Target Sites and Target Audience

According to the Introduction to EnterTech, EnterTech will deliver:

"...a training program for use in community colleges, high schools, career centers, industry sites and community-based organizations."

The target audience is located all over Texas but the overwhelming majority is in Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, and the lower Rio Grande Valley. With the exception of the lower Rio Grande Valley, which does not have a preponderance of technology industry, the target jobs EnterTech is preparing people for are all in the same markets as the target audience. These two facts help simplify the distribution task.

There are thousands of potential delivery sites all over Texas and these are distributed like the population; they are in the major markets. EnterTech can be delivered even in the most remote areas of Texas, anywhere there is a computer and a telephone line, but the high demand areas are predictable, and most of EnterTech's efforts should be directed there.

General Site Characteristics

The target sites mentioned in the Introduction to EnterTech differ significantly in their characteristics. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. It is important to consider these pluses and minuses in determining which types of sites are best suited to EnterTech.

Given that EnterTech will involve Internet/web delivery of at least some material, and since the viability of web instruction is defined by bandwidth, the primary criterion for site selection and qualification has to be bandwidth at the students' computers. This is usually a function of the type of Internet connection (modem or direct), and whether or not the connection is shared (and among how many computers). The three most important things about potential EnterTech sites are: bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth.

Community Colleges

Pluses

Community colleges tend to have the best computer and communication infrastructure. They generally have multiple classrooms and learning centers supplied with computers; these computers are on a local area network (LAN); they are multimedia capable; and there is a direct Internet connection. The Telecommunication Infrastructure Fund (TIF) grants have significantly aided the community colleges in upgrading their capability. The TIF funding also established a high degree of uniformity -- that is, the community colleges all received the same brand and type of computers.

Community colleges are "market driven." They are in the business of serving the needs of their communities, and they are very good at modifying their course offerings to meet demand. They often offer courses in multiple locations in order to make it easier for students to attend classes, and they are aggressive in using new technologies to extend this reach even farther. There are community colleges within reach of the bulk of the EnterTech target population, and almost every community college is not only on the local Workforce Development Board's approved training vendor list, but usually one of the primary vendors.

Minuses

The EnterTech program would have to fit in and around a community college’s normal course offerings. The number of community college locations is relatively limited, especially when compared to high schools, and it may be more difficult for an EnterTech student to get there.

High Schools

Pluses

The primary advantage of junior and senior high schools is their many and convenient locations. By their nature, schools are located where the people are. Schools conduct most of their business during the day, so classrooms and other facilities are usually available in the evening.

Most schools are working on developing their computer and communication infrastructure. The majority have made good progress already, and there is reason to be optimistic about the future gains of the rest. The momentum from the E-rate established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will likely continue no matter what happens to the E-rate itself. Cable modems, and the cable industry's commitment to supply them to all schools in their coverage areas, will be a major boon. Also, schools view web access as a valuable educational tool, and thus, this type of connectivity is a priority for them.

Schools are in touch with their communities, and generally have predictable administration and procedures. Things may get a little bureaucratic at the district level, but in general, the schools themselves are easy to deal with. High school teachers are an appropriate pool from which to draw the EnterTech facilitators. Using facilitators who already have access to the facilities can greatly simplify matters. Local school districts are often primary training vendors for their local Workforce Development Boards.

Minuses

High schools vary considerable in the level of their technological infrastructure. Some have seriously out-of-date equipment, no networking capability, and a minimal (if any) Internet connection. The number of these inadequate schools will be much smaller by the year 2000, but there still will be some. Another possible problem is that use of high school facilities would probably have to be in the evenings or on weekends. Finally, high schools are not market driven as are the community colleges. Some may not be interested in making their facilities available to EnterTech.

Career Centers

Pluses

The clear focus on connecting people with jobs is the biggest plus for the career centers. There are many offices across the state, and the EnterTech target population will be going to these locations in order to access the services administered from there.

Minuses

On the other hand, most career centers do not themselves offer training. The ones that still do will not be doing it much longer since the system has been "privatized." The local Workforce centers refer or contract out training to local vendors, which often include community colleges, school districts, career schools, and community based organizations.

Industry Sites

Pluses

If a company is using computers for training, these computers are likely to be fairly new and capable systems. Training at an industry site also adds a dose of reality to the training, and of course the facility would be designed for training.

Minuses

Many companies are still strongly classroom and lecture oriented in their training. They may not have a computer classroom or learning center as EnterTech envisions. If the company does use computers in training, the configuration is not as predictable as that in community colleges or high schools and may not be suitable for delivering the simulation, which is the backbone of the EnterTech program. For example, in some companies multimedia capable computers are still rare, and sound capability may be totally lacking in a training facility in order to keep one student from annoying another.

In addition, although companies are likely to have excellent intranet capabilities, these capabilities may or may not be available on the training systems, and furthermore, many companies do not optimize their infrastructures for Internet access because they see web surfing as an unproductive activity to be curtailed as much as possible. Finally, it is likely that an individual company will only be interested in training its own entry-level workers. This may be a good supplemental way of delivering the EnterTech curriculum, but it cannot be the primary channel.

Community Based Organizations

For the purposes of this report the community-based organizations include any non-federal, non-state agency that is involved in providing human services. There are many of these organizations. They include public libraries, the Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries, the Urban League, and a host of United Way funded agencies. The ones we are particularly interested in are those that provide job training in a computer classroom or learning center.

Pluses

The primary strength of the community-based organizations is their high degree of motivation. They see needs in their communities and are already involved in meeting them. These organizations are in touch with the community and their locations are convenient for the clientele. If they have training facilities, these facilities are available during the day.

Unlike the other types of sites, EnterTech may be able to influence the configuration of computers in these sites. Delivering the EnterTech curriculum may be seen by some community-based organizations as an important enhancement of their services. They may even seek additional grant funding in order to provide the necessary facilities, and of course, in order to provide EnterTech training for a local Workforce Development Board, the community based organization will have to seek the contract.

Minuses

With the exception of libraries, the community-based organizations have the least predictable and generally the poorest technical infrastructure of all the possible delivery sites. Many have donated (that is, OLD) equipment and little or no connectivity. For example, Mission Waco just recently installed computers for training, but these computers are Macintosh LC's. Again with the exception of public libraries, community-based organizations do not benefit from the E-Rate and will not be provided with free cable modems by the cable industry. Finally, these organizations vary widely in their administration, structure, procedures, communication capabilities, competency, effectiveness, and so on.

Improving Infrastructure

Particularly in schools, the progress in improving the technology infrastructure has been good. The outlook for continuing improvements in the computer and communication infrastructure in schools is very good. There are four factors that are driving this:

• E-Rate
• TIF, TIE, and other state initiatives
• Cable modems and ADSL
• Education Department and other federal initiatives

E-Rate

Even if the telephone companies succeed in getting the E-Rate scaled back or even eliminated altogether, a great deal has already been gained. The E-Rate heightened awareness of the importance of schools being connected to the world. Schools prepared technology plans, and most have begun acting on these plans. The data provided by schools in their E-Rate applications is probably the most reliable and current information about the technology infrastructure currently available. (See the Database section in the Appendices.)

TIF, TIE, etc.

Incentives work. Success breeds success. The grants given by the State of Texas in support of various technology initiatives have had an impact beyond the simple dollar amount of the grants. They get community colleges, schools, and school districts moving in a particular direction. Once this momentum is established, it tends to continue. Also, like the E-Rate applications, the grant applications are a reliable source of information. (See the Site Database section.)

Cable Modems and ADSL

Cable modems and ADSL service from the telephone companies will soon be available. The cable television industry has committed to providing a cable modem to every school in its coverage areas. These modems will provide each school with at least the equivalent of a T1 connection, and the significant infrastructure that cable operators are installing to back up this service will further enhance the value of this connection. The telephone companies can be expected to make a somewhat grudging competitive response using ADSL technology.

The Road Runner (from Time Warner) and @Home (from TCI) systems will be available in all major markets in Texas. Road Runner is available now in El Paso. Installation in Austin will begin in late 1998; in Houston and San Antonio in 1999; and in smaller markets like Waco, Temple, and Killeen in 2000. TCI’s @Home is already available in several Dallas – Fort Worth suburbs, and TCI has a deployment plan that is just as ambitious and aggressive as Time Warner’s. Schools and libraries in these markets will soon experience a major increase in Internet bandwidth.

Federal Initiatives

Connecting schools to the Internet is a very high priority for the current administration (http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/edtech/html/edtech_f.html) and therefore the Education Department (http://www.ed.gov/Technology/). Federal programs targeted at this need, and particularly funds distributed through state programs, can be expected to continue. The results from these programs have been encouraging.

The following is from the National Center for Education Statistics issue brief Internet Access in Public Schools, February 1998:

"The effort to connect all of the nation's public schools to the Information Superhighway is moving swiftly. In just 3 years, the percentage of U.S. public schools with Internet access increased from 35 percent in fall 1994 to 78 percent in fall 1997 (table 1). On the whole, schools are on track toward achieving the goal of connecting all of the nation's public schools to the Internet."

Table 2.—Distribution of schools by the number of instructional
rooms with Internet access, among all public schools with access:
Fall 1996 and 1997

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
"Advanced Telecommunications in U.S Public Elementary and Secondary Schools,
Fall 1996," NCES 97-944; and data from the "Survey on Advanced Telecommunications
in U.S. Public Schools, Fall 1997," FRSS 64, 1997.

Table 3.—Year-to-year increases in Internet access, from fall 1994
to 1997; percentage of public schools expecting to have Internet
access by 2000; difference between 1996 expectations for 2000 and
1996 level of access; and percentage of this difference achieved by
1997, by school characteristics

—Data not available.
¹ Estimates are derived from the percentage of schools that in fall 1996 reported having
Internet access in 1996 or planning to obtain Internet access by 2000.
² Calculated by subtracting 1996 actual percentage (column 3 in table 1) from 1996
expectations for access in 2000 (column 4 in this table). 
³ Calculated by dividing the actual increase in access between 1996 and 1997
(column 3 in this table) by the increase needed between 1996 and 2000 to meet 2000
expectations (column 5 in this table).
⁴ Data for combined schools (those that span elementary and secondary grades) are
included in the totals and in analyses by other school characteristics but are not
shown separately.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
"Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Schools, K-12," NCES 95-731;
"Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools,
1995," NCES 96-854;"Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools, Fall 1996," NCES 97-944; and data from the "Survey on Advanced
Telecommunications in U.S. Public Schools, Fall 1997," FRSS 64, 1997.

Additional Sources of Information

There are four other sources of information that may be useful to the EnterTech Project which are not included in this report. First, the Texas A&M School of Education is currently conducting a survey of the technology infrastructure in Texas schools. This survey is being conducted for the Texas Association of School Boards and will be available by the end of October 1998. A list of the questions being asked in this survey is included in the Appendices.

Second, the 1998 E-Rate application data will be available in November 1998 from the Schools and Libraries Corporation ( http://www.slcfund.org ).

Third, Quality Education Data (QED) of Denver, Colorado ( http://www.qeddata.com ) has prepared extensive reports on the technology infrastructure in many states, including Texas. These reports are called Project Edtech. The Project Edtech report for Texas was not available for this report because the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has asked QED to withhold it. We assume it will be made available at some future date. It should be noted however that this just means that the analysis in the Project Edtech report is not available. The information that the report is based on comes from the QED database, and this database was available for this report.

Fourth, the technology plans required by the E-Rate applications are filed with the TEA. Unfortunately there is not a standard form, style, or template for these reports. They vary from very brief to very long and from very poor to excellent. None of the information contained in these technology plans has been computerized. The plans have simply been filed. This information is available, but it is probably not very useful in its present form.