Education presentation statistics show a long transition from basic computer access to regular use of presentation software in instruction. The figures below cover U.S. schools and teachers in several historical periods, plus international comparisons from 2018 and U.S. ICILS results from 2023. Because the measures come from different studies, years and populations are kept explicit rather than treated as one continuous trend.
Contents
- Presentation technology access
- How often teachers presented with technology
- Access differences by school poverty
- Teacher training and district investment
- Barriers to effective presentations
- What students did with classroom technology
Presentation technology access
The NETTS Local-level Data Summary reported that, in EETT-funded districts, 75% of schools had classroom access to presentation software. Access varied by school poverty level: it was 77% in low-poverty schools, 76% in medium-poverty schools, and 67% in high-poverty schools. A device for projecting a computer screen for whole-class viewing was less common, available in 33% of schools overall, 35% of low-poverty schools, 32% of medium-poverty schools, and 30% of high-poverty schools.
Other classroom technology was more widespread. The same NETTS summary reported access to desktop or laptop computers in 95% of schools, e-mail software in 87%, printers in 78%, and high-speed Internet access in 76%. Software for instruction in math, reading, or other subjects was available in 60% of schools overall, including 61% of both low- and medium-poverty schools and 54% of high-poverty schools.
These figures distinguish between having presentation software and having the equipment needed to show a presentation to a whole class. In EETT-funded schools, presentation software access was reported by more than twice as many schools as access to a screen-projection device: 75% compared with 33% overall.
Earlier measures from the NETTS Local-level Data Summary show a smaller technology base in 2004–05. Teachers reported classroom access to high-speed Internet at 54%, printers at 48%, software for instruction in academic subjects at 45%, and presentation software at 41%. Presentation software in computer labs or media centers was reported by 60% of teachers in low-poverty schools, 56% in medium-poverty schools, and 47% in high-poverty schools.
How often teachers presented with technology
In EETT-funded districts, 22% of all districts reported that teachers used technology to present subject concepts to students at least weekly. The corresponding shares were 24% in formula-grant-only districts and 18% in districts receiving both competitive and formula grants, according to the NETTS Local-level Data Summary.
Weekly presentation use was part of a wider pattern of teacher technology use. Across all EETT-funded districts, 31% reported weekly use to develop curricula or assignments, 31% to create tests or quizzes, and 27% for Internet research and lesson planning. Technology was used weekly to test students by 14% of districts, to adapt instructional activities to individual needs by 10%, and to collaborate with experts or teachers in other locations by 6%.
The district funding groups showed slightly different profiles:
| Weekly teacher activity | Formula-grant-only | Competitive-and-formula | All EETT-funded |
|---|---|---|---|
| Develop curricula or assignments | 31% | 33% | 31% |
| Create tests or quizzes | 32% | 30% | 31% |
| Internet research and lesson planning | 28% | 28% | 27% |
| Present subject concepts | 24% | 18% | 22% |
| Test students | 11% | 17% | 14% |
| Adapt activities to individual needs | 9% | 10% | 10% |
| Collaborate across locations | 6% | 7% | 6% |
The figures measure reported weekly use, not the quality, length, or effectiveness of a presentation. They also do not establish that presentation software alone caused changes in teaching practice.
Access differences by school poverty
The NETTS Local-level Data Summary reported that weekly technology use to develop curricula or assignments was 33% in low-poverty schools, 26% in medium-poverty schools, and 33% in high-poverty schools. For presenting subject concepts, the shares were 24%, 18%, and 25%, respectively.
Other activities showed different patterns. Weekly technology use to test students was reported by 11% of low-poverty schools, 17% of medium-poverty schools, and 17% of high-poverty schools. Use to adapt instructional activities to individual student needs was reported by 9% of low-poverty schools, 10% of medium-poverty schools, and 14% of high-poverty schools.
Presentation access itself was lower in high-poverty schools in the reported EETT-funded sample. Classroom presentation software was available in 67% of high-poverty schools, compared with 77% of low-poverty schools. Screen-projection access was 30% in high-poverty schools and 35% in low-poverty schools. Subject-instruction software followed a similar pattern, at 54% and 61%, respectively.
The 2004–05 teacher-reported figures also showed a gap in classroom presentation software: 75% of teachers in low-poverty schools reported access, compared with 67% in high-poverty schools. In computer labs or media centers, the corresponding figures were 57% and 47%. A separate 2004–05 measure reported that 17% of teachers in high-poverty schools said students regularly took tests or quizzes using a computer, compared with 12% in low-poverty schools.
Teacher training and district investment
District investment in professional development was concentrated in technology integration. In EETT-funded districts, 63% of all districts used funds for technology-related teacher professional development in reading or math integration. The shares were 59% in formula-grant-only districts and 81% in competitive-and-formula districts.
For professional development on integrating technology into other subjects, the reported shares were 60% overall, 56% among formula-grant-only districts, and 72% among competitive-and-formula districts. Training on proficiency with online teaching was less common: 25% overall, 26% in formula-grant-only districts, and 22% in competitive-and-formula districts.
Only 15% of all EETT-funded districts used funds for incentives for training in technology integration. The share was 9% in formula-grant-only districts and 45% in competitive-and-formula districts. Initiatives to develop professional online communities and resources were reported by 5% overall, 3% of formula-grant-only districts, and 15% of competitive-and-formula districts.
Teacher participation figures from the NETTS Local-level Data Summary provide another view. In all districts, 49% of teachers participated in professional development on using technology to enhance student learning in math, reading, or other subjects. Participation was 34% for curriculum development and lesson planning, 29% for designing or administering student assessments, and 24% for new methods of teaching.
Smaller shares participated in training on improving students’ technology literacy, at 16%, or effective and ethical Internet use, at 15%. Participation was 13% for software that tailored tasks to individual student ability, 10% for meeting the needs of students with disabilities or limited English proficiency, and 4% for developing proficiency with online teaching.
Districts also reported spending on assessment technologies. Data and information management systems were funded by 25% of all EETT-funded districts, including 25% of formula-grant-only districts and 23% of competitive-and-formula districts. Supports for staff to analyze available data for instructional improvement were reported by 10% overall, 7% of formula-grant-only districts, and 21% of competitive-and-formula districts. Technology-based assessments of student achievement in reading or math were reported by 7% overall, 4% of formula-grant-only districts, and 16% of competitive-and-formula districts.
Barriers to effective presentations
Having presentation software did not remove practical classroom constraints. In all districts, 61% of teachers identified insufficient classroom hardware as an obstacle to technology use. The NETTS Local-level Data Summary also reported insufficient hardware in labs or resource rooms as an obstacle for 46% of teachers, while 40% said they could not obtain desired software for class.
Access and support problems were also common. Difficulty getting access to computers in labs or on carts was reported by 40% of teachers, insufficient technical support by 39%, and out-of-date hardware by 34%. Lack of age-appropriate or educationally relevant software or websites was reported by 30%, while 29% reported slow or unreliable Internet connections.
Earlier teacher-perspective data from 2000–01 provide historical context. In Computer Technology in the Public School Classroom: Teacher Perspectives, 57% of teachers agreed that computers and other classroom technology were sufficiently available; 35% disagreed, 19% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 25% strongly agreed. In the same source, 35% said presentation software was essential to teaching. Other items viewed as essential included a teacher computer station with e-mail access at 68%, World Wide Web access in the classroom at 61%, and at least one computer for every four students at 49%.
The report Teacher Use of Computer and the Internet in Public Schools stated that 99% of full-time regular public school teachers had access to computers or the Internet somewhere in their schools in 2000–01. Among public school teachers with access, 39% used computers or the Internet a lot to create instructional materials and 34% used them a lot for administrative record keeping. These historical figures describe reported access and use in that period; they should not be read as independent verification of current conditions.
What students did with classroom technology
Student activities in 2004–05 were generally more common for practice than for creating presentations or reaching outside audiences. The NETTS Local-level Data Summary reported that 33% of teachers said students used technology to practice or review topics weekly. Weekly enrichment use was reported by 22%, and weekly preparation for standardized tests by 6%.
Only 7% of teachers reported weekly online research by students. Two percent reported that students produced media, Web, or presentation products weekly, and 1% reported that students created products with real-world audiences weekly. The measures therefore separate students’ routine practice from the less frequently reported creation of presentation products.
International figures from OECD Shaping Digital Education place presentation software within a broader digital-learning mix. In 2018, 44% of teachers in PISA countries reported using word processors or presentation software in most lessons, compared with 29% using computer-based information resources. Frequent use of interactive digital learning resources was reported by 17%, and frequent use of tutorial software or practice programmes by 16%. Fewer than 10% of teachers frequently used digital learning games, simulations, or modelling software.
Across six OECD countries and regions with available TALIS 2018 data, 74% of upper-secondary vocational education and training teachers reported using digital technology with their students, compared with 66% of general-education teachers. These are international survey measures from 2018, not estimates of all schools or all teachers worldwide.
The U.S. ICILS 2023 Results reported that 58% of eighth-grade teachers used word-processor software in most, almost every, or every lesson, while 57% used presentation software at those frequencies. The same reported shares were 58% and 57%, respectively, for the two tools in the supplied comparison. Together, the 2018 and 2023 measures suggest that presentation tools were among the more frequently reported digital classroom tools in their respective surveys, while the different study designs prevent a direct trend calculation.