Educational Technology State Grants FY 2006 Program Performance Report Strategic Goal 2 Formula ESEA, Title II, Parts D-1 and D-2 Document Year 2006 Appropriation: $272,250 CFDA 84.318x: Enhancing Education Through Technology Program. Objective 1 of 3: fully integrate technology into the curricula and instruction in all schools by December 31, 2006 (FY 2007) to enhance teaching and learning.
Educational Technology State Grants FY 2006 Program Performance Report Strategic Goal 2 Formula ESEA, Title II, Parts D-1 and D-2 Document Year 2006 Appropriation: $272,250 CFDA 84.318x: Enhancing Education Through Technology Program. Objective 1 of 3: fully integrate technology into the curricula and instruction in all schools by December 31, 2006 (FY 2007) to enhance teaching and learning.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Educational Technology State Grants FY 2006 Program Performance Report Strategic Goal 2 Formula ESEA, Title II, Parts D-1 and D-2 Document Year 2006 Appropriation: $272,250 CFDA 84.318x: Enhancing Education Through Technology Program. Objective 1 of 3: fully integrate technology into the curricula and instruction in all schools by December 31, 2006 (FY 2007) to enhance teaching and learning.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Strategic Goal 2 Formula ESEA, Title II, Parts D-1 and D-2 Document Year 2006 Appropriation: $272,250 CFDA 84.318X: Enhancing Education Through Technology
Program Goal: To facilitate the comprehensive and integrated use of educational
technology into instruction and curricula to improve teaching and student achievement. Objective 1 of 3: Fully integrate technology into the curricula and instruction in all schools by December 31, 2006 (FY 2007) to enhance teaching and learning. Measure 1.1 of 1: The percentage of districts receiving Educational Technology State Grants funds that have effectively and fully integrated technology. (Desired direction: increase) Actual Year Target Status (or date expected) 2004 Set a Baseline Not Collected Not Collected 2005 Set a Baseline Not Collected Not Collected 2006 BL+5PP (August 2007) Pending 2007 999 (August 2008) Pending 2008 999 (August 2009) Pending 2009 999 (August 2010) Pending 2010 999 (August 2011) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts/EDEN, grantee submissions. U.S. Department of Education, National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS). Frequency of Data Collection. Annual Explanation. Baseline data for school year 2004-2005 from the Spring 2005 survey of the National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS) will be available in April 2007. Data also will be collected in EDFacts/EDEN, checked, analyzed, and available each August.
Objective 2 of 3: To help ensure that students and teachers in high-poverty, high-need
schools have access to educational technology comparable to that of students and teachers in other schools. Measure 2.1 of 1: The percentage point difference in Internet access between classrooms in high- and low-poverty schools. (Desired direction: decrease) Actual Year Target Status (or date expected) 2002 4 Measure not in place 2003 5 Measure not in place 2005 0 (February 2007) Pending 2006 0 (February 2008) Pending 2007 0 (February 2009) Pending 2008 0 (February 2010) Pending 2009 0 (February 2011) Pending 2010 0 (February 2012) Pending
U.S. Department of Education 1 11/14/2006
Source. U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts/EDEN, grantee submissions. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Internet Access in Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2005. U.S. Department of Education, National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS). Frequency of Data Collection. Annual Target Context. The target is to have no statistical difference in internet access between high- and low- poverty schools. This was a new measure in FY2006. Historical data have been provided. While the table shows small differences in 2002 and 2003, these differences are not statistically significant. Explanation. High-poverty schools are defined as schools with 75% or more of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, which may underestimate school poverty levels, particularly for older students and immigrant students. Low-poverty schools are defined as schools with less than 35% of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Data for 2005 will be available in December 2006.
Objective 3 of 3: To provide professional development opportunities for teachers, principals
and school administrators to develop capacity to effectively integrate technology into teaching and learning. Measure 3.1 of 1: The percentage of teachers who meet their state technology standards. (Desired direction: increase) Actual Year Target Status (or date expected) 2004 Set a Baseline Not Collected Not Collected 2005 Set a Baseline Not Collected Not Collected 2006 BL+5% (August 2007) Pending 2007 999 (August 2008) Pending 2008 999 (August 2009) Pending 2009 999 (August 2010) Pending 2010 999 (August 2011) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, EdFacts/EDEN, grantee submissions. U.S. Department of Education, National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS). Frequency of Data Collection. Annual Explanation. Baseline data for school year 2004-2005 from the Fall 2005 survey of the National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS) will be available in April 2007. Data also will be collected in EDFacts/EDEN, checked, analyzed, and available each August.