The 2003 Missouri School District Computing Census
District Census Report
This section of the 2003 Census of Technology Report analyzes the district data collected, compares the data with previous years’ data, and notes interesting trends or anomalies over time. The 2003 District COT was significantly revised and addresses 14 items, as compared to 36 items that were asked in 2002. All 524 Missouri school districts completed the COT in 2003. In general, district data indicate continued improvement over the previous year(s). A copy of the survey, completed with aggregate data, is provided as Appendix A.
Technology Planning
A school district’s long-range technology plan provides a road map for how the district will implement strategies that promote the district’s mission, advance its comprehensive school improvement plan (CSIP), and improve teaching and learning. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education began approving technology plans in 1997 as a requirement for the E-rate program. Early district technology plans dealt mostly with hardware and equipment and did little to address integration, student learning, or technology professional development. Beginning in 1999, a state-approved technology plan became a requirement for participation in the technology acquisition (TAG) grant program and/or the MOREnet Technology Network Program.
With the passing of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, the Department developed the 2002-2006 Missouri Education Technology Strategic Plan and updated the scoring criteria to approve district technology plans accordingly. Both the plan and scoring criteria focus on the development of plans that promote effective teaching strategies and student achievement as well as adequate infrastructure.
In accordance with the NCLB and the Title IID Ed Tech Program, districts were given a one-year waiver to prepare (through June 30, 2003). As such, the number of items related to district technology planning was reduced from four in 2002 to two in 2003.
For item one, the data collection system filled in the state-approval date. As Figure 1 below indicates, only a few (16) districts elected to have their technology plans approved in 2001, while the vast majority (451) waited until 2002 to submit plans for state approval. [67 districts that had plans approved in 2001 and that received the maximum score of “8 of 8” met the NCLB requirements and did not have to re-submit plans in 2002 or 2003.]
Figure 1
Status of District Technology Plans |
 |
Item two asked districts to identify business or higher education partners that help support the district’s technology initiatives. As Table 2 indicates, the number of districts that report having a technology partner has fluctuated the past five years. However, the reporting of the types of partners is more consistent. A district “technology” partner is most likely to be a college or university, than a technology-related business or a non-technology related business.
Table 2
Districts With a Technology Business or Higher Education Partner, 1998-2003 |
||||||
1998
|
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
|
Districts with Technology Partners |
22% |
27% |
29% |
31% |
27% |
31% |
Technology Professional Development
Instead of the five items addressed last year, the 2003 COT only asked questions about district technology-related standards and the estimated skills levels of district administrators and support services staff. Item three asks the district to identify board-approved education technology standards that are used in the districts and the populations for which the standards apply. This item was added in the 2002 COT to align with the NCLB and the new state technology plan. The state plans calls for schools to have established standards and endorses the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) published by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
As Figures 3 and 4 show, the vast majority of districts have board-approved standards for both students and for school employees. Figure 3 shows that four out of five (423) districts have developed their own education technology standards, followed by one in four (124) that have adopted the NETS, and one in twelve (43) that adopted the Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) endorsed by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA). Thirty districts report having other standards. Nearly 80 districts (15 percent) report having no board-approved standards.
Figure 3
Districts with Education Technology Standards, by Standard Type |
 |
Figure 4 indicates that over 350 districts (67 percent) have student technology standards. Districts are most likely to have established standards for middle school students (353 districts), then students in grades 3-5 (330), followed by high schools students (311), and K-2 students (305). As for district employees, most districts (402) are apt to have standards for teachers, followed by school administrators (372) and school support services staff (319).
Figure 4
Number Districts with Education Technology Standards, by Population |
 |
Item four asked districts to estimate the skills levels of administrators and support staff located in the administrative offices. In 2003, 84 percent of support services staff and 89 percent of administrators are estimated to have intermediate or higher skills in the use of technology. While this was the first time COT asked about the skills of the support services staff, Figure 5 indicates the steady increase in administrators’ skills since 1998.
Figure 5
Administrators with Intermediate and/or Advanced Technology Skills, 1998-2003 |
 |
Hardware and Support
In contrast with six items in 2002, three items address hardware and support issues. Item five asked districts to estimate the total number of district-level, full-time equivalent (FTE) staff who are responsible for technical maintenance and support. On average, districts provided 2.18 technical support staff in 2003, compared to 2.0 in 2002. While it isn’t likely that all districts have two district technology staff persons, it is encouraging to see the number of staff increase to deal with the growing numbers and kinds of education technologies in place in the districts.
For item six, districts entered the quantities of computers located in district administrative office(s). In keeping with findings from earlier years, administrative offices have computers that are predominantly PCs or PC-compatible. In 2003, there are over 15,000 computers, comprised of 94 percent Windows-based machines.
Internet Connectivity – Distance Learning
Only one connectivity item is asked in 2003, compared to last year’s six items that also included several sub-parts. Item eight asked districts to identify the operating systems used by servers located in the districts’ administrative buildings/office. Novell is the predominant system (used in 285 districts), followed by Windows NT (152), Windows 2000 (91), Linux (75), and Apple Share (28).
Technology Usage
Instead of the 11 items addressed in 2002, the 2003 COT has three technology usage items. The first, item nine that asked if technology is integrated in the district’s core content areas, was revised in 2003. Rather than asking districts to estimate “the percentage of core areas” where technology is “incorporated in curriculum guides”, the 2003 item asked districts to indicate the specific content areas where technology is “integrated”. Figure 6 shows that technology is integrated in communication arts for 502 districts (96 percent), science for 472 districts (90 percent), mathematics for 469 districts (90 percent), and social studies for 464 districts (89 percent).
Figure 6
Status of Technology Integration in District Curricula |
 |
The second technology usage item, item 10, asks about district-provided email accounts. This item was also revised. Rather than asking for total number of accounts provided for students, teachers, and administrators, the 2003 item asks about accounts for support services staff and breaks down the student population into grade-level spans of K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12, and area vocational-technical school (AVTS). Rather asking for numbers, the 2003 item asks for the estimated age of each population that is provided with accounts.
Table 7 details the email accounts provided by districts in 2003. While the vast majority of districts provide email accounts to employees, few districts provide accounts to students. Over 90 percent of districts provide accounts to employees: 96 percent (504) provide accounts to administrators, 95 percent (499) provide accounts to teachers, and 91 percent (477) provide accounts to support services staff. On the other hand, only 6 percent of districts (31) provide accounts to primary-school students, 11 percent (58) to elementary students, 15 percent (81) to students in middle school, and 21 percent (108) to high school students. The districts that do provide email accounts to students, however, do so with high percentage rates, as indicated by the average and median percentage rates listed in the table.
Table 7
District-Provided Email Accounts |
||||
Population |
Number Districts |
District Average |
District Average and Median Rate – Districts Providing Email Accounts |
|
District Employees
|
|
|
|
|
Students
|
|
|
|
|
The third usage item, item 11, asks districts to estimate the percentage of students in the 6th grade who are computer literate. Literacy is defined as being able to perform basic computer operations. Figure 8 shows a steady increase in the percentage rate of computer-literate 6th grade students from 70 percent in 1999 to 88 percent in 2003.
Figure 8
Computer Literate Students – Grade 6, 1999-2003 |
 |
Technology Funding
Three items asked districts about their technology funding habits. Item 12 asks districts to detail costs for “last” and “current” fiscal years and project costs for “next” fiscal year. From 1999 to 2001, districts consistently reported budget costs averaging $60-$64 million. In FY02 and 03, technology costs exceed $90 million. Table 9 indicates total projected and actual expenditures for major budget items, for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. [Note that the item was revised in 2002 to better align with major cost categories addressed by “total cost of ownership” studies.]
Table 9
Technology Budgets and Expenditures, 2001-2003 |
||||||
FY 2001 |
FY 2002 |
FY 2003 |
||||
| Technology Budget Items |
Projected: 2001 COT |
Expended: 2002 COT |
Projected: 2002 COT |
Expended: 2003 COT |
Projected: 2002 COT |
Estimated 2003 COT |
Hardware / Equipment |
$43,835,991 |
$40,900,483 |
$39,206,409 |
$45,184,211 |
$45,056,522 |
$37,188,339 |
Instructional Software |
6,481,647 |
5,715,504 |
6,193,943 |
6,551,992 |
12,784,064 |
5,076,642 |
Administrative Software |
NA |
NA |
NA |
3,723,996 |
5,486,401 |
6,609,342 |
Professional Development |
4,379,409 |
4,295,303 |
4,544,669 |
6,697,674 |
7,901,721 |
7,438,076 |
Connectivity-Distance Learning |
3,991,171 |
3,614,949 |
3,891,426 |
4,545,547 |
5,456,216 |
5,472,733 |
Technical Support |
8,740,757 |
8,153,149 |
9,180,776 |
19,250,231 |
17,973,691 |
17,422,724 |
Infrastructure/Retrofitting/Other |
NA |
NA |
NA |
10,807,522 |
13,334,153 |
11,359,941 |
Other |
1,586,870 |
3,123,583 |
1,466,997 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Total |
$69,015,848 |
$65,802,971 |
$64,473,220 |
$96,761,173 |
$107,992,768 |
$90,567,797 |
Item 12 asked districts if they participate in the Universal Service Fund’s E-rate program, and item 13 asked what percent of the discounts/savings received by the E-rate program were used to support education technology activities and expenditures. Each year, MOREnet files an E-rate application on behalf of the 513 districts and state schools that participate in the statewide network project. Districts file separate applications for telecommunications, non-MOREnet related Internet costs, and internal connections. In 2003, 374 districts (71 percent) filed applications that received savings totaling over $41 million. Less than 40 percent of the savings was used to suppor
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
"Making a positive difference through education and service"