SETDA's National Trends Report 2008 http://www.setda.org A report from all 50 states plus DC regarding NCLB, Title II, Part D Enhancing Education through Technology (EETT) Study conducted by the Metiri Group STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION February 2008 The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) was established in the fall of 2001 and is the principal association representing the state directors for educational technology. www.setda.org Metiri Group is a national consulting firm located in Los Angeles, California, which specializes in systems thinking, evaluation, and research related to educational technology. www.metiri.com Copies of the report on survey findings can be accessed in PDF format at www.setda.org. Message to the Reader The No Child Left Behind, Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology (NCLB IID) program requires that participating State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) focus their uses of technology on closing the achievement gap. While currently most states are implementing Round 6 (FY07) of the funding cycle, this report provides insights into the program implementation for Round 5 (FY06) and documents trend data across Rounds 1- 5. For the last five years, SETDA has commissioned the Metiri Group to work with the Data Collection Committee, to conduct a national survey to answer questions about the implementation of NCLB IID. The findings from SETDA¶s national survey provide states, local school districts, policymakers, and the U.S. with insights into the following questions: · How are grant recipients across the nation structuring their state programs to meet NCLB IID goals? · What administrative structures are used by states to guide and support LEAs in structuring programs to achieve the NCLB goals? · Is there evidence that the implementation of the NCLB IID program has advanced the goals and purposes as outlined in federal law? In this fifth year of implementation of NCLB IID, a number of NCLB IID Projects are highlighted as excellent examples of how this important federal program has positively impacted teaching, learning, leadership, and technology literacy in America¶s schools. SETDA expresses its sincere appreciation to the state technology directors who completed the survey. - The Data Collection Committee Deborah Sutton, Missouri Connie Louie, Massachusetts **Committee Chair Mary Mehsikomer, Minnesota Bill Romond, Vermont Teh-Yuan Wan, New York **Committee Vice-Chair Wynn Smith, North Carolina Melinda Maddox, Alabama Amy Munro, Pennsylvania Cecilia Miller, Alaska Kelly Griffin, Texas Corey Simpson, Idaho Brenda Williams, West Virginia Marlene Johnson, Maryland John Merritt, West Virginia Dennis Kunces, Maine Steve Sanders, Wisconsin Jeff Mao, Maine Stuart Ciske, Wisconsin - SETDA Staff Members Mary Ann Wolf, Executive Director Christine Fox, Director of Professional Development and Research Table of Contents Section I: Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 The No Child Left Behind, Title II Part D Program...............................................................................1 The Trends Report................................................................................................................................1 Methodology........................................................................................................................................2 SETDA Framework..............................................................................................................................2 State Reports........................................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................4 Round 5 (FY06) of the NCLB IID Program..........................................................................................4 After Five Years of NCLB IID .............................................................................................................5 Section II: Trends..................................................................................................................................8 Trend 1: The Cuts to NCLB IID Funding Go Deeper.......................................................................... 11 Trend 2: States Are Facilitating High-Quality Research...................................................................... 14 Trend 3: Academics Continue to Be Top Priority for NCLB IID......................................................... 19 Trend 4: Integration Is Critical to Developing Technology Literacy.................................................... 22 Trend 5: State Policies Scale Effective Practices................................................................................. 26 Trend 6: Progress Through Leadership and Professional Development ............................................... 31 Trend 7: Wanted: Digital Content/Digital Learning Environments ...................................................... 37 Trend 8: Leveraging Data-Informed Decision Making........................................................................ 39 Section III: Competitive Grant Program............................................................................................ 41 Facts and Figures ............................................................................................................................... 41 Focus of Competitive Grants .............................................................................................................. 43 Evaluation.......................................................................................................................................... 47 Section IV: Formula Grants................................................................................................................ 51 Facts and Figures ............................................................................................................................... 51 Award Size ........................................................................................................................................ 51 Transfers............................................................................................................................................ 52 Evaluation.......................................................................................................................................... 57 Appendices........................................................................................................................................... 60 Appendix A: NCLB IID Purposes and Goals ...................................................................................... 60 Appendix B: NCLB IID Local Activities............................................................................................ 62 Section I: Introduction The No Child Left Behind, Title II Part D Program The technology component of the No Child Left Behind federal program (NCLB) provides funding for technology to aid high-need students in schools across the nation. The three goals of NCLB IID as stated in Section 2404 of the NLCB Title II Part D law are listed below. NCLB Title II Part D Goals (1) PRIMARY GOAL- The primary goal of this part is to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in elementary schools and secondary schools. (2) ADDITIONAL GOALS- The additional goals of this part are the following: (A) To assist every student in crossing the digital divide by ensuring that every student is technologically literate by the time the student finishes the 8th grade, regardless of the student¶s race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location, or disability. (B) 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 by state Educational Agencies and local educational agencies. For the first four years of the program states were required to distribute 50% of the funds available for grants to schools districts through NCLB IID funds equally for formula and competitive awards. In the 2006 appropriations bill, Congress cut the funding for this program from the previous year¶s $461 million to $253 million for the 50 states and Washington DC. This drastic cut in funding, in some cases, caused the size of the formula grants to be too small to have an impact on student achievement. Therefore, Congress also included the language allowing states to focus up to 100% of the NCLB IID funds for competitive awards. This change provided the states with the flexibility required to ensure that the funds awarded best met the needs of the LEAs and states. The Trends Report The findings from this report represent survey data on the NCLB IID program for Round 5 (FY06). The survey data were collected from a single respondent ± in most cases the state technology director ± who represented the state education agency in each of 50 states and the District of Columbia. The number of local education agencies represented by the state survey respondents is 15,962. Within those 50 states and the District of Columbia, 13,583 districts were eligible for formula and/or competitive NCLB