2009 Tech Survey / 2010 Executive Summary / 2010 Detailed Report / 2010 District Level Results / 2010 School Level Results

Rhode Island Technology Capacity Survey Results
Executive Summary - October 2010

In the fall of 2010, the RI Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (RIDE) conducted its second annual survey of all RI school districts to collect current information concerning the technology infrastructure, personnel capacity, and related professional development.  The primary purpose of collecting the survey information was to inform local and state conversations around technology use and technology integration in PK-12 classrooms.  The survey also aids in effective decision making and use of federal funds including but not limited to RACE TO THE TOP, Longitudinal Data Grant Opportunities and American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funding reserved for education, in particular, the (short-term) increase in funds for the federal Enhancing Education Through Technology (E2T2) grant program.

The survey was organized into two levels, District and School, with different questions asked at each level.  The District Level questions focused primarily on capacity, costs, and statistics from a district central office perspective.  The School Level questions focused primarily on capacity, technology use, student access and instruction from a classroom or school-wide perspective.  The detailed report provides an analysis of results by school level (elementary, middle, high school) as well as by district.

 Technology Access

The Technology Capacity Survey provided an informative picture of the distribution, use, and capacity of educational technology statewide in Rhode Island schools.  All schools have Internet access.  The current ratio of students per computer statewide in Rhode Island is 4.2 to 1, a decrease from 4.6 to 1 in 2009.  Computers older than six years were not included in the survey.  In elementary schools, the current average ratio is approximately 5.5 to 1 (down from 6.5 to 1 in 2009), the middle school ratio is 3.5 to 1 (down from 4.4 to 1 in 2009), and in most high schools, the ratio approaches 3.7 to 1, a slight increase from 3.4 to 1 in 2009.  It appears that local efforts and the focused Title IID Enhancing Education Through Technology funds at the elementary and middle school levels were effective in increasing student access to technology statewide while high school levels have not shown the same gains.

It is important to examine the location and configuration of the computers in individual buildings.   The amount of time that students have hands-on use of technology in processing information and learning varies greatly depending on the configuration at the individual schools and at the various levels. 

An assessment of the elementary school computer configuration across the state finds the least amount of student access to computers.  Forty-two percent of elementary schools have an average of two or fewer working computers per classroom.  The number of available computers in elementary libraries has remained constant at 41% reporting five or more working computers available for student use.  Students in 70% of the elementary schools do not have access to a computer lab and 52% of the schools do not have access to a mobile classroom or cart on wheels (COW).

In closer examination of the middle/Jr. high school computer configuration across the state, one finds an increase in student access within the school although there still does not appear to be dedicated computer access in the classroom.  Slightly over half of the schools (56%) have an average of two or fewer working computers per classroom. This number remained the same as the number reported in 2009.  Sixty-three percent of the middle school libraries have five or more working computers available to students.  There has been an increase in the number of computer labs reported at the middle school level with 30% of the schools with three or more computer labs as compared to 21% in 2009.   However, 19% have no computer labs available for students.  Forty-five percent the middle level schools possess one or two mobile classrooms or carts on wheels (COW). However, 36% of the middle schools have no access to COWS.

In reviewing the high school computer configuration across the state, one finds the greatest computer access for students.  However, the high school overall access has decreased from the previous year.  Less than one third of the high schools (28%) have three or more working computers per classroom compared to the reported 35% from 2009.   Over two thirds or 68% of the high school libraries have five or more working computers.  This too is a decrease from the reported 78% available in libraries in 2009.  Thirty-nine percent of the high schools have four or more computer labs coupled.  This is a decrease compared to the 49% reported in 2009.  There has been an increase in the number of available mobile classrooms or carts on wheels (COW).  Seventy percent of the high schools report having one or more COW.

Computer replacement strategies and schedules differ by district and fall into one of three categories.  Approximately one fourth of the districts sustain technology with a replacement cycle through a line item in their budgets.  Nearly half of the districts have line item replacement cycle and replace computers when they are broken.  Slightly less than one quarter of the districts replace technology only when it is broken.   There is little change in computer replacement strategies by districts compared to the 2009 report.  The majority of computers in classrooms are over two years old, with a high percentage of those over four years old.  Computers older than six years were not considered to be viable and therefore were not included calculating the student to computer ratio. 

The telecommunications lines that provide Internet access are funded with Federal E-Rate funds.  E-Rate discounts range from 20% to 90% and depend upon the level of poverty and urban/rural status of the school population.  The state applies on behalf of schools and libraries who wish to take advantage of both the state Rhode Island Telecommunications for Education Access Fund (RITEAF) and federal E-Rate program to ensure that all available matching funds are recovered.  The current result is a zero cost to districts for the telecommunications lines providing Internet access. 

According to the State Educational Technology Directors Association’s (SETDA) High-Speed Broadband Access for All Kids: Breaking Through the Barriers report in June of 2008, the national average for bandwidth connection speeds to schools was 1.5 Mb.  Douglas Levin, executive director of SETDA, responding to the February 17, 2011 release of the National Broadband Map by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in THE Journal (2/24/11) indicates that the maps show as many as two-thirds of schools surveyed provide connection speeds of 25 Mbps which is “woefully inadequate to meet educational goals.”  SETDA suggests that “for educational broadband to offer optimal impact on technology use and comprehension, as well as on overall learning, schools need to offer connection speeds between 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps.”

Rhode Island set minimum bandwidth standards to assist in the fair and equitable allocation of telecommunications lines in 2008.  The minimum bandwidth standard in Rhode Island schools at the elementary level was determined to be 3 Megabites (Mb).  Middle school and high school levels were determined to be 10 Mb.  Eighty-seven percent of the elementary schools in RI have bandwidths greater than 3 Mb and thirty-one percent have bandwidths of 25 Mb or greater.  Sixty-seven percent of the middle/Jr. high schools have bandwidths greater than 10 Mb.  Forty-two percent of the middle/Jr. high schools have 25 Mb or greater.  Eighty percent of the high schools have bandwidths greater than 10 Mb.  Fifty-four percent of the high schools have bandwidths of 25 Mb or greater.

While Rhode Island has reached the recommended 50 -100 Mb in 33% of its schools, there is still room for improvement.  Currently, 46 % of the Rhode Island schools are receiving between 3-10 Mb as compared to 63% in 2009.  Sixteen percent of the schools are receiving a connection speed of 20 Mb (15% in 2009) and thirty three percent are receiving 50 Mb (20% in 2009).  It is recognized that there are increasing demands for bandwidth as technology use and network configurations change.  RIDE will continue to actively explore fiscally responsible statewide opportunities for increasing available bandwidth to schools while complying with the federal E-Rate regulations and requirements.

 

Technology Supports and Systems

The data indicates that districts have limited capacity to provide technology support for network, hardware, and software maintenance; student information systems; and helping teachers incorporate technology into the classroom.  Most districts have a district-wide technology support model with a statewide average of three full time employees (FTEs).  As seen in Table 1, there is a wide range of personnel distribution across districts based on individual district decisions.

As of October 2010, there were thirteen different Student Information Systems (SIS) being used by districts across the state, four of them being the most prevalent.  LEAs report a range of $2.52/year per student to $38.71/year per student for a varied selection of services.  The range of costs raises questions about the consistency of reporting (e.g., elements and services included) and how robust the systems themselves are in terms of providing equity in functionality and access.  Since the time of the survey in October 2010, eight districts have migrated from SchoolMax to Follet X2 Aspen. 

There are several other technology systems being utilized by local education agencies (LEAs) to assist in daily school business and management.  Over half or 60% of the LEAs participate in the use of Rhode Island Library Information Network for Kids (RILINK)’s implementation of the Follet Destiny library automation system; 58% of the LEAs handle special education case management through the use of Tinet, SEAS or the RIDE Census while 16% have this ability through their SIS; 36% of the LEAs make use of one of several course management systems; 22% of the LEAs utilize different tools for curriculum mapping.  LEAs are using an increasing number of different assessment software programs to inform data driven decisions at the local and classroom level.  Ninety percent of RI LEAs are using at least one type of assessment software program.  Each of the above examples provides an opportunity for collaboration resulting in cost saving efficiencies.

 

Technology Professional Development

RIDE’s focus on improving the longitudinal data system and access to timely, relevant data will undoubtedly result in a shift in conversation around the effective use of data at the local level.  This conversation will need to occur with pre-service programs and extend to every level of educator experience and expertise in an effort to generate a system-wide culture and practice of using technology in education.  By using local and state assessment results, student demographics, program information, and course assignments, Rhode Island can address three levels of data use for classroom, school, and district learning.  This focused strategy is intended to build success and comfort with specific uses of data.  The information provided in the survey results will help to inform decisions as well as identify gaps and needs in technology professional development.  

Further hands-on professional development can and should be embedded into all of RIDE’s work with districts and schools.  For instance, test interpretation workshops, CRP training, the Rhode Island Teachers and Technology Initiative (RITTI), etc. should be conducted within the context of looking at data in a consistent and comprehensive way.

Online professional development models also are abundant and widely used to reach broader audiences.  Although places such as Delaware, Maryland, and Ontario, Canada, are taking advantage of this type of professional development on a wide scale, Rhode Island has yet to eMbrace it to the same extent, though its use is increasing.  For example, last year only 8% of Rhode Island districts reported use of an online professional development option; this year it increased to 13%.

District strategies for the focus of professional development vary across the state.  Similar areas of need were identified when schools statewide were asked to prioritize a given list of professional development opportunities based on the goals of district strategic plans, professional development plans, technology plans, most recent curriculum development efforts and state assessment results. 

The following list contains schools’ "First Priorities" for professional development:

• Improving instruction: 72% (2009: 68%)
• Improving reading and literacy skills: 69% (2009: 72%)
• Improving writing: 70% (2009: 70%)
• Instruction based on GLEs/GSEs: 63% (2009: 66%)
• Using data analysis to inform instruction: 58% (2009: 57%)
• Differentiating instruction and multiple intelligences: 49% (2009: 49%)
• Understanding formative and summative assessment practices: 48% (2009: 43%)
• Communication (including home-school communication): 44% (2009: 34%)

Schools listed the following as their "Second Priorities:"

• Basic technology skills for teachers: 58% (2009: 45%)
• Evaluating web sites and using online resources: 55% (2009: 50%)
• Technology literacy and technology integration into curriculum: 54% (2009: 49%)
• Assessment rubrics for technology literacy: 54% (2009: 54%)
• Internet safety: 52% (2009: 57%)
• Task development: 44% (2009: 46%)
• Assessing student competencies: 46% (2009: 43%)
• Curriculum mapping / integration: 49% (2009: 43%)
• Performance based assessment: 44% (2009: 41%)
• Working with digital portfolios: 40% (2009: 36%)
• Universal Design: 47% (2009: 40%)
• Understanding by Design: 42% (2009: 37%)

Technology Use

Expectations of technology use vary widely by administrators, teachers and students based on grade level, school, and district.  The vast majority of districts provide district administrators, teachers and staff with email addresses, as well as network storage space and individual accounts.  The majority (98%) of LEAs are using email on a regular basis.  Forty-two percent of LEAs have a policy that requires teachers to use their district-given email addresses for school-related purposes.  While over half (56%) of RI’s LEAs do not have a set policy, they expect teachers to use their district-given email addresses as a primary contact address. 

Teachers are required under a mandatory policy to use an electronic grade book in 25% of Rhode Island Schools (16% of the elementary schools, 38% of the middle schools, and 45% of the high schools); almost a third (32%)of all RI schools have an expectation that teachers will use an electronic grade book (30% of the elementary schools, 30% of the middle schools, and 34% of the high schools).

Dedicated network student storage space varies across the grade levels.   Approximately three fifths (59%) of the elementary schools provide between 0-99 Mb of storage space to their students.  While half of the middle schools and 63% of the high schools provide between 100 Mb and 1 GB for storage space.

Parents have access to student grades through a module in the district student information systems in approximately 72% of the districts across the state.  Access to homework is available in 56% of the districts through a variety of different means including school web sites, portfolio access, as well as third party software and homework sites.

There are several delivery models for instruction in technology literacy including providing a separate technology or computer class, embedding technology in daily lessons, offering project based learning opportunities, or incorporating technology as part of the media literacy program.  Table 2 provides an overview of the various models at each level.

Pairing instructional models for technology delivery with information about student technology access sheds light on the evident gaps in equitable instruction and technology experiences that students receive across Rhode Island.

 

Conclusions

There is a need for a shared statewide vision and a collaboratively developed, comprehensive strategic plan to allow districts and schools to reach an acceptable level of technology access with appropriate support and professional development.  A particular area of importance is student to computer ratios in light of the plan for computer-based statewide assessment (grades 6-12; 3-5 will begin with paper/pencil) beginning in the 2014-15 school year for literacy and mathematics through the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) which will replace the current New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP).  In addition to ensuring capacity to implement this new assessment, the increase in technology access, support, and professional development will allow Rhode Island to realize the full integration of technology into teaching and learning in our schools.  This will result in students’ increased ability to be actively engaged and making authentic connections using technology tools, and increased access for teachers and administrators to the tools and information necessary to make research-based, data driven decisions and to incorporate additional technology-based tools (e.g., the Instructional Management System, PARCC online resources, etc.) into classroom practice. 

Technology access, support, professional development and use are essential to ALL stakeholders in the educational system.  The Technology Capacity Survey, coupled with other indicators such as the 8^th grade TechLiteracy Assessment results, the personnel skilled in technology LoTi survey, and national reports provide insight into the current state of technology in Rhode Island schools.   Assessing the state of the State is an initial step in a cyclical, systematic approach to improving achievement and preparing students for life in the 21^st century.  Replicating the following steps at the state, district, school, and classroom levels is necessary:

1. Assessing current status
2. Planning for improvement
3. Implementing action steps
4. Ensuring sustainability
5. Re-evaluating and starting the process over again

There is a shared responsibility at the State, district, school, and classroom level to be aware of their respective roles and expectations so that success can be achieved in full technology integration.

The State’s role is to collaborate with districts and stakeholders in order to arrive at a consensus on a statewide vision, goals, and expectations.  The state will also provide guidance where needed for districts and stakeholders as we all work together with a common purpose of increasing technology integration and skills at all levels.  There are several main areas where the state takes the lead on a large scale. 

• Access:  As technology advances, and information sharing becomes more rapid, schools find themselves facing a need for increased capacity and bandwidth.  The state facilitates the process for schools to obtain affordable telecommunications and Internet service by applying on their behalf to the federal E-Rate program and through the Rhode Island Telecommunication Education Access Fund (RITEAF) program.  Together, both programs provide subsidies for maintenance and upgrades to the lines schools use to access the Internet, resulting in zero cost to districts.  The minimum bandwidth standards for Rhode Island schools (by school grade level) are set by the state to ensure that all schools have equitable access to the Internet.  RIDE receives federal E2T2 funds and, in accordance with federal regulations and guidance, manages the competitive process to supplement and enhance local efforts to increase student access to technology and provide rich and rigorous professional development opportunities.

• Supports and Systems: RIDE supported a program that consolidated the student information systems of many districts in the state, resulting in cost efficiencies and a standardization of data (and systems) for many districts to facilitate their data reporting.  RIDE envisions and is implementing action steps leading toward a comprehensive longitudinal data system that will provide meaningful and accessible data to stakeholders statewide, as well as an instructional management system (IMS) which will provide additional instructional tools and resources for teachers to use in the classroom (e.g., assessment data, assessment resources, interim assessments, model curricula).

• Professional Development:  Through the E2T2 grant program, RIDE has provided teachers across the state with relevant professional development regarding technology and technology integration at the classroom level embedded in the real work of exploring and understanding state initiatives.  The 2010 E2T2 professional development focused on two of the top professional development priorities indicated by districts: curriculum development and technology integration.  Requests for professional development and technology equipment from districts accepted into the E2T2 program mirror the data gathered in the survey.  Thoughtful planning, implementation of action steps and reflection on sustainability at all levels will help Rhode Island continue to improve achievement and to prepare students for life in the 21^st century. RIDE will continue to coordinate and inform stakeholders about quality professional development opportunities that match local and state priorities.

Districts are responsible for creating and adhering to their Technology Plan and their Strategic Plan.  Districts will assess the needs of their schools and teachers and allocate resources and professional development accordingly.  Needs incorporated into the plan include the amount of technology available in the classroom for student use, and technology-rich professional development for teachers to support the integration of technology throughout all curricular areas.  

• Access:  Districts ensure equitable access to technology at all school levels by incorporating the purchase of new technology or planning applicable professional development into their Technology Plans. 

• Supports and Systems:  Districts are responsible for incorporating the systems in their Technology Plan and district Strategic Plan to effectively support hardware maintenance, network administration, student information systems, software, and curriculum integration.

• Professional Development:  Districts will incorporate district expectations for professional development and teacher needs around data-driven decision-making and technology integration throughout the curriculum in the district Strategic Plan.  This includes planning for professional development opportunities that are aligned to the needs in their schools.

Schools are responsible for developing and implementing a viable School Improvement Plan.  This plan should include various technology-related items, such as engaging teachers in relevant professional development, and improving the access to technology through individual, district, state, or federal grants or program opportunities.

• Access:  Schools ensure equitable access to technology for all students and teachers by the inclusion and active pursuit of that priority in their School Improvement Plan.  Within that plan, schools will indicate various federal, state, and district grants, programs, and funding opportunities to finance the acquisition of needed technology.

• Supports and Systems:  School improvement plans will incorporate systems to effectively support hardware maintenance, network administration, student information systems, software, and curriculum integration.

• Professional Development:  Schools will plan for opportunities that address data-driven decision-making and curricular and technology needs.

At the classroom level, teachers will continue to provide ongoing opportunities for students to use technology tools in their thinking and learning. 

• Access:  Teachers will assess the need for technology in their classroom and, using data to support their requests; will seek appropriate access to technology for their students.

• Supports and Systems:  Teachers will provide appropriate support for the students in the classroom to successfully utilize technology in learning opportunities.  Teachers will constantly search for quality technological resources to incorporate into their instruction.

• Professional Development:  Teachers will seek opportunities to increase their knowledge of how to implement the student and teacher technology standards, as well as of technology integration strategies in all curricular areas.

Information collected in the Technology Capacity Survey reflects local and state conversations around technology and technology integration in PK-12 classrooms.  Stakeholders are encouraged to use this data along with local information to identify effective strategies and available resources to develop data-driven improvement plans that effectively incorporate technology.  RIDE thanks all the LEAs for participating and enabling a 100% rate of return statewide on the technology data collection.  The responses are integral to our state’s ability to use data effectively to inform state and local policymaking and program decisions within districts and schools.  Links to the survey data can be found below. 

2010 Executive Summary: http://www.ride.ri.gov/instruction/intech/TechSurvey2010.aspx

2010 Detailed Report:  http://www.ride.ri.gov/instruction/intech/PDF/Detailed_Report-2010_FINAL.pdf

2010 District Level Survey Data: http://www.ride.ri.gov/instruction/intech/TechSurvey2010-district.aspx

2010 School Level Survey Data: http://www.ride.ri.gov/instruction/intech/TechSurvey2010-school.aspx