Archived Information

Objective 1.7: Schools use advanced technology for all

students and teachers to improve education.
Our Role. The Department of Education has made great progress toward the goal to put modern
computers in classrooms and connect them to the Internet. With increasing access to computers and
advanced telecommunications, the Education Department must ensure that teachers also have the ongoing
training and support they need to effectively use these investments for improved teaching and learning.

In response to this significant need, the Education Department’s educational technology FY 2001
investments placed special emphasis on technology training for current and prospective educators. These
funds help ensure that all new teachers can use technology effectively in the classroom. Closing the
digital divide, particularly in communities with concentrations of disadvantaged students and their
families, remains a challenge. Development of and access to next generation learning tools remains
important to address critical education needs.

The Education Department’s educational technology initiatives include, among others, the Preparing
Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology program, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, the
Technology Innovation Challenge Grant and Star Schools programs, the Community Technology Centers,
and the Learning Anytime Anywhere program.

Our Performance

How We Measure. The Technology Literacy Challenge envisions a 21st century in which all students
are technologically literate. To support schools in incorporating technology into their curriculum,
teachers will need the training and support to help students learn using computers and the Internet; all
teachers and students will have access to modern multimedia computers in their classrooms; every
classroom will be connected to the Internet; and effective software and online learning resources will be
an integral part of every school’s curricula. These goals also provide the basis for performance indicators
against which the Education Department measures the national progress in areas of educational
technology supported by its programs.

Indicator 1.7.a. The ratio of students per modern multimedia computer will
improve to 5:1 by 2001.
Assessment of Progress. The 1999-2000 data are consistent with the goal. Goals for this indicator are
continual progress toward the 2001 goal of five students per multimedia computer. There are no new
2000-2001 data available.

To make technology a viable instructional tool requires that schools have enough computers to provide
full, easy access for all students. Glennan and Melmed (1996), Getting America’s Students Ready for the
21st Century (U.S. Department of Education, 1996) note that many studies suggest that full, easy access
requires a ratio of about five students to each multimedia computer. As shown in Figure 1.7.a.1, in 1996-
97, the ratio of students per instructional computer was 7.3:1; by 1999-00, the ratio had dropped to 4.9:1.
In 1996-97, the ratio of students per multimedia computer was 21.2:1; by 1999-00, it had dropped to
7.9:1. As the cost of computing power continues to decline, schools are increasingly able to afford
multimedia computers and the newer hand-held technology devices.

Page 28 Goal 1, Objective 1.7

 Figure 1.7.a.1

Source: Market Data Retrieval, Technology in Education,

1997, 1998, and 1999; Market Data Retrieval, 1997 as
Num be r of Students Pe r Instructional and
cited in Education Week, Technology Counts, 1997;
40 Multime dia Com puter Nation’s K-12 Schools make major gains in technology.
Students Per Computer

3 7 .0 Minority and low income schools lag behind. Nov. 12,

3 1 .0
2000, MDR press release
30
2 4 .0 (http://www.schooldata.com/pr22.html) accessed
2 1 .2
2 7 .0 1 9 .2
2/28/01. Frequency: Annual. Next Update: fall 2001 for
20 the 2000-01 school year. Data for 2000 is from “Nations
1 3 .5
2 1 .0 K-12 Schools make major gains in technology. Minority
1 0 .8
9 .8 GOAL
9 .0
7 .9
and Low Income Schools lag behind”, MDR, Nov. 12,
10
1 2 .0 2000. Validation procedure: Data supplied by Market
9 .1
7 .3
6 .3 5 .0
Data Retrieval. No formal verification or attestation
5 .7 4 .9
0 procedure applied. Limitations of data and planned
improvements: Market Data Retrieval data do not have
1986-87

1987-88

1988-89
1989-90

1990-91

1991-92
1992-93

1993-94

1994-95
1995-96

1996-97

1997-98
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01
consistently high response rates, and response rates vary
substantially across sites. Accuracy of responses may vary
considerably across districts and states. Planned
Y e ar
improvements: None.
In s t ru c t io n a l U s e C o m p u t e r M u lt im e d ia C o m p u t e r

Indicator 1.7.b. The percentage of public school instructional rooms

connected to the Internet will increase to 100 percent by 2000.
Assessment of Progress. There is positive progress toward this goal although it was probably not met.
There are no 2000 data available.

Connections to the Internet make computers versatile and powerful learning tools by introducing students
and teachers to new information, people, places, and ideas from around the world to which they might not
otherwise be exposed. Figure 1.7.b.1 shows that in 1994 only three percent of instructional rooms were
connected to the Internet. By 1999, 63 percent of classrooms were connected to the Internet.

Figure 1.7.b.1

Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES),

Percentage of Instructional Rooms with Internet Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms:
1994-99, February 2000; Internet Access in U.S. Public
Access in the Classroom
Schools and Classrooms: 1994-1998, February 1999.
GOAL Frequency: Annual. Next Update: spring 2001 for fall
100% 2000 data. Validation procedure: Data validated by
100% NCES’s review procedures and NCES Statistical
Standards. Limitations of data and planned
Percentage of Classrooms

80% 63% improvements: The measure looks at access to the

Internet, but does not look at Internet use or the quality of
60% 51% that use. Planned improvements: None.

40%
27%
14%
20% 8%
3%

0%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Goal 1, Objective 1.7 Page 29

Indicator 1.7.c. Students in high-poverty schools will have access to
educational technology that is comparable to the access of students in other
schools.
Assessment of Progress. There is positive progress toward the goal, although it is probable that the
goal has not been met. While access is necessary for effective use of technology, providing students with
access to computers and using computers to support instruction requires significant investments in
hardware, software, wiring, and professional development, school districts vary greatly in their capacity
to fund these improvements. Internet access is a good measure of access to educational technology
because it requires not only an Internet connection but also access to a computer or other electronic
device. Research has documented differences in access between high and low-poverty schools but also
shows that access in all schools is increasing. In 1994, two percent of classrooms in high-poverty schools
and four percent of classrooms in low-poverty schools had access to the Internet (see Figure 1.7.c.1). By
1999, the percentage of classrooms with Internet access had increased to 39 percent in high-poverty
schools and 74 percent in low-poverty schools. The Federal role in reducing these disparities is
significant. In 1997-98, Federal funds paid for 53 percent of computers purchased for high-poverty
schools and 12 percent of computers purchased for low-poverty schools (USED, Study of Educational
Resources and Federal Funding, 1999). There are no 2000 data available.

Figure 1.7.c.1
Percentage of C lassrooms in High and Low Poverty
Schools with Internet Access
10 0% 100 % Source: NCES, Internet Access in Public Schools and Classrooms,
100%
February 1998; Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and
Classrooms, February 2000. Frequency: Annual. Next Update: spring
80%
74%
2001 for fall 2000 data. Validation procedure: Data validated by
Percentage of Classrooms

NCES’s review procedures and NCES Statistical Standards.

62%
60% Limitations of data and planned improvements: Poverty measures
G G are based on free and reduced-price school lunch data, which may
39% 39% O O underestimate school poverty levels, particularly for older students and
40% 3 6%
A A
immigrant students. Planned improvements: None.
L L
20% 1 8%
14%
9% 7%
4%
3%
2%
0%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Y ear High-Poverty
High-poverty schools: 71% or more eligib le
Low-Poverty
for free and r educed-price lunch

Low-poverty scho ols: 11% or le ss eligible

for free and r educed-price lunch

Indicator 1.7.d. Students with disabilities will have access to educational

technology that is, at a minimum, comparable to the access of other students.
Assessment of Progress. The Education Department is unable to judge progress as current data are
only a baseline measure. The 2000 goal was not met. Internet access is a good measure of access to
educational technology because it requires not only an Internet connection but also access to a computer.
With the exception of moderate use, the availability of access to and extent of use of the Internet by
students with disabilities is significantly less than for all students, though the magnitude of the difference
is only a few percentage points. The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR) initiative will help provide technical assistance to schools so they know how to make

Page 30 Goal 1, Objective 1.7

technology accessible to individuals with disabilities. Advances in technology and universal design are
making significant contributions to overcoming barriers to access for the disabled.

Figure 1.7.d.1

Source: NCES, Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools

Availability and Use of the Internet by and Classrooms, February 2000, unpublished tabulations.
Students in Public Schools Frequency: Annual. Next Update: spring 2001 for fall
2000 data. Validation procedure: Data validated by
100% 96%
91% NCES’s review procedures and NCES Statistical
GOAL: Standards. Limitations of data and planned
80% improvements: The measure looks at access to the
Percent of Students

All Students and Students with

Disabilities to have Equal Access Internet and extent of use but does not look at quality of
60% use.
43% 41%
37% 38%
40%
21%
20% 16%
9%
4%
0%
Internet Internet Internet Internet Internet
access access access access access
available available but available and available and available and
not used at all used to a small used to a used to a large
extent moderate extent
extent

All Students Students with Disabilities

Indicator 1.7.e. By 2001, at least 50 percent of teachers will indicate that they
feel very well prepared to integrate educational technology into instruction.
Assessment of Progress. Progress toward the goal is likely although there were no 1999 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data collected. In 1998, 20 percent of teachers reported that
they were fully prepared to integrate technology in their instruction. Computers, effective software,
online learning resources, and the Internet hold promise to improve learning; increase the amount of time
students spend learning; and engage students in problem solving, research, and data analysis. Teachers’
integration of the use of technology into the curricula is a major determinant of technology’s contribution
to student learning, once access to computers is provided. Federal resources for training of teachers to use
technology (including the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, the Technology Innovation Challenge
Grants, and Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology programs) as well as state and local
funds continue to support professional development in the use of educational technology for teachers and,
correspondingly, progress toward the goal for this indicator. The data for 2000 are not available.

Goal 1, Objective 1.7 Page 31

 Figure 1.7.e.1

Pe rce ntage of Te ache rs Fully Pre pare d to Source: NCES, Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and
Qualifications of Public School Teachers, January 1999.
Inte grate Te chnology in Ins truction Frequency: Biennial. Next Update: spring 2001 for fall 2000 data.
100%
Validation procedure: Data validated by NCES’s review
procedures and NCES Statistical Standards. Limitations of data
Pe rce n ta ge of Te ach e rs

80%
and planned improvements: The data are self-reported on feelings
of preparedness rather than objective measures of teachers’ actual
60%
classroom practice. The resources required, in terms of cost and
40% burden, to regularly gather data other than self-report data on teacher
40%
preparedness for a Nationally representative sample are prohibitive.
20% G Planned improvements: None.
20% O
A
0% L
1998 2000
Ye ar

Indicator 1.7.f. Students will increasingly have access to educational

technology in core academic subjects.
Assessment of Progress. Progress toward the goal is likely although no 1999 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) data were collected. The benefits of computers in schools and classrooms
can be multifaceted, ranging from increased student motivation to improved teacher skills and student
achievement. Of key importance is the extent to which computers in classrooms serve as learning tools
that improve student achievement and whether students acquire the technology literacy skills needed for
the 21st century. According to NAEP, the use of computers in instruction has increased substantially in
recent years. In 1978, 14 percent of 13-year-olds and 12 percent of 17-year-olds used computers when
learning math. By 1996, these percentages increased to 54 percent and 42 percent respectively (Figure
1.7.f.1). The data for 2000 are not available.

Figure 1.7.f.1 Figure 1.7.f.2

Use of Computers in Mathematics Instruction Use of Computers in Writing Instruction

100%

100% 96%
91%
80%
GOAL: GOAL:
Percentage of Students

80% Continuing Continuing

Increase Increase
60%
Percentage of Students

54%
GOAL : 60%
C ontinuing 42%
40% Increa se GOAL :
C ontinuing 40%
Increa se
20% 19%
14% 20% 1 5%
12%

0% 0%
19 78 19 96 19 78 19 96 1978 1996 1978 1996

A ge 13 Age 17 Grade 8 Grade 11

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1978 and 1996. Frequency: Every four years per subject. Next Update: 2001 for
2000 data. Validation procedure: Data validated by NCES review procedures and NCES Statistical Standards. Limitations of data and
planned improvements: Questions yielding this data do not fully capture the extent to which computers are regularly used in classrooms to
support instruction. For mathematics, NAEP asks students if they have ever studied math through computer instruction. For writing, NAEP asks
students if they use a computer to write stories or papers. Planned improvements: None.

Page 32 Goal 1, Objective 1.7