Individual State Reports
Please view the State Members Map, and
click on a state and download their individual state profile report PDF from the state's page.
In the fall of 2003, the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) commissioned the Metiri Group to conduct a national survey on the first year of implementation of the No Child Left Behind, Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education through Technology program. The findings in this report represent 46 states and the District of Columbia, representing 92% of the federal dollars allocated across the United States in 2002-2003. The critical role of NCLB, Title II, Part D funding in advancing the effective use of technology in student learning is striking, as evidenced by the state technology directors’ comments below. For 25% of respondents, these funds were literally the “only game in town”; their school districts had no other funding earmarked specifically for technology in schools.
The findings from SETDA’s national survey are intended to inform education technology policy leaders on three important questions.
1. How are grant recipients across the nation structuring programs to meet Title II D goals?
a. Survey respondents indicated that the competitive grant program has much greater potential for advancing Title II D program goals than the formula program does (excepting those LEAs receiving more substantial formula awards). In general, states identify the following criteria instructuring their competitive grants. They are:
i. Sufficient in size to advance the goals (e.g., many are specifically targeted to content areas)
ii. Grounded in sound education practice
iii. Modeled after successful state programs
iv. Based on ISTE national technology standards, state learning standards, and state
educator (teacher and administrator) standards
b. While many states are attempting to stretch state administrative and technical support funds to provide guidance and training in program evaluation, most find that such budgets are used up by the administrative requirements of implementing two relatively complex programs that often require parallel administrative procedures.
2. What administrative approaches by states are most effective in guiding and supporting LEAs?
a. The collaboration and cooperation between federal and state programs is on the rise. The shortage of monies dedicated to education technology makes such leveraging of funds critical to the achievement of program goals.
b. Many states are aligning their federal program dollars with current state initiatives through criteria in their competitive grant applications. With the states experiencing deep cuts in their educational technology programs, Title II D is often cited as the only means for sustaining and continuing a focus on effective use of technology for learning.
c. States and the District of Columbia are finding it challenging to administer formula grant funds given the large number of grant awardees. Respondents report different approaches to the two programs, with increased state support, technical assistance, training, and evaluation emphasis given to competitive grants.
3. Is the program, with its current structure, likely to lead to the achievement of Title II D goals?
a. In general, survey respondents reported that the Title II D focus on using technology for the improvement of academic achievement is a positive policy lever, in many cases enabling LEAs to leverage multiple program monies and multiple partners on the same goals.
b. Due to the number of extremely small annual allocations of formula funds awarded to a large number of LEAs, survey respondents anticipated different results from the programs. The expectation is that the formula grants would be used to sustain and maintain current programs, while the competitive funds would be used to take education technology to the next level.
c. Without increased flexibility to strategically use additional Title II D funds at the state and regional levels, this will be a missed opportunity to document effectiveness (or lack thereof) in the use of technology-based learning resources. Survey respondents suggested that even though program evaluation is important, research studies are needed to report with confidence that, under the right conditions, specific uses of technology are effective in improving student learning. Building that national knowledge base of “What Works” will take leadership and strategic policy agendas at the state level, and that will require additional flexibility in the use of program funds to build both the capacity and the propensity of LEAs to engage in rigorous evaluation and research.
d. In addition to continuing their investigation of technology-based learning interventions, states are exploring the use of technology in areas such as data analysis to inform instructional decisions; curriculum management in support of professional learning communities; and advancing instruction grounded in emergent cognitive research.
2004 National Trends Report
