U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Technology Challenge Programs: Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, and National Activities

Goal 8: Technology Challenge Programs: Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, Technology Innovation Challenge G Specific Goal/Mission
Objective 1 of 5: STUDENTS IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THE ACCESS OF STUDENTS IN OTHER SCHOOLS.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 3: Computer access in high-poverty schools: The student-to-computer with Internet access ratio in high-poverty schools will be comparable to that in other schools.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Student-to-computer ratio (X:1)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Low-Poverty Schools High-Poverty Schools
Low-Poverty Schools High-Poverty Schools
1998
11 17
   
1999
8 17
10 15
2000
6 9
10 10
2001
   
5 5
2002
   
5 5
Status: Target exceeded.

 
Frequency: Biennially.
Validated By: NCES/Federal Statistical Agencies.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 3: Internet access in high-poverty schools: Internet access in high-poverty school classrooms will be comparable to that in other schools.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of classrooms with Internet access
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Low-Poverty Classrooms High-Poverty Classrooms
Low-Poverty Classrooms High-Poverty Classrooms
1994
3 2
   
1995
9 3
   
1996
17 5
   
1997
33 14
   
1998
57 38
   
1999
73 38
   
2000
82 60
100 100
2001
   
100 100
2002
   
100 100
Status: Target not met.

Explanation: The number of high-poverty schools with Internet access rose to 94 percent in 2000, up from 89 percent in 1999. As high-poverty schools increasingly obtain access to the Internet, it is likely that their classroom connections will subsequently increase.  
Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: NCES/Federal Statistical Agencies.

Limitations: Poverty measures are based on data on free and reduced-price school lunches, which may underestimate school poverty levels, particularly for older students and immigrant students.

 
Indicator 8.1.3 of 3: High-poverty districts--Technology Literacy Challenge Fund: The number of states that award at least 66 percent of their TLCF funds to school districts designated as high-poverty will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of states
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
# of States
# of States
1997
27
 
1998
28
32
1999
30
35
2000
30
37
2001
 
39
2002
 
50
Status: Positive movement toward target.

Explanation: The FY 2000 performance covers the period from October 1999 to September 2001. In September of 2001, 30 states reported awarding 66 percent or more of their FY 2000 TLCF allocation to districts they designated as high-poverty.  
Additional Source Information: Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Subgrant allocation data are state self-reported and there is no alternative source. Reports on the distribution of funds are estimates (and may be substantially inaccurate) until the year following the end of their period of availability. Thus, state awards of FY 2000 funds are reported in 2002, following the end of their period of availability in September 2001. Corrections to 1998 data were made in March 2001.

 

Objective 2 of 5: PROVIDE TEACHERS AND OTHER EDUCATORS WITH THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT THEY NEED TO HELP STUDENTS LEARN THROUGH THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 3: Staff training and support: Increasing percentages of teachers will indicate that they feel very well prepared to integrate educational technology into classroom instruction.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of teachers
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
% of Teachers
% of Teachers % of Teachers
1998
20
 
2000
27
40
Status: No current data but progress toward target is likely.

Explanation: In 2000, 27 percent of teachers reported that they were fully prepared to integrate technology in their instruction. Federal resources for training for teachers to use technology (including the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants) 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 targets for this indicator.  
Additional Source Information: Teacher Preparation of Professional Development.

Frequency: Biennially.
Validated By: NCES/Federal Statistical Agencies.

Limitations: The data are self-reported by teachers. The cost and burden to regularly gather data other than self-report data on teacher preparedness for a nationally representative sample are prohibitive.

 
Indicator 8.2.2 of 3: District professional development: The percentage of TLCF subgrantees that report professional development as a primary use of funds will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of TLCF districts
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
% of districts
% of districts
1997
55
 
1998
60
60
1999
69
65
2000
77
70
2001
 
75
2002
 
80
Status: Target exceeded.

Explanation: The FY 1997 performance covers the period from October 1996 to September 1998. States conduct competitions under the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and have wide discretion to set priorities for those competitions. Districts also have considerable discretion (depending on the state) to direct the use of funds. States have been encouraged to devote at least 30 percent of funds to professional development related to educational technology beginning in 1998.  
Additional Source Information: Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: District data are self-reported by districts to states that self-report to ED. Data are estimates from district technology coordinators for the most part. Of the 1998 subgrantee reports examined, 377 (12.3 percent) provided no data related to this indicator. 1999 and 2000 data are more precise.

 
Indicator 8.2.3 of 3: Professional development models: An increasing percentage of TICG projects will develop models of professional development that result in improved instructional practice.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of projects in their 4th or 5th year
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
% of projects
% of projects
2000
44
10
2001
51
15
2002
50
50
Status: Target exceeded.

Explanation: Based on the rationale that it would take at least 3 years for projects to develop and implement professional development models that could result in improved instructional practice, a target of 15 percent was set for projects in their 4th and 5th year. Second-year data show that half of these projects provided data indicating improved instructional practices.  
Source: ED Evaluation
Evaluation: Education Reform.
Section: Technology Connections for School Improvement Planners' Handbook and Teacher's Guide.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: External Verification.

Limitations: Data are supplied by grantees. A 3-tier data collection, review, and analysis process is used, involving program staff, team leaders, and an external evaluation team. Each review stage examines and analyzes the reported results for quality and validity of data and methodology. The Department will continue to assess the quality of the data and develop plans for improvement, if needed.

 

Objective 3 of 5: PROMOTE THE AVAILABILITY AND USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AS PART OF A CHALLENGING AND ENRICHING CURRICULUM IN EVERY SCHOOL.
Indicator 8.3.1 of 3: Classroom use: Students will increasingly use educational technology for learning in core academic subjects.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of students that ever use a computer to solve math problems
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Age 13 Age 17
Age 13 Age 17
1996
74 70
   
1999
71 66
75 75

Percentage of students using computers in writing
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Eighth Grade Eleventh Grade
Eighth Grade Eleventh Grade
1996
91 96
   
1998
   
98 98
Status: Unable to judge. No update yet.

Explanation: Computer use is fairly ubiquitous in writing. As computers become more available and knowledge about how to integrate computer use into instruction increases, computer use in mathematics also likely will increase.
Source: NCES Survey/Assessment
Survey/Assessment: National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Frequency: Other.
Validated By: NCES/Federal Statistical Agencies.

Limitations: No update yet available. 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 used a computer to solve math problems. (For changes in the mathematics measure between 1996 and 1999 NCES indicates a certainty level of less than 95 percent that the difference is significant). For writing, NAEP asks students if they use a computer to write stories or papers.

 
Indicator 8.3.2 of 3: Progress on State Goals--Technology Literacy Challenge Fund: An increasing percentage of states will report progress on state goals related to integrating online and other technology resources into the curriculum.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of states
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
% of States
% of States
1996
91
 
1998
98
 
1999
63
50
2000
49
55
2001
 
60
2002
 
65
Status: Target exceeded.

Explanation: States report progress on state goals related to the national goals in annual performance reports. Most states (46 of 50) have goals that relate to national ET goal concerning integrating ET resources into the curriculum. States that have met earlier have adopted new ones.  
Additional Source Information: Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: States report on their own goals and information cannot be added across states. There are currently no plans to establish common measures although the consolidated application includes performance indicators.

 
Indicator 8.3.3 of 3: Classroom impact: The percentage of TICG projects that demonstrate positive impacts on curriculum and student achievement will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of projects in 3rd, 4th, or 5th year
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
% of projects
% of projects
2000
44
25
2001
67
30
2002
 
50
Status: Target exceeded.

Explanation: Evaluation reports from projects provide necessary data to respond to this indicator. For the purposes of this assessment, positive impacts on student achievement may include improved attendance and discipline, acquisition of technology and telecommunications skills, problem-solving skills, performance or portfolio assessments, state assessment tools, or standardized tests.  
Source: ED Evaluation
Evaluation: Education Reform.
Section: Technology Connections for School Improvement Planners' Handbook and Teacher's Guide.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: External Verification.

Limitations: Data are supplied by grantees. A 3-tier data collection, review, and analysis process is used, involving program staff, team leaders, and an external evaluation team. Each review stage examines and analyzes the reported results for quality and validity of data and methodology. The Department will continue to assess the quality of the data and develop plans for improvement, if needed.

 

Objective 4 of 5: HELP IMPROVE STUDENTS' INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LITERACY SKILLS IN ALL STATES.
Indicator 8.4.1 of 2: Standards for students in educational technology: The number of states that have standards for student proficiency in the use of technology will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of states
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
# of States
# of States
1998
38
 
1999
 
42
2000
35
45
2001
 
46
2002
 
46
Status: No current data but progress toward target is likely.

Explanation: In 1997-98, 38 states had standards or graduation requirements pertaining to technology. As states increasingly devote resources to educational technology, they also increasingly focus on measuring the impact of educational technology. Setting standards is a precursor to that measurement of student proficiency.  
Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Education Week provides no detail on the rigor or comprehensiveness of standards. Data for 2000 are based on State Report.

 
Indicator 8.4.2 of 2: Student proficiency in technology: In states that assess student proficiency in technology, the percentage of students that are proficient will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
- No Targets And Performance Data -
Status: Unable to judge.

Explanation: Data from the TLCF Profiles project reports that in 2000 there were 21 states that assessed student progress in meeting student technology standards. Of these, 5 states reported the assessment results, some using new assessments.  
Source: Other
Other: Record/File.
Sponsor: SRI International.

Frequency: Other.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Limitations of data will be defined as data are collected.

 

Objective 5 of 5: THROUGH THE CREATION OR EXPANSION OF COMMUNITIY TECHNOLOGY CENTERS WILL REPORT THAT ACCESS TO INTERNET, AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY.
Indicator 8.5.1 of 1: Customer reports on value of access: There is an increase in the number of sites where economically disadvantaged individuals can secure access to education technology and the Internet through the establishment and expansion of community technology centers.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of new or expanded Community Technology Center Sites
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
595
 
Status: Unable to judge. 595 new or expanded Community Technology Center Sites have been established as of FY 2000. The program awarded its grants in 1999.

Explanation: The mission of the Community Technology Centers Program is to establish or expand community centers that increase access to computers, the Internet, and educational technology for residents of economically distressed communities.  
Additional Source Information: Survey responses from grantees.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Data supplied by grantees. Questionable information resulted in telephone follow-up by CTC Team staff. Data supplied by grantees through surveys will be verified through close examination of Annual Performance Reports.

Limitations: FY 2000 data reported by approximately 60%-70% of grantees.

Improvements: More extensive follow-up communication with grantees will be done to increase response rate to 80-90%.

 

Return to table of contents