3. Needs Analysis and Key Findings

3.1 Summary of Seven Major Categories
3.2 Curriculum Integration Strategies for Enhancement Learner Outcomes
3.3 System Design, Equipment, Network, Facilities, Standards, and Procurement
3.4 Human Reaources/ Professional Development
3.5 Equity and Acess to Technology
3.6 Administrative Technology Use
3.7 Funding
3.8 Local technology Planning
Back to Table of Contents

The CELT consultant team assigned to the needs analysis phases of the Mississippi project conducted an extensive review of multiple information sources including:

• data obtained from an analysis of pertinent documents provided by the Mississippi Department of Education
• information obtained from key stakeholder interviews
• the statewide school technology survey
• on-site focus group interviews and site visits
• input from the Council for Education Technology and Project Advisory Committee.

A full review of those findings can be found in Section 3 of the draft Interim Report of June, 1995. The CELT team was able to depict several patterns from this cumulative review and has employed all the multiple data sources to formulate preliminary findings from the needs analysis. The following overall observations summarize the general response patterns from all sources:

• Mississippi educators and students in the public schools acknowledge the immediate need for several types of education technology resources. The technology devices most frequently used by students and teachers are VCRs, regular calculators, and desktop computers. Patterns of technology use by teachers and students are very similar.
• There is currently little systemic integration of technology into the curriculum in the majority of schools. Teacher and student use of technology is highest in the subjects of reading, mathematics, writing, and special education, although less than half of the schools reported use in these areas often or very often. Over seventy percent of those surveyed thought that integration of technology into the curriculum and curriculum development were top priority service needs.
• The lack of a statewide video, voice and data network creates problems with human networking, administrative computing, and permits scattered, incomplete communications. Less than 10% of the schools reported having classrooms wired for data, video production studios, student-generated video productions or centralized multimedia.
• There is a great deal of need for building retrofitting (rewiring of existing facilities) to deal with technologies at the school level as well as the need for extensive networking equipment
• A notable concern among instructional and administrative personnel was the need for immediate upgrade of library and media services employing automated circulation programs and the establishment of Internet connections for student research access. Thirty-three percent of the schools reported having an automated media catalog, and less than ten percent of the schools have a networked automated circulation/catalog system, telecomputing to library/information sources, or other on-line services such as America Online or Prodigy.
• There are critical shortages of both training and equipment. Most of those interviewed were adamant in their belief that neither training nor equipment should be provided in isolation and that a statewide plan for training should be developed. Seventy-five percent indicated that the greatest service need was for training. The highest priority needs identified on the survey were software/hardware acquisition and training.
• One of the most positive findings of the study was the attitudes of educators, students, parents, and community members toward the prospect of increased levels of instructional technology in the classroom. However, less that one-third of the teachers are comfortable with camcorders, computers, and calculators and less than 10% of the teachers are comfortable with other technology devices.
• Parents, community members and business leaders shared the desire to become more involved in the planning process.
• Students at all levels were acutely aware of the need for advanced technological skills to survive and prosper in the 21st Century.

A final general finding was that the most prevalent use of technologies in the schools revolved around federally funded initiatives associated with Title I computer labs; pre-school programs; the more recently initiated Tech Prep program at the secondary level; and vocational education courses focusing on specific applications of technology-to-workplace training sponsored by Carl Perkins funding. Appendix C contains graphs of these findings.

3.1 Summary of Seven Major Categories

The following analysis provides a summary of the key findings of the study team in seven major categories. These seven categories were identified by the Council for Education Technology and the Project Advisory Committee as critical areas of emphasis within the state. Each of these categories is listed below along with highlights of the findings from all sources combined.

3.2 Curriculum Integration Strategies for Enhanced Learner Outcomes

Key Findings

• Few schools are doing well at integration of technologies. Practices are not consistent across or within districts and schools.
• There is almost universal usage of Title 1 computer labs and writing and reading labs at the elementary level with few instances of integration of technologies past basic reading and math instruction.
• Core curriculum areas indicated low level technology usage (i.e., video and whole class instructional modes of overhead projection).
• Approximately one half of the districts employ ETV and Channel One as the primary instructional technology tool in the classroom.
• Most teachers have not been trained to integrate technology into the curriculum.
• Most schools lack sufficient technology resources to begin curriculum integration.
• There is limited use of adaptive and assistive devices in special education settings.

3.3 System Design, Equipment, Network, Facilities, Srandards, and Procurement

- Mississippi Educators

---

Key Findings

• There is currently no single statewide electronic highway for use by educators.
• Much of the current inventories of school technology resources are aging and not useful in an information technology network.
• Most schools are just now beginning to plan and/or install networks.
• Most districts lack personnel trained to develop standards for networks and technology installations.
• Schools need technology standards for building retrofit and construction as well as for networks and workstations.

3.4 Human Resouces/Professional Development

Key Findings

• The MDE, districts, and schools lack personnel needed for technical support and training.
• Teacher training has been limited to the applications level.
• Without consistent access to technology resources, teachers cannot practice new technology skills.
• Many teachers feel that fear of the computer and other technologies in the classroom is rapidly overcome by training and equipment availability.
• Instructional personnel prefer training models that stress local availability and are continuous over an extended period of time.
• Peer-to-peer training is preferred when available by administrative, media, and instructional staff.

3.5 Equity and Acess to Technology

Key Findings

• Access to technology varies widely from district-to-district and school-to-school.
• Equity of access for gender, physical needs, and rural and low-income districts has not been addressed.
• Long-distance telephone charges limit access to existing telecommunications resources.
• Wide discrepancy in the tax base for districts limits access to technologies and equipment.

3.6 Administrative Technology Use

Key Findings

• Many administrators have little training in administrative technology applications and are not modeling the effective use of information expected for classrooms. Approximately 1/2 of administrators have had basic SEMI Computer Applications module.
• Policies for administrative and instructional technology are lacking.
• Most schools are not networked inside or outside the district.

3.7 Funding

Key Findings

• There are no consistent procedures or sources to support education technology.
• Seeking funding from any source is difficult, especially without a state plan and a district plan.
• Few districts are able to direct sufficient local funds to make a difference.

3.8 Local Technology Planning

Key Findings

• Many districts have no formal technology plans, and existing district plans vary widely in content and degree of detail.
• Existing district technology plans show little involvement of stakeholders.

Return to top of page