ESEA: Educational Technology State Grant

FY 2007 Program Performance Report

Strategic Goal 2
Formula
ESEA, Title II, Parts D-1 and D-2
Document Year 2007 Appropriation: $272,250
CFDA 84.318X: Enhancing Education Through Technology

Program Goal: To facilitate the comprehensive and integrated use of educational

improve teaching and student achievement.
Objective 1 of 5: Fully integrate technology into the curricula and instruction in all schools to en
Measure 1.1 of 1: The percentage of districts receiving Educational Technology State Grants funds that have effec
direction: increase) 1189
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2006 BL+5PP Not Collected Not Collected
2007 999 (August 2008) Pending
2008 999 (August 2009) Pending
2009 999 (August 2010) Pending
2010 999 (August 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts/EDEN, grantee submissions.
U.S. Department of Education, National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS).
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Target Context. Submission of 2005-06 data by States through EDFacts/EDEN was voluntary. Although
submission of 2006-07 data through EDFacts/EDEN is mandatory in 2007, States have until 2009 to
comply. Whether it is realistic to use the 2006-07 data to establish a baseline and set annual targets will
be determined by the quality of the data and how many States they represent.
Explanation. Submission of 2005-06 data through EDFacts/EDEN was voluntary, and only 25 States
submitted data files. This number of States is insufficient to establish a baseline. However, in preliminary,
unpublished data for School Year 2003-04 from the National Educational Technology Study (NETTS),
school districts did report using EETT funds for technology integration: 63 percent of the school districts
that received EETT funding reported using EETT funds for teacher professional development on
integrating technology into reading or math instruction; 60 percent of the school districts reported using
EETT funds for teacher professional development on integrating technology into other subject areas; 53
percent for software to help integrate technology into reading or math; 45 percent for hardware to help
integrate technology into reading or math; 29 percent for curriculum development to integrate technology
into any subject; and 15 percent for incentives for training in technology integration.

Objective 2 of 5: To help ensure that students and teachers in high-poverty, high-need schools
that of students and teachers in other schools.
Measure 2.1 of 1: The percentage point difference in Internet access between classrooms in high- and low-poverty
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2002 4 Measure not in p
2003 5 Measure not in p
2005 0 5 Did Not Meet Tar
2006 0 Not Collected Not Collected
U.S. Department of Education
1 11/02/2007
Draft
 2007 0 (February 2008) Pending
2008 0 (February 2009) Pending
2009 0 (February 2010) Pending
2010 0 (February 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts/EDEN, grantee submisssions.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Internet Access in Public Schools
and Classrooms: 1994-2005.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Poverty measures are based on data on free and reduced-price lunches, which may
underestimate school poverty levels, particularly for older students and immigrant students.
Target Context.

The target is to have no statistical difference in Internet access between high- and low-poverty schools.
High-poverty schools are defined as schools with 75% or more of their students eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches. Low-poverty schools are defined as schools with less than 35% of their students
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

Explanation. Although the table shows small differences in 2002, and 2003, and 2005, these differences
are not statistically significant. Submission of 2005-06 data through EDFacts/EDEN was voluntary, and
only 12 States submitted data. This number of States is insufficient to provide a nationally representative
estimate. Although submission of 2006-07 data through EDFacts/EDEN is mandatory, States have until
2009 to comply. Until EDFacts/EDEN data are complete, the Department is exploring the possibility of
continuing to collect the data through NCES surveys as in past years.

Objective 3 of 5: To provide professional development opportunities for teachers, principals and

integrate technology into teaching and learning.
Measure 3.1 of 1: The percentage of teachers who meet their state technology standards. (Desired direction: incr
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2006 BL+5% Not Collected Not Collected
2007 999 (August 2008) Pending
2008 999 (August 2009) Pending
2009 999 (August 2010) Pending
2010 999 (August 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, EdFacts/EDEN, grantee submissions.
U.S. Department of Education, National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS).
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Target Context. This is a long-term measure. Submission of 2005-06 data by States through
EDFacts/EDEN was voluntary. Although submission of 2006-07 data through EDFacts/EDEN is
mandatory in 2007, States have until 2009 to comply. Whether it is realistic to use the 2006-07 data to
establish a baseline and set annual targets will be determined by the quality of the data and how many
States they represent.
Explanation. Submission of 2005-06 data through EDFacts/EDEN was voluntary, and only 3 States
submitted data. This number of States is insufficient to establish a baseline. However, in preliminary,
unpublished data for School Year 2003-04 from the National Educational Technology Study (NETTS),
school districts did report using EETT funds for teacher professional development in technology: 63
percent of the school districts that received EETT funding reported using EETT funds for teacher
U.S. Department of Education
2 11/02/2007
Draft
professional development on integrating technology into reading or math instruction; 60 percent of the
school districts reported using EETT funds for teacher professional development on integrating
technology into other subject areas; and 15 percent for incentives for training in technology integration. In
addition, 27 States reported having teacher technology standards in FY 2003, only 5 states reported
assessing teachers’ technology skills, and 5 states said that they planned to assess teachers’ technology
skills in the future (Marianne Bakia et al., State Strategies and Practices for Educational Technology:
Volume I – Examining the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education; 2007.)

Objective 4 of 5: The percentage of students who meet state technology literacy standards by t
Measure 4.1 of 1: The percentage of students who meet state technology standards by the end of the eighth grade
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2007 999 (August 2008) Pending
2008 999 (August 2009) Pending
2009 999 (August 2010) Pending
2010 999 (August 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts/EDEN, grantee submissions.
U.S. Department of Education, National Educational Technology Trend Study (NETTS).
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Target Context. This is a new measure for next year and a long-term measure. Although submission of
2006-07 data through EDFacts/EDEN is mandatory in 2007, States have until 2009 to comply. Whether it
is realistic to use the 2006-07 data to establish a baseline and set annual targets will be determined by
the quality of the data and how many States they represent.
Explanation. In preliminary, unpublished data for School Year 2003-04 from the National Educational
Technology Study (NETTS), 32 percent of school districts that received EETT funding reported using
EETT funds for activities to improve student technology literacy. In addition, in January-March 2007, the
Department held monitoring phone calls with 41 of the 52 SEA grantees to discuss their plans for
assessing students’ technology literacy by the end of the eighth grade and reporting the data through
EDFacts/EDEN. Twenty-two of the 41 States reported that they had developed State standards, and that
their LEAs would be responsible for using the State standards to assess students’ technology literacy and
had reporting mechanisms in place. Six States reported having specific statewide assessment tools
already in place. Five States reported that they would use an alternate measure, such as course or test
completion, or would sample LEAs who received EETT funding. Eight States were still in the process of
defining how they would collect the data on student technology literacy.

Objective 5 of 5: To improve the operational efficiency of the program.

Measure 5.1 of 1: The percentage of monitoring reports that the Department of
Education sends to States within 45 days after Educational Technology State Grants monitoring
visits (both on-site and virtual). (Desired direction: increase) 00001g
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2007 Set a Baseline 0 Target Met
2008 50 (September 2008) Pending
2009 75 (September 2009) Pending
2010 100 (September 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Educational
Technology State Grants, program office records.
U.S. Department of Education
3 11/02/2007
Draft
Target Context. In FY 2006, the program office developed and began a series of innovative, virtual
monitoring visits using videoconferencing to gather the comprehensive information needed for multiple
programs at a significantly lower cost and greater efficiency than traditional on-site visits. Because FY
2006 was a developmental year for virtual monitoring visits and follow-up activities, FY 2007 data are
used to establish the baseline.
Explanation. By August 31, 2007, ED had completed reports for 3 of the 10 monitoring visits conducted
in FY 2007. None of the 3 monitoring reports was sent to States within 45 days after the monitoring visit.
In FY 2007, ED also completed reports for 4 of the 7 site visits conducted in FY 2006. It took ED an
average of 56 days to send the 3 reports for FY 2007 monitoring visits, compared to an average of 258
days to send reports for the FY 2006 monitoring visits. Challenges included: developing a new site visit
protocol and coordinating specific input from 5 programs to plan each site visit, working with a new
technology delivery system and trouble-shooting videoconferencing technology problems, creating a
template and integrating information from the 5 programs into each comprehensive monitoring report,
following up with the State to obtain additional information before finalizing each monitoring report, and
preparing monitoring reports using the new FY 2007 template for FY 2006 site visits at the same time that
we were moving forward with the new FY 2007 site visits. Because of advances achieved in FY 2007, the
Department anticipates continued improvement in reducing the time it takes to send the monitoring
reports to States until we reach the goal of 45 days for 100 percent of the reports.

U.S. Department of Education

4 11/02/2007
Draft