This semester I will be attempting to teach an online course through TSU. Aside from one little issue, (I have NO access to the e-learn site) I'm ready to roll. Until (if ever) a contract goes through, I have to be creative in how I can communicate with the class. So, I figure this is a GREAT time to resurrect the blog.
So, I am going to attempt to use this platform for discussions with the class. Let me start by welcoming all of you. I started this blog last year as a part of an online course that I was participating in.....then, a little thing called First to the Top happened and my time for blogging fell off the plate.
Please feel free to read through previous posts and enjoy some of the resources I had posted.
Feel free to comment. I just received the texts today....I will be posting some topics for discussion really soon.
Thanks,
Dr. D
Monday, June 6, 2011
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The State of Technology in Tennessee 2009-2010
Where Do We Stand in 2010?
A Status Report on Technology in Tennessee Schools
2009-2010 Technology in Education Survey System (TESS)
About the Inventory
The TESS survey marks the start of a yearly snapshot of the use of technology in Tennessee K-12 public schools. This statewide inventory is completed annually at each school by a person designated by the principal. Its data will help measure progress toward specified targets in key areas.
The key target areas are the goals specified by the Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001 (Title II Part D of No Child Left Behind). The goals are:
• Improving student academic achievement through the use of technology,
• advancing student technology literacy, and
• encouraging effective integration with teacher training to establish instructional methods and best practices.
Key to achieving these goals is providing all students with access to technology resources and developing teacher competence in using technology to meet instructional goals.
The Tennessee Department of Education is pleased to release the online reports to the public. Available at http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp the reports provide comprehensive data, including both state and local district summaries. As our audience reads this report, we encourage them to do so alongside the online reports. These online reports present state-wide averages as well as district averages compared to state averages. In subsequent years, these reports will provide longitudinal data, comparing one year’s data with the prior collections.
An important feature of the report is the correlation of the data with the state School Nutrition Program’s database of student enrollment in the Free and Reduced Meals Program (F/R%), which makes it possible to look at the extent of Tennessee’s “Digital Divide”.
Access to the data will help school districts assess needs that are key to developing long-range strategic technology plans. Each school can also use its data as part of its school improvement process.
The Department of Education thanks the local school systems, their Directors, principals, and technology coordinators who provided the data in a timely manner. Thanks are also due the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis in Memphis, Tennessee for technical support and operation of the technology inventory system.
The project is funded by a portion of the state’s portion of its Title II Part D project administration funds (CFDA #84-318X). The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the TESS survey process, elements, and reports. (Available online http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/pg34.html)
Digital Divide Analysis
The first TESS 2010 report presented is the Digital Divide report. These graphs provide quantitative summaries of the extent of a digital divide in Tennessee schools. The data have been compiled using the most up-to-date information available on technology resources in Tennessee Schools (TESS of March 2010) and data from the state’s School Nutrition Program (F/R%). Data are displayed and discussed for each year that they have been collected.
Each element was plotted as a function of the percentage of students enrolled in the Free and Reduced Meals program. For the purposes of these reports, schools with a F/R% greater than 70% are generally considered to be “high poverty” schools. Schools with a F/R% less than 11% are considered to be “low poverty” or affluent schools.
1. Student to Computer Ratio. The smaller the number of students per computer, the greater the access to computers the students are able to have in a school.
The E-TOTE 2003 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio stands at 3.9:1. Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that a very small gap does remain—less than half a student (3.71 vs. 4.11). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap is larger: affluent schools average 4.55 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 5.45 students per computer
2. The E-TOTE 2004 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio stands at 3.9:1 Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that a very small gap does remain—less than three-fourths of a student (4.14 vs. 3.52). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap is larger: affluent schools average 4.39 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 4.14 students per computer.
3. The TESS 2005 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio stands at 3.0:1 Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that the gap broadened—almost 2 children more (6.4 vs. 4.6). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap is slightly smaller: affluent schools average 4.6 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 6.1 students per computer.
4. The TESS 2006 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio remains at 3.0:1 Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that the gap did not technically change from 2005, (6.7 vs. 4.9). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap is slightly smaller: affluent schools
average 4.8 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 6.5 students per computer. Available at
http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
5. The TESS 2007 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio remains at 3.0:1
Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that the gap changed only slightly, reflecting a slight decrease in students to computers for higher socio-economic areas. No changes occurred in schools with larger low socio-economic populations(6.7 vs. 6.7). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap is slightly smaller: affluent schools average 3.8 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 6 students per computer. Available at http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
6. The TESS 2008 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio is 2.0:1. This ratio is calculated by counting both mid/high capacity computers and older low capacity computers for student use. Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that the gap changed only slightly, reflecting a slight increase in students to computers for higher socio-economic areas. Only slight changes occurred in schools with larger low socio-economic populations of 70% or more (6.7 vs. 6.3). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap remains smaller: affluent schools average 4.8 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 5.8 students per computer.
Available at http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
7. The TESS 2009 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio is 2.0:1. This ratio is calculated by counting both mid/high capacity computers and older low capacity computers for student use. Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that the gap changed only slightly, reflecting a slight increase in students to computers for higher socio-economic areas. Only slight changes occurred in schools with larger low socio-economic populations of 70% or more (6.3 vs.6.7). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap remains smaller: affluent schools average 6.7 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 6.3 students per computer. Available at http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
8. Classrooms Connected to the Internet 2006
Classrooms having at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use are fairly consistent with the exception of the moderately affluent schools. There, only 27.2% of classrooms have at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use. For classrooms with teacher Internet access however, the gap is closing. However, the moderately affluent schools do have the lowest percentage of computers connected to the Internet for teacher use (23.5%).
9. Classrooms Connected to the Internet 2007
The percent of classrooms having at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use has increased slightly from 2006 in the affluent and moderately affluent schools. The low and moderately low socio-economic schools had a slight decline in the percent of classrooms with Internet connectivity available for student use. For classrooms with teacher Internet access however, the gap is closing. However, the moderately affluent schools still have the lowest percentage of computers connected to the Internet for teacher use (22.2%).
10. Classrooms Connected to the Internet 2008
The number of classrooms having at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use has decreased slightly from 2007 in the affluent and moderately affluent schools. The low and moderately low socio-economic schools had a slight decline in the number of classrooms with Internet connectivity available for student use, as well. For classrooms with teacher Internet access however, there were no significant changes. However, the moderately affluent schools still report the lowest percentage of computers connected to the Internet for teacher use (20.3%). Figure 10: Classrooms Connected to Internet 2008
11. Classrooms Connected to the Internet 2009
The number of classrooms having at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use has increased slightly from 2008 in the affluent and moderately affluent schools. The low and moderately low socio-economic schools had a slight decline in the number of classrooms with Internet connectivity available for student use. For classrooms with Internet access for the teacher, there was a moderate decrease in schools with less than 11% free and reduced population. However, the moderately affluent schools still report the lowest percentage of computers connected to the Internet for teacher use (20%).
http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
12. STaR Chart
Five out of 22 STaR chart areas were disaggregated as part of the Digital Divide report. They reveal:
Impact of Technology on Teacher Role and Collaborative Learning (Item A): In 2006, teachers in moderately affluent and affluent schools were more likely to have students using technology for cooperative projects in their own classrooms (developing, advanced, and target) than for individual projects (early). In other schools, teachers were more equally divided between the early and developing level of impact.
In 2007, the moderately affluent schools were the most likely to have students using technology for cooperative projects in their own classrooms (developing and advanced) than for individual projects (early) . However, the affluent schools rated themselves overall lower in 2007, with 25.1% in the early area as compared to only 19.1% in 2006.
In 2008, a decrease in schools ranking themselves as target was obvious. Of the affluent schools, 0% ranked themselves as achieving the target, and 40.9% believed they were advanced, with more than half (56.8) rating themselves as being in the developmental stage. In the moderately affluent schools, only 3.2% ranked themselves as being in the target area, modeling student-centered learning with the teacher as a mentor to the students, while almost 60% believed they were in the development stage, and 14.1% were in the early stage. The general trend continued in the less affluent schools. In the schools with higher rates of free or reduced lunches, almost 25% of the teachers were still most likely to have students engaged in individual projects and deliver teacher centered lectures (early stage), and with about half of the teachers utilizing some collaborative projects in their classrooms, but with teacher directed learning. Roughly 20% of the teachers in the schools with 31% and greater free and reduced lunches were in the advanced area in utilizing technology for cooperative projects in their own classrooms. Students in these classrooms are using technology to create communities of inquiry within their own community, while the teacher facilitates the learning process.
In 2009, of the affluent schools, 4.2% ranked themselves as achieving the target, and 16.9% believed they were advanced, with seventy percent (70.4) rating themselves as being in the developmental stage. 8.5% rated themselves as being in the early stage. In the moderately affluent schools, only 4.6% ranked themselves as being in the target area, modeling student-centered learning with the teacher as a mentor to the students, while 58.3% believed they were in the development stage, and 10.6% were in the early stage. The general trend continued in the less affluent schools. In the schools with higher rates of free or reduced lunches, almost 25% of the teachers were still most likely to have students engaged in individual projects and deliver teacher centered lectures (early stage), and with about half of the teachers utilizing some collaborative projects in their classrooms, but with teacher directed learning. Almost 24% of the teachers in the schools with 31% and greater free and reduced lunches were in the advanced area in utilizing technology for cooperative projects in their own classrooms. Students in these classrooms are using technology to create communities of inquiry within their own community, while the teacher facilitates the learning process.
Patterns of Teacher Use of Technology (Item B): In 2006, using technology as a supplement (early) characterized a significantly larger percentage of teachers in high poverty schools than in more affluent ones. Approximately 20 percent of use in non-poverty schools tended toward using technology to streamline administrative functions (developing). Statewide, whether poverty or not, about half to two thirds of teachers used technology for research, lesson planning, presentations, and correspondence (advanced).
There were no significant changes in patterns of use in 2007. In the lower SES schools, more teachers were determined to be in early stage than in the previous year. It does appear though that there were decreases in the percentage of teachers in the developing stage in the more affluent schools, with a slight increase in the lesser affluent schools. The percentage of teachers that were considered to be in the advanced stage grew in affluent schools, and slightly decreased in schools with higher poverty levels. Across all of the soci0-economics descriptions, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of teachers in the target classification.
In the data collected for 2008, the most affluent schools rated themselves as either in the developing stage or the advanced stage. Moderately affluent schools dramatically increased the number of teachers (73%) that were in the advanced range from prior years.
Less affluent school increased the percents of teacher in the target range, slightly reducing the percentage of teachers in the early and developing areas. A slight increase in the percentage of teachers in the target area should be noted as well, (12.6% and 14% respectively).
In the data collected for 2009, the most affluent schools rated themselves as either in the developing stage or the advanced stage. Moderately affluent schools slightly increased the number of teachers (76.5%) that were in the advanced range from prior years.
Less affluent school increased the percents of teacher in the target range, slightly reducing the percentage of teachers in the early and developing areas. A slight increase in the percentage of teachers in the target area should be noted as well, (13.8% and 17.9% respectively).
Frequency/Design of Instructional Setting Using Digital Content (Item C). Having only occasional computer use in the library or lab setting is considered a low score. In 2006, students in high-poverty schools were less likely to be in schools characterized at this low level (19%) than the state average (25%) of their affluent peers (29.8%). These same high-poverty schools reported the highest percentage in each of the other levels: [developing-38%] regular weekly computer use to supplement classroom instruction, primarily in lab and library settings; [advanced-33%] regular weekly use integrated into curriculum activities in various settings; and [target-5%] on-demand access for completing activities seamlessly integrated into all core areas.
In 2007, the trends were slightly improved. The most noticeable change occurred in the developing stage and the advanced stage. On average, over 2 percent of teachers moved from developing to advanced, and approximately 1 percent of teachers moved out of the early stage and into the developing stage.
The 2008 data reveals a large growth in the advanced area of the frequency and design of the instructional setting using digital content. The advanced level is described as “daily, with activities organized by grade, discipline, or classes; labs, libraries, all classrooms and some portable technology; and flexible scheduling”. The target level, which is described as seamlessly integrated throughout all classes and subjects on a daily basis is still about the same as previous years, with the exception of the most affluent schools, ranking themselves now as less than 9.1 percent divided between the target area and early level.
The 2009 data reveals a fairly significant decrease since last year in the advanced area of the frequency and design of the instructional setting using digital content. The advanced level is described as “daily, with activities organized by grade, discipline, or classes; labs, libraries, all classrooms and some portable technology; and flexible scheduling”. The target level, which is described as seamlessly integrated throughout all classes and subjects on a daily basis is still about the same as previous years, with the exception of the most affluent schools, ranking themselves now as 12.7.
Curriculum Areas (Item D): In 2006, about half (50%) of schools reported statewide that the use of technology in core curriculum areas was at the Advanced stage, which is characterized by integration into core subject areas, and activities that are separated by subject and grade. At this stage, the digital divide is small. In contrast, the high-poverty schools did show a slightly higher percentage of schools at the Advanced level. The percentage of high-poverty schools considering technology integral to all subject areas (Target level) approached that of the affluent schools, but both percentages for this target were around 25%.
In 2007, affluent schools showed the most change. The developing stage grew from 21.5 in 2006 to 37.2 in 2007, yielding a 13% percent increase. The advanced stage shrank 17%, from 50.9 in 2006 to 33.9 in 2007. The target stage was slightly increased by 4.7 % (23.9 in 2006 vs. 26.8 in 2007). Moderately affluent schools and poverty schools did not reveal any significant changes.
The 2008 data reveal an increase in percentages of schools that perceive the technology as being integrated into subject area and activities are separated by grade, discipline, or classes. On average, half of all teachers, regardless of the socio-economic status of their school, are in the advanced range. There was also an increase in the target range (Integral to all content areas and integrated on a daily basis) for moderately affluent schools, and all lower SES schools.
The 2009 data reveal an increase in percentages of schools that perceive the technology as being integrated into subject area and activities are separated by grade, discipline, or classes. The percentage of teachers in the advanced range remained virtually unchanged, with the exception of highly affluent schools, which decreased slightly, thus increasing the developing stage.
On average, one-third of all teachers, regardless of the socio-economic status of their school, are in the advanced range. (Integral to all content areas and integrated on a daily basis) for moderately affluent schools, and all lower SES schools.
Patterns of Student Use (Item F): In 2006, little distinction could be seen in the patterns of student use based on poverty. Statewide, the levels cluster around early and developing. At the early stage, students occasionally use software applications and/or tutorial drill and practice software. This characterizes roughly half of the schools. At the developing stage, student use is regular and individual, for accessing electronic information and for projects. Slightly more high-poverty schools (40%) fit in this developing category than did the affluent schools (34%). Roughly the top twenty percent of schools in every category fit in either the advanced or target area.
In 2007, approximately 7% of affluent schools and 8% of high poverty schools rated their patterns of student use as being in the Target range. The Tennessee Star chart describes the Target range as students working collaboratively in communities of inquiry to propose, assess, and implement solutions to real world problems, as well as communicating effectively with a variety of audiences. Proportionately, patterns of student use did not change significantly in 2007.
The 2008 TESS survey yielded data showing slight but rather proportionate improvement across all socio-economic levels. The data seem to suggest that the highest poverty schools have improved the most, but likely not a significant level since last year. While the more affluent schools appear to have about ¾ of their students functioning at the developing to advanced levels.
The 2009 TESS survey yielded data showing a slight a slight change in the affluent schools. The distribution changed, due to the increase of the percentage of students in the target range (11.3%). The data seem to suggest that the moderately affluent to lesser affluent schools have not significantly changed.
13. Home Internet Access
In 2006, the Digital Divide was the most pronounced with home Internet access, especially student home Internet access. While the statewide average for student home Internet access was 60.87%, over three-quarters of the students from affluent homes have home Internet, while less than half of high-poverty students did. While not as dramatic, faculty home Internet access also illustrated a digital divide. The state average was 88.88%, with 91% from affluent schools and 87% from high-poverty schools.
2007 data did not reveal a significant improvement in Internet access for students or teachers in Tennessee. The previous trends are still visible. Students in high poverty schools continue to have less access to the Internet at home than do students from affluent and moderately affluent schools. Faculty home Internet access also illustrated a digital divide, but not significantly different from last year. The statewide average for student access at home was 62.6%, while 51.4% high poverty school children report having access at home, 73.8% of students in affluent schools have Internet access at home.
2008 data did not reveal a significant improvement in Internet access for students or teachers in Tennessee. Students in affluent schools that had Internet access at home increased from 66.8% to 92.9%. Teachers at those same schools realized almost a 7% increase in those that had Internet access in their homes. Students in high poverty schools continue to have less access to the Internet at home than do students from affluent and moderately affluent schools. Faculty home Internet access also illustrated a digital divide, with a slight decrease in availability from the previous year.
2008 data did not reveal a significant improvement in Internet access for students or teachers in Tennessee. Students in affluent schools that had Internet access at home decreased from 92.9% to 76.3. Teachers at those same schools realized almost a 2% decrease in those that had Internet access in their homes. Students in high poverty schools continue to have less access to the Internet at home than do students from affluent and moderately affluent schools.
Statewide and District Summary Reports
The TESS Reports present data for each section of the survey. While data were collected at the individual school level, the 2009 reports present to the public the state and district averages. Individual school districts have controlled access to their individual school reports, and each individual school has controlled access to its own reports.
One can view a state report, or by using the drop down menu on the opening page of TESS can choose a district to view. However, on the state reports, under each reporting category is a link to view district by district detailed reports. Available here: http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
We encourage district and school technology planners to use their TESS 2009 data reports as they make infrastructure plans, structure professional development opportunities, and design embedded student technology literacy implementations and assessments.
Here, we explain the data items and make note of any particularly striking findings. Since we do not intend to repeat all the data in this summary document, be sure to refer to the online report for the complete data picture.
Section 1: Profile Data
In a district-level profile, TESS collected the number of technicians and technology trainers (in full-time equivalents). These figures were used to compute the average computer-to-technician ratio and the teacher-to-trainer ratio. While every district assigns an employee with the responsibilities of “technology coordinator,” this position was a full-time position in 88.5% of the districts in 2006, and 84.6 % of the districts in 2007. The computer-to-technician ratio was 774 to 1 in 2006 and 653.6 to 1 in 2007. In 2006, sixty-two percent (62%) of school districts had someone on staff that served at least part-time in the capacity of technology trainer for teachers, while in 2007 it was reported at sixty-three percent (63.0 %). In 2006, 60260.6 teachers were reported in the state, thus, making the teacher-to-trainer ratio at 515 to 1. In 2007, 62057.8 were reported to TESS, thus the teacher-to-trainer ratio changed to 589.1 to 1.
The 2008 data revealed that the technology coordinator position was a full-time position in 87.6% of the districts that completed the survey. The percentage has increased to 90.2% in 2009. The statewide average for computer to technician ratio is 629.2:1. 2009 data showed the computer to technician ratio was 679:1 .As of 2008, 66% of Tennessee’s school districts had technology trainers that served teachers. Almost sixty nine percent (68.6%) of school districts currently have staff that serve as technology trainers for teachers in 2009. The statewide average teacher to technology trainer ratio was 520.5:1. 2009 data show an increase in the number of teachers to technology trainers; the ratio is now 522.1:1.
Other district profile information included data on use of the state internet backbone; existence of district web pages, hosting of school web pages, and presence of web masters; types of e-mail service, and policy on student e-mail use at school.
The ConnecTEN initiative has been hailed by some as the first statewide K-12 internet backbone in the country. In 2006, 80% of Tennessee’s public school districts relied totally on the state backbone for internet service to individual schools. Twenty-nine percent use the state backbone to connect to a single egress point in the district; and 4% report not using the state internet backbone at all. In 2007, 46.8% of Tennessee’s public school districts rely solely on the state backbone for internet service to individual schools. Fourteen percent use the state backbone to connect to a single egress point in the district; and 38.9% report not using the state internet backbone at all. In 2008, only 33.3% (43) districts rely totally on the ConnecTEN Internet backbone to carry Internet to each school building. 14.7% of the districts rely only on the ConnecTEN Internet backbone to carry Internet to a single egress point, and 51.9% do not utilize the ConnecTEN Internet backbone at all. The survey results for 2009 were not significantly different from 2008. There are currently 44 (33.3%) districts that relied totally on the state backbone for Internet service to individual schools. Twenty-seven districts (20.5 %) use the state backbone to connect to a single egress point in the district; 61 districts (46.2%) do not use the state backbone at all.
When the survey results were tabulated for 2006, only 113 school districts had a district home page and a significant portion of the districts hosted web pages for schools in their district (87). However, only 69 of the school districts reported having either a part- or full-time web master. In 2007, 125 school districts had district home pages and 101 districts hosted web pages for schools in their district. Seventy-nine (79) districts reported having either a part- or full-time web master. In addition to providing web access to schools, the ConnecTEN initiative also provided free e-mail accounts to public school educators in Tennessee. In 2006, for 51 of the districts, these accounts were their only official e-mail service. Twenty eight systems used both the state and their own district e-mail service. In 2007, 47 districts reported that they used the email accounts provided by the state. Fifty-seven (57) districts reported that they used both the state and their own district e-mail service. These data are no longer collected by the TESS survey.
Student e-mail was another matter entirely. In 2006, the vast majority of school districts (76) had policies that banned students from using e-mail at school. There were, however, twenty (20) school systems that provided e-mail to students from their own district e-mail server. Sixteen (16) of the districts permitted students to use free web-based e-mail at school. However, in 2007, only seventy-three (73) districts restricted students from using email at school. There were twenty (20) districts that provided e-mail to students from their own district e-mail server, and twenty-three (23) districts now allow students to use free web-based e-mail at school. In 2008, eighty (80) school districts reported that they did not allow students to use email at school. Only 22 districts provide student email accounts through their own email system, and twenty-seven (27) districts let students use free Web based email at school. TESS 2009 revealed that only 72 (54.5%) districts prohibit students from using email at school. Now, 27 (20.5%) districts provide email, and 33 (25.0%) allow their students access to free web based email.
At the school level, the profile collected the numbers of students, teachers, classrooms, and computer labs to provide comparable information from district to district. Student counts were used to calculate the student-to-computer ratio.
Section 2: STaR Chart
In 1996, the CEO Forum on Education and Technology initiated a five-year project which developed an annual assessment of the nation’s progress toward integrating technology into American classrooms. When the project was completed at the end of 2001, it had created a K-12 School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart to be used in assessing a school’s level of readiness in using technology. Tennessee informally adopted this rubric when it required its applicants for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (2001) pilot school program to use it as part of their needs analysis. The subsequent statewide use of the STaR chart in 2002 used a Texas modified version of the original CEO Forum STaR chart. Acknowledgement is due the Educational Technology Advisory Committee of the Texas Education Agency which graciously granted permission to the Tennessee Department of Education to adopt and adapt its STaR Chart.
Tennessee first requested districts to collect the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart information from every school in the Spring of 2002. This collection was in conjunction with the annual local consolidated application for federal funds and was required as part of the Title II Part D segment of the application. The STaR chart was subsequently revised to make it more sensitive to school-level indicators. The E-TOTE survey then incorporated this revised STaR Chart into its E-TOTE survey. The TESS reports operate essentially in the same manner.
The STaR Chart gives school principals a 22-point questionnaire to evaluate a school’s readiness to use technology. The four main areas in the STaR chart looked at the use of technology in Teaching and Learning, the Educators’ Preparation and Development, the use of technology by Administration and the Support Services surrounding it, and the Infrastructure for Technology. The six STaR Chart items that the state proposed to use in its report to the U. S. Department of Education on progress toward achieving the goals of Title II Part D of the No Child Left Behind Act are:
1. What difference does technology make in the teacher’s role and in collaborative learning? (*A)
2. How do teachers use technology? (*B)
3. How thoroughly is technology used in each of the curriculum areas? (*D)
4. How do students use technology? (*F)
5. What percentages of the teachers meet the ISTE technology proficiencies? (*H)
6. How many students are there for each internet-connected multi-media computer and how frequently does the school system replace the computers? (*R)
Each item in the STaR chart is scored independently of the others. By choosing the answer that “best fits” the school picture, the school identifies its current status as early, developing, advanced, or target. Items are grouped into four main categories. The categories are Teaching and Learning, Educator Preparation and Development, Administration and Support Services, Infrastructure for Technology. The category’s score is calculated by averaging the scores for the items in that category. Thus, the six indicators for Teaching and Learning are used to compute a single Teaching and Learning score.
When reporting STaR Chart results in the Digital Divide report, the stacked bar chart design was chosen in order that readers might readily see where the largest proportion of the state schools are found. The detailed state level report, however, reverted to presenting the percentage of schools that self-scored at each of the four levels.
Taken as a whole, all four of the main STaR chart categories were, not surprisingly, at the “developing” and advanced states in 2006. Because of this averaging effect, it is more informative to examine the indicators individually. Viewing the twenty-two individual indicators statewide, zero was at the early stage; fifteen were in the developing stage; seven were advanced, and one was at target. Capabilities of Educators (Question H) moved from the developing stage to the advanced stage.
In 2007, there was one significant change in the status remarked on the STaR Chart. All other questions remained in the same categories, with only slight variances in percents reported.
Section 3: Equipment Reports
School districts continue to invest in placing computer equipment in schools so that students can use them as tools in learning important core content. The equipment reports show where the computers are located in the schools and how many computers tend to be in individual classrooms. With the Internet available to every school, another part of the picture is how many classrooms have Internet connected computers available for students to use. The extent to which the Internet is available to students is also shown in how many computers in all locations are connected to the Internet.
One way schools can get more use from the computers they have is to move them from classroom to classroom on days when students are working on projects. Using wireless or laptop computers makes this much easier. When classes use computers in whole group instruction, various kinds of projection devices let all children see the computer display. The projection devices include the large screen television, LCD Panels, and interactive whiteboards.
Computer Count by Location.
Where do the high capacity computers tend to be clustered in Tennessee schools?
In 2006, schools reported that by far, the locations with the highest concentration of high capacity computers were the offices. However, offices accounted for only 6.3% of all the computers in schools. By contrast, 58.3% of the computers were located in classrooms, with 20.3% in computer labs, and 5.6% in libraries. Classrooms accounted for 77.8% of the total number of low capacity computers. Still, most classroom computers are mid-capacity (66.8%). Computer labs had a lower percentage of high capacity computers (20%) than did classrooms (58.3%).
In 2007, the definitions of High, Mid, and Low capacity computers were updated to reflect the following:
High Capacity: Pentium IV with 512mb Ram or Pentium Based Macintosh
Mid Capacity: Pentium III with 256mb Ram or Macintosh G4
Low Capacity: Pentium II with 128mb Ram or Macintosh G3......that are "school owned" and still in use in the school. A computer should only be counted once.
The 2007 data indicated that offices accounted for only 6.4% of all the computers in schools. The data revealed a slight increase from 2006, 54.4% of the computers were located in classrooms, with 20.8% in computer labs, and 5.7% in libraries. Classrooms accounted for 68.4% of the total number of low capacity computers. Classroom computers in the mid-capacity range (54.4%) were less common than computers in the low capacity range (68.4%). Computer labs had a lower percentage of high capacity computers (20.8%) than did classrooms (54.4%).
In 2008, the data indicated that offices accounted for 6.1% of all the high capacity computers in schools. The data revealed a slight decrease from 54.4% to 53.5 percent of high capacity computers in the classrooms from 2007 to 2008, but no change in computers labs and library percentages (20.8% in computer labs, and 5.7% in libraries). The percentage of high capacity mobile computers increased slightly from 12.6% to 13.8%. Classrooms accounted for 68.2% of the total number of low capacity computers, while classroom computers in the mid-capacity range (63.8%) were slightly less common. Computer labs had a lower percentage of high capacity computers (20.8%) than did classrooms (53.5%).
In 2009, the data indicated that offices accounted for 5.8% of all the high capacity computers in schools. The data revealed a slight decrease from 53.5 to 53.2 percent of high capacity computers in the classrooms from 2008 to 2009, but no change in computers labs and only a slight change in library percentages (20.8% in computer labs, and 5.4% in libraries). The percentage of high capacity mobile computers increased from 13.8% to 14.7%. Classrooms accounted for 68.8% of the total number of low capacity computers, while classroom computers in the mid-capacity range (61.1%) were slightly less common. Computer labs had a lower percentage of high capacity computers (20.8%) than did classrooms (53.2%).
Classrooms Connected to the Internet. Internet connectivity is widely accessible in Tennessee. Every school in the state has Internet access. While every classroom did not have Internet access in 2006, the percentage of classrooms with connectivity was still relatively high, with 84.5% of classrooms having at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use with 16% more providing teacher Internet access. The statewide average was 4.46 internet-connected computers per classroom. This statewide average suggested there may be sufficient computers to provide several internet-capable computers for every classroom. The manner in which the computers are actually distributed was a local decision.
In 2007, the percentage of classrooms with at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use was slightly lower (78.6%) than the previous year. Approximately 96% percent of classrooms had at least one computer connected to the Internet for teacher use. The statewide average for internet connected computers per classroom did not change (4.46) from the previous year’s data collection.
2008’s data revealed a small difference in Internet connectivity for the classrooms. Approximately eighty-two percent (81.7%) of classrooms had at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers across the state have a computer that is connected to the Internet for their use in their classrooms.
In 2009, the percentage of classrooms with at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use declined from 81.7% in 2008 to 77.4%. The percentage of classrooms with at least one computer connected to the Internet for teacher use declined, as well. It changed from 98% in 2008, to 94.9% in 2009. Only 20.7% of the classrooms in Tennessee have at least five (5) computers connected to the Internet.
Computer Projection Devices. In 2006, 20.3 percent of classrooms had some type of device for projecting the computer screen image. The percentage (51.4%) was significantly higher in labs. In 2007, 26% of classrooms had a projection device, and 64.7% of labs were equipped with projection equipment. In classrooms, the overwhelming majority of projection devices reported was TVs (30,673). LCDs (14,814) were reported at a slightly higher level that whiteboards (5,234). However, in lab settings, 1572 reported using LCDs, 1320 were equipped with TVs, and 563 had whiteboards. Data were not collected for these items after 2007.
Dominant Operating System/Platform. In 2006, approximately 17.2 % of Tennessee K-12 public schools reported having a mixed operating system platform environment. Windows was the dominant platform, with 73.9% of schools reporting a “Windows-only” and another 8.8% reporting a mixed environment with Windows predominating. No schools reported “Other” for an operating system. Macintosh was the sole platform in 8.9% of schools and dominant in another 8.4%. (We did not survey the operating system used for district offices or those used as web or file servers.)
In 2007, seventy-five percent (75%) of Tennessee K-12 public schools used Windows as the major operating system platform environment. Only 8.9% reported Mac as their sole operational platform. Seven and one-half percent of schools reported that they used both platforms, but predominantly Mac, and inversely 8.5% reported using both but with Windows as the predominant platform. No schools reported Dos or Linux as the operating systems. After 2007, these data were no longer collected by TESS.
Section 4: Network Access and Capabilities
Portable laptop computers and wireless technologies have been emerging as an important piece of the picture for network capability, both within and outside the school. Twenty percent of schools used wireless laptop computing but a significant percentage of schools (8.5%) had no wireless or laptop computing available. Laptops in general, however, were used only slightly more for administrative uses than for teacher or student use. Slight improvements were reported for 2007. Twenty and one-half percent of schools are now using laptop computing, and only 6.8% reported having no wireless or laptop computing available. However, laptop usage was still higher in the administrative area (29.3%) than usage by teachers (26.6%) or by student (16.9%). These data were not collected after 2007.
With the continued growth and improvements in technology, TESS - 2008 collected data for services related to technology that were available after school hours. Only 1.5% of the schools reported NO laptop or wireless computing was available. Nearly fifty-eight percent (57.5%) reported that online Internet resources were available after school hours. In 13.9% of the schools, there were teacher led courses available, and in .4% of schools, there were interactive video courses made available. However, 26.7% reported that there were no after hours resources available. 2009 data collected through TESS revealed very little change. Almost two percent (1.9%) reported having NO laptop or wireless computing available after school hours. Fifty-eight percent reported having Internet resources available. While only .2% had interactive video courses, 13.4% had teacher led courses. No after hours resources were available in 26.4% of the districts.
For the home-school communication item, schools checked which electronic communication methods were in place. The choices were telephone homework hotline, voice bulletins/voice mail, school or district website, and none. The prevailing method was through a school or district website (54.1%). Statewide it was reported that only 58% of students had Internet access at home. From 2006 to 2007, little has changed in this area of home-school communications. 55% of schools reported using their school or district website as their primary method of mass home-school communications. It was estimated that approximately 59% of students have Internet access at their homes, and 89% of teacher have Internet access at home. There seems to be little change in the percentage of students that have Internet access at home, with the 2008 data reporting 59.70%, the 2009 report shows approximately 61.32%. Teacher accessibility to the Internet at their homes increased slightly from the previous year 91.16% to 92.28 in 2009.
In 2008, the home school communication question was changed to ask, “Does your system utilize safety/emergency alerts to parents and/or students?” Of 1702 responses, 70.4% responded with “yes”, and 29.6% responded with “no”. 2009 reports show that 80.3% have electronic safety alert to parents and students, while 19.7% still do not utilize them.
Section 5: Eighth Grade Student Technology Literacy
Title II Part D of No Child Left Behind says that all students are expected to be technologically literate by the time they leave the eighth grade. Never before has this been an explicit federal goal, so it offered a new challenge to educators in elementary and middle schools. In 2006, to gather information about the state of student technology literacy in Tennessee, the survey asked principals to determine what percentage of their eighth graders met ten different performance indicators. These ten indicators were taken from the eighth grade performance criteria available at: ISTE NETS Standards for Students: http://cnets.iste.org/currstands/cstands-netss.html from the nationally recognized work of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Tennessee’s curriculum standards for technology were also derived from this ISTE work. Technology literacy is NOT one of the subject areas tested by Tennessee’s student assessment program.
According to the survey, eighth grade student technology literacy was not generally high across the state. The average literacy rate (across all ten factors) was 58%. Educators did not have a common method for assessing student technology literacy. Nineteen percent of school principals indicated no organized way to ascertain student technology literacy while only 4.5% reported using a student self-reported skills checklist. Sixty-two percent based their reports on estimates by informal teacher reporting.
In 2007, an additional question was added to the TESS survey concerning 8th grade technology literacy. In order to satisfy a report required by the USDoE, the exact number of 8th grader that were deemed to be technology literate was recorded, as well as, the exact number of 8th graders that were deemed not to be technology literate. However, the methods used to determine literacy are not static across the state. The resulting totals were approximately 65% were deemed literate, and 19.6% were deemed not technology literate, the remaining 15% were not reported.
The State Board of Education in Tennessee adopted the revised student technology standards developed and published by ISTE. The NETS*S refreshed brought about a change in TESS, as well. The eighth grade literacy portion of the survey is now aligned with the most current standards. The reporting methods are not free from bias or error, and are not consistent from school to school or even district to district. The data this year reveals that 70.51% of eighth graders are deemed to be technology literate, while 26.18% are deemed not to be literate in the area of technology. The remaining 3.31% falls into the not reported group. (The ISTE-NETS chart below (Figure 14) illustrates the percent of eighth graders that are literate in each competency.
As reported for 8th Graders (n=70915)
ISTE-NETS Competencies 2008 State Totals
1 Describe and illustrate a content-related concept or process using a model, simulation, or concept-mapping software. (1, 2) 49.0%
2 Create original animations or videos documenting school, community, or local events. (1, 2, 6) 36.6%
3 Gather data, examine patterns, and apply information for decision making using digital tools and resources. (1, 4) 54.4%
4 Participate in a cooperative learning project in an online learning community. (2) 42.7%
5 Evaluate digital resources to determine the credibility of the author and publisher and the timeliness and accuracy of the content. (3) 47.7%
6 Employ data-collection technology such as probes, handheld devices, and geographic mapping systems to gather, view, analyze, and report results for content-related problems. (3, 4, 6) 34.9%
7 Select and use the appropriate tools and digital resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and to solve problems. (3, 4, 6) 55.8%
8 Select and use appropriate tools and technology resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and solve problems. 37.8%
9 Demonstrate an understanding of concepts underlying hardware, software, and connectivity, and of practical applications to learning and problem solving. 60.9%
10 Independently develop and apply strategies for identifying and solving routine hardware and software problems. (4, 6) 35.4%
The 2009 data collected by TESS exposed an estimated 75.36 percent of eighth graders in Tennessee were deemed Technologically Literate, leaving 24.64 % that were considered to be NOT technologically literate. Across the ISTE competencies, eighth grade student technology literacy was not generally high across the state. The average literacy rate (across all ten factors) was 51.01%.
Eighth Grade Technology Profile
As reported for 8th Graders (n=70012)
ISTE-NETS Competencies State Totals
1 Describe and illustrate a content-related concept or process using a model, simulation, or concept-mapping software. (1, 2) 51.9%
2 Create original animations or videos documenting school, community, or local events. (1, 2, 6) 41.1%
3 Gather data, examine patterns, and apply information for decision making using digital tools and resources. (1, 4) 59.4%
4 Participate in a cooperative learning project in an online learning community. (2) 44.3%
5 Evaluate digital resources to determine the credibility of the author and publisher and the timeliness and accuracy of the content. (3) 52.9%
6 Employ data-collection technology such as probes, handheld devices, and geographic mapping systems to gather, view, analyze, and report results for content-related problems. (3, 4, 6) 42.0%
7 Select and use the appropriate tools and digital resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and to solve problems. (3, 4, 6) 61.5%
8 Select and use appropriate tools and technology resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and solve problems. 42.1%
9 Demonstrate an understanding of concepts underlying hardware, software, and connectivity, and of practical applications to learning and problem solving. 77.4%
10 Independently develop and apply strategies for identifying and solving routine hardware and software problems. (4, 6) 37.5%
Educators did not have a common method for assessing student technology literacy. Almost 17 percent (16.5%) of school principals indicated no organized way to ascertain student technology literacy while only 4.8% reported using a student self-reported skills checklist. Fifty seven percent based their reports on estimates by informal teacher reporting. Only about 6% of educators used an end of experience test or a performance based authentic assessment to determine the students’ technology literacy.
Eighth Grade process of gathering data 2009
No organized way to ascertain the information16.5%
Estimates based on teacher informal reporting 57.2%
Student self-reported skills checklist 4.8%
Teacher informal observation using skills checklist 10.7%
Site-developed technology literacy test4.8%
End-of-experience test for technology application experience 3.0%
Performance-based authentic assessment (portfolios)2.9%
Section 6: Assistive Technologies
The final survey item asked whether assistive technology was used by students with disabilities or students with learning difficulties. Assistive technology was described as portable word processors and braillers, electronic communication aids for speech or computers with adaptive devices. In aggregate, 63.3% of schools indicated that these technologies were used, either for students with IEPs or 504 Plans, or for students with difficulties but without special education services. However, 3.7% indicated that either most were aware but not trained, not aware, or a clear process was not in place for obtaining assistive technology. The other (28%) responses generally indicated that no need existed.
In 2007, the same questions were asked. When combined, 65.7% of schools indicated that these technologies were used, either for students with IEPs or 504 Plans, or for students with difficulties but without special education services. However, 3.1% indicated that either most were aware but not trained, not aware, or a clear process was not in place for obtaining assistive technology. The other (27 %) responses generally indicated that no need existed. Data for this area are no longer collected.
Data Collection Notes
Timeframe: The data collection period for TESS 2006 extended from February 1, 2007, through March 15, 2007. The data collection period for TESS 2007 was mid-October 2007 through February of 2008. The data collection period for TESS 2008 was from mid November 2008 through March 20, 2009. The data collection for TESS 2009 was from mid November 2009 through mid March, 2010.
Participation: Completing the TESS survey in a timely manner is required of all districts that receive Title II D funds.
Exceptions: The 2007 survey collected information from some Adult High Schools throughout the state. However, their data were not included in the district averages. This was because the students enrolled in these schools typically follow highly individualized schedules that tended to skew the numbers used to calculate student to computer ratios and computers per classroom. In some cases, these schools were located in facilities that were either not owned or operated by the local school district. These schools were encouraged to complete the surveys so they could compare their own picture with district and statewide averages. A more informed decision needs to be made regarding these schools in future data collections.
A Status Report on Technology in Tennessee Schools
2009-2010 Technology in Education Survey System (TESS)
About the Inventory
The TESS survey marks the start of a yearly snapshot of the use of technology in Tennessee K-12 public schools. This statewide inventory is completed annually at each school by a person designated by the principal. Its data will help measure progress toward specified targets in key areas.
The key target areas are the goals specified by the Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001 (Title II Part D of No Child Left Behind). The goals are:
• Improving student academic achievement through the use of technology,
• advancing student technology literacy, and
• encouraging effective integration with teacher training to establish instructional methods and best practices.
Key to achieving these goals is providing all students with access to technology resources and developing teacher competence in using technology to meet instructional goals.
The Tennessee Department of Education is pleased to release the online reports to the public. Available at http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp the reports provide comprehensive data, including both state and local district summaries. As our audience reads this report, we encourage them to do so alongside the online reports. These online reports present state-wide averages as well as district averages compared to state averages. In subsequent years, these reports will provide longitudinal data, comparing one year’s data with the prior collections.
An important feature of the report is the correlation of the data with the state School Nutrition Program’s database of student enrollment in the Free and Reduced Meals Program (F/R%), which makes it possible to look at the extent of Tennessee’s “Digital Divide”.
Access to the data will help school districts assess needs that are key to developing long-range strategic technology plans. Each school can also use its data as part of its school improvement process.
The Department of Education thanks the local school systems, their Directors, principals, and technology coordinators who provided the data in a timely manner. Thanks are also due the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis in Memphis, Tennessee for technical support and operation of the technology inventory system.
The project is funded by a portion of the state’s portion of its Title II Part D project administration funds (CFDA #84-318X). The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the TESS survey process, elements, and reports. (Available online http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/pg34.html)
Digital Divide Analysis
The first TESS 2010 report presented is the Digital Divide report. These graphs provide quantitative summaries of the extent of a digital divide in Tennessee schools. The data have been compiled using the most up-to-date information available on technology resources in Tennessee Schools (TESS of March 2010) and data from the state’s School Nutrition Program (F/R%). Data are displayed and discussed for each year that they have been collected.
Each element was plotted as a function of the percentage of students enrolled in the Free and Reduced Meals program. For the purposes of these reports, schools with a F/R% greater than 70% are generally considered to be “high poverty” schools. Schools with a F/R% less than 11% are considered to be “low poverty” or affluent schools.
1. Student to Computer Ratio. The smaller the number of students per computer, the greater the access to computers the students are able to have in a school.
The E-TOTE 2003 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio stands at 3.9:1. Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that a very small gap does remain—less than half a student (3.71 vs. 4.11). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap is larger: affluent schools average 4.55 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 5.45 students per computer
2. The E-TOTE 2004 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio stands at 3.9:1 Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that a very small gap does remain—less than three-fourths of a student (4.14 vs. 3.52). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap is larger: affluent schools average 4.39 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 4.14 students per computer.
3. The TESS 2005 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio stands at 3.0:1 Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that the gap broadened—almost 2 children more (6.4 vs. 4.6). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap is slightly smaller: affluent schools average 4.6 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 6.1 students per computer.
4. The TESS 2006 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio remains at 3.0:1 Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that the gap did not technically change from 2005, (6.7 vs. 4.9). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap is slightly smaller: affluent schools
average 4.8 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 6.5 students per computer. Available at
http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
5. The TESS 2007 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio remains at 3.0:1
Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that the gap changed only slightly, reflecting a slight decrease in students to computers for higher socio-economic areas. No changes occurred in schools with larger low socio-economic populations(6.7 vs. 6.7). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap is slightly smaller: affluent schools average 3.8 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 6 students per computer. Available at http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
6. The TESS 2008 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio is 2.0:1. This ratio is calculated by counting both mid/high capacity computers and older low capacity computers for student use. Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that the gap changed only slightly, reflecting a slight increase in students to computers for higher socio-economic areas. Only slight changes occurred in schools with larger low socio-economic populations of 70% or more (6.7 vs. 6.3). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap remains smaller: affluent schools average 4.8 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 5.8 students per computer.
Available at http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
7. The TESS 2009 data for all computers show the statewide student to computer ratio is 2.0:1. This ratio is calculated by counting both mid/high capacity computers and older low capacity computers for student use. Data for all computers disaggregated by poverty show that the gap changed only slightly, reflecting a slight increase in students to computers for higher socio-economic areas. Only slight changes occurred in schools with larger low socio-economic populations of 70% or more (6.3 vs.6.7). When looking only at the higher capacity computers, the gap remains smaller: affluent schools average 6.7 students per computer, while high poverty schools have 6.3 students per computer. Available at http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
8. Classrooms Connected to the Internet 2006
Classrooms having at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use are fairly consistent with the exception of the moderately affluent schools. There, only 27.2% of classrooms have at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use. For classrooms with teacher Internet access however, the gap is closing. However, the moderately affluent schools do have the lowest percentage of computers connected to the Internet for teacher use (23.5%).
9. Classrooms Connected to the Internet 2007
The percent of classrooms having at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use has increased slightly from 2006 in the affluent and moderately affluent schools. The low and moderately low socio-economic schools had a slight decline in the percent of classrooms with Internet connectivity available for student use. For classrooms with teacher Internet access however, the gap is closing. However, the moderately affluent schools still have the lowest percentage of computers connected to the Internet for teacher use (22.2%).
10. Classrooms Connected to the Internet 2008
The number of classrooms having at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use has decreased slightly from 2007 in the affluent and moderately affluent schools. The low and moderately low socio-economic schools had a slight decline in the number of classrooms with Internet connectivity available for student use, as well. For classrooms with teacher Internet access however, there were no significant changes. However, the moderately affluent schools still report the lowest percentage of computers connected to the Internet for teacher use (20.3%). Figure 10: Classrooms Connected to Internet 2008
11. Classrooms Connected to the Internet 2009
The number of classrooms having at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use has increased slightly from 2008 in the affluent and moderately affluent schools. The low and moderately low socio-economic schools had a slight decline in the number of classrooms with Internet connectivity available for student use. For classrooms with Internet access for the teacher, there was a moderate decrease in schools with less than 11% free and reduced population. However, the moderately affluent schools still report the lowest percentage of computers connected to the Internet for teacher use (20%).
http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
12. STaR Chart
Five out of 22 STaR chart areas were disaggregated as part of the Digital Divide report. They reveal:
Impact of Technology on Teacher Role and Collaborative Learning (Item A): In 2006, teachers in moderately affluent and affluent schools were more likely to have students using technology for cooperative projects in their own classrooms (developing, advanced, and target) than for individual projects (early). In other schools, teachers were more equally divided between the early and developing level of impact.
In 2007, the moderately affluent schools were the most likely to have students using technology for cooperative projects in their own classrooms (developing and advanced) than for individual projects (early) . However, the affluent schools rated themselves overall lower in 2007, with 25.1% in the early area as compared to only 19.1% in 2006.
In 2008, a decrease in schools ranking themselves as target was obvious. Of the affluent schools, 0% ranked themselves as achieving the target, and 40.9% believed they were advanced, with more than half (56.8) rating themselves as being in the developmental stage. In the moderately affluent schools, only 3.2% ranked themselves as being in the target area, modeling student-centered learning with the teacher as a mentor to the students, while almost 60% believed they were in the development stage, and 14.1% were in the early stage. The general trend continued in the less affluent schools. In the schools with higher rates of free or reduced lunches, almost 25% of the teachers were still most likely to have students engaged in individual projects and deliver teacher centered lectures (early stage), and with about half of the teachers utilizing some collaborative projects in their classrooms, but with teacher directed learning. Roughly 20% of the teachers in the schools with 31% and greater free and reduced lunches were in the advanced area in utilizing technology for cooperative projects in their own classrooms. Students in these classrooms are using technology to create communities of inquiry within their own community, while the teacher facilitates the learning process.
In 2009, of the affluent schools, 4.2% ranked themselves as achieving the target, and 16.9% believed they were advanced, with seventy percent (70.4) rating themselves as being in the developmental stage. 8.5% rated themselves as being in the early stage. In the moderately affluent schools, only 4.6% ranked themselves as being in the target area, modeling student-centered learning with the teacher as a mentor to the students, while 58.3% believed they were in the development stage, and 10.6% were in the early stage. The general trend continued in the less affluent schools. In the schools with higher rates of free or reduced lunches, almost 25% of the teachers were still most likely to have students engaged in individual projects and deliver teacher centered lectures (early stage), and with about half of the teachers utilizing some collaborative projects in their classrooms, but with teacher directed learning. Almost 24% of the teachers in the schools with 31% and greater free and reduced lunches were in the advanced area in utilizing technology for cooperative projects in their own classrooms. Students in these classrooms are using technology to create communities of inquiry within their own community, while the teacher facilitates the learning process.
Patterns of Teacher Use of Technology (Item B): In 2006, using technology as a supplement (early) characterized a significantly larger percentage of teachers in high poverty schools than in more affluent ones. Approximately 20 percent of use in non-poverty schools tended toward using technology to streamline administrative functions (developing). Statewide, whether poverty or not, about half to two thirds of teachers used technology for research, lesson planning, presentations, and correspondence (advanced).
There were no significant changes in patterns of use in 2007. In the lower SES schools, more teachers were determined to be in early stage than in the previous year. It does appear though that there were decreases in the percentage of teachers in the developing stage in the more affluent schools, with a slight increase in the lesser affluent schools. The percentage of teachers that were considered to be in the advanced stage grew in affluent schools, and slightly decreased in schools with higher poverty levels. Across all of the soci0-economics descriptions, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of teachers in the target classification.
In the data collected for 2008, the most affluent schools rated themselves as either in the developing stage or the advanced stage. Moderately affluent schools dramatically increased the number of teachers (73%) that were in the advanced range from prior years.
Less affluent school increased the percents of teacher in the target range, slightly reducing the percentage of teachers in the early and developing areas. A slight increase in the percentage of teachers in the target area should be noted as well, (12.6% and 14% respectively).
In the data collected for 2009, the most affluent schools rated themselves as either in the developing stage or the advanced stage. Moderately affluent schools slightly increased the number of teachers (76.5%) that were in the advanced range from prior years.
Less affluent school increased the percents of teacher in the target range, slightly reducing the percentage of teachers in the early and developing areas. A slight increase in the percentage of teachers in the target area should be noted as well, (13.8% and 17.9% respectively).
Frequency/Design of Instructional Setting Using Digital Content (Item C). Having only occasional computer use in the library or lab setting is considered a low score. In 2006, students in high-poverty schools were less likely to be in schools characterized at this low level (19%) than the state average (25%) of their affluent peers (29.8%). These same high-poverty schools reported the highest percentage in each of the other levels: [developing-38%] regular weekly computer use to supplement classroom instruction, primarily in lab and library settings; [advanced-33%] regular weekly use integrated into curriculum activities in various settings; and [target-5%] on-demand access for completing activities seamlessly integrated into all core areas.
In 2007, the trends were slightly improved. The most noticeable change occurred in the developing stage and the advanced stage. On average, over 2 percent of teachers moved from developing to advanced, and approximately 1 percent of teachers moved out of the early stage and into the developing stage.
The 2008 data reveals a large growth in the advanced area of the frequency and design of the instructional setting using digital content. The advanced level is described as “daily, with activities organized by grade, discipline, or classes; labs, libraries, all classrooms and some portable technology; and flexible scheduling”. The target level, which is described as seamlessly integrated throughout all classes and subjects on a daily basis is still about the same as previous years, with the exception of the most affluent schools, ranking themselves now as less than 9.1 percent divided between the target area and early level.
The 2009 data reveals a fairly significant decrease since last year in the advanced area of the frequency and design of the instructional setting using digital content. The advanced level is described as “daily, with activities organized by grade, discipline, or classes; labs, libraries, all classrooms and some portable technology; and flexible scheduling”. The target level, which is described as seamlessly integrated throughout all classes and subjects on a daily basis is still about the same as previous years, with the exception of the most affluent schools, ranking themselves now as 12.7.
Curriculum Areas (Item D): In 2006, about half (50%) of schools reported statewide that the use of technology in core curriculum areas was at the Advanced stage, which is characterized by integration into core subject areas, and activities that are separated by subject and grade. At this stage, the digital divide is small. In contrast, the high-poverty schools did show a slightly higher percentage of schools at the Advanced level. The percentage of high-poverty schools considering technology integral to all subject areas (Target level) approached that of the affluent schools, but both percentages for this target were around 25%.
In 2007, affluent schools showed the most change. The developing stage grew from 21.5 in 2006 to 37.2 in 2007, yielding a 13% percent increase. The advanced stage shrank 17%, from 50.9 in 2006 to 33.9 in 2007. The target stage was slightly increased by 4.7 % (23.9 in 2006 vs. 26.8 in 2007). Moderately affluent schools and poverty schools did not reveal any significant changes.
The 2008 data reveal an increase in percentages of schools that perceive the technology as being integrated into subject area and activities are separated by grade, discipline, or classes. On average, half of all teachers, regardless of the socio-economic status of their school, are in the advanced range. There was also an increase in the target range (Integral to all content areas and integrated on a daily basis) for moderately affluent schools, and all lower SES schools.
The 2009 data reveal an increase in percentages of schools that perceive the technology as being integrated into subject area and activities are separated by grade, discipline, or classes. The percentage of teachers in the advanced range remained virtually unchanged, with the exception of highly affluent schools, which decreased slightly, thus increasing the developing stage.
On average, one-third of all teachers, regardless of the socio-economic status of their school, are in the advanced range. (Integral to all content areas and integrated on a daily basis) for moderately affluent schools, and all lower SES schools.
Patterns of Student Use (Item F): In 2006, little distinction could be seen in the patterns of student use based on poverty. Statewide, the levels cluster around early and developing. At the early stage, students occasionally use software applications and/or tutorial drill and practice software. This characterizes roughly half of the schools. At the developing stage, student use is regular and individual, for accessing electronic information and for projects. Slightly more high-poverty schools (40%) fit in this developing category than did the affluent schools (34%). Roughly the top twenty percent of schools in every category fit in either the advanced or target area.
In 2007, approximately 7% of affluent schools and 8% of high poverty schools rated their patterns of student use as being in the Target range. The Tennessee Star chart describes the Target range as students working collaboratively in communities of inquiry to propose, assess, and implement solutions to real world problems, as well as communicating effectively with a variety of audiences. Proportionately, patterns of student use did not change significantly in 2007.
The 2008 TESS survey yielded data showing slight but rather proportionate improvement across all socio-economic levels. The data seem to suggest that the highest poverty schools have improved the most, but likely not a significant level since last year. While the more affluent schools appear to have about ¾ of their students functioning at the developing to advanced levels.
The 2009 TESS survey yielded data showing a slight a slight change in the affluent schools. The distribution changed, due to the increase of the percentage of students in the target range (11.3%). The data seem to suggest that the moderately affluent to lesser affluent schools have not significantly changed.
13. Home Internet Access
In 2006, the Digital Divide was the most pronounced with home Internet access, especially student home Internet access. While the statewide average for student home Internet access was 60.87%, over three-quarters of the students from affluent homes have home Internet, while less than half of high-poverty students did. While not as dramatic, faculty home Internet access also illustrated a digital divide. The state average was 88.88%, with 91% from affluent schools and 87% from high-poverty schools.
2007 data did not reveal a significant improvement in Internet access for students or teachers in Tennessee. The previous trends are still visible. Students in high poverty schools continue to have less access to the Internet at home than do students from affluent and moderately affluent schools. Faculty home Internet access also illustrated a digital divide, but not significantly different from last year. The statewide average for student access at home was 62.6%, while 51.4% high poverty school children report having access at home, 73.8% of students in affluent schools have Internet access at home.
2008 data did not reveal a significant improvement in Internet access for students or teachers in Tennessee. Students in affluent schools that had Internet access at home increased from 66.8% to 92.9%. Teachers at those same schools realized almost a 7% increase in those that had Internet access in their homes. Students in high poverty schools continue to have less access to the Internet at home than do students from affluent and moderately affluent schools. Faculty home Internet access also illustrated a digital divide, with a slight decrease in availability from the previous year.
2008 data did not reveal a significant improvement in Internet access for students or teachers in Tennessee. Students in affluent schools that had Internet access at home decreased from 92.9% to 76.3. Teachers at those same schools realized almost a 2% decrease in those that had Internet access in their homes. Students in high poverty schools continue to have less access to the Internet at home than do students from affluent and moderately affluent schools.
Statewide and District Summary Reports
The TESS Reports present data for each section of the survey. While data were collected at the individual school level, the 2009 reports present to the public the state and district averages. Individual school districts have controlled access to their individual school reports, and each individual school has controlled access to its own reports.
One can view a state report, or by using the drop down menu on the opening page of TESS can choose a district to view. However, on the state reports, under each reporting category is a link to view district by district detailed reports. Available here: http://www.crepsurveys.net/TESS/Public.jsp
We encourage district and school technology planners to use their TESS 2009 data reports as they make infrastructure plans, structure professional development opportunities, and design embedded student technology literacy implementations and assessments.
Here, we explain the data items and make note of any particularly striking findings. Since we do not intend to repeat all the data in this summary document, be sure to refer to the online report for the complete data picture.
Section 1: Profile Data
In a district-level profile, TESS collected the number of technicians and technology trainers (in full-time equivalents). These figures were used to compute the average computer-to-technician ratio and the teacher-to-trainer ratio. While every district assigns an employee with the responsibilities of “technology coordinator,” this position was a full-time position in 88.5% of the districts in 2006, and 84.6 % of the districts in 2007. The computer-to-technician ratio was 774 to 1 in 2006 and 653.6 to 1 in 2007. In 2006, sixty-two percent (62%) of school districts had someone on staff that served at least part-time in the capacity of technology trainer for teachers, while in 2007 it was reported at sixty-three percent (63.0 %). In 2006, 60260.6 teachers were reported in the state, thus, making the teacher-to-trainer ratio at 515 to 1. In 2007, 62057.8 were reported to TESS, thus the teacher-to-trainer ratio changed to 589.1 to 1.
The 2008 data revealed that the technology coordinator position was a full-time position in 87.6% of the districts that completed the survey. The percentage has increased to 90.2% in 2009. The statewide average for computer to technician ratio is 629.2:1. 2009 data showed the computer to technician ratio was 679:1 .As of 2008, 66% of Tennessee’s school districts had technology trainers that served teachers. Almost sixty nine percent (68.6%) of school districts currently have staff that serve as technology trainers for teachers in 2009. The statewide average teacher to technology trainer ratio was 520.5:1. 2009 data show an increase in the number of teachers to technology trainers; the ratio is now 522.1:1.
Other district profile information included data on use of the state internet backbone; existence of district web pages, hosting of school web pages, and presence of web masters; types of e-mail service, and policy on student e-mail use at school.
The ConnecTEN initiative has been hailed by some as the first statewide K-12 internet backbone in the country. In 2006, 80% of Tennessee’s public school districts relied totally on the state backbone for internet service to individual schools. Twenty-nine percent use the state backbone to connect to a single egress point in the district; and 4% report not using the state internet backbone at all. In 2007, 46.8% of Tennessee’s public school districts rely solely on the state backbone for internet service to individual schools. Fourteen percent use the state backbone to connect to a single egress point in the district; and 38.9% report not using the state internet backbone at all. In 2008, only 33.3% (43) districts rely totally on the ConnecTEN Internet backbone to carry Internet to each school building. 14.7% of the districts rely only on the ConnecTEN Internet backbone to carry Internet to a single egress point, and 51.9% do not utilize the ConnecTEN Internet backbone at all. The survey results for 2009 were not significantly different from 2008. There are currently 44 (33.3%) districts that relied totally on the state backbone for Internet service to individual schools. Twenty-seven districts (20.5 %) use the state backbone to connect to a single egress point in the district; 61 districts (46.2%) do not use the state backbone at all.
When the survey results were tabulated for 2006, only 113 school districts had a district home page and a significant portion of the districts hosted web pages for schools in their district (87). However, only 69 of the school districts reported having either a part- or full-time web master. In 2007, 125 school districts had district home pages and 101 districts hosted web pages for schools in their district. Seventy-nine (79) districts reported having either a part- or full-time web master. In addition to providing web access to schools, the ConnecTEN initiative also provided free e-mail accounts to public school educators in Tennessee. In 2006, for 51 of the districts, these accounts were their only official e-mail service. Twenty eight systems used both the state and their own district e-mail service. In 2007, 47 districts reported that they used the email accounts provided by the state. Fifty-seven (57) districts reported that they used both the state and their own district e-mail service. These data are no longer collected by the TESS survey.
Student e-mail was another matter entirely. In 2006, the vast majority of school districts (76) had policies that banned students from using e-mail at school. There were, however, twenty (20) school systems that provided e-mail to students from their own district e-mail server. Sixteen (16) of the districts permitted students to use free web-based e-mail at school. However, in 2007, only seventy-three (73) districts restricted students from using email at school. There were twenty (20) districts that provided e-mail to students from their own district e-mail server, and twenty-three (23) districts now allow students to use free web-based e-mail at school. In 2008, eighty (80) school districts reported that they did not allow students to use email at school. Only 22 districts provide student email accounts through their own email system, and twenty-seven (27) districts let students use free Web based email at school. TESS 2009 revealed that only 72 (54.5%) districts prohibit students from using email at school. Now, 27 (20.5%) districts provide email, and 33 (25.0%) allow their students access to free web based email.
At the school level, the profile collected the numbers of students, teachers, classrooms, and computer labs to provide comparable information from district to district. Student counts were used to calculate the student-to-computer ratio.
Section 2: STaR Chart
In 1996, the CEO Forum on Education and Technology initiated a five-year project which developed an annual assessment of the nation’s progress toward integrating technology into American classrooms. When the project was completed at the end of 2001, it had created a K-12 School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart to be used in assessing a school’s level of readiness in using technology. Tennessee informally adopted this rubric when it required its applicants for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (2001) pilot school program to use it as part of their needs analysis. The subsequent statewide use of the STaR chart in 2002 used a Texas modified version of the original CEO Forum STaR chart. Acknowledgement is due the Educational Technology Advisory Committee of the Texas Education Agency which graciously granted permission to the Tennessee Department of Education to adopt and adapt its STaR Chart.
Tennessee first requested districts to collect the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart information from every school in the Spring of 2002. This collection was in conjunction with the annual local consolidated application for federal funds and was required as part of the Title II Part D segment of the application. The STaR chart was subsequently revised to make it more sensitive to school-level indicators. The E-TOTE survey then incorporated this revised STaR Chart into its E-TOTE survey. The TESS reports operate essentially in the same manner.
The STaR Chart gives school principals a 22-point questionnaire to evaluate a school’s readiness to use technology. The four main areas in the STaR chart looked at the use of technology in Teaching and Learning, the Educators’ Preparation and Development, the use of technology by Administration and the Support Services surrounding it, and the Infrastructure for Technology. The six STaR Chart items that the state proposed to use in its report to the U. S. Department of Education on progress toward achieving the goals of Title II Part D of the No Child Left Behind Act are:
1. What difference does technology make in the teacher’s role and in collaborative learning? (*A)
2. How do teachers use technology? (*B)
3. How thoroughly is technology used in each of the curriculum areas? (*D)
4. How do students use technology? (*F)
5. What percentages of the teachers meet the ISTE technology proficiencies? (*H)
6. How many students are there for each internet-connected multi-media computer and how frequently does the school system replace the computers? (*R)
Each item in the STaR chart is scored independently of the others. By choosing the answer that “best fits” the school picture, the school identifies its current status as early, developing, advanced, or target. Items are grouped into four main categories. The categories are Teaching and Learning, Educator Preparation and Development, Administration and Support Services, Infrastructure for Technology. The category’s score is calculated by averaging the scores for the items in that category. Thus, the six indicators for Teaching and Learning are used to compute a single Teaching and Learning score.
When reporting STaR Chart results in the Digital Divide report, the stacked bar chart design was chosen in order that readers might readily see where the largest proportion of the state schools are found. The detailed state level report, however, reverted to presenting the percentage of schools that self-scored at each of the four levels.
Taken as a whole, all four of the main STaR chart categories were, not surprisingly, at the “developing” and advanced states in 2006. Because of this averaging effect, it is more informative to examine the indicators individually. Viewing the twenty-two individual indicators statewide, zero was at the early stage; fifteen were in the developing stage; seven were advanced, and one was at target. Capabilities of Educators (Question H) moved from the developing stage to the advanced stage.
In 2007, there was one significant change in the status remarked on the STaR Chart. All other questions remained in the same categories, with only slight variances in percents reported.
Section 3: Equipment Reports
School districts continue to invest in placing computer equipment in schools so that students can use them as tools in learning important core content. The equipment reports show where the computers are located in the schools and how many computers tend to be in individual classrooms. With the Internet available to every school, another part of the picture is how many classrooms have Internet connected computers available for students to use. The extent to which the Internet is available to students is also shown in how many computers in all locations are connected to the Internet.
One way schools can get more use from the computers they have is to move them from classroom to classroom on days when students are working on projects. Using wireless or laptop computers makes this much easier. When classes use computers in whole group instruction, various kinds of projection devices let all children see the computer display. The projection devices include the large screen television, LCD Panels, and interactive whiteboards.
Computer Count by Location.
Where do the high capacity computers tend to be clustered in Tennessee schools?
In 2006, schools reported that by far, the locations with the highest concentration of high capacity computers were the offices. However, offices accounted for only 6.3% of all the computers in schools. By contrast, 58.3% of the computers were located in classrooms, with 20.3% in computer labs, and 5.6% in libraries. Classrooms accounted for 77.8% of the total number of low capacity computers. Still, most classroom computers are mid-capacity (66.8%). Computer labs had a lower percentage of high capacity computers (20%) than did classrooms (58.3%).
In 2007, the definitions of High, Mid, and Low capacity computers were updated to reflect the following:
High Capacity: Pentium IV with 512mb Ram or Pentium Based Macintosh
Mid Capacity: Pentium III with 256mb Ram or Macintosh G4
Low Capacity: Pentium II with 128mb Ram or Macintosh G3......that are "school owned" and still in use in the school. A computer should only be counted once.
The 2007 data indicated that offices accounted for only 6.4% of all the computers in schools. The data revealed a slight increase from 2006, 54.4% of the computers were located in classrooms, with 20.8% in computer labs, and 5.7% in libraries. Classrooms accounted for 68.4% of the total number of low capacity computers. Classroom computers in the mid-capacity range (54.4%) were less common than computers in the low capacity range (68.4%). Computer labs had a lower percentage of high capacity computers (20.8%) than did classrooms (54.4%).
In 2008, the data indicated that offices accounted for 6.1% of all the high capacity computers in schools. The data revealed a slight decrease from 54.4% to 53.5 percent of high capacity computers in the classrooms from 2007 to 2008, but no change in computers labs and library percentages (20.8% in computer labs, and 5.7% in libraries). The percentage of high capacity mobile computers increased slightly from 12.6% to 13.8%. Classrooms accounted for 68.2% of the total number of low capacity computers, while classroom computers in the mid-capacity range (63.8%) were slightly less common. Computer labs had a lower percentage of high capacity computers (20.8%) than did classrooms (53.5%).
In 2009, the data indicated that offices accounted for 5.8% of all the high capacity computers in schools. The data revealed a slight decrease from 53.5 to 53.2 percent of high capacity computers in the classrooms from 2008 to 2009, but no change in computers labs and only a slight change in library percentages (20.8% in computer labs, and 5.4% in libraries). The percentage of high capacity mobile computers increased from 13.8% to 14.7%. Classrooms accounted for 68.8% of the total number of low capacity computers, while classroom computers in the mid-capacity range (61.1%) were slightly less common. Computer labs had a lower percentage of high capacity computers (20.8%) than did classrooms (53.2%).
Classrooms Connected to the Internet. Internet connectivity is widely accessible in Tennessee. Every school in the state has Internet access. While every classroom did not have Internet access in 2006, the percentage of classrooms with connectivity was still relatively high, with 84.5% of classrooms having at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use with 16% more providing teacher Internet access. The statewide average was 4.46 internet-connected computers per classroom. This statewide average suggested there may be sufficient computers to provide several internet-capable computers for every classroom. The manner in which the computers are actually distributed was a local decision.
In 2007, the percentage of classrooms with at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use was slightly lower (78.6%) than the previous year. Approximately 96% percent of classrooms had at least one computer connected to the Internet for teacher use. The statewide average for internet connected computers per classroom did not change (4.46) from the previous year’s data collection.
2008’s data revealed a small difference in Internet connectivity for the classrooms. Approximately eighty-two percent (81.7%) of classrooms had at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers across the state have a computer that is connected to the Internet for their use in their classrooms.
In 2009, the percentage of classrooms with at least one computer connected to the Internet for student use declined from 81.7% in 2008 to 77.4%. The percentage of classrooms with at least one computer connected to the Internet for teacher use declined, as well. It changed from 98% in 2008, to 94.9% in 2009. Only 20.7% of the classrooms in Tennessee have at least five (5) computers connected to the Internet.
Computer Projection Devices. In 2006, 20.3 percent of classrooms had some type of device for projecting the computer screen image. The percentage (51.4%) was significantly higher in labs. In 2007, 26% of classrooms had a projection device, and 64.7% of labs were equipped with projection equipment. In classrooms, the overwhelming majority of projection devices reported was TVs (30,673). LCDs (14,814) were reported at a slightly higher level that whiteboards (5,234). However, in lab settings, 1572 reported using LCDs, 1320 were equipped with TVs, and 563 had whiteboards. Data were not collected for these items after 2007.
Dominant Operating System/Platform. In 2006, approximately 17.2 % of Tennessee K-12 public schools reported having a mixed operating system platform environment. Windows was the dominant platform, with 73.9% of schools reporting a “Windows-only” and another 8.8% reporting a mixed environment with Windows predominating. No schools reported “Other” for an operating system. Macintosh was the sole platform in 8.9% of schools and dominant in another 8.4%. (We did not survey the operating system used for district offices or those used as web or file servers.)
In 2007, seventy-five percent (75%) of Tennessee K-12 public schools used Windows as the major operating system platform environment. Only 8.9% reported Mac as their sole operational platform. Seven and one-half percent of schools reported that they used both platforms, but predominantly Mac, and inversely 8.5% reported using both but with Windows as the predominant platform. No schools reported Dos or Linux as the operating systems. After 2007, these data were no longer collected by TESS.
Section 4: Network Access and Capabilities
Portable laptop computers and wireless technologies have been emerging as an important piece of the picture for network capability, both within and outside the school. Twenty percent of schools used wireless laptop computing but a significant percentage of schools (8.5%) had no wireless or laptop computing available. Laptops in general, however, were used only slightly more for administrative uses than for teacher or student use. Slight improvements were reported for 2007. Twenty and one-half percent of schools are now using laptop computing, and only 6.8% reported having no wireless or laptop computing available. However, laptop usage was still higher in the administrative area (29.3%) than usage by teachers (26.6%) or by student (16.9%). These data were not collected after 2007.
With the continued growth and improvements in technology, TESS - 2008 collected data for services related to technology that were available after school hours. Only 1.5% of the schools reported NO laptop or wireless computing was available. Nearly fifty-eight percent (57.5%) reported that online Internet resources were available after school hours. In 13.9% of the schools, there were teacher led courses available, and in .4% of schools, there were interactive video courses made available. However, 26.7% reported that there were no after hours resources available. 2009 data collected through TESS revealed very little change. Almost two percent (1.9%) reported having NO laptop or wireless computing available after school hours. Fifty-eight percent reported having Internet resources available. While only .2% had interactive video courses, 13.4% had teacher led courses. No after hours resources were available in 26.4% of the districts.
For the home-school communication item, schools checked which electronic communication methods were in place. The choices were telephone homework hotline, voice bulletins/voice mail, school or district website, and none. The prevailing method was through a school or district website (54.1%). Statewide it was reported that only 58% of students had Internet access at home. From 2006 to 2007, little has changed in this area of home-school communications. 55% of schools reported using their school or district website as their primary method of mass home-school communications. It was estimated that approximately 59% of students have Internet access at their homes, and 89% of teacher have Internet access at home. There seems to be little change in the percentage of students that have Internet access at home, with the 2008 data reporting 59.70%, the 2009 report shows approximately 61.32%. Teacher accessibility to the Internet at their homes increased slightly from the previous year 91.16% to 92.28 in 2009.
In 2008, the home school communication question was changed to ask, “Does your system utilize safety/emergency alerts to parents and/or students?” Of 1702 responses, 70.4% responded with “yes”, and 29.6% responded with “no”. 2009 reports show that 80.3% have electronic safety alert to parents and students, while 19.7% still do not utilize them.
Section 5: Eighth Grade Student Technology Literacy
Title II Part D of No Child Left Behind says that all students are expected to be technologically literate by the time they leave the eighth grade. Never before has this been an explicit federal goal, so it offered a new challenge to educators in elementary and middle schools. In 2006, to gather information about the state of student technology literacy in Tennessee, the survey asked principals to determine what percentage of their eighth graders met ten different performance indicators. These ten indicators were taken from the eighth grade performance criteria available at: ISTE NETS Standards for Students: http://cnets.iste.org/currstands/cstands-netss.html from the nationally recognized work of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Tennessee’s curriculum standards for technology were also derived from this ISTE work. Technology literacy is NOT one of the subject areas tested by Tennessee’s student assessment program.
According to the survey, eighth grade student technology literacy was not generally high across the state. The average literacy rate (across all ten factors) was 58%. Educators did not have a common method for assessing student technology literacy. Nineteen percent of school principals indicated no organized way to ascertain student technology literacy while only 4.5% reported using a student self-reported skills checklist. Sixty-two percent based their reports on estimates by informal teacher reporting.
In 2007, an additional question was added to the TESS survey concerning 8th grade technology literacy. In order to satisfy a report required by the USDoE, the exact number of 8th grader that were deemed to be technology literate was recorded, as well as, the exact number of 8th graders that were deemed not to be technology literate. However, the methods used to determine literacy are not static across the state. The resulting totals were approximately 65% were deemed literate, and 19.6% were deemed not technology literate, the remaining 15% were not reported.
The State Board of Education in Tennessee adopted the revised student technology standards developed and published by ISTE. The NETS*S refreshed brought about a change in TESS, as well. The eighth grade literacy portion of the survey is now aligned with the most current standards. The reporting methods are not free from bias or error, and are not consistent from school to school or even district to district. The data this year reveals that 70.51% of eighth graders are deemed to be technology literate, while 26.18% are deemed not to be literate in the area of technology. The remaining 3.31% falls into the not reported group. (The ISTE-NETS chart below (Figure 14) illustrates the percent of eighth graders that are literate in each competency.
As reported for 8th Graders (n=70915)
ISTE-NETS Competencies 2008 State Totals
1 Describe and illustrate a content-related concept or process using a model, simulation, or concept-mapping software. (1, 2) 49.0%
2 Create original animations or videos documenting school, community, or local events. (1, 2, 6) 36.6%
3 Gather data, examine patterns, and apply information for decision making using digital tools and resources. (1, 4) 54.4%
4 Participate in a cooperative learning project in an online learning community. (2) 42.7%
5 Evaluate digital resources to determine the credibility of the author and publisher and the timeliness and accuracy of the content. (3) 47.7%
6 Employ data-collection technology such as probes, handheld devices, and geographic mapping systems to gather, view, analyze, and report results for content-related problems. (3, 4, 6) 34.9%
7 Select and use the appropriate tools and digital resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and to solve problems. (3, 4, 6) 55.8%
8 Select and use appropriate tools and technology resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and solve problems. 37.8%
9 Demonstrate an understanding of concepts underlying hardware, software, and connectivity, and of practical applications to learning and problem solving. 60.9%
10 Independently develop and apply strategies for identifying and solving routine hardware and software problems. (4, 6) 35.4%
The 2009 data collected by TESS exposed an estimated 75.36 percent of eighth graders in Tennessee were deemed Technologically Literate, leaving 24.64 % that were considered to be NOT technologically literate. Across the ISTE competencies, eighth grade student technology literacy was not generally high across the state. The average literacy rate (across all ten factors) was 51.01%.
Eighth Grade Technology Profile
As reported for 8th Graders (n=70012)
ISTE-NETS Competencies State Totals
1 Describe and illustrate a content-related concept or process using a model, simulation, or concept-mapping software. (1, 2) 51.9%
2 Create original animations or videos documenting school, community, or local events. (1, 2, 6) 41.1%
3 Gather data, examine patterns, and apply information for decision making using digital tools and resources. (1, 4) 59.4%
4 Participate in a cooperative learning project in an online learning community. (2) 44.3%
5 Evaluate digital resources to determine the credibility of the author and publisher and the timeliness and accuracy of the content. (3) 52.9%
6 Employ data-collection technology such as probes, handheld devices, and geographic mapping systems to gather, view, analyze, and report results for content-related problems. (3, 4, 6) 42.0%
7 Select and use the appropriate tools and digital resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and to solve problems. (3, 4, 6) 61.5%
8 Select and use appropriate tools and technology resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and solve problems. 42.1%
9 Demonstrate an understanding of concepts underlying hardware, software, and connectivity, and of practical applications to learning and problem solving. 77.4%
10 Independently develop and apply strategies for identifying and solving routine hardware and software problems. (4, 6) 37.5%
Educators did not have a common method for assessing student technology literacy. Almost 17 percent (16.5%) of school principals indicated no organized way to ascertain student technology literacy while only 4.8% reported using a student self-reported skills checklist. Fifty seven percent based their reports on estimates by informal teacher reporting. Only about 6% of educators used an end of experience test or a performance based authentic assessment to determine the students’ technology literacy.
Eighth Grade process of gathering data 2009
No organized way to ascertain the information16.5%
Estimates based on teacher informal reporting 57.2%
Student self-reported skills checklist 4.8%
Teacher informal observation using skills checklist 10.7%
Site-developed technology literacy test4.8%
End-of-experience test for technology application experience 3.0%
Performance-based authentic assessment (portfolios)2.9%
Section 6: Assistive Technologies
The final survey item asked whether assistive technology was used by students with disabilities or students with learning difficulties. Assistive technology was described as portable word processors and braillers, electronic communication aids for speech or computers with adaptive devices. In aggregate, 63.3% of schools indicated that these technologies were used, either for students with IEPs or 504 Plans, or for students with difficulties but without special education services. However, 3.7% indicated that either most were aware but not trained, not aware, or a clear process was not in place for obtaining assistive technology. The other (28%) responses generally indicated that no need existed.
In 2007, the same questions were asked. When combined, 65.7% of schools indicated that these technologies were used, either for students with IEPs or 504 Plans, or for students with difficulties but without special education services. However, 3.1% indicated that either most were aware but not trained, not aware, or a clear process was not in place for obtaining assistive technology. The other (27 %) responses generally indicated that no need existed. Data for this area are no longer collected.
Data Collection Notes
Timeframe: The data collection period for TESS 2006 extended from February 1, 2007, through March 15, 2007. The data collection period for TESS 2007 was mid-October 2007 through February of 2008. The data collection period for TESS 2008 was from mid November 2008 through March 20, 2009. The data collection for TESS 2009 was from mid November 2009 through mid March, 2010.
Participation: Completing the TESS survey in a timely manner is required of all districts that receive Title II D funds.
Exceptions: The 2007 survey collected information from some Adult High Schools throughout the state. However, their data were not included in the district averages. This was because the students enrolled in these schools typically follow highly individualized schedules that tended to skew the numbers used to calculate student to computer ratios and computers per classroom. In some cases, these schools were located in facilities that were either not owned or operated by the local school district. These schools were encouraged to complete the surveys so they could compare their own picture with district and statewide averages. A more informed decision needs to be made regarding these schools in future data collections.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Social Networking in Schools - Response to ETLO Course Question
Reflect on the current policies in place regarding social networking in your school or district.
In Tennessee, the districts formulate their own policies regarding things like social networking, cell phone use, etc. Having said that, I understand that many (more than not) still block the better known social networking sites....I also know that most kids use a proxy server and go there anyway! So, I believe that we are WAY behind in our policy formulation as to how to address this issue!
How has this workshop shaped your opinions about the potential of these tools to facilitate learning and collaboration?
I believe that if given FREE tools with which to work.....some parameters for proper use....most students and teachers use them correctly. I think the collective wisdom captured in collaboration is what learning and education should look like. We all learn best in an environment in which we feel most comfortable. Often, students feel less threatened academically in a "virtual" room because they can ask questions....post ideas....revise....and move on when they are comfortable with the information.
What are the challenges you face regarding incorporating these tools and allowing teachers and students to network virtually?
First I believe the reason why most districts block these types of environments is ignorance. Meaning, they really don't understand what all students/teachers could be doing on there. It's a lack of understanding....they fear reprisal if something goes wrong - when, we should be educating students and teachers the correct way to behave in these particular environments.
Secondly, I believe that once we show the "blockers" all of the wonderful educational opportunities that can be accomplished....i think the pushback will ease up....we have to convince them first that it is safe....and their network is NOT going to melt if we have a wiki.
The students and teachers will do the rest! They want it! They do it at home....on their phone....and sneak around it and do it at school already.
Describe how you plan to address these challenges in the coming school year.
We will continue to have more and more sessions on these topics at our annual statewide technology conference. Also, we are formulating a fairly good network on Twitter....I will be pushing out examples of great things on there to help get the word out.
In Tennessee, the districts formulate their own policies regarding things like social networking, cell phone use, etc. Having said that, I understand that many (more than not) still block the better known social networking sites....I also know that most kids use a proxy server and go there anyway! So, I believe that we are WAY behind in our policy formulation as to how to address this issue!
How has this workshop shaped your opinions about the potential of these tools to facilitate learning and collaboration?
I believe that if given FREE tools with which to work.....some parameters for proper use....most students and teachers use them correctly. I think the collective wisdom captured in collaboration is what learning and education should look like. We all learn best in an environment in which we feel most comfortable. Often, students feel less threatened academically in a "virtual" room because they can ask questions....post ideas....revise....and move on when they are comfortable with the information.
What are the challenges you face regarding incorporating these tools and allowing teachers and students to network virtually?
First I believe the reason why most districts block these types of environments is ignorance. Meaning, they really don't understand what all students/teachers could be doing on there. It's a lack of understanding....they fear reprisal if something goes wrong - when, we should be educating students and teachers the correct way to behave in these particular environments.
Secondly, I believe that once we show the "blockers" all of the wonderful educational opportunities that can be accomplished....i think the pushback will ease up....we have to convince them first that it is safe....and their network is NOT going to melt if we have a wiki.
The students and teachers will do the rest! They want it! They do it at home....on their phone....and sneak around it and do it at school already.
Describe how you plan to address these challenges in the coming school year.
We will continue to have more and more sessions on these topics at our annual statewide technology conference. Also, we are formulating a fairly good network on Twitter....I will be pushing out examples of great things on there to help get the word out.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Communications - what do we really rely on.....still
I realize that though we may personally be users of twitter, blogs, txt, facebook....etc., there's still a lot of folks that don't. In the midst of the flood situation in Nashville, I realized that the masses with whom I work still rely on email (more official I guess), or at best...txts and facebook. I'm not sure though that Twitter would have served any significant purpose here....except perhaps group announcements that our building was flooded, etc. So, now, I'm wondering....will these things ever "really" catch on as a useful tool to speak to many in a short message?
The point of having communication tools available for free is just that......communicate anywhere, anytime, to everyone for free.
Ok...I feel better now....almost.....while working from home is somewhat of a Godsend to me....I don't have to drive 120 miles everyday....I can sleep in and work later....I can fix a sandwhich anytime. But, I'm missing something. I feel a little out of the loop. So, human interface must be important to me. I am used to hearing the chitter chatter of a busy little office....here, I hear my dog snoring and my cat occasionally sashaying through with a quiet meow. Maybe there's a learning curve to this that I was unaware of.....for those of you that work from home..what's the secret? How do you not feel a little guilty? I have no problem with finding work to get done....but, somehow, I feel like I'm cheating. Sitting behind a nice desk.....the comforts of home....but, no Kaneal....no Trent....no Barry and Johnny.....no Grace and Debbie or even the occasional "Tim sighting". Oh well....thank goodness that I have a blog and 7 whole followers. Ha...I love all seven of you. However, I guess even Shakespeare started out small.
Thanks for listening today. I will try to have more prophetic statements in the days to come.
The point of having communication tools available for free is just that......communicate anywhere, anytime, to everyone for free.
Ok...I feel better now....almost.....while working from home is somewhat of a Godsend to me....I don't have to drive 120 miles everyday....I can sleep in and work later....I can fix a sandwhich anytime. But, I'm missing something. I feel a little out of the loop. So, human interface must be important to me. I am used to hearing the chitter chatter of a busy little office....here, I hear my dog snoring and my cat occasionally sashaying through with a quiet meow. Maybe there's a learning curve to this that I was unaware of.....for those of you that work from home..what's the secret? How do you not feel a little guilty? I have no problem with finding work to get done....but, somehow, I feel like I'm cheating. Sitting behind a nice desk.....the comforts of home....but, no Kaneal....no Trent....no Barry and Johnny.....no Grace and Debbie or even the occasional "Tim sighting". Oh well....thank goodness that I have a blog and 7 whole followers. Ha...I love all seven of you. However, I guess even Shakespeare started out small.
Thanks for listening today. I will try to have more prophetic statements in the days to come.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Pre - k Assessment Learning Curve
I have to admit...I have always loved learning stuff and loved it more if there seemed to be a challenge or perhaps some cloud of mystery around the topic. Just like when I first got into technology....I read manuels after manuels.....how to this...how to that....anyway...not that I have even come close to mastering everything that's out there...I do enjoy a certain comfort level of knowing whatever it is....I can probably learn how or figure out how to do it.
That being said....my latest challenge revolves around a committee I am facilitating. The committee is charged with basically figuring out a way to link teacher effectiveness with student outcomes. The grade range that we are dealing with is pre K through third grade. I am in no shape, form, or fashion an expert in early childhood. I had two kids....but, that surely didn't qualify me as expert.
I have begun my research for formative assessments for that age group. I started collecting my resources and made a special folder for them on my www.portaportal.com. If you want to peak at them, you can just enter barbaradenson in the guest login box. Interesting...I think I would be having better luck at finding hen's teeth. I finally ran across an article this morning that looks promising. It is on the Pre K Now website. I haven't gotten to specific assessments yet....but some guidance now that helps me understand. You can view the article in its entirety at http://www.preknow.org/policy/assessment.cfm
Here's the paragraph that was most enlightening to me....
"Common Practices for Good Assessments
The National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force (PDF), a group of nationally renowned education and early childhood-development experts, was established to study and outline accountability measures that could be effective for early education programs. Pre-K Now shares their view that all assessments must be:
Comprehensive - measuring student skills across the development spectrum (i.e., cognitive, emotional, social, linguistic, and physical),
Ongoing - recording student gains over time rather than capturing only a snapshot of a student's developmental level, and
Contextual - conducted in the classroom environment when students are engaging with their peers and teachers.
In their research, the NRC stressed the importance of clarity of purpose: States should be explicit about the goal of the assessment, whether to determine the progress of individual children or to gauge program effectiveness. In addition, to provide valuable, reliable findings, early education assessments must be standardized; that is, they must utilize consistent evaluation and data-collection methodologies across programs and localities. Also, assessments must involve all students, including English language learners and children with disabilities, and must be appropriate for measuring gains across diverse backgrounds, cultures, and ability levels."
I think better when I teach the concept to others...or perhaps just hear myself say it out loud. My husband claims to have a Doctorate too because he had to listen to every single thing I learned and or did while getting mine. I am finding though that writing helps me to organize my thoughts in a similar method....I bet I will be on here a bunch till we make it to the top....or wait...was the race just to get the grant? At any rate....thanks for reading along!
That being said....my latest challenge revolves around a committee I am facilitating. The committee is charged with basically figuring out a way to link teacher effectiveness with student outcomes. The grade range that we are dealing with is pre K through third grade. I am in no shape, form, or fashion an expert in early childhood. I had two kids....but, that surely didn't qualify me as expert.
I have begun my research for formative assessments for that age group. I started collecting my resources and made a special folder for them on my www.portaportal.com. If you want to peak at them, you can just enter barbaradenson in the guest login box. Interesting...I think I would be having better luck at finding hen's teeth. I finally ran across an article this morning that looks promising. It is on the Pre K Now website. I haven't gotten to specific assessments yet....but some guidance now that helps me understand. You can view the article in its entirety at http://www.preknow.org/policy/assessment.cfm
Here's the paragraph that was most enlightening to me....
"Common Practices for Good Assessments
The National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force (PDF), a group of nationally renowned education and early childhood-development experts, was established to study and outline accountability measures that could be effective for early education programs. Pre-K Now shares their view that all assessments must be:
Comprehensive - measuring student skills across the development spectrum (i.e., cognitive, emotional, social, linguistic, and physical),
Ongoing - recording student gains over time rather than capturing only a snapshot of a student's developmental level, and
Contextual - conducted in the classroom environment when students are engaging with their peers and teachers.
In their research, the NRC stressed the importance of clarity of purpose: States should be explicit about the goal of the assessment, whether to determine the progress of individual children or to gauge program effectiveness. In addition, to provide valuable, reliable findings, early education assessments must be standardized; that is, they must utilize consistent evaluation and data-collection methodologies across programs and localities. Also, assessments must involve all students, including English language learners and children with disabilities, and must be appropriate for measuring gains across diverse backgrounds, cultures, and ability levels."
I think better when I teach the concept to others...or perhaps just hear myself say it out loud. My husband claims to have a Doctorate too because he had to listen to every single thing I learned and or did while getting mine. I am finding though that writing helps me to organize my thoughts in a similar method....I bet I will be on here a bunch till we make it to the top....or wait...was the race just to get the grant? At any rate....thanks for reading along!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wow! is all I can say...after attending a full day at MTETA's first ITA. ok...for those of you that don't know all of the acronyms...that would be Middle Tennessee Educational Technology Association (MTETA) and Instructional Technology Academy (ITA). It was a great day of learning and sharing of technology primarily aimed at teachers. I attended a session on Twitter....it was great! I tweet...but haven't been using TweetDeck....I will soon! Then, I went to a Skype session. Came home...downloaded Skype and had a call from a teacher friend in Georgia. I mean this technology is here and now! TOTALLY kewl! Then, I learned how to make a Voki. Wow.....what a neat way to send home homework assignments to the little ones! OMG....I mean....this stuff is free.....easy.....and hello FREE! Then, I went to a session on all of the latest and greatest free resources conducted by Kris and Jackie in Rutherford County Schools. They are super trainers, too. They are always on the cutting edge...but also, make learning new technologies fun and stress free. So, why am I not sleepy tonight? I have been rejuvenated today. My wonderful wonderful TCs continue to wow me and make me glad they are responsible for tech learning in TN!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
