Your search found 8 results.

Descriptors:
State Programs; State Departments of Education; Decision Making; Data; Information Utilization; Educational Policy; Educational Practices; Local Issues; Educational Finance; Politics of Education; Human Resources

Abstract:
This report documents how four state education agencies are supporting local data-driven decisionmaking through their policies, practices, and programs for creating data systems, improving data access and use, and building district and school capacity to use data. Responding to District of Columbia Office of State Superintendent of Education and Pennsylvania Department of Education requests, this report describes how Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia are supporting local data-driven decisionmaking. Statewide policies, practices, and programs for creating data systems, improving access to data, and building district and school capacity to use the data are documented. [For the full report, see ED526134.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (296K)

Descriptors:
Data; Decision Making; Educational Policy; Educational Practices; State Departments of Education; Educational Finance; Politics of Education; Human Resources; Information Utilization; Local Issues; State Programs

Abstract:
This report documents how four state education agencies are supporting local data-driven decisionmaking through their policies, practices, and programs for creating data systems, improving data access and use, and building district and school capacity to use data. Specifically, this report, responding to District of Columbia Office of State Superintendent of Education and Pennsylvania Department of Education requests, describes how Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia are supporting local data-driven decisionmaking. Two questions guide this study: (1) What policies or practices in Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia support local use of data for education purposes; and (2) How do Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia support local use of data in selected state education agency-administered programs? This study found that the four states have implemented a range of policies and practices in all three categories of the study's analytical framework: (1) Creating, expanding, and linking data systems. The four states have created and built state repositories and are expanding the types of data collected and warehoused to better equip districts and schools to rigorously assess whether students, schools, and districts are meeting state college readiness requirements and career readiness expectations. (2) Ensuring data access and use. The four states have implemented policies and practices to help local educators and administrators access, understand, and use data effectively. In doing so, they are making data and analyses timely, readily available, and easy to understand for parents, educators, and policymakers. (3) Building district and school capacity to use data. The four states have focused on strengthening local human resource capability, mainly through partnerships and professional development. By building local capacity to access and analyze data stored in state longitudinal data systems, the states intend to help local policymakers and practitioners use data inform key policy questions on performance and improvement. In addition to state policies, the study also identified five state programs supporting district and school use of data (one in Florida, two in Texas, and two in Virginia). Appended are: (1) Summaries of studies with strong findings on state education agency support for local data-driven decisionmaking; and (2) Study methods. (Contains 3 boxes, 2 figures, 3 tables, and 7 notes.) [For the Summary Report, see ED526135] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (521K)

Descriptors:
Outcome Measures; Program Evaluation; Educational Research; Access to Computers; Technological Literacy; Academic Achievement; Educational Trends; State Policy; Educational Technology; Technology Uses in Education; Technology Integration; Grants; Federal Programs; Federal Legislation; National Surveys; State Surveys; Administrators; Administrator Attitudes; Online Surveys; Data Analysis; Program Implementation; Program Effectiveness; Program Administration; Objectives; Educational Finance; Educational Policy; School Districts; Elementary Secondary Education; Inservice Teacher Education; Partnerships in Education; State Government; Leadership; Sustainability; Innovation; Technical Assistance; Achievement Gap; Rural Schools

Abstract:
The State Educational Technology Directors Association is pleased to release its third annual Trends Report on educational technology. In addition to reporting trends on the third round (FY 04) of the No Child Left Behind, Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program, the 2006 report also includes general state policy trends in educational technology. The findings in the 2006 report are based on surveys from 50 states and the District of Columbia, representing 15,997 local education agencies (LEAs) and the federal NCLB II D dollars allocated across the United States in 2004-2005. Data from the first two annual National Reports for Rounds 1 and 2 serve as a baseline. Those first two reports represented a similar population (46 states and the District of Columbia for Round 1 and 49 states plus the District of Columbia for Round 2). In Round 3 the respondent states and the District of Columbia awarded 1,630 competitive grants and 13,667 formula grants. Together with the 5% of administrative support funds expended at the state level, the total funding was $635,027,468. Seven trends were reported across the first three years of the NCLB II D program: (1) Promising Interim Results at 3-Year Mark Warrant Continued Investment; (2) States Have Set the Bar High for Professional Development; (3) States Are Leveraging Resources through Collaborations and Partnerships; (4) The Large Volume of Small Formula Grants Diminishes Overall Impact; (5) States Are Grappling with Evaluation and Impact Research; (6) Through Leadership, a Knowledge Base Is Emerging; and (7) In Many States, NCLB II D is the Only Source of Funding for Technology. The findings from SETDA's national survey provide states, local school districts, policymakers, and the U.S. Department of Education with insights into the following questions: (1) Is the Title II D program helping to close the achievement gap, leading to the attainment of NCLB II D goals?; (2) How are grant recipients across the nation structuring programs to meet NCLB II D goals?; (3) What administrative approaches by states are most effective in guiding and supporting LEAs toward NCLB goals?; and (4) Are the general trends in technology and learning indicating increased effectiveness in the use of technology for learning as outlined in NCLB II D? In general, states are increasingly focusing their technology resources on improving academic achievement and technology literacy, increasing professional development for teachers and providing more current technologies and robust access in networked environments for learning. Sustained funding and educational technology program continuation are critical to realizing the potential that technology brings to learning and teaching. Educational Technology Policy Trends are appended. (Contains 32 figures and 1 table.) [For the "National Trends: Enhancing Education through Technology--No Child Left Behind, Title II D--Year Two in Review," see ED537543.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (3873K)

Descriptors:
Educational Trends; State Policy; Sustainability; Innovation; Technical Assistance; Achievement Gap; Educational Technology; Grants; Federal Legislation; Rural Schools; Educational Research; Technology Uses in Education; Technology Integration; Federal Programs; National Surveys; State Surveys; Administrators; Administrator Attitudes; Online Surveys; Data Analysis; Program Implementation; Program Effectiveness; Program Administration; Objectives; Educational Finance; Educational Policy; School Districts; Elementary Secondary Education; Inservice Teacher Education; Partnerships in Education; State Government; Leadership

Abstract:
The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) is pleased to present the findings of the second annual National Trends Report. SETDA commissioned the Metiri Group for a second consecutive year to conduct a national survey in the fall of 2004 on the second year implementation of the No Child Left Behind, Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program and on general state policy trends in educational technology. The findings in the 2005 report are based on surveys from 49 states and the District of Columbia, representing 15,478 LEAs and 99% of the federal dollars allocated across the United States in 2003-2004. Data from the first annual National Report for Round 1 serves as a baseline for trends and represented a similar population (46 states and the District of Columbia). In Round 2 the respondent states and the District of Columbia awarded 1,654 competitive grants and 12,933 formula grants together with the 5% of administrative support funds expended at the state level total $612,478,264. Seven major findings emerged from the data analysis: (1) Strategies are in Place to Close the Achievement Gap Through Technology; (2) A Focus on New Types of Professional Development; (3) Doing More with Less through Collaborations and Partnerships; (4) The Formula Grants Sustain; The Competitive Grants Innovate; (5) Grappling with Evaluation and Research; (6) Through Leadership, A Knowledge Base Is Emerging; and (7) In Many States, NCLB II D is the Only Source of Funding for Technology. The findings from SETDA's national survey provide states, local school districts, policymakers, and the U.S. Department of Education with insights into the following questions: (1) Is the Title II D program helping to close the achievement gap, leading to the attainment of NCLB II D goals?; (2) How are grant recipients across the nation structuring programs to meet NCLB II D goals?; and (3) What administrative approaches by states are most effective in guiding and supporting LEAs toward NCLB goals? (Contains 13 figures and 1 table.) [For the "National Trends: Enhancing Education through Technology--No Child Left Behind Title II D--Year One in Review," see ED537536.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (3224K)

Descriptors:
Educational Technology; Technology Uses in Education; Technology Integration; Grants; Federal Programs; Federal Legislation; National Surveys; State Surveys; Administrators; Administrator Attitudes; Online Surveys; Data Analysis; Questionnaires; Program Implementation; Program Effectiveness; Program Administration; Objectives; Educational Finance; Educational Policy; School Districts; Elementary Secondary Education; Inservice Teacher Education; Partnerships in Education; State Government; Leadership; Technical Assistance; Rural Schools

Abstract:
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. 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?; (2) What administrative approaches by states are most effective in guiding and supporting LEAs?; and (3) Is the program, with its current structure, likely to lead to the achievement of Title II D goals? Appended are: (1) Representative Projects Matched to NCLB Purposes; and (2) Survey Instrument. (Contains 7 tables and 5 charts.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (2202K)

Descriptors:
Computer Literacy; Elementary Secondary Education; Futures (of Society); Higher Education; Information Literacy; Information Skills; Information Technology; Skill Development; Technological Advancement

Abstract:
The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory's (NCREL) "enGauge" is a Web-based framework that describes six essential conditions, or system-wide factors critical to the effective use of technology for student learning. In addition to the framework, the "enGauge" Web site includes an online survey instrument that allows districts and schools to conduct online assessments of system-wide educational technology effectiveness. This publication describes a set of 21st century skills that will be increasingly important to students entering the work force. These skills are not at odds with traditional educational skills, but are, in fact, extensions of those skills, adapted to new technologies and new work environments. The educational system will be challenged to encourage the development of these 21st century skills in relevant and meaningful ways. The publication consists of five main sections, following an introduction. The first section, "Digital-Age Literacy," discusses basic, scientific and technological literacies; visual and information literacies; and cultural literacy and global awareness. The second section, "Inventive Thinking," focuses on adaptability/ability to manage complexity; curiosity, creativity, and risk-taking; and higher-order thinking and sound reasoning. Section three, "Effective Communication," deals with teaming, collaboration, and interpersonal skills; personal and social responsibility; and interactive communication. The fourth section, "High Productivity," discusses the ability to prioritize, plan, and manage for results; effective use of real-world tools; and relevant, high-quality products. Section five, "Information Technology," identifies possible social effects with regard to information technology. Two other sections provide a brief summary and references. (Contains 43 references.) (AEF) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (495K)

Descriptors:
Accountability; Computer Uses in Education; Educational Development; Educational Environment; Educational Technology; Elementary Secondary Education; Focus Groups; Information Technology; Internet; Interviews; Outcomes of Education; Public Schools; Questionnaires; School Community Relationship; School Surveys; State Surveys; Tables (Data); Teacher Competencies; Teacher Surveys; Use Studies

Abstract:
This study was commissioned by the Commonwealth of Virginia to assess the status of technology availability and usage in public schools in the Commonwealth. The study used the Milken Exchange's "Seven Dimensions for Gauging Progress with Learning Technology" as a framework. The first dimension focuses on new opportunities and benefits for learners through technology; the remaining six dimensions frame the essential conditions necessary to bring the effective use of technology to all learners (i.e., learning environments, professional competency, system capacity, community connections, technology capacity, and accountability). The methodology for the study included collection, analysis, and correlation of data from four sources: a survey of principals or designees representing school buildings; a survey of a statewide sample of teachers; on-site visits of school buildings representing all regions of the state; and focus groups and phone interviews of key constituents in the state. Results are discussed for each of the Seven Dimensions, and key findings and recommendations are outlined. Appendices include: survey, focus group, and site visit findings in text and tables; data by school division; and data collection instruments. (AEF) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (7031K)

Descriptors:
Accountability; Computer Uses in Education; Educational Development; Educational Environment; Educational Objectives; Educational Policy; Educational Technology; Educational Trends; Elementary Secondary Education; Evaluation Criteria; Information Technology; Instructional Improvement; Outcomes of Education; Policy Formation; School Community Relationship; Teacher Competencies; Technology Integration; Technology Planning

Abstract:
The introductory section of this guide highlights the progress being made with educational technology and investments in technology by business/industry, innovations by a high school in Greenbrier (Arkansas), actions educators will need to take and challenges that will need to be addressed if technology is to be used successfully in education, and emerging trends that indicate the benefits of technology. A set of indicators for policymakers to consider when assessing whether or not schools have established the essential conditions necessary to begin improving student learning through technology is then presented. This framework is comprised of the following seven interdependent dimensions and key features: (1) learners, including fluency, strengthening the basics, developing higher level skills, increasing relevancy, motivation to learn, and recognition of tradeoffs; (2) learning environments, including learning context, learning content, school culture, technology access, and information/communication; (3) professional competency, including core technology fluency, curriculum/learning/assessment, professional practice/collegiality, and classroom/instructional management; (4) system capacity, including vision, leadership/planning, ensuring capacity, and systems thinking; (5) community connections, including commitment, collaboration, clarity, and communication; (6) technology capacity, including installed base, connectivity, technical support, client orientation, and facilities; and (7) accountability, including deliverables/benchmarks, data collection/interim progress, data-driven decision making, and communication. A chart presents the seven dimensions at a glance. The summary brochure "At a Glance" is appended. (Contains 25 references.) (AEF) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (3469K)