p. 4 (Intro)

“The project investigated, analyzed, and reported outcomes of a total of 17 educational technology programs fully or partially funded for FY 2006- FY2007 by the state distributed through the Commission on Educational Technology and State Technology Implementation Funds (STIF) granting cycles.”

Shepperson, Thornton, Crippen, Hill, Usinger. LBEAPE May 2007.

Notes:

Exec Summary Page 1:

• “Overall, Nevada students appear to access technology at school just over one hour per week.”
• “Problems are almost universally tied to time constraints, delays in product delivery, lack of lead staff guidance and support (often left to teachers with some incentive pay or over-extended technology staff), and insufficient follow-through including inadequate professional development.”
• “Also, confounding the evaluation process is the paucity of data regarding educational technology in the state. In the past . . . Nevada Online Information Technology Survey (NOTIS), but it has not been maintained.” Thus no systematic data. Mentions use of 'inexpensive online survey.'

Page 2 (Recommendations)

• State should continue to support educational technology
  • Support empirically-proven programs
  • programs should be aligned with district/school educational goals
  • should include realistic evaluation plans
  • innovative and pilot programs should involve experts
• Reporting and information distribution mechanisms for educational technology should be established
  • STIF programs should provide a final report w/ eval data
  • electonic statewide survey should be completed. information should include infrastructure, instructional use, administrative functions, budgets and program eval
  • follow NETS

Page 31 lists programs used.

Excellent overview of existing documents (page 43)

Page 57 Overview table of existing programs funded through STIF