 30.1% 16.6% 35.9% 28.3% 50.0% 

v. E-mail software 88.1% 14.1% 54.9% 18.9% 7.2% 

w. Internet search tools 89.5% 52.4% 67.3% 64.2% 3.9% 

x. Web page creation software (e.g., Dreamweaver) 32.2% 8.3% 36.7% 21.0% 49.4% 
60 

12. In school year 2004–2005, approximately how many computers were available for students in your 

classroom? (Mark one.)

The computer for each student: 4.2% One computer for every four students: 6.4% 

One computer for every two students: 2.4% One computer for every five or more students: 63.4% 

One computer for every three students: 3.0% Did not have computers in your classroom: 20.6%

13. In school year 2004–2005, approximately how many computers were available for your students in the

computer/media center or other area you commonly used? (Mark one.)

Did not have a computer/media center or One computer for every four students: 2.0% 

other area with computers in the school: 3.0% 

 One computer for every five or more students: 5.8% 

One computer for each student: 71.2% 

One computer for every two students: 9.3% 

One computer for every three students: 2.7% 

Did not use a school computer lab or media center: 

6.0% 

14. In school year 2004–2005, how often did you get helpful information on the use of educational 

technology for instruction from the following individuals? (Mark one box per row.)

Once or Once a 

A few twice a week or Not 

Individual(s) Never times month more applicable 

a. Your school technology coordinator 10.9% 45.4% 21.8% 13.3% 8.6% 

b. Your school library/media specialist 25.1% 40.4% 18.3% 8.4% 7.8%

c. Other teachers 11.6% 53.8% 21.1% 11.5% 2.0% 

d. Your district technology specialist(s) 30.9% 49.0% 11.6% 3.7% 4.9% 

e. Representative from a hardware or software

 vendor 68.8% 16.9% 1.2% 0.1% 13.1% 

f. The Internet (i.e., a technical support Web 

 site or chat room) 55.2% 22.7% 7.0% 6.9% 8.2% 

g. Family and friends 21.1% 48.9% 16.8% 10.6% 2.6% 

h. Students 47.2% 36.4% 7.2% 4.5% 4.7% 

15. In school year 2004–2005, how often were the following types of technology-related support helpful 

to you? (Mark one box per row.)

Once or Once a 

A few twice a week or Not 

Type of support Never times month more applicable 

a. Support with hardware, software, and the 14.1% 51.3% 15.2% 15.9% 3.5%

 Internet 

b. Support integrating technology into 19.7% 50.0% 15.7% 10.1% 4.5%

 instruction 

c. Support using technology for student 26.7% 44.7% 12.6% 10.1% 5.8% 

 assessment 

d. Help working with students as they use 27.1% 41.2% 14.1% 12.9% 4.8% 

technology 
61 

III. TECHNOLOGY-RELATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

16. To what extent were the following instructional components included in your pre-service teacher 

preparation program? (Mark one box per row.)

A moderate 

Not at all A little amount A lot 

a. Instruction in the use of particular educational software 36.4% 37.3% 21.5% 4.9%

programs or Web sites 

b. Instruction on the use of e-mail, word processing, 36.2% 35.5% 21.8% 6.6%

 spreadsheet, and other common applications 

c. Instruction on the effective use of educational technology 34.1% 39.6% 21.0% 5.4%

d. The requirement that pre-service teachers demonstrate 48.3% 28.7% 17.6% 5.4%

 proficiency using educational technology 

17. Please indicate all formal technology-related professional development that you participated in or led 

during school year 2004–2005 and summer 2005. For each activity, please indicate the number 

of hours. ONLY report professional development activities in specific subject areas (e.g., 

teaching reading) if they included instruction on how to use educational technology in the 

particular subject. (Mark one box per row.) Did not <4 4-8 9-32 >32 Not 

participate hours hours hours hours available 

a. Traditional workshops or conference sessions 23.2% 37.2% 20.9% 10.3% 1.6% 6.8% 

on technology use, provided by or within the 

district 

b. Traditional workshops or conference sessions 29.8% 28.2% 16.6% 10.3% 2.4% 12.8%

 in a specific subject area, provided by or within 

 the district 

c. Traditional workshops or conference sessions 62.6% 11.7% 8.6% 5.3% 1.4% 10.4%

provided outside of the district 

d. College course(s) 76.4% 4.4% 3.5% 4.9% 4.7% 6.1%

e. Online course(s) 82.7% 3.7% 1.9% 2.6% 2.9% 6.2% 

f. Committee or task force 65.7% 9.7% 6.3% 4.7% 1.7% 11.8%

g. Technology-focused study group that meets 71.1% 4.3% 2.7% 1.4% 0.3% 20.2% 

regularly 

h. Activities resulting from a partnership between 67.9% 5.0% 2.4% 0.7% 0.5% 23.4%

your school and another school 

i. Mentoring and/or peer observation and coaching 61.6% 10.2% 3.0% 2.8% 2.6% 19.8%

as part of a formal arrangement 

j. Observational visit to another school 70.1% 5.2% 2.3% 0.1% 0.1% 22.3%

k. Other, please specify: 67.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.5% 1.0% 27.8%

If you answered "did not participate" for all professional development activities, skip to #22. 
62 

18. Which of the following types of incentives were available to you during school year 2004–2005 or 

summer 2005 for participation in technology-related professional development? (Mark all that apply.) 

a. Release time from classes and/or other g. Additional resources for you or your classroom 

 responsibilities: 24.6% (e.g., hardware, software): 22.4% 

b. Scheduled time in contract for professional h. Option to use new school technology: 21.0% 

 development: 34.1% 

 c. Stipends or tuition or fee reimbursement: 

27.8% 

 d. Credits toward certification or recertification: 

31.7% 

 e. Salary increments or pay increases: 9.3% 

 f. Recognition or higher ratings on an annual 

 teacher evaluation: 6.5% 

 i. Free products from vendors: 7.4% 

 j. Other, please specify: 3.8% 

 k. None of the above: 17.4% 

19. Considering all of the professional development activities in which you participated during school 

 year 2004–2005 and summer 2005, did any of them have the following topics as a major focus? 

(Mark all that apply.)

 a. Basic computer skills: 23.0% h. Using technology for grading: 39.5% 

 b. Use of technology for new methods of i. Using technology for classroom management: 10% 

teaching (e.g., cooperative learning): 24.0% 

 c. Using technology to enhance student 

learning in math and/or reading: 39.8% 

 d. Using technology to enhance student learning in other subject(s): 26.6% 

 e. Improving students' technology literacy: 

16.2% 

 f. Using technology to design or administer 

 student assessments: 28.7% 

 g. Using technology for curriculum 

development and lesson planning: 34.9%

 j. Using technology to meet the needs of 

 students with disabilities or limited English 

 proficiency: 10.4% 

 k. Using software to tailor tasks to individual 

 student ability: 12.6% 

 l. Developing proficiency with online teaching: 3.8% 

m. Effective/ethical use of the Internet: 15.2% 
63 

20. Think about the most useful technology-related teacher professional development activity in which 

you participated during school year 2004–2005 and summer 2005. Which of the following 

characterized that activity? (Mark all that apply.)

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

 46.0% substitutes were provided for you to attend): 

 26.5%

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

 knowledge, skills, and interests: 34.4% 19.1%

 

 c. Topics received detailed coverage: 16.3% 

 j. It was planned or developed with input from

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

 one-time experience): 28.8% 

e. It was followed by planning time during the k. It provided an opportunity for meaningful 

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

 classroom: 13.6% 

 f. It was consistent with the technology goals in l. It was designed so that teachers who attended 

 your district: 39.7% were encouraged or expected to teach what they

 learned to other teachers in their schools: 19.5% 

g. It included other members of your school 

 community: 40% m. Other, please specify (e.g., It provided training on 

 grading software; it aided in communication with 

 parents; it counted toward a degree): 7.1%12

 12 The parenthetical statements included in the sub-items referring to “other” categories are provided as illustrations of 

the types of responses received from respondents. The examples provided do not necessarily include all of the most 

common responses nor do they reflect the full range of responses. These are included in this summary to give the 

reader a general sense of the types of responses received. 
64 

21. Which of the following increased substantially as a result of the technology-related professional 

development activities in which you participated during school year 2004–2005 and summer 2005? 

(Mark all that apply.)

a. Your integration of technology into math 

 and/or reading instruction: 32.8% 

b. Your integration of technology into 

instruction on other subjects: 25.9% 

c. Your knowledge about computers in 

general: 46.7% 

d. Your use of computers in general: 49% 

e. Your use of technology for curriculum 

 development and lesson planning: 35.3% 

f. Your development of computer-based 

activities for student use: 32.1% 

g. Your use of new teaching methods involving 

 technology (e.g., online projects, 

simulations): 

 23.7% 

h. Your use of technology to teach basic skills and 

 facts through drills, tutorials, and learning 

 games: 25.4% 

i. Your use of technology to individualize 

 instruction: 20.5% 

j. The effectiveness of your classroom 

 management strategies during students' 

 technology use: 9.4% 

k. Your use of computers to find resources such 

 as lesson plans on the Internet: 36.4% 

l. Your use of technology in student assessment: 

28.4% 

m. Other, please specify (e.g., Your ability to use 

grading software; your ability to communicate 

with parents, students, and colleagues; your 

use of calculators, PDA’s, and other handheld 

devices): 6.7%

22. On which of the following topics would you like additional professional development? 

(Mark all that apply.)

a. Basic computer skills: 18.4% h. Using technology for grading: 25.2% 

b. Use of technology for new methods of i. Using technology for classroom 

teaching (e.g., cooperative learning): 43 % management: 27.1% 

c. Using technology to enhance student 

learning in math and/or reading: 52.1% 

d. Using technology to enhance student 

learning in other subject(s): 36.1% 

e. Improving students' technology literacy: 

31.6% 

f. Using technology to design or administer 

student assessments: 36.2% 

g. Using technology for curriculum development 

and lesson planning: 36.8% 

j. Using technology to meet the needs of students with disabilities or limited English 

proficiency: 32.5% 

k. Using software to tailor tasks to individual 

student ability: 42.9% 

l. Developing proficiency with online 

teaching: 19.3% 

m. Effective/ethical use of the Internet: 17.4% 
65 

The next question refers to informal technology-related professional development 

activities. "Informal" refers to activities not led or planned by an individual or group, not 

scheduled in advance, and that require no commitment to participate for a specific time 

period. 

23. During school year 2004–2005 or summer 2005, did you participate in any of the following 

types of informal technology-related professional development activities? (Mark all that 

apply.) 

a. Read educational journals or other d. Participated in a teacher collaborative or 

professional publications: 39.9% network: 16.2% 

b. Used computer-based resources such as e. Visited a teacher resource center or 

CD-ROM, online course, or other Web-based professional development center: 17.2% 

Resources: 48.9% 

f. Consulted with a subject matter specialist: 17.9% 

c. Informally worked with teacher peers, family, or 

friends on skills related to technology in 

teaching: 60.6%
66 
67 

IV. TECHNOLOGY USE BY TEACHERS AND STUDENTS 

24. During school year 2004–2005, how often did you use technology in the following ways? 

(Mark one box per row.) Once Once 

 or twice week 

Never A few times a month or more 

a. To develop curricula or assignments in math and/or reading 26.1% 31.8% 18.4% 23.7%

b. To develop curricula or assignments in other subjects 31.9% 29.4% 18.3% 20.5%

c. To present math and/or reading concepts to your students 34.5% 33.0% 17.0% 15.5%

d. To deliver instruction in other subjects 44.5% 28.3$ 15.2% 12.0%

e. To create tests or quizzes 18.2% 23.5% 27.4% 30.9%

f. To test students 45.9% 25.4% 14.8% 14.0%

g. To collaborate with experts or teachers in other locations 58.1% 27.1$ 8.3% 6.5% 

h. To adapt instructional activities to students' individual needs 38.6% 37.6% 14.0% 9.8% 

i. To do research and lesson planning using the Internet 13.5% 30.9% 28.0% 27.6%

j. To create and maintain Web pages for your class 76.9% 10.7% 4.4% 8.0% 

k. To post homework assignments or schedule information on the Web 75.3% 8.1% 4.5% 12.2% 

l. To maintain student grades 34.3% 6.7% 7.5% 51.5%

m. To prepare or maintain Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) 81.1% 10.5% 4.7% 3.8% 

n. To e-mail teachers in your school 10.8% 13.7% 11.9% 63.6%

o. To e-mail school and district administrators 16.9% 22.3% 21.6% 39.3%

p. To e-mail students 67.3% 18.4% 8.7% 5.6% 

q. To increase parental and family involvement 35.6% 27.4% 18.9% 18.1%

r. To participate in professional online communities 75.1% 16.4% 5.7% 2.9% 

25. By the end of school year 2004–2005, how skillful were you in using the following technologies? 

(Mark one box per row.) Not at all A little Moderately Very 

a. Computers in general 0.2% 8.2% 55.1% 36.5% 

b. Personal digital devices (e.g., PDA, tablet computer, or AlphaSmart/DANA) 65.1% 17.3% 12.3% 5.4% 

c. Technologies specific to your content area (e.g., Geometer's Sketchpad, 60.9% 20.1% 13.6% 5.4% 

probeware) 

d. Digital photography and/or video equipment 21.6% 36.2% 38.4% 13.9% 

e. Word processing software 4.0% 10.2% 35.3% 50.6%

f. Spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel) 20.7% 30.7% 28.9% 19.7% 

g. Statistical analysis software (e.g., SPSS) 79.1% 13.9% 5.0% 2.0% 

h. Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) 24.2% 29.6% 24.9% 21.4%

i. Database software (e.g., Access) 62.8% 21.2% 10.9% 5.1%

j. Software for grading 31.2% 11.8% 19.3% 37.7%

k. Software for classroom management (e.g., Blackboard) 72.6% 15.6% 7.1% 4.7%

l. Software for math and/or reading instruction 29.8% 30.5% 27.2% 12.6%

m. Software for instruction on other subjects 40.0% 30.2% 20.7% 9.1% 

n. Multimedia editing or authoring tools (e.g., HyperStudio) 67.3% 21.2% 7.6% 3.9%

o. E-mail software 10.3% 15.6% 30.5% 43.6%

p. Internet search tools 5.1% 14.2% 36.5% 44.3%

q. Web page creation software (e.g., Dreamweaver) 66.2% 19.9% 9.2% 4.7%
68 

26. To what extent did you use technology during school year 2004–2005 for the following general 

purposes? (Mark one box per row.)

A moderate 

Not at all A little amount A lot 

a. Plan instruction 14.0% 30.1% 30.2% 25.7% 

b. Deliver instruction 25.4% 41.7% 22.6% 10.2% 

c. Organize the instructional environment 33.1% 38.2% 18.7% 10.1%

d. Assess student performance 28.2% 32.2% 22.6% 17.0%

27. During school year 2004–2005, to how often did you require your students to use the following 

technologies? (Mark one box per row.)

Once or Once a 

A few twice a week or 

Never times month more 

a. Computers in general 6.9% 25.5% 22.7% 44.8%

b. Personal digital devices (e.g., PDA, tablet computer, or 89.9% 6.4% 2.4% 1.3%

AlphaSmart/DANA) 

c. Technologies specific to your content area (e.g., 81.7% 10.7% 4.9% 2.6%

Geometer's Sketchpad, probeware) 

d. Digital photography and/or video equipment 75.9% 19.4% 3.8% 0.9%

e. Word processing software 30.0% 33.1% 24.5% 12.5%

f. Spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel) 81.7% 13.7% 3.8% 0.8%

g. Statistical analysis software (e.g., SPSS) 96.3% 3.0% 0.5% 0.3%

h. Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) 65.0% 25.1% 8.5% 1.4%

i. Database software (e.g., Access) 94.5% 4.4% 0.8% 0.3%

j. Classroom management software (e.g., Blackboard) 94.3% 3.0% 1.0% 1.7% 

k. Software for math and/or reading instruction 39.5% 21.0% 15.3% 24.2%

l. Software for instruction on other subjects 54.5% 24.2% 12.7% 8.6%

m. Multimedia editing or authoring tools (e.g., HyperStudio) 86.8% 9.1% 3.1% 1.1%

n. E-mail software 78.7% 13.1% 4.7% 3.6%

o. Internet search tools 33.7% 30.9% 24.8% 10.6%

p. Web page creation software (e.g., Dreamweaver) 95.5% 3.5% 0.6% 0.4%
69 

28. How often did your 2004–2005 students use technology in the following ways? 

(Mark one box per row.) 

Once or Once a 

A few twice a week or 

Never times month more 

a. Practice or review math and/or reading topics 25.6% 25.6% 17.9% 30.9%

b. Practice or review topics in other subjects 35.6% 35.2% 17.1% 12.1%

c. Extend math and/or reading learning with 29.2% 29.8% 20.5% 20.6%

enrichment activities 

d. Extend learning in other subjects with 37.2% 35.7% 17.6% 9.4%

enrichment activities 

e. Communicate electronically about academic 74.8% 15.5% 5.1% 4.7%

content with experts, peers, and/or others 

f. Solve real-world problems (i.e. those 67.1% 24.0% 6.3% 2.7%

involving situations, issues, and tasks that 

people actually tackle in the outside world) 

g. Produce media, Web, or presentation products 67.6% 24.6% 6.1% 1.7%

h. Conduct online research 34.6% 37.0% 21.5% 6.9%

i. Visually represent or investigate concepts (e.g., 58.2% 28.6% 9.4% 3.8%

through concept mapping, graphing, reading charts) 

j. Take tests or quizzes using a computer 50.1% 22.0% 11.5% 16.5%

k. Prepare for standardized tests 61.6% 23.0% 9.1% 6.3%

l. Participate in formal distance learning via the 90.4% 6.6% 2.2% 0.8%

Internet or other interactive media 

m. Improve their technology literacy 40.7% 33.5% 15.4% 10.5%

n. Create products that had real-world audiences 78.9% 15.9% 4.1% 1.0%

o. Work cooperatively or collaboratively with other 41.3% 35.8% 14.6% 8.3%

students 

p. Work with content in multiple disciplines 62.6% 26.8% 8.0% 2.7%

q. Use inquiry-based strategies (i.e., asking and 62.9% 25.1% 8.6% 3.4%

answering questions using multiple sources) 

r. Use authentic tools (i.e., the tools that 76.3% 17.5% 4.1% 2.1%

 professionals use in their fields) 
70 

We are also interested in learning about which specific software packages are used in 

selected grades. During the 2004–2005 school year, if you taught 1st grade, 4th grade, 6th 

grade, or algebra, please answer the questions below about your instruction and use of 

software. Respond only to those sections addressing the classes you taught or 

facilitated. 

If you did not teach 1st grade, 4th grade, 6th grade, or algebra in 2004–2005, skip to question 45. 

29. Did you teach reading to 1st graders in school year 2004–2005? 

Yes (Continue with question 30.) 13.8%

No (Skip to question 33.) 86.3%

30. For how many months did you teach reading to 1st graders in school year 2004–2005? 

(Mark one.)

1 - 3 months 0.6% 7 - 9 months 54.0% 

4 - 6 months 1.8% 10 + months 43.6% 

31. During these months, how many hours of formal reading instruction did a typical student receive in a 

typical week? (Mark one.)

Less than 3 hours 2.9% 

At least 3 hours, but less than 5 hours 18.3%

At least 5 hours, but less than 7 hours 21.1%

7 or more hours 57.7%

32. Please indicate which, if any, of the following products you used with at least one of your Grade 1 

reading groups or classes during school year 2004–2005 and how often you used the products. 

If you used any of the products in more than one Grade 1 reading group or class, please report 

on the average per student use across all groups or classes in which you used them. 

(Mark one box per row.) 

Didn't Once or Once a 

have A few twice a week or 

product Never times month more 

a. Academy of Reading, AutoSkill 95.9% 2.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 

International, Inc. 

b. Destination Reading, Riverdeep, Inc. 96.5% 1.9% 0.2% 0.1% 1.3% 

c. Waterford Early Reading Program, 93.8% 1.3% 1.0% 0.6% 3.4% 

Pearson Digital Learning 

d. Headsprout Early Reading, Headsprout 97.9% 1.7% 0.2% N/A 0.2% 

e. PLATO Focus, PLATO Learning, Inc. 96.2% 2.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 

f. Other, please describe: 57.5% 2.1% 1.2% 4.1% 35.1%

 (e.g., Accelerated Reader, Wiggle Works, Starfall)
71 

33. Did you teach reading to 4th graders in school year 2004–2005? 

Yes (Continue with question 34.) 11.4%

No (Skip to question 37.) 88.7% 

34. For how many months did you teach reading to 4th graders in school year 2004–2005? 

(Mark one.)

1 - 3 months 1.6%

4 - 6 months 3.2%

7 - 9 months 53.1%

10 + months 42.2%

35. During these months, how many hours of reading instruction did a typical student receive in a 

typical week? (Mark one.) 

Less than 3 hours 3.6%

At least 3 hours, but less than 5 hours 12.8%

At least 5 hours, but less than 7 hours 40.7%

7 or more hours 42.9%

36. Please indicate which, if any, of the following products you used with at least one of your Grade 4 

 reading groups or classes during school year 2004–2005 and how often you used the 

products. If you used any of the products in more than one Grade 4 reading group or class, 

please report on the average per student use across all groups or classes in which you 

used them. (Mark one box per row.) 

Didn't Once or Once a 

have A few twice a week or 

product Never times month more 

a. Academy of Reading, AutoSkill 96.2% 1.6% 0.4% 1.0% 0.9%

International, Inc. 

b. Read 180, Scholastic Inc. 90.5% 2.4% 1.2% 1.0% 4.9%

c. KnowledgeBox, Pearson Digital Learning 97.5% 2.0% 0.4% 0.0% N/A

d. LeapTrack, LeapFrog SchoolHouse 93.3% 2.2% 0.9% 1.3% 2.4%

e. Other, please describe: 51.8% 3.1% 6.4% 4.4% 34.3%

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

 Success Maker).
72 

37. Did you teach math to 6th graders in school year 2004–2005? 

Yes (Continue with question 38.) 4.2%

No (Skip to question 41.) 95.8% 

 

38. For how many months did you teach math to 6th graders in school year 2004–2005? 

(Mark one.)

1 - 3 months 3.6%

4 - 6 months 0.8%

7 - 9 months 58.5%

10 + months 37.2%

39. During these months, how many hours of mathematics instruction did a typical student receive in a 

typical week? (Mark one.)

Less than 3 hours 7.5%

At least 3 hours, but less than 5 hours 31.7%

At least 5 hours, but less than 7 hours 42.0%

7 or more hours 18.8%

40. Please indicate which, if any, of the following products you used with at least one of your Grade 6 

math groups or classes during school year 2004–2005 and how often you used the products. If 

you used any of the products in more than one Grade 6 math group or class, please report on 

the average per student use in all groups or classes in which you used them. 

(Mark one box per row.) 

Didn't Once or Once a 

have A few twice a week or 

product Never times month more 

a. SmartMath, CompuTaught, Inc. 92.9% 5.3% 0.6% 1.2% N/A

 

b. Achieve Now, PLATO Learning, Inc. 90.7% 5.5% 2.8% 0.3% 0.8% 

c. Larson's Prealgebra, Larson Learning, Inc. 92.2% 7.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%

 

d. Other, please describe: 49.4% 11.4% 9.5% 9.6% 20.2% 

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

41. Did you teach algebra in school year 2004–2005? 

Yes (Continue with question 42.) 11.7%

No 

J 

(Skip to question 45.) 88.3%
73 

42. For how many months did you teach algebra in school year 2004–2005? 

(Mark one.)

1 - 3 months 26.2%

4 - 6 months 6.3%

7 - 9 months 32.0%

10 + months 35.6%

43. During these months, how many hours of algebra instruction did a typical student receive in a typical 

week? (Mark one.)

Less than 3 hours 19.4%

At least 3 hours, but less than 5 hours 48.1%

At least 5 hours, but less than 7 hours 23.2%

7 or more hours 9.3%

44. Please indicate which, if any, of the following products you used with at least one of your algebra 

groups or classes during school year 2004–2005 and how often you used the products. If you 

used any of the products in more than one algebra group or class, please report on the

average per student use across all groups or classes in which you used them. (Mark one 

box per row.) 

Didn't Once or Once a 

have A few twice a week or 

product Never times month more 

a. Cognitive Tutor, Carnegie Learning, Inc. 96.8% 1.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.9%

b. Algebra, PLATO Learning, Inc. 91.3% 4.2% 2.2% 1.0% 1.3%

c. Larson's Algebra, Larson Learning, Inc. 93.6% 3.2% 2.3% 0.4% 0.6%

d. Other, please describe: 69.4% 5.3% 8.1% 5.1% 12.1%
74 
75 

V. POTENTIAL VALUE OF TECHNOLOGY 

45. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about educational technology? 

(Mark one box per row.)

Neither 

Strongly disagree Strongly 

disagree Disagree nor agree Agree agree 

a. Formal professional development can improve 3.1% 1.0% 3.4% 52.1% 40.4% 

teachers' use of educational technology 

b. Educational technology can be used to improve 3.1% 1.0% 6.1% 54.5% 35.4%

instructional practice 

c. Educational technology can be used to improve 3.2% 1.4% 8.7% 53.6% 33.1%

teachers' subject matter knowledge 

d. Educational technology can be used to improve 3.2% 0.5% 3.9% 53.2% 39.1%

student learning 

e. Educational technology can be used to 

 students' performance on standardized tests N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

 

f. Educational technology can be used to narrow the 3.2% 4.4% 25.1% 43.1% 24.2%

 achievement gap between traditionally underserved 

 and other students 

46. To what extent did educational technology improve your teaching in school year 2004–2005? 

(Mark one.)

Not at all 9.2%

A little 41.8%

A moderate amount 38.8%

A lot 10.2%
76 
77 

VI. USE OF TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED DATABASES 

47. In school year 2004–2005 and summer 2005, did you have access to an electronic data 

management system that provided you with student data? 

 Yes 48.2%

 No (Skip to question 53.) 37.3%

Don't know (Skip to question 53.) 14.5 %

48. Who made this system available to you? (Mark one.)

Your state 4.5% Don't know 4.4%

Your district 75.4% Other, please specify (e.g., A regional 

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

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

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

a. Standardized test scores by grade from i. Course enrollment histories for students: 21.7% 

 2003–04: 46.8% 

b. Standardized test scores by grade from 

years prior to 2003–04: 31.1% 

c. Standardized test scores by grade from 

2004–2005: 44% 

d. Standardized test scores from 2003–04 for 

individual students: 37.1% 

e. Standardized test scores from years prior to 

2003–04 for individual students: 29.6% 

f. Standardized test scores from 2004–2005 for 

individual students: 38.4% 

g. Attendance data: 72.6% 

h. Student grade data: 65.6% 

j. Students' prior school(s) attended: 14.6% 

k. Students' participation in supplementary 

education programs (e.g, tutoring): 6.2% 

l. Software for the analysis and interpretation 

of student data: 16.6% 

m. Links between your students' assessment 

results and instructional resources tailored to 

their learning needs: 11.4% 

n. Online instruction that your students could use: 

 12.8% 

o. Online assessments that your students could 

use: 16.3% 

p. Estimations of achievement of adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) : 17.8% 
78 

50. In school year 2004–2005, how often did you use an electronic data management system for each of 

the following purposes? (Mark one box per row.)

Once or Once a 

A few twice a week or 

Never times month more 

a. Used data to inform curriculum changes 49.9% 33.1% 12.6% 4.3%

b. Identified individual skill gaps for individual 45.1% 34.5% 14.2% 6.2%

 students so that you could give each student 

material tailored to his/her skill profile 

c. Determined whether your class or individual 50.8% 28.9% 14.3% 6.1%

students were ready to move on to the next 

instructional unit 

d. Used data to evaluate promising classroom 59.2% 25.7% 11.1% 4.1%

 practices 

e. Decided whether to give your students 64.0% 22.0% 9.9% 4.1%

 test-taking practice 

f. Estimated whether your students would make 63.2% 23.7% 9.9% 3.2%

 adequate yearly progress (AYP) 

g. Tracked standardized test scores by grade 56.1% 31.6% 9.0% 3.3%

h. Tracked individual student test scores 35.1% 37.9% 16.0% 11.0%

i. Tracked other measures of student progress 39.9% 33.6% 14.7% 11.9%

j. Used data to inform student placement in 57.7% 28.9% 9.1% 4.3%

 courses or special programs 

k. Informed parents about student progress 29.8% 34.4% 22.3% 13.5%
79 

51. In school year 2004–2005, how often did you work with an electronic data management system in the 

following contexts to make instructional decisions? (Mark one box per row.)

Once or Once a 

A few twice a week or 

Never times month more 

a. On your own 23.7% 37.3% 18.3% 20.7%

b. Working with colleagues in your 29.4% 47.6% 18.4% 4.7%

department or grade 

c. As part of a district-level activity for your 42.5% 45.8% 9.3% 2.4%

school staff 

d. As part of a district-level activity with staff 72.9% 22.0% 4.1% 1.1%

from other schools 

e. In another setting. Please describe: 95.4% 3.3% 0.9% 0.4%

52. What kinds of support did you receive in 2004–2005 in using student data to guide decisions about 

instruction? (Mark all that apply.)

a. Professional development on data-driven d. Paid time set aside for examining student 

decision making at your school: 62.2% data and using the data to guide decisions 

about practice: 16.1%

b. Professional development on data-driven 

decision making offered outside your 

school:17.6% 

c. Support from a consultant or mentor teacher 

skilled in data analysis: 27.5% 

e. Your principal's encouragement for using data 

in instructional decision making: 60.5% 

f. Formal coursework covering data-driven 

decision making: 7.9% 
80 
81 

VII. SUPPORTS AND BARRIERS FOR TECHNOLOGY USE 

53. How important were the following influences on your use of educational technology in 2004–2005? 

(Mark one box per row.) A 

 Not at all little Moderately Very 

a. Other teachers shared examples of how they 17.6% 37.2% 29.3% 15.9% 

used computers with their students 

b. The fact that the district or school put computers 24.1% 22.9% 27.6% 25.5%

 in your classroom and administrators 

encouraged you to use them with your students 

c. The technology director and/or specialist 37.4% 31.5% 20.4% 10.7% 

demonstrated uses that you adapted to your 

classroom 

d. You worked with your colleagues to design 47.9% 28.1% 16.2% 7.8% 

lessons that required classroom use of 

computers 

e. Professional development workshops led by 44.6% 31.5% 17.6% 6.3%

 someone outside of the school demonstrated 

 uses that you adapted to your classroom 

54. To what extent were the following conditions obstacles to your use of technology in school year 

2004–2005? (Mark one box per row.) A moderate Not 

Not at all A little amount A lot applicable 

a. Insufficient hardware (e.g., computers, peripheral 30.1% 21.2% 17.9% 28.1% 2.7% 

devices) in labs or resource rooms 

b. Insufficient hardware (e.g., computers, peripheral 17.2% 19.7% 18.4% 42.7% 1.9%

devices) in your classroom 

c. Difficulty getting access to computers in labs or 34.3% 19.9% 17.3% 23.0% 5.5%

on carts 

d. Out-of-date hardware 34.7% 26.2% 15.2% 18.7% 5.2%

e. Lack of professional development that prepared 

you to use software 

f. Lack of time to practice using software on 26.3% 27.7% 19.7% 24.5% 1.9%

which you received professional development 

g. Inability to obtain software you wanted for your 15.6% 21.4% 19.2% 37.8% 6.1%

class 

h. Insufficient or inadequate technical support 31.2% 23.0% 16.5% 23.1% 6.2%

for computer use 

i. Your students' lack of technology skills 29.8% 29.4% 18.1% 20.9% 1.8% 

j. Difficulty making room for technology use, given the 31.6% 37.8% 17.7% 9.8% 3.1%

large amount of course material to cover in a year 

k. Difficulty making technology relevant to your 11.2% 15.8% 22.5% 47.7% 2.8%

subject 

l. Difficulty managing your class during 40.0% 29.5% 18.4% 9.1% 3.0%

computer use 

m. Lack of emphasis on student technology literacy 53.6% 24.6% 9.2% 7.8% 4.8% 

in standards and assessments 

n. Slow and/or unreliable Internet connections 39.1% 28.7% 15.5% 11.0% 5.8%

o. Lack of age-appropriate or educationally 41.2% 26.1% 14.3% 14.4% 4.0%

relevant software or Web sites 

p. Lack of software products aligned with 40.4% 25.2% 16.4% 13.3% 4.6%

state standards 
82 

55. How much emphasis did the following individuals place on the use of technology to support 

teaching and learning in school year 2004–2005? (Mark one box per row.)

A 

moderate 

Not at all A little amount A lot 

a. Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent 24.4% 32.8% 29.4% 13.4%

b. Principal 13.9% 31.5% 34.7% 19.9%

c. Department Head 36.9% 28.2% 24.2% 10.7%

d. Yourself 5.8% 34.9% 39.8% 19.5%

e. Other teachers 18.1% 44.6% 31.8% 5.6%

f. Parents 52.6% 35.4% 10.2% 1.9% 

g. Students 28.8% 39.7% 24.1% 7.4 %
83 

VIII. TEACHER DEMOGRAPHICS 

In closing, we would like to ask a few questions to ensure that we surveyed a representative sample 

of teachers. 

56. Are you ... 

Male 19.7%

Female 80.3%

57. How do you describe yourself? (Mark one.)

American Indian or Alaska Native (refers to 0.8%

someone who is from one of the American 

Indian tribes or is one of the original people 

of Alaska) 

Asian (refers to someone who is from a 1.3%

Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, or other 

Asian background) 

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (refers to 0.5%

someone who is from one of the Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islands or is Filipino) 

Hispanic or Latino (refers to someone from a 4.8%

Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, 

Cuban, or other Spanish, Hispanic or Latino background) 

Black or African American 7.0%

White 83.9%

Biracial or multiethnic 1.0%

Other 0.9%

You have now completed the National Educational Technology Trends Study Survey of 

 Teachers. Thank you for your time! 
84 
85