All 524 districts, for the first time, completed the Census of Technology in 2001. This section of the Census of Technology Report analyzes the 2001 data, compares 2001 data with data collected in previous years, and notes interesting trends or anomalies. Predominantly, the COT data indicate continued improvement over the previous year(s).

Technology Planning

A school district’s long-range technology plan should provide a road map that will help the district implement strategies that promote the district’s mission, advance its comprehensive school improvement plan, and improve teaching and learning.  Items 1 and 3 asked if districts have technology plans and, if so, whether they are state approved or aligned with local school improvement plans (CSIP). Table 1 indicates a steady increase in each area. Note that only two districts reported not having a plan in 2001.

Table 1

Early district technology plans dealt mostly with hardware and equipment and did little to address integration, student learning, or technology professional development. Item 1 asked what was addressed by local technology plans. COT data and recent state reviews of technology plans indicate that district plans have become more technical while also moving beyond access issues to address student learning and teacher development. Figure 2 illustrates this movement, except curriculum integration, which took a small, surprising downturn.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Item 4 asked whether districts partner with business or higher education to help support district technology initiatives. While the number of districts that reported having a technology partner in 2001 was only 165 (31%), this is a 60% increase from the 103 districts that reported having a technology partner in 1998. Table 4 depicts the slow, steady progress in developing partnerships.

Table 4

Technology Professional Development

Four items on the District-level COT addressed training issues. Item 5 asked who is responsible for the technical maintenance and support in the district. Item 6 asked districts to prioritize the training needs of those responsible. Items 7 and 8 address technology skills: 7 asked whether teachers are required to demonstrate technology skills for employment or continued employment, and 8 asked about the technology skills level of district administrators.

Table 5 indicates that districts are engaging more people to handle technical maintenance and/or support of hardware in the districts.  As more technology is acquired and more educators are using the technologies, it creates a need for greater technical support. Over 60% of the districts involve district staff, certified staff and outside vendors to help with equipment maintenance and support.

Table 5

Table 6 lists the training priorities for the persons responsible for equipment maintenance and support.  Curriculum and instruction integration have consistently been the top priorities for the majority of districts. Areas indicating an increased emphasis since 1998 include technology planning and community awareness. Budget planning and networking priorities have remained steady, while procurement dropped slightly in 2001.

       Table 6

Items 7 and 8 dealt with technology standards for district administrators. In 1998, approximately 7% of districts required teachers to demonstrate technology skills for hiring and continued employment decisions. The percent rose to 8% in 2000 and 10% in 2001.

In 1998, approximately 67% of district administrators were estimated to have intermediate and advance technology skills. By 2001, the percent increased to 81%. The contrast between the decreasing percent of “beginners” and the increasing percent of “advanced” is illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7

Hardware and Support

Items 9 through 13 asked district administrators to estimate the number of persons responsible for technical support, list the kinds of computers located in the administrative offices, and estimate the number of computers expected to be purchased in coming years – for both administrative offices and school buildings.

Since 1999, districts have been consistently reporting an average of 2 district-level staff and a little over 2 building-level staff that are responsible for hardware maintenance and support. However, these averages level out the number of districts with little or no technology staffs as well as districts with one or more technology staff person in each building. In 2001, perhaps because of the inclusion of all districts for the first time, the numbers dropped to 1.7 district FTE and 1.3 school FTE. It is also noted that some districts have reclassified some technology specialists (technicians) as instructional technology specialists (teachers).

Table 8 notes an annual increase the overall numbers of computers and kinds of computers housed in administrative offices. In part, the increase shown for 2001 is affected by the greater number of respondents each year. The proportion of high-end machines also increased each year, as did the proportion of PCs. While the number of Apple/Mac machines has remained fairly steady, the proportion of all machines has dropped. Windows is the predominant operating system for PC/PC-compatible machines, followed by Novell.  Of the Apple/Mac computers, 88% are running OS 7.xx and 18%, OS 8.0 or higher.

Table 8

District estimates of how many computers will be purchased in coming years, continues the trends noted above. Districts expect to purchase increasing numbers of machines for the administrative offices, as well as computers, interactive whiteboards, and whiteboard projectors for the school buildings.

Internet Connectivity and Distance Learning
Items 14 through 18 ask about the administrative office’s capacity to interact with others through Internet, networking, and distance learning technologies. Table 9 shows the steady increase in the percentage of administrative offices connected to the Internet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), and that are equipped for two-way videoconferencing.

Table 9

Items 19 through 28 ask about district-wide technology use.  Item 19 asked districts whether technology is incorporated in district curriculum guides and academic standards. In 2001, 88% of the districts responded that technology was addressed in curriculum guides, as compared to 81% in 2000, 73% in 1999, and 63% in 1998. In 2001, districts stated that 65% of their core content areas had technology incorporated.

Item 20 asked if districts had technology proficiency requirements for students to pass to the next level. In 2001, 19% of the districts indicated they had such a requirement, which is consistent with the three previous years that ranged from 16 -18%.

Figure 10 indicates what information about the districts can be accessed from district web sites. Every information category steadily increased over the last four years. Increasingly, more districts are maintaining their own web sites and posting a higher quantity and quality of information.

Figure 10

Item 22 asked districts to estimate the staff responsible for the training and support of teachers in integrating technology into curriculum and instruction. The 2001 data are noticeably lower than the last two years. In the past, districts averaged approximately two district-level staff and six to seven building-level staff.  This year, districts estimated 1.53 district and 1.95 building staff. Besides the addition of new respondents, another explanation is that districts are taking a more critical look at technology integration. There was a tendency for districts to add technicians and not isolate instructional technology staff.

The next item indicated that 8,155 administrators, 61.370 teachers, and 42,662 students were provided email accounts in 2001. Except for students, the 2001 data are much higher than in previous years. The 2000 COT data indicated email accounts for 7,533 administrators, 55,218 teachers, and 51,789 students. In 1999, 6,400 administrator, 45,370 teacher, and 50,908 student email accounts were provided.

Figure 11

Table 12 indicates a steady increase in the percentage of districts installing their own email, web, and proxy servers and firewalls. In 2001, Mercury was the predominant email server, MS FrontPage and IIS the most used web server, and Border Manager the primary proxy server and firewall.

Table 12

Technology Funding

For 2000-2001, districts projected technology expenditures of $ 69,015,848, as follows:

      $43,835,991 – Computer and peripheral hardware (64%)
$  8,740,757 – Server purchase/support (12%)
$  6,481,647 – Instructional software (9%)
$  4,379,409 – Technology-related professional development (6%)
$  2,481,296 – Distance Learning - cable, satellite, I-TV (4%)
$  1,509,878 – Internet charges (2%)
$  1,586,870 – Other/miscellaneous (2%)

For the past four years, estimates of district technology expenditures have hovered between $60 and $70 million. In 2001, districts estimated spending $63,833,896 in FY00, $69,015,848 in FY01, and $64,473,322 in FY02. Note that this year’s estimate for FY01 expenditures exceeds last year’s projection for FY01 by almost $9 million. The 2001 estimates include higher expenditures in every category, with the biggest differences relating to hardware ($4.7 million), followed by Internet charges ($976,000) software ($957,000 million), server support ($700,000), distance learning ($170,000), and professional development ($80,000).

The FY01 technology budget averages about $131,710 per district. However, the median district estimates spending approximately $44,000. The typical (median) district approximates spending $31,500 for hardware, $4,500 on software, $3,000 for professional development and for server support, $1,500 for Internet, and $450 for distance learning.

The last questions on the district census form ask whether districts participate in the e-rate program and purchase products or services from the state’s prime vendor contract. The percent of districts filing e-rate applications has increased from 60% in 1999 to 70% in 2001. [Note that 512 districts are represented by a statewide e-rate application that has resulted in lower district fees for the DESE-MOREnet Technology Network Program.] The percent of districts benefiting from the state vendor contract has increased from 7% to 11%.