Evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through 

Technology Program: Final Report 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Submitted by 

Marianne Bakia 

Barbara Means 

Larry Gallagher 

Eva Chen 

Karla Jones 

SRI International 

2009 

 v 

 

This report 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 project manager. The views expressed 

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

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

U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Carmel Martin 

Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

May 2009 

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

Although 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, Evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program: Final Report, 

Washington, D.C., 2009. 

This report is available on the Department’s Web site at 

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

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

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

or 202-260-0818.
ii
iii

Contents 

Exhibits ....................................................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................vii

Key Findings.......................................................................................................................... viii 

Technology Access ....................................................................................................................x 

Technology-Related Teacher Professional Development..........................................................x 

Integration of Technology Into Teaching and Learning......................................................... xii 

Student Technology Literacy................................................................................................. xiii 

Implications for Future Policy ............................................................................................... xiii 

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

Study Purpose ............................................................................................................................1 

Conceptual Framework for EETT .............................................................................................3 

Funding for Educational Technology ..................................................................................3 

Program Inputs.....................................................................................................................3 

Intermediate Program Goals ................................................................................................4 

Primary Program Goal .........................................................................................................6 

Supportive Contexts.............................................................................................................6 

Principal Data Sources...............................................................................................................6 

Organization of This Report ......................................................................................................7 

2. Technology Access .................................................................................................................................. 9

Trends in Internet Access...........................................................................................................9 

Summary..................................................................................................................................12 

3. Technology-Related Teacher Professional Development .................................................................. 13

EETT Support for Technology-Related Teacher Professional Development..........................17 

Poverty-Related Differences in Technology-Based Professional Development Needs ..........17 

Availability of High-Quality Teacher Professional Development...........................................18 

Technology Standards for Teachers.........................................................................................22 

Topics Covered by Teacher Standards ....................................................................................22 

Measuring Teachers’ Attainment of Technology Standards ...................................................24 

Summary..................................................................................................................................28 

4. Integration of Technology Into Instruction ........................................................................................ 31

Integrating Technology Into Instruction ..................................................................................33 

Summary..................................................................................................................................34 

5. Student Technology Literacy ............................................................................................................... 35

State and District Student Technology Standards....................................................................35 

Assessment of Student Technology Literacy...........................................................................36 

Summary..................................................................................................................................40 

6. Summary and Conclusions................................................................................................................... 43

References.................................................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix A: ETT Program Administration .......................................................................................... 47

Appendix B: Data Sources and Methodology......................................................................................... 53
iv 

Exhibits 

Exhibit ES-1. GPRA Indicators for EETT..................................................................................... ix 

Exhibit 1. GPRA Indicators for EETT.............................................................................................2 

Exhibit 2. Conceptual Framework for EETT...................................................................................5 

Exhibit 3. Student Internet Access in Classrooms, as Reported by Teachers 

(School Years 2004–05 and 2006–07).....................................................................................10 

Exhibit 4. District Purchases Related to Internet Access (School Year 2006–07) ........................11 

Exhibit 5. Degree of Barrier Created by Slow or Unreliable Internet Connections, 

as Reported by Teachers (School Year 2006–07)....................................................................12 

Exhibit 6. District-Supported Technology-Related Professional Development 

(School Year 2006–07)............................................................................................................13 

Exhibit 7. District Uses of EETT Funds to Support Professional Development 

(School Year 2006–07)............................................................................................................16 

Exhibit 8. Differences in Teacher-Reported Need for Technology-Related Professional 

Development in High- and Low-Poverty Schools...................................................................18 

Exhibit 9. Characteristics of “Most Useful” Technology-Related Professional 

Development, as Reported by Teachers (School Year 2006–07)............................................20 

Exhibit 10. Instructional Practices That “Increased Substantially” As a Result of 

Technology-Related Professional Development, as Reported by Teachers 

(School Year 2006–07)............................................................................................................21 

Exhibit 11. Components of Teacher Standards for Educational Technology 

(School Year 2006–07)............................................................................................................23 

Exhibit 12. State-Reported Data Regarding the Percentage of Teachers Meeting 

Technology Skill Standards (School Year 2005–06)...............................................................25 

Exhibit 13. District-Reported Percentages of Teachers Who Met District Technology 

Standards (School Year 2005–06) ...........................................................................................26 

Exhibit 14. District-Based Methods for Assessing Teacher Technology Competency.................27 

Exhibit 15. 2005–06 Teacher Technology Standards and Assessments, by State.........................29 

Exhibit 16. Integrating Technology in High School......................................................................31 

Exhibit 17. State-Reported Data Regarding the Percentage of Districts Fully Integrating 

Technology (School Year 2005–06)........................................................................................32 

Exhibit 18. Teachers’ Use of Technology in Instruction on a Weekly Basis 

(School Years 2004–05 and 2006–07).....................................................................................33 

Exhibit 19. Students’ Use of Technology for Learning on a Weekly Basis, as Reported 

by Teachers (School Years 2004–05 and 2006–07) ................................................................34 

Exhibit 20. Prevalence of ISTE-Recommended Topics for Student Technology 

Literacy Standards ...................................................................................................................37 

Exhibit 21. State-Reported Data Regarding the Percentage of Students Meeting 

Technology Literacy Standards (School Year 2005–06).........................................................39 

Exhibit 22. District-Based Methods for Assessing Students’ Technology Literacy .....................40 

Exhibit 23. Student Technology Literacy, by State in 2006–07....................................................41 

Exhibit A-1. District Distribution of Formula Funds.....................................................................49 

Exhibit A-2. District Distribution of Competitive Funds ..............................................................50 

Exhibit A-3. Districts’ Reasons for Not Applying for EETT Formula Funds...............................51 

Exhibit A-4. Districts’ Reasons for Not Applying for EETT Competitive Funds.........................52 
v 

Acknowledgments 

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

the state, district and school staff members, 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 Department of Education, Michael 

Russell of Boston College, Fritz Scheuren of the National Opinion Research Center, 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 members 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 members in 

reviewing this report and providing useful comments and suggestions, including Gillian CohenBoyer, David Goodwin, Daphne Kaplan and Nancy Loy. 

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

work by SRI International (SRI) and the Urban Institute. Barbara Means of SRI served as project 

supervisor, and Marianne Bakia of SRI served as project director. Among the many staff 

members who contributed to the design of the study, collection of data, and analysis reflected in 

this report were Tori Gorges, Maggie Mello, Karen Mitchell, Kathryn Morrison, Elizabeth 

Rivera, and Edith Yang 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 Tarneisha Gross and Klaus Krause at SRI. 

Graphics were produced by Tarneisha Gross and Kate Borelli. 

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. 
vi 
vii 

Executive Summary 

The purpose of this report is to provide descriptive information about educational technology 

practices related to the core objectives of the U.S. Department of Education’s Enhancing 

Education Through Technology (EETT) program. The EETT program is part of the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and, like other elements of NCLB, targets “high-need school 

districts.”1

 The authorizing legislation specifically states three goals for the program: (a) to 

improve student academic achievement through the use of educational technology, (b) to ensure 

that every student is technologically literate by the eighth grade, and (c) to encourage the 

effective integration of technology in teacher training and curriculum development to establish 

research-based instructional methods that can be widely implemented as best practices. From the 

program’s inception in FY 2002 through FY 2008, approximately $3.4 billion was allocated to 

EETT. In FY 2008, the program was funded at approximately $267 million. 

This report is structured around the EETT program objectives and specific performance 

measures developed by the U.S. Department of Education to meet the requirements of the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, which are aligned with, but not 

identical to, the goals stated in the legislation. GPRA requirements address each of the following 

EETT program priorities: teachers’ and students’ access to technology, technology-related 

professional development, technology integration, and student technology literacy.2

 The report 

uses data collected from nationally representative samples of states, districts and teachers, 

including 

• 52 state educational technology directors who were surveyed about school years 2002–03 

and 2006–07. 

• 1,028 district technology directors who were surveyed about school years 2003–04 and 

2006–07. 

• 4,934 teachers (drawn from the district sample) who were surveyed about school year 

2004–05 and 1,515 teachers (also drawn from the district sample) who were surveyed 

about school year 2006–07.3

In addition to providing national estimates of educational technology in elementary and 

secondary schools, the report provides responses for high- and low-poverty districts and for 

 

1

 High-need districts are defined in the legislation as those serving large numbers or percentages of poor students 

and serving at least one school in need of academic improvement or requiring assistance acquiring or using 

technology. Schools “in need of academic improvement” (also identified as “in need of school improvement”) are 

defined in NCLB as schools that receive federal Title I funds (based on the percentage of students from low-income 

families) and that have not made state-defined adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two consecutive school years. 

There is no definition for “technology need” in the legislation, and states develop their own criteria for this standard. 

2

 Additional GPRA measures address the operational efficiency of the program and are outside the scope of this 

report. 

3

 A larger sample of teachers was drawn for the 2005 data collection to provide robust, schoolwide estimates of 

technology use (rather than estimates of individual teachers’ use of technology) to inform case study selection for a 

NETTS substudy. 
viii 

teachers in high- and low-poverty schools to address the focus of the EETT program on the 

needs of high-poverty schools and districts. High-poverty schools are defined in this report as 

schools that were in the top poverty quartile of schools in the nation; low-poverty schools are 

defined as schools in the bottom two poverty quartiles, as defined by percentages of students 

eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) in 2004–05. Because there are many sources of 

support for educational technology at the federal, state and local levels, the report’s findings 

should not be interpreted as solely representing the effect of EETT. 

Key Findings 

This report’s key findings are organized by GPRA measures for the EETT program (see 

Exhibit ES-1).4 Findings are described in greater detail in the text that follows. The percentages 

associated with teacher technology competency, technology integration, and student technology 

literacy must be interpreted with care because standards guiding states and assessment 

techniques vary considerably. 

 

4 Information regarding the administration of the EETT program is provided in Appendix A. 
ix 

Exhibit ES-1. GPRA Indicators for EETT 

GPRA Topic and Objective GPRA Measure Key Findingsa

Technology access: To help 

ensure that students and teachers 

in high-poverty, high-need 

schools have access to 

educational technology 

comparable to that of students 

and teachers in other schools. 

The percentage point 

difference in Internet access 

between classrooms in highand low-poverty schools. 

The prevalence of Internet access 

in high- and low-poverty schools 

was equivalent in both school 

year 2004–05 and school year 

2006–07. 

Technology-related teacher 

professional development: To 

provide professional 

development opportunities for 

teachers, principals, and school 

administrators to develop 

capacity to effectively integrate 

technology into teaching and 

learning. 

The percentage of teachers 

who meet their state 

technology standards. 

About half of the states (27) had 

defined standards for teacher 

technology competency, and only 

some of these measured teachers’ 

technology skills. For the 11 

states that reported data, 

percentages ranged from 8 to 100. 

Technology integration: 

[To encourage districts to] fully 

integrate technology into the 

curricula and instruction in all 

schools to enhance teaching and 

learning. 

The percentage of districts 

receiving Educational 

Technology State Grants 

funds that have effectively and 

fully integrated technology. 

Half of the states (26) reported 

not having a definition of full 

integration of technology or did 

not collect data related to the 

percentage of districts meeting 

the standard. For the 15 states that 

reported percentages, percentages 

ranged from 0 to 100.b

Student technology literacy: 

[To increase] the percentage of 

students who meet state 

technology literacy standards by 

the end of the eighth grade. 

The percentage of students 

who meet state technology 

standards by the end of the 

eighth grade. 

Six states reported conducting 

statewide assessments of student 

technology proficiency; 25 states 

reported relying on districts to 

measure their students’ 

technology skills. For the 12 

states that reported data, 

percentages ranged from 10 to 

100. 

Exhibit reads: The federal government has developed four GPRA objectives and related measures that 

are aligned with the main purposes of the EETT program. For the last three of the four GPRA measures 

addressed in this report, about one-quarter of states provided data. a Unless otherwise stated, data are for school year 2005–06, the most recent year for which data were 

available. 

b The NETTS district survey item that addressed this GPRA measure did not ask states to differentiate 

between districts receiving EETT funds and those that do not. Therefore, reported percentages are for all 

districts in the state, not those receiving EETT funds specifically. 

Data source: U.S. Department of Education (2007a); 2007 NETTS State Survey. 
x 

Technology Access 

• High-speed Internet access in K–12 classrooms. Many of the current instructional uses 

of the Internet require bandwidth that would be unmanageable at dial-up speeds. Overall, 

63 percent of teachers reported in 2006–07 that students had high-speed Internet access 

in their classrooms.5 For all groups, classroom access to the Internet rose by a statistically 

significant amount (see Exhibit 3 in the main text). There was no statistically significant 

difference between teachers in high-poverty schools and those in low-poverty schools in 

terms of reported student access to high-speed Internet in classrooms in either 2004–05 

or 2006–07. This lack of statistical significant difference was also true of Internet access 

more generally; classroom access reported by teachers in high-poverty schools and 

teachers in low-poverty schools was statistically equivalent.6

 

Since school-level poverty status was not a significant predictor of high-speed Internet 

access, the NETTS teacher survey data were augmented with data from the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Common Core of Data (CCD) in order to examine the impact 

of other school characteristics. The analysis found differences associated with the grade 

level at which teachers worked, suggesting that elementary teachers were most likely to 

have high-speed Internet access in their classrooms. Seventy-two percent of teachers in 

elementary grades, compared with 55 percent in middle school grades and 49 percent in 

high school grades, reported having high-speed Internet access within their classrooms.7

Differences in subject taught and in school location (rural, suburban, urban) were not 

significant predictors of classroom Internet access. 

Technology-Related Teacher Professional Development 

• Content of technology-related professional development. More than two-thirds of 

districts reported providing technology-related professional development on the 

following topics: using technology in student grading (81 percent), enhancing student 

learning in mathematics (73 percent) and enhancing student learning in reading (69 

percent). Districts receiving EETT funds followed a similar pattern, with EETT districts 

providing professional development on using technology for grading students (87 

percent), enhancing student learning in mathematics (75 percent) and enhancing student 

learning in reading (69 percent). Teachers in low-poverty schools were more likely to 

report receiving professional development that (a) introduced computers and the Internet 

 

5

 “High-speed” Internet access is defined by the Federal Communications Commission as “access [to] the Internet 

and Internet-related services at significantly higher speeds than those available through ‘dial-up’ Internet access 

services”. (see http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/highspeedinternet.html, accessed on November 3, 2008). On 

the 2007 teacher survey, teachers were given examples such as cable, DSL and wireless. 

6

 These estimates may appear lower than other reports (see, for example, NCES 2006). The source of the differences 

between NETTS data and NCES data specifically can be explained as follows. First, NCES data address 

“instructional rooms,” including libraries, computer labs, etc. The data reported here speak directly to a teacher’s 

primary classroom. In addition, the data reported here refer specifically to student access, which is not addressed by 

the NCES report. 

7

 These differences were significant at the 99 percent level. 
xi 

(40 percent and 32 percent, respectively), (b) addressed how to use technology to 

enhance student learning in science (38 percent and 29 percent, respectively), and (c) 

taught how to use technology for grading (64 percent and 54 percent, respectively). 

However, relatively few districts reported using EETT funds for professional 

development on using technology to grade students; 18 percent of districts reporting 

using their formula funds and 13 percent of districts reported using their competitive 

funds for this purpose. Districts were more likely to use their formula funds to offer 

professional development regarding the use of technology to enhance student learning in 

math and reading, with 44 percent of districts using their formula funds for this purpose 

and less than 40 percent using their competitive funds for these purposes. 

• Teacher-Reported Frequency of Professional Development. Overall, 86 percent of 

teachers indicated that they had some form of technology-related professional 

development in 2006–07 or the preceding summer. Teacher data reinforced the 

widespread availability of professional development that addresses how to use 

technology for grading, with 60 percent of teachers (more than for any other single topic) 

reporting that they engaged in this type of professional development in 2006–07. The 

next three most often cited topics for the technology-related professional development 

that teachers had received were the use of technology in developing curriculum and 

lesson plans (58 percent of teachers), the use of technology to locate instructional 

materials on the Internet (54 percent of teachers) and the use of technology to support 

new teaching methods (54 percent of teachers). 

• Needs of teachers in high-poverty schools. Teachers in high-poverty schools were 

consistently more likely than those in low-poverty schools to express a need for 

additional technology-related professional development in school year 2006–07. The 

biggest gap in needs between teachers in high-poverty schools and those in low-poverty 

schools was in the use of technology to meet the needs of English language learners, with 

42 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools expressing a need for professional 

development in this area, compared with 28 percent of teachers in low-poverty schools. 

A similar gap by school poverty level (11 percentage points) existed in teachers’ 

perceived need for additional professional development in improving students’ 

technology literacy. 

• Quality of technology-related professional development. Seven characteristics often 

cited as elements of best practices for teacher professional development were identified 

through review of the literature: (a) directly related to the content taught by the teacher, 

(b) included other members of the school community, (c) was consistent with the 

technology goals in the district, (d) provided an opportunity for meaningful engagement 

with colleagues and materials, (e) addressed different levels of teachers’ knowledge, 

skills and interest, (f) was delivered over multiple sessions, and (g) included follow-up 

activities (Means et al. 2004). When asked to describe their most useful technologyrelated professional development experience in 2006–07, 20 percent of teachers indicated 

that this professional development did not include any of the seven research-suggested 

characteristics (see Exhibit 9 in the main text). The most commonly reported feature of 

teachers’ self-described “most useful” professional development activity was “directly 

related to the content taught,” with 50 percent of teachers reporting this feature. Teachers 
xii 

were least likely to report that their most useful professional development activity 

included follow-up activities, with 24 percent of teachers reporting this feature. 

• Percentage of teachers meeting technology standards. One of the GPRA measures for 

the EETT program is “the percentage of teachers who meet their state technology 

standards.” Only 27 states (52 percent) had minimum technology competency standards 

for teachers in 2006–07, and states were generally not collecting data regarding the 

GPRA measure of the percentage of teachers meeting state technology standards. Among 

the 11 states that reported data, the definitions and measurement of teachers’ technology 

competency varied greatly. Percentages of teachers meeting standards in a given state 

ranged from 8 percent to 100 percent.8 

 Thirty-five percent of districts reported having technology standards for teachers. Among 

the districts reporting technology standards for teachers, 69 percent also reported either 

assessing or planning to assess whether teachers met standards (24 percent of districts 

overall). Many of these districts (21 percent overall) provided data regarding the 

percentage of teachers who met district proficiency standards in 2005–06. On average, 

these districts reported that 71 percent of their teachers met standards. However, the data 

are not normally distributed, and the modal district response suggests that a high 

proportion of teachers in particular districts met district standards. About two out of 

every five districts that reported a percentage of teachers indicated that 91 percent to 100 

percent of teachers met district technology standards. 

Integration of Technology Into Teaching and Learning 

• Districtwide integration of technology. The GPRA measure for technology integration 

is “the percentage of districts receiving Educational Technology State Grants funds 

[EETT funds] that have effectively and fully integrated technology.” Under federal 

guidelines, states develop their own criteria for this measure. However, as reported on the 

2007 state survey, most states either had not adopted a definition of effective integration 

of technology or did not measure the percentage of districts meeting the statewide 

definition. Among the 15 states that did report this measure, the percentages ranged from 

0 percent to 100 percent. The average percentage of districts meeting state definitions 

was 56 percent.9

• Teacher and student use of technology for teaching and learning. Larger percentages 

of teachers reported using technology for a variety of professional practices on a weekly 

basis in 2006–07 than in 2004–05 (see Exhibit 18 in the main text). The biggest gains 

were in teachers’ use of technology to “develop curricula or assignments in reading, 

math, or other subjects” and to “present reading, math, or other subject concepts to 

 

8

 The mean response for the percentage of teachers meeting standards across reporting states was 61 percent. The 

median response was 62 percent; the modal response was 100 percent. 

9 The mean response for the percentage of districts meeting their states’ definitions of “effectively and fully” 

integrated technology was 56 percent. The median response for states was 50 percent. The modal response was 100 

percent. 
xiii 

students.” The only two exceptions to this trend were using technology to test students, 

which decreased, and using technology to collaborate with experts or teachers in other 

locations, which did not change during this two-year period. During the same time frame, 

the frequency of students’ use of technology for schoolwork, as reported by teachers, did 

not change. The only significant difference between the two years was an increase in the 

use of technology to prepare for standardized tests (see Exhibit 19 in the main text). 

Student Technology Literacy 

• Assessing student technology literacy. One of the GPRA measures for the EETT 

program is “the percentage of students who meet state technology standards by the end of 

the eighth grade.” Forty-four states had either stand-alone technology standards for 

students or technology standards that were integrated into other student academic 

standards. Six states reported conducting statewide assessments of student technology 

literacy in 2005–06, up from just two states in 2002–03. Twenty-five states reported 

relying on districts to assess student technology literacy. For the 12 states that reported 

data, the average percentage of students meeting technology literacy standards was 64 

percent; percentages ranged from 10 percent to 100 percent.10 Given the small number of 

states assessing student technology literacy and the very different assessment approaches 

and grade levels tested, aggregated state-reported student proficiency rates must be 

viewed with particular caution. 

 Across the country, 59 percent of districts reported assessing eighth-graders’ technology 

proficiency in 2005–06, but only about one-third of these districts, or 21 percent of all 

districts, reported the percentage of students meeting standards. These districts reported, 

on average, that 88 percent of their eighth-grade students met the district’s technology 

literacy requirements. By 2007–08, 85 percent of districts expected to be assessing 

students’ technology literacy in the eighth grade. 

Implications for Future Policy 

The GPRA objectives and measures used to monitor the EETT program on a national level 

are used to frame the data presented in this report. The GPRA objectives include two program 

inputs of effective technology use—technology access and technology-related professional 

development—and two intermediate goals of educational technology use—technology 

integration and student technology literacy. 

The EETT program seeks to ensure that students and teachers in high-poverty, high-need 

schools have access to educational technologies comparable with that of students and teachers in 

other schools. The analysis presented in this report suggests that this goal is being met. Although 

districts are authorized to use EETT funds to increase access to technology, relatively few 

districts receiving EETT funds appear to use EETT funds for this purpose. These data suggest 

that the focus of educational technology policy should continue to shift from access to issues of 

 

10 The median response was 76 percent. 
xiv 

how teachers are supported and how technology is used. This focus on instructional use should 

drive future decisions about what technology supports are needed. 

Preparing teachers to use technology effectively is a focus of the EETT program. Districts 

receiving EETT funds must either allocate 25 percent of funds to technology-related teacher 

professional development or show that significant technology-related professional development 

is already under way. The good news is that most districts do indeed provide technology-related 

professional development on a wide range of topics. However, most of the professional 

development that teachers received in 2006–07 (whether funded by EETT or not) did not appear 

to incorporate these seven research-suggested characteristics (see Exhibit 9 in the main text). 

This finding suggests an important opportunity to improve the quality of professional 

development to ensure effective experiences that can transform teaching. 

GPRA measures related to professional development, technology integration and student 

technology literacy all require (a) state-based infrastructures that can rigorously measure teacher 

and student technology proficiency and (b) district capacity to “fully and effectively” integrate 

technology. Although some progress is certainly evident in particular states and districts, the 

majority of states still do not have the definitions, measures and processes in place that would 

allow for reliable estimates within and across states. 

If one moves beyond specific GPRA measures to consider the EETT program and 

educational uses of technology more broadly, trends do emerge. Schools across the country are 

increasingly equipped with high-speed Internet access. Between 2005 and 2007, more teachers 

reported using technology frequently, but teacher reports about student technology use in 

classrooms were relatively unchanged. If the full potential of educational technology is to be 

realized, then educational policy must continue to encourage robust student uses of technology. 
1 

1. Introduction 

The Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program is the most comprehensive 

federal program that supports improving student academic achievement in elementary and 

secondary schools through the use of educational technology. The EETT program also seeks 

• to ensure that every student is technologically literate by the time he or she finishes the 

eighth grade, regardless of the student’s race, ethnicity, gender, family income, 

geographic location or disability, and 

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

training and curriculum development to establish research-based instructional methods 

that can be widely implemented as best practices. 

To accomplish these goals, the program, which is administered by the U.S. Department of 

Education, provides funds by formula to states to promote access to educational technologies, to 

provide technology-related teacher professional development, to integrate technologies in ways 

that improve students’ academic preparation, and to conduct rigorous program evaluations. 

States allocate funds to local districts through competitive and formula grant processes (see 

Appendix A). In FY 2008, the program was funded at approximately $267 million. From its 

inception in FY 2002 through FY 2008, the EETT program provided approximately $3.4 billion 

in funding for educational technology. 

The EETT program is part of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 and, like other 

elements of NCLB, targets “high-need school districts.” High-need districts need to meet two 

criteria, as defined in the legislation. To qualify for high-need status, districts must serve large 

numbers or percentages of low-income students and either serve one or more schools in need of 

academic improvement or have a substantial need for assistance in acquiring or using 

technology. Schools “in need of academic improvement” (also identified as “in need of school 

improvement”) are defined in NCLB as schools that receive federal Title I funds (which are 

allocated based the on the percentage of students from low-income families) that have not made 

state-defined adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two consecutive school years. There is no 

legislative definition of “technology need,” and states develop their own criteria for this 

standard. 

Study Purpose 

The National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS) examines the implementation 

of the EETT program and educational technology use in states, districts and schools receiving 

funds from this program. It further provides nationally representative statistics regarding the use 

of educational technologies in all public elementary and secondary schools across the country, 

not just those receiving EETT funds. 

The purpose of this report is to provide descriptive information about education technology 

practices related to the core goals and strategies of the EETT program. It provides data and 

analysis related to four of the five issues targeted by the EETT program’s performance 

objectives, as established by the U.S. Department of Education to meet the requirements of the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. These performance objectives 
2 

address each of the following EETT program priorities: teachers’ and students’ access to 

technology, technology-related professional development, technology integration, and student 

technology literacy (Exhibit 1).11 Additional GPRA measures address the operational efficiency 

of the program and are outside the scope of this report. 

Exhibit 1. GPRA Indicators for EETT 

GPRA Topic GPRA Objective GPRA Measure 

Technology 

access 

To help ensure that students and teachers in highpoverty, high-need schools have access to 

educational technology comparable with that of 

students and teachers in other schools 

The percentage point 

difference in Internet access 

between classrooms in highand low-poverty schools 

Technologyrelated teacher 

professional 

development 

To provide professional development 

opportunities for teachers, principals and school 

administrators to develop capacity to effectively 

integrate technology into teaching and learning 

The percentage of teachers 

who meet their state 

technology standards 

Technology 

integration 

[To encourage districts to] fully integrate 

technology into the curricula and instruction in all 

schools to enhance teaching and learning 

The percentage of districts 

receiving Educational 

Technology State Grants 

funds that have effectively 

and fully integrated 

technology 

Student 

technology 

literacy 

[To increase] the percentage of students who 

meet state technology literacy standards by the 

end of the eighth grade 

The percentage of students 

who meet state technology 

standards by the end of the 

eighth grade 

Exhibit reads: Minimizing the gap in teacher and student access to educational technology between 

high-poverty and other schools is one of four GPRA objectives developed for the EETT program. 

Progress toward this objective is measured by the percentage point difference in Internet-access in 

classrooms in high- and low-poverty schools. 

Data source: U.S. Department of Education (2007a). 

Within program guidelines, districts have flexibility in spending the majority of their EETT 

funds. This flexibility includes the option to combine EETT monies with other sources of funds 

such as federal E-rate, Title I and other programs as well as with funds from state technology 

programs, capital bonds and private investments. Although the flexibility of the EETT program 

has important advantages for grantees, it complicates efforts to trace the specific uses of EETT 

funds in districts and schools. In recognition of the difficulty of tracing accurately the use of 

EETT funds at the school level, the GPRA objectives for EETT concern the priorities central to 

 

11 GPRA is designed to reduce government waste and inefficiency by encouraging programmatic strategic planning 

and systematic reporting of performance measures related to program goals. 
3 

the program—technology access, teacher professional development, technology integration, and 

student technology literacy—rather than use of funds per se. The NETTS evaluation and this 

report have been structured around these priorities. Information concerning EETT program 

administration and distribution of funds to districts can be found in Appendix A. 

Because there are many sources of support for educational technology at the federal, state 

and local levels, the report’s findings should not be interpreted as representing the effect of 

EETT. 

Conceptual Framework for EETT 

The conceptual framework for EETT (see Exhibit 2) illustrates the intended relationship 

between EETT investments and advances for students, including increased student technology 

literacy and, ultimately, student academic achievement. Specifically, this framework describes 

the expected relationships between investments in hardware, software and the Internet; support 

for technology-related teacher professional development; and the attainment of EETT goals. The 

framework suggests that increases in access and professional development are directed at 

technology integration, which is the mechanism through which improvements in students’ 

technology literacy and increases in students’ academic achievement may be realized.12 

Funding for Educational Technology 

On the left side of the conceptual framework is EETT funding, shown as a complement to 

other educational technology funding. Part of the challenge associated with evaluating the 

EETT program is that it does not provide a defined set of goods or services. Rather, it is a 

funding source, which, as shown in the framework, states and districts can use to purchase or 

develop a wide variety of supports. In addition, as already mentioned, EETT program funds can 

be combined with other funds in districts and schools. In places with few or no additional funds 

for technology, EETT’s role is likely to be more evident than in places with many additional 

sources because districts with many sources of funding may use EETT money to support 

existing programs and operations not explicitly identified as part of the EETT program. 

Program Inputs 

EETT provides direct funding for professional development and for access to hardware, 

software and technical support that affect the types and uses of technologies that teachers and 

students have available to them in schools. The EETT legislation requires that districts spend at 

 

12 In general, the purpose of a conceptual framework is to pictorially represent how resources and activities are 

intended to achieve program objectives and goals. The conceptual framework is included in this report to help orient 

readers to the conceptual linkages between activities that are funded by the EETT program and therefore are 

addressed in this report. Use of conceptual frameworks for this purpose is consistent with mainstream evaluation 

practices. Coffman (1999) describes a conceptual framework (also called a “logic map” or “conceptual model”) in 

the following way: “[It] illustrates a program’s theory of change, showing how day-to-day activities connect to the 

results or outcomes the program is trying to achieve. Similar to a flowchart, it lays out program activities and 

outcomes using boxes and, using arrows to connect the boxes, shows how the activities and outcomes connect with 

one another.” (p. 2). The conceptual framework should not be construed to imply or otherwise indicate actual effects 

of the EETT program. 
4 

least a quarter of their EETT dollars on technology-related professional development, unless 

they can show that they already offer substantial technology-related teacher professional 

development. 

Intermediate Program Goals 

The framework shown in Exhibit 2 suggests that the EETT program has three goals: 

technology integration into teaching and learning, student technology literacy, and improved 

student academic achievement. Although student academic achievement is arguably the most 

important of these three outcomes, it is addressed last because achieving improved academic 

achievement through technology use relies to some extent on accomplishing the other two goals. 

Technology integration in teaching and learning is the principal mechanism through 

which technology can contribute to students’ academic achievement. Mere access to technology 

is not enough to influence student academic outcomes. Rather, technology must be used in ways 

that support curricular goals and give students opportunities to use technology in their learning. 

As one report from the National Research Council found, “In general, technology-based tools 

can enhance student performance when they are integrated into the curriculum and used in 

accordance with knowledge about learning.... But the mere existence of these tools in the 

classroom provides no guarantee that student learning will improve; they have to be part of a 

coherent education approach” (Bransford, Brown and Cocking 2000, 216). Technology 

integration can take a variety of forms, including assessments embedded in computer-based 

activities; administrative software for teachers; computer-based lesson plans and assignments 

that are available anytime, anywhere; research-based educational software for students; distance 

education; and a plethora of other tools and resources available online or offline. 
5 

Exhibit 2. Conceptual Framework for EETT 

Exhibit reads: In the conceptual framework for EETT, funding for educational technology is used for professional devetechnology access to achieve intermediate goals that enable attainment of the primary program goal—student academ
 6 

Although student academic achievement is the ultimate outcome not only for EETT but also 

for NCLB as a whole, the proximal student outcome for EETT is student technology literacy.

Student technology literacy includes concepts related to factual and conceptual knowledge about 

technology, critical thinking and decision making, and technical capabilities (National Research 

Council 2006), and this knowledge is also sometimes referred to as “21st-century skills” (see, for 

example, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008). These skills allow students to use 

technology “to collaborate, to communicate, to solve problems, to create, and to continue to 

learn” (Kozma 2005, p. 1)). In places where students are not exposed to technologies at home or 

in their community, the role of schools in developing technology literacy is particularly 

important because schools may be the only places where these students have an opportunity to 

become familiar with computers and the Internet. 

Primary Program Goal 

Improved academic achievement13 can potentially result from the use of technology in two 

ways. First, the integration of technology can lead to experiences that help students learn better 

and faster, including test preparation activities and formative assessment, individualized 

instruction, and more engaging curriculum. Second, as students develop technology literacy, they 

also can learn to access and analyze information, an important skill that can benefit students in 

higher education and the labor market. As students develop critical-thinking skills, their capacity 

to engage and succeed in formal and informal educational environments can potentially increase. 

Supportive Contexts 

Although student, family, school and community factors, including students’ access to 

technology at home, are not addressed directly through the NETTS evaluation, these factors 

nonetheless directly affect the funding available for educational technology and the degree to 

which students come to school prepared to use technology effectively. These factors include the 

socioeconomic status of the community that a school serves and the degree to which parents and 

other community members are themselves technologically literate and value technological 

abilities. In addition, technologically savvy students and families are able to provide nonfinancial 

supports such as technical support and leadership, which may not be available in all places. 

Principal Data Sources 

The main sources of data for this report are three surveys administered in 2007: one at the 

state level (state technology directors), one at the district level (district technology coordinators) 

and one at the classroom level (teachers). Respondents were asked about educational technology 

activities in school year 2006–07. The survey of state educational technology directors was 

conducted online with 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and the survey 

response rate was 100 percent.14 A nationally representative sample of 1,039 district technology 

coordinators received the district survey, and 94.3 percent of them responded. The teacher survey 

was administered to a random sample of 2,509 teachers, clustered within the sampled districts, 

 

13 An exploration of the effect of technology on student academic achievement is outside of the scope of the NETTS 

evaluation, although this effect remains central to the purposes of the EETT program. 

14 These 52 respondents are referred to as “states” throughout this report. 
7 

and had a response rate of 85.6 percent. Comparable data gathered through NETTS surveys of 

states in winter 2003–04 (about activities in school year 2002–03), of districts in spring 2005 

(about activities in school year 2003–04), and of teachers in fall 2005 (about activities in school 

year 2004–05) are also used in analyses examining change over time for key educational 

technology indicators. 

In addition to providing national estimates related to educational technology in elementary 

and secondary schools, the report compares responses for high- and low-poverty districts and 

teachers in high- and low-poverty schools to address the focus of the EETT program on the 

needs of high-poverty schools and districts. High-poverty schools are defined in this report as 

schools that were in the top poverty quartile of schools in the nation; low-poverty schools are 

defined as schools in the bottom two poverty quartiles, as indicated by the percentage of students 

eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) in 2004–05. This conservative approach is less 

likely to find statistically significant differences between high- and low-poverty groups than an 

approach comparing the 25 percent of schools serving the most children in poverty and the 25 

percent of schools serving the fewest. Additional information concerning data sources and 

analyses is available in Appendix B. 

Organization of This Report 

This report is organized around the GPRA objectives enumerated above. Two of these 

objectives represent inputs to the educational system: (a) goods and services that increase access 

to technologies in schools and (b) technology-related teacher professional development. Data 

pertaining to these objectives are presented first, followed by data concerning two legislative 

goals of the program: (a) integration of technology into teaching and learning and (b) student 

technology literacy. An examination of technology’s effect on student academic achievement, 

the primary goal of the EETT program, is beyond the scope of this report. 
8 
9 

2. Technology Access 

One of the GPRA objectives for the EETT program is “to help ensure that students and 

teachers in high-poverty, high-need schools have access to educational technology comparable to 

that of students and teachers in other schools.” Measures of technology access have historically 

relied on broad indicators such as the number of computers in a school or whether the school has 

any Internet access. In terms of these broad indicators, nearly universal technology access had 

been achieved by the time the EETT program commenced. There has been virtually no 

difference in school access to the Internet by school poverty level since 1999 (Parsad and Jones 

2005). By fall 2005, nearly 100 percent of public schools in the United States had access to the 

Internet (Wells and Lewis 2006). 

Although these broad indicators of technology access were useful in the early stages of 

technology acquisition, they do not directly address the availability of technology for 

instructional purposes. Evaluation of the EETT program required more fine-grained measures of 

technology access related to student and teacher use. The GPRA technology access measure for 

the EETT program is “the percentage point difference in Internet access between classrooms in 

high- and low-poverty schools.” The text below also addresses high-speed Internet access in 

classrooms as a useful refinement of the GPRA measure because many of today’s instructional 

uses of the Internet require bandwidth that would be unmanageable at dial-up speeds. “Highspeed” Internet access is defined by the Federal Communications Commission as “access [to] the 

Internet and Internet-related services at significantly higher speeds than those available through 

‘dial-up’ Internet access services.”15 

Trends in Internet Access 

In 2007, 63 percent of teachers reported that students had high-speed Internet 

access in their classrooms, an increase of 9 percentage points from 2005; highand low-poverty schools had similar levels of high-speed access in both 2005 

and 2007.

From 2004–05 to 2006–07, there was a statistically significant gain overall in teacher reports 

of high-speed Internet access for students in classrooms, with almost 10 percent of teachers 

gaining high-speed Internet access in their classrooms in this two-year span (see Exhibit 3). 

According to NETTS Teacher Survey data, 54 percent of teachers reported that students had 

high-speed Internet access in their classrooms in 2004–05. By 2006–07, 65 percent of teachers 

reported that high-speed Internet access was available for student use.16

 

15 See http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/highspeedinternet.html (accessed on November 3, 2008). On the 2007 

teacher survey, teachers were given examples such as cable, DSL and wireless. 

16 These estimates may appear lower than other reports (see, for example, NCES 2006). The source of the 

differences between NETTS data and NCES data specifically can be explained as follows. First, NCES data address 

“instructional rooms,” including libraries, computer labs, etc. The data reported here speak directly to a teacher’s 

primary classroom. In addition, the data reported here refer specifically to student access, which is not addressed by 

the NCES report. 
10 

Exhibit 3. Student Internet Access in Classrooms, as Reported by Teachers 

(School Years 2004–05 and 2006–07) 

Low poverty (06-07), 69%

Low poverty (04-05), 62%

Low poverty (04-05), 55%

Overall (04-05), 62%

Overall (04-05), 54%

Low poverty (06-07), 65%*

High poverty (06-07), 69%*

High poverty (06-07), 65%*

High poverty (04-05), 53%

High poverty (04-05), 64%

Overall (06-07), 67%*

Overall (06-07), 63%*

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Any Internet (high-speed or dial-up) High-speed

Percentage of teachers

 

Exhibit reads: Student access to high-speed Internet connections in classrooms increased by 9 

percentage points between 2004–05 and 2006–07. 

* p < .05 (significant difference from 2004–05). 

Data sources: NETTS 2005 AND 2007 Teacher Surveys. 

Since school-level poverty status was not a significant predictor of high-speed Internet 

access, the NETTS teacher survey data were augmented with data from the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Common Core of Data (CCD) to examine the impact of other school characteristics. 

The analysis found differences associated with the grade level at which teachers worked. 

Seventy-two percent of teachers in elementary grades, compared with 55 percent in middle 

school grades and 49 percent in high school grades, reported having high-speed Internet access 

within their classrooms.17 Differences in subject taught by teacher and in school location (rural, 

suburban, urban) were not significant predictors of classroom Internet access. 

 

17 These differences were significant at the 99 percent level. 

 2004–05 2006–07
11 

In terms of another technology access measure, student access to computers, teachers in 

high-poverty and low-poverty schools reported similar access patterns for 2006–07, with the 

exception of the availability of laptop computers for student use. Although 37 percent of teachers 

nationally reported that their students had access to laptops in their schools, there was a gap of 10 

percentage points between student access to laptops in high-poverty schools (32 percent) and 

student access in low-poverty schools (42 percent).18 

Although the fact that no gap in high-speed Internet access exists among all schools is a 

positive finding from the standpoint of one of EETT’s GPRA measures, the role of the EETT 

program specifically remains unclear. Relatively few districts that received either formula or 

competitive EETT grants in 2006–07 reported using EETT funds to pay for purchases related to 

Internet access, compared with districts that did not receive EETT funds (see Exhibit 4). 

Relatively low percentages of districts receiving EETT funds used their EETT funds specifically 

to pay for e-mail or Internet-based methods of communication, presumably because they had 

other funding sources for these activities. It is possible that more districts invested EETT funds 

to improve technology access earlier in the program, but data to address this issue are not 

available. 

Exhibit 4. District Purchases Related to Internet Access (School Year 2006–07) 

6%

7%

5%

36%

59%

71%

39%

61%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Pay for initiatives to

develop professional

online communities and

resources

Pay for e-mail or Internetbased methods to

communicate with

students

Pay for e-mail or Internetbased methods to

communicate with

parents

Percentage of districts

Exhibit reads: Although about 70 percent of districts report paying for e-mail or Internet-based 

methods to communicate with parents, only 5 percent of districts receiving EETT funds report using 

EETT funds for this purpose. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 District Survey. 

 

18 This difference was significant at the 99 percent level. 

Districts receiving EETT funds, using “other” funds Districts without EETT funds 

 Districts receiving EETT funds, using EETT funds 
12 

Nearly half of teachers across the country indicated that they experienced no barrier in the 

form of slow or unreliable Internet connections during 2006–07 (see Exhibit 5). Relatively few 

teachers (10 percent) indicated that inadequate Internet access was a significant obstacle to their 

use of technology. Looking at it from the equity perspective, there was no statistical difference in 

reports from teachers in high- and low-poverty schools concerning the degree to which poor 

Internet access or service quality created a barrier to technology use. 

Exhibit 5. Degree of Barrier Created by Slow or Unreliable Internet Connections, 

as Reported by Teachers (School Year 2006–07) 

Exhibit reads: About half of all teachers reported that slow or unreliable Internet access did not 

present any obstacle to their use of technology in 2006–07; 10 percent reported that slow or 

unreliable Internet access hindered their use of technology “a lot”; 12 percent reported that it 

hindered a moderate amount; and 29 percent reported that it hindered a little. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 Teacher Survey. 

Summary 

In summary, student access to the Internet in classrooms was similar across high-poverty and 

low-poverty schools, according to teachers’ survey responses in 2004–05 and 2006–07. 

Similarly, computer access in the classroom was nearly equivalent across high- and low-poverty 

schools, with the exception of laptops, which may reflect differences in the ways that teachers in 

these schools used computers with their students. Although only a small proportion of districts 

receiving EETT funds reported using these funds for technology access, teachers in high- and 

low-poverty schools indicated similar satisfaction with their degree of access. Data from both 

2004–05 and 2006–07 indicate that the GPRA objective of equitable Internet access in 

classrooms seems to have been accomplished. 
13 

3. Technology-Related Teacher Professional Development

A large body of literature addresses the need to support teachers’ initial attempts to integrate 

technology into instruction (Brinkerhoff 2006; Donnelly et al. 2002; Ertmer 1999; Franklin 

2007; National Center for Education Statistics 2002). Nationally, the majority of districts 

surveyed by NETTS reported providing professional development to support teachers’ 

integration of technology during 2006–07. More than two-thirds of EETT funded districts 

reported providing technology-related professional development on using technology for student 

grading through use of gradebook software or other methods to keep individual records (81 

percent), enhancing student learning in mathematics (73 percent), and enhancing student learning 

in reading (69 percent) (see Exhibit 6). 

Exhibit 6. District-Supported Technology-Related Professional Development 

(School Year 2006–07) 

38%

37%

52%

40%

36%

48%

43%

26%

35%

52%

54%

58%

54%

49%

45%

60%

58%

58%

60%

65%

65%

69%

73%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Enhance student learning in

science

Design and administer

student assessments

Teach with new methods

(e.g., cooperative learning)

Develop curriculum and

lesson plans

Locate instructional materials

on the Internet

Enhance student learning in

reading

Enhance student learning in

math

Grade students (e.g., using

gradebook software keeping

individual records)

Percentage of districts/teachers

Exhibit reads: Districts most frequently reported providing technology-related teacher professional 

development to support teacher use of technology to record student grades. Similarly, teachers 

most frequently reported participating in technology-related professional development related to 

maintaining student grades. Accordingly, using technology for grading students was the topic on 

which teachers were least likely to report that they needed additional training. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 District Survey and NETTS 2007 Teacher Survey. 

 District-supported topic Teacher-reported participation Teacher-reported need
14 

Eighty-six percent of teachers reported participating in some form of technology-related 

teacher professional development in summer 2006 or school year 2006–07. Teacher data 

reinforced the widespread availability of professional development that addresses how to use 

technology for grading, with 60 percent of teachers (more than for any other single topic) 

reporting that they engaged in this type of professional development in 2006–07. The next three 

most often cited topics for the technology-related professional development that teachers had 

received were (a) the use of technology in developing curriculum and lesson plans (58 percent of 

teachers), (b) the use of technology to locate instructional materials on the Internet (54 percent of 

teachers), and (c) the use of technology to support new teaching methods (54 percent of 

teachers). 

On many topics, regardless of the poverty level of the school, there were no differences in 

teacher responses, with four exceptions in which teachers in low-poverty schools were more 

likely to report particular types of professional development than teachers in high-poverty 

schools: (a) participation in professional development activities that introduced computers and 

the Internet generally (40 percent of teachers in low poverty schools, 32 percent of teachers in 

high-poverty schools); (b) participation in professional development that addressed how to use 

technology to enhance student learning in science (38 percent and 29 percent of teachers, 

respectively), (c) participation in professional development regarding the use of technology for 

grading (64 percent and 54 percent of teachers, respectively), and (d) participation in 

professional development regarding learning how to teach online courses (17 percent and 12 

percent of teachers, respectively). 

Exhibit 6 shows the topics on which districts reported providing technology-related 

professional development, those topics on which teachers said they received professional 

development, and those topics on which teachers reported needing more development. For the 

most part, the kinds of technology-related professional development that districts reported 

providing align well with the kinds of professional development that teachers indicated they 

received and with the areas in which teachers felt that more professional development would be 

beneficial. In a few instances, districts provided professional development in 2006–07 on topics 

in which markedly smaller percentages of teachers perceived a need for more training. For 

example, a vast majority of school districts (81 percent) invested in professional development for 

teachers on the use of technology for grading, and only 26 percent of teachers nationally 

indicated that they would benefit from more professional development in this area. In a similar 

vein, 65 percent of districts reported providing training on how to locate instructional materials 

on the Internet, and only 36 percent of teachers thought that they would benefit from more 

training in this area. One plausible explanation is that teachers no longer feel a need for training 

because districts have offered the training. 

A very different situation emerges for more open-ended, complex topics related to 

instruction. Many teachers in the national sample indicated that they would benefit from 

additional professional development on technology-supported instructional approaches. More 

than half of teachers (52 percent) indicated that additional professional development regarding 

ways to use technology for new methods of teaching such as cooperative learning would be 

beneficial. The next most commonly cited topics for needed development were the use of 

technology to enhance student learning in reading (cited by 48 percent of teachers) and use of 

technology to enhance student learning in mathematics (43 percent). Interestingly, these more 

complex topics were among the most frequently reported uses of EETT funds by districts, with 

just more than one-third of districts using their formula or competitive funds to provide 

professional development on how to use technology to support new methods of teaching (see 
15 

Exhibit 7). More than a third of districts also reported using EETT funds to support professional 

development to enhance student learning in math, with 44 percent of districts using formula 

funds and 39 percent of districts using their competitive funds. Similar percentages used EETT 

funds to provide professional development to enhance student learning in reading, with 44 

percent of districts using formula funds and 38 percent of districts using competitive funds. 

These data suggest an opportunity for districts to begin reallocating resources away from 

professional development that focuses on routine uses of technology (such as for maintaining 

student grades) to support more professional development on instructional uses of educational 

technology. It stands to reason that for topics such as using a particular software program, which 

are relatively straightforward, a limited number of professional development sessions may 

suffice. However, teachers are likely to need multiple opportunities to engage with topics that 

could require fundamental changes in their instructional practices, for example, learning to use 

technology to support new teaching methods or to teach concepts in specific subject areas. As 

teachers develop some fluency in these more complicated topics, professional development that 

focuses on intermediate or even expert technology users may be particularly helpful. The barriers 

to professional development on more complex uses of technology include a limited body of 

research to guide practice regarding the particular forms of technology-based instruction that are 

effective. 
16 

Exhibit 7. District Uses of EETT Funds to Support Professional Development 

(School Year 2006–07) 

27%

22%

37%

21%

33%

38%

39%

13%

25%

20%

36%

22%

28%

44%

44%

18%

58%

58%

60%

65%

65%

69%

73%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Enhance student learning in

science

Design and administer

student assessments

Teach with new methods

(e.g., cooperative learning)

Locate instructional materials

on the Internet

Develop curriculum and

lesson plans

Enhance student learning in

reading

Enhance student learning in

math

Grade students (e.g., using

gradebook software keeping

individual records)

Percentage of districts

Exhibit reads: Although 81 percent of districts reported supporting professional development to help 

teachers use technology to keep track of student grades, less than 20 percent of districts receiving 

EETT funds reported using EETT funds for this purpose. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 District Survey. 

 Supported by district Supported by EETT formula funds Supported by EETT competitive funds
17 

EETT Support for Technology-Related Teacher Professional Development 

A majority of districts reported using EETT funds to pay for professional development for 

teachers to assist them with the integration of technology into instruction. Findings from 

several case study districts suggest that support for technology-related professional 

development may be one of the EETT program’s greatest contributions. 

The EETT legislation recognizes the importance of professional development by requiring 

districts to spend at least a quarter of their EETT funds for this purpose.19 When asked about 

which supports for educational technology the district provided with EETT funds, districts were 

most likely to report using funds to pay for professional development for teachers to assist them 

with integrating technology into math or reading (61 percent of districts receiving formula funds 

and 46 percent of districts receiving competitive funds) or to pay for professional development 

for teachers to assist them with integrating technology into other subject areas (53 percent of 

districts receiving formula funds and 49 percent of districts receiving competitive funds). During 

site visits to schools and districts in 2004–05, districts that received EETT funds consistently 

reported that EETT funding provided opportunities for professional development that focused on 

technology integration that might not have been possible without EETT funds. Case study 

districts often stated that these professional development opportunities were the greatest 

contribution of the EETT program. 

Poverty-Related Differences in Technology-Based Professional Development Needs 

Teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely than teachers in low-poverty schools 

to report a need for additional training on the use of technology to meet the needs of 

English language learners (ELL students) and on ways to improve students’ technology 

literacy. 

In addition to examining perceived needs for additional technology-related professional 

development for teachers nationally, the study compared the perceived needs of teachers in highand low-poverty schools. For the two most commonly cited professional development needs (i.e., 

using technology to support new teaching methods and to enhance student reading), there was no 

difference in teacher responses by the poverty level of the schools in which they taught. 

However, there were significant differences by poverty level in six other areas (see Exhibit 8). In 

all of these cases, teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely to feel the need for 

additional technology-related professional development than were teachers in low-poverty 

schools. The disparities between teachers in high-poverty schools and teachers in low-poverty 

schools were greatest with respect to (a) the use of technology to meet the needs of ELL 

students, an area in which 42 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools would like more 

training compared with 28 percent of teachers in low-poverty schools, and (b) ways to improve 

students’ technology literacy (41 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools compared with 30 

percent of teachers in low-poverty schools). 

 

19 However, a state can waive this requirement for a specific district if that district documents that it is already 

providing required professional development in the integration of advanced technologies to all teachers in core 

academic subjects.
18 

Exhibit 8. Differences in Teacher-Reported Need for Technology-Related Professional 

Development in High- and Low-Poverty Schools 

26%

27%

29%

34%

31%

43%

40%*

28%*

30%*

26%*

25%*

24%*

48%*

42%*

41%*

33%*

33%*

31%*

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Use technology for grading

Teach students how to use

the Internet responsibly and

ethically

Manage class while

students use computers

Improve students’

technology literacy

Use technology to meet the

needs of ELL students

Use technology to enhance

student learning in math

Percentage of teachers

Exhibit reads: Nationally, 43 percent of teachers reported using technology to enhance student 

learning in math. Teachers in high-poverty districts were more likely to report needing additional 

professional development related to the use of technology to enhance student learning than teachers 

in low-poverty schools. 

*p < .05 (significant difference between teachers in high- and low-poverty schools)

Data source: NETTS 2007 Teacher Survey. 

Availability of High-Quality Teacher Professional Development 

Teachers indicated that their “most useful” training experience in 2006–07 did not 

incorporate many research-suggested characteristics. 

In addition to examining the topic areas of district-supported professional development, the 

study gathered data pertaining to the quality of that professional development. Based on a review 

of research, seven characteristics that are generally cited as elements of best practice were 

identified (Means et al. 2004): (a) relates to the content the teacher teaches; (b) includes other 

members of the school community; (c) is consistent with technology goals in the district; (d) 

provides an opportunity for meaningful engagement with colleagues and materials; (e) addresses 

different levels of teachers’ knowledge, skills, and interests; (f) delivered over multiple sessions; 

and (g) includes follow up activities. 

 National sample of teachers Teachers in high-poverty schools Teachers in low-poverty schools
19 

Research on the effectiveness of teacher professional development suggests that technologyrelated training is most effective when it relates directly to the content that faculty teach, engages 

participants at their current knowledge and skill levels, is delivered over multiple sessions rather 

than in a single workshop, and offers follow-up activities (Gollub et al. 2002). Literature on 

professional development practices in general also suggests that teachers benefit more from 

professional development when they attend with other teachers from their schools. When 

teachers complete professional development together, they are more likely to support one 

another’s work and reinforce their own professional development goals (McLaughlin and Talbert 

1993). Additionally, professional development seems to be more effective when it aligns well 

with district technology goals and teachers’ professional goals (Smith, Clark and Blomeyer 

2005; Sweet et al. 2004). Finally, technology-related professional development that gives 

teachers active learning opportunities, including opportunities to meaningfully engage with 

colleagues and curricular materials, helps them more successfully develop their professional 

practice (Bransford, Brown and Cocking 2000). 

Teacher and district survey responses suggest that what teachers considered the most useful 

technology-related professional development they received in 2006–07 did not incorporate many 

research-suggested characteristics. For example, although research suggests that professional 

development is most effective when delivered over multiple sessions, district-provided 

professional development on technology usually takes the form of conferences or instructor-led 

workshops, with 73 percent of districts reporting use of these formats for their technology-related 

professional development. Nevertheless, when reflecting on the most useful technology-related 

teacher professional development activity in which they had participated during summer 2006 or 

school year 2006–07, 80 percent of teachers indicated that this professional development 

experience had at least one of the research-suggested characteristics (see Exhibit 9). Although 

there is no research-based guidance that a certain number of these characteristics must be 

present, it stands to reason that professional development that has more of these features is likely 

to be better than those embodying few or none of the characteristics. Slightly fewer than onethird of teachers (32 percent) indicated that this professional development experience had four or 

more of the research-suggested characteristics. One in five teachers reported that their “most 

useful” training lacked all of the research-suggested features. 

When describing their most useful technology-related professional development activity, the 

most commonly reported research-suggested professional development practice reported by 

teachers was that the training directly related to the content that participating teachers taught (50 

percent). Forty-four percent of teachers reported that their most useful technology-related 

professional development included other participants from their schools. Other best practices in 

professional development characterized about one-third or fewer of the most useful technologyrelated professional development experiences described by teachers. There were no statistically 

significant differences between the responses of teachers in high-poverty schools and those in 

low-poverty schools, suggesting that the technology-related professional development that is 

provided is of similar quality, on average, regardless of the poverty level of the students that 

teachers are instructing. Issues of quality and intensity may reduce the overall efficacy of the 

technology-related training on instructional practices. 
20 

Exhibit 9. Characteristics of “Most Useful” Technology-Related Professional 

Development, as Reported by Teachers (School Year 2006–07) 

20%

24%

33%

36%

37%

37%

44%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Had none of these

characteristics

Included follow-up activities

Delivered over multiple

sessions

Addressed different levels of

teachers’ knowledge, skills,

and interests

Provided an opportunity for

meaningful engagement with

colleagues and materials

Was consistent with the

technology goals in the

district

Included other members of

the school community

Was directly related to

content taught

Percentage of teachers

Exhibit reads: Fifty percent of teachers reported that their “most useful” technology-related 

professional development activity was related to the content they taught. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 Teacher Survey. 

According to teachers, the technology-related professional development they received had 

some effect on their practices in 2006–07. Of the teachers who reported participating in 

professional development during summer 2006 or during school year 2006–07, more than onethird noted that their professional development had increased substantially their general 

knowledge of computers (37 percent) and general use of computers (42 percent), and a similar 

proportion (37 percent) said that their use of technology for classroom administrative tasks had 

increased substantially. Sixty percent of teachers reported a substantial increase in at least one of 

these three administrative areas. These teacher reports are consistent with the district-reported 

focus of professional development on administrative skills noted above. Fewer teachers reported 

that professional development had affected their instructional practices. A third or fewer of 

teachers reported that the training they had received had helped them to use technology as an 

instructional tool in ways such as developing curriculum and lesson planning (32 percent), 

developing computer-based activities for students (27 percent), or using new teaching methods 
21 

that involve technology, for example, online projects (20 percent) (see Exhibit 10).20 Forty-nine 

percent of teachers indicated a substantial increase in one of these three instructional practices. 

The lower proportion of teachers reporting an effect of technology-related professional 

development on their instructional practices (compared with the more administrative types of 

tasks described above), coupled with the limited frequency of research-suggested characteristics 

of professional development activities, suggest a need for continued focus on the quality and 

relevance of technology-related professional development if the goal is to be realized of 

technology-supported increases in student academic achievement that is at the heart of the EETT 

program. 

Exhibit 10. Instructional Practices That “Increased Substantially” 

As a Result of Technology-Related Professional Development, as Reported by Teachers 

(School Year 2006–07) 

51%

20%

27%

32%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Had none of these characteristics

Using new teaching methods that involve

technology (e.g., online projects)

Developing computer-based activities for

students

Developing curriculum and lesson planning

Percentage of teachers

Exhibit reads: About one-third of teachers reported that their use of technology to develop 

curriculum and plan lessons had increased substantially as a result of their technology-related 

professional development. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 Teacher Survey. 

 

20 Forty percent of teachers did not report a substantial increase in any of the three administrative practices compared 

with 51 percent of teachers who did not report a substantial increase in any of these three instructional practices. 
22 

Technology Standards for Teachers 

Only 27 states reported having minimum technology standards in place for teachers in 

2006–07. 

Having examined data relevant to the GPRA objective of providing professional development 

on the effective integration of technology for school staff members, this chapter turns now to the 

related GPRA measure—the proportion of teachers meeting their state’s technology standards. 

Technology standards identify the knowledge and skills that teachers need to be able to use 

technology effectively for instruction, and a well-aligned system includes supports and 

opportunities for professional development around topics covered in the standards. Over time, 

one would expect increasing numbers of teachers to meet technology standards through 

participation in technology-related professional development and related changes in teacher 

practice. Only 27 states (52 percent) had minimum technology competency standards for 

teachers in 2006–07. (Exhibit 15 at the end of this section provides a state-by-state summary of 

teacher technology standards and related assessment practices.) 

Topics Covered by Teacher Standards 

Across states and districts, standards tend to include topics recommended by the 

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). 

Among those states that had technology standards for teachers, there was a fairly large 

degree of similarity in the areas covered by the standards (see Exhibit 11). Most state standards 

covered topics related to the use of computers for: basic operations and concepts; planning and 

designing learning environments and experiences; teaching, learning and the curriculum; 

assessment and evaluation; productivity and professional practice; and social, ethical and human 

issues related to technology. This consistency in standards across states probably results from the 

fact that many states modeled their standards on the professional standards developed by ISTE, a 

nonprofit membership society.21 More than three-quarters of the states with teacher standards 

reported that their standards adhere to the key topics established by ISTE. 

Many states also had technology-related requirements to ensure that teachers had an 

opportunity to acquire technology skills. Twenty states reported preservice teacher requirements, 

including technology-related coursework or other professional development to help teachers use 

technology for instruction. Another two states planned to have a preservice requirement in place 

by the end of 2007–08. Fifteen states reported having certification requirements for teachers in 

place by 2006–07, and another five planned to have certification requirements in place by the 

end of 2007–08. Districts also develop technology standards. Although a lower proportion of 

districts than of states reported having technology standards for teachers in 2006–07 (35 percent 

compared with 52 percent of states), among those districts that had technology standards, a 

higher proportion reported addressing each of the topics outlined by ISTE. 

 

21 ISTE is in the process of revising its teacher standards, with an expected release date of 2009. 
23 

Exhibit 11. Components of Teacher Standards for Educational Technology 

(School Year 2006–07) 

Topic 

ISTE-Recommended Teacher Standards 

Teachers ...

Percentage of 

States 

Reporting 

Standards 

(No. of States)

Percentage 

of All 

Districts 

Reporting 

Standardsa

Basic operations 

and concepts 

• demonstrate introductory knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts related to technology. 

• demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and 

emerging technologies. 

89% (24) 95% 

Planning and 

designing 

learning 

environments and 

experiences 

• design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced 

instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of learners. 

• apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning 

environments and experiences. 

• identify and locate technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and suitability. 

• plan for the management of technology resources within the context of learning activities. 

• plan strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced environment. 

78% (21) 88% 

Teaching, 

learning and the 

curriculum 

• facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology 

standards. 

• use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students. 

• apply technology to develop students’ higher-order skills and creativity. 

• manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment. 

89% (24) 90% 

Assessment and 

evaluation 

• apply technology in assessing student learning of subject matter using a variety of assessment 

techniques. 

• use technology resources to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings 

to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning. 

• apply multiple methods of evaluation to determine students’ appropriate use of technology 

resources for learning, communication and productivity. 

78% (21) 85% 

Productivity and 

professional 

practice 

• use technology resources to engage in ongoing professional development and lifelong learning. 

• continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding 

the use of technology in support of student learning. 

• apply technology to increase productivity. 

• use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents and the larger community to 

nurture student learning. 

81% (22) 90% 

Social, ethical and 

human issues 

• model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use. 

• apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, 

characteristics and abilities. 

• identify and use technology resources that affirm diversity. 

• promote safe and healthy use of technology resources. 

• facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students. 

78% (21) 88% 

Otherb 30% (8) 6% 

Exhibit reads: Basic operations and concepts was the most frequently cited topic among states and districts that had 

teacher technology standards. 

a Percentages of districts are based on the 35 percent of districts that reported having teacher standards. b The majority of states that selected “Other” indicated that standards were related to teachers’ ability to use technology 

to improve instruction. One state placed special emphasis on teachers’ ability to evaluate and implement assistive 

technologies. Another state followed ISTE standards but indicated “Other” because these had not been officially 

adopted by the State Board of Education. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 State Survey and NETTS 2007 District Survey. 
24 

Measuring Teachers’ Attainment of Technology Standards 

One-quarter of states reported aggregating statewide data regarding the 

percentage of teachers meeting state proficiency standards.

In terms of teachers’ attainment of state technology standards, 11 states provided the 

percentage of teachers who met technology skill standards in 2005–06, the most recent year for 

which data were available at the time of the NETTS State Survey (see Exhibit 12). However, it is 

important to remember that, in some cases, not all teachers are required to participate in 

technology-related assessments. In addition, Connecticut reported a percentage based on a 

survey conducted by the Connecticut superintendents’ organization. The variety of practices 

across states suggests that great caution is required in trying to aggregate percentages of teachers 

meeting technology standards across states. Reported percentages of teachers meeting 

technology skill standards ranged widely from eight percent of teachers who participated in 

professional development paid for with EETT funds in California to 100 percent of all teachers 

in Georgia and Virginia.22 For the 11 states reporting data, the average percentage of teachers 

meeting standards was 61 percent. 

As one might suspect from such a wide range of percentages across the states, the ways in 

which states assess teachers’ skills vary greatly. Even among the two states reporting that 100 

percent of teachers met state standards for technology competency, there is little consistency in 

assessment practices. Virginia allows local districts to develop the assessment, and results are 

reported to the state. Georgia requires all teachers to pass the Computer Skills Competency 

Assessment, which is available online as part of the teacher certification process. Exhibit 15 at 

the end of this chapter provides a state-by-state summary of how states are assessing teachers’ 

technology competency. 

As suggested above, some states leave the assessment of teachers’ technology proficiency 

largely up to districts. For example, in Virginia and Connecticut, competencies are determined 

by each district. In Texas, schools are responsible for assessing teachers’ proficiency and 

documenting progress on the Texas Teacher School Technology and Readiness Chart. All 

teachers are asked to document progress in meeting state standards. 

 A few states reported that they regarded the training and assessment of teachers’ 

technology skills as the responsibility of preservice or other teacher training programs. Under 

this expectation, it will be many years before all of a state’s teachers go through a preservice 

program that includes technology preparation. In 2007, 51 percent of teachers reported that there 

was no requirement for teachers to demonstrate proficiency in using educational technology 

during their preservice training, and 37 percent of teachers reported receiving no introductory 

training course about computers and the Internet in their preservice training. Nearly half of 

teachers reported receiving no preservice training regarding ways to promote student technology 

literacy (48 percent), a significant goal of the EETT program, and 46 percent of teachers 

reported that they did not receive instruction regarding the uses of technology for student 

assessment in their preservice training. Not surprisingly, this lack of preservice training is 

 

22 The California percentage is based on an average of the three proficiency types for which California reported: 

computer knowledge and skills (17 percent); using technology in the classroom (5 percent); and using technology to 

support student learning (3 percent). 
25 

particularly evident for teachers who have been teaching 15 or more years (48 percent of 

respondents). Whereas only 6 percent of new teachers reported that they did not receive 

preservice training on educational technology, 56 percent of teachers with 15 or more years of 

experience did not receive any preservice training regarding technology. 

Exhibit 12. State-Reported Data Regarding the Percentage of Teachers Meeting 

Technology Skill Standards (School Year 2005–06) 

8%

25%

30%

37%

50%

62%

82%

87%

95%

100%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CA

LA

AZ

TX

CT

KY

MO

TN

HI

VA

GA

Percentage of teachers who met state standards

Exhibit reads: Georgia and Virginia reported that 100 percent of their teachers met technology skill 

standards in school year 2005–06. 

a Data for Georgia are as of June 2007. 

b California reported that all teachers who participated in professional development paid for with EETT 

formula and competitive funds must complete the state’s online EdTechProfile technology assessment 

profile every 12 to 18 months to self-assess their basic technology skills and integration skills. California 

reported the following proficiencies: computer knowledge and skills (17 percent), using technology in the 

classroom (5 percent), and using technology to support student learning 

(3 percent). The average of these three measures is reported in the exhibit. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 State Survey. 

As stated above, districts also reported having technology standards for teachers in 2006–07. 

Of the 35 percent of districts that reported having technology standards for teachers in 2006–07, 

69 percent reported that they assessed (or planned to assess) whether teachers met technology 

standards. Some districts require teachers and administrators to demonstrate proficiency either 

by an assessment or through a collection of digital artifacts such as electronic lesson plans or 

student assignments. Other districts address teachers’ technological competency through 

administrator evaluations. Twenty-one percent of districts reported the percentage of teachers 

who met district proficiency standards. Those districts reported, on average, that 71 percent of 

their teachers met technology standards in 2005–06, the most recent year for which data were 

available at the time of the survey. District-reported percentages ranged from 0 percent to 100 

a 

b 
26 

percent. If multiple-item, reliable assessment of teachers were used, the data would be expected 

to be normally distributed (i.e. follow the pattern of a normal curve. However, the distribution of 

district-reported teacher proficiency rates did not follow this pattern (see Exhibit 13), which 

suggests caution in interpreting the data. The most common district-reported percentage of 

technology-proficient teachers was from 91 percent to 100 percent. 

Exhibit 13. District-Reported Percentages of Teachers Who Met 

District Technology Standards (School Year 2005–06)a

6%

11%

2%

1%

5%

8%

6%

10%

13%

38%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

0% – 10%

11% – 20%

21% – 30%

31% – 40%

41% – 50%

51% – 60%

61% – 70%

71% – 80%

81% – 90%

91% – 100%

Percentage of districts

Exhibit reads: Nearly two out of every five districts (38 percent) reported that between 91 and 100 

percent of its teachers met district technology standards for teachers a Twenty-one percent of districts reported the percentage of teachers who met district technology 

standards. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 District Survey. 

Like states, districts vary in their choices concerning which teachers to assess and when to 

assess them. Just more than one-third of the districts that reported assessing whether teachers 

were meeting technology standards indicated that they assessed all teachers every year. Others 

assessed teachers when teachers sought certification or recertification (12 percent) or assessed 

teachers only at particular grade levels (14 percent) or for particular subjects (13 percent). 

Methods of assessment also vary (see Exhibit 14). Satisfactory completion of a technologyrelated course or professional development activity was the most common type of “assessment,” 

with 46 percent of districts expecting to have this requirement in 2007–08, up from the 29 

percent that reported having this requirement in 2005–06. However, districts appear to be 

moving toward a more project-based approach of assessing teachers’ knowledge and skills. The 

number of districts expecting to require portfolios, presentations or other project-based 

assignments as evidence of teacher competency was expected to double in just one year. In 

2007–08, 32 percent reported expecting to use this form of assessment, compared with the 15 
27 

percent of districts using this form of assessment in 2006–07. Only 12 percent of districts 

reported using a separate test of technology skills in 2005–06; 16 percent expect to use such a 

test in 2007–08. 

Exhibit 14. District-Based Methods for Assessing Teacher Technology Competencya

44%

13%

16%

32%

46%

45%

11%

13%

30%

47%

37%

6%

11%

15%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Technology-related items

within state certification or

recertification exams

Separate test of technology

Portfolio, presentation or other

project-based assignment

Satisfactory completion of

technology-related course or

professional development

activity

Exhibit reads: Across the three years about which districts were asked to report assessment 

methods, satisfactory completion of a technology-related course or professional development activity 

was most commonly reported (29percent, 47 percent and 46 percent, respectively). a Percentage of districts is based on the 69 percent of districts that reported assessing or planning to 

assess teacher teaching competency. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 District Survey. 

 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 
28 

Summary 

In summary, most districts reported offering a variety of technology-related professional 

development opportunities for teachers, and teacher reports about participation were generally 

consistent with district reports about availability. Teacher-identified needs for additional training 

include the use of technology to support new pedagogies and student learning in the content 

areas. Teachers in high-poverty schools were more likely than those in low-poverty schools to 

report a need for more technology-related professional development, especially in the use of 

technology to meet the needs of English language learners and to improve students’ technology 

literacy. 

Eighty percent of teachers reported that their most useful technology-related professional 

development activity included at least one research-suggested practice. At the same time, 20 

percent of teachers reported that their most useful technology-related professional development 

activity in 2006–07 did not include any of the seven research-suggested practices. In terms of the 

effects of their professional development experiences, 60 percent of teachers reported an 

influence of professional development on either their general computer proficiency or their use 

of technology for administrative purposes, and a smaller percentage (49 percent) reported an 

influence on their instructional practices. It is good news that about 50 percent of teachers report 

a substantial increase on one of three items related to instructional practice, but it should be 

noted that only 8 percent noted a substantial increase in all three practices. This finding suggests 

that there is still a need for technology-related teacher professional development that focuses on 

instructional practices. 

With respect to teachers’ technology proficiency, states were generally not collecting data 

regarding the GPRA measure of the percentage of teachers meeting state technology standards. 

Of the 11 states that reported data, the definitions and measurement of teachers’ technology 

competency varied greatly, making it difficult to interpret aggregated data. 
29 

Exhibit 15. 2005–06 Teacher Technology Standards and Assessments, by State 

When Does State Assess Teachers’ 

Technology Competency? How Are Assessments Conducted? 

State 

Technology 

Competency 

Standards 

for 

Teachers 

Every 

Year 

During 

Cert. 

Process 

During 

Recert. 

Process Other 

Decided 

Locally 

and 

Reported 

to State 

Decided 

Locally and 

Not 

Reported to 

State 

Statewide 

Test or 

Requirement Other 

Percentage 

of 

Teachers 

Who Meet 

Technolog

y Skill 

Standards 

Alabama X 

Alaska 

Arizona X X X 30%a

Arkansas X 

California X X X X X X b 

Colorado X 

Connecticut X X X 50% 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Florida X X X X 

Georgia X X X X 100% 

Hawaii X X X X X 95% 

Idaho 

Illinois X X X X X X 

Indiana X X X 

Iowa X 

Kansas 

Kentucky X X X X X X 62% 

Louisiana X X X X X X 25%c

Maine 

Maryland X 

Massachusetts 

Michigan X 

Minnesota 

Mississippi X 

Missouri X X X 82% 

Montana 

Nebraska X X X X 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico X 

New York 

North Carolina X 

(continued on next page) 
30 

(continued from previous page) 

When Does State Assess Teachers’ 

Technology Competency? How Are Assessments Conducted? 

State 

Technology 

Competency 

Standards 

for 

Teachers 

Every 

Year 

During 

Cert. 

Process 

During 

Recert. 

Process Other 

Decided 

Locally 

and 

Reported 

to State 

Decided 

Locally and 

Not 

Reported to 

State 

Statewide 

Test or 

Requirement Other 

Percentage 

of Teachers 

Who Meet 

Technology 

Skill 

Standards

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma X X X X 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Puerto Rico 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina X X X X 

South Dakota 

Tennessee X X X X 87% 

Texas X X X X 37% 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia X X X 100% 

Washington 

West Virginia X X X 

Wisconsin X X X X X 

Wyoming 

Total 27 1 11 6 15 4 8 10 7 

Exhibit reads: Alabama had teacher technology standards in place in 2006–07 but did not assess teacher technology 

competency. 

a Test required only for teachers in districts receiving EETT competitive grants. 

b All teachers who participated in professional development paid for with EETT formula and competitive funds are 

required to complete the state’s online technology assessment every 12 to 18 months to self-assess basic technology 

and integration skills. Reported proficiency percentages for teachers: computer knowledge and skills (17 percent), 

using technology in the classroom (5 percent), using technology to support student learning (3 percent). c

 Public schools only. 

Data source: 2007 NETTS State Survey.
31 

4. Integration of Technology Into Instruction 

The primary goal of the EETT program is “to improve student academic achievement 

through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools.”23 This focus on technology 

in support of teaching and learning is at the heart of the concept of “technology integration,” a 

term commonly used in the education community. Technology integration includes both teacher 

and student uses of technologies for teaching and learning, and it can include many types of use 

across grade levels and subjects. Exhibit 16 describes the multiple ways that technology 

integration can occur in one high school. 

Exhibit 16. Integrating Technology in High School 

City Tech High Schoola is a 350-student pilot school in a large, urban district in Massachusetts. City Tech 

High School’s teachers and administrators value technology for the immediate job skills it gives their 

students, but they also appreciate it as a means of improving the way they teach their subject matter: “It’s not 

just technology, but using different tools to help students learn.” 

At City Tech High School, all student work is completed on the computer. In science, students regularly use 

databases, create Web sites, enter lab data into spreadsheets, write journal entries with word processors, 

create animations, and conduct research on the Internet. One teacher has students film their labs and then 

develop Web tutorials about concepts covered in class. Another teacher assigns student work on Web-based 

simulations that mimic or expand on activities they have done in the lab. The only time students do not use 

the computers, one science teacher said, is when they are doing labs involving liquids. Teachers at City Tech 

feel that if students can demonstrate how something works in an animation, they have learned the concepts 

(as well as technology skills). 

In math, students use Geometer’s Sketchpad and animations most frequently. A math teacher in the school 

described a project in which students created animations that showed the steps involved in working with 

polynomials. The project required students both to do process analysis and to become comfortable with the 

steps of polynomial analysis. Another math teacher described a project on applying the math concepts of 

slopes and equations of lines to real-world contexts. Students did online research to collect data on cell 

phone plans, which they then entered into a spreadsheet. Using spreadsheets allowed students to perform 

more complex mathematical computations than they could have done by hand. 

Technology also facilitates interdisciplinary learning at City Tech. The principal described a ninth-grade 

project on A Raisin in the Sun, in which students used publishing software to create newsletters on the time 

period and culture in social studies, drawing tools for character plotting and mapping in language arts, 

technology and nontechnology tools to build houses like the one in the book and learn about 

thermoconvection in physics, and spreadsheets to analyze population data from the time period in math. 

a The name of the school has been changed to protect the confidentiality of the school. 

Data source: NETTS Case Studies. 

Because the EETT legislation does not mandate either a particular approach to technology 

integration (also called “curriculum integration”) or a specific definition or measure of this 

construct, states rely on state or district definitions of technology integration. Given that 

technology integration is one of the central EETT program goals identified in NCLB, the 

program uses the percentage of districts receiving EETT funds that have “effectively and fully 

integrated technology, as identified by states” as a GPRA measure of its progress. Only 15 states 

reported the percentage of their districts that are meeting the state’s definition of full integration 

 

23 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, Title II, Part D, Section 2402(b)(1). 
32 

(see Exhibit 17). For 2005–06, 26 states indicated that their state had not adopted a statewide 

definition of technology integration, did not collect data related to the percentage of districts 

meeting the definition or did not provide an explanation for not reporting data and responded 

only that the data were “not available.” 

Exhibit 17. State-Reported Data Regarding the Percentage of Districts Fully 

Integrating Technology (School Year 2005–06) 

0%

19%

20%

29%

40%

41%

42%

50%

60%

61%

75%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NV

MO

UT

TX

ND

MA

WI

MS

FL

TN

NE

VA

HI

CT

AL

Percentage of districts

Exhibit reads: Four states reported that 100 percent of their districts met state definitions of “fully 

integrating technology” in school year 2005–06.

Data source: NETTS 2007 State Survey. 

At the national level, tracking progress in technology integration is not dependent solely on 

the data provided by states. Another way to develop a national picture of the curricular 

integration of technology in elementary and secondary schools is to look at the frequency with 

which teachers report using technology for instruction. Teachers’ survey responses suggest that 

teachers were increasingly likely to use computers and the Internet on a weekly basis from 

2004–05 to 2006–07 (see Exhibit 18). In 2004–05, fewer than a third of teachers reported doing 

any one of a variety of activities related to teaching. During school and district site visits in 

2004–05, districts acknowledged relatively low levels of technology integration. The barrier to 

technology integration cited most often by these districts was teacher time; teachers had limited 

time to learn and practice technology-related skills. However, by 2006–07, there were significant 

increases in the proportions of teachers who reported using technology in developing curricula or 

assignments; presenting reading, mathematics or other subject concepts to students; research and 

lesson planning; and creating tests or quizzes. The only item for which there was a statistically 

significant difference between teachers in high- and low-poverty schools was “adapt 

instructional activities to students’ individual needs,” with 7 percent of teachers in high-poverty 

schools and 11 percent of teachers in low-poverty schools reporting that they conducted this 

activity at least weekly, both rather low numbers. 
33 

Exhibit 18. Teachers’ Use of Technology in Instruction on a Weekly Basis 

(School Years 2004–05 and 2006–07) 

8%

6%

14%

10%

28%

31%

22%

15%*

36%*

38%*

39%*

47%*

9%*

31%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Collaborate with experts or

teachers in other locations

Test students

Adapt instructional activities

to students' individual needs

Do research and lesson

planning using the Internet

Create tests or quizzes

Present reading, math, or

other subject concepts to

students

Develop curricula or

assignments in reading, math,

or other subjects

Percentage of teachers

Exhibit reads: Forty-seven percent of teachers reported using technology to develop curricula or assignments 

in reading, math or other subjects in 2006–07, compared with 31 percent of teachers in 2004–05. 

* p < .05 (significant difference from 2004–05). a The apparent decline in teachers’ use of technology to test students may be an artifact of the surveys used in 

2004–05. In 2004–05, teachers were asked how often they used technology “to test students.” However, 

teachers were asked how often they used technology “to administer assessments online” in 2006–07. The 

decline may simply represent the difference between “online assessments” and other computer-based 

assessments. 

Data source: NETTS 2005 and 2007 Teacher Surveys. 

Integrating Technology Into Instruction

Teacher reports regarding students’ technology use for instructional purposes 

showed little change between 2004–05 and 2006–07. 

Another perspective on technology integration is provided by teacher reports of how and 

how often they have students use technology in their classes. In contrast to the reports for 

teachers’ use of technology, the reports for students’ technology use showed little change 

between 2004–05 and 2006–07 (see Exhibit 19). The major exception to this pattern of stability 

over time is the increase in the use of technology to prepare for standardized tests, which may 

include released items from state or other standardized tests or more general practice on topics 

known to be covered on standardized tests. The proportion of teachers whose students used 

 2004–05 2006–07

a 
34 

technology weekly or more often for this purpose rose from 6 percent to 13 percent from 2004–

05 to 2006–07.24 

Exhibit 19. Students’ Use of Technology for Learning on a Weekly Basis, 

as Reported by Teachers (School Years 2004–05 and 2006–07) 

2%

15%

7%

20%

35%

2%

17%

7%

6%

22%

33%

13%*

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Produce media, Web, or

presentation products

Take tests or quizzes using

a computer

Conduct online research

Prepare for standardized

tests

Extend learning in reading,

math, or other subject areas

with enrichment activities

 Practice or review reading,

math, or other subject areas

Percentage of teachers

Exhibit reads: Teachers reported that about a third of their students used technology to practice or 

review reading, math or other subject areas in both 2004–05 and 2006–07. 

* p < .05 (significant difference from 2004–05)

Data sources: NETTS 2005 and 2007 Teacher Surveys. 

Summary 

Teacher responses to NETTS surveys suggest that there was a statistically significant 

increase from 2004–05 to 2006–07 in the number of teachers reporting several types of 

technology use to support their own work on a weekly basis. However, teacher reports did not 

reflect any increase in the frequency of student technology use for learning. 

 

24 The seeming inconsistency occurs between (a) teacher reports of teacher practice (Exhibit 18), which indicate a 

decrease in the number of teachers reporting using technology to test students on weekly basis, and (b) teacher 

reports of student use of technology (Exhibit 19) for which similar percentages of teachers reported that their 

students took tests or quizzes using a computer. This inconsistency is likely an artifact of the wording of the specific 

items used to solicit data from teachers. In 2006–07, teachers were asked how often they “administered online 

assessments” whereas the corresponding question in 2004–05 regarding student use of technology did not specify 

that tests or quizzes were online. 

 2004–05 2006–07
35 

5. Student Technology Literacy 

The EETT legislation calls for all students to be technologically literate by the eighth grade. 

The legislation does not formally define “technology literacy,” however. One possible definition 

for this concept is provided by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on 

Assessing Technology Literacy (National Research Council, 2006), which recently defined 

technological literacy as an understanding of technology at a level that enables effective 

functioning in a modern technological society. The same NAS report described the knowledge, 

capabilities as well as critical-thinking and decision-making skills that are components of 

technology literacy. Among the dimensions of technology literacy that the committee described 

are the capabilities to use technology to carry out a design process, solve a problem, and engage 

in critical thinking and decision making (National Research Council 2006). Educational 

technologies can play a central role in helping students acquire these skills, also known as 21st 

century learning skills (Bransford, Brown and Cocking 2000; Bransford and Donovan 2005; 

Roschelle et al. 2000; Stewart, Cartier and Passmore 2005). 

Districts reported focusing on student technology literacy, but relatively few reported using 

EETT funds to do so. Despite the prominence of student technology literacy in the EETT 

legislation, it was not reported to be a major focus for the use of EETT funds at the local level in 

2006–07. Although many districts reported supporting activities to promote student technology 

literacy, districts appear to have other sources of funding, in addition to EETT funds, to pay for 

these activities. Seventy-one percent of districts receiving EETT formula funds reported paying 

for activities to support student technology literacy in 2006–07, but only 14 percent of these 

districts (10 percent of districts receiving formula funds overall) reported using EETT formula 

funds for this purpose. Similarly, 90 percent of districts with EETT competitive funds reported 

paying for activities to improve student technology literacy in 2006–07, but only 28 percent of 

these districts (25 percent of all districts receiving competitive funds) reported using competitive 

funds for this purpose. 

State and District Student Technology Standards

More than 80 percent of states had student standards for technology 

use in 2006–07. 

As with the teacher standards described earlier, student technology standards can be 

important tools for articulating needed knowledge and skills. These standards can help focus 

curricular activities and assessments to ensure a strong alignment between them. In 2006–07, 45 

states had either stand-alone technology standards for students or technology standards that were 

integrated into other student academic standards.25 

In addition to having standards, some states tie student experiences with technology to 

graduation requirements. For example, as of 2005–06, all eighth-grade students in North 

Carolina are required to meet a computer skills graduation requirement that is based on an online 

test of computer skills (Public Schools of North Carolina n.d.). Michigan, Nevada, Texas and 

 

25 Eleven states had both kinds of standards. Three states indicated that they were in the process of developing 

student technology standards. Forty-two states had standards in 2003–04. 
36 

Utah require students to pass a technology-related course before graduation. Michigan requires 

students to earn credit for courses that include an “online experience.” Texas requires all 

students to take at least one course about “technology applications” before graduating, in 

addition to encouraging teachers to incorporate “digital technology literacy and integration” 

throughout the K–12 curriculum. 

Student technology standards are also very common among districts. Eighty percent of 

districts across the country reported having technology literacy standards for students in 2006–

07. Of these, two-thirds had standards embedded within general curriculum standards, and onethird had separate standards. 

What are the knowledge and skills typically covered by state and district technology 

standards for students? The majority of states and districts covered topics recommended by ISTE 

(see Exhibit 20).26 Forty-three of the 45 states with student technology standards included 

standards for student use of technology-based communication and research tools as well as the 

use of technology for problem solving and decision making (only Iowa and Wyoming did not). 

The same 43 states included standards for basic technology systems operations and concepts. 

Most states (39) had standards that address social, ethical and human issues related to 

technology. District technology standards for students were similar to state standards, but district 

technology standards were less likely to include technology communication tools (68 percent 

compared with 96 percent of states with student standards). 

Assessment of Student Technology Literacy

Only six states reported conducting statewide assessments of student 

technology literacy in 2005–06. 

The number of states conducting statewide assessments of students’ technology literacy rose 

from two in 2002–03 to six in 2005–06. Twenty-five states said that they rely on districts to 

assess student technology literacy and provide data to the state. Exhibit 23 at the end of this 

chapter provides a state-by-state presentation of state practices related to student technology 

standards and assessments.

 

26 ISTE released revised student technology standards in 2007, after the NETTS surveys had been administered. The 

tables and text included in this document reflect the previous version of the standards, first released in 1998. 
37 

Exhibit 20. Prevalence of ISTE-Recommended Topics for 

Student Technology Literacy Standards 

Topic 

ISTE-Recommended Standards 

Students ...

Percentage of 

All States 

Reporting 

Standardsa

(No. of States)

Percentage 

of All 

Districts 

Reporting 

Standarda

Basic operations 

and concepts 

• demonstrate a sound understanding of the nature and operation of technology 

systems. 

• are proficient in the use of technology. 

98% (43) 85% 

Social, ethical and 

human issues 

• understand the ethical, cultural and societal issues related to technology. 

• practice responsible use of technology systems, information and software. 91% (40) 82% 

Technology 

productivity tools 

• use technology tools to enhance learning, increase productivity and promote 

creativity. 

• use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse 

needs of students. 

• use productivity tools to collaborate in constructing technology-enhanced 

models, prepare publications and produce other creative works. 

100% (44) 87% 

Technology 

communications 

tools 

• use telecommunications to collaborate, publish and interact with peers, experts 

and other audiences. 

• use a variety of media and formats to communicate information and ideas 

effectively to multiple audiences. 

100% (44) 68% 

Technology 

research tools 

• use technology to locate, evaluate and collect information from a variety of 

sources. 

• evaluate and select new information resources and technological innovations 

based on the appropriateness for specific tasks. 

100% (44) 89% 

Technology 

problem-solving 

and decisionmaking tools 

• use technology resources for solving problems and making informed decisions. 

• use technology in the development of strategies for solving problems in the real 

world. 

100% (44) 78% 

Other (please 

specify) 27% (12)b

 4% 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-eight percent of states with student standards for technology literacy and 85 percent of 

districts included student standards regarding basic operations and concepts of computer use. a

 Percentages are based on the states (44) and districts (80 percent) that reported having student technology 

literacy standards. 

b

 Most of the states who indicated “Other” did not provide additional information. Examples of “Other” information 

provided by states includes (a) students use technology to acquire and refine 21st -century skills; (b) students 

create new knowledge and understanding through the use of technology; (c) students use technology to facilitate 

both collaboration and independent learning. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 State Survey and NETTS District Survey. 
38 

As mentioned earlier, the EETT legislation calls for all students to be technologically literate 

by the eighth grade, and the corresponding GPRA program measure assesses the percentage of 

students who meet state technology standards by the end of the eighth grade. However, it is 

difficult to determine national progress toward the EETT goal of making all students 

technologically literate because few states actually assess students’ technology literacy. Six 

states (Arizona, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina and Pennsylvania) reported 

conducting statewide student literacy assessments in 2005–06, up from just two states in 2002–

03 (U.S. Department of Education 2007b). These six states all reported collecting data at the 

eighth-grade level. Another four states (Georgia, Kansas, New Hampshire and Wisconsin) 

indicated that they planned to conduct assessments of students’ technology literacy for the first 

time in 2006–07. Other states relied on district assessments to estimate the number of students 

meeting student technology literacy standards. 

In 2007, just 12 states reported the percentage of students meeting technology literacy 

standards in 2005–06, the most recent year for which data were available at the time of the 

survey (see Exhibit 21). Aggregating data across these 12 states is problematic because of 

different test contents, student samples, and administration schedules. For example, Maine 

reported that 93 percent of its students met standards; however, districts in Maine are not 

required to assess student technology literacy, and those districts that do choose to assess literacy 

and report findings to the state may develop their own method of evaluation. Arizona does not 

test all students but administers tests to a sample of approximately 25,000 students statewide. All 

districts that receive EETT competitive funds in Arizona are required to test a sample of students 

at the fifth and eighth or ninth grades, and Arizona recommends that EETT formula grantees that 

receive more than $30,000 also assess students. Arizona reported that 37 percent of its eighthand ninth-graders met proficiency standards in year 2005–06. In Alabama, where 100 percent of 

students were reported to have met technology literacy standards, the state requires the 

completion of a course, and assessment methods are developed or decided on locally. 
39 

Exhibit 21. State-Reported Data Regarding the Percentage of Students 

Meeting Technology Literacy Standards (School Year 2005–06) 

10%

27%

37%

55%

66%

75%

76%

79%

80%

80%

93%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LA

VT

AZ

MA

TN

NE

VA

NC

CT

HI

ME

AL

Percentage of students

Exhibit reads: Alabama reported that 100 percent of its students met technology literacy standards 

in school year 2005–06. 

a Percentage is for eighth- and ninth-graders.

Data source: NETTS 2007 State Survey. 

In 2007, 89 percent of districts reported that they either assessed or planned to assess 

students’ technology literacy. Fifty-five percent of districts reported that they assessed student 

technology literacy of eighth-graders in 2005–06. Districts reported using multiple methods to 

assess students’ technology literacy (see Exhibit 22). The most common strategy reported across 

three years was to require satisfactory completion of a course on technology; only 25 percent of 

districts reported using an actual test of student technology proficiency in 2005–06. 

Only one-third of districts reported the percentage of students meeting technology literacy 

standards in the eighth grade. The proportion of technologically literate eighth-graders reported 

by individual districts varied from 0 percent to 100 percent. Across districts assessing student 

technology literacy in some way, the average proportion of eighth-grade students reported to 

have met the district’s technology literacy standards by the end of the 2005–06 school year was 

88 percent. Districts appear to be moving toward the use of an actual assessment of students’ 

technology literacy rather than sole reliance on course completion. In 2007, 63 percent of 

districts also reported that they expected to be using a student technology literacy test in 

2007–08. 

a 
40 

Exhibit 22. District-Based Methods for Assessing Students’ Technology Literacy 

11%

42%

70%

32%

63%

8%

34%

72%

33%

29%

8%

26%

59%

29%

25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Portfolio, presentation or

other project-based

assignment

Satisfactory completion of a

course on technology

Technology-related items

within state assessments of

core academic subjects

Separate test of technology

Exhibit reads: Districts report an increasing reliance on a separate test to assess student 

technology skills, with 25 percent of districts reporting this activity in 2005–06 and 63 percent 

reporting this activity in 2007–08. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 District Survey. 

Summary 

Too few states have consistent, reliable data on the percentage of their students meeting state 

technology literacy standards by eighth grade to support a judgment concerning attainment of 

this GPRA measure. States and districts appear to be moving toward more substantive measures 

of students’ technology literacy, as evidenced by the increase over the last two years in the 

proportion of states and districts either assessing or planning to assess students’ technology 

skills. Trends suggest that states and districts are increasingly focused on student technology 

literacy, evidenced by the increase in states and districts that have put in place technology 

requirements for students and have begun to assess progress toward standards. However, 

considerable effort is still needed to develop valid, reliable measures of student technology 

literacy. 

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 
41 

Exhibit 23. Student Technology Literacy, by State in 2006–07 

Level of Assessment Method of Assessment 

State 

State Has 

Student 

Technology 

Standards 

State 

Assesses 

Directly 

State Relies on 

DistrictProvided Data 

Specific 

Grade-Level 

Assessments 

State Paper 

and 

Pencil Test 

State 

Computerized 

Test 

Course 

Completion 

Developed 

Locally, 

Reported to 

State 

Developed 

Locally, Not 

Reported to 

State 

Alabama X X X X 

Alaska X X X 

Arizona X X 5, 8, 9 X 

Arkansas X 

California X X 

Colorado 

Connecticut X X X 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Florida X 

Georgia X X X 

Hawaii X X 8 

Idaho X 

Illinois X X X X X X 

Indiana X X X 

Iowa X X X 

Kansas X X X 

Kentucky X 

Louisiana X X 8 X X X 

Maine X X 7, 8 X 

Maryland X 

Massachusetts X X X 

Michigan X X X 

Minnesota X X 

Mississippi 

Missouri X 

Montana X 8 

Nebraska 

(continued on next page) 
42 

(continued from previous page) 

Level of Assessment Method of Assessment 

State 

State Has 

Student 

Technology 

Standards 

State 

Assesses 

Directly 

State Relies on 

DistrictProvided Data 

Specific 

Grade-Level 

Assessments 

State Paper 

and 

Pencil Test 

State 

Computerized 

Test 

Course 

Completion 

Developed 

Locally, 

Reported to 

State 

Developed 

Locally, Not 

Reported to 

State 

Nevada X 

New Hampshire X X 8 X 

New Jersey X X X 

New Mexico X 

New York 

North Carolina X X 8, 9–12 

North Dakota X X X X 

Ohio X 

Oklahoma X 

Oregon X 

Pennsylvania X X 4, 8, 11 X 

Puerto Rico 

Rhode Island X X 

South Carolina X X X 

South Dakota X 

Tennessee X X X 

Texas X X X 

Utah X X 5, 7, 12 

Vermont X X 

Virginia X X X 

Washington X X X 

West Virginia X 

Wisconsin X X X 

Wyoming X X X 

Total 45 6 25 2 3 4 18 4 

Exhibit reads: Forty-five states report having student technology standards in 2006–07, with 31 either 

conducting state-level assessments or relying on district-reported data. 

Data source: NETTS 2007 State Survey and NETTS 2007 District Survey.
43 

6. Summary and Conclusions 

The data presented in this report address the GPRA objectives and measures used to monitor 

EETT program performance at the national level. These indicators address two precursors to 

technology use—technology access and technology-related teacher professional development—

and two outcomes of technology use—the integration of technology into teaching and learning 

and student technology literacy. 

One objective of the EETT program is to support high-poverty, high-need schools in their 

acquisition of technology so that students and teachers in these schools can have access to 

educational technology equivalent to that of students and teachers in other schools. Technology 

access within instructional classrooms has continued to progress, and there are few differences 

between high- and low-poverty schools. With the exception of the availability of laptop 

computers, comparisons of the reports of teachers in high- and low-poverty schools suggest that 

equivalent access has been achieved. High-poverty schools have seen particular gains in 

classroom high-speed Internet access for student use over the last several years. 

The teacher professional development in technology set forth as a second GPRA objective for 

EETT is being fulfilled to some degree. States and districts are offering technology-related 

professional development, and EETT funds are being used for this purpose. However, the “most 

useful” professional development identified by teachers did not incorporate any of the researchsuggested practices for one in five teachers in 2006–07. In addition, teacher reports on surveys 

suggest that the professional development that has been provided has had limited effect on 

instructional practices. 

The GPRA measure related to the technology-related professional development objective—

“the percentage of teachers who meet their state technology standards”—cannot be evaluated 

because only a quarter of the states measure teachers’ technology skills directly or ask districts to 

do so and report the data to the state. On the most recent NETTS State Survey, only about onefifth of states provided teacher technology proficiency data, and the response from two of these 

11 states indicated that every teacher in the state reached technology proficiency. 

In terms of the EETT objective, the lack of agreed-on definitions and solid assessment 

strategies makes it difficult to assess the program on a national level. Additional guidance 

appears necessary to achieve the consistency and validity necessary to make national 

aggregations of data meaningful. As a result, it is difficult to determine the extent of progress 

with respect to the GPRA measures for technology integration and student technology literacy. 

Each of the GPRA measures used to determine progress along these dimensions requires clear 

state definitions and standards as well as a consistent measurement system within each state. 

The GPRA measure for technology integration is “the percentage of districts receiving 

Educational Technology State Grants funds that have effectively and fully integrated 

technology.” Half of the states indicated that they either did not have a statewide definition of 

“fully integrated technology” or did not have a system in place to collect data on their chosen 

integration standard. Fifteen states reported the percentage of their districts state’s definition for 

full technology integration, with reported percentages ranging from 0 percent to 100 percent. 
44 

The lack of a strong assessment system is apparent also in the area of student technology 

literacy. In 2006–07, five states reported conducting statewide assessments of student technology 

literacy. Twenty-five states relied on districts to assess student technology literacy, and the most 

common district strategy for doing so was to require completion of a technology course. Only 25 

percent of districts directly assessed students’ technology skills as opposed to requiring 

completion of a course. 

Even among those states that reported the requested technology integration and proficiency 

estimates, the wide range of values and large number of extreme cases (i.e., 0 percent or 100 

percent proficiency) undermines confidence in the reported data. It is unlikely that districts, 

teachers and students really vary from state to state as greatly as the reported statistics suggest. 

If one moves beyond the specific GPRA measures to consider the EETT program and 

educational uses of technology more broadly, some national trends do emerge. There are ample 

opportunities for teachers to participate in technology-related professional development, 

although there is an indication of some unmet needs in high-poverty schools in this regard. Using 

technology to meet the needs of English language learners and to increase students’ technology 

literacy are two topics for which teachers in high-poverty schools were somewhat more likely 

than those in low-poverty schools to want more training. For all teachers, the effectiveness of 

their technology-related professional development was a concern. About a third of teachers 

reported effects of their technology-related teacher professional development on their own use of 

technology, and teacher-reported frequency of their own technology use rose from 2005 to 2007. 

Fewer teachers reported effects of professional development on their instructional practices, 

however, and teacher reports suggest that the extent of students’ use of technology for academic 

purposes did not change between 2004–05 and 2006–07. 

Overall, states and districts are showing some progress in developing the infrastructure 

necessary to support student and teacher capacity to use technology in robust ways. Computers 

and Internet connections are increasingly in place within classrooms, suggesting the suitability of 

a renewed focus on high-quality teacher professional development, how technology is used in 

instruction and learning, and the skills that teachers and students gain as a result. 
45 

References 

Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, eds. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, 

experience, and school. Expanded edition. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. 

Bransford, J. D., and M.S. Donovan. 2005. Scientific inquiry and how people learn. In How 

people learn history, mathematics, and science in the classroom, ed. M. S. Donovan and J. 

D. Bransford, 397–419. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. 

Brinkerhoff, J. 2006. Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on 

technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. 

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 39(1):22–43. 

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2b/60/ae.pd

f (accessed March 20, 2009). 

Donnelly, M. B., T. Dove, J. Tiffany-Morales, N. Adelman, and A. Zucker. 2002. Technologyrelated professional development in the context of educational reform: A literature review.

Arlington, Va.: SRI International. 

Ertmer, P. A. 1999. Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for 

technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development 47(4):47–61.

Franklin, C. 2007. Factors that influence elementary teachers use of computers. Journal of 

Technology and Teacher Education 15(2):267–93. 

Gollub, J., M. Bertenthal, J. Labor, and P. Curtis, eds. 2002. Learning and understanding: 

Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U.S. high schools. Washington, 

D.C.: National Academy Press. 

Kozma, R. 2005. ICT, education reform, and economic growth. Menlo Park, Calif.: Author. 

http://www.educationinindia.net/download/ICT_Education_Reform_Economic_Growth.pdf 

(accessed on March 20, 2009) 

McLaughlin, M. W., and J. E. Talbert. 1993. Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: 

Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s educational goals. Stanford, Calif.: Center 

for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching, Stanford University. 

Means, B., R. Murphy, H. Javitz, G. Haertel, and Y. Toyama. 2004. Design considerations for 

evaluating the effectiveness of technology-related teacher professional development. Menlo 

Park, Calif.: SRI International. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. Technology in schools: Suggestions, tools, and 

guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. Washington, 

D.C.: National Forum on Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and 

Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. 

National Research Council. 2006. Executive summary. In Tech tally: Approaches to assessing 

technology literacy, ed. E. Garmire and G. Pearson, 1–18. Washington, D.C.: National 

Academies Press. 

Parsad, B., and J. Jones. 2005. Internet Access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–

2003. Washington, D.C., National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Education. 
46 

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2008. 21st century skills, education, and competitiveness. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

Public Schools of North Carolina. n.d. Test of computer skills (graduation-requirement). 

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing/computerskills (accessed March 10, 

2009). 

Roschelle, J. M., R. D. Pea, C. M. Hoadley, D. N. Gordin, and B. M. Means. 2000. Changing 

how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of 

Children 10(2): 76–101. 

Smith, R., T. Clark, and R. Blomeyer. 2005. A synthesis of new research on K–12 online 

learning. Naperville, Ill.: Learning Point Associates. 

Stewart, J., J. Cartier, and C. Passmore. 2005. Developing understanding through model-based 

inquiry. In How people learn history, mathematics, and science in the classroom, ed. M. S. 

Donovan and J. P. Bransford, 515–65). Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. 

Sweet, J. R., S. P. Rasher, B. S. Abromitis, and E. M. Johnson. 2004. Case studies of highperforming, high-technology schools. Final research report on schools with predominantly 

low-income, African-American, or Latino student populations. Naperville, Ill.: Learning 

Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. 

U.S. Department of Education. 2007a. ESEA: Educational technology state grants (OESE), FY 

2007 program performance report. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2007report/g2eseaeducational.doc on 1/31/2008 

(accessed March 10, 2009). 

———. 2007b. State strategies and practices for educational technology. Volume 1 of

Examining the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program, Washington, D.C.: 

Author. 

Wells, J., and L. Lewis. 2006. Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 2005. 

Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. 
47 

Appendix A 

EETT Program Administration 

Through the EETT program, the federal government provides funds to states so that states 

can help high-need districts and schools increase teachers’ and students’ access to technology, 

provide teachers with technology-related professional development, and support the use of 

technology in instruction. Federal funding for the EETT program began in federal FY 2002 at 

slightly more than $700 million. By FY 2006, the year in which states were most likely to 

receive funds that would be used by districts in school year 2006–07 (the focus of data provided 

in this report), program funding had been cut to less than $300 million. In FY 2007, federal 

grants to states ranged from $1.3 million to $35.2 million, with an average state award size of 

$5.1 million. States can reserve up to 5 percent of their federal award for state administration of 

the EETT program, and the remainder of EETT funds is distributed to districts through formula 

and competitive grants. 

Other State Funds for Educational Technology 

EETT is the only federal program that distributes funds dedicated to educational technology 

to all states. In 17 states, the EETT program represents the only dedicated funding source for 

educational technology at the state level. Thirty-four states reported having additional dedicated 

funds for educational technology; these states reported receipt of almost $30 million in 2006–07, 

on average, for educational technology activities.27 A few states reported receiving funds from 

the private sector, but these amounts were typically small, ranging from $25,000 to $75,000. Six 

states reported receiving funds from foundations or other nonprofit organizations, with amounts 

ranging from $25,000 to about $1 million. States also reported receiving funds from other 

sources such as lottery funds, state bond funds and tobacco settlement money. 

Allocation of EETT Program Funds for School Year 2006–07 

In any given year, states have equal amounts of formula and competitive funds to distribute. 

States award formula funds to districts according to the same funding formula used by the Title I: 

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Education Agencies program, the largest 

elementary and secondary program in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation.28 The 

formula targets districts within a state that serve the highest numbers or percentages of students 

living in poverty. Eligible districts also must serve at least one school in need of academic 

improvement, as defined in NCLB, or one requiring assistance with acquiring or using 

technology. There are no legislative guidelines for how technology need is defined, so states 

have developed their own criteria. The districts that qualify for formula funds make up the pool 

of districts that are also eligible for competitive grants. States have more discretion in awarding 

competitive funds than formula funds. States can tailor competitive grant programs to meet state 

 

27 Funding amounts from state legislatures ranged from $1 million to $227 million, as reported by states. 28 The Title I program represents a significant portion of federal funds appropriated to elementary and secondary 

education. The primary purpose of the program is to ensure equal educational opportunities for all children and to 

eliminate the achievement gap that exists between students in lower and higher socioeconomic groups by providing 

additional resources for disadvantaged groups. 
48 

priorities as long as they are within federal EETT program guidelines. States award competitive 

funds based on state priorities and needs; the strength of district and consortia proposals for 

competitive funds; and districts’ financial, academic and technology needs. 

States reported making 12,327 new EETT grants, totaling almost $253 million in program 

funds, for 2006–07. In this year, states awarded approximately $118 million in formula grants to 

districts, with a median grant size of $1,617. Approximately $135 million in competitive grants 

to districts or consortia were awarded for use in 2006–07, with a median grant size of $50,000. 

Eleven states reported that they did not award formula funds in 2006–07. Two states, Hawaii 

and Puerto Rico, are “unity districts,” which means that the state authority and local authority 

cover the same territory, and they are not required to distribute funds to individual schools. Eight 

of the nine remaining states indicated that they did not provide any formula awards in 2007 

because of insufficient EETT funding. These states indicated that the amount of funds they could 

have allocated to the districts would have been too small to make an effect on technology 

integration at the school level. One state did not offer formula grants in 2006–07 because its 

award cycle spanned two years, and 2006–07 was an “off” year. 

Similarly, 11 states, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico did not offer a competitive grant cycle 

for use by districts in 2006–07. Seven of these states hold multiyear award cycles in which grants 

are awarded for more than one year. Lack of sufficient funding was cited by two states, both of 

which distributed competitive funds to previous competitive award winners through continuation 

grants. 

District Allocation of EETT Funds 

A large proportion of districts (94 percent) indicated that they were able to distinguish 

between technology-related purchases made with EETT funds and those made with other sources 

of technology funding. Similarly, 96 percent of the districts that received both formula and 

competitive funds reported that they could distinguish between purchases made with EETT 

competitive funds and those made with EETT formula funds. Among those districts that received 

formula funds, 51 percent of the funding was used to pay for districtwide services, 24 percent 

was provided directly to schools, 23 percent paid for goods and services to be used in or by one 

or more targeted schools, and 4 percent was used for other purchases (see Exhibit A-1). 
49 

Exhibit A-1. District Distribution of Formula Funds 

Data source: NETTS 2007 District Survey. 

The allocation of the competitive funds presents a different picture (see Exhibit A-2). 

Districts that received competitive funds, on average, used 60 percent of the funds to pay for 

goods and services provided exclusively to one or more targeted schools. They provided 23 

percent of the EETT competitive funds directly to schools, used 19 percent to pay for 

districtwide services, and used less than 1 percent to pay for other purchases. 
50 

Exhibit A-2. District Distribution of Competitive Funds 

Data source: NETTS 2007 District Survey. 

Districts That Did Not Apply for Funds 

The EETT program provides funds to districts that have above the median percentage or 

number of poor in a given state. Because the number of districts varies considerably from state to 

state, so does the number of districts eligible for EETT grants. In 2006–07, the number of 

districts within a state eligible for formula grants ranged from 17 to 1,182, with a mean of 294. 

However, the average number of districts that applied for EETT formula grants was 249. In other 

words, as many as 15 percent of eligible districts did not apply for formula grants for 2006–07. 

Among the districts that did not apply, 46 percent indicated they did not know that EETT 

funding was available (see Exhibit A-3).29 Other reasons for not applying included that districts 

did not think they were eligible (19 percent) or did not have the resources or the personnel to 

apply (15 percent). Eleven percent of districts reported that they did not expect to get funds if 

they applied, and another 10 percent reported that their expected award was too small to merit 

the application process. 

 

29 Respondents to this survey item are likely to include both eligible and ineligible districts. 
51 

Exhibit A-3. Districts’ Reasons for Not Applying for EETT Formula Funds 

Data source: NETTS 2007 District Survey. 

Across states, a range of 5 to 127 districts applied for EETT competitive grants, and the 

average number of districts per state (37) that applied for those grants was much lower than the 

average number of districts eligible. This average represents just 13 percent of the districts 

eligible for competitive awards. Districts cited a lack of information about the availability of 

funds as the main reason for not applying for competitive grants (see Exhibit A-4). Among the 

districts that did not apply, 41 percent did not know that EETT funding was available, 25 percent 

lacked resources or personnel to apply, and another 24 percent did not think they were eligible to 

apply. 
52 

Exhibit A-4. Districts’ Reasons for Not Applying for EETT Competitive Funds 

Data source: NETTS 2007 District Survey. 
53 

Appendix B 

Data Sources and Methodology 

This appendix describes the methods that were used to examine how states allocated EETT 

grants to districts in FY 2006, how districts invested their EETT and other technology funds in 

school years 2003–04 and 2006–07, and the ways that teachers and students in high- and lowpoverty schools used technology in teaching and learning in school years 2004–05 and 2006–07. 

Two phases of survey data collected at the state, district and teacher levels were designed to 

compile information about EETT funds that were spent and services that districts provided in 

schools during school year 2004–05. To account for the time it took for federal funds to be 

allocated to states, awarded to districts and distributed to schools for use in 2004–05, Phase 1 

surveys collected information from different fiscal and school years. Phase 2 surveys were 

administered concurrently in early 2007 and collected data on EETT funds awarded and 

technology activities that took place in school year 2006–07. Findings from the FY 2003 state 

survey are reported in the first NETTS report (U.S. Department of Education 2007b). 

Data Collection 

State Survey 

The NETTS 2007 Survey of State Educational Technology Directors was administered 

between the end of March 2007 and mid-August 2007. The state survey requested a substantial 

amount of qualitative data. Survey topics addressed EETT program eligibility and application 

requirements, state support for program initiatives, technology standards for teachers and 

students, EETT evaluation information, and reflections on the EETT program. 

State educational technology directors provided data about the numbers and sizes of EETT 

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 

sizes of those awards from FY 2004 through FY 2007. 

The survey sample consisted of 52 respondents: all 50 states, the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico. All 52 respondents completed the survey, generating a response rate of 100 percent. 

These respondents are referred to collectively as “states” throughout this report. 

District Survey 

The NETTS 2005 District Survey data collection began in spring 2005, when 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 eightpart 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 into 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 

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 

nondistricts that were lead entities for competitive EETT awards. 
54 

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), Web searches 

and phone calls. The sampling strategy considered the type of educational entity (district or 

nondistrict), poverty status, student enrollment, 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 nondistrict entities that had received EETT competitive awards. From this 

population, 1,050 entities were sampled 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 Department. 

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. For data 

analysis, respondents were weighted to reflect a nationally representative sample of districts. 

Between March and June 2007, the 2007 District Survey was administered to these same 

1,039 district technology coordinators. Of these districts, 980 responded to the Phase 2 survey, 

for a final response rate of 94.3 percent. The sampling weights were adjusted to account for 

differences in response rates across different types of districts. Nineteen of the 980 respondents 

were deemed ineligible for the study, based on their 2005 survey responses, and were assigned a 

weight of zero.30 The final analysis sample for this study includes 961 districts. The 2007 District 

Survey covered the same general topic areas that the 2005 survey did. 

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).31 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. NETTS researchers obtained teacher rosters for the 975 schools. 

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

 

30 Technically, the sampling frame consisted of school districts with students and nondistrict entities that received 

EETT funding. Therefore, the sampling frame should have excluded nondistrict entities that did not receive EETT 

funding. However, 19 respondents to the 2007 survey reported in the 2005 survey that they did not serve any 

students—suggesting that they were nondistrict entities—and reported that they did not receive any EETT funding 

for the 2002–03 school year. Because it appears that these entities should not have been eligible for selection into 

the study, they were assigned a weight of zero. 

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

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

thresholds were 24.3 percent and 15.9 percent, respectively. Schools with at least these percentages of students 

eligible for FRPL were considered “high-poverty” for the purpose of this study. 
55 

of the high-poverty schools (233 schools) were randomly selected for the teacher sample. The 

final teacher sample consisted of 6,017 teachers. 

NETTS researchers administered the first 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. 

Between April and June 2007, the second NETTS Teacher Survey was administered to 2,509 

teachers selected randomly from the 2005 district and school samples. The 2007 survey covered 

the same topics as the 2005 survey. Lists of all teachers from the school sample were requested 

from Market Data Research, a company that maintains updated teacher rosters. Additional 

rosters were requested from Quality Education Data to supplement incomplete teacher lists. Lists 

of eligible teachers were obtained for 865 schools, and a stratified sample of 2,509 teachers was 

selected from these schools. 

Teachers were eligible for the 2007 teacher survey sample only if they were teaching at the 

same school in school year 2005–06. This requirement was imposed to facilitate appropriate 

responses to survey questions about the availability of technology and technology use in the 

previous school year. Schools provided information that enabled identification of 652 ineligible 

teachers, leaving a final sample of 1,857 teachers. An additional 78 teachers were deemed 

ineligible after survey administration, based on their responses to the teacher experience 

questions. The final teacher sample consisted of 1,779 teachers. Completed surveys were 

obtained from 1,515 eligible teachers, for a response rate of 85 percent. For data analysis, 

respondents were weighted within each survey wave to reflect a nationally representative sample 

of teachers. 

Data Analyses 

Descriptive statistics from state, district and teacher survey items that addressed technology 

access, technology-related teacher professional development, technology integration and student 

technology literacy were produced. District and teacher data from school year 2004–05 and from 

school year 2006–07 described relationships between district investments in educational 

technology activities and teachers’ reports of technology access and use. Researchers noted 

changes over time in technology access and integration; examined comparisons of technology 

access, skill and use; and analyzed teacher participation in technology-related professional 

development in high- and low-poverty schools. Linear regression models (with standard errors 

adjusted for cluster sampling) were used to examine the statistical significance of differences 

between teachers in schools of different socioeconomic contexts. In this report, high-poverty 

schools are defined as schools whose FRPL rates were in the top quartile of schools nationwide, 

according to CCD data. Middle-poverty schools are schools whose FRPL rates were in the next 

greatest quartile, and low-poverty schools are schools whose FRPL rates were in the lower half 

of schools nationwide. Statistically significant differences between teachers in schools of 

different poverty levels are reported in reference to the teachers in low-poverty schools. This 

approach is a conservative one in the sense that it is less likely to find statistically significant 

differences between high- and low-poverty groups than a comparison between the highest 

poverty quartile and the lowest poverty quartile. In essence, the analysis compares the 25 percent 

highest-poverty schools with schools at or below the median for poverty. 
56 
57 
58